House of Commons Hansard #115 of the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was jury.

Topics

IsraelOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Calgary Southeast Alberta

Conservative

Jason Kenney ConservativeMinister of Citizenship

Mr. Speaker, when the Leader of the Opposition was accusing the Jewish democratic State of Israel of war crimes, our Prime Minister had the decency to defend that state's right of self-protection.

The Prime Minister had the decency to defund the Palestinian Authority upon the election of Hamas. That was opposed by that party.

The Prime Minister had the decency to ensure that Canada was the first country in the world to withdraw from the hateful Durban process which, initially, was opposed by members of Parliament on that side.

Yes, the Prime Minister has represented this country's fundamental decency on the world stage.

IsraelOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Liberal

Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, those people over there just do not get it.

The Conservative government's use of ten percenters has come into question repeatedly over the last four years. It has waged personal attacks and has spread outrageous partisan propaganda. Now it has gone too far by falsely accusing Liberal members, including me, of anti-Semitism.

The abuse of this privilege must stop. Will the government support the Leader of the Opposition's proposal to limit ten percenters to a member's own riding?

IsraelOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Order. I do not think that question is in order because it deals with a matter that is not a ministerial responsibility, but rather one of the Board of Internal Economy. We will move on to the next question.

Tax HarmonizationOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

NDP

Chris Charlton NDP Hamilton Mountain, ON

Mr. Speaker, in the debate in the Ontario legislature, Conservative members walked out after the Liberal government refused to hold public hearings on the HST.

Their gesture was a little hollow since it is their federal cousins who are forcing this tax onto families struggling with the recession. Tens of thousands of Canadians, including some of the government's own party members, are making it clear that this tax is just wrong.

Will the government hold the public hearings that its Ontario cousins and, indeed, the finance minister's wife, are calling for?

Tax HarmonizationOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Macleod Alberta

Conservative

Ted Menzies ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, once again I will repeat for probably the 12th time that it is well within the jurisdiction of both the Province of Ontario and the Province of British Columbia, which have chosen to harmonize their sales tax, as was done back in the 1990s. They are following the same lead those provinces have taken.

I would suggest that the member take that up with her provincial colleagues.

Tax HarmonizationOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

NDP

Claude Gravelle NDP Nickel Belt, ON

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance may not have noticed, but Canada is a northern country, and winter is fast approaching. Heating bills are going to rise quickly, especially with the Conservatives' proposed harmonized sales tax.

The federal government is reaping what it sowed. Northern Ontarians are realizing that the $4.3 billion the federal government has put on the table will not give them anything.

Why are the Conservatives turning their backs on northern Ontario?

Tax HarmonizationOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Macleod Alberta

Conservative

Ted Menzies ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the member's party keeps bringing up tax cuts, talking about taxes as if that party actually cared about what Canadians pay in taxes.

We have been in the House and watched members of the NDP sit throughout debates and argue against tax cuts for Canadians and, in the end, vote against them. In fact, they have voted against almost every one of the tax cuts we have put forward to provide Canadians with more money to make their own decisions.

Government AccountabilityOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Conservative

Gord Brown Conservative Leeds—Grenville, ON

Mr. Speaker, Canadians were reminded of the Liberal Party's legacy last week when another person associated with the sponsorship scandal was sentenced to prison.

During the Liberals' time in government, taxpayer money was lost to dishonest people while political masters watched.

Would the Minister of Public Works and Government Services please remind the House of our values in government compared with the previous Liberal government?

Government AccountabilityOral Questions

2:55 p.m.

Mégantic—L'Érable Québec

Conservative

Christian Paradis ConservativeMinister of Public Works and Government Services

Mr. Speaker, with the Liberal sponsorship scandal, we unfortunately saw white collar criminals steal from Canadian taxpayers. Our Conservative government was elected to change how things are done in Ottawa, and we are delivering the goods. One of the individuals involved in the scandal, Mr. Gosselin, received a two-year prison sentence, but the Liberal opposition is delaying our crime legislation. This means that Mr. Gosselin will be eligible for release after serving one-sixth of his sentence. While the opposition is dragging its feet and talking out of both sides of its mouth, we are delivering the goods and taking care of Canadian taxpayers.

Government ContractsOral Questions

3 p.m.

Liberal

Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

Mr. Speaker, according to the former leader of the ADQ, Senator Housakos had some questionable financing methods. Senator Housakos has even gone as far as to sue journalists to deny that he was responsible for the May 20, 2009, event that was attended by board members of Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated.

And yet, the Prime Minister himself congratulated Mr. Housakos for his organizational work on that event. Will he ask Elections Canada to investigate this event?

Government ContractsOral Questions

3 p.m.

Ottawa West—Nepean Ontario

Conservative

John Baird ConservativeMinister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, the member for Hull—Aylmer is once again raising a question with no facts on the table. If he has any facts he would like to present before the House or, even more so, outside the House, we would certainly welcome him doing so.

Loans and GrantsOral Questions

3 p.m.

Bloc

Nicolas Dufour Bloc Repentigny, QC

Mr. Speaker, the federal government refuses to transfer the money from its new loans and grants program to the Government of Quebec. But in June 2008, the current political lieutenant for Quebec confirmed that Quebec could withdraw from the new program that will replace the millennium scholarships. He said that the government respects Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.

Why is the government getting in the way of the Quebec government, which has chosen to target its least fortunate students?

Loans and GrantsOral Questions

3 p.m.

Haldimand—Norfolk Ontario

Conservative

Diane Finley ConservativeMinister of Human Resources and Skills Development

Mr. Speaker, we are working to help all students right across the country get better access to post-secondary education without increasing their debt load once they graduate.

That is why we introduced the grants program that allows between $150 a month for middle-income students and $250 a month for low-income students. This is money that does not have to be paid back. It is available to those in Quebec as well.

Loans and GrantsOral Questions

3 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

That concludes question period for today. The hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord wishes to rise on a point of order. He may do so now.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

3 p.m.

Bloc

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order. During question period my colleague, the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, raised a very important and legitimate question about Nathalie Morin, the Quebec woman who is being held, along with her three children, by a violent spouse in Saudi Arabia.

While the member was asking the question, the member for Peterborough was practically doubled over laughing. He was not only impolite, but also excessively noisy while my colleague was asking her question. The member for Peterborough, who got upset when the member for Scarborough made fun of him on Twitter, should apologize for his behaviour toward my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île earlier when she was talking about this very important issue.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

3 p.m.

Conservative

Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am not exactly sure what the hon. member is talking about at the moment.

I certainly never laughed, whatsoever, at the question to which he is referring. In the House, from time to time, as we all know, it takes some time for translation to come through the headpiece. I may have been talking to my colleague when the question began.

I certainly was not laughing at that question. I have no idea what the hon. member is talking about, but I do apologize if the member's colleague found that disruptive.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

3 p.m.

NDP

Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. I am seeking an apology from the Minister of the Environment.

It is my opinion that in his response to my question, which was asked very respectfully, he replied with insults and was extremely disrespectful. That is a violation both of the rules of order on the use of unparliamentary language, page 618 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, and Standing Order 18.

I would like to thank the member for Mississauga South for lending his books to me.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Calgary Centre-North Alberta

Conservative

Jim Prentice ConservativeMinister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that I hold her in the highest regard. In fact, she and I have spent a great deal of time together on airplanes flying to international conferences. The hon. member knows that I have often sought out her opinion on matters related to the environment, so I do not think it could be said that I do not hold her in complete respect.

In the question the hon. member asked immediately preceding mine, the member began by saying—and one would have to check the record—either that she was disturbed or confused, or that Canadians were disturbed and confused.

I simply responded with the observation that I could not comment on whether or not the member was disturbed, but that she was confused with respect to the policy basis of the question. I was simply referring to the comments the member used.

I note that most of the clamour in the House really came from the Liberals, who seem to have a different interpretation of the word “disturbed”. That perhaps reflects some of their history, which I regard as disturbing as well.

Comments Regarding Member's Position on Firearms RegistryPrivilegeOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Conservative

Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK

Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond once again to the matter of the ten percenter that was sent into the riding of the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore regarding his position on the long gun registry.

When I responded to the member's complaint on November 3, 2009, I corrected the record with respect to his position on the long gun registry, but I did not explicitly apologize at that time. I would like to sincerely do so today to the hon. member. I do that without reservation.

Furthermore, I have received an undertaking from our Conservative Resource Group that in the future, they will proofread more carefully and nuance more appropriately any ten percenter mail pieces sent out under my name.

With that, I again express my sincere regret to the hon. member opposite and to all of his constituents, and in particular to those constituents who drew this to his attention, who reported to his office the misimpression they had received from that earlier mail piece. In fact, I think we would mutually thank those individuals who brought it to our attention.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Kootenay—Columbia B.C.

Conservative

Jim Abbott ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation

Mr. Speaker, I suggest the House is reaching another point of difficulty. I have a great deal of respect for the member for Saint-Jean. He is on the special committee for Afghanistan. When he was asking his question in French, I received the English translation that he was referring to the fact that the Prime Minister had his “goons”, which is a slur on birds, attacking Mr. Colvin.

I also heard the member for Ottawa South not once, but at least twice, when the defence minister was giving his answer to his questions, hollering out at the top of his lungs, obviously kitty-corner in the House so I could hear him, “weasel words”.

Both the expression of the word “goons” in English and “weasel words” from the other member are not at all helpful. This is a very heated debate about which we all have very passionate feelings. All members would do well to kind of tone down the words and the rhetoric that we use.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Bloc

Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to know that I am not responsible for translation.

It is possible that “goons” is much more pejorative than hommes de main or henchmen, but as I said in the question and will say again, people sent to do the dirty work against an individual, a respected diplomat in this case, are henchmen. If the translation was inaccurate, we will have to ask the interpreters to use another term. However, I maintain that henchman were sent to deal with Richard Colvin.

Oral Questions—Speaker's RulingPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration on November 3, 2009, regarding the language used by the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie during oral questions that day. I want to thank the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration for having brought this matter to my attention, as well as the hon. member for Lévis—Bellechasse and the hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, for sharing their views.

In his submission the parliamentary secretary alleged that the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie repeatedly accused the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism of being a liar and asked the member for Laurier--Sainte-Marie to withdraw the remarks.

For his part, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie denied calling the minister a liar but admitted that he used the word “lies”, arguing that this was in fact acceptable as per past practice.

As I committed to do, I have reviewed Hansard and the video tapes of the exchange in question. Unable to discern what term was actually used in reference to the minister, I must take the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie at his word as is the long-standing practice.

That being said, I would be remiss in my duties as your Speaker if I left hon. members with the impression that words can be uttered in strict isolation without taking into account their effect on decorum in the chamber. As stated in the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, at page 619:

In dealing with unparliamentary language, the Speaker takes into account the tone, manner and intention of the member speaking; the person to whom the words at issue were directed; the degree of provocation; and, most importantly, whether or not the remarks created disorder in the Chamber. Thus, language deemed unparliamentary one day may not necessarily be deemed unparliamentary the following day.

In another ruling concerning unparliamentary language delivered on May 26, 2009, at pages 3702 and 3703 of the Debates, I stated:

… that certain words, while not always aimed specifically at individuals and therefore arguably technically not out of order, can still cause disruption, can still be felt by those on the receiving end as offensive and therefore can and do lead to disorder in the House.

It is that kind of language that I as Speaker am bound by our rules not only to discourage but to disallow.

These words ring as true today as they did then and are equally instructive in determining the acceptability of language used by hon. members.

As I have done in the past, I appeal to all hon. members on all sides of the House to choose their words with greater care. A reasonable degree of self-discipline is not a luxury. It is indispensable to civilized discourse and to the dignity of this institution. That point has been made in several of the points of order raised earlier this day.

Accordingly, in the matter before us today, I must find that the remarks made by the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie did create such disorder that the dignity of this House was compromised, and as such were unparliamentary. I would therefore ask him to withdraw his words.

I thank hon. members for their attention.

Oral Questions—Speaker's RulingPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I think you are bringing a new interpretation and shedding new light on the rules governing this House, but you are the master of the rules of this House. I therefore respect your ruling. Accordingly, I withdraw my words and I will be very careful in the future to ensure that the same rules apply equally to everyone. Is that understood?

Oral Questions—Speaker's RulingPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

I thank the hon. member for that. I also appreciate his cooperation in that regard, since we must encourage everyone to do the same.

Canadian Wheat BoardRoutine Proceedings

November 23rd, 2009 / 3:10 p.m.

Battlefords—Lloydminster Saskatchewan

Conservative

Gerry Ritz ConservativeMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling today, in both official languages, a letter I sent earlier in the day to the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.

I wrote to the Privacy Commissioner after an internal audit of the Canadian Wheat Board, released through the Access to Information Act, showed that the Canadian Wheat Board was sharing the personal information of farmers with grain companies. This is yet another example of the Canadian Wheat Board failing western Canadian farmers.

It was this Conservative government that brought in landmark changes to the access to information regime, which made sure farmers learned about this abuse. The Canadian Wheat Board must be accountable to western Canadian farmers, so I wrote to the Privacy Commissioner this morning asking her to look into this serious breach of personal privacy.

I also reiterate my call for the Wheat Board to allow the Auditor General of Canada to review its books and the substantial loss—