House of Commons Hansard #12 of the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was money.
Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the order adopted on Thursday, February 5, the order for the deferred recorded division on the opposition motion in the name of the member for Kings—Hants be discharged and the motion be deemed adopted unanimously.
Opposition Motion--Canada-United States RelationsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Opposition Motion--Canada-United States RelationsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Some hon. members
Agreed.
Opposition Motion--Canada-United States RelationsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Agriculture did last week, today the Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State for Agriculture blatantly misinformed the House on the poultry rejection program.
That program came into place in 2007 and the government continues to misinform the House as to when it came into place.
I would ask the ministers to table documents in this place that show otherwise.
Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderGovernment Orders
The Speaker Peter Milliken
The point of order appears to the Chair to be rather more a continuation of question period.
I know that members sometimes object but the minister did not read from a document so he is not under an obligation to table anything. His statements are one thing but he was not reading from a document.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, during question period, the hon. Minister of State for Democratic Reform misinformed the House in terms of the issue of electoral legislation. I think he would want to be accurate and retract the comment.
It was very clear in both pieces of legislation that the New Democrats voted against them at committee. We brought forward witnesses. We voted against them in the House. It is incumbent upon him as minister to know his portfolio and to correct the record. I am sure he would be wanting to correct that record.
Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderGovernment Orders
Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia Manitoba
Conservative
Steven Fletcher ConservativeMinister of State (Democratic Reform)
Mr. Speaker, what I was referring to was the voter identification measures passed in the last Parliament that were recommended by all party support. I am sorry that member seems to have a challenge hearing what I am saying but that is not a defence.
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Speaker, this is on the same subject. It is very clear. There was a vote in the House of Commons and the NDP was the only party to vote against this change at Elections Canada concerning voter identity. It was very clear. Just check the recorded division in the House of Commons.
Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderGovernment Orders
The Speaker Peter Milliken
I am glad the matter has been clarified and I think that is the end of that point of order. Does the minister of state wish to intervene yet again on this point? I will hear him but I do not want to hear an argument about facts.
Steven Fletcher Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB
Again, Mr. Speaker, I was talking about recommendations in an all party report of the committee on procedure and House affairs.
Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderGovernment Orders
The Speaker Peter Milliken
I do not think we need to hear more on this point. The hon. member for Ottawa Centre is rising on another point?
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is actually for clarification. I was on that committee when amendments were brought forward and we voted against them. I need the minister of state to understand that when he says these things, they are interpreted that one party, this party, the NDP, supported the amendments when, clearly, the facts are contrary. All we are asking is that the minister of state understand his portfolio.
Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderGovernment Orders
The Speaker Peter Milliken
I will not hear more on this point. This is an argument as to facts. It is not a point of order dealing with the rules of the House. Sometimes people make mistakes in their statements in the House. Far be it from the Speaker to correct that kind of blunder. It happens from time to time and I am not here to act as a judge in respect of those statements, so it is not a point of order.
The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst has the floor for another point of order.
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to start an argument, but members cannot mislead the House.
Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderGovernment Orders
The Speaker Peter Milliken
The House gets misled frequently and there are two reasons: sometimes the person making a statement says something that is not quite correct, and sometimes the person hearing a statement misunderstands what the person said. The House can be misled by either fact, and it is not for the Speaker to correct all the misleading of the House.
This is a point of debate. There is an argument about the accuracy of what the minister said. It is not for the Speaker to decide the accuracy of these statements, so it is not a point of order. It is an argument.
We can have a debate. There can be more questions of the minister tomorrow during question period, and perhaps he will answer them differently. Who knows? However, it is not for the Speaker to decide which statement is accurate and which is not. It is just not the job of the Speaker, and so we are going to move on with debate.
The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst has the floor again.
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Speaker, I rise once again. Those are the facts. There was a recorded division and it was all written down. We know what the facts are.
He just misled the House a few minutes ago on the record--
Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderGovernment Orders
The Speaker Peter Milliken
We have heard about the vote. We have had the two sides of the argument presented. That is that. It is not a point of order. The Speaker does not decide those things, pure and simple.
People do not get up on points of order to say that the member has misled. They may argue with the member as to whether what he said was accurate or not, and that is normal for debate. That is why I say there will be more questions on the subject tomorrow.
Is the hon. member for Malpeque rising on another point of order?
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Speaker, it is on this point, because it is important. Can you give me some clarification, then?
I raised my point of order with the minister, who I believe clearly misinformed the House. The Conservatives would have documentation to suggest otherwise if they were in fact telling the truth.
We have to have a way. When a minister is clearly misinforming the House and does not have the documentation to back it up, what are we to do? Are we going to--
Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderGovernment Orders
The Speaker Peter Milliken
You will have to get up, ask another question, quote some facts or figures to the minister, and ask him which is true. It is not for the Speaker to decide who is telling the truth and who is not, if you want to put it in that graphic a term. It is not a question of the accuracy of the information being given to the House.The Speaker does not decide these things and never has.
I know members love to raise these matters as points of order so that they can continue the debate, but the debate has to be continued under the rules at the normal times, and that is what we are going to do.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 and related fiscal measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.
Budget Implementation Act, 2009Government Orders
The Speaker Peter Milliken
Before question period, the hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam had the floor and there were five minutes remaining in the time allotted for questions and comments consequent on her speech.
The hon. member for Windsor West.
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's speech prior to question period. As well, there was discussion earlier in the day with regard to the economic issues we are facing. The particular issue on which I would like the member's comments happened recently. It is the government's failure to act on a procurement policy for defence.
The United States has one. Under it the Americans actually produce some of the content in their country, and we have respected that over a number of decades. In fact, that has been involved in the U.S. legislation for years.
What has happened here is that the Conservative government has decided to enter into a contract that has affected the workers at Navistar's Chatham, Ontario, truck facility. It is actually sending $300 million down to Texas when, right now, this government is letting the workers of the Chatham plant be fired. It is important that the work that was going to be done there would have actually allowed the plant to go forward.
What is interesting is that the Conservative government is telling Canadians as well that they cannot be the men and women who actually build the vehicles and equipment for our men and women in service, so it hurts doubly. They should have that opportunity, just as is the case in many other nations.
I would like to ask my colleague why they missed this opportunity, and what could be done in the future to make sure Canadians build the equipment used by our men and women in service.
Dawn Black NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC
Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleague from Windsor West has done an incredible amount of work on this whole issue of the Navistar contract being let to the company in Texas, causing people in his own community to lose their jobs.
The defence committee conducted a short study last year on the issues around defence procurement. Many of the witnesses who came to speak to the committee talked about the need to ensure that the jobs are retained in Canada when we let one of these defence contracts.
Further in relation to the Navistar issue, we know the plant is available and the work could be done there to build these trucks for the Canadian Forces. We know it would take only a very small injection of cash to bring that plant up to speed and keep those employees working right now. I think it is in the neighbourhood of $800,000. People cannot even buy a house in Vancouver, where I live, for $800,000. It is a minimal investment that needs to be made so that these jobs can stay in Canada.
Has the government considered what it is going to cost in EI payments? I think it is in the neighbourhood of $14 million in EI payments to the workers losing their jobs in his town with the Navistar contract going to Texas.
I cannot answer why the government does not have any common sense. Canadian jobs should stay in Canada and not be shipped down to Texas.
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the speech by the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam. We share a community devastated by the softwood sellout brought in by the Conservatives with the support of the Liberals. Thousands of jobs were lost across the country. Three plants were closed, essentially, in the New Westminster area.
I would like to refer back to what the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam said about employment insurance. Half the people laid off as a result of bungled programs or negotiations such as the softwood sellout do not have access to employment insurance. The Conservatives refuse to move on this issue, and the Liberals are simply rubber-stamping the budget.
I would like to ask the member to describe the impact on families when they have been laid off as a result of plant closures and do not have access to employment insurance.