Tom Lukiwski

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 136, 137, 139, 140, 148, 152, 160 and 172 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately?

[Questions on the Order Paper, March 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 134, 135, 142, 147, 153, 159 and 163.

[Committees of the House, March 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, let us see if we can get rid of the confusion.

I am not asking to revert to routine proceedings. I am asking for the unanimous consent of the House to answer a number of questions: Questions Nos. 134, 135, 142, 147, 153, 159 and 163. Also, if Questions Nos. 136, 137, 139, 140, 148, 152, 160, 172 and starred Question No. 154 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately and I would ask that all further questions be allowed to stand.

[Committees of the House, March 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to get this on the record. I am asking for consent from all parties to allow us to proceed to another item under routine proceedings for a brief period of time so that we can submit answers to questions which have been asked by members of the opposition. Today is the deadline for the majority of these questions and if the opposition members truly want answers to the very questions that they raised in this place, I am asking for their concurrence to allow us to give those answers today.

[Committees of the House, March 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I believe this has been walked around. There are a number of questions which are required by the Standing Orders to be answered today. We planned to answer them and that is why the request has been made.

[Committees of the House, March 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My apologies to my esteemed colleague. I assure him that this will not take too long.

Mr. Speaker, I think if you sought it you would find unanimous consent from all parties present to proceed to Questions on the Order Paper briefly so we could get that done before 4 p.m.

[Government Response to Petitions, March 19th, 2007]

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

[Government Response to Petitions, March 2nd, 2007]

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

[Canada Pension Plan, March 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, let us go back to a brief period in history to ensure all Canadians are aware of what the government tried to do initially. It tried to establish a director of appointments. We had put forward the name of an extremely qualified individual by the name of Gwyn Morgan. He is the executive who most Canadian businesses have looked to as the leader in terms of managerial experience, fairness and competency. He was lauded from coast to coast to coast by editorial boards as probably being the finest possible appointment to this position.

What happened? It went to committee and members of the opposition, including members of the NDP, who my colleague represents, turfed him. What was the reason? It was nothing more than political partisanship, gamesmanship. They denied Canadians the right to have one of the most qualified individuals in the country head up a commission to make appointments to boards and commissions based on merit and competency. It was that member and his party, as well as other members of the opposition, who turfed Mr. Morgan. They said that they did not want him.

How can the member stand in this place and accuse us of not bringing forward changes, which we both want to see, when in fact it was his own party, among others, who stopped the appointment process from going forward, stopped the commission and the commissioner who we wanted to appoint from doing the job that we wanted on behalf of all Canadians?

I have great respect for my colleague but this, quite frankly, is the height of hypocrisy to stand in this place and complain about a function that could have been established by now if it were not for the actions of his party and other opposition parties.

[Canada Pension Plan, March 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the thing all Canadians need to realize is that the bill was a result of consultation with seniors. Seniors themselves were the ones who encouraged us and members of the committee to enact the changes that we see before us in Bill C-36.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, not all of their proposals are contained in this bill but a majority of them are. The primary benefit is to streamline the benefits that seniors will receive. It has been for too long a very convoluted and complicated process.

My colleague from Winnipeg Centre earlier mentioned the frustrations that many seniors feel and experience when applying for benefits. The primary purpose of the bill is to streamline the process and the ability for seniors to receive those benefits they richly deserve.