Tom Lukiwski

[Privilege, May 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I think we had a similar incident only about a week ago that was raised on a question of privilege where the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre approached the member for Selkirk—Interlake, I believe, and not only threatened him but actually indicated that if he did not stop putting 10-percenters in the hon. member's riding, she would then produce a list and a photograph that would bring the Conservative caucus down.

The member for Winnipeg South Centre then subsequently apologized the following day but we have not heard a ruling from the Speaker on the original question of privilege. I see a lot of commonality between what the member opposite is saying, the member for Ottawa South.

I would appreciate your consideration of that fact, Mr. Speaker.

[Privilege, May 15th, 2007]

I listened with patience and with tolerance to other comments and I would expect the members opposite to give me the same consideration.

Without question, everyone here knows that this is not a matter of not having confidence in the chair. This is a political matter. We have had a rash of non-confidence motions in the chairs of committees over the past little while. In fact there is a motion right now for yet another committee, the Standing Committee on International Trade, to express non-confidence in the chair.

There is no other reason for this except that the opposition, first, is trying to embarrass the government, and second, is trying to take control of the committees by changing the Standing Orders.

I also want to take issue with a comment by the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River who asked, in respect to the hon. government House whip's comments about the fact that a Conservative chair needs to be reappointed or re-elected, whether the official whip knew that the rules are that this is an election, not an appointment process. That is very true but we must have a government member allow their names to be forward. They have complete confidence in the current chair and they do not want to put their names forward. That is where it stands right now.

Those are the rules and the Standing Orders. In fact, if one were to accept the logic of the members of the opposition who basically seem to be saying that in committee and in all other parts of the Parliament, if the opposition vote as a majority to either change a chair or change Standing Orders, we should allow it be done, let me just pose a question.

We are in a minority government right now but what would happen in the case of a majority government? Would government members be able to stand in this House and say, “Mr. Speaker, we want to change a number of standing orders and, by the way, we also want to curtail debate on the legislation before you, and, by a majority vote, if we win that will happen”.

It would be a very efficient way to govern but it would not be very democratic, which is what is happening here. They are trying to ignore Standing Orders for political purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I beseech you to not get caught up in this partisan attack on chairs we have elected and who should regain the confidence of all committee members.

[Privilege, May 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of new points I would like to bring forward on this question of privilege.

Let us make no mistake, this is a partisan issue and everyone here knows it, whether they are willing to admit it or not. Again, I would reiterate the comments of my colleague.

[Questions on the Order paper, May 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, with apologies to my hon. colleague, there have been further discussions and if you were to seek it, I am confident you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, during the debates on May 16 and May 17, on the Business of Supply, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair and, within each 15 minute period, each party may allocate time to one or more of its members for speeches or for questions and answers, provided that, in the case of questions and answers, the minister's answer approximately reflect the time taken by the question, and provided that, in the case of speeches, members of the party to which the period is allocated may speak one after the other.

[Questions on the Order Paper, May 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Committees of the House, May 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we will try this one and hopefully opposition members will have consulted with their lobby before they give an answer. There have been discussions and I think you would find, if you were to seek it, unanimous consent that Bill C-47, an act respecting the protection of marks related to the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games and protection against certain misleading business associations and making a related amendment to the Trademarks Act, be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to a committee of the whole, deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at the report stage, and deemed read third time and passed.

[Committees of the House, May 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, discussions have been held with all parties and I think if you were to seek it, you would find there is unanimous consent that during the debates of May 16 and 17, 2007, on the business of supply, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair and within each 15 minute period, each party may allocate time to one or more of its members for speeches or for questions and answers, provided that in the case of questions and answers, the minister's answer approximately reflect the time taken by the question and provided that, in the case of speeches, members of the party to which the period is allocated may speak one after the other.

[Age of Consent, May 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-22, an act to raise the age of consent from 14 years to 16 years of age, was recently adopted by the House of Commons and referred to the Senate. This bill is designed to protect our children against sexual exploitation from adult predators and is widely supported in my riding and across Canada.

The age of protection marks an important step toward strengthening our child protection laws. In our continued commitment toward safer streets and communities, I encourage the Liberal dominated Senate to pass the age of protection legislation into law as soon as possible so that our children can receive this much needed protection.

Since taking office, Canada's new government has made focusing on families a top priority. Initiatives, such as the $2,000 child tax credit and the working income tax benefit, have strengthened Canadian families by giving them the necessary support to meet growing demands.

Again, I urge the Senate to pass Bill C-22 as soon as possible so that it may become law. Our families, our communities and, more important, our youth are counting on it.

[Government Response to Petitions, May 11th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to nine petitions.