Debates of April 29th, 2008

Pierre Poilievre Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board

Mr. Speaker, I will read an email from the central campaign of the NDP to the NDP candidate for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Jennifer Burgis. It says:

Subject: Radio co-op proposal

Dear Lower Island Managers:

If each campaign can commit to providing us with $2,000, for a total of $6,000, we [the national party???] could match it for a total buy of $12,000. The ads would be tagged equally--i.e, would refer to each candidate--and would mean a $4,000 expense under each ceiling...

That meant they all got to claim it locally. That is the NDP in and out scheme.

Judy Wasylycia-Leis Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, there are four types of harmful blue-green algae and at least two parasite species found in Devils Lake that are not found in Lake Winnipeg and yet the tap is on again at Devils Lake outlet, this time in violation of a court order.

I want to know if the government is prepared to join with Manitoba's application to find the North Dakota State Water Commission in contempt for ignoring the North Dakota supreme court ruling that restricted the operation of the Devils Lake outlet. Will the government file notice at the North Dakota supreme court--

The Speaker Peter Milliken

The hon. Minister of the Environment.

John Baird Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, we understand that the government of Manitoba was not successful in the American courts earlier today. We are committed to continue to work hard on this issue. It is something that is very important. We are working constructively with the Manitoba government, with the minister of water conservation. We are concerned that the previous agreement from the Liberal government did nothing to stop this from happening in the future and we are committed to find a better way.

The Speaker Peter Milliken

I believe the hon. member for Louis-Hébert wishes to rise on a question of privilege. Is that correct? If so, he may now rise.

Luc Harvey Louis-Hébert, QC

Mr. Speaker, during debate, the hon. member from Abitibi used very unparliamentary language when referring to one of my colleagues, and I would really like him to withdraw his comments, since there are limits, after all, to what one can say in this House.

The Speaker Peter Milliken

I thought it was a question of privilege, but clearly it is a point of order.

Since the hon. member from Abitibi is absent at the moment, there is nothing I can do because I did not hear anything.

The hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier also gave me a notice concerning a point of order. He may now rise.

Mauril Bélanger Ottawa—Vanier, ON

Mr. Speaker, in response to a question put to him yesterday, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board quoted from a document, a sort of affidavit that the Conservatives had apparently submitted to the Federal Court and that was rejected. The rule of this House is very clear. When a minister or parliamentary secretary quotes from a document, he or she must table it.

I would like you to invite the member to table the document in this House, so we may all read its contents.

Pierre Poilievre Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board

Mr. Speaker, I will respond to this point and then present one of my own.

The document in question, I believe, was presented in this House by the House leader. If it has not been tabled, I would be happy to table it. I am going to confirm with our parliamentary staff to ascertain if that is the case. Once again, in response to the member's reasonable question, we will have it tabled if it has not already been tabled.

The Speaker Peter Milliken

The member is rising on another point of order.

Pierre Poilievre Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister referred in his remarks to Elections Canada's failure to follow its own rules.

I have here chapter 7 of the Elections Canada Investigators' Manual. Subsection 7.5, “Right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure”, refers readers to look at subsection 6.4 of chapter 8, which reads as follows:

It is the suspect's prerogative to refuse to produce or remit documents. In such cases, Investigators must advise the suspect that they accept the decision and record the matter accordingly in the statement report. They should also advise the suspect that the matter will be reported to the Commissioner who may consider requesting a court order...

I have been in contact with the Conservative Party lawyers, who have indicated to me that they had no such advice in the lead-up to the Elections Canada visit to the Conservative Party headquarters.

These are the rules that Elections Canada's investigators are obliged to follow before they take such a dramatic step of moving into a party's headquarters with other parties in tow with cameras. Elections Canada is obliged to follow these rules and unless it can produce evidence that it gave any sort of advice that it had been refused documents, then it has broken its own rules and then we have to ask whether or not it can interpret rules for other political parties.

Mr. Speaker, I conclude by telling you that I have here this entire document, which I will table forthwith. This is the Investigators' Manual from which I have extracted the rules that appear to have been broken by Elections Canada. If Elections Canada cannot prove that it offered advice to the Conservative Party that it was in search of these documents, if it cannot prove that it had provided advance notice that it was going to report to the commissioner, who may consider requesting a court order, if Elections Canada cannot show that it has done those things, then it is in a very critical and very serious breach of its own rules.

I conclude by saying if Elections Canada wants to interpret the rules as they relate to other political parties, it should start by following its own.

The Speaker Peter Milliken

I am afraid I fail to catch the point of order in the hon. parliamentary secretary's remarks. He may have had a complaint, but it did not appear to concern the rules or practices of the House and so, I do not think there is a point of order here.

Also, I can confirm that the document referred to by the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier in his point of order has not been tabled. If the parliamentary secretary wants to check with the House leader, perhaps he could arrange for the tabling of the document at this point.

Is the hon. member for Wascana rising on another point of order?