Debates of Nov. 24th, 2009

The Speaker Peter Milliken

The hon. member knows that the use of such language is not permitted in the House.

The Speaker Peter Milliken

It being 3:05 p.m., pursuant to order made on Friday, November 20, 2009, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie relating to the business of supply.

Call in the members.

The Speaker Peter Milliken

I declare the motion carried.

Order. I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division, government orders will be extended by nine minutes.

The Speaker Peter Milliken

With all due respect to the hon. member for Vancouver East, I made the ruling because it is entirely in accordance with past practice in this House. A member cannot use language in the House that is unparliamentary by reading a quotation that contains the words that are not allowed to be used. It is as simple as that. That is the rule that I applied in this case on two occasions in the House and I believe it is entirely in accordance with our practice.

If it were not the case, members would be running around finding quotes containing all kinds of unparliamentary phrases and reading them in the House. I do not care how public they are. There are some limitations, not many, on members' freedom of speech in the House and one of them is avoiding the use of unparliamentary language.

The word that was used was, in my view, unparliamentary. Therefore, I urged the member to refrain from using it on two occasions and I hope I do not have to do it again.

The hon. member for South Shore--St. Margaret's is rising on the same point.

Gerald Keddy Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say inside the House what I have already said outside the House. I would like to stand and apologize for my comments.

The remarks I made regarding the unemployed in Halifax were insensitive and unkind, and I apologize for them. Certainly, I believe that everyone in this place at some time or another has said something that they regret and that they wish they had not said. When that happens, the responsible thing to do is stand and apologize. I am doing that today.

Indeed, what I meant to do was simply defend farmers in Nova Scotia and across Canada who rely on temporary farm workers because of local labour shortages. Without these workers, hundreds of millions of dollars worth of crops would not be harvested and farmers would have to cease operations.

As a former farmer and logger, who faced labour shortages in the real world, I allowed my judgment to be clouded.

Again, please allow me to be perfectly clear. I apologize to anyone who was offended by my remarks.

The Speaker Peter Milliken

The Chair has notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert. I will hear him now.

Brent Rathgeber Edmonton—St. Albert, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am saddened but I feel the need to rise today on a question of privilege. I believe that on Monday, November 23, a member opposite deliberately misled the House. I do not make that suggestion without pause and reflection. It is a serious accusation.

On page 119 of Erskine May, 22nd edition, states:

The Commons may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt. In 1963 the House resolved that in making a personal statement which contained words which he later admitted not to be true, a former Member had been guilty of a grave contempt.

In the allegation that I am making, this occurred during the debate on Bill C-36, an act to abolish the so-called faint hope clause. The hon. member for Burlington quite rightly asked the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine why, if she supposedly supports the bill to abolish the faint hope clause, she voted against the bill at committee.

During the debate on this point, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine said:

If in fact the minutes of the November 16 meeting of the standing committee indicate what he has said, I will ensure that those minutes are corrected because every single member at that meeting knows very well that I did not vote on any of the questions that were put to the committee regarding Bill C-36, including whether or not the title should pass, whether the bill should pass, or whether 500 new copies should be printed.

I am a member of that committee and I was at that meeting. I and all other members at the committee know very well that the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, when asked in a recorded vote, “Shall the bill carry, as amended?”, she responded, “No”. The House need not take my word for it. If members check the audio recording of the meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on November 16, at the 34 minute and 18 second mark, they can clearly hear the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine say “no” when her name was called by the clerk in order to vote on the following question, “Shall the bill carry, as amended?”.

This is why the minutes of that meeting also have the member listed in the column under nays.

I believe this is a clear case of the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine deliberately misleading the House.

Mr. Speaker, I refer you to your ruling of February 1, 2002. In that case, the then hon. member for Portage—Lisgar alleged that the then minister of National Defence deliberately misled the House, as the minister left two differing versions of events on the record. In your ruling, you referred page 67 of Marleau and Montpetit, which states:

There are...affronts against the dignity and authority of Parliament which may not fall within one of the specifically defined privileges...the House also claims the right to punish, as a contempt, any action which, though not a breach of a specific privilege, tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions; [or that] obstructs or impedes any Member or Officer of the House in the discharge of their duties....

Mr. Speaker, you later went on to say:

On the basis of the arguments presented by hon. members and in view of the gravity of the matter, I have concluded that the situation before us where the House is left with two versions of events is one that merits further consideration by an appropriate committee, if only to clear the air.

You then invited the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar to move his motion.

What we have here is a tantamount situation. We have two versions before Parliament involving proceedings on Bill C-36. The member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine is recorded as voting against Bill C-36 at committee and she has stated in the House that she “did not vote on any of the questions”.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest, with due respect, as you did on February 1, 2002, that you find there is a prima facie question of privilege and allow me to move the appropriate motion. I await your direction.

Marlene Jennings Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for bringing the issue to the House.

I just received a transcript of the actual clause by clause proceedings of the justice committee during question period, prior to him raising his question of privilege. I had an opportunity to speak with my colleagues, both within my party and within one of the other opposition parties, and they confirmed that I had abstained throughout clause by clause, except for the final vote where they confirm, as had been alleged by a member of the Conservative Party during questions and comments to me during the debate on Bill C-36, that I had in fact said nay.

Therefore, in that case, as I also stated, and the member did not mention it, if in fact I had voted and it was accurate that I had voted, that I would apologize. I do apologize. I was wrong in my recounting of the information. The member for Burlington was correct. My memory was faulty and I apologize to this House.

The records of the Standing Committee on Justice on clause by clause are correct. I abstained throughout all of the votes except for the final vote, which stated, “Should this bill, as amended, carry?”. It was a recorded vote and I did say nay, so there are not two versions before the House. There is one version, the version that was originally given by the member of the Conservative Party for Burlington.

I apologize for having doubted his word and I beg the indulgence of the House. I apologize to everyone. I have now corrected the transcript and the official record of the House of Commons that there is only one version.

The Speaker Peter Milliken

Under the circumstances, I think that disposes of that question of privilege.

The Speaker Peter Milliken

I understand the hon. member for Eglinton--Lawrence had the floor prior to the question period, but the time for his speech has elapsed so he is stuck, I believe, with questions and comments. There are five minutes of questions and comments available for him if anyone wishes to make a comment or ask a question on the hon. member's speech.

The hon. member for Burnaby--New Westminster.