Jay Hill

[Business of the House, March 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, the House leader for the official opposition, for his multitude of questions.

First of all, as he indicated, today we will continue debate on Bill C-14, the organized crime bill. I would point out that it is thanks to the Minister of Justice, whose leadership this morning overcame an opposition tactic aimed at delaying Bill C-14 that we do have an agreement to move that bill forward. As a result of the minister's intervention, Bill C-14 will in fact be sent to committee at the end of today, pursuant to a special order of the House.

Tonight the House will consider a take note debate on the international conference on Afghanistan hosted by The Hague.

As I mentioned earlier, we adopted a special order for Bill C-14. Unfortunately that special order did not cover the second justice bill that is slated for debate today. In fact it is conceivable we would have already been into that debate had it not been for the delaying tactics of the opposition earlier this morning.

This is the bill that the hon. member referred to, Bill C-15, the drug offences bill. It is another key piece of our government legislation that will help curb gang violence, yet we do not see it moving quickly through the House. That said, I am hopeful we can complete the bill today or have it completed at the latest tomorrow, provided the NDP does not invoke another delaying tactic as it did this morning.

Following the drug offences bill, we have scheduled for debate Bill C-7, marine liability; Bill S-3, energy efficiency; and Bill C-13, the Canada Grain Act. All of these bills are at second reading.

On Monday, pursuant to a special order adopted yesterday, we will complete the third reading stage of Bill C-2, the Canada-EFTA free trade agreement bill. After considerable delay in this chamber, it will be nice to move that bill over to our colleagues down the hall in the Senate.

We will continue next week with any uncompleted business from this week, with the addition of Bill C-5 regarding the Indian Oil and Gas Act, which is at report stage and third reading stage, and Bill C-18 regarding RCMP pensions, which is at second reading. We will add to the list any bills that are reported back from the various committees.

Tuesday, March 31 shall be an allotted day.

In reference to the upcoming justice bills that the member might be referring to when he referred to the remand legislation, he is going to have to stay tuned. We will be bringing that forward very soon. I am sure he will be very pleased with the result and will want to move very quickly once it hits the floor of the chamber.

As he knows, the government is very transparent when it comes to government expenditures, including the upcoming expenditures of the accelerated economic stimulus contained in the $3 billion under vote 35. All of that of course will be revealed to the Canadian public and to Parliament in good time as we make those investments on behalf of Canadians from coast to coast.

[Campaign Advertising, March 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, the hon. member can try to frame his question any way he wants. This is really an issue between third party advertisers in that campaign and Elections Canada. It has nothing to do with any of my colleagues or the Government of Canada. Furthermore, we have no intention of asking any member of the Conservative Party to step aside, let alone the Minister for State for Sport.

[Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, March 26th, 2009]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-24, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Peru, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Peru and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Peru.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Afghanistan, March 25th, 2009]

(Motion agreed to)

[Afghanistan, March 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I also move:

That a take-note debate on the International Conference on Afghanistan hosted by The Hague be deemed to have been disgnated pursuant to Standing Order 53.1 for Thrusday, March 26, provided that during the take-note debate no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Speaker.

[Canada--EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, March 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, there have been rather extensive consultations between all parties and I think if you were to seek it you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, on Monday, March 30, 2009 at 2 p.m., or when no member rises to speak to the third reading stage of Bill C-2, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the States of the European Free Trade Association (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland), the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Republic of Iceland, the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Kingdom of Norway and the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Swiss Confederation, whichever comes first, the Speaker shall put all questions necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of this bill; If a recorded division is requested, it shall be deemed deferred to the expiry of the time provided for government orders on that day.

[Campaign Advertising, March 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can try to redraft the question any which way he wants, but as you ruled yesterday, this is an issue that is more applicable to Elections Canada than to the government. It has nothing to do with government business.

My colleague, the minister, has had nothing to do with the third party advertising. Therefore, the hon. member should ask his question of Elections Canada or of the third parties themselves.

[Millennium Summit, March 13th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows, because our Minister of International Cooperation has clearly said this time after time, day after day, our assistance to African nations has actually increased under our government. It is continuing to increase over what the Liberals did before.

[Points of Order, March 12th, 2009]

I lose track of time.

Mr. Speaker, this morning you made a ruling as well, and his colleague, the whip for the Bloc Québécois, got up and did not challenge you—he was very careful about that—but he was seeking further clarification, as I recall. I was in the chamber at the time.

So I would just remind my hon. colleague of that, as well as my colleague from the Liberal Party who just spoke.

We are not challenging your ruling. I did not hear that from either of my colleagues. What we were doing was asking for two things.

First, we were asking that you consider looking at the past examples from all parties to make sure that in enforcing your ruling there is consistency. That is all we were asking, on one hand.

Second, I heard my colleague from Edmonton—Sherwood Park, at the close of his remarks, asking, if possible, that you might consider further clarification of where the line would be drawn in your consideration of what would be a personal attack and what would not.

I think all of us, especially those like you and me, Mr. Speaker, who have been in this chamber for a lot of years now, would have drawn the conclusion after all these years that what would be considered an insult by one member could very easily be considered a reiteration of fact by another member. Oftentimes during heated debates in this place, whether it is during statements or question period or even during normal debate, we get into a lot of argument or potential argument about that.

All I am asking on behalf of the government is that you ensure in applying the rules, as I am sure you always do, that there is consistency, that you review what is being done by all parties and that those rulings are applied in a consistent manner, in a manner that is fair from the chair and fair to all 308 members of Parliament.

[Points of Order, March 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, on the most recent intervention, I would respectfully point out to my hon. colleague, the House leader for the Bloc Québécois, that yesterday you made a ruling as well—