Tom Lukiwski

[Government Response to Petitions, April 25th, 2007]

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

[Questions on the Order Paper, April 24th, 2007]

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

[Government Response to Petitions, April 24th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to 13 petitions.

[Questions on the Order Paper, April 23rd, 2007]

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

[Canada Elections Act, April 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. colleague's comments and I must say, for the record and as I have said privately to the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, I wish him well in his future plans. I know he is not seeking re-election. I think that it is a shame, quite frankly. I think the member for Vancouver Quadra has brought much distinction to the House and he is the type of parliamentarian, regardless of partisanship, that all Canadians respect and deserve.

He has represented his riding well and I wish him much success in all his future endeavours. I wish frankly he was coming back to this institution. He brings with him great credit, and a lot of experience and expertise, but since that is not going to happen, congratulations for all of the work he has done on behalf of both his party and members of the committee on which he served so admirably. I had the distinction of sitting with him on one of those committee.

However, as much as I admire and respect the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, I must say that I fundamentally disagree with the premise that he is advancing, that this is a minor technical amendment because it is no such thing.

The amendment clearly states that if there is a referendum, either at the municipal, provincial or federal level, the date of the federal election could be changed, as the hon. government House leader indicated in his presentation. There could be a referendum in a small community in northern Saskatchewan or northern Ontario, say 450 people or 500 people holding a referendum on a hockey arena. A decision could be made because of this amendment that a federal election be cancelled, delayed or put off to a date not originally recommended.

I think that is not a minor technical change. I think that is a fundamental and significant change. If it is as minor a change as he suggests, what difficulty would he or any opposition member have in just removing the amendment and going back to the original bill which the member supported? If it is that minor in nature, what difficulty would that member have in removing it all together? Should he do that as the government House leader indicated, then it would become law and very quickly.

[Questions on the Order Paper, April 19th, 2007]

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

[Motions for Papers, April 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

[Questions on the Order Paper, April 18th, 2007]

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

[Government Response to Petitions, April 18th, 2007]

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

Mr. Speaker, discussions have been held among all parties and I think if you sought it you would find unanimous consent that, notwithstanding Standing Order 36(8)(b), the matter of the failure of the ministry to respond to petitions Nos. 391-1196, 391-1212 to 391-1214, 391-1217 and 391-1234 be withdrawn from the appropriate standing committees.

[Points of Order, April 17th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, very briefly, the government will want to respond to the intervention by the hon. member and will do so as quickly as possible after reviewing the objections raised by the member for Scarborough—Rouge River.