Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his intervention. I have nothing further to add other than what I said in the business statement.
House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2008, with 38% of the vote.
Business Of The House November 28th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his intervention. I have nothing further to add other than what I said in the business statement.
Business Of The House November 28th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, we will continue this afternoon with the business already listed. Tomorrow will be the day allotted for final consideration of the third reading stage of Bill C-29.
Next week it will be December which means that there are only two weeks until the date on which this House is scheduled to begin its year end adjournment. In order to be helpful to the House, I wish to indicate our priorities for this period.
On Monday at noon the government shall propose concurrence in a number of notices of way and means. It appears that it will be necessary for the House to consider again in accordance with section 47 of the Constitution Act 1982 the resolution regarding the terms of union with Newfoundland. This will be the subject of debate on Monday.
Among the bills to be introduced on Monday on the basis of the notice of ways and means will be the bill regarding sales tax harmonization. It is our intention to commence debate on second reading of this bill on Tuesday.
Early next week we expect the report of the finance committee on its prebudget consultations. As usual we intend to set aside two days for a prebudget debate.
Those are our three priorities for December. As hon. members know, there is a long list of 32 bills awaiting consideration, including 14 bills in committee and nine bills at report stage or at third reading. Whenever we have the time during the next two weeks, we will also attempt to make progress on these measures and we will encourage the committees to attempt to do the same.
I am saying this not as a form of pressure but in order to permit members to make their plans. As matters now stand, it does not appear it will be in the public interest for the House and especially its committees to expect to go from December 13 to February 3 without sitting for legislative work.
Government Response To Petitions November 28th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to five petitions.
And, Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the House do now proceed to the Orders of the Day.
Parliament Of Canada Act November 27th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I speak on Bill C-316 today. I congratulate the member for Carleton-Gloucester for his determination and his conviction in bringing this matter forward. Members will recall that this is the second time he has brought this issue to our attention.
In the first session of this Parliament he brought us Bill C-201. That bill was considered by this House and several members spoke in favour of it but ultimately it did not proceed.
The member, who obviously believes passionately in his idea, was not deterred and rather than abandon this project he has steadfastly introduced this bill again in this new session. When his name was drawn he proceeded anew.
This member is neither the first to recognize the importance of oaths and affirmations nor is he alone in proposing changes with respect to oaths in use in Canada today.
In the previous Parliament the member for Hamilton West, today the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, proposed a bill with similar objectives. The member for Parkdale-High Park spoke eloquently in favour of that bill. Recently our colleague, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, sponsored Bill C-223 which, like the bill before us today, proposed amendments to an oath, namely the one found in the Citizenship Act to provide for an oath or solemn affirmation of allegiance to Canada and the Constitution.
What is it that these members are trying to capture in their bills? Obviously something is happening, a desire I would suggest to express patriotism and pride in a place that we can all share.
I have no polls or focus groups results to back me up but I suspect that these bills reflect the strong beliefs of a great many of our constituents. Those beliefs are overwhelmingly positive. They speak of the quality of life Canadians enjoy, the rights and freedoms they exercise. They speak also of nation building and the future we possess collectively.
Despite its positive tone and motivation some members may be reluctant to share in the enthusiasm that the member for Carleton-Gloucester has in this bill.
The technicians among them may argue that this bill is flawed. Others may claim that it is redundant because the Constitution already requires that a member take an oath before taking his or her seat in the House and ask what is the point of two oaths.
I would respectively suggest that is not what today's debate is about. Rather, this debate invites all of us to speak with greater clarity on our roles and responsibilities in this place and our commitment to a Parliament and a country which can welcome debate on the wide range of views which membership of this House represents.
I have no problem with the principles expressed in the member's bill. I congratulate him for bringing this matter forward. It rekindles the pride I have in the work we do here, our Parliament and this country. I think it does us all good to pause and reflect on our reasons for being here and the solemn oath and affirmation we each made before being seated in our places.
For this I thank and salute the member. I know he was disappointed when his bill was not made votable but as a fellow member I want to offer him some congratulations and encouragement. The desire and pride which this bill expresses will continue to grow. It is one of Canada's and Canadian's greatest strengths. Members and Canadians from all walks of life are shedding their traditional reluctance to acknowledge their patriotism and commitment to Canada. Today's debate is but one step in that process and I invite the hon. member to carry on. He is among good company. Congratulations.
Motions For Papers November 27th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I ask the all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.
Questions On The Order Paper November 27th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Questions On The Order Paper November 27th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments which have been made by my hon. colleague, but oftentimes when members put questions they think that we can press a button and give them an answer.
Since the hon. member has raised this matter a number of times, it is important that I spend a bit of House time to review exactly what he has asked for and draw his attention to the fact that the question he has put, as he created the question, is very broad. In fact, it is so broad that it is taking, I would suggest, probably hundreds of hours of work by civil servants throughout the country to collect the information he has asked for. It is not that he should not want to get the information. I do not impugn his motives.
I know the hon. member has expressed an interest in receiving the information, but when one looks at the broadness of the question it asks not only about the information being stolen from the RCMP but also from provincial police forces, municipal police forces, individual police forces and military establishments. One can see very quickly that it is such a broad question that the answer obviously has to be as comprehensive. I would suggest that it is going to cost literally thousands and thousands of dollars to get this information.
I am happy to hear for the first time my hon. colleague suggest that he acknowledges that this is a very broad question and that maybe he would like some partial information or a bit of information that might be available based on the breadth of his question. On that basis I would be happy to see if there is a possibility of getting some information.
While I am on my feet, the other question the member referred to is Question No. 52. I am also happy to hear that he is interested in some partial information. However, I would draw his attention to the fact that Question No. 52 asks to go back 10 years. Unfortunately, that information, as my hon. colleague would know, is not readily available. There is no computerized compilation of that kind of information.
Therefore while I understand his frustration, I think he should also appreciate the cost of getting this information and the hundreds of hours of civil servant time involved. Perhaps if he would craft his question a little differently we would be able to accommodate.
Committees Of The House November 27th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might now seek unanimous consent to move a motion which was previously discussed by House leaders earlier in the week regarding the designation of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
If there is unanimous consent, I move:
That the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs be the committee designated for the purposes of section 232 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
Petitions November 27th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could we seek unanimous consent to revert to Statements by Ministers so we could have a reply by my colleague from Regina-Lumsden?
Committees Of The House November 27th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I believe there were consultations with the parties regarding the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I therefore move:
That the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs be the committee designated for the purposes of section 232 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.