House of Commons Hansard #108 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was norad.

Topics

Points of Order
Routine Proceedings

10:25 a.m.

Liberal

Marlene Catterall Ottawa West—Nepean, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I would like to contribute before you commence your consideration of this issue.

I too want to compliment the transport committee on reporting on the estimates and considering them carefully. I think it is commendable, because many committees do not.

However, I want to intervene as the only anglophone who will have spoken this morning in defence of our policy of having all meetings in this place available equally in both official languages. This is not something that is of interest simply to francophones. It protects my right to have a meeting that I can hear and in which I can participate in English. I regard it as the sacred trust of this place that the business of the House, in the House or in committees, gets done at all times fully in both official languages.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to take that into consideration in your deliberations.

Points of Order
Routine Proceedings

10:25 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

On the same point of order, I hope the hon. member for Kootenay--Boundary--Okanagan has something new, something factual, to add to this debate.

Points of Order
Routine Proceedings

10:25 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Jim Gouk Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am responding directly to the comments made by the Liberal whip. Simultaneous translation was available to every member present. Everything that was said by the member of the Bloc Québécois was translated into English for all around the table. Everything that was said in English was translated for that hon. member, plus a Liberal member who was sitting there as well, who is obviously fluent but still had the right to get and consequently got that interpretation. So it was there. It was available.

The point has been made that the meeting was opened, no one objected to it being opened under the conditions that were there, the meeting was carried out and the meeting adjourned. There was no objection raised. Had there been, we could have addressed it, but it was not raised.

One cannot accept the conditions that are there and then after, because something did not go one's way, decide on some kind of technicality that one is going to object to something that one could have objected to and did not.

Points of Order
Routine Proceedings

10:25 a.m.

Bloc

Mario Laframboise Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that this morning I assumed that all the rules of the House had been respected. What we are told today is that there was no recording of the proceedings. I did not check before speaking to find out whether or not there was a recording. What we do know, however, is that it is likely that there was none. If that is a condition, one of the conditions listed by the government House leader, I hope that you are going to look into it.

Points of Order
Routine Proceedings

10:25 a.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC

Mr. Speaker, I shall stick to the facts. In making your ruling, you should, I suggest, look at the notice of meeting for meeting No. 30 of the Standing Committee on Transport; in it we see that the committee was to meet on Wednesday, May 28, 2003, from 3:30 to 9:00 p.m. In fact, the meeting was suspended at 9:30 p.m., for lack of a quorum.

For your further understanding, I refer you to the notice of meeting for meeting No. 31 of the Standing Committee on Transport which reads as follows:

The meeting scheduled for Thursday, May 29, 2003 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 209, West Block is cancelled.

This morning's meeting was an informal one. We cannot fault the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel for requesting an interpreter. Contrary to what the Chair of the Standing Committee on Transport was saying, the fact that the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel asked if he could be accompanied by an interpreter was not tacit consent: he wanted to be accompanied by an interpreter for this informal meeting that took place at 8:30 this morning because the meeting scheduled for 9 a.m. had been cancelled.

Points of Order
Routine Proceedings

10:30 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

I think that is enough. There are different interpretations of the events of last evening and this morning. We shall verify all the facts concerning the room, the interpretation, the recording and the production of the report. A ruling will be made on this matter later this afternoon.

Committees of the House
Routine Proceedings

10:30 a.m.

Liberal

Jacques Saada Brossard—La Prairie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the thirty-first report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for Alberta.

Pursuant to section 22(1) of the Act, the committee recommends that the 30-day period for consideration of objections to this report be extended by five days. If the House gives its consent, I intend to propose that the thirty-first report be adopted later today.

Employment Insurance Act
Routine Proceedings

May 29th, 2003 / 10:30 a.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin Acadie—Bathurst, NB

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-440, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (pregnancy benefit).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this bill this morning.

This enactment prevents a claimant’s entitlement to benefit for pregnancy or caring for a new born or adoptee being reduced on account of the claimant receiving or having received a benefit for illness or injury.

It also prevents a claimant losing illness or injury benefit because the illness or injury has arisen during a pregnancy or caring period.

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

DNA Identification Act
Routine Proceedings

10:30 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Gary Lunn Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-441, An Act to amend the DNA Identification Act.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to introduce my private member's bill which would amend the DNA Identification Act to include DNA samples from missing persons.

My bill is inspired by one of my constituents, Judy Peterson, and her quest for answers in what happened to her 14 year old daughter, Lindsey Nicholls, who disappeared in Courtenay in 1993.

For 10 years this case, like so many, has gone unsolved. DNA identification could help change that. There are currently over 6,000 unidentified DNA samples that have been taken from crime scenes. There are a further 125 unidentified bodies in British Columbia morgues alone. Right now there is no way to link these samples to missing persons.

Under this bill, samples would be collected on a voluntary basis only, in order to ensure that there are no privacy issues associated with them.

This is a measure that I know is supported by members in all parties. This is not a money issue. This is not a political issue. It is an issue of justice. I urge all members to support this measure.

In closing, I would like to dedicate the bill in the name of Lindsey Nicholls. I had hoped to name it Lindsey's law. For technical reasons I did not do that, but again I would like to dedicate it in her name and to the work of her mother.

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

Petitions
Routine Proceedings

10:35 a.m.

Progressive Conservative

Elsie Wayne Saint John, NB

Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition on behalf of the rural route mail couriers in Canada.

The private sector workers who deliver the mail in rural areas have collective bargaining rights, as do public sector workers who deliver mail for Canada Post urban areas. However the rural route couriers are denied basic rights and help through Canada Post, keeping the wages and working conditions of RRMCs at an unfair level and discriminating against the rural workers.

Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to repeal subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act. today.

Petitions
Routine Proceedings

10:35 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Roy H. Bailey Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am very pleased to present a number of petitioners from northern Saskatchewan and into Manitoba. The point of the petition is simply that under Bill C-250, the petitioners feel the rights of certain categories of people could be suppressed while elevating the rights of others. They pray that Parliament does not pass Bill C-250 into law.

Petitions
Routine Proceedings

10:35 a.m.

NDP

Judy Wasylycia-Leis Winnipeg North Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by hundreds of Canadians concerned about the state of health care in Canada today. The petitioners express shock and concern that their government would establish a royal commission to study the future of health care in Canada, that it would name a commissioner, Roy Romanow, and then fail to implement the recommendations of that royal commission.

The petitioners call upon the government to consider the recommendations of Roy Romanow as a blueprint for the future of health care, to move toward a system that does not ensure investor-owned for profit systems of delivery and that it adopt the royal commission's recommendations pertaining to home care, pharmacare and fundamental reforms in the area of primary care.

Questions on the Order Paper
Routine Proceedings

10:35 a.m.

Halifax West
Nova Scotia

Liberal

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

Mr. Speaker, Question No. 221 will be answered today.

Question No. 221
Routine Proceedings

10:35 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Gary Lunn Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Since the Firearms Act came into force on December 1, 1998, what is the total number of firearms licence applicants who have been refused licences including: ( a ) the number of refusals resulting from incomplete information on the application; ( b ) the number of refusals resulting from departmental errors in processing; ( c ) the number of refusals resulting from repeat attempts by previously denied applicants; ( d ) the number of refusals due to confusing an applicant with another, unrelated person; ( e ) the number of refusals where an applicant has subsequently been issued a license; and ( f ) the number of denied individuals that have been prosecuted for making false statements on their applications?

Question No. 221
Routine Proceedings

10:35 a.m.

Malpeque
P.E.I.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Solicitor General of Canada

As of May 5, 2003, 9,519 applications were processed resulting in the revocation of an existing licence or a refusal.

With respect to a) to d) there are no statistics available for this type of situation.

With respect to e) there are 522 refusal cases where an applicant has subsequently been issued a licence.

In reply to f) the Canadian Firearms Centre does not have any available statistics on false declaration.

The CFC is in the process of reviewing its statistical and other information requirements. This is part of our ongoing efforts to report on program achievements and effectiveness.