Debates of March 22nd, 2007

Comments by Government House Leader

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order. The discussion that is taking place on this question of privilege is one that sounds to me like a debate over the meaning of various words that have been used in various contexts. I am not sure that any member's privileges were breached by misquotation of the member's comments.

The member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore has suggested that the comments that were quoted were inaccurate. There is clearly a dispute about that. Various quotes have been read. I can examine the statements of members and if I see something that appears to be a deliberate misquote, there may be some argument. But it is hard for me to imagine that a member's privileges have been breached because he has been misquoted, unless the misquote is something completely at odds with what has been stated.

I think the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore has made his point. Obviously the government House leader is relying on different materials than the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore quoted in making his statements. Whether he is entitled to draw the conclusions from them that he has is another matter, but I am not sure it is one for the Chair to decide.

As I say, I will look at the material and if necessary get back to the House.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the accusations made today are serious. When it is said that an hon. member of this House is in favour of torture, when an individual is deemed guilty by association and the reputation of the hon. member is sullied, that is serious.

I understand that the Conservatives are mean-spirited and that they can stoop pretty low, but that is unacceptable. That is not just hot air. When they say that someone is in favour of torture, they are saying that the individual is against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. To find him guilty by association is also a serious matter. One cannot do indirectly what one cannot do directly.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you to take this into consideration because there is beginning to be a serious lack of decorum. It is completely unacceptable to sully the reputation of an hon. member, of an honourable Canadian who has devoted his life to the well-being of Canadians and to say to him that he is in favour of torture.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

There are various statements that are made in the House that are unacceptable in my view as well, not just on this subject. But the fact is it is not for the Speaker to decide, except in the case of the use of unparliamentary language.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

We will have a little order please.

If we are going to have that kind of discussion, we can have it, but I will say to hon. members that it is words that are unparliamentary that are prohibited in the chamber, not misquoting others and so on. While I am concerned about the use of this kind of description, that is a matter for members to govern for themselves. I think they have to realize that in saying things about one another, there is a risk of misrepresenting statements or saying things that are not accurate about what other members have said. That is the kind of dispute I believe we have here.

As I have said, I will look at the matter again and if necessary, I will come back to the House on it.

The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine is rising on another point of order.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to House business and further to your ruling yesterday, I wonder if you would seek unanimous consent for the following motion: That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice, Bill C-18, An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to DNA identification, be deemed to have been amended at the report stage, as proposed in the report stage motion of the Minister of Justice in the notice paper of March 20, 2007, concurred in at the report stage, and read a third time and passed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Does the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let us try again. Would the Speaker please seek unanimous consent for the following motion: That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice, Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (age of protection) and to make consequential amendments to the Criminal Records Act, be deemed to have been reported without amendment by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, concurred in at the report stage, and read a third a time and passed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

I will try a third time, Mr. Speaker, again with respect to House business and further to your ruling yesterday, I wonder if you would seek unanimous consent for the following motion: That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice, Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal procedure, language of the accused, sentencing and other amendments), be deemed to have been reported without amendment by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, concurred in at the report stage, and read a third time and passed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for a final time, let us see if we can get unanimous consent of all parties, including government members, for the following motion: That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (reverse onus in bail hearings for firearm-related offences), be deemed to have been read a second time, referred to and reported without amendment by a legislative committee, concurred in at the report stage, and read a third time and passed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

Comments by Minister of Finance

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this relates to comments made by the finance minister during question period.

It relates to my voting behaviour on the upcoming budget. I want to correct the hon. member and any suggestions that I am voting for this budget. It is rooted in voodoo economics and one which shafts my province of British Columbia in favour of the government's cheap electioneering in other parts of the country. It is one that I would never support.

Therefore, I am not supporting or voting for this budget. I hope this corrects any delusions that the finance minister may have on this point.

Language used during oral question period

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, this afternoon during question period I heard some unparliamentary language. What is more, this language was used by the leader of a political party from Quebec. The Leader of the Bloc Québécois, who should be respectful and a model parliamentarian, unfortunately used unparliamentary and disrespectful language when the Minister of National Defence had the floor.

Out of respect for the electors of the Minister of National Defence and for the parliamentarians in this House, I am calling on the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie to withdraw his comments and apologize to the Minister of National Defence for his disrespectful comments. We are entitled to expect all parliamentarians to show a minimum of respect and decency here in this House.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member for Lévis—Bellechasse to be a little more explicit about the comments made by the Leader of the Bloc Québécois.

I know that the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie and Leader of the Bloc Québécois is able to repeat outside the House everything he says in the House. Unfortunately, the Leader of the Bloc is not here right now because he is holding a press conference.

You could always listen to the tapes. Nonetheless, I would like the hon. member to be a little more explicit.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, he said one thing when the mikes were on and another when the Minister of National Defence was answering at the far end of the House. However, people around him heard these comments and will not tolerate disrespectful comments about the Minister of National Defence or any other hon. member in this House.

For this reason, I am calling on the Leader of the Bloc Québécois to apologize and withdraw the comments he made about our Minister of National Defence.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, given that we do not know which comments he is talking about, could you explain to the member for Lévis—Bellechasse that, when one asks a member to withdraw comments, it is important to know exactly what they are?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, do you not find that there is enough mud-slinging going on in this campaign without starting to repeat people's nonsense?

I am calling on the leader of the Bloc Québécois' sense of honour and I am asking him to withdraw his comments. As a parliamentarian, he should rise and withdraw his comments.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The Chair will review today's Hansard. If unparliamentary language is found within, the Chair will certainly comment thereon.

Is the Minister of Finance rising on the point of order raised earlier?

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

If I may, Mr. Speaker, in reply to the comments made by the Liberal member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. I was referring to the quotes in the press that he planned to vote for the budget.

I am sorry to hear that I gather he has been intimidated by the expulsion from caucus of the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North who was exercising his independent view as a member of Parliament.

I am sorry that the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca values his membership in that caucus more than the independence of his vote in the House.