House of Commons Hansard #167 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was offence.
Darrel Stinson Reform Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Madam Speaker, today I have two petitions that I wish to table.
One petition is from residents of Vernon and Armstrong. The petitioners are asking parliament to preserve and protect the institution of marriage by enacting Bill C-225, to define by statute that marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a single female.
Darrel Stinson Reform Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Madam Speaker, it is also my pleasure to table a petition signed mostly by people in my riding of Okanagan—Shuswap. The petitioners support Private Members' Bill C-304 from the member for Yorkton—Melville to strengthen protection of private property rights and specifically guarantee that everyone has the right to enjoy their property, the right not to be deprived of it without a fair hearing and just compensation, and the right to appeal to the courts if their property rights have been infringed upon.
John O'Reilly Liberal Victoria—Haliburton, ON
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have a petition basically from the Lakehurst area calling on parliament to take action that would assure that Paul Bernardo remains in prison for the rest of his natural life, and that further action is requested for the destruction of the video tapes, that human eyes may never see them again.
Garry Breitkreuz Reform Yorkton—Melville, SK
Madam Speaker, I have a large number of petitions again, 242 more pages of petitions with 5,589 signatures of concerned citizens from across the country. About half of these are from the province of Quebec.
My constituents are asking me to keep a running total of these repeal Bill C-68 petitions. This year I have introduced 1,751 pages with more than 40,910 signatures.
The petitioners request parliament to repeal the totally ineffective Bill C-68, the Firearms Act. The petitioners want the $50 million or $60 million a year being wasted on gun registration redirected to real criminal justice priorities. Organized criminals are terrorizing Canadian cities and biker and street gangs quite literally are getting away with murder, while Mounties are wasting their time and tax moneys registering shotguns owned by duck hunters. It is truly appalling that the government has forced the RCMP to cut essential police services while wasting more than $200 million on gun registration.
I am pleased to submit these petitions.
Mac Harb Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Madam Speaker, I have a petition signed by many Canadians who are asking parliament to amend the Divorce Act to include the provision as supported in Bill C-340 regarding the rights of the parents or grandparents of spouses to access to or custody of their grandchildren.
Jean-Guy Chrétien Bloc Frontenac—Mégantic, QC
Mr. Speaker, 12,000 people in my riding of Frontenac—Mégantic have asked me to table this important petition on their behalf, calling for abolition of the Canadian Senate.
They state that the Senate is an undemocratic institution that costs the taxpayer $50 million annually, duplicates efforts to protect minority rights and encroaches upon the role of members of the House, and that our parliamentary institutions need modernizing.
For these reasons, the people of Frontenac—Mégantic are calling for abolition of the Senate.
Rose-Marie Ur Liberal Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am honoured to present the a petition signed by residents of London, Lucan and Kitchener.
They urge parliament to ban the gas additive MMT, noting it is not used in Europe and most American States as it fouls emission control devices in vehicles.
Rose-Marie Ur Liberal Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON
Madam Speaker, the second petition, signed by residents in Wallaceburg and Dresden, urges parliament to adapt the principles of Bill C-225 to ensure that marriage is preserved and protected.
Lee Morrison Reform Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.
The first is from constituents of mine primarily in the districts of Fox Valley and Prelate, Saskatchewan, with respect to the MacKay task force recommendations.
The petitioners point out that the MacKay task force recommendations, if implemented, would enable banks to retail property and casualty insurance. They state that this would have a very negative impact on Canada's independent insurance brokers and would cause a loss of thousands of jobs.
Therefore they call upon parliament to totally reject the recommendations of the MacKay task force report pertaining to the entry of banks into the casualty and property insurance markets. Furthermore they urge parliamentarians not to give in to the pressure of the banks on this matter.
Lee Morrison Reform Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Madam Speaker, the second petition is from 248 petitioners located all over Saskatchewan.
They point out that section 44 of the Constitution Act provides a formula for amending the Constitution of Canada and that such amendments may be made exclusively by parliament.
They go on to describe problems with governmental mismanagement of our fiscal affairs and to list several points. They therefore petition parliament to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, to include provisions modelled after the taxpayer protection amendment as proposed by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.
Karen Redman Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
Madam Speaker, I rise today to present four petitions on behalf of the my constituents in Kitchener Centre.
The first petition is regarding the sale of Candu reactors. The 42 Canadians who signed the petition call upon parliament to oppose the sale of these reactors to the state of Turkey.
Karen Redman Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
Madam Speaker, the second petition was prepared by Canadians of Serbian descent.
They request that parliament take a proactive role in ensuring equal rights for all citizens of Serbia, including Serbs within the boundaries of international and Serbian laws.
Karen Redman Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
Madam Speaker, I have two petitions regarding the institution of marriage.
Both petitions call on parliament to enact Bill C-225.
Rob Anders Reform Calgary West, AB
Madam Speaker, today I am honoured on behalf of citizens of Orleans, in the riding of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell to submit a petition to the House of Commons in parliament assembled.
These citizens of Canada draw the attention of the House to the following. Canadians deserve an accountable Senate and therefore, the petitioners call upon parliament to request that the Prime Minister accept the results of a Senate election.
Once again I present this petition on behalf of constituents in the city of Orleans and in the riding of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, the riding of the government House leader.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Madam Speaker, in this year of celebrating the 50th anniversary of the United Nations Declaration of Universal Human Rights, I am pleased to present a petition signed by a number of Canadians including from my own riding of Mississauga South.
The petitioners would like to bring to the attention of the House that human rights violations continue to occur in many countries around the world including Indonesia. They also point out that Canada is internationally respected for its defence of universal human rights.
The petitioners therefore call upon the government to continue its efforts to speak out against countries that tolerate violation of human rights and to do whatever is possible to bring to justice those responsible for such abuses.
Peter Adams LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Garry Breitkreuz Reform Yorkton—Melville, SK
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On March 11, 1998, I placed Question No. 84 on the order paper asking how many violent crimes had been investigated by the RCMP and how many involved the use of registered and unregistered firearms. In accordance with Standing Order 39 I asked for a written answer within 45 days.
My constituents have been waiting for 271 days. The commissioner of the RCMP wrote me a letter on July 6 referring to the answer he had given to Question No. 84. The RCMP gave its response to the government 154 days ago. I raised this point 40 days ago and I was assured at that time that I would get the answer immediately.
When will the government give my constituents and me the RCMP's answer to this very important question?
Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON
Madam Speaker, we have answered well over 70% of the questions. The member is right. He has asked before. The response to his question is being finalized. I will continue to work to obtain the answer for him.
John Cummins Reform Delta—South Richmond, BC
Madam Speaker, Question No. 132 was placed on the order paper on September 31 and Question No. 138 on September 24 and I am still waiting for answers. They are important answers because they have to do with the issue of a veteran's family being denied benefits.
I asked the Library of Parliament to do a study on order paper questions in Great Britain where the majority of questions are answered within a week. The situation we are facing, which my colleague and I have just raised, is absolutely scandalous.
Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON
Madam Speaker, I note again Questions Nos. 132 and 138. Some questions may well involve one department, but other questions may literally involve every department in government.
As I have mentioned, we have answered well over 70%. I will continue on the member's behalf to work on Questions Nos. 132 and 138.
Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
Shall the remaining questions stand?
Bob Nault Liberal Kenora—Rainy River, ON
Madam Speaker, just after question period the member for Cumberland—Colchester suggested that I had made some remarks to him that were intimidating. First of all, if it was intended to be that way, Madam Speaker, I can assure you he would not be sitting there today.
The whole objective of my comments of the other day were to make it very clear to him that Mr. Young, the previous minister of human resources, defence and transport, was a very honourable member in this place in the last parliament. He is a very honest individual for whom I have a lot of respect.
I was trying to make it very clear to him that in the way he was posing his question he was suggesting that Mr. Young had somehow done something illegal, that he was crooked, and that it was not something I cherished hearing from members on the opposite side because it is not very honourable.
If my comments suggested in any way to him that I was being intimidating and hurting his work, I want to take this opportunity to apologize because that was not the intent.
The intent was to suggest to the House that when one poses questions one should not pose the kinds of scenarios that he was suggesting toward Mr. Young which would in any way jeopardize his abilities to make a livelihood out there in the workplace now that he is no longer a member of parliament. Those were the reasons why I made those remarks.
Bill Casey Progressive Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Madam Speaker, there was no misunderstanding of the comments made by the member to me in that confrontation. There was no way to interpret them other than as a threat. He tried to intimidate me. He said that I had better remember that Doug Young has lots of friends and they all have long memories. Just today he said that if he meant it to be a threat I would not be here today.
I would like to put on the record what the member just said in defence of the points he made to me. He said if I was intimidating the member I would know it and I would not be here today. That just happened now.
Points Of OrderRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker
I do not want to get into a debate on this issue. As I understand it, and I saw part of it from my office only, what we have here is a member of parliament who stood in his place today on a point of order and said that another hon. member said certain words to him.
The hon. member is here in the House right now. As far as what I could make out, the hon. member had said there was a misunderstanding. I am to be corrected, but if there is a misunderstanding the hon. member apologizes or withdraws. Is that correct?