House of Commons Hansard #31 of the 37th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was year.

Topics

The BudgetGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Bloc

Roger Gaudet Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to set the record straight. One of my Liberal colleagues said earlier that I was living on another planet, but I read in the Journal de Montréal this morning that Prime Minister Martin had seen a UFO.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Order, please. I remind the House that we cannot do indirectly what we are not entitled to do directly. Members must not refer to other hon. members by name, but rather by the name of their department or their riding.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Bloc

Roger Gaudet Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I read in the paper that a UFO was sighted by the Prime Minister. I just wanted to point out to my colleague that I am not the one living on another planet.

My question is for the hon. member for Ottawa West—Nepean. She said that, since 2000, one million Canadians have been removed from the tax roll. Why is that? Is it because the EI plan does not allow them to accumulate enough insurable weeks of work? We should not forget that we are now paying down the debt with the EI fund surplus.

I would like to know what is in the 2004-05 budget tabled on March 23 for seasonal workers, and what the governing party is doing for them. What is in that budget for all these men and women in Quebec and Canada? What is in there for seasonal workers?

The BudgetGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Liberal

Marlene Catterall Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the member who just spoke of the comments I made earlier about the huge reduction in employment insurance premiums that people and companies will be paying this year.

I would also remind him that our focus, through the tax system, has been on helping the lowest income Canadian families. I know he is as concerned about them as I am. I represent a large number of low income families with children in low income households.

I would remind him again that we have taken about one million low income Canadians off the tax rolls since 2000, and that we are, through the tax reduction program that is continuing into this year, reducing the taxes by 60% over that five year period for a family earning under $40,000.

In my view these broad based measures that are helping over a million Canadian families are extremely important for both the people he described and people who are of modest income for other reasons as well.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Bloc

Sébastien Gagnon Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, QC

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for providing us with some answers. When I rise in this House, I always find myself making demands on behalf of my constituents.

I have the feeling that these days the government is more concerned about looking good abroad, because they are bragging about paying down $52 billion of our debt. This is something they are proud of, as they mentioned in the budget, because it makes them look good before the G-7.

My constituents and I wonder what this budget provides for the residents of my region.

For instance, our region was hard hit by the softwood lumber crisis which cost us thousands of jobs. We also had to deal with the mad cow disease. My hon. colleague would remind us of the $800 million. But of these $800 million, only $50 million will go to dairy producers and to the cull cow program. We are faced with a crisis of major proportions.

What I have come to understand is that $46 billion was taken from the surplus accumulated in the employment insurance fund to pay down $52 billion of the debt instead of providing assistance to the various regions of Quebec and relaxing the requirements for employment insurance to help out the workers who really need help.

Can the hon. member demonstrate to the people watching us today that there is something concrete in this budget to help the regions of Quebec?

The BudgetGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Liberal

Marlene Catterall Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to speak about the member's region in particular because, obviously, I do not know it as well as he does. However I do not approach this budget by looking at what is in it for my constituency. I approach it by looking at what will create the best future for the entire country so all our citizens can benefit.

As one who has been here through the cost cutting, getting the deficit under control and so on, and as one who certainly supports a strong social infrastructure, I can only say that had we not balanced the budget and had a surplus budget, had we still been dependent upon foreign borrowing to pay for our social programs when the Asian monetary flu hit, we would not have the social programs we have today. We pay off debt because it frees up interest payments, so we have money to put into the programs that matter to me and to the member's constituents.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Yves Roy Bloc Matapédia—Matane, QC

Mr. Speaker, before I begin I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie.

When the Minister of Finance delivered his budget speech on March 23, 2004, I was expecting to see surprises. I told myself that the party responsible for the sponsorship scandal was heading for an election so it would certainly want to give a little more to the public and the regions to try to beat out the Bloc Quebecois members. My colleague just asked a question.

Moreover, I would like to point out to the public that the budget document is roughly 450 pages long. I would recommend it to anyone who suffers from insomnia. Just read a page or two every night. The obscure language used in the budget speech would certainly put anyone to sleep very quickly.

I was curious. I told myself I would begin by reading the section on the regions. This did not take long because there is absolutely nothing about the regions in the budgetary plan that was presented to us on March 23, 2004.

I asked myself what the people in the regions wanted to see in the budget, in particular the people from my region. First, they wanted a real reform of the employment insurance system.

Since 1993, in the riding of Matapédia—Matane alone, the government opposite has taken $58 million annually from the pockets of the constituents. In so doing, it forces them to live through the spring gap and they end up collecting welfare. The government automatically encourages people to go on welfare for income security.

This is another burden placed on the Government of Quebec, which is responsible for supporting its citizens. More than this, by destabilizing family finances, we create a gamut of social problems that, once again, the government of the province has to address.

It is not just my region that is affected. We could talk about the riding of Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine. The constituents of this new riding have been losing $65 million annually since 1993. The Liberal government has taken this money right out of the pockets of the constituents.

Knowing this, I think that the government should have provided compensation by changing the employment insurance program to make it more accessible. The fact is that, in 1993, 83% of workers who lost their jobs qualified for the program. Today, only about 40% of them do. Worse still, the rate is only around 30% to 35% for women and young people.

But there is something even worse for our regions regarding employment insurance. Currently, because of the measures taken by the Liberal government, young people are leaving our regions. I will explain why this is happening. It is easy to understand.

Take the case of a young person who graduates from university or college, particularly in areas that relate to our region, such as tourism, fishing or forestry. As we all know, this young person will end up doing seasonal work. One cannot go fishing when there is six feet of ice on the St. Lawrence River or in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and one does not cut wood in the middle of winter, when there is six feet of snow in the bush.

Of course, these young people have no choice but to rely on employment insurance. However, because they must first work 910 hours to qualify for the first time, they never qualify.

When the government boasts and claims that 83% of workers qualify for employment insurance, it is absolutely false. Fewer than 40% of workers qualify. And the rate is even lower among young people.

When young people have no income in the fall, what do they do? They go and work in large urban centres. They have no choice. They leave the region and do not come back. This is why, currently, the employment insurance program plays a major role in the fact that young people are leaving our regions.

We could also talk about the softwood lumber crisis. This is another issue that was not mentioned in the budget. We are fully aware of the fact that, since the beginning of the softwood lumber crisis, our regions, and particularly my riding of Matapédia—Matane, have lost hundreds of jobs.

At the present time, all of these workers cannot qualify for EI either, because there were just small programs made available to them, such a minor contribution that they are now on welfare.

These are skilled workers who are going to be lost because of government inaction and its unwillingness to come up with phase two of the softwood lumber assistance program. They will, if they are able, move out of the regions and find work elsewhere. Otherwise, they will end up on welfare, as many of them already are.

There is one other thing that affects our region, that is the riding of Matapédia—Matane. Because the federal government's actions are encouraging young people to move out, this is a region with a very much aging population.

Now as you all know—we have said it many times—over the years the federal government has stolen a large chunk of the guaranteed income supplement from seniors. In the case of the riding of Matapédia—Matane, we are talking of 1,200 people who were deprived of the guaranteed income supplement for years.

In a twist of fate, when we were able to identify these people and they managed to get the supplement, the federal government gave them a mere one year's retroactivity, whereas some of them had been eligible but had not received it for three, four, five years, or even longer. The mean-spirited government went back a single year only, while it will go back ten years if a person owes income tax, and will impose what I would call an exorbitant rate of interest.

Now for health, they announce $2 billion. This is the fifth announcement, at least the fifth, and the $2 billion is already spent.

There is another announcement relating to health, the creation of the Canada health agency. The first thing that comes to our minds is: does Quebec need a Canada health agency? The answer: no. Because one of the key roles of such an agency is immunization against infectious diseases.

I have good news for the federal government. We have been giving vaccinations for a long time in Quebec, and we already have an agency. Does that mean that we Quebeckers will have to be vaccinated twice against infectious diseases? That is nonsense. An investment of $500 million is announced to create a Canadian public health agency, but no one even bothers to check if such an agency already exists in Quebec. So, there are no negotiations with the Quebec government to determine whether or not compensation should be provided, allowing Quebec to opt out of a program of as little interest to us as to all Canadians.

There is one very important element that nearly went unnoticed in the budget, and which I want to highlight. I will read from the document. It is in the budget summary that was presented to us. I will read the paragraph that tells us what the government intends to do.

As well, the Cabinet Committee on Expenditure Review is examining all programs to identify at least $3 billion annually in savings within four years—

That is $3 billion multiplied by four years. We know full well that this program review means that, again, jobs will be lost in the regions.

We saw it with the program review at the Department of Human Resources Development. Practically all the regional offices were closed down in favour of a huge bureaucracy in Ottawa. Precious jobs were taken away from the regions and moved to the national capital region. Ottawa has been thriving and growing at the expense of those who live in the regions, but these people are not getting their due.

In conclusion, I would like to quote the candidate from the sponsorship scandal party in the riding of Matapédia—Matane. He said this on March 20, in Quebec City. He was so discouraged that, during a meeting with his colleagues who want to run in the election, he said, “You are not giving me anything to defend myself with in my riding. You are telling me to go and get buried alive”. I am not the one saying this. These are the words of the candidate who wants to run for the sponsorship scandal party in the riding of Matapédia—Matane.

This truly reflects what the regions have been getting from this government since 2000, and indeed since 1993: services are taken away from the regions and the people who live in these regions are deprived of everything they need.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

Claude Drouin Liberal Beauce, QC

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe the words of the member who just spoke. This is incredible! He spoke about the sponsorship scandal and said a number of things. In Quebec, when the same problem happened, what did the Landry government do? It said the legislation would be changed.

As for us, we say that we want a judge to investigate, a study by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and a legal counsel. We are changing the legislation to protect public servants who might witness any wrongdoing. We implemented measures and we will correct the problem because a few people did not do what had to be done to ensure the public money was well spent. This is what we are doing as a responsible government.

I hear the member say that we are doing nothing for the regions when we have decided to provide municipalities with $7 billion over 10 years. What the member does not know is that, this year, $129 million will be provided to all municipalities in Quebec. These are concrete measures. The $1 billion infrastructure program over ten years is being brought back to five years. These are concrete measures for all municipalities in Quebec.

It is too bad that the member does not see clearly. He talks about the guaranteed income supplement, but what was the member doing instead of informing people in his riding that they were entitled to the guaranteed income supplement? Where was the member? He was not taking care of this because he was not doing his job. He was spending his time criticizing. This is what he is doing!

We put a program in place, the Regional Strategic Initiative by Canada Economic Development. This is $15 million over three years to help the Gaspe Peninsula. These are concrete measures.

Yes, we are responsible and we will work to help people in the regions, contrary to the Bloc Quebecois, which does not have the guts to help its people.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Yves Roy Bloc Matapédia—Matane, QC

Mr. Speaker, I now know that my speech hit the target because it woke up one of our Liberal colleagues. Let me comment on the issue he raised about the guaranteed income supplement. It certainly was not the Liberal members who criticized the program and who carried out research in their ridings. After two months, they had to send a flyer to the taxpayers apologizing for their mismanagement. That is what happened!

The hon. member mentioned the $15 million assistance program, but it took them years to start spending the money. People heard about these $15 million during the 2000 election campaign. Once again, they are making promises. They do not seem to understand that the attitude of the government is hurting the regions, and this is one of the worst governments we have seen, especially where regions are concerned. I have never seen so little invested in services and so much taken away.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure today that I am taking part in the budget debate. I waited a long time to be able to criticize the budget presented a few days or weeks ago by the finance minister, particularly with regards to investment, or, I should say, the lack of investment in the environment.

Concerning the implementation of the Kyoto protocol, this government is changing its approach and its vision in a way rarely seen in the recent past.

Those who thought that the throne speech contained all that what was needed for the Kyoto protocol to be implemented in the years 2008-2012 should have seen the writing on the wall, because there was a clear indication that the government would not be making significant investments, in fact hardly any at all, during the following weeks.

This is a quote from the throne speech, on page 22:

The Government of Canada will respect its commitments to the Kyoto accord on climate change in a way that produces long-term—

Consequently, the timeframe in the throne speech is different from the one in the Kyoto protocol, that is 2008-2012. The commitment is to be met, instead:

—in a way that produces long-term and enduring results while maintaining a strong and growing economy.

Reading these lines should have been an eye-opener for the people across the way: the forthcoming budget would presumably not contain any investment in that area. There are no results because, on the day of the budget, the environment minister himself admitted that there were no specific measures to achieve Kyoto goals.

There are few, if any, measures. The only thing provided for in the budget is the sale of Petro-Canada shares, which would theoretically generate $3.2 billion. Part of this amount could have been reinvested in the environment. But no. The finance minister announced that, out of this $3.2 billion, a mere $1 billion will be allocated to a foundation for sustainable development technology.

Let us not forget what the word “foundation” means in this House. The Auditor General was very clear about that a few years ago, when she said that it meant no accountability to Parliament; it means putting money into budgets and into an organization, without parliamentarians, and citizens in general, ever knowing where the money went.

Moreover, the government has announced that, out of the $1 billion, $200 million will go to that foundation over the next few years. If one looks at the foundation's current budget, which amounts to $550 million, and at where the money went, one can see that big oil companies such as Suncor received grants to put in place processes to capture carbon sinks, which is a far cry from reducing greenhouse gas emissions at the source.

Proceeds from the sale of Petro-Canada shares are going into a foundation which has no accountability to Parliament or to Canadians, and will help fund the oil industry, which has benefited from tax relief from the government on many occasions.

A case in point is Bill C-48, which was aimed at granting the oil industry $250 million worth of tax breaks a year. On the other hand, the budget brought down last week does not invest in the renewable energy sector in Canada.

On this side, we would have hoped at least that this $1 billion would have been used to give tax incentives to people who buy hybrid cars.

Last Friday, I bought such a car in Montreal. It cost me $10,000 more than a conventional car. In the meantime, the government has chosen to subsidize the oil industry, giving it tax breaks while, on Friday, the Minister of the Environment challenged Canadians to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by one ton. Those tax measures do not reflect the government's words. This is a concern with regard to the implementation of the Kyoto protocol.

The government announced it is putting money in a foundation in charge of developing long-term technologies. Long term does not mean in 15 or 20 years. Canada must meet these goals between 2008 and 2012. What was needed, to move ahead with Kyoto, was short-term tax incentives.

For example, in 1995, the government implemented a tax of 1.5¢ per litre of gasoline to fight the deficit. Why, since there are no more deficits and there is a budgetary surplus, does the government not commit to investing this 1.5¢ on public transportation? No, the government prefers to give funding and subsidies to the gas and oil industry as it did in the past.

Consequently, the federal government has given $66 billion to the oil and gas industry in the form of all kinds of tax breaks and tax reductions, while the green energy industry has received a few hundreds of millions of dollars, which is far less than it should be getting.

For example, why did the government not take advantage of this budget to announce improved wind energy subsidies? Currently the federal government invests 1¢ per kilowatt-hour from wind energy. This is a far cry from the American programs where subsidies reach 1.7¢ per kilowatt-hour from wind energy.

Why were the products of the sale of Petro-Canada not used to give this subsidy to developers wanting to produce wind energy instead of being transferred directly to the oil and gas industry?

We lack concrete measures, and the federal government has to understand that adopting an environmental tax policy is the only way to reach our goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 6% between 2008 and 2012 under the Kyoto protocol.

It is not through advertising campaigns that government will succeed in reaching this objective. It is not by funding the oil and gas industry that the government will succeed in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Instead it must encourage people to reduce their consumption by granting them tax incentives, thereby ensuring that they adopt alternative means of development that do not encourage greenhouse gas emissions. It is a matter of encouraging and transferring investments from the oil and gas industry to the renewable energy industry, including wind energy.

In my opinion, these are the kinds of measures that must be taken, but the government continues to turn a deaf ear.

In closing, I want to say that we must start working toward our Kyoto objectives but, unfortunately, this budget takes us away from Kyoto by funding instead those who have polluted in the past.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Liberal

Claude Drouin Liberal Beauce, QC

Mr. Speaker, I have one thing to say. I am glad to see that the member from the Bloc recognizes that the government has taken steps with respect to wind power. I think that this is important.

However, what the member fails to understand is that steps were taken in previous budgets, that these steps are being applied now and that they were not announced in this year's budget. I will give you an example.

We will be lowering taxes by $25 billion this year. This was not indicated in the current budget because it was announced in the 2000 budget. We are talking about $100 billion tax cuts over five years, including $25 billion this year and $30 billion next year. These are the kinds of measures that I am talking about.

We are working in areas related to hydrogen and cells in which the government is investing money. We are working for the environment—it is important—because we care about it and, being a responsible government, we will keep on doing it.

The cleaning up of contaminated sites announced in the last budget is a concrete measure to which the government is sensitive and for which it is working very hard, because it relates to the protection of the environment. This is what the liberal government, which is a responsible government, will keep on doing.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, the other side reeks of environmental irresponsibility. We hear a member opposite, who claims to have his heart in the right place and to want to protect the environment, say that he supports his finance minister, who says that there are $600 million left in the budget for environmental protection and that that money is there for people to use. What we need is increased funding. We need tax incentives. We need an environmental tax policy because, without it, we will not make it.

I understand that, last Friday, the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Natural Resources announced an advertising program to encourage each citizen to reduce by one ton its greenhouse gas emissions. However, what we need is an environmental tax policy to encourage the wind power industry and those people who decide to take environmental measures. But no. We see budgets and we see bills such as Bill C-48, which gives tax reductions to the oil and gas industry to the tune of $250 million a year, while not one single cent is being invested to encourage the wind power industry and to double the kilowatt-hours produced through that form of energy.

What we want is some kind of parity. We cannot accept that the oil industry has received $66 billion in subsidies since 1970, compared to a few hundreds of millions for the renewable energy industry. This is not the right direction to take, or the right vision to have. If the member continues to support this vision, we will have to conclude that he refuses in fact to support the Kyoto protocol and to see that it is implemented and that its objectives are met in 2008.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to say a few words before the end of this debate on the amendment which will be put to the House in a few minutes.

Like all hon. members, on March 23, I had the pleasure of listening to the budget speech by the hon. Minister of Finance. It was his first. After the presentation, I wrote a press release not only to congratulate him for his excellent budget speech, but also—and I am referring to a very important point raised by the hon. member for Beauce—to inform my constituents of the good things included in the budget. It is our duty, as parliamentarians, to highlight the good news in the budget so that every individual, municipality and so on may benefit from the excellent measures it contains.

I will begin with what the municipalities wanted. For a long time now, they had been telling us that the GST refund was important to them. The warden of the Council for the United Counties of Prescott and Russell, His Honour Jacques Hétu, mayor of Hawkesbury, whom you know quite well, Mr. Speaker, once told me, at the opening session of the council, “If only you could obtain that for us”. Of course, the finance minister announced the tax relief shortly afterwards and provided further details in the budget.

For the Council of the United Counties of Prescott-Russell—given that the request was made by the councillors—this was an extremely important measure that was included in the budget.

A member opposite just told me that this is not that important in some municipality in his riding. I agree, but I am telling you what the mayors in my area told me. When I called mayor Jacques Hétu to tell him about this good news—as the member for Beauce is suggesting to us, I go back to his excellent and eloquent words—he was very pleased with the agreement. I congratulated him because it is people like him who came to us, as members of Parliament, to make suggestions. We were then able to include—I agree that we cannot always do so—a number of these good suggestions in the government's budget initiatives.

There is another measure that was and still is dear to my heart—it is now a done deal—, that is the $100 million increase in the Canadian Television Fund. I must say that this story was quite sad. There is a fund for television production. I am told that it is about $1 billion. The administration of this fund was such that is was almost impossible to make an application and to receive a positive response if a production in French came from outside of Montreal.

We had a problem. Of course I have nothing against those who live in Montreal. It is a beautiful city and I love going there. However, some of us have decided to live elsewhere for all the good reasons we know. We really would like to see our part of the country pictured in TV productions, mini series or others. This issue does not just affect francophones in Ontario. It certainly does affect them, but even people living elsewhere in Quebec had problems with the program. In our area it was not only very difficult but completely impossible.

I will tell you a story. Once upon a time there was a production, a mini series called Francoeur . It was filmed in Ontario. It told the story of Franco-Ontarians. Francoeur had received money for a first TV mini series. When Francoeur producers tried to get money for a second series they could not get anything because of those new rules.

It is actually thanks to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, her then parliamentary secretary and finally all those who listened to the representations from the Franco-Ontarian community in my riding and also in the Ottawa—Vanier riding, which is represented by the parliamentary secretary and chief government whip, that last year we got emergency funding allowing us to have Francoeur .

From now on, thanks to increased funding provided in the budget, we will no longer have to go through all that. I am told that the rules have been rewritten and that, as a matter of fact, whether productions are from Quebec outside of Montreal, Franco-Ontarian, Franco-Manitoban, Acadian or from anywhere else, they will have better access. I am very happy about that.

I am also happy about the strengthening of the community futures program, which is a good initiative. I am happy about the $1 billion going to agriculture. God knows it is needed. Beef producers in my riding are still suffering. I know that you, Mr. Speaker, went to Washington. Voters in eastern Ontario thank you, as well as the member for Edmonton-Southwest, I believe, and my seatmate.

I myself traveled to Taiwan, one of the fastest growing markets for Canadian beef. I went over there to try to reopen the borders. In the meantime, we at least know that we can rely on the finance minister who kindly provided us with some assistance.

The increase of the weekly loan ceiling for students, the introduction of learning bonds and the $270 million in new financing to expand venture capital are all very important measures. In eastern Ontario, there is a crying need for venture capital and, of course, these budget measures will be quite helpful to our region.

Accelerating the funding of infrastructure projects in our municipalities is also quite extraordinary. The amount that was committed was not changed but it will be spent over 5 years rather than 10, hence doubling the money made available to the municipalities. I have yet to hear members opposite comment on this. I have yet to hear them congratulate the finance minister for this initiative.

Our critics say there is nothing in this budget for the environment. What I heard was that $4 billion was set aside to clean up contaminated sites.

There are $30 million in employment assistance for the disabled. Social economy enterprises will have access to our small business programs and charitable organizations will enjoy better tax treatment.

Lastly, in the area of international aid, as chairman of the Inter-Parliamentary Forum of the Americas, known as FIPA, I am especially glad about the announced assistance program to Haiti, which really needs it.

Those were all good measures announced in the budget speech. Unfortunately, my time is up, but I will at least have had the opportunity to thank the finance minister and to urge my hon. colleagues to vote against the amendment and for the budget in its entirety.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

It being 6:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the amendment now before the House.

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

The BudgetGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

All those opposed will please say nay.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The BudgetGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

The BudgetGovernment Orders

6:45 p.m.

The Speaker

I declare the amendment lost.

It being 6:45 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:45 p.m.)