Debates of May 31st, 2007

Justice

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, that certainly is a good question, but I want to thank all those members of the House who supported Bill C-10. That is the bill that provides mandatory minimum sentences for people who commit serious gun crimes.

I realize that the members of the Liberal Party are going to have a lot of explaining to do to their constituents this summer. They ran on a promise of getting tough on gun crime and then voted against Bill C-10 when they had the first opportunity.

They should have been listening to the premier of Ontario and the mayor of Toronto who know what most Canadians know, that if members want to do something about gun crime in this country they have to support the agenda of Canada's new government.

National Defence

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, last year the Minister of National Defence signed a policy to handle detainees taken at sea as part of HMCS Ottawa' s participation in George Bush's war on terror.

Why did the minister sign a new policy? Has HMCS Ottawa taken any detainees in the Indian Ocean or in the Persian Gulf?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, a policy was issued because the military needed guidance and the simple answer is no.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister's department for transfer documents for all detainees taken during operations at sea and his department told me that it does have transfer documents for detainees, but it will not release them for another 150 days.

I ask the minister again. Did Canada take detainees at sea as part of the war on terror and why does his department need almost half a year before it will disclose those documents?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the member changed her question. Her first question related to HMCS Ottawa. HMCS Ottawa took no detainees.

However, during the Liberal government's time, detainees were transferred.

Oral question period

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe I will find unanimous consent of this House to call on the Minister of Labour to immediately table his bill to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, provided such a bill indeed exists.

Let him table it. We are waiting to amend it.

Do I have the unanimous support of this House?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The hon. government House leader? No.

I also have a request for the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie. I believe he used an unparliamentary word during the response of the Minister of Labour during today's question period.

I hope he can withdraw that word now, please.

[An hon. member]

What was the word?

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it. I know I cannot say that here; outside, yes, but not here. I withdraw it.

That said, I believe I have the support of the Liberals and the NDP for this bill to be tabled immediately.

Is the government ready to table it?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, there is a bill on the order paper. It has not yet been introduced in the House. However, if we were to have agreement from all the parties to have it approved at all three stages as we had sought in the past, we would be happy to move it.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Might I suggest that negotiations go on elsewhere since the bill, according to the House leader, has not yet been introduced. When it is, perhaps then it can be dealt with.

This is a matter for the House leaders and it is not a matter for discussion right now in the House.

The hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly, he is refusing to table it for amendment, preferring to leave it to the Senate, and yet he is blaming the Senate for the delay.

I invite them to table it here so that we can take action. By refusing to take action, he will prove they have reached the heights of hypocrisy.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again, it has been available to all parties since last December. We have sought to have unanimous consent. We are happy to do that or any other agreement that all parties can come up with.

Business of the House

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

It being Thursday, we will now have a question from the hon. member for Wascana.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House will be fascinated to learn from the government House leader what his agenda includes for the next 10 days or so, through to the end of next week.

In giving us his answer, I wonder if he could indicate, despite the government's protestations of good intentions, why there continue to be efforts by government members on committees like finance, agriculture and official languages to filibuster and obstruct the work of those committees.

With respect to the legislation that has just been under discussion here, the wage earner protection act, the Minister of Labour effectively admits that there is a problem with this legislation, but he is unwilling to fix it in the House of Commons. He wants to plunk the job of fixing it into the Senate, the very Senate which the Conservatives daily condemn.

To expedite the bill the Liberal official opposition is prepared to allow the Senate to do the remedial work that the government should do. If it is more expeditiously done in the Senate, we are prepared to accept that, but why will the minister not just assume his responsibility and do his own job?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the last point, we have already addressed that.

However, with regard to the balance of Thursday's statement, I am pleased to respond that today and tomorrow we will continue with Bill C-55, the expanded voting opportunities bill; Bill C-14, the adoption bill; Bill C-57, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; and Bill C-45, the fisheries act.

In the last Thursday statement, we indicated that we were hoping to have this week as “enhancing the quality of the life of first nations people week” but this was cancelled by the opposition parties when they did not release Bill C-44 from committee, the bill that would give the first nations protection under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Not only is it being held up now but, as early as this morning in this House, the opposition obstructed our efforts to get the bill dealt with forthwith so that first nations people could have the human rights that every other Canadian enjoys. We know that if all parties would agree to proceed with that, as we saw when we sought unanimous consent, it could proceed, but some would prefer to obstruct it.

Next week will be welcome back from committee week, when we welcome business that has been at committee, including some that has been stalled there for some time. We will deal with Bill C-52, the budget implementation bill, which will begin report stage on Monday and, hopefully, we can get third reading wrapped up by Tuesday.

Following the budget bill, we will call for report stage and third reading of Bill C-35, bail reform. After that, we will call Bill C-23, the Criminal Code amendments. I hardly remember when Bill C-23 was sent to the committee by this House. That took place long before I was even House leader 228 days ago.

Thursday, June 7, shall be the last allotted day. There are a number of other bills that we would like to include in our welcome back from committee week. I still hope we can see Bill C-44, the amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act, to which I just referred; Bill C-6, the amendments to the Aeronautics Act; Bill C-27 dealing with dangerous offenders; Bill C-32 dealing with impaired driving; and Bill C-33 dealing with foreign investment, if the opposition parties will release those from committee.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the continuation of debate on the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, I think there would be unanimous consent for the following:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, the debate pursuant to Standing Order 66 concerning the Fourth Report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration be deemed to have taken place and all questions necessary to dispose of the motion to concur in the report be deemed put and a recorded division be deemed requested and deferred to Wednesday, June 6, 2007, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Does the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons have the unanimous consent of the House to move this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (expanded voting opportunities) and to make a consequential amendment to the Referendum Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canada Elections Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

When the bill was before the House for debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader had the floor for questions and comments. I understand a question or comment had been directed his way. It is now the hon. parliamentary secretary's turn to respond to the question or comment delivered before we interrupted for question period.