House of Commons Hansard #143 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was veterans.

Topics

Point of Order
Routine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Order. I respect everyone's opinion, but this is entirely a point of debate.

That said, with respect to this point, if members want to study the situation further, perhaps the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs could address this issue and provide clarifications as to what is accepted or not in our procedure.

At this time, there is no set rule. I cannot put the Speaker in a position where he would have to rule one way or the other. As I said earlier, the committee chair usually presents the report, and the subject is closed for now.

I understand full well the point raised by the hon. member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans. The Speaker addressed the issue to share his personal opinion.

I would add, and I repeat, that this is perhaps an issue that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs would like to address to provide more specific clarifications.

Is the hon. member for Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan rising on the same point of order?

Point of Order
Routine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Jim Gouk Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is related to that.

Point of Order
Routine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I am reluctant to continue what is clearly becoming more of a debate. I will simply repeat myself. According to our rules right now there is nothing that precludes what just took place. If the parties in the House wish to further investigate, study, reflect and come up with some additional standing order clarifications, or whatever the case may be, to tighten up this practice, that is something for the House. However for the time being the Chair can only interpret what it has on the books, and there is nothing in our standing orders right now that says it can or cannot take place.

Accordingly, I leave that in the hands of the membership of all parties of the House to delve into this matter further. I would submit the possibility might be the procedure and House affairs committee.

Petitions
Routine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

Lynn Myers Waterloo—Wellington, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to present a petition which requests Parliament to pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being a lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

Petitions
Routine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

Tony Tirabassi Niagara Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions today.

The first petition is on behalf of some of my constituents in Niagara Centre who condemn the creation and use of child pornography. They wish to draw to the attention of the House that the courts have not applied the current child pornography law in a way which makes it clear that such exploitation of children will always be met with swift punishment.

Petitions
Routine Proceedings

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

Tony Tirabassi Niagara Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, the second petition deals with the situation involving rural route mail couriers who often earn less than the minimum wage and who have not been allowed to bargain collectively to improve their wages.

The petitioners are asking that section 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act be repealed.

Petitions
Routine Proceedings

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

Joe Comuzzi Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present petitions on behalf of many people from northwestern Ontario who implore the House to abide by the decision of the House of Commons made on June 8, 1999, by a vote of 216 for and 55 against, defining the terms of marriage; that marriage is an institution that pre-exists the state; and that marriage is an institution so basic to the human condition and the common good that its nature is beyond the reach of any civil law.

Therefore the petitioners, from all the small areas of northwestern Ontario, petition the House to use all necessary means to maintain and support the above definition of marriage pursuant to the motion of June 8, 1999, that being the union of one man and one woman.

Petitions
Routine Proceedings

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by a number of Canadians, including from my own riding of Mississauga South. It also has to do with the issue of the definition of marriage.

The petitioners would like to remind the House of the June 10, 2003 decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal that ruled the current definition of marriage to be unconstitutional under the equality provisions of the charter.

They also want to remind the government that section 33 of the Constitution provides an override, also known as the notwithstanding clause, to simply override the decision of a court.

Therefore, the petitioners petition Parliament to invoke the notwithstanding clause so that the definition of marriage remains the legal union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

Petitions
Routine Proceedings

12:20 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Lynne Yelich Blackstrap, SK

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition from many of my constituents and constituents from across Canada who are concerned about the beef industry.

They call upon Parliament to immediately constitute internationally accredited protocols to reinforce international confidence in Canada's healthy beef products and thereby replacing damaging political posturing relating to borders with sensible agreeable rules for all concerned.

Questions on the Order Paper
Routine Proceedings

October 24th, 2003 / 12:20 p.m.

York West
Ontario

Liberal

Judy Sgro Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services

Mr. Speaker, Question No. 251 will be answered today.

Question No. 251
Routine Proceedings

12:20 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Chuck Strahl Fraser Valley, BC

From the Export Development Corporation, and since October 25, 1993: (a) what are the programs, policies and circumstances under which a Canadian manufacturer of aircraft could apply for and obtain credits to sell airplanes to a Canadian airline; and (b) excluding the names of the producers and purchasers, what are the instances in which this actually happened, including dates, dollar amounts, number and value of aircraft?

Question No. 251
Routine Proceedings

12:20 p.m.

Papineau—Saint-Denis
Québec

Liberal

Pierre Pettigrew Minister for International Trade

Since October 25, 1993, with respect to (a), financing from Export Development Canada is used for transactions relating to exports and must be in accordance with EDC’s mandate. EDC may provide support for a sale of aircraft by a Canadian manufacturer to a Canadian airline if doing so would support or develop Canada's export trade or Canadian capacity to engage in export trade or to respond to international business opportunities. With respect to (b), EDC has not provided support for such a sale. Nevertheless, in 1995-96 EDC supported certain export transactions that involved the purchase of Canadian made aircraft by foreign entities, which subsequently leased them to a Canada based carrier. Like all EDC transactions, the details are commercially confidential.

Question No. 251
Routine Proceedings

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

Judy Sgro York West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

Question No. 251
Routine Proceedings

12:20 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is that agreed?

Question No. 251
Routine Proceedings

12:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.