Joe Comuzzi

[Regional Economic Development, March 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Since assuming this portfolio, we were pleasantly surprised by the high degree of acceptance that all community futures programs had throughout Canada. In fact, rural Canada supports all community futures very much.

I might add that with the recommendations made yesterday by the Minister of Finance, finding innovative ways in which to bring diversity to our economy in rural Canada will be added to enhance the community futures program.

[Government Contracts, February 17th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, after hearing of this early this morning, I issued a statement apologizing for the comments I made last week immediately following the Auditor General's report.

I want to thank my friend on the other side of the House for allowing me again, in the House, to speak to my colleagues on this side, my friends on the other side, and my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, with whom we have had a marvellous relationship.

I am sincerely sorry for having made those comments last week.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, February 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to speak to my friend from Antigonish, who has just made a statement with respect to the Speech from the Throne. I am a little amazed that he would speak in those terms inasmuch as he is from Atlantic Canada. If in fact there were to be that kind of criticism on the Speech from the Throne, one would think that perhaps he was from some other section of Canada inasmuch as the Prime Minister, just a few short hours ago, mentioned Atlantic Canada in three specific areas with what he proposed to do with this government and how it would assist Atlantic Canada.

Let me be more specific and let me ask my friend from Antigonish what he would prefer us to do today. He said there were just promises, no commitments. Let me ask about the commitment that was made just an hour or so ago in this House: that as of yesterday every community in this country is going to take a benefit from not having to pay the GST. That happened yesterday. Every community in this country, as of now, is no longer required to pay GST.

My friend over here, also from Atlantic Canada, has indicated that perhaps the colleague sitting next to the member would not want Saint John to be a recipient of that money that is going into her treasury in the very city of which she used to be mayor. How about an area like Halifax, which is an immediate recipient of additional funds that it did not have on January 31? This is a firm commitment of the government to assist communities in this country and everyone should be absolutely totally onside and completely proud of that single move.

We have also made a commitment to reduce lines and for diagnostic care in health care. It goes without saying that this is part of the commission, that this is part of our undertaking. That is something we will do.

We have also said in the Speech from the Throne that we protect rights. We have appointed a royal commission to protect the rights of the individuals in this country.

With respect to the democratic deficit, tomorrow members will see that our colleague from Sarnia will make some statements within this House as to how we will be addressing the democratic deficit.

So let me say to my friends across, particularly those from Atlantic Canada, “Go back home this weekend and tell your mayors and your reeves and your citizens that you do not want the GST rebate”.

[Petitions, November 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present a petition signed by many people from northwest Ontario, from Kenora to as far as Manitouwadge, and particularly Thunder Bay.

It states that it is necessary, in light of public debate around recent court decisions, that marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others and that Parliament take the necessary steps within its jurisdiction, which is the proper jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada, to preserve the definition of marriage in Canada.

I heartily endorse the petition.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, November 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), to present, in both official languages, the report of the 44th annual meeting of the Canada-United States InterParliamentary Group which was held in Niagara-on-the-Lake from May 15-19.

[Petitions, October 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present petitions on behalf of many people from northwestern Ontario who implore the House to abide by the decision of the House of Commons made on June 8, 1999, by a vote of 216 for and 55 against, defining the terms of marriage; that marriage is an institution that pre-exists the state; and that marriage is an institution so basic to the human condition and the common good that its nature is beyond the reach of any civil law.

Therefore the petitioners, from all the small areas of northwestern Ontario, petition the House to use all necessary means to maintain and support the above definition of marriage pursuant to the motion of June 8, 1999, that being the union of one man and one woman.

[Committees of the House, October 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to table, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Transport. Pursuant to its order it reviewed the supplementary estimates under Votes 10a, 20a, 40a and 45. A copy of the relevant minutes of the proceedings of meeting number 38 is also tabled.

I want to thank all the members of the committee from both sides of the House for carrying out their duties and spending a great deal of time on scrutinizing government spending.

I wish I could also thank the Minister of Transport for making himself available yesterday during four hours of questioning, but at that particular time he failed to inform the committee that he was going to leave the House and make an announcement of $692 million for VIA Rail which had never appeared before the House.

I make that report on behalf of the committee.

[Petitions, October 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by many residents of northwestern Ontario.

The petitioners state that marriage is the best foundation for families and for raising children; that the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman is being challenged by the courts in this land and by some members in the House; that this hon. House passed a motion in June 1999 that called for marriage to continue as it was defined as the union of one man and one woman.

Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to retain this definition irrespective of what three people have decided in the Court of Appeal of Ontario. I support this petition.

[Petitions, October 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present petitions from the people of Thunder Bay--Superior North with respect to hate literature under section 318 and section 319 of the Criminal Code.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to protect the rights of Canadians to be free to share their religious beliefs without fear of prosecution.

I might add that the issue was referred to the justice committee and to the Minister of Justice, and I am advised by both that those precautions have been entered into the legislation.

[Points of Order, May 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate this morning that the House leader of our party and ourselves have a difference of opinion on the interpretation of the rules. I thought that among all party members in the House, in following the rules, we treat each other in a gentlemanly way. Basically what happened was I got a call from the whip's office this morning at 7:45. He knew this meeting was in progress. He chose not to advise us but rather to come into the House and make that intervention, citing some previous ruling. I used to practise law. This is what we call trial by ambush.

In any event, what I want to do is state what I did not state this morning. This morning's meeting was a continuation of last night's meeting and it was in camera. That is a very important point. I am sorry that I failed to make that point when I was caught off guard this morning, and I wish you would consider it when you are deliberating this.