Debates of Nov. 8th, 2006

Gordon O'Connor Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, I did not get the question; however, this government is committed in Afghanistan until the end of February 2009. We will carry on with the mission. We are going to work as hard as we can to improve the lives of Afghans and to provide as much security as we can to Kandahar.

Monte Solberg Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Mr. Speaker, the member has his facts wrong. Actually we inherited a backlog of 800,000 from the Liberal Party, and one of the things we have to do to ensure it does not get worse is to never re-elect the LIberals.

I point out to the member that just the other day we introduced a planning range, which is the highest planning range in 15 years in terms of bringing newcomers to this country.

I would like to ask the hon. member and his caucus why they voted against the $307 million in settlement funding for newcomers that will help them realize the Canadian dream.

Luc Harvey Louis-Hébert, QC

Mr. Speaker, today, the Journal de Québec reports that a victim of sexual assault is urging the government to adopt its bill raising the age of consent from 14 to 16 years old. The Journal de Québec also indicates that a majority of Quebeckers and Canadians are in agreement.

Can the government provide Canadians and Quebeckers with the details of this bill?

Lawrence Cannon Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, the bill will protect 14 and 15 year olds from adult sexual predators.

I quote the young victim who said, “There cannot be consent between a 14-year-old girl and a 50- or 60-year-old man. That does not make sense”.

Yet, the Bloc Québécois continues to hide its head in the sand and to oppose the bill. I would like to reassure the victim and others that the Conservative Party and the government will keep their word in order to protect young people.

The Speaker Peter Milliken

Order. During question period today, the Prime Minister referred to the absence of certain members during a vote recently. I refer hon. members to page 522 of Marleau and Montpetit where it states:

It is unacceptable to allude to the presence or absence of a Member or Minister in the Chamber. The Speaker has traditionally discouraged Members from signalling the absence of another Member from the House because “there are many places that Members have to be in order to carry out all of the obligations that go with their office.”

I am sure that the Prime Minister is aware of this provision in our practice and that he would not want to repeat the error or set a bad example for other hon. members in referring to the absence of members from the House because it can lead to all kinds of recriminations as members draw attention to the absence of others at various times.

All of us have obligations and I am sure the Prime Minister would not want to repeat that error.

The right hon. Prime Minister.

Stephen Harper Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, I will concede that sometimes in the heat of debate I forget the various paragraphs of Marleau and Montpetit, but I will endeavour to do much better in the future.

John Cannis Scarborough Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I, too, in the heat of question period as the Prime Minister said, made a comment while the Minister of the Environment was speaking, referring to a hair salon.

I wish to withdraw those words. If they were offensive and offended anybody, I wish to apologize as well.

Rob Nicholson Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

While we are at it, I wonder if we could also get the member for Nickel Belt to withdraw the comment that he made as well, directed toward the Minister of the Environment.

His comment was overheard by my colleagues again, saying that she should go back to the hair salon. They were similar to the comments made by the hon. member for Scarborough Centre. These are sexist comments and an insult to everyone in the chamber. I wonder if he would withdraw those comments as well.

Raymond Bonin Nickel Belt, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member might have heard someone from this area, but I can assure you on my honour that I did not say that.

Michel Gauthier Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, during question period, the member for Louis-Hébert asked the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities a question about Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (age of protection) and to make consequential amendments to the Criminal Records Act. The minister misled this House by stating that the Bloc Québécois was opposed to BIll C-22, when the Bloc Québécois has spoken in favour of the bill and will be voting for it.

I demand an apology from the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

The Speaker Peter Milliken

I am sure that the hon. Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities appreciates the correction by the hon. member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean. It is not really a point of order, but a point of debate. Now it is quite clear to everyone.

The hon. member for Eglinton—Lawrence is also rising on a point of order arising from question period.

Joe Volpe Eglinton—Lawrence, ON

Mr. Speaker, during question period in a response to a question, the President of the Treasury Board wanted to take note of an example that he thought we should all follow when he was talking about the accountability act.

He made reference to the member for Eglinton—Lawrence who had received some funds and who actually gave them back notwithstanding the fact that they were all in order.

I am wondering whether, in making such a reference, the President of the Treasury Board is admitting that he and the other 200 people who made contributions subsequent to the April 11 deadline will follow that same example, and whether he and the Prime Minister, who foisted upon the Canadian public a $1.7 million scam in the last Conservative convention, will also give all that money back by following the concept that he has recognized that I followed, or whether he is just going to be a blustering liar.

The Speaker Peter Milliken

I think the hon. member for Eglinton—Lawrence may have a grievance, but I do not think he has raised a point of order. It sounds like another question. Perhaps he would like to pose that in question period on another occasion.