House of Commons Hansard #25 of the 37th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was products.
Judy Sgro LiberalMinister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for the question. Our policy is quite clear. We do not issue work permits to illegal strikebreakers.
Greg Thompson Progressive Conservative New Brunswick Southwest, NB
Mr. Speaker, the president of ACOA has been out on the lecture circuit promoting a Liberal Party document called “The Rising Tide”. She has clearly stepped outside her bounds as president of ACOA. She should be neutral, supporting all members of Parliament and all parties.
Has the minister spoken to the president to cease that type of action and will he ask her for an apology to all parties in the House and all citizens. She is clearly outside her bounds.
Joe McGuire LiberalMinister of Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
Mr. Speaker, the deputy minister of ACOA was merely doing her job as deputy minister. She is speaking out on government policy. The implementation of ACOA policies is her mandate, and is my mandate. She is simply doing what I have asked her to do.
Atlantic Canada Opportunities AgencyOral Question Period
The Speaker
I am afraid that terminates question period today. I would like to point out to all hon. members that we got in six extra questions today which is the first time this week. Is it because members were relatively quiet? But the questions and answers were all very short. Congratulations.
David Pratt LiberalMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons and on behalf of the Government of Canada, I have the pleasure to table, in both official languages, two copies of the government's response to the recommendations contained in the standing committee's 23rd report based on chapter 7 of the April 2003 report of the Auditor General of Canada: “National Defence—Environmental Stewardship of Military Training and Test Areas”.
Jacques Saada LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-24, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Parliament of Canada ActRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker
When shall the bill be read a second time?
Pursuant to order made Thursday, March 11, 2004, later this day.
Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have no intention to prevent the introduction of this bill in the House of Commons, but I wonder by what process was there deemed to have been consent given to adoption at first reading.
Was it on the basis of consultation with House leaders? If that was the case, why was there not consultation with members of the House who are not affiliated with parties recognized by the House?
Parliament of Canada ActRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker
First reading of a bill does not require consent from anyone. I am assuming the right hon. member means the motion in respect of second reading of the bill which is to take place later this day by special order adopted yesterday, which no doubt the right hon. member has seen in the Journals of yesterday.
However, perhaps someone else can answer the question as to who was consulted. Like the hon. member, I hear about these things when they are presented in the House.
Jacques Saada LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform
Mr. Speaker, there is a process that is perfectly normal. Meetings are held every week with all the leaders of the recognized parties in this House. There was an agreement between the party leaders. This agreement requires consent of the House. I have sought consent for the motion to telescope the entire process for this bill.
I cannot comment on the presence or absence of members in this House, but all those present could object if they wanted.
Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, I accept and thank you for your correction as to procedural matters. I should have raised the issue at another point.
However, the matter I think is germane. There was an action taken and at the very least, I would ask the House to consider its implications. There was an action taken that presumed to achieve the agreement of all of the members of the House, but it was taken as the result only of consultations with House leaders who are authorized to speak in the name of members who belong to parties recognized as official parties in the House and who have House leaders.
There was no consultation in that process, a matter requiring the unanimous consent of the House, as I understand it. There was no consultation with a number of members of the House, myself included, who are not affiliated with parties recognized in the House.
I anticipate that a point will be made that I am raising this point with respect to this bill a day too late in the process, and I accept that. Nonetheless, there is an issue of principle here that relates to the rights of members of Parliament, particularly those of us who are designated as independents. I would like some guarantee that attention will be given to resolving this issue.
I am a member of the House of Commons duly elected here. There are others in my situation for whom House leaders do not speak. There cannot be unanimous consent without our consent. Therefore, a procedure must be found to ensure that this reality is respected and reflected.
Jacques Saada Liberal Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Mr. Speaker, the meetings held between the leaders of the parties in the House are not binding in nature. The only thing that makes agreements reached there binding is the power conferred upon us by the House, or in other words that which the motion confers in this House. Here in this House, all members have the right to speak.
The motion was tabled in the House yesterday, and all those present were able to speak.
I see this desire to debate retroactively as rather dubious. I do not see that there is anything that needs correcting.
Parliament of Canada ActRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker
I am afraid I do not either. I think we have gone as far as we can.
The motion got unanimous consent in the House yesterday. If the right hon. member or any other member of the House had concerns about the motion at that time, then obviously consent could have been refused. It was not. It was passed, so we are stuck with the rule now.
I urge the right hon. member to have a chat with the government House leader at his convenience to pursue the matter further, but I think from the point of view of the House we ought to get on with the order of business here today.
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Mr. Speaker, I will be tabling two reports. First, I have the honour to present the ninth report of the Standing Committee of Procedure and House Affairs regarding the associate membership of certain committees of the House.
With leave of the House, I intend to move concurrence in the ninth report later this day.
Second, I have the honour to present the tenth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding its order of reference of Wednesday, February 18, regarding Bill C-3, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act.
The committee has considered Bill C-3 and has agreed to report it with amendments.
Rick Laliberte Liberal Churchill River, SK
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Cree]
(English)
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources regarding the order of reference of Thursday, February 12, Bill C-11, an act to give effect to the West Bank First Nations Self-government Agreement.
The committee has considered Bill C-11 and reports the bill with amendments.
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House, I move:
That the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker: The Speaker
The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North Centre, MB
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table five petitions.
Canadians are very concerned about the lack of action by the government in response to the private member's bill passed almost unanimously in the House, that being legislation to require warning labels on all alcoholic beverage containers. They are appalled and concerned that at a time when we need such warning labels, the government has chosen not to act. They call upon Parliament to remind the government of its obligations and to do what is in the best interests of all Canadians.
Maurice Vellacott Canadian Alliance Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
Mr. Speaker, I have a whole stack of petitions here. The petitioners are calling upon Parliament to recognize in federal law the time honoured definition of marriage as the lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
The petitioners are from different parts of Canada and they add to the tens of thousands of signatures already tabled in the House about marriage, that most basic building block of society.
Maurice Vellacott Canadian Alliance Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of other petitions, and with your indulgence I will quickly present them now.
In this petition, residents of Canada want to draw attention to the fact that there is a loophole in the Income Tax Act in that businesses in Canada are able to deduct from business income, for tax purposes, fines and penalties imposed upon them in respect to environmental laws, consumer protection laws, workplace safety laws, and so on.
They are calling upon Parliament to immediately enact legislation amending the Income Tax Act to prohibit the deduction of all fines and penalties from business income for tax purposes. They do not want those fines to be simply a cost of doing business.
Maurice Vellacott Canadian Alliance Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
Mr. Speaker, I also present a petition in regard to the matter of child pornography. The petitioners draw to the attention of the House the fact that the creation and the use of child pornography is condemned by the clear majority of Canadians and that the courts 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 the petitioners call upon Parliament to protect children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify pedophilia or sado-masochistic activities involving children be forthwith outlawed.
Scott Brison LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Canada-U.S.)
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.