Core 1..172 Hansard (PRISM::Advent3b2 6.50.00)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CANADA House of Commons Debates VOLUME 139 Ï NUMBER 017 Ï 3rd SESSION Ï 37th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Tuesday, February 24, 2004 Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) All parliamentary publications are available on the ``Parliamentary Internet Parlementaire´´ at the following address: http://www.parl.gc.ca 957 HOUSE OF COMMONS Tuesday, February 24, 2004 The House met at 10 a.m. his or her area that he or she was somehow corrupt. It is guilt by association and that is simply wrong. Prayers I would like the member to correct the record. Ï (1000) The second thing I would say is that the member then challenged [English] me to table a set of documents. He was concerned that I had not tabled them in an efficient manner or a timely manner. The PRIVILEGE documents I had were documents that had already been tabled in the DOCUMENT TABLED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE TREASURY BOARD House in response to Question No. 238. What the member asked me to do was re-table information that was already available to the Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. House, which I did. However I did not do it at the exact moment Speaker, I rise in response to a question of privilege that was raised because it was already in the House. When the request was made I yesterday. I did say yesterday that I would get back to you in a timely came back and re-tabled it. fashion to respond to the concern. I do not wish to and I never wished to slur members of the House As I understand it, the concern of the member for Calgary personally. If there was any sense that I had done so, I would Southeast was that in a response to a question I made a comment fulsomely apologize for that because that is never my issue. My issue about a grant that had gone to an organization in his riding. I said here is that if we are to have debates, let us have them in a competent “You've got a grant for Spruce Meadows”. and fact based fashion. That is all. He challenged me at the end of question period. He raised a point Ï (1005) of order and asked that I clarify the statement, saying that he had not done that. I got up and said, “No, it is true,” that the member had not Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this is a done it, that it had gone to his riding is the point I made. continuation of complete and utter buffoonery. The member was asked to clarify remarks that he made about the member for Calgary He then raised a point of order the next day saying that I had Southeast. First was that he got a grant. He did not get a grant. Then provided incorrect information to the House. He specifically noted that there was an association in his riding that got a grant. It is not in two things, my response stating that the organization in question was his riding. The member says it is in his riding. It is semantics. It is not in his riding. He then went on to say that I had also not not in his riding. responded to a request to table a set of documents. I will table today the following information. I have here from the Consequently, all he is doing is perpetrating false information that website of the organization in question, which is known as Spruce he gave before. Meadows, the address. I have the Conservative Party of Canada The Speaker: The Chair will review the submissions that we have website which has an electoral district look-up. When the postal code now heard. We have heard from the hon. member for St. John's West, for Spruce Meadows is typed in, the Conservative Party of Canada the member for Calgary Southeast and we have had a response from website returns which shows that this organization is located in the President of the Treasury Board that we have waited for since the Calgary Southeast. I would like to table that as one part of my matter was originally raised on Thursday last week. It was raised response. again yesterday. The second thing is to correct the error that was made. Spruce Meadows received, through the Government of Canada sponsorship We now have the material. The Chair will review that and get back program, $100,000 in 2001, $115,000 in 2001-02, $57,500 in 2002- to the House in due course. However it seems to me that the 03 and $54,455 in 2003-04, totalling $326,955. President of the Treasury Board has at least tabled some evidence to suggest where the grant went. We will have to review all that and The point I was making at the time was simply that we should not make a decision. consider everyone who has had these funds in his or her area to be corrupt. It is a foolish allegation. That was the allegation the member Hon. members I am sure will await the decision of the Chair with was making, that simply because someone had received a grant in anxious enthusiasm. 958 COMMONS DEBATES February 24, 2004 Routine Proceedings ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed? Ï (1010) Some hon. members: Agreed. [English] (Motion agreed to) MAIN ESTIMATES, 2004-05 *** A message from Her Excellency the Governor General transmit- Ï (1015) ting estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 2005 was presented by the President of the Treasury Board and read by the PETITIONS Speaker to the House. MARRIAGE Hon. Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr. Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today Speaker, I have a copy of the main estimates to be laid at the table, to present a petition with 376 names from all across the country. The and I have copies for the appropriate critics and leaders of the petition says that: whereas protecting the moral good of society is a opposition parties in the House. natural and serious obligation of elected officials and cannot be left only to religious leaders and institutions; whereas the defence of *** traditional marriage as the bond between one man and one women is [Translation] a serious moral good; whereas marriage as the lasting union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others cannot and should not be CUSTOMS TARIFF modified by a legislative act or a court of law; and whereas the Hon. Reg Alcock (for the Minister of Finance) moved for leave recent rulings of the appeal courts of Ontario and B.C. redefining to introduce Bill C-21, an act to amend the Customs Tariff. marriage to include same sex partners destroys traditional marriage (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) in law and endangers Canada's social stability and future vitality and health, we request that Parliament take whatever action is required to *** maintain the current definition of marriage in law, in perpetuity and CANADA LABOUR CODE to prevent any court from overturning or amending that definition. Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ) moved for leave to Mr. Janko Perić (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to introduce Bill C-487, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code Standing Order 36, I have the privilege to present to the House a (replacement workers). petition dealing with marriage, signed by close to 400 Canadians. She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this bill once The petitioners wish to draw to the attention of the House that the again. This is the fourth time I have done so, and the tenth time that traditional understanding of marriage has deep historical and the Bloc Quebecois has introduced an anti-scab bill. philosophical roots in our society, and that it should not be modified by legislation or by the courts. The petitioners pray and request that This is an extremely important cause and the House will the Parliament of Canada take every possible action to maintain and acknowledge our perseverance. We are convinced that the next time protect the current understanding of marriage as the union of one will be the lucky one, since the last time we were very close to man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. seeing the bill passed. This time we are hopeful of victory. [Translation] I remind the government that anti-scab legislation will not cost them a penny; all that is needed is political will. CANADA LABOUR CODE (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have the *** pleasure of presenting 5,500 signatures of petitioners stating that they wish to obtain real negotiating power; that anti-scab legislation [English] is a necessity in today's work environment, in order to level the COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE playing field for employers and employees; and that prohibiting the use of scabs contributes to establishing and maintaining civilized SCRUTINY OF REGULATIONS negotiations during labour conflicts. Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on February 19, 2004, the Standing Joint Committee for These 5,500 names are in addition to the 46,000 I have already the Scrutiny of Regulations presented its first report. As is presented to the House, for a total of 51,500 signatures in favour of traditional, this report sets out the committee's order of reference anti-scab legislation.