House of Commons Hansard #6 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was troops.

Topics

Heritage Hunting, Trapping and Fishing Protection ActRoutine Proceedings

3:05 p.m.

Conservative

Inky Mark Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-222, An Act to recognize and protect Canada’s hunting, trapping and fishing heritage.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to reintroduce this bill. In the last Parliament it was Bill C-391. It is an act to recognize and protect Canada's hunting, fishing and trapping heritage.

Canadians know that hunting, fishing and trapping have long been part of Canada's history, both for the aboriginal community as well as the pioneers, and today it also plays a big economical role in the country.

Therefore I ask the House to support the bill because it is in all of our interests, both economically and on the heritage side.

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

An Act for the Recognition and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental FreedomsRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

Garry Breitkreuz Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-223, An Act to amend An Act for the Recognition and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and to amend the Constitution Act, 1867.

Mr. Speaker, property rights need strengthening in federal law because they were intentionally left out of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. My bill would make up for this grave omission by strengthening the property rights provisions in the Canadian Bill of Rights.

Last year the Canadian Real Estate Association commissioned an extensive survey involving almost 10,000 respondents. Ninety-two per cent of telephone respondents thought it was important that the government fairly compensate property owners if their property was expropriated and 88% thought it was important for the government to fairly compensate property owners if restrictions were imposed on how their property was used.

In addition to strengthening property rights protection in the Canadian Bill of Rights, my bill would also require a two-thirds majority vote of the House whenever the government passes laws that override fundamental property rights.

Court case after court case have proven that Canadians have no protection whatsoever to the arbitrary taking of property by the federal government. It is time to correct that injustice.

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

An Act for the Recognition and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental FreedomsRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

Inky Mark Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask that you seek the consent of the House to assign the same number to my private member's bill as it was in the last session of the House, which is C-391.

An Act for the Recognition and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental FreedomsRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Is there unanimous consent to number the bill introduced by the hon. member a few moments ago Bill C-391?

An Act for the Recognition and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental FreedomsRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

AmendmentSpeech from the ThroneRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Niagara Falls Ontario

Conservative

Rob Nicholson ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous consent among the parties for the following motion. I move:

That, in relation to the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne today, and notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, the debate on the amendment continue until no later than 6:15 p.m. and at the conclusion of the debate, the question be deemed put and the amendment be deemed adopted.

AmendmentSpeech from the ThroneRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

AmendmentSpeech from the ThroneRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

AmendmentSpeech from the ThroneRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

AmendmentSpeech from the ThroneRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

AmendmentSpeech from the ThroneRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

(Motion agreed to)

Undocumented WorkersPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

Mario Silva Liberal Davenport, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour, for the third time, to present a petition signed by many Canadians from across the country. The petition indicates that many undocumented workers are living in Canada with their families. Many of them have children who were born here and who would be unjustly upset if their parents were deported.

The petitions therefore call upon Parliament to suspend the deportation of undocumented workers and find a humane and logical solution to their situation.

Income Tax ActPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions primarily signed by hard-working people from my riding of Oxford.

The first petition asks that Parliament amend the Income Tax Act in order to permit a pension from a registered pension fund to be split between spouses.

Criminal CodePetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON

The second petition, Mr. Speaker, asks that Parliament retain section 241 of the Criminal Code without changes in order that Parliament not sanction or allow the counselling, aiding or abetting of suicide, whether by personal action or the Internet.

Child CarePetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of presenting a petition today from people in my riding of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour who are concerned about the government's plans to offer child care and specifically to rescind the agreement on early learning and child care. It says, among other things, that 84% of parents with children are both in the workforce, 70% of women with children under the age of six are employed, that a taxable $100 a month allowance amounts to a child benefit, and a meagre one at that, and will not establish new child care spaces.

As child care is an everyday necessity, they call upon the Prime Minister to honour the early learning and child care agreement in principle and to commit to fund it for five full years.

Hunting and FishingPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

Inky Mark Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting two petitions signed by people from across Canada.

First, I want to thank the people of Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette for sending me back to the House for a fourth time.

The first petition calls upon the House of Commons to enact the act which I tabled today to protect Canada's hunting and fishing heritage and to ensure the rights of present and future Canadians who enjoy these activities are protected in law.

Fuel TaxesPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

Inky Mark Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB

Mr. Speaker, my second petition calls upon the House of Commons to enact legislation to eliminate the federal excise tax on diesel fuel, the gasoline used in farming operations and commercial fisheries, cap the amount of tax it collects on gasoline and eliminate the practice of applying GST to provincial fuel tax and federal excise tax, the practice of charging tax on top of tax.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

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

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Is that agreed?

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion for an address to Her Excellency the Governor General in reply to her speech at the opening of the session, and of the amendment as amended.

RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLYSpeech From The Throne

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON

Mr. Speaker, my question for the member involves the issue of child care. The Conservative plan is to provide a process for creating new child care spaces and, second, to provide to the parents of each child under six the sum of $1,200 per year.

The Liberal plan was to enter into agreements with each of the provinces and to provide certain funding to those provinces for the purpose of child care. As I understand the process, a bureaucracy would be set up for each province to receive the money. There would then be another bureaucracy to distribute the money, generally to municipalities. We are now talking about three different bureaucracies to dispose of the money under the Liberal plan.

Does the member not believe that is a waste of money when that funding could be used by the children and parents?

RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLYSpeech From The Throne

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Karen Redman Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, as the mother of four children and as somebody who was president of seven child care centres when I was a public school trustee, I know this area intimately.

The money was to be used by existing structures to give parents choice. What we have to recognize is that the Liberal government used the child tax benefit to flow money to families.

If the Conservative government feels that it is very wise to give $1,200 to families with children under six, I say go ahead but call it what it is. Call it a family benefit and then invest in child care for the existing structure, such as in my riding in Waterloo region where it is used for capacity building. A single nurse who works on night shift should be able to take her child to an in-home child care provider who is regulated by the region and receive the same kind of flexibility that a working parent needs. A parent staying home should be able to send his or her child to a best start program so the child can have the kind of interaction with other children in the playgroup.

We looked at Manitoba where it is capacity building and raising the kind of salaries that ECE people get who do this very important job. It was a very broad range of a smorgasbord that parents, no matter how they were choosing to raise their child, would have choice.

The people in my riding who are familiar with child care have said to me, quite simply, that the Liberal government had it right. We were putting the money where it needed to go and we were providing good options for parents. It is something I absolutely do not see in the Conservative government's plan.

RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLYSpeech From The Throne

3:20 p.m.

Nepean—Carleton Ontario

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board

Mr. Speaker, in reality, however, the fact is that the previous Liberal government did not create one solitary child care space. The Liberals have stood up in the House of Commons and have accused us of taking spaces away but we cannot take away that which does not exist. Thirteen years; zero child care spaces; billions of dollars spent; no results achieved.

We have endeavoured, before the House and before the Canadian people, to invest in a plan that puts dollars directly in the pockets of parents and then they can decide if they want to use the schemes of which that member spoke. They can take those child care dollars and put them to work in the various child care options that may exist in her riding.

If they choose to stay at home, they will still get the money. If they choose to have a family member take care of a child, they will still get the money. We are giving parents that choice instead of having government rob them of their options.

I will conclude on one note. If the Liberal government had continued with its plan, which we intend very proudly to cancel, that money would have been enough to perhaps provide a child care space for maybe 1 in 20 or 1 in 25 children. Our plan flows money to every single child. Why is the hon. member against a universal system that gives money to every child?

RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLYSpeech From The Throne

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Karen Redman Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I really do appreciate the sentiments of my young colleague across the floor, and I would have to say that had the government provided substantial money instead of what really amounts to bus fare, because anyone who has had a child in child care realizes that this amount of money--