Debates of June 21st, 2002

Alexander Graham Bell

[The Speaker]

Does the hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Hamilton East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, might I suggest that we forward a copy of this to the congress in the United States so they get their facts straight?

Petitions

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present a petition on behalf of the member for Peterborough concerning child pornography. The petitioners call upon parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify pedophilia and sado-masochism activities involving children are outlawed.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition on behalf of about 60 residents of my riding of Charleswood--St. James--Assiniboia. These petitioners would like to bring to the attention of the House that the creation and use of child pornography is condemned by the clear majority of Canadians and that the courts, in the petitioners' opinions, have not applied the current child pornography law in a way which makes it clear that such exploitation of children will always be met with swift punishment.

Therefore, these petitioners call upon parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify pedophilia or sado-masochistic activities involving children are outlawed.

[Rob Anders, Canadian Alliance, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, like the two previous members I am presenting a petition on behalf of citizens who are concerned and sickened about child pornography provisions in the country.

What I am very surprised by is that the two previous members introducing these petitions were government members, and they were voting with the government and being tolerant with regard to these various provisions that allowed John Robin Sharpe and others to possess and hold this material. That is what upsets me, but I present this petition in the constituents' names.

[An hon. member]

That is out of order, Mr. Speaker.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of Canadians, some of which are from my own riding of Mississauga South.

The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that: hundreds of thousands of Canadians suffer from very debilitating illnesses such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, cancer, et cetera; that Canadians support ethical stem cell research, which has already shown encouraging potential to provide cures and therapies for these illnesses and diseases; and that adult stem cells have shown significant research potential for these purposes without the immune rejection or ethical problems associated with embryonic stem cells.

The petitioners therefore call upon parliament to focus its legislative support on adult stem cell research to find the cures and therapies necessary to treat the illnesses and diseases of suffering Canadians.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions from rural mail cariers across the land who call upon parliament to repeal subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act. This is the section of the legislation that makes it impossible for rural mail carriers to collectively bargain with Canada Post. Rural mail cariers have a great deal of difficulty getting the kind of wages that are competitive and appropriate in Canada. These petitioners would urge the government to reconsider that portion of the legislation and repeal the section so that they can bargain collectively.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling a petition signed by business owners, self-employed workers, subcontractors and citizens.

Self-employed workers do not qualify for employment insurance, but it would be important to allow them to have access to this program.

Therefore, the petitioners are asking parliament to quickly deal with the situation and to take the necessary measures to ensure that these workers qualify for employment insurance.

The number of self-employed workers will be growing constantly in the future.

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions. The first one concerns rural mail carriers. The petitioners call upon parliament to repeal subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act, which would then allow collective bargaining.

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I have, from 45 constituents, concerns child pornography. It is essentially the same petition that has been presented three times already in the House today. The petitioners call upon parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify pedophilia or sado-masochistic activities involving children are outlawed.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

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

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canada Pension Plan

[Rob Anders, Canadian Alliance, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make this quick because I realize everyone wants to go home.

There is a requirement under section 115 of the Canada Pension Plan act that when a bill is introduced in parliament that alters the Canada Pension Plan act it is to be accompanied by a report from the Chief Actuary of Canada. The reason is to provide members with necessary information to consider the changes.

However, the law has a flaw, or perhaps I could describe it as a loophole, that gives the minister the excuse to proceed with the bill without the report and that is exactly what happened with Bill C-58. We had to consider Bill C-58 at second reading without the report and that impeded members' ability to be effective legislators. The report was tabled 11 days after its introduction. This type of delay is frankly unacceptable. Therefore, I move:

That the motion be amended by replacing all the words after the word “that” with:

this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, since the bill fails to address the current situation whereby changes to the Canada Pension Plan act can be considered by this House before the required report of the Chief Actuary of Canada is tabled, a situation that diminishes the ability of the House to competently perform its legislative role.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The amendment is acceptable to the Chair.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I had understood today that on the carriage of the bill we would then proceed to adjourn. Of course proceeding with that amendment prevents the carriage of the bill, which means we cannot. That was the agreement that had been formally agreed to; unless we could defeat that amendment on division and go back to the original question. Obviously things have not panned out in the way officials from all parties had informally agreed to.

Perhaps while I am saying this, if the Chair will be patient with me, someone on the other side will verify internally as to what was to occur, to ensure that in fact what was informally agreed to is occurring, we could either withdraw the motion or defeat it on division. If the hon. member is indicating that he will not, notwithstanding the all party agreement, that is unfortunate. I guess the only thing we can do now is continue with the debate on this item. If the Chair will be patient for a minute, perhaps someone on the other side can respond to the point of order.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, there is another way with which this could be dealt that would respect the agreement among House leaders. That would be for the House to agree to accept the amendment.

[Dale Johnston, Canadian Alliance, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, the other thing we could do, of course, is just simply vote on the amendment that the member has put, or we could call for the vote and postpone that until September 18.

[Rob Anders, Canadian Alliance, Calgary West, AB]

Madam Speaker, there was an agreement today that the Alliance would be able to have a speaker up on the bill. I am that speaker. That was the agreement among the House leaders. I have duly, as a member of parliament, moved an amendment to that particular bill. That is all perfectly legitimate. There is nothing untoward about that. We have a prerogative to do that as members of parliament.

Madam Speaker, you have duly accepted it. I respect that. If the government House leader does not like it, that is something he will have to deal with. Nonetheless, I am the sole speaker that we wanted to have up today. I have done my duty. I could go on and speak at length to the bill, but--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.