Randy White

[Question No. 165, September 26th, 2005]

With regard to Correctional Services Canada during the fiscal years 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005: ( a ) what was the total amount of salary bonuses paid to prison wardens in all regions; ( b ) what was the total cost in providing legal aid to inmates in each region; and ( c ) in how many instances was said legal aid utilized?

(Return tabled)

[Question No. 173, September 26th, 2005]

With regard to Correctional Services Canada, ( a ) has the department identified any problems or inconsistencies with laboratory testing procedures and laboratory test results conducted by Maxxam Analytics Inc., and specifically its Human Toxicology Department and Genetic Identification Division; ( b ) between June 20, 2003, and June 20, 2005, how many federally-sentenced offenders, who have been paroled or released on statutory release, have changed their names; and ( c ) between June 20, 2003, and June 20, 2005, how many Correctional Services Canada inmates have had gender re-assignment surgery, also known as a sex change, or its reversal?

[Petitions, September 26th, 2005]

I have many more petitions, Mr. Speaker, asking that Parliament assemble to vote in favour of Bill C-275, an act to amend the Criminal Code (failure to stop at scene of accident), to make sentencing for hit and run offenders more severe. Bill C-275 is long gone and was voted down but will re-enter the House.

[Petitions, September 26th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have petitions here asking Parliament to define marriage in federal law as the lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to have this put into some perspective because I am sure a lot of Canadians are wondering where politicians are taking them these days.

The House of Commons lowered the age of sexual consent from 16 to 14. It is currently changing the definition of marriage. It is studying the legalization of prostitution. It currently has Bill C-17 in the House of Commons which would decriminalize marijuana and ultimately legalize marijuana, and a bill to legalize euthanasia is also in the House of Commons.

Does the member feel that these issues are rightfully in the domain of the House of Commons, where there is voting by party politics, by whip votes or from a mandate to vote a certain way? Does she not think it would be better, for the safety, security, and peace of mind of all Canadians, to put issues like these out to Canadians in a public referendum where they could have a say and we could get away from the obvious partisanship of party politics in the House of Commons?

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, most people on this side in particular understand clearly that this is a political issue and not a charter or constitutional issue.

I would like to ask the member opposite what organization he thinks has the prime jurisdiction over legislation in this country. Is it the House of Commons or the lower or the supreme courts? If it is the House of Commons, I wonder if he would comment on the reasonableness of the Liberals in particular or the NDP basically telling their members how to vote, particularly Liberal cabinet members and so on.

If this is truly a democratic issue, is it reasonable, then, on such an important issue to tell members how to vote rather than have those members speaking up for their own organizations and constituents?

First, in the member's mind, who has that jurisdiction? Is it the courts or Parliament? If it is Parliament, should not everyone on an issue such as this have the right to a free vote? Could he address that fact?

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, now that the dictator has spoken on the other side, I would like some clarification on whether, if this motion is agreed to, third reading will take place tomorrow or this evening. I wonder if that could be clarified because it is important to know whether the group of dictators would like to keep the debate going tonight until midnight or tomorrow.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I often say that I wish the Liberals would respect us for what we are and not for what they want us to be. This comes to mind more and more when I hear issues like this one being debated in the House. I would like to ask my colleague about that particular aspect of Bill C-38.

We hear across the way, “The judges made us do this. This is something that is coming from the courts. We cannot stop it ourselves. It happens here because of this judge and that judge”. In many cases we all know it is probably politically motivated. I would like my colleague to clarify for those who are listening whether he believes this is politically motivated or foisted upon Canadian society by the courts and why.

[Points of Order, June 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, further to that and for clarification, as the Speaker well knows the objective of your decision is to try to apply fairness in the evaluation that will take place.

There are a lot of comments by many members outside of this House which could prejudge that situation. I know in the many years as the House leader on this side that there have been decisions that actually prevent members from influencing a review or a study that may take place. I would appreciate it if the Chair would look at that, please.

[Points of Order, June 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to get further clarification of the section in your recent decision.

Further to your ruling on the taping of politicians by politicians under section 27(5) in appendix 1, I would like you to explain to the House whether or not that applies to both members in their local press and all members in ten percenters, householders, radio or any other media outside of this House, and whether or not there are consequences for not complying after today and further disgracing this House?