House of Commons Hansard #83 of the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was products.

Topics

Oral Questions
Privilege
Oral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Beauséjour, NB

Mr. Speaker, very briefly, on the same question of privilege, the member for Nepean—Carleton refers to a sworn affidavit. Might he tell the House if that is the same sworn affidavit by Geoff Donald, which the Federal Court prothonotary, on February 27, refused to admit in its civil case because it was determined to be irrelevant?

Oral Questions
Privilege
Oral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Nepean—Carleton, ON

Mr. Speaker, he has not challenged any of the accuracy of my remarks, but I will answer his question directly. This affidavit is entirely relevant in your court, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions
Privilege
Oral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

Mauril Bélanger Ottawa—Vanier, ON

Mr. Speaker, in response to a question, the member for Nepean—Carleton accused me of using a Conservative scheme, whereby money from the national party is sent to local ridings which then send it back to the national party.

I have stated in this House that I never asked for nor received any money from the national party, be it in 1995, 1997, 2000, 2004 or 2006. Will the member for Nepean—Carleton state otherwise, or will he apologize?

Oral Questions
Privilege
Oral Questions

3:10 p.m.

York—Simcoe
Ontario

Conservative

Peter Van Loan Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there was any suggestion made at any point that he had done that. What was difficult was the suggestions that there had been a misleading of the House and misstatements. He simply indicated that the hon. member had participated in a regional ad buy that involved transfers, if not to him, to other candidates in that ad buy from the central party that went back and that the invoice involved had exactly the same characteristics as the invoices of our party, of which those members complain. This is the nature of the difficulty of this.

We can stand up to every question the Liberals have asked on this issue since it arose and make the exact same questions of privilege they are attempting to make now. That is the difficulty in this matter, that there are different treatments for different parties, yet when their behaviour is exposed, there is furious indignation. This is the double standard that has characterized this entire issue from the start and this is the double standard which caused us to take Elections Canada to court.

There is no question of privilege here. He asked the question. He wanted a response. He asked for more details. He got them. He has not disputed a single fact in that affidavit.

Oral Questions
Privilege
Oral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Peter Milliken

The Chair will look at the material. I assume this affidavit is going to be made available either by tabling or sent to the Clerk, so I will have a chance to look at it. I will examine the answer that was given to the question that was asked and the material and determine whether there is a prima facie question of privilege here.

The hon. member for Kings—Hants on a point of order.

Alleged remarks attributed to Member for Kings—Hants
Points of Order
Oral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to clarify something. In the House today it was alleged that I spoke out against biofuels. In fact, I sourced the article from which the citation was presented. In fact, the article did not have a direct quote. It did say, however, that the hon. member for Kings—Hants said, “There is a lot of enthusiasm for biofuel but he doesn't see it as being environmentally beneficial... except for cellulosic ethanol...and it's having an inflationary effect on food prices. It could lead to offshoring of food production, not in the best interest of the farming community”.

To say that I was speaking against biofuels would require a truly bio-fool.

Alleged remarks attributed to Member for Kings—Hants
Points of Order
Oral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Peter Milliken

I am not sure that is a point of order, but we will move on.

The hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord is also rising on a point of order.

Oral Questions
Points of Order
Oral Questions

3:15 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC

Mr. Speaker, I went to the trouble of going to the table to indicate that I wanted to be the first to raise a point of order.

I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, who is presently listening in the lobby, to enter the Chamber as he is directly involved because of an answer he gave in oral question period.

He offered to table a document from Jean-Pierre Kingsley, Chief Electoral Officer at the time, regarding an opinion on election expenses prior to the June 1997 election.

Therefore, I request the unanimous consent of this House to have the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board table, in this House, a document from Jean-Pierre Kingsley, as he offered to do in his reply.

Oral Questions
Points of Order
Oral Questions

3:15 p.m.

York—Simcoe
Ontario

Conservative

Peter Van Loan Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, I was actually awaiting an opportunity to table the same document, under tabling of documents. It is an official government document. It is the report of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada on the 36th general election, which has been tabled in this House previously, but there is an extract. It was addressing broadcast rules and blackout rules in particular, because there was a court decision that resulted in a distinction between the blackout rules applying to national advertising and local advertising.

What he said in it was that as a result of the Somerville decision, candidates and all others were able to advertise on June 1 and 2. The criteria applied to determine whether specific advertisements were to be accepted for broadcast were the identity of the sponsor and that of the body or person invoiced. The content of the advertisement accepted was subject only to freedom of expression guaranteed by the charter.

As a result, a number of individual candidates purchased time on the day before polling and on the actual day of the election. Since the time purchased was often used to run a national advertisement with the local tag line, this rendered the prohibition, that is the blackout line in section 48, ineffectual.

Here he made it quite clear that the only thing that applied was the tag line to determine whether or not it was national or local in content. It is an interpretation on which our party has relied, and all parties have relied ever since. I have it in French and English, and I am happy to table that extract.

Oral Questions
Points of Order
Oral Questions

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Ralph Goodale Wascana, SK

Mr. Speaker, obviously, we will be happy to see that document tabled in the House. But I think it bears repeating at this point that the advertising practices of the Conservative Party in the last election have been reviewed by the Chief Electoral Officer, both Mr. Kingsley and Mr. Mayrand, and the Chief Electoral Officer, past and present, has determined that the flaw rests with the Conservative Party, the Conservative Party alone, and no other party in this House.

Oral Questions
Points of Order
Oral Questions

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Peter Milliken

I do not think that that is a point of order. It sounds like a matter of debate.

Is the government House leader rising on this point or some other?

Oral Questions
Points of Order
Oral Questions

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

Peter Van Loan York—Simcoe, ON

I am rising on this point, Mr. Speaker, and I would not like to go into debate. I will point out that the document I tabled with the opinion included says that the determining factor of whether an advertisement is national or local is not in the content but in the tag line, the argument of the Conservative Party. That is a report signed by the Chief Electoral--

Oral Questions
Points of Order
Oral Questions

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Peter Milliken

I think the points have been made. We are going to move on.

International Treaties
Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

South Shore—St. Margaret's
Nova Scotia

Conservative

Gerald Keddy Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and to the Minister of International Trade

Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 32(2) of the House of Commons, I have the pleasure to table, in both official languages, three treaties entitled: an agreement between the Government of Canada and the government of the Republic of Chile to amend the free trade agreement between the Government of Canada and the government of the Republic of Chile; an agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the Government of Canada and the Government of the People's Republic of China; and an agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Republic of India.

Government Response to Petitions
Routine Proceedings

April 28th, 2008 / 3:15 p.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 11 petitions.