House of Commons Hansard #120 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was ndp.
Bill Graham LiberalMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, as I have said on several occasions in the House, these events happened 45 years ago. We are making every effort to determine what happened.
This morning, experts appeared before the committee to answer members' questions. This week, some people will be going to Gagetown, New Brunswick to inform the public and to try to determine all the facts and find out who was affected. We will then be determining what compensation can be offered to those affected by these dangerous products.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Speaker, approximately one year ago, the 37th Parliament passed a bill on reproductive technologies, first, to prohibit such things as human cloning, and second, to control certain activities such as experimentation on human embryos. Before such controlled activities can come under the law, regulations must be drafted, submitted to the health committee for comment, be amended as necessary, and then be promulgated.
Can the Minister of Health advise when the required regulations will be forthcoming, so that the law restricting experimentation on human embryos can be enacted?
Ujjal Dosanjh LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, regulation in this area would require consultation with Canadians across the country. We are in the process of doing that. We will be drafting regulations and then, of course, presenting them to the committee.
Last May 9 I announced the agency's location in Vancouver. It will be operational by early 2006 and the recruitment process of the agency's board of directors is already under way.
David Kilgour Independent Edmonton—Beaumont, AB
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Canada has been involved in training judges in Vietnam in order to help it reform its legal system.
The government of Vietnam continues to arrest and sentence individuals for their religious beliefs and peaceful expression of views, and charges them with things like sowing division among the people and undermining state and party unity.
Would it not be time now to consider other options to help Vietnam reform its legal system in order to produce tangible results?
Aileen Carroll LiberalMinister of International Cooperation
Mr. Speaker, I know how concerned the member is about assisting countries such as Vietnam and bringing them forward into a better understanding of democratic practices. We have a number of excellent programs in Vietnam. Some are in the training of the judiciary and our legal NGOs are building a number of legal capacity dimensions. I think that the work that CIDA has undertaken with Vietnam, which is one of our development partners, is indeed moving that country in the direction wished by the hon. member.
Jay Hill Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to Government Motion No. 17, which was put on notice yesterday and was under embargo.
Since the deadline for tabling motions is 6 p.m., I would argue that an embargoed motion cannot go on beyond that time. Indeed, I was unable to access the motion until 12:25 a.m. today and I would argue that Motion No. 17 should not be allowed to be called for debate until Thursday, June 23, for two reasons.
First, I should have been able to access the motion at 6 p.m. last night. The failure to have access to Motion No. 17 at that time should carry over by one day the notice requirement period.
Second, the notice was inaccessible until after Monday, June 20, at midnight.
Therefore I would argue that the earliest Motion No. 17 could be called is at 12:25 a.m. on Thursday.
Tony Valeri LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I would make the point that in terms of providing the motion, we met every requirement and every compliance. It went on notice as it should have. It was on the Order Paper today and there is an opportunity to call the motion on Wednesday.
I understand the hon. member across the way does not want to debate the motion and does not want to stay here and deal with the legislation that we are dealing with, which is why he is making this point of order. However I would submit that we have complied with every requirement in putting this on notice.
I expect you will consider that, Mr. Speaker, when you ultimately decide on whether the point of order has any merit.
Points of OrderOral Question Period
The Speaker
The Chair will look into the matter raised by the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River. Let me say that we are not accustomed to having these late night sittings at the end of June. We have not had them for a number of years. Last year, as members will recall, we were not sitting in June and the year before we did not bother with the late night sittings, as I recall. It is something on which I am not as familiar as I would like to be, otherwise I would be rattling off an answer for the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River off the top of my head.
I might do it now and wing it but I would rather convince him that my argument is correct in presenting it. I know I have to convince all members but I must convince the member because he raised this. Therefore I will take a little time and come back with an answer a little later this afternoon because I would not want him upset if the motion got called tomorrow for some strange reason and he thought it could not be called until 12:25 a.m. on Thursday. I will get on to this and see what I can do.
Joy Smith Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to table a letter dated May 21, 2002 from the former Canadian ambassador, Michael Kergin, to Mark Grossman, under-secretary of the U.S. state department, in which he stated that this government declined a joint referral.
Points of OrderOral Question Period
The Speaker
Does the hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul have the unanimous consent of the House to table this letter?
Rob Anders Conservative Calgary West, AB
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Liberal member for Ahuntsic rose in the House on a speech that I had given with regard to changes to the Elections Act. I would like to read into the record exactly what I said so that she clearly understands it. The first sentence reads:
In the member's last presentation, he spoke about how even current presidents of Liberal riding associations have actually been appointed to be the returning officers in their ridings.
The second sentence reads:
He listed specifically the riding of Ahuntsic, where the returning officer was the president of the Liberal riding association.
The third sentence reads:
If that is not a spurious and strange conflict of interest, I do not know what is.
The first sentence, which is what the Bloc member said about current presidents of Liberal riding associations being appointed, is true.
The second sentence, in which he specifically mentioned the riding of Ahuntsic where the returning officer was the president of the Liberal riding association, is also true.
The third sentence, which is where I said that it was a spurious and I believe strange conflict of interest, is a matter of debate.
I think the hon. member's issue was that the person who was appointed was indeed a former president. My second sentence stated that. She has taken umbrage with the idea that he was not the current sitting president.
Mr. Speaker, if you read the record, you will find that it is a matter of debate.
Eleni Bakopanos LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development (Social Economy)
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should take the time to read what I read into the record yesterday.
I will repeat what I said yesterday because he may be interested in my words. He maligns character. Character assassination in the House is the sport of choice of the Conservative Party with no consideration for the truth.
Here is another example of wallowing in the mud by that particular member for Calgary West. In fact, he did not say what he said he read into the record. He does not even have the courtesy that the Bloc did to actually withdraw his remarks. He has no respect for the House and no respect for Canadians out there.
Points of OrderOral Question Period
The Speaker
The Chair will examine the remarks made by both hon. members but I must say that I do feel we are getting into debate here. As I say, I will look at the documents that the hon. members has referred to and the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Ahuntsic and come back to the House, if necessary, but as I say, I think we are getting into debate here and it is probably just as well we move on to something else.
Request for Emergency DebateOral Question Period
The Speaker
This morning the hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul requested an emergency debate pursuant to Standing Order 52 for the purpose of discussing North Dakota's intention to proceed with the Devils Lake diversion. I have considered the hon. member's request and decided to grant it.
The difficulty the Chair is facing at the moment is the wording of the Standing Orders in respect of this because they do not contemplate what we do when we are sitting until midnight.
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-48, An Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the Motions in Group No. 1.
An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain PaymentsGovernment Orders
Liberal
Karen Redman Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place between all parties with respect to the report stage of Bill C-48 and I believe you would find consent for the following motion. I move:
That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of this House, at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, June 21, all questions necessary to dispose of report stage of Bill C-48, an act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments, shall be deemed put, recorded divisions deemed requested and the said divisions taken immediately without deferral; and,
That should the said debate collapse before 7 p.m. today, all questions necessary to dispose of report stage of Bill C-48 be deemed put, the recorded division deemed requested and deferred to 7 p.m. today.
An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain PaymentsGovernment Orders
The Speaker
Does the hon. chief government whip have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain PaymentsGovernment Orders
Some hon. members
Agreed.
An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain PaymentsGovernment Orders
Conservative
Jay Hill Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
Mr. Speaker, just for clarification. We certainly are in agreement with the government. The government whip is quite correct in saying that there have been discussions, I believe, between all the parties on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, would it be your intent then to immediately follow the vote with the emergency debate which would then be between the hours of 7:30 p.m. and 11:30 p.m. approximately?
An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain PaymentsGovernment Orders
The Speaker
If that is the agreement of the House, certainly it would make it possible because if we consider that the House then reaches its adjournment hour the emergency debate would proceed until 12 o'clock, which is what the Standing Orders provide for.
If this motion is agreeable, I would be quite delighted if the emergency debate could be held then rather than after midnight which I think would be highly inconvenient.
Let me put it to members this way. It is understood that if this motion is agreed to, we would start the emergency debate after the votes have been taken and that would go until midnight as provided in the Standing Orders. Is that agreeable?
An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain PaymentsGovernment Orders
Some hon. members
Agreed.
An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain PaymentsGovernment Orders
The Speaker
Does the hon. chief government whip have the unanimous consent to move the motion on the understanding I have outlined?
An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain PaymentsGovernment Orders
Some hon. members
Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain PaymentsGovernment Orders
Conservative
Dick Harris Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Mr. Speaker, I know all Canadians who are watching the debate today are looking forward to the next five minutes.
About three years ago in a speech to the House I made the statement that the Liberal government would go down as the most corrupt government in the history of Canadian politics. Little did I know in saying that just how prophetic that statement would be.
We have seen corruption through the ad scam issue, payoffs to Liberal friends and payoffs into party coffers to run campaigns. We have seen deals made with the socialist NDP in the corner to allow the Liberals, despite their corruption record and despite their record of mismanagement and lack of priority spending, to keep their political Titanic afloat. I am just amazed how it goes on and on.
Today we heard from the member for Ahuntsic and our member for Calgary West. An accusation was made by one of the Bloc members that in the riding of Ahuntsic the Liberal government appointed a former Liberal president as the returning officer in the last election.
One wonders what can the Liberals do next to demonstrate to the Canadian people that they will go down in history as the most corrupt government we have ever known in Canadian politics.
Bill C-48, the deal with the NDP, brokered by Buzz Hargrove, promises to spend an additional $4.5 billion over and above the Bill C-43 budget, which we were willing to support it in about three or four different areas. However, like so many of the previous Liberal budgets, they outline vague spending plans without any real and solid facts about how they will spend that money.
I do not know how the NDP could accept such vague promises from the Liberal government given the fact that so many of their members have sat here for 12 years and have seen promise after promise broken by the Liberals, going back to 1993 to the famous red book and the promises broken then. The NDP itself continued to chastise the Liberal government about those broken promises. Now the Liberals say that if the NDP supports them and keeps them afloat, they will promise to spend another $4.5 billion dollars on things the NDP members want. I am sure they know it is not slated to kick in until some time next year.
I would have to be pretty darned hard up to accept a promise from the Liberal government about money that may be coming next year sometime, given the record of broken promises about which the NDP know. We have seen the record of broken promises.
I want to sum up with some promises that I think the Liberals have demonstrated they are capable of keeping. I have a list of 10. I call it the top 10 of probable promises that could be kept by the Liberals.
Promise one is they will continue corruption, graft, payoff to their friends and their party campaigns.
Promise two is they probably will keep continued high taxes and mismanagement.
Promise three is the reckless spending, with no plans.
Promise four is they will continue to support the same sex marriage in spite of the fact that a vast majority of Canadians do not want that type of legislation.
Promise five is likely they will keep continued loopholes in the child pornography laws that allow perverts and pedophiles to possess certain types of child pornography for, as the Liberals term it, artistic purposes.
Promise six is they will to continue their discrimination against single income families.
Promise seven is they will continue the slap on the wrist penalties for violent criminals in our society and they will continue to use conditional sentencing when dealing with convicted violent criminals in our society.
Promise eight is they will continue to oppose raising the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16. They have demonstrated that they are not going anywhere on that.
Promise nine is they will continue pouring millions of dollars into the useless gun registry program. They clearly have said they will do that.
Promise ten is the Prime Minister will keep his ship in the Barbados tax haven that he himself helped to create.
My Blackberry went off. I have it set on corruption alert. I think we had better have someone check the government out to see what is going on right now.