This week, I changed much of the tech behind this site. If you see anything that looks like a bug, please let me know!

House of Commons Hansard #13 of the 37th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was document.

Topics

Points of OrderOral Question Period

3:15 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

John M. Cummins Canadian Alliance Delta—South Richmond, BC

Mr. Speaker, a point of clarification on that matter that you read from. It states “a paper dealing with a matter coming from within the administrative responsibilities of the government”. It would seem to me that may have to do with a bill or a ministerial report. The matter referred to here is a matter which was raised in question period. It does not necessarily deal with an administrative matter before the government.

Points of OrderOral Question Period

3:15 p.m.

The Speaker

My recollection was that the quote had something to do with a grant from a government program. I think it fell within the administrative responsibility of the government, with all due respect to the hon. member.

Points of OrderOral Question Period

3:15 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Loyola Hearn Progressive Conservative St. John's West, NL

Mr. Speaker, first, the document concerned was a list of funding provided through the sponsorship program. It would be that any documents that are distributed such as that are already in two languages.

Second, because of the sensitivity of the programs that were sponsored that would be on that list, we have major concerns that the original document would be allowed to be taken out of this place to be perhaps tampered with before we see the other version. This is a very dangerous precedent.

Points of OrderOral Question Period

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON

Mr. Speaker, this is the second time in the space of a few minutes that a member of the opposition is casting aspersions as to the honesty of members in terms of the tabling of documents.

It is with impunity that we are treating the reputation of hon. members. An hon. member who will table a document will table the document that he was quoting from. Unless those people will say on a regular basis that no member in the House is to be trusted any more, we had better get on with this. This is a rather unacceptable line of points of order.

Points of OrderOral Question Period

3:15 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

John M. Cummins Canadian Alliance Delta—South Richmond, BC

Sit down.

Points of OrderOral Question Period

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON

I have the right to speak here as much as those members do.

Points of OrderOral Question Period

3:15 p.m.

The Speaker

I think we will wait and see what document comes from the minister. In my view it is not uncommon for this kind of thing to happen, that the minister leaves and tables a document later. I have certainly witnessed it many times in my experience in the House. I do not see anything improper in what has transpired at this point.

The hon. member for Halifax.

Points of OrderOral Question Period

3:20 p.m.

NDP

Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising out of the debate last evening and a commitment by the member for Okanagan—Coquihalla, after having been asked to do so last evening, to table in the House today the specific poll that he claimed made it clear that seven out of ten Canadians support Canadian participation in some type of missile defence.

He cited a specific poll. When asked about the poll he indicated that it was in fact a Michael Marzolini Pollara survey in which a question was put to Canadians about whether they supported the notion of Canada being involved and participating in missile defence. He indicated that it was available and that he would be tabling it today. I think it is very important that he do so, and I do not believe he followed through on that commitment today.

Points of OrderOral Question Period

3:20 p.m.

The Speaker

I am sure the hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla will be very pleased to hear from the hon. member for Halifax in this regard and will want to take note of the concerns she has expressed and deal with the matter at an early time. I am sure the hon. member for Halifax will convey to the hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla by another means her point of order that was raised in the House today and her anxiety that the commitment made last evening be fulfilled at the earliest possible time.

Business of the HouseOral Question Period

3:20 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC

Mr. Speaker, having consulted the other parties, I would like to ask for unanimous consent.

Given that the Bloc Quebecois opposition day is on the Monday after the break, and that it cannot be rescheduled because of an official visit in this House and a number of other factors under the Standing Orders, I would have to table the subject of the day 10 days in advance, which is somewhat excessive.

I received consent from all the parties to table the subject of our motion at the end of the day Thursday of the break week. Although the House is not sitting that week, the other parties will nonetheless be aware of the subject we will be discussing on the Monday. I believe we have unanimous consent for that.

Business of the HouseOral Question Period

3:20 p.m.

The Speaker

Is there unanimous consent of the House to grant the request of the hon. member for Roberval?

Business of the HouseOral Question Period

3:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 81(14), to inform the House that the motion to be considered tomorrow during the consideration of the business of supply is as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should oppose the proposed American antimissile defence shield and, therefore, cease all discussions with the Bush administration on possible Canadian participation.

The motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Saint-Jean, will be votable.

Copies of the motion are available at the table.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to present a petition with 6,665 names, asking Parliament to immediately ban the dissemination of genetically engineered wheat into the environment, the trade in such wheat, and the use of genetically engineered wheat in field tests.

It is already known that Monsanto has submitted a request for approval of its Roundup Ready wheat. This submission is now being reviewed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Here are 6,665 individuals who want to let Parliament know that they are opposed to the approval of genetically modified wheat.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

NDP

Dick Proctor NDP Palliser, SK

Mr. Speaker, on the same subject, I too have the pleasure of introducing petitions signed by 7,097 people from across the country who are concerned about the Monsanto Corporation of St. Louis having filed application with the Canadian government on genetically engineered wheat.

The petitioners note that a majority of Canada's wheat exports would be affected if such a dramatic change were made and call upon Parliament to immediately institute a ban on the environmental or commercial release of genetically engineered wheat and the use of genetically engineered wheat in open field trials.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

NDP

Lorne Nystrom NDP Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to table in the House today, both on the issue of same sex marriage and that it is now being considered by the court and by Parliament.

The first one has been signed by approximately 100 people. They refer to the fact that in 1999 the House passed a resolution that defined marriage as a union between one woman and one man to the exclusion of all others. They ask Parliament to pass legislation to make sure that it stays that way.

The second petition, which has been signed by approximately 200 people, is a petition on same sex marriage. It talks about the necessity of having same sex marriage in order to protect the quality, the dignity and the respect of all Canadians in terms of the fundamental equality.

The petitioners are calling upon Parliament to pass a bill that would provide legality for same sex couples to marry equal to those of heterosexual couples.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Betty Hinton Canadian Alliance Kamloops, Thompson And Highland Valleys, BC

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by constituents of my riding of Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being a lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions on the same matter from people in my constituency and the rest of the Island of Montreal.

The petitioners want to draw the attention of the House to the following: that members of the House of Commons affirmed on June 8, 1999, by vote of 216 to 55, 'That in the opinion of this House, it is necessary, in light of public debate around recent court decisions, to state that marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and Parliament will take all necessary steps within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada to preserve this definition of marriage in Canada'; and that marriage is an institution which pre-exists the state because it is based on profound human need for having children and continuing the family from generation to generation; and that marriage is a unique social institution which provides a supportive relationship between a woman and a man in which, together, they create the most successful environment for the rearing of children; and that marriage is an institution so basic to the human condition and the common good that its nature is beyond the reach of civil law to change.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to take all necessary means to maintain and support the above definition of marriage in Canada.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

February 18th, 2004 / 3:25 p.m.

Sarnia—Lambton Ontario

Liberal

Roger Gallaway LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

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

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

The Speaker

Is that agreed?

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Sarnia—Lambton Ontario

Liberal

Roger Gallaway LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.

Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

The Speaker

Is that agreed?

Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(Bill C-3. On the Order: Government Orders)

February 18, 2004—the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform—Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs of Bill C-3, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Brossard—La Prairie Québec

Liberal

Jacques Saada LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform

moved:

That Bill C-3, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act, be referred forthwith to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Canada Elections ActGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Ottawa—Vanier Ontario

Liberal

Mauril Bélanger LiberalDeputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place between all parties and I believe that if you were to seek it you would find consent that when the question is put later today on the motion to refer Bill C-3 to committee before second reading, that the motion be deemed carried on division.