Debates of Nov. 19th, 2009

Tax Harmonization

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the harmonization initiative with the provinces started in the 1990s with Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. The same proposal has continued over the years and has been available to the provinces. A couple of the provinces, Ontario and British Columbia, have also chosen to harmonize. That is a decision for the provinces to make, which they have chosen to do.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I again quote the Ontario finance minister, who said:

There are always rats in these debates and it's funny watching those individuals who are trying to deny the $4.3 billion their government is giving us.

Churchill once said, “Anyone can rat, but it takes a certain amount of ingenuity to re-rat”. With that in mind, will the government today free up its Ontario and B.C. MPs to now return to their constituents and vote against the HST enabling legislation?

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that if the hon. member wanted to check and go back more than 10 years ago, he would see that the same proposal was on the table then for various provinces that chose to harmonize. The same proposal is there now and there are still a few other provinces that are looking at the option of harmonizing.

This is an issue that is up to the provinces. Some decided in the 1990s and some have decided more recently, but it is a decision for provincial governments, not for the Government of Canada.

Israel

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we heard members of the Liberal Party present a revisionist version of history to Canadians about their record of support for Israel. Yet, when Israel was attacked in 2006, it was their own leader who accused Israel of war crimes.

Can the minister of state inform the House of the government's leadership to ensure the security and dignity of the people of Israel in the face of terror and anti-Semitism?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Minister of State of Foreign Affairs (Americas)]

Mr. Speaker, under this government, Canadians know that we lead by example. Canada was the first country to refuse to attend Durban II, a forum for hate. When Hamas formed the government of the Palestinian Authority, Canada was the first country to suspend aid.

When Iran's Ahmadinejad addressed the UN with repugnant anti-Israel and anti-Jewish declarations, Canada was the first to stand and walk out. Our government has been a strong, consistent and unequivocal supporter of Israel, and that will continue.

Air Transportation

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last year, the House unanimously approved a Liberal motion on the passenger safety and services provided by the airlines.

The Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and his predecessor supported that motion. Now, the minister is going back on that decision and is abandoning the passengers, an action some are calling duplicitous.

Why must he perpetuate this culture of duplicity? Why is he refusing to protect passenger rights?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the member who asked the question was a member of the Liberal government that was in power for 13 long years. If it had just gotten that fifth term, I am sure it would have presented a bill in this regard.

I noticed an editorial in the Montreal Gazette, which states:

Our airline industry is financially fragile at the best of times, which these are not.

Furthermore, it goes on to say:

--this bill strikes us as unwise...[I]mposing penalties like these on a fragile but vital industry strikes us as imprudently harsh.

We are concerned about families and Canadians who experience delays. We are working with industry and Canadian consumer groups. We are working to make sure that we can do a better job on the regulation of these issues.

Presence in Gallery

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of the recipients of the Governor General Awards for Excellence in Teaching Canadian History: Michel Marcotte, Brent Pavey, Lindsay Hall, Neil Robinson, Neil Stephenson, Karen Wright and Alison England.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

Business of the House

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the government House leader would indicate his business plan for the rest of this week and into next week, including whether or not any of the days next week would be designated as part of the supply day process.

I would also draw to his attention that Monday is the final day provided by the government for the consultation process with respect to the NAFO agreement, and with that time rapidly coming to an end, I wonder if there is any time today or tomorrow or on Monday when he would allow a take note debate to take place so that members of the House could offer their views with respect to the proposed NAFO agreement.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, today we will continue with Bill C-57, Canada-Jordan Free Trade Act.

If we were to complete that, I would intend to call Bill C-23, Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. I would point out to my colleagues that this bill has already received more than 30 hours of debate in the House and yet the NDP and the Bloc continue to delay the proceedings and hold up this agreement that would create new business opportunities for Canadians from coast to coast.

As I indicated this morning, tomorrow will be an allotted day.

Next week we will once again focus on our justice agenda beginning with the report and third reading stage of Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code followed by Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act. Then we will have Bill C-54, Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act; Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Shoker act; Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions); Bill C-53, Protecting Canadians by Ending Early Release for Criminals Act and finally, Bill C-35, Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act. All of these bills are at second reading.

On the issue of a NAFO debate, I would remind the hon. House leader for the Liberal Party that is what opposition days are for.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The Chair has notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for Mount Royal. I will hear him now.

Content of Flyer

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege in respect of a flyer subvented by Parliament and the Canadian public, targeting ridings with identifiable Jewish communities and comparing the positions of the Conservatives and the Liberals in respect of what they call matters of value to the Jewish community.

Let me relate each of the three matters of value that they speak of: fighting anti-Semitism, fighting terrorism, and supporting Israel.

Let me begin with the first.

I will cite directly from the flyer, which I will table accordingly as well. The type of language used in this flyer must be borne in mind. The flyer states that the Liberals:

Willingly participated in the overtly anti-Semitic Durban I.

For shame. This is a false, misleading, prejudicial and pernicious slander, which itself constitutes a prima facie breach of privilege, associating the Liberal Party with support for anti-Semitism and, I might add, associating me as a member of the Liberal Party and each of us as members of the Liberal Party with supporting anti-Semitism.

This flyer is also false, misleading and prejudicial to me personally and my reputation and standing as an MP, constituting yet another prima facie breach of privilege, and I am referring here to the statements with regard to privilege.

I participated in Durban I as a member of the Canadian delegation. I went to Durban I, as did Canada, with other states in the international community, because we hoped and believed at the time that this was going to be the first world conference against racism in the 21st century, as I wrote at the time. However, a world conference against racism turned into a conference of racism and anti-Semitism against Israel and the Jewish community.

I spoke then, during the conference. I have spoken and written since. At the risk of sounding self-serving, though I think this is a matter of empirical fact, I believe I have spoken out on Durban I perhaps as much as, if not more than, any member of any other parliament in the world.

Yet this flyer purports to identify me and the members of my party as associating with and willingly participating in an anti-Semitic Durban conference.

Not only did the Canadian delegation and I myself speak unequivocally in condemnation of Durban I, but, and this is an important fact as well, the Government of Israel, at the time, publicly commended Canada for its participation and the nature of its participation in the Durban I conference.

The Government of Israel publicly commended Canada for Canada's condemnation of anti-Semitism at Durban I. Does that mean that the Government of Israel, by supporting the Government of Canada, was also identifying with anti-Semitism? What kind of absurdity is that coming out of the members of the Conservative government? This is as absurd as it is false.

Let me go to the second scurrilous allegation.

The flyer claims, on matters of fighting terrorism, that the Liberal Party:

opposed defunding Hamas and asked that Hezbollah be delisted as a terrorist organization.

Let the facts speak for themselves. It was a Liberal government, in 2002, which listed Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations under Canadian law. I have no problem in commending the Conservatives for doing that which we or any other party would do, whether it be in support of Israel or to condemn anti-Semitism. What I condemn them for is massive political identity theft on the matters of Hamas and Hezbollah. The Conservatives, in this flyer, take credit for listing Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.

If they want to take credit for regarding Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations, I have no problem with that. I have a problem with the member saying that we in the Liberal Party supported Hamas and Hezbollah. For shame. The hon. member is trapped by the facts and he cannot escape the facts.

When they take credit for being the first in the world to stop funding for Hamas, it was illegal under Canadian law from 2002 onwards to provide any support for Hamas. How can they take credit that after 2006, they then de-funded Hamas? My god, there has to be some respect for truth and some respect for honesty.

Finally—

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

You are splitting hairs.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I do not split hairs with the truth.

The third allegation, lest they say I would overlook the third allegation, is as I quote, that Michael Ignatieff “accused Israel of committing war crimes”. As Voltaire put it, if one takes something out of context, one can hang anybody. Mr. Ignatieff apologized and said the following, and I quote—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order, order. The hon. member knows he cannot use another member's name. He will have to stick with titles.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

The member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore said in 2006, at the same time the Conservatives misleadingly excerpted text from his statement, that: “Between a terrorist militia and a democratic state, Canada must always side with Israel”.”

I want to conclude with his remarks, as they bear exactly on the issue before the House. I quote:

...it is beyond reckless for political leaders to try to score points by branding one another as 'anti-Israel'—to try to win votes by claiming a monopoly on supporting Israel. My Party will never claim to be the only genuine defenders of Israel in Canadian politics—because I don’t want my Party to be alone in the defence of Israel. I want all parties to be genuine defenders of Israel.

In closing, I want to cite from House of Commons Procedure and Practice in reference to an action you took, Mr. Speaker:

In April 2005, Speaker Milliken ruled that the reputation of [the member for Windsor West] may have been unjustly damaged by Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat) who had distributed in the Windsor West riding a bulk mailing containing inaccurate and misleading information about Mr. Masse’s House and committee activities.

There have been bulk mailings not only in my riding but also in ridings across this country with identifiable Jewish communities. Those bulk mailings not only contained false and misleading information, but they also contained information that was slanderous, damaging, and prejudicial to the Liberal Party and to the performance of each of our individual and collective duties. That is a prima facie breach of privilege and I would call on the Conservatives to cease and desist from these pernicious mailings and to publicly apologize for this false and misleading action.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I am sure the hon. member will make available to the Chair the document he was referring to, so I can see which member sent the mailing into his riding. If there is to be some discussion on this matter later, that document will obviously be important from the point of view of a question of privilege.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister is responding.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the occasion to address the chamber on this important matter. I thank the hon. member for giving us the opportunity to address it here today.

I am going to start by addressing the facts, because the hon. member indicated that he wanted this to be a factual discussion. So let it be.

The Liberal Party was in government in 2001 and willingly partook in the Durban conference at that time, and continued to participate in that event after its hateful nature had become completely apparent and, in fact, after our party had clearly called on the government of that time to withdraw from the conference.

By contrast, this government, the Conservative government under this Prime Minister, was the first in the entire world to pull out of the Durban II hatefest. All the other countries of the world followed us in making that decision.

There is a clear and present distinction between these two approaches. The hon. member might not like that fact, but it continues to be a fact whether he likes it or not.

I want to quote from the Victoria Times Colonist on this point:

The continued presence at the conference of Canada's secretary of state for multiculturalism no longer serves any useful purpose and, in fact, helps to legitimize what has become a propaganda forum for some of the worst anti-Jewish hatemongering since the Second World War.

I am quoting right out of the Victoria Times Colonist for September 5, 2001.

Mr. Speaker, we have a clear and very different position from the Liberal Party on the Durban process. The Liberals stayed with Durban; we left Durban. They have come up with some very strange and convoluted explanations for their position years later; but their explanations notwithstanding, we had the courage to walk out. We had the courage to stand alone and lead the world, and the world followed us because of that courage.

Let us move to the second point in the brochure which the hon. member has identified, “On Fighting Terrorism”. It is true that this government was the first in the world to cut off public aid funds for the Hamas government elected in the Gaza Strip.

When we made that courageous decision, we encountered opposition from the Liberal Party. Let me quote again. I have here from the Globe and Mail of March 30, 2006, a quote from the then foreign affairs critic of the Liberal Party, who went on to become its penultimate leader. He said:

The government should, right away, commit itself to maintaining the $52-million in help. The social problems in the (territories) are awful, and, in fact, Canada should do more not less.

Hence, cutting the $7 million would be a mistake in his view. The Liberal Party, under the leadership of the member who represents Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, indicated they would like to continue the funding of the Hamas regime in the Gaza Strip. That is the position of the Liberal Party.

I have the reference here and I would be happy to table it afterwards. I am quoting directly from the Globe and Mail.

On the subject of the legalization of Hamas and Hezbollah in Canada, they are two organizations that are rightfully listed as terrorist bodies in this country today. Anyone who was here during the debate in the early part of this decade on whether or not to list those two organizations, would proudly and resoundingly give all of the credit for that decision to the current Minister of International Trade, who led the charge against tremendous resistance within the Liberal government of that day.

One need only look at the exchanges in the House, where the then foreign affairs critic for the official opposition, currently the Minister of International Trade, had to rise to his feet on probably two or three dozen occasions to demand that Hezbollah be criminalized. He was confronted with the position of the then government that Hezbollah was a social program and not a terrorist organization.

The Liberal Party collapsed under pressure from organizations across this country who support peace and oppose terror. I am glad that the party backed down under the pressure from the now Minister of International Trade. That is a fact. However, the Liberal Party did not back down entirely.

Let me look at the positions taken since that time. On the matter of funding for Hezbollah, the Liberal member for Etobicoke Centre was asked point blank during his visit to the Middle East whether he thought that Hezbollah should be de-listed, that is, whether it should be legalized in Canada, and he replied, yes. That was the position of a Liberal member, a member of that hon. member's caucus. These again are facts, and if the member does not like those facts, it is irrelevant.

I will quote the Vancouver Province:

When asked if he was in favour of Hezbollah being taken off the terror list, [the Liberal member for Etobicoke] said: 'Yes, I would be.' He likened the situation in the Middle East to Northern Ireland,

That is in the Province of August 21, 2006.

The evidence continues to pile up. I have here some quotes from the current public security critic for the Liberal Party, who is a spokesman on these issues for that party. He says in the headline of an op-ed piece, which he appears to have sent to his constituents:

[The Prime Minister's] pro-Israel cheerleading is dangerous foreign policy shift.

That is a quote made on July 26, 2006 by the member of Parliament for Ajax—Pickering. I will be happy to table that as well.

The following is another quote from him:

[The Prime Minister's] reversal of Canadian foreign policy and one-sided pro-Israeli stance is short-sighted, and dangerous.

I note that the wording was very careful there. It was not just that he said that the Prime Minister's position in support of Israel was dangerous, but also that his support for Israel represented a “reversal”, in his words, from the era of Liberal government. He is absolutely right in pointing to a reversal, because we take the opposite position of the former Liberal government.

I will continue to quote this piece from the Liberal Party's most senior spokesman on public security matters:

At a time when Israel was bombing civilians and infrastructure around Beirut in response to the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers by the Hezbollah militia, [the Prime Minister] called the Israeli response “measured.” Even after a family of eight Canadians was killed by Israeli bombs in southern Lebanon, and the fighting escalated, [the Prime Minister] refused to back down from this statement.

Once again, we have the most senior spokesman for the Liberal Party on matters of public security attacking the Prime Minister for his support of Israel. I will be happy to table all of those quotes.

He went on to say in the same op-ed piece on a separate page:

[The member for Ajax--Pickering] condemns [the Prime Minister's] Middle East policy. Canada's foreign policy has shifted over the years, but never before has it been so strongly pro-Israel.

Again, those are the words of that party's senior public security spokesman.

In the summer of 2006, the same member for Ajax—Pickering said:

Indeed [the Prime Minister's] pro-Israel tone exceeded even that of U.S. President George W. Bush, who acknowledged Israel's right to defend itself, but also urged the Jewish state to be mindful of consequences.

Thus he again he criticized the Conservative government and the Conservative Prime Minister for his support of Israel. I will be happy to table that as well.

That brings us to the issue of the leader of the Liberal Party. The hon. member stood in his place and claimed there was a problem with the context. I have the context of the remarks made by the current leader of the Liberal Party with respect to Israel. It was during the 2006 conflict between the democratic State of Israel and the terrorist group Hezbollah. The current Liberal leader said:

I was a professor of human rights and I am also a professor of the laws of war and what happened in Qana was a war crime and I should have said that.

That is quoted from the National Post of October 11, 2006.

In the Toronto Star on October 11, the same Liberal leader said:

I believe that war crimes were committed in the war in Lebanon, I don't think there's any question about it, and war crimes were visited on Israeli civilians and they were visited on Lebanese civilians.

In two separate quotes I have two separate citations of where he accuses the state of Israel of participating in a war crime. He may have changed his mind later on but when the pressure was on he took the position that Israel was engaging in war crimes.

Again, the hon. member across the way may not like those facts. If he does not like the facts about his party, he can change parties but he cannot change the facts. That is the challenge with which he is confronted today.

I will summarize these points by pointing to the following facts. Fact, the Liberal leader accused Israel of war crimes. Fact, members of the present Liberal caucus have marched with Hezbollah supporters. Fact, the former Liberal government refused to walk out on the Durban hate festival when they had the chance and when so many asked them to do so. Those are the facts about the Liberal Party.

Furthermore, there are facts about this government. There are facts about the way in which the Liberal Party responded to this government. When the Prime Minister of Canada was the first leader in the world to cut off funds to the Hamas government in Gaza, the Liberals said that the funds should be increased. When the Prime Minister stood with Israel in its war against Hezbollah, the Liberal leader was calling Israel a war criminal and his Liberal caucus members were advocating legalizing Hezbollah. While our Conservative Prime Minister was the first leader in the world to walk out on the Durban II hate festival, the Liberals had stayed for the Durban I festival in that conference.

Those are the facts. As a result, we as a party have been prepared to defend the positions we have taken and the decisions at which we have arrived. If the member across the way is uncomfortable with the positions that his party has taken, then I would encourage him to speak up against his party when it takes those positions. I think he is learning the discomfort that is often associated with being in a party that tries to talk out of both sides of its mouth on the same issue.

I appreciate the occasion to address this chamber and I look forward to tabling all of the facts that I have shared here today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say, on behalf of my Bloc Québécois colleagues, that we fully support the member from Mount Royal with respect to his question of privilege.

We heard the parliamentary secretary's remarks. I would say that his remarks were a flood of words devoid of substance. The parliamentary secretary tried to get the toothpaste back into the tube, as the expression goes. With all the quotes he provided, what you must decide, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the question of privilege, is whether or not the document sent breached parliamentary privilege for the member for Mount Royal.

It is all well and good for the government to give us all these references to years past. But that is irrelevant, Mr. Speaker. You must look at the content of the document. As Speaker, you are the guardian of members' privileges in this House. You are the one in whom we have placed our trust and who must ensure that a political party does not engage in demagogic attacks, as the Conservatives do, because this party excels in demagoguery. I can say that the Bloc Québécois was subject to demagogic attacks in flyers of the same type and tenor.

We are opposed to minimum sentences and yet our constituents received ten percenters, paid for by taxpayers, which said that the Bloc Québécois supported child trafficking. That is unbelievable.

Just recently, at the time of the gun control debate, colleagues from all parties who disagreed with the Conservatives received flyers stating that their member opposed hunters and wanted to silence them. This has to stop.

In closing, I would like to say that I am very disappointed to see that the flyer was signed by the member from Elgin—Middlesex—London, who is also the chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and a member of the Board of Internal Economy of the House of Commons. He agreed to lend his name to this trash sent to the riding of the member for Mount Royal.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had a similar case in 2005, which, thankfully, was ruled in my favour. However, I do not want to start a debate about particular issues that you will sort through, Mr. Speaker.

In the eight years that I have been here, the member for Mount Royal has been an upstanding member and he needs to have this case seriously looked at because it does affect his ability to do his job.

What happened in my case is that the Conservative Party mailed some flyers to people in my riding at a time when Canadians were wondering about the RCMP. The Conservatives made wrongful accusations about my voting record.

Mr. Speaker, if you find anything in this debate that is truly counter to the record of the member for Mount Royal, then there needs to be restitution. The Conservative Party cannot hide behind the taxpayers of Canada who pay for these flyers to go out. It is important to recognize that aspect because it is not the party doing this where there could be some legal action outside the House. The Conservatives are using this chamber to shelter their own behaviour, and that is what is truly offensive and why this matter must be addressed.

I am hopeful that the member for Mount Royal will have his reputation cleared because it is important for his constituents. The member should feel comfortable in his own riding. He cannot be slandered in flyers sent out to his riding by the Conservative government.

Every member in this chamber has the final responsibility to sign off with their name on these ten percenters. We have control over these ten percenters. The member who put this out must be held accountable because that member was the final decision maker in this instance.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party never supported that the funds would be sent to the Hamas-led government. What we were asking was whether the funds would reach the people in Palestine. This point of view was the point of view of the government of Israel at that time.

Mr. Speaker, I understand very well that you do not see it as your role to get involved in the debate between Canadian political parties regarding the Middle East and Israel. That is not what you are being asked to do.

This specific case is a case of propaganda and misrepresentation of the facts, which aims to tarnish a party's reputation and, what is worse, to tarnish the reputation of a colleague who has dedicated his life to Israel-Canada relations.

The member for Mount Royal mentioned a particularly flagrant case. It cannot be ignored. The conference in question was not advertised as an anti-Semitic conference, and he did not go there to attend an anti-Semitic conference. He arrived there and realized there was an anti-Semitic slant to the conference, which he courageously tried to speak out against, and in fact he, and the government at the time, were commended by the Israeli government. The Israeli government itself even had a delegation at the conference.

The Conservative government is clearly using taxpayers' money to try to convince Canadians, and it will very likely succeed if we do not do something, that the Liberal government at the time knowingly participated in an overtly anti-Semitic conference. That is a serious misrepresentation of the facts, and we cannot let that stand. If we do, it means that political parties can use taxpayers' money to say whatever they want, and to stoop as low as you can imagine, and that there is no limit to the lies they can tell the unwitting public.

We cannot allow that, Mr. Speaker, and you do not have to enter into the debate on the Middle East. Look at the facts, and you will see that this is an outright lie paid for by taxpayers as a result of a parliamentary procedure.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to prolong this but it is important that some balance be brought to this discussion.

With regard to the remarks just made by the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, I would point out that at no point in time did he dispute the facts of what was reported at the time that the conference was taking place, and that is what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister was trying to lay upon the table.

I find it quite astounding that my colleague, the whip from the Bloc Québécois, a man for whom I have a lot of respect, would stand in his place and say that the facts are irrelevant because that is exactly at the heart of what the remarks of the hon. member for Mount Royal were about. He was disputing the facts that were in this ten percenter.

Mr. Speaker, it is important that you know the facts if you are going to--

[An hon. member]

Propaganda.