House of Commons Hansard #16 of the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was bridge.

Topics

Human RightsRoutine Proceedings

3:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Human RightsRoutine Proceedings

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Human RightsRoutine Proceedings

3:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Human RightsRoutine Proceedings

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

(Motion agreed to)

Assisted suicidePetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:35 p.m.

Bloc

André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Mr. Speaker, at the request of the people in my riding, essentially the municipality of Richmond, I am presenting a petition. The people are against Bill C-384.

National Memorial WallPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

Daryl Kramp Conservative Prince Edward—Hastings, ON

Mr. Speaker, at the urging of veterans across the country, in particular Ed Forsyth, I wish to table today a petition on behalf of the residents of Prince Edward--Hastings and Canadian citizens from across Ontario. They are calling upon Parliament to establish a national memorial wall, comprising the names of all of Canada's fallen soldiers and peacekeepers.

In the history of our nation, over 100,000 Canadian men and women paid the ultimate price in defence of freedom of democracy and the rule of law. Their names should be immortalized in a single location, publicly accessible, where all can pay their respects for their sacrifice.

International AidPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:35 p.m.

NDP

Chris Charlton NDP Hamilton Mountain, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition today calling on the government to restore its funding to KAIROS.

The petitioners point out that KAIROS is a Canadian ecumenical justice initiatives group that promotes sustainable development, human rights and peace through education, advocacy and cooperative programs linking more than 21 organizations in Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and Africa.

The programs delivered by KAIROS benefit hundreds of thousands of people in marginalized communities who are facing humanitarian crises as well as political oppression.

Specifically, the petitioners point out that the cut in funding will mean cuts to vital projects such as a legal clinic to assist women who are victims of the ongoing violence in the Congo, African youth organizations, a women's organization protecting against human rights abuses in Colombia, grassroots local support to peace and human rights work, women in Israel and Palestinian territories who work as partners for peace in the Middle East, and various environmental initiatives.

The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to immediately restore its funding relationship with KAIROS, so that this respected ecumenical organization can continue to improve the lives of millions of people living in poverty and conflict around the world.

While I know that the rules of the House do not allow me to endorse a petition, let me just say how delighted I am to table this petition on behalf of the over 250 signatories from my riding of Hamilton Mountain.

Competition BureauPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:35 p.m.

Bloc

Gérard Asselin Bloc Manicouagan, QC

Mr. Speaker, this petition has several hundred signatures of voters in the riding of Manicouagan.

Consumers constantly have to deal with fluctuating gas prices. This situation has been going on for far too long. The current Competition Act has major shortcomings that prevent the Competition Bureau from initiating an investigation.

Accordingly, the petitioners are calling on the government to have the House of Commons pass Bill C-452 to authorize the commissioner of competition to launch investigations into the fluctuation of gas prices.

International Planned Parenthood FederationPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:40 p.m.

NDP

Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS

Mr. Speaker, the University of Saskatchewan Students' Union collected signatures to petition the government to continue government funding of the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

The USSU Women's Centre is a pro-choice organization that serves as a resource and information centre that, among other things, organizes around issues of gender equality and human rights. It supports the work of the International Planned Parenthood Federation in its work to promote education, access to birth control, safe abortions, and HIV prevention in countries around the world.

Both the petitioners and I look forward to the minister's response.

Canada-Colombia Free Trade AgreementPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:40 p.m.

NDP

Claude Gravelle NDP Nickel Belt, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by dozens of Canadians.

The petition has a lot of whereas clauses in it. One clause draws the attention of the House of Commons to the fact that there has been ongoing violence against workers and members of civil society by paramilitaries in Colombia who are closely associated with the current Uribe government with more than 2,200 trade unionists murdered since 1991. As well, there has been a host of violence committed against indigenous people, Afro-Colombians, human rights activists, workers, farmers, labour leaders and journalists.

The petitioners call on Parliament to reject the Canada-Colombia trade deal until an independent human rights impact assessment is carried out, and that the agreement be renegotiated along the principles of fair trade which would take environmental and social impacts fully into account while genuinely respecting labour rights and the rights of all affected parties.

Air Passengers' Bill of RightsPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:40 p.m.

NDP

Jim Maloway NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present two petitions today.

The first petition is signed by thousands of Canadians who are calling on Parliament to adopt Canada's first air passengers' bill of rights. Bill C-310 will compensate air passengers with all Canadian carriers, including charters anywhere they fly.

The bill provides compensation for overbooked flights, cancelled flights and long tarmac delays. It also addresses issues such as late and misplaced bags. It requires all-inclusive pricing by airlines in all their advertising.

The legislation has been in effect for five years in Europe. Why should Air Canada passengers receive better treatment in Europe than in Canada. Airlines will have to inform passengers of flight changes, either delays or cancellations. The new rules must be posted in the airport. Airlines must inform passengers of their rights and the process to file for compensation. If the airlines follow the rules, it will cost them nothing.

The petitioners call on the government to support Bill C-310 which would introduce Canada's first air passengers' bill of rights.

Earthquake in ChilePetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:40 p.m.

NDP

Jim Maloway NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by Canadians calling on the Canadian government to match funds personally donated by the citizens of Canada for the earthquake victims in Chile.

The Chilean community has been mobilized in Canada. A fundraiser was held on Saturday, March 6, in Winnipeg where it raised $10,000. This past Saturday, March 20, at the University of Manitoba, over 1,000 people showed up for a fundraiser there.

The petitioners ask, when will the Prime Minister give the same treatment to the earthquake victims in Chile as he did for the earthquake victims in Haiti, and match funds personally donated by Canadians to help the earthquake victims in Chile?

International TradePetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:40 p.m.

NDP

Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table signed petitions addressing concerns pertaining to the proposed Canada-Colombia trade deal. The petitioners underline the following concerns: the ongoing violence against workers and members of civil society, including that 2,200 trade unionists have been murdered since 1991; and the fact the framework is the same as that of NAFTA, which has basically benefited the large multinational corporations with little benefit to working families.

Moreover, labour agreements such as this one have not been effective at protecting labour standards. The labour protection provisions in this agreement make a mockery of human rights, and widespread and very serious human rights violations are a daily occurrence.

This trade deal is not a fair deal that would respect social justice, human rights, labour rights and environmental stewardship as prerequisites to trade.

As well, the petitioners opine that the Prime Minister is ignoring concerns and proceeding without due diligence.

These Canadians call on Parliament to reject the Canada-Colombia trade deal until an independent human rights impact assessment is carried out and the above noted concerns are addressed, and that any deal be a fair trade deal that would respect environmental and social impacts and respect human and labour rights.

I am pleased to table the petitions on behalf of these Canadians.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Is that agreed?

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Is that agreed?

Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

The Chair has received notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt. I will hear him now.

Photography of Members at CommitteePrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege with regard to a picture taken at committee by Tisha Ashton, who I believe is employed by the member for Kings—Hants, my good colleague on the international trade committee.

She placed that picture along with a statement on Facebook. The picture shows me with my eyes closed, not an uncommon result when snapping a photo. My staff have drawers of these photos with me in my office.

Her comments below the picture were, “sleeping at committee...again”.

First of all, taking pictures during a committee proceeding is against the rules. Second, she has used this photo to misrepresent what I was doing. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, I did not fall asleep during the committee proceedings. In fact, the transcripts of the committee show me taking a five minute round as the second government questioner at committee.

This photo and her comments have tarnished my reputation in the eyes of my constituents.

On page 288 of O'Brien and Bosc it states:

Before the advent of broadcasting of House of Commons' proceedings, photographs of the House during a sitting were taken with the permission of the House. In the late 1970s, once the House had dealt with the question of broadcasting, the matter of still photography arose. There were no provisions for print media to take pictures of the House at work, except by special arrangement, whereas the electronic media now had access to images of every sitting of the House. On a trial basis, and now standard practice, a photographer was allowed behind the curtains on each side of the House during Question Period. The photographers are employed by a news service agency which supplies other news organizations under a pooling arrangement. When in the chamber, they operate in accordance with the principles governing the use of television cameras, described in chapter 24, “The Parliamentary Record”. Only these photographers, and the official photographers employed by the House of Commons, are authorized to take photographs of the Chamber while the House is in session; even Members—

—I repeat, even members—

—are forbidden from taking photographs.

Standing Order 116 provides that:

In a standing, special or legislative committee, the Standing Orders shall apply so far as may be applicable, except the Standing Orders as to the election of a Speaker, seconding of motions, limiting the number of times of speaking and the length of speeches.

Thus the rule for taking photos in the House would also apply to committee, and since Tisha Ashton is not the official photographer, she has breached the rules of this House.

These rules, Mr. Speaker, are intended to protect members and the proceedings of committees.

On page 214 of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada there is a reference to reflection on members. It states:

The House of Commons is prepared to find contempt in respect to utterances within the category of libel and slander and also in respect of utterance which do not meet the standard. As put by Bourinot, “any scandalous and libellous reflection on the proceedings of the House is a breach of privileges of Parliament...” and “libels or reflections upon members individually—"

Mr. Speaker, a picture does say a thousand words and a misleading description below the picture says volumes.

I would also reference for you, Mr. Speaker, a Speaker's ruling from October 29, 1980, on page 4213 of Hansard. The Speaker said that:

in the context of contempt, it seems to me that to amount to contempt, representations or statements about...members should not only be erroneous or incorrect, but, rather, should be purposely untrue and improper and import a ring of deceit.

The actions of Ms. Ashton, Mr. Speaker, on the face of it, or I should say, on the Facebook of it, are untrue, improper and definitely import a ring of deceit.

I realize the last two rulings I referred to were brought down before we had such things as Facebook, cameras, cellphones and Blackberries. However, as you know, Mr. Speaker, contempt is intentionally flexible to address changes in technology that can breach our privileges.

On page 83 of O'Brien and Bosc, this very issue is addressed. It states:

Throughout the Commonwealth most procedural authorities hold that contempts, as opposed to “privileges”, cannot be enumerated or categorized. Speaker Sauvé explained in a 1980 ruling: “...while our privileges are defined, contempt of the House has no limits. When new ways are found to interfere with our proceedings, so too will the House, in appropriate cases, be able to find that a contempt of the House has occurred”.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you to consider my arguments and find that the actions of Ms. Ashton constitute contempt and a breach of my privileges.

Photography of Members at CommitteePrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Speaker, I became aware of this during question period. At that time, I sent a note to the hon. member apologizing for it. I have spoken with my staff member and asked her to take it off Facebook. Again, I was unaware of it and I apologize to the hon. member for any slight or contempt that he may feel was done to him, and I am very sorry about it.

Photography of Members at CommitteePrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

3:50 p.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on the same point of order.

While I applaud our hon. friend, the member for Kings—Hants, for offering an apology, I should point out that I do not think that resolves the situation.

I would point out a most recent ruling that you made, Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege brought forward by the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, at which time he indicated that a ten percenter had been sent into his riding under the name of the member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin.

When the member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin made a heartfelt apology in this House, he indicated that while a ten percenter did indeed go into the member's riding and contained inaccurate information, the content of that ten percenter had in fact been written by a staff member, not by the member himself.

In your ruling, Mr. Speaker, you still found a prima facie case on a breach of privilege, even though it was admitted, both by the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore and by the member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, that the member for Saskatoon--Wanuskewin was not responsible for the literature itself. It was written by someone else. I believe, Mr. Speaker, you would find in your ruling, even though this was perhaps implied rather than stated verbally, that members are responsible for their staff.

Mr. Speaker, I would just ask that you apply the same reasoning in your determination of the breach of privilege brought forward by the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore to this case, because, quite clearly, the reputation of my colleague from Saskatoon—Humboldt has been tarnished. This Facebook posting is definitely injurious to my colleague's reputation. It implies to his constituents that he was not working on their behalf and that he was asleep during a committee meeting. While I can appreciate the fact that the member for Kings—Hants may not have taken the photograph himself, his staff member did and he is responsible for his staff member.

I would urge you, Mr. Speaker, to find, as you did in the case of the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, that there is a prima facie case for breach of privilege in this instance.

Photography of Members at CommitteePrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

I appreciate the submissions of hon. members on this point, but I point out two things that I think are important.

First, whether or not there has been an apology that satisfies the hon. member or all hon. members, I do not think is relevant at this point. In my view, this is a matter of privilege in the committee. It is the privileges of the committee that have been damaged, not of the House.

The member for Saskatoon—Humboldt who has raised this issue had his privileges breached as a member of the committee, and normally committees deal with matters involving their proceedings first. If committee members wish to make a report to the House suggesting that members' privileges have been breached by something that happened in the committee, they can do that. They can come to the House with a report, which the House can then consider. However, the normal practice would be for this to be raised first in committee, where the committee makes a decision on what went wrong and then reports the matter to the House.

Therefore, I would invite the hon. member to return to the next committee meeting and raise this issue there and see if the committee wishes to make a report on the matter to the House. This may result in the matter then being referred to another committee, namely, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, for study as a breach of privilege.

However, I do not believe it is for the Speaker to rule on whether what happened in a committee was or was not a breach of members' privileges. It is the normal practice for the committee to deal with that. Hence, I am asking the committee, of which the hon. member is a member, to deal with the matter first.

I sympathize and I think the statements here have been clear. The member says he was not asleep in the committee. I cannot imagine anybody falling asleep in a committee, let alone in the House with the things that go on in this place. I do not think the member should have a worry on that score.

Photography of Members at CommitteePrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

I have a final submission, Mr. Speaker.

I would point out to your attention that while you are quite correct that in this instance the taking of the photograph did occur in committee, the posting was on Facebook, a social media, that can be broadcast worldwide, if the posting went viral.

While this might have occurred in committee, the impact on my colleague is certainly not a committee matter. It has impugned and hurt his reputation as a member of Parliament, a member who sits in this House. So while the instance might have been generated in committee, its long-lasting impact goes far beyond committee.