Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1) I wish to table a notice of a ways and means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act. I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration of the motion.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2008, with 64% of the vote.
Ways and Means November 27th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1) I wish to table a notice of a ways and means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act. I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration of the motion.
Privilege November 26th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Even though we are past the normal time for private members' business, I think if you seek it, you would find consent among all the members in the House to proceed to private members' business as ordinarily would have happened at 5:30.
Business of the House November 26th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, I was also remiss to address one other issue that my hon. colleague, the official opposition House leader raised, which was an inquiry about whether there had been agreement between all the parties as to a process to commemorate the terrible tragedy represented by the 20th anniversary of the massacre at École Polytechnique.
It is my understanding there is unanimous agreement to recognize that on Wednesday, December 2 with statements from all parties.
Business of Supply November 26th, 2009
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to an order made Friday, June 19, 2009, which again the hon. House leader for the Liberal Party just mentioned, you tabled a proposed formula for the distribution of allotted days in each of the supply periods of 2010. There has been discussion among all parties, and we are in agreement with your proposal. Therefore, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That for the calendar year 2010 in the present Parliament, Standing Order 81(10)(a) be amended as follows:
81(10)(a) In 2010, seven sitting days shall be allotted to the Business of Supply in the period ending not later than March 26; eight additional days shall be allotted to the Business of Supply in the period ending not later than June 23; and seven additional days shall be allotted to the Business of Supply for the period ending not later than December 10; provided that the number of sitting days so allotted may be altered pursuant to paragraph (b) or (c) of this section. These twenty-two days are to be designated as allotted days. In 2010, no more than one fifth of all the allotted days shall fall on a Wednesday and no more than one fifth thereof shall fall on a Friday. Commencing on the first sitting day of any supply period, no less than one and no more than two allotted days shall be designated in each ten sitting day period of the said supply period, except pursuant to paragraph (c) or section (11) of this Standing Order.
Business of the House November 26th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, the House leader for the official opposition, for his question.
This Thursday I will contain myself mainly to the traditional question which is the business ahead for the next week for the House of Commons.
This week we are focusing yet again on the government's justice bills. Yesterday we completed the final reading of Bill C-36, the serious time for serious crime bill. We expect to send Bill C-58, the child protection bill, to committee later today. I had hoped that debate might have collapsed before question period and that bill would have already been on its way to committee. Hopefully that will happen this afternoon.
We will then be debating at second reading Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act. We are hopeful debate will conclude on this bill as well today.
Other bills scheduled for debate this week are Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to the National Defence Act, and Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, which is the response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Shoker bill.
Next week we will be calling for debate: Bill C-27, anti-spam, at third reading; Bill C-44, the Canada Post remailers bill, at second reading; Bill C-57, the Canada-Jordan free trade bill, at second reading; Bill C-56, fairness for the self-employed bill, at report stage and third reading; and of course, as always, I will give consideration to any bill that is reported back from committee.
My hon. colleague asked about allotted days. Next Tuesday, it would be my intention to have as the next allotted day.
International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women November 25th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, with the indulgence of the mover, I wonder if I could hear the motion one more time.
Committees of the House November 25th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the acceptance of the House on that last motion. Pursuant to Standing Order 66(2)(a), I would like to designate Thursday, November 26, which is tomorrow, as the day to continue the debate on the motion to concur in the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates presented on Wednesday, June 17, 2009.
Bill C-36 November 25th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, I present this motion on behalf of my colleague the chief government whip. There have been discussions between all parties and I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, if the recorded division on the amendment to the third reading motion of Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code is negatived, the Speaker shall immediately put the question on the third reading motion of Bill C-36 without further debate or amendment.
Points of Order November 20th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, I recognize that all too often during the heat of debate in question period things are said that people afterwards might think that they wished they had not said.
During question period today, when the hon. Minister of Transport was replying to the supplementary question from the member for Malpeque, the official opposition House leader said, “What do you want, a body bag?”
I want to give my hon. colleague from Wascana the opportunity to withdraw those words. I think they are completely over the line. I recognize that sometimes it is a heated debate in this place, but with all due respect I think that was clearly way over the line.
Privilege November 19th, 2009
Exactly. The member is calling it propaganda because he cannot dispute that they are facts and they are the facts that are before the House.
With regard to the issue that the NDP member for Windsor West raised about a question of privilege that he raised on a similar issue dealing with a mailing on November 3, 2005, Mr. Speaker, you made a ruling in that regard and I would just like to remind you and the House of some of the things that you said at that time:
I am concerned that members are continuing to rise on questions of privilege relating to householders and ten percenters. I take these matters very seriously, in particular when reputations of members are being brought into question. That being said, as with the previous cases, I do not believe that it is for the Chair to pronounce on the content of these documents or whether they conform to the guidelines found in the Members’ Allowances and Services Manual.
Mr. Speaker, that is what you said, and quite rightly so, because it gets into a debate about whether something is appropriate or something else.
The main reason I wanted to rise is because it is important for Canadians to understand that it is not only the Conservative Party that sends out these types of mailings. Indeed, it was only recently that a member of the Liberal Party had to apologize for one that was sent out in her name about the current H1N1 crisis targeting first nations communities in a very derogatory way.
Mr. Speaker, I want to lay the facts again on the table for your consideration. All parties are participating in this and for the member for Windsor West to stand and somehow pretend that his party does not do this, it is important to note that the New Democrats do not even use mass mailings. They actually put it in a first class envelope and send it to people's homes, the very same type of ten percenters that incur a lot more cost to Canadians because it is franked mail in an envelope as opposed to a mass mailing.
My point is that all parties are participating in this type of communication and it is grossly unfair to suggest that it is only the Conservative Party that is doing so.