House of Commons Hansard #65 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was students.

Topics

Petitions
Routine Proceedings

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

Mario Silva Davenport, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure today to present a petition on behalf of my colleague, the hon. member for Kings—Hants, signed by people from all across Canada.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to ensure that an appropriate question is included in the next census questionnaire aimed at determining the demographics of brain injury and to ensure that the government closely examines aspects of its health policies, pension provisions, including CPP and justice issues, in order to properly support those with brain injuries.

Petitions
Routine Proceedings

12:20 p.m.

Conservative

Ed Komarnicki Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition from the good folks in Redverse, Antler, Fertile, Wauchope and Bellegarde, Saskatchewan, and the communities of Storthoakes, Carievale, Stoughton and Weyburn.

The essence of their petition is that marriage is the best foundation for families and the raising of children, and that the majority of Canadians support the traditional definition of marriage as the voluntary union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

The petitioners ask Parliament to use all possible legislative and administrative measures to preserve and protect the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

I also have a petition from the people of Gladmar and Minton, Saskatchewan. They ask that Parliament, as it did in 1999, vote to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. They ask that a renewed debate be held on the definition of marriage and to reaffirm as it did in 1999 its commitment to take all necessary steps to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

Petitions
Routine Proceedings

12:20 p.m.

Conservative

Joy Smith Kildonan—St. Paul, MB

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition from the constituents of Kildonan—St. Paul in Winnipeg, Manitoba. My constituents want to define marriage in federal law as being a lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

Petitions
Routine Proceedings

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Moore Fundy, NB

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to table on behalf of my constituents of Fundy Royal and nearby area of Saint John a petition drawing the attention of government members to the plight of human rights workers in Colombia and to call on members of government to promote peace in that country.

Petitions
Routine Proceedings

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

Jay Hill Prince George—Peace River, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to rise again, as I have been doing on a daily basis, to present petitions from my constituents in Prince George—Peace River. These citizens are from the city of Fort St. John and the neighbouring community of Charlie Lake.

These citizens call upon Parliament to note that in June 1999 Parliament reinforced that marriage continue to be recognized as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. They know that marriage is the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament and therefore, they call upon Parliament to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

Petitions
Routine Proceedings

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

Ken Epp Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present two petitions from my riding and from outlying areas on the subject of marriage. I would like to pay particular tribute to Donna Clarkson, a constituent in my riding, who has really helped to assemble these petitions and to allow concerned citizens in our country to express themselves in this way.

This petition asks Parliament to respect the vote that was held in 1999. The petitioners say that the majority of Canadians support retaining the current definition. Social policy should be made by elected parliamentarians and not by appointed judges, so they are asking that we use all possible legislative and administrative means including section 33, the notwithstanding clause, if necessary in order to restore, preserve and protect the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

Petitions
Routine Proceedings

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Warawa Langley, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two bundles of petitions. The first bundle includes two petitions from Langley residents and also from greater Vancouver residents. These petitions deal with the definition of marriage. The petitioners strongly urge Parliament to oppose any legislation that would in any way change the traditional definition of marriage being between a man and a woman in order to accommodate any other lifestyle choices.

Petitions
Routine Proceedings

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Warawa Langley, BC

Mr. Speaker, the second bundle contains two petitions that deal with autism. The petitioners ask Parliament to deem treatment for autism to be a medically necessary treatment in the Canada Health Act and also to create academic chairs at universities in each province to teach autism treatment.

Petitions
Routine Proceedings

February 25th, 2005 / 12:25 p.m.

Conservative

Darrel Stinson North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am please to present three petitions. The first is on behalf of my constituents of Okanagan—Shuswap which calls upon Parliament to pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being the lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

The last two petitions, that I am in total favour of, also from my constituents of Okanagan—Shuswap, request that the Government of Canada hold a binding national referendum together with the next federal 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”.

Questions on the Order Paper
Routine Proceedings

12:25 p.m.

Saint Boniface
Manitoba

Liberal

Raymond Simard Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

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

Questions on the Order Paper
Routine Proceedings

12:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)

Is that agreed?

Questions on the Order Paper
Routine Proceedings

12:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House resumed from February 23 consideration of the motion that Bill C-33, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 23, 2004, be read the third time and passed.

Budget Implementation Act, 2004, No. 2
Government Orders

12:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)

The hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas still has 10 minutes left in questions and comments. The hon. member for Davenport.

Budget Implementation Act, 2004, No. 2
Government Orders

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

Mario Silva Davenport, ON

Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to ask a question of the hon. member as I feel there has been a little bit of rewriting of history.

We should note the fact that it was the provincial Liberal government that issued a freeze on tuition and it was the NDP government in Ontario that allowed tuition to more than double when it was in power. This government has put in $5 billion annually into the transfer students assistance programs and $15 billion into the hands of provincial governments to deal with post-secondary education and other issues.

On the issue of housing, again there is obvious great concern by all of us, but we should remember, and it has been stated incorrectly many times in the House, that it was a Conservative government that eliminated the national housing policy in 1992 and not the Liberal government. The Liberal government struggled for many years in Ontario under the Harris government to get a housing policy in that province. There has been over $600 million already committed by the government to the province of Ontario alone. Many of those projects are still yet to be fulfilled.

Certainly, when I was a city councillor in the city of Toronto, the issue was not the money. The issue was trying to get the program going. It was a struggle because many of the programs had been killed by the provincial Tory government at that time.

It is very important that we get our facts correct in the House. As I see it, it is our government that has been working very diligently with the provincial and municipal governments to get housing going across this country.