House of Commons Hansard #93 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was tax.

Topics

Presence in Gallery
Oral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear!

The House resumed from December 6 consideration of the motion.

Marriage
Government Orders

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Peter Milliken

Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, December 5, it is my duty to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of Motion No. 12 under government business.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Marriage
Government Orders

3:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Marriage
Government Orders

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Peter Milliken

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Marriage
Government Orders

3:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Marriage
Government Orders

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Peter Milliken

All those opposed will please say nay.

Marriage
Government Orders

3:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Marriage
Government Orders

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Peter Milliken

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #94

Marriage
Government Orders

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Peter Milliken

I declare the motion defeated.

Business of the House
Government Orders

December 7th, 2006 / 3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Ralph Goodale Wascana, SK

Mr. Speaker, the question is about House business going forward for the rest of this week and into next week. I know the House leader for the government is anticipating an adjournment of the House, according to our calendar, on December 15, if perhaps not sooner than that.

I wonder if he could indicate how certain he is of the holiday season beginning on December 15 and how he would propose to ensure the House is productively engaged in the intervening eight days.

Business of the House
Government Orders

3:20 p.m.

Niagara Falls
Ontario

Conservative

Rob Nicholson Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to confirm that the holiday season will be beginning in due course. In the meantime, we will continue with Bill C-37, the tax convention; Bill C-12, financial institutions; and Bill C-36, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act.

Tomorrow we will begin the third reading of Bill C-28, budget tax measures.

We will continue next week with the business from this week, with the addition of Bill C-40, sales tax; Bill C-32, impaired driving; Bill C-33, technical income tax; Bill C-35, bail reform; and, of course, as is the tradition, as the member would know, it is great to get into a prebudget debate and that usually lasts about two days.

We have a busy agenda and I look forward to the cooperation of the hon. member. I am sure we will have further discussions on this.

Alleged Veracity of Answers to Oral Questions
Privilege
Government Orders

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Bill Graham Toronto Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate you hearing this question of privilege. I know this matter has come before you once before as a question of privilege about question period and the veracity of members in the House during question period.

However, I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I would not rise on this matter if I did not believe that question period today revolved around a question which is essential for the security of Canada, the security frankly of the western world, and the security of individual citizens in our country. This is an extremely grave matter when the government members in this House believe as if they were reading from a textbook written by Mr. Goebbels when he was preparing for power in Germany. It is absolutely shameful.

Yesterday the Prime Minister alleged that this party and myself as foreign minister did nothing. He said that we did not utter a peep in respect of Mr. Arar. Today he repeated that allegation and the Minister of Public Safety did the same and sought to distort the evidence before the House and yourself, Mr. Speaker.

The O'Connor report clearly shows the following facts: that I attended on the minister from Syria at the United Nations, that we had regular phone calls, and that I attempted to write a letter to the minister himself, but was unable to do so because of instructions from the RCMP to the solicitor general at the time.

This matter was only resolved because of the intervention of the then prime minister, Mr. Chrétien. While all this was going on, all these efforts being made to get Mr. Arar out of jail, we were unable to do so because of the actions of the RCMP and egged on by the present public security minister who in this House alleged that we were helping a known terrorist. He said it on the floor of this House. It is disgraceful to have him stand up and say what he said today. It is dishonourable.

Some of us here have spent our lives in honourable service to our country and to this House of Commons. To have dishonourable allegations of that nature made on a file of such importance to the security of Canada and Canadians is not acceptable to the House. It is not acceptable to the country. It is not acceptable to our decorum and I suggest it affects the privileges of all members of the House.

It is just not possible to have a question period in which hon. members are allowed to distort the truth so much and tell lies about what took place on the public record. It totally destroys the credibility of this House of Commons and I raise it as a personal privilege.

Alleged Veracity of Answers to Oral Questions
Privilege
Government Orders

3:25 p.m.

Okanagan—Coquihalla
B.C.

Conservative

Stockwell Day Minister of Public Safety

Mr. Speaker, first, the basis or the genesis of the discussion today arose from a number of very serious remarks that were made by members opposite saying that I had labelled a certain individual as a terrorist. In fact, there is no record of that whatsoever. I take that as emotional and misinformed debate. I do not rise and shriek to the rooftops here in the chamber.

However, since they raised it, we may as well have on the record that I did ask some questions related to Mr. Arar, none of which, there is not one quotation, indicate that I said that man was a terrorist.

As a matter of fact, I have one quote where I said:

--one thing is clear: his basic rights have been violated. Why hasn't the federal government demanded an apology from the Syrian government?

That is one thing I said. There is another thing that I said. When I was talking to the wife of Mr. Arar, I said:

That's clear...Was there information sharing that went on, involving the RCMP and related to concerns with Mr. Arar?

I was asking questions about the RCMP and what information they may have shared that had resulted in Mr. Arar's dilemma.

I also said, related to Mr. Arar, when I was in the opposition:

Is it normal that a Canadian citizen could be held in another country for such a period of time and the foreign affairs minister does not even know where he is?

Those are things that I said. Is it not interesting that opposition members will take something I never said and say I said it, but they will not take what I did say and reflect on it?

And I will say, in reflection to the former minister of foreign affairs, with whom I have worked on many issues and for whom I have great regard, in light of these totally ridiculous--