House of Commons Hansard #149 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was first.

Topics

Point of Order
Oral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Myron Thompson Wild Rose, AB

Mr. Speaker, I want to verify that what the member has just said to you with regard to what happened today indeed did happen. I saw it mouthed very clearly. I think it is absolutely disgraceful that even that kind of thought would go on in this place.

Point of Order
Oral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

The Speaker

With regard to the comments by the hon. member for Roberval concerning the question, I should immediately say that it was a question about details, that is, the exact cost of a trip or something like that. Such a question should be placed on the Order Paper. It is perfectly proper to ask the question by means of that document.

For example, as I recall the events, the question asked of the Minister of Industry was whether the minister had received something valued at over $200 or less than that amount. That is a different question. But asking for the details about the exact amount of something is another question that could be put on the Order Paper.

With regard to the other issues raised, clearly I did not hear anything said by the minister or anyone else. Since the hon. members say this occurred in the House, undoubtedly the Minister of Finance will be able to explain it later. He is not here right now, but I am sure he will be briefed on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Roberval and confirmed by the hon. member for Wild Rose. We shall have an answer shortly.

Order in Council Appointments
Routine Proceedings

November 3rd, 2003 / 3:05 p.m.

Halifax West
Nova Scotia

Liberal

Geoff Regan Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order in council appointments made recently by the government.

Government Response to Petitions
Routine Proceedings

3:05 p.m.

Halifax West
Nova Scotia

Liberal

Geoff Regan Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 10 petitions.

Income Tax Act
Routine Proceedings

3:05 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Gerald Keddy South Shore, NS

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-463, an act to amend the Income Tax Act.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to introduce my fishers' capital gains deferral act to the House of Commons, seconded by the member for St. John's West.

The bill would amend the Income Tax Act by extending the rollover relief allowable in the transfer of farm property to cases where a taxpayer transfers fishing property or assets in order to facilitate keeping those assets within a family. In other words, it is my intent that the bill would help preserve the financial integrity of small to moderate family fishing operations and make it easier to keep a successful business in the family.

I urge the House to support Bill C-463 once it receives first reading.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Committees of the House
Routine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Adams Peterborough, ON

Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move:

That the Supplementary Opinions of the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party be appended to the 52nd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House on Thursday, October 30, 2003.

Committees of the House
Routine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

The Speaker

The hon. member for Peterborough seems to be holding something in front of him which I am not able to see but it looks like a prop. As chairman of the procedure and House affairs committee he should be setting a very good example for all hon. members. He knows that holding up a prop is not appropriate, but I know his interest is in the subject of his intervention.

Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to propose the motion?

Committees of the House
Routine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Committees of the House
Routine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

The Speaker

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Committees of the House
Routine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

Petitions
Routine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present to the House today.

The first petition deals with the legislation regarding the definition of marriage. The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that marriage is the best foundation for families and for raising children. They call upon Parliament to reintroduce into legislation the institution of marriage as being the lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

Petitions
Routine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I wish to present is on the subject matter of stem cells.

The petitioners point out that Canadians support ethical stem cell research which has already shown encouraging potential to provide cures and therapies for Canadians. They petition Parliament to focus its legislative support on adult stem cell research to find those cures and therapies.

Petitions
Routine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, the final petition is with regard to the notwithstanding clause relating to the definition of marriage.

The petitioners point out that notwithstanding the decision of June 10, 2003 of the Ontario Court of Appeal which struck down the definition of marriage as being unconstitutional, they call upon Parliament to invoke the notwithstanding clause so that the traditional definition of marriage is retained, that being the legal union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

Petitions
Routine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Darrel Stinson Okanagan—Shuswap, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today on the definition of marriage.

The petitioners are requesting that the Government of Canada hold a binding national referendum together with the next general election to ask the following question: Must the Government of Canada continue to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, yes or no?

Petitions
Routine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

NDP

Svend Robinson Burnaby—Douglas, BC

Mr. Speaker, from another perspective I have the honour to present a petition which is signed by hundreds of residents of British Columbia. They point out that same sex couples form loving and committed relationships but are denied the equal ability to celebrate those relationships through marriage. They point out that the protection of true family values requires that all families be respected equally. They point to their concern that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms be upheld. They suggest that denying same sex couples the equal right to marry reinforces attitudes of intolerance and discrimination and is inconsistent with the Canadian values of equality, dignity and respect.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to enact legislation providing same sex couples with the equal right to marry.