Tom Wappel

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 11th, 1999]

moved:

Motion No. 29

That Bill C-78, in Clause 76, be amended a ) by replacing lines 27 and 28 on page 53 with the following:

“survivor or began to reside with the survivor in a relationship described in subsection 25(4) after” b ) by replacing, in the English version, line 32 on page 53 with the following:

“of so residing, the contributor became or”

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 11th, 1999]

moved:

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-78, in Clause 75, be amended a ) by replacing line 32 on page 52 with the following:

“number of years that he or she resided in a relationship of mutual dependency and companionship” b ) by replacing lines 35 to 38 on page 52 with the following:

“or she resided with the contributor in a relationship described in subsection (4) bears to the total number of years that the contributor so resided with the survivors; and” c ) by replacing lines 1 to 6 on page 53 with the following:

“number of years that he or she resided with the contributor in a relationship described in subsection (4) bears to the total number of years that the contributor resided with the survivors, either while married or while in a relationship described in subsection (4).”

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 11th, 1999]

moved:

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-78, in Clause 75, be amended by replacing lines 28 to 30 on page 51 with the following:

“person establishes that he or she was residing in a relationship of mutual dependency and companionship with the contributor that has been publicly acknowledged by both the person and the contributor for at least one year immedi-”

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-78, in Clause 75, be amended a ) by replacing lines 37 and 38 on page 51 with the following:

“whom the contributor had been residing in a relationship of mutual dependency and companionship for a period” b ) by replacing line 42 on page 51 with the following:

“day on which that person began to so reside with the contributor.”

[Petitions, May 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions from various areas. The first petition is from the Toronto-Mississauga area. The second petition is primarily from Lethbridge, Alberta. The third petition is from Scarborough and other areas, including Calgary. All of the petitions deal with Bill C-225, an act to amend the Marriage Act (Prohibited Degrees) and the Interpretation Act so as to define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a single female.

The petitioners pray that parliament adopt this law.

[Petitions, February 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by over 450 people from the community of Three Hills, Alberta. They pray that parliament enact Bill C-225, an act to amend the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act and the Interpretation Act so as to define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a single female.

[Petitions, February 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by approximately 300 Canadians from the communities of Picton, Navan, Limoges, Fort Elgin, Owen Sound, Scarborough, Guelph, Aurora, London, Brampton and Kleinburg, Ontario, as well as Kentville and Halifax, Nova Scotia.

They pray that parliament enact Bill C-225, an act to amend the Marriage Prohibited Degrees Act and the Interpretation Act, so as to define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a single female.

[Supply, February 11th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. member. He mentioned Robin Hood, Mother Hubbard and the definition of politicians and political leaders.

My question to the hon. member concerns financial information. This motion includes something that is not particularly new. I believe it was in “Let the Future Begin” which was to increase the basic income tax credit from $6,459 to $10,000. This is simply a rehash of the 1997 election platform on this issue.

Will the hon. member tell Canadians exactly how much it would cost the treasury to increase the tax credit tomorrow from $6,500 to $10,000 and where would the money come from?

[Supply, February 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. member from the NDP.

I would ask the hon. member to correct me if I am wrong but my information is that in 1997 the NDP's document “A Framework for Canada's Future” called for the elimination of federal surtaxes on low income earners. It is my information that during the 1997 federal election campaign the NDP leader asked for tax relief for low income Canadians. If those things are true, would the hon. member agree with me that this Liberal government delivered on both of those requests in our respective budgets?

We have begun by helping low income Canadians with tax relief first. That is why our last budget reduced taxes for 13 million Canadians and completely eliminated taxes for 400,000 of the poorest taxpayers in the country and also eliminated surtaxes. Would the member not agree that we have delivered on many of the things that the NDP wants?

[Petitions, February 11th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I have three petitions to present today, all on the same subject matter, from Canadians in Pincher Creek, Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta and various smaller communities in the province of Nova Scotia.

All of the petitioners pray that parliament enact Bill C-225, an act to amend the Marriage Act (Prohibited Degrees) and the Interpretation Act so as to define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a single female.

[Supply, February 2nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I suggest that he tell his constituent that every member of the House on behalf of all Canadians expresses their sympathy for the tragedy of his constituent.

None of us support child pornography. All of us are against it. All of us are in favour of the law as it now stands. That is what he should tell his constituent.