Jay Hill

[Points of Order, October 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I respect the desire to have all the parties involved in this but, as I just explained, it is common practice and common courtesy for the House to grant unanimous consent. It has happened many times to members from all four parties present in the House. From time to time mistakes are made during votes. I have seen the situation where some members during private members' votes because of confusion vote both ways and have it corrected afterward.

Mr. Speaker, I would again ask you to put the motion. I see the official opposition House leader is here. Perhaps he would be willing to consult with his members very quickly and grant permission for them to support this motion to amend the vote results from last night.

[Points of Order, October 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, last night, I think quite inadvertently, a mistake was made during the deferred recorded division on the Liberal amendment to Bill C-24.

I am sure you will recall, Mr. Speaker, as you were in the chair at the time, that during the vote process the NDP rose to seek consent to have NDP members who were present for the previous vote recorded in support of the Liberal amendment to Bill C-24. Unfortunately, the reality is that when the NDP House leader rose for a second time to seek consent, that consent was denied by the House at that time.

As it was very evident to me, I rose on a point of order and stated that no points of order were to be entertained by the Chair during the vote process and, second, that I wanted to ensure the public viewing the vote process last night did not blame the clerks for the NDP members missing their opportunity to vote. Likewise, I believe that when a party, or an individual member for that matter, seeks to correct the record of a vote after the vote process is completed, it is normal tradition in the House that consent is granted by the members present in the House.

In conclusion, I believe that one mistake in the House should not be compounded by a second mistake. Therefore, in the interest of non-partisanship, common courtesy, traditional practice and in fairness to the New Democratic Party, in particular my colleague, the member for Acadie—Bathurst, I seek the unanimous consent of the House at this time to have the results of the deferred division taken last night on the Liberal amendment to Bill C-24 corrected to indicate that the NDP did intend to support the Liberal amendment.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, October 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order to say that as far as parliamentary tradition is concerned, I believe there are no points of order, including this one of mine, until after the vote is taken. I would hate the viewing public to consider that it was the clerks who made the error. Clearly the NDP did not intend to vote for this amendment or members would have risen when they had the opportunity.

[Committees of the House, October 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions between all the parties and I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, in relation to its study of Canadian Forces in Afghanistan, eight members of the Standing Committee on National Defence be authorized to travel to Afghanistan, and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.

[Committees of the House, October 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I humbly apologize for interrupting the hon. member's remarks. I hope that any time taken up with this procedure will be added to his time so he does not suffer unduly for this interruption. There have been discussions among all the parties and if you were to seek it I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, in relation to its studies on the Canadian seal hunt and grey seals, 12 members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans be authorized to travel to St. Anthony, Gander, Cap-aux-Meules and Yarmouth in November 2006, and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.

(Motion agreed to)

[Forest Industry, October 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, British Columbia has been engaged in a devastating battle against the mountain pine beetle since 1993. Throughout that time, I have fought alongside the forest industry and our forestry dependent communities to help them stand their ground against the infestation and federal Liberal neglect.

Now that we have formed government, we have swiftly provided that long overdue support. This new Conservative government has committed to $1 billion in new federal funding over the next 10 years to help B.C. communities ravaged by the pine beetle to address local priorities associated with the epidemic, diversify their economies and create new long term jobs, jobs like those the Prince George airport is striving to create through its expansion and development plans.

We will continue to invest in the scientific research necessary to help manage the aftermath of the infestation and to remain competitive under its threat in the future.

In just eight months, the Conservative government has already put B.C.'s forest industry on track for a much brighter future.

[Committees of the House, September 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among all parties and I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development be granted a budget of $11,047 to attend the Canadian Aboriginal Law Conference 2006, in Ottawa, on October 4 and 5.

[Committees of the House, September 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among all parties and I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, in relation to its study on democratic development, 8 members of the Foreign Affairs and International Development Committee be authorized to travel to London, Helsinki, Oslo, Stockholm and Copenhagen from October 7 to 14, 2006, and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, September 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is miraculous how the hon. member and his colleagues suddenly have this epiphany when they all of a sudden end up on the opposition benches. They had 13 years, by his own admission of a few seconds ago, which he does not care to revisit. There is no doubt he does not want to revisit it. That 13 year tenure was disastrous. It was a disaster in Canadian history.

Earlier in response to one of my colleague's questions, the Liberal member stated that he was unaware about the split in the money that would be kept in the United States under this deal and what would be returned to Canada.

Is he telling me he is unaware that his party, the Liberal Party, the 13 year history of the party that he does not want to revisit, was about to sign a deal that was vastly inferior to the deal we are debating today? How do we know that? Because the Minister of International Trade for the new Conservative government, who negotiated this deal, was at the table. He knows what the Liberals were about to sign, and it was vastly inferior to this.

[Committees of the House, September 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions and I think you would find that there would be unanimous consent to the following motion. I move:

That six members of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics be authorized to attend a seminar on “Access to Information” in Ottawa, on September 25 and 26, 2006 and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.

(Motion agreed to)