Debates of Feb. 25th, 2005

Criminal Code

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-344, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (review of parole ineligibility) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Mr. Speaker, this is a Criminal Code amendment dealing with the review of parole eligibility. This is an issue that has been before the House on numerous occasions.

The bill attempts to repeal section 745.6 of the Criminal Code, commonly known as the faint hope clause. It would allow persons sentenced to life imprisonment for acts of high treason to murder to apply after 15 years for a reduction in the period of parole ineligibility.

This bill has the support of those in the law enforcement community, those who, I would suggest, have been affected by horrific crimes. It would affect those who have not been deemed dangerous offenders under more recent Criminal Code amendments. This bill would do away with the section that allows for early parole for murderers.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Petitions

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of submitting nine petitions signed by constituents from my riding of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to recognize the institution of marriage as being a lifelong union between one man and one woman. They call upon Parliament to do whatever is necessary to preserve the traditional definition of marriage in Canada.

[Marc Godbout, Liberal, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table on behalf of 25 constituents of Ottawa—Orléans and others in the region a petition calling upon Parliament to maintain the traditional definition of marriage.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to table this petition calling upon the Prime Minister not to commit to the missile defence shield.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have petitions from the Canadian Alliance for Social Justice and Family Values, an 80% ethnic Chinese group based in Vancouver. These petitions contain 7,000 signatures in which the petitioners are supporting the traditional definition of marriage.

I had previously delivered a petition from the same group on the same subject with 22,000 signatures, so it is now up to 29,000.

The petitioners are urging Parliament to use all possible democratic, legislative and administrative measures to preserve and protect the current definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present which states that since it is recognized that the best foundation for society, families and the raising of children is the traditional definition of marriage, the petitioners pray that Parliament will keep the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the petition that I wish to present today on behalf of my constituents concerns children suffering from an autism spectrum disorder. It calls upon Parliament to amend the Canada Health Act to include intensive behavioural intervention therapy for children with autism as medically necessary treatment.

It requests that all provinces provide or fund this essential treatment for autism and to contribute to the creation of academic chairs in each province to teach this treatment at an undergraduate level.

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have six groups of petitions signed by 440 people from my home province of Ontario. The petitioners pray that Parliament use all possible legislative and administrative measures, including invoking section 33 of the charter if necessary to preserve and protect the current definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions today from Canadians. They are asking Parliament, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to use all possible legislative and administrative measures including invoking section 33 of the charter if necessary to preserve and protect the current definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.

[Art Hanger, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have 14 petitions from concerned citizens with a total number of signatures of 1,623 from the Canada family action committee concerning the issue of marriage.

The undersigned petition Parliament to use all possible legislative and administrative measures including invoking section 33 of the charter if necessary to preserve and protect the current definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure today to present a petition on behalf of my colleague, the hon. member for Kings—Hants, signed by people from all across Canada.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to ensure that an appropriate question is included in the next census questionnaire aimed at determining the demographics of brain injury and to ensure that the government closely examines aspects of its health policies, pension provisions, including CPP and justice issues, in order to properly support those with brain injuries.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition from the good folks in Redverse, Antler, Fertile, Wauchope and Bellegarde, Saskatchewan, and the communities of Storthoakes, Carievale, Stoughton and Weyburn.

The essence of their petition is that marriage is the best foundation for families and the raising of children, and that the majority of Canadians support the traditional definition of marriage as the voluntary union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

The petitioners ask Parliament to use all possible legislative and administrative measures to preserve and protect the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

I also have a petition from the people of Gladmar and Minton, Saskatchewan. They ask that Parliament, as it did in 1999, vote to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. They ask that a renewed debate be held on the definition of marriage and to reaffirm as it did in 1999 its commitment to take all necessary steps to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition from the constituents of Kildonan—St. Paul in Winnipeg, Manitoba. My constituents want to define marriage in federal law as being a lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to table on behalf of my constituents of Fundy Royal and nearby area of Saint John a petition drawing the attention of government members to the plight of human rights workers in Colombia and to call on members of government to promote peace in that country.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to rise again, as I have been doing on a daily basis, to present petitions from my constituents in Prince George—Peace River. These citizens are from the city of Fort St. John and the neighbouring community of Charlie Lake.

These citizens call upon Parliament to note that in June 1999 Parliament reinforced that marriage continue to be recognized as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. They know that marriage is the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament and therefore, they call upon Parliament to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present two petitions from my riding and from outlying areas on the subject of marriage. I would like to pay particular tribute to Donna Clarkson, a constituent in my riding, who has really helped to assemble these petitions and to allow concerned citizens in our country to express themselves in this way.

This petition asks Parliament to respect the vote that was held in 1999. The petitioners say that the majority of Canadians support retaining the current definition. Social policy should be made by elected parliamentarians and not by appointed judges, so they are asking that we use all possible legislative and administrative means including section 33, the notwithstanding clause, if necessary in order to restore, preserve and protect the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two bundles of petitions. The first bundle includes two petitions from Langley residents and also from greater Vancouver residents. These petitions deal with the definition of marriage. The petitioners strongly urge Parliament to oppose any legislation that would in any way change the traditional definition of marriage being between a man and a woman in order to accommodate any other lifestyle choices.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second bundle contains two petitions that deal with autism. The petitioners ask Parliament to deem treatment for autism to be a medically necessary treatment in the Canada Health Act and also to create academic chairs at universities in each province to teach autism treatment.

[Darrel Stinson, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am please to present three petitions. The first is on behalf of my constituents of Okanagan—Shuswap which calls upon Parliament to pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being the lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

The last two petitions, that I am in total favour of, also from my constituents of Okanagan—Shuswap, request that the Government of Canada hold a binding national referendum together with the next federal election to ask the following question: “Must the Government of Canada continue to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others? Yes, or no”.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

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

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from February 23 consideration of the motion that Bill C-33, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 23, 2004, be read the third time and passed.

Budget Implementation Act, 2004, No. 2

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

The hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas still has 10 minutes left in questions and comments. The hon. member for Davenport.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to ask a question of the hon. member as I feel there has been a little bit of rewriting of history.

We should note the fact that it was the provincial Liberal government that issued a freeze on tuition and it was the NDP government in Ontario that allowed tuition to more than double when it was in power. This government has put in $5 billion annually into the transfer students assistance programs and $15 billion into the hands of provincial governments to deal with post-secondary education and other issues.

On the issue of housing, again there is obvious great concern by all of us, but we should remember, and it has been stated incorrectly many times in the House, that it was a Conservative government that eliminated the national housing policy in 1992 and not the Liberal government. The Liberal government struggled for many years in Ontario under the Harris government to get a housing policy in that province. There has been over $600 million already committed by the government to the province of Ontario alone. Many of those projects are still yet to be fulfilled.

Certainly, when I was a city councillor in the city of Toronto, the issue was not the money. The issue was trying to get the program going. It was a struggle because many of the programs had been killed by the provincial Tory government at that time.

It is very important that we get our facts correct in the House. As I see it, it is our government that has been working very diligently with the provincial and municipal governments to get housing going across this country.