Tom Lukiwski

[Government Response to Petitions, March 29th, 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.

[Motions for Papers, March 28th, 2007]

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

[Questions on the Order Paper, March 28th, 2007]

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

[Questions on the Order Paper, March 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, question No. 141 will be answered today.

[Government Response to Petitions, March 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 16 petitions.

[Points of Order, March 27th, 2007]

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I thank you for recognizing me since I was the one who raised this point of order originally. I want to underscore some of the remarks made by my colleague, the hon. government whip.

I was frankly amazed, because I have great respect for the member for Winnipeg Centre except when he tries to defend the use of the word “fascist” in a manner that he says is appropriate. I do not believe that at any point during any debate a comparison of any member in this place to a fascist dictator can, by anyone's definition, be considered acceptable or appropriate.

What I find even more distressing, as he was making his defence of the terms fascist, Il Duce and Mussolini, is that members of his own party, who have stood in this place on countless occasions and asked for civility and decorum, were laughing. They thought this was a joke. They thought he was making a statement that was considered, by their standards at least, humorous.

When is it ever humorous to refer to any member in this place as a fascist dictator? I find this reprehensible and unconscionable. And as for him standing and acting as the victim in this, saying that I said the attitude of the NDP, which had asked for decorum and civility, is both sanctimonious and hypocritical, he now is acting like he is the injured puppy, like he is the victim in this.

I know he is trying to deflect criticism, but the fact of the matter is that he stood in this place, and he has admitted it today, and referred to another member, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, as Il Duce, Mussolini, a fascist dictator, and that is absolutely unacceptable, by anyone's standards.

My last point is again to underscore what my hon. colleague, the chief government whip, said about the timeliness of my intervention. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that there was a two week break. After that break, I came back and you and I had discussions, Mr. Speaker. You knew I was going to be raising this point of order, and I, as my hon. colleague has suggested, waited until the member was in the House. I wanted to give him the courtesy of listening to my intervention and allowing him the opportunity to respond.

But unfortunately, now that he has heard my intervention, he has taken several days to craft a response to defend the term “fascist” in comparison to a member of the House. As I said in my original intervention, that is a slur on the character of not only the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food but of every member of the House. I ask, Mr. Speaker, that your ruling be that he withdraw those remarks immediately and unreservedly.

[Questions on the Order Paper, March 27th, 2007]

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

[The Budget, March 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my hon. colleague and I completely disagree with a couple of issues that he raised. I will only make a couple of comments because I do not suppose asking a question would do much good.

He made mention that the consumption tax was absolutely the worst possible thing for low income Canadians and those most in need because it only benefits the rich. I would invite the hon. member to come to my province of Saskatchewan and talk to some the agricultural producers who, because of the income crisis for the last several years, have not had enough money to pay income tax.

They say that a reduction in income tax means nothing but that a reduction in the consumption tax means a great deal. I think we would find that a number of lower income Canadians share that view.

Second, I have a comment on his statement about this budget doing nothing for a national child care program or early learning and development. I would point out to him that today, in my province of Saskatchewan, the provincial NDP government announced, as a direct result of our budget, that it will create 500 new day care spaces.

Those two comments completely illustrate why the member really does not have a handle on the budget. Perhaps he should read it more carefully.

[The Budget, March 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize to the House for interrupting, but I think if you sought it you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding Standing Order 33(2), the question on the Liberal amendment on the budget be put at 6:15 p.m.

[Questions on the Order Paper, March 26th, 2007]

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