Debates of Oct. 28th, 2003

Supply

[James Lunney, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a problem in society. Some people call it a permissive society. A very nasty trend has developed in society where we do not want to say no to anybody about anything. It reflects an undermining of authority where parents are not allowed to discipline their children. It is a question of discipline. Even spanking a child is now brought into question. Parental authority is undermined. It affects the authority of the principals and the teachers in schools who are not allowed to touch a child. This is very pervasive in society and it seems that we do not want to say no to anything.

It is the role of government to provide laws that protect society. That means there are some issues and some times where we must say no. Frankly, it seems it is a problem with what my colleagues refer to as the Liberal philosophy. I know not all members on that side would share that extreme a philosophy that we cannot say no to people, that we cannot punish people. Yet increasingly our courts seem to have taken this up, that we cannot punish people for crimes, that we have to look at the excuses and why they did something wrong.

The proper role of government is to protect society and to establish a stable society, to establish laws that provide protection for children, for women when they are walking on the streets at night--

[An hon. member]

And men.

[James Lunney, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

--and for young men as well, from criminals and violence.

Because we fail to take action we are paying a high price in society in that we put bars on our windows and security systems in our homes. We are all paying a big price for our attitude when we do not want to say no and we do not want to punish people for committing crimes and being violent. We all suffer as a consequence.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

It being 5:15 p.m. and this being the final supply day in the period ending December 10, 2003, it is my duty to wrap up the proceedings and to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to)

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to take a moment to thank all the speakers who participated today. I am terribly excited because for the first time in the 10 years that I have been here, the highest court in the land unanimously, 301 people, said that we will put an end to child pornography. I applaud everyone for that.

The House resumed from October 23 consideration of the motion.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, October 21, 2003, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the opposition motion standing in the name of Mr. Gauthier.

Call in the members.

After the taking of the vote:

[Dale Johnston, Canadian Alliance, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think you would find that the heritage minister voted, although she did not come into the House until well after the question was called and voting was well underway.

[The Speaker]

Could the Minister of Canadian Heritage clarify for the Chair whether she was in the House when the question was put to the House?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Hamilton East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression that the question had been put when I came in, but if not, I would be happy to withdraw my vote.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. All hon. members know that the rules require that members be in the House when the question is put to the House if they are to vote on the matter. If the Minister of Canadian Heritage is saying that she was not here when the question was put but came in later, there may be some difficulty with her vote and it may be disallowed. I am seeking clarification on the point.

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Hamilton East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression that there would be several votes and I arrived in the middle of a vote. Therefore I am here for the next vote. I am happy to withdraw my vote if it is a problem.

[The Speaker]

The vote of the hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage will be disallowed on this vote but she is here for the subsequent votes.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I draw to your attention Standing Order 21 which states:

No Member is entitled to vote upon any question in which he or she has a direct pecuniary interest, and the vote of any Member so interested will be disallowed.

I waited until the members actually voted before I raised this question. I was hoping to have raised it before the vote was called. In my 10 years in this place I have never seen a vote that more closely fits that definition. I therefore request that you enforce the provision of Standing Order 21 and disallow the votes of the Prime Minister and the member for LaSalle—Émard.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is not at all the definition of the standing order in question. The pecuniary interest referred to has to do with voting on a bill before the House in which an hon. member would have ownership of an issue where they would gain financially.

This has nothing to do with the issue before the House. If it had--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. member for Elk Island made his point of order and the member is entitled to respond.

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

If it had, Mr. Speaker, those who proposed to defeat the government on this motion of non-confidence and replace the government with themselves would similarly be out of order by voting on it at all.

[The Speaker]

I think the point made by the hon. member for Elk Island, while no doubt interesting, is not a valid point. He will know that members are entitled to vote on matters relating to their salaries and bills that affect those things. It is tough to argue that this has anything to do with that kind of direct pecuniary interest.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I came into the chamber late, after the question was put, so my vote should be disallowed as well.

[The Speaker]

I thank the hon. member.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)