Joe Comuzzi

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I compliment my colleague on the sincerity of his speech, but there are some difficulties I am having trouble understanding. I have several questions.

I do not think there is any difference between that side of the House and our side of the House with respect to what should be done as we deal with the refugee crisis and the humanitarian considerations in the terrible conflict going on in the Balkans.

My colleague made several statements with respect to the military aspects. One dealt with the imperfections of NATO and that the Government of Canada could do something else other than what is being done. The member made some comments about the United Nations.

What does the member think should happen when 19 countries in NATO are all united, and have been united in the last three weeks and three or four days with respect to the military action taken in trying to bring this terrible person under some kind of control? What does the member think the United Nations should be doing? We are all agreed, those of us in the free world and NATO, and the secretary general recently stated that the United Nations is doing all it can to find diplomatic efforts to solve this problem.

The member commented with respect to what our peacekeeping forces did in the past, starting with the Pearson peacekeeping movement that Canada adopted and in which Canada has been a world leader.

To stand in this House and criticize our peacekeeping movement which has been the honour of Canada for the past 45 years, to criticize what we are doing as one of the 19 countries of NATO and to criticize what we are doing as a very important member of the United Nations does not stand in good stead for the unity this House should be showing in supporting our efforts on the military side and what we are attempting to do to satisfy the humanitarian concerns in which we are all interested.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, October 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rules of the House, I have the honour to present a subcommittee report.

As the House will recall, the last time I was here we talked about section 110 of the United States Immigration Act. This report reflects the ongoing work that the Canada-United States interparliamentary group is doing with respect to alleviating the effects of that act on Canadian citizens crossing into the United States.

As the House will know, in the last week there were some very important results, to the benefit of all Canadians, and I have the honour to submit this report.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, September 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, following the House rules I present, in both official languages, the report of the Canada-United States Interparliamentary Group held in Massachusetts between May 4 and May 18, 1998.

We all realize the importance of our relationship with the United States. I am particularly proud to report that we have four ongoing committees that are working on issues which affect both countries.

The most important issue that we have included in the report is one that is bothering all Canadians, and that is with respect to the United States immigration law, particularly section 110, which would create havoc on all persons travelling to the United States.

The importance of the issue is simply that the immigration law in the United States was supposed to take effect on September 30, 1998. However, I can report that it will not take effect on September 30.

It is presently before the conciliation committee in the Congress of the United States. They will be resolving the issue in the very near future. I am pretty sure that after that has been resolved the issue which we fear on our border crossing points will be resolved in favour of the Canadians who travel to the United States on a daily basis. That is one of the real achievements of the Canada-United States Interparliamentary Group. We have several others on which I will report at a later date.

[Division No. 207, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize for being absent when the vote was started on the last motion. Would you be kind enough to record my vote as voting with my government?

[Bill C-410 And Bill C-411, May 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that it has been adopted by the House, but I am wondering if I am now the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North.

[Bill C-410 And Bill C-411, May 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the motion just presented by the deputy House leader, we are wondering whether the 19 new electoral names will be read in this House for the first time.

[Division No. 101, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my vote recorded as having voted no with the government.

[Points Of Order, February 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I hate to bring this to your attention but yesterday during question period, while our colleague was asking the Prime Minister a question concerning the Senate of Canada, the debate was continued by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois and a member from our side of the House.

The yelling back and forth absolutely prevented me from hearing the question even with the aid of the interpreter. I had to go back to the blues and to Hansard to get the substance of the question. I do not think it is proper conduct in the House when a member cannot hear the question being posed.

[Privilege, December 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I was just coming to that point. As early as this morning in an attempt to bring this matter to a satisfactory conclusion, we were advised by your official that it is not required to discuss these issues with the member of Parliament or the committee's co-chairs.

Mr. Speaker, you must agree with me that if a member of Parliament is to fulfil his duties to his electorate and to this House, there must be a smooth transition, there must be co-operation between the member and the Speaker. We feel those privileges have been denied and as a result—

[Privilege, December 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege relates to the rights and privileges that are imposed on me as co-chair of an interparliamentary group and involves a change in the structure of that committee made by one of your officials.

Neither the co-chair nor I were informed or consulted until after the fact. In fact, the change came during the 38th annual meeting on which I subsequently reported to the House.

The executive committee met in October and unanimously agreed that the co-chairs should meet with you to discuss this issue. We proceeded to meet with you, Mr. Speaker, and we thought we had arrived at an arrangement which was satisfactory to the executive committee and satisfactory to you, Mr. Speaker, and your officials.

Unfortunately, the arrangements arrived at have not been implemented to this date. It only makes sense that committee chairs have the right to be consulted on these matters. It affects the performance of the duties and obligations of members of Parliament as they report through you, Mr. Speaker, to the House.

A similar situation arose in another committee and that situation was satisfactorily resolved between you and your officials. You know that we have proposed a satisfactory resolution to this situation.