Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2008, with 59% of the vote.
Questions On The Order Paper February 26th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Canada Lands February 26th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Canada Lands Company for recently winning the Grand SAM Award, the most prestigious award in the Canadian land development industry which honours the best of professional marketing, advertising, promotion, sales merchandising and sales presentation.
Canada Lands winning project, Garrison Woods, is a unique urban village seven minutes from Calgary's city centre on the former Canadian Forces Base Calgary. It is an integrated community where people can live, work, play and be educated. It celebrates and reflects Calgary's military roots and heritage. Most important, Calgarians planned it in the spirit of creating a very special community during a three year consultation process.
Canada Lands Company, on behalf of Canadians, carries out its mandate on a self-funding basis, encouraging innovative property development and environmental responsibility. In this way the Canada Lands award winning team is making contributions to the economic vitality of communities all across Canada.
Questions On The Order Paper February 23rd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Canada Elections Act February 23rd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, throughout the debate today and yesterday, I could not help but notice that the flow and the subject of the debate involved issues way beyond the scope of the bill that is before the House for discussion.
I am a little disappointed in the debate because there are some important issues that lie behind the court decisions that the House is now acceding to in considering the bill. I am not referring to the speaker who just spoke, but most of the previous speakers have wanted to address issues like the voters list or other issues related to democracy and the effectiveness of the electoral machinery that we use in Canada.
In an attempt to bring our record closer to the issues that are in front of us, I would ask the member a couple of questions. Hopefully he has had a look at the bill and knows the issues that are in there. There are of course the technical issues and a few amendments that are referred to as technical amendments. However, there is also the issue of allowing individuals, who are part of political parties that do not meet the 50 candidate threshold, to show themselves as members of parties.
I am trying to elicit an acknowledgement from the member that the proposals in the legislation to allow an individual and at least 11 other candidates to show themselves as a party on a ballot is fair, and that the 12 person threshold is fair.
This has not come up very often, but sometimes the House and the government are called upon by the court to reconsider an issue based on the court's opinion. In this case, the proposed amendments are as a direct result of court of appeal decisions and opinion. The government has introduced a bill to do that.
I am asking the member to comment on the appropriateness of the House responding directly to an exhortation or an opinion from a court to revise our laws so that they are more charter compliant.
Canada Elections Act February 22nd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to direct the House's attention, if I could, to relevance. The hon. member has dealt with everything from freezing rain to voter cards. We are dealing with party recognition on a ballot.
Questions On The Order Paper February 22nd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Motions For Papers February 21st, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.
Questions On The Order Paper February 21st, 2001
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that all questions be allowed to stand.
Committees Of The House February 21st, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the debate be now adjourned.
Committees Of The House February 21st, 2001
Mr. Speaker, from time to time the House has to deal with complex bills. Often they have issues that deal with separate items in a policy envelope. I really do not understand why the member opposite and his party want to split the bill when, from the point of view of this member anyway, the bill seems to be so positive and so directed at remedying apparent defects in the employment insurance system.
I do not understand why they would not wish to pursue the bill as a package. I would ask the hon. member to explain why there are not enough good things in the bill and why he and his party feel it necessary to split the bill.