Debates of Feb. 5th, 2009

Use of Intraparliamentary Internet

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, February 1, I forwarded to my fellow parliamentarians a news bulletin intended to update them on the latest military operations in Gaza. My intention was to show the horrors of the war, since innocent civilians can be the victims, as well as the destruction it causes. However, before forwarding the bulletin to all members, I did not consult all the links included in the email, as I should have. Some of those links lead the reader to sites with videos containing hate propaganda, which I do not support in any way; in fact, I condemn it.

I wish to offer my sincere apologies to this House and to my fellow members for having forwarded such an email. Please be assured, Mr. Speaker, that I will be extremely vigilant and exercise greater care in the future, and that this kind of mistake will not happen again.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard the hon. member for Ahuntsic's apology. However, I would like to raise a few points in connection with this situation.

A member of Parliament's privilege is based on two things: the rights and privileges granted by Parliament. In the course of our duties, we use items provided for the exclusive use of parliamentarians for the purpose of carrying out the mandate we have been given by our fellow citizens.

Various documents and emails were sent to our BlackBerries, prompting me to take a look at what the member for Ahuntsic wanted me to see. I received several mentions of photos and texts, and I consulted them. Also, links to groups considered by Canada's Parliament to be terrorist organizations had been inserted into the member's material, either by her or by the employees she is responsible for.

These links can be considered very serious. The Parliament of Canada's policy is clear: ours is a peaceful nation that does not, in any way, condone terrorist organizations. Anyone could end up on the member's site. Millions of people around the world can surf their way to it. People from other countries can visit the site, where they can see the member's name and her riding. They might not understand how our parliamentary system works, so they might think that the text and the links on the site represent Canada's position, even though parliamentarians in the House of Commons have always refused to support, in any way, shape or form, terrorist organizations.

Imagine someone in Asia finding the member for Ahuntsic's site on the Internet. That person would see all kinds of sad things, as well as videos encouraging certain forms of terrorism that we have condemned.

That is important to understand. Parliamentarians in the House of Commons must always support Parliament's policies. If a member thinks that it is okay to flout the rules of Parliament, how can we expect citizens to respect the laws that we pass? It would be impossible, and that is very serious. It makes it look as though Canada is adopting the position of this distinguished member of our Parliament who is known in her region for her opinions. In fact, this is not true, and this is not Parliament's position. In fact, we here in Parliament have decided to work for peace and not in support of terror.

When a member uses the means at her disposal, it is paid for by the taxpayers from both east and west. We have constituency offices and offices here on the Hill; our computers were bought with taxpayers' money. How can a member promote the things that we have condemned here in Parliament?

Citizens cannot do this, and the members of this House are also citizens. We must respect the decisions of Parliament. That means that in no way, directly or indirectly, should we be supporting terrorist movements. This is serious. I defer to your judgment, Mr. Speaker.

However, we must send the right message. If a parliamentarian does not respect the rules of Parliament, how can we expect a citizen to respect them?

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

Mr. Speaker, as you know, I am the one who rose in this House yesterday to raise this matter of privilege. I spoke briefly on it at that time and I would just like to acknowledge the statement by the hon. member for Ahuntsic.

The hon. member admits in this House that she has failed in one of the fundamental duties of a member of Parliament, which is to act and to work with diligence and care and to make use of the human and material resources allocated to us by the House so that we may fulfill our responsibilities as members. Each of us, therefore, has a duty to ensure that the resources of the House are used, as I said, with diligence and in such a way as not to violate the privilege of either our other colleagues in the House or the House itself.

We have heard the admission, the statement by the hon. member for Ahuntsic. In it she admits that: first, she did indeed distribute all this information by email to the members' personal Blackberry addresses; second, that some of the information and images contained in the material she distributed incited hatred toward a religious group, namely the Jews, and glorified certain organizations that have been declared legally by legislation passed in this House as terrorist organizations; and third, that she has been remiss in her duties as a member of Parliament. This breach of her duties is at risk, first of all, of being prejudicial to all other members but also—and even more important—of discrediting the House itself.

On January 29, 2003, another independent member, Jim Pankiw, who was at the time representing Saskatoon—Humboldt, raised a question of privilege. He alleged that his privileges had been violated by deputy ministers of various departments because they had given directives to their staff not to respond to an email he had sent to everyone—in excess of 200,000 public servants—and in fact to simply delete the message. His messages in fact were blocking the computer operations of those departments. Mr. Pankiw claimed this was in violation of his rights.

Mr. Speaker, you yourself brought down a ruling at that time indicating that the sending of spam using resources—such as computers, Internet service and so forth— provided to members by the House to enable them to assume their responsibilities and do their job as members of Parliament constituted a violation of privileges. It was indeed spam that the hon. member was sending. You gave the directive at that time to all members to use these resources with diligence and care and said that if a member persisted in acting in such a way, the House would sanction him by disconnecting his computers and Internet service.

We have heard the statement by the hon. member for Ahuntsic indicating that she failed in her fundamental duty as a member of Parliament, that is to use the resources allocated to her—as they are to us all moreover—carefully so as to ensure that their use did not cast discredit on the reputation of the House itself and did not violate the privileges of other members. This merits a sanction. I would suggest that sanction take the form of a warning, namely that if, in future, any member committed this same type of action, his or her services would be cut off, as you ruled in the case of Mr. Pankiw.

This action by the hon. member for Ahuntsic goes far further than what was done by Mr. Pankiw, and is far more serious. The spam he sent out blocked certain systems for a period of time, but did not incite any identifiable group to hatred nor glorify any organizations which the government has labelled as terrorist under legislation enacted by this House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. We planned for an opposition day on a very relevant issue that was raised by our colleagues in the Liberal Party. I am convinced that all the members of this House are anxious to get to the debate planned for this opposition day.

I would like to start by saying very respectfully that my two colleagues who spoke previously, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles and the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, were guilty of verbal overkill. Allow me to explain.

My colleague from Ahuntsic quite obviously committed an error in good faith. Mr. Speaker, you know procedure inside and out, and you are the guardian of parliamentary privileges, but we are of the opinion that in determining whether or not there was a breach of parliamentary privilege, you should ask yourself whether the member acted deliberately or knowingly.

Yes, an email was sent and forwarded. When my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles refers to the member's own site, he is guilty of verbal overkill, because that is not the issue. The member for Ahuntsic acknowledged in her speech that she had forwarded a news bulletin to her fellow members. She does not deny it. We all received a copy on our BlackBerrys. The question is whether she did so deliberately and maliciously.

She further acknowledges that she neglected to check certain links in the email. In her statement, she said, “I did not consult all the links included in the email, as I should have”. What more does the member have to do? My colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine pressed the point. What more does she want the member to do? The member for Ahuntsic said, “I wish to offer my sincere apologies to this House and to my fellow members”. She is referring to all of us, regardless of party. She is apologizing to all 308 members who received the email.

Lastly, she is looking to the future. She said that “I will be extremely vigilant and exercise greater care in the future, and this kind of mistake will not happen again”. I think that is clear.

I well remember the Pankiw affair. He had flooded the system. He had sent 200,000 emails in a single day. This has nothing to do with the Pankiw case, which you yourself dealt with to everyone's satisfaction.

Consequently, I think we should get on with the debate. The statement by my colleague from Ahuntsic is sufficient to put an end to this matter.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I wish to thank all hon. members who spoke about this matter this morning. As I indicated yesterday after the question of privilege was raised, I will consider all interventions and will return to the House soon with a considered decision.

Government Performance Reports

[Vic Toews, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, as part of a comprehensive effort to inform parliamentarians and Canadians of the government's performance, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, on behalf of departments and agencies, 91 performance reports for 2007-2008 and their companion piece, “Canada's Performance”.

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) I am pleased to table, in both official languages, three reports regarding leaks at the National Research Universal reactor.

I am tabling today, for full public disclosure, that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is assuring that a no time has the public or the environment been at risk and that there is no radioactive material leaking into the Ottawa River associated with these leaks.

Interparliamentary Delegations

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian Delegation of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association respecting its participation to the Eighth Conference of Parliamentarians to the Arctic Region, held in Fairbanks, Alaska, August 12 to 14.

Income Tax Act

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-288, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax credit for new graduates working in designated regions).

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me today to lend my voice to my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord and to table in this House Bill C-288, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax credit for new graduates working in designated regions). I feel privileged that my colleague has placed his trust in me. I am also proud to continue with the work accomplished in the last session, when he tabled a similar bill.

Anyone who is familiar with the terrible economic and social situation in Quebec regions will find this bill to be a breath of fresh air. From Lac-Saint-Jean to Mont-Laurier to Gaspé, La Tuque and Amos, all these Quebec regions will benefit from the hard work of the Bloc Québécois.

I invite all my colleagues who are concerned about the future of youth in the regions of this country to vote for this bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Hazardous Products Act

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-289, An Act to amend the Hazardous Products Act (recreational snow sport helmets).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to introduce my private member's bill entitled an act to amend the Hazardous Products Act (recreational snow sport helmets), which would ban the advertising, sale and import of ski and snow board helmets that do not meet the Canadian Standards Association standards.

This is not only a medical and safety issue; it is good public policy. It is estimated that recreational head injuries cost Canadian taxpayers over $100 million each year.

The Canadian Standards Association has set criteria for ski and snow sport helmets. My bill would ensure that Canadians would have approved headgear protection, when they need it, which would in fact be the appropriate headgear.

I look forward to working with members on both sides of the House to pass this bill and improving the safety of all Canadians, especially the young people who participate in these sports in winter.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Income Tax Act

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-290, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax credit for loss of retirement income).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be back here once again introducing a bill to create a refundable tax credit of 22% for loss of retirement income.

Retired employees of the Jeffrey mine in Asbestos in my riding and of Atlas Steels in Sorel-Tracy, in the riding of the member seconding this bill, my colleague from Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, saw their retirement income drastically reduced after their former employer went bankrupt. We are trying to help these people with this bill, which I will remind everyone, passed second reading in the last Parliament. I would like to thank my Liberal and NDP colleagues, who have agreed to support this bill in order to refer it to committee. We had made significant progress. Unfortunately, an election was called, which forces us to start over with this bill. We are going to keep at it. The Conservative Party, the government, is the only one that has refused to support our bill. We will try, in good faith and with open minds, to convince them to support these people who were shortchanged when these businesses shut down. They deserve justice and dignity. That is why we are fighting for them.

Obviously, I would like to thank the hon. members for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour and Chambly—Borduas who have worked hard with me and with the retired employees in order to develop this bill which is so important for them.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-291, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (coming into force of sections 110, 111 and 171).

Mr. Speaker, in June 2002, this House passed legislation to amend the number of board members hearing refugee claims, lowering it from two to one. In the past, only one board member was needed to rule in favour of a claimant to approve his or her claim. For the sake of efficiency, it was reduced to one. In their great wisdom, parliamentarians at the time created the refugee appeal division in order to ensure that people's fate would not be decided arbitrarily. In any justice system, one must have the right to appeal. Unfortunately, neither the Liberal government at the time nor the Conservative government since has ever implemented this appeal division, as called for by the House.

The purpose of my bill is to force its implementation. A similar bill introduced by the Bloc Québécois made it through all stages in the House and the Senate during the last Parliament. I hope there is enough time to do so once again. I urge all members to fully cooperate in order to get it passed. Perhaps we could even begin second reading of this bill today.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-292, An Act to change the name of the electoral district of New Westminster--Coquitlam.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reintroduce a bill to change the name of my riding to include the vibrant city of Port Moody, known as the “city of the arts”. Port Moody is a city steeped in history, from the gold rush on the Fraser River to the arrival of the first Canadian transcontinental train into British Columbia.

It is very important that the name of my riding reflect all of the diverse communities, which I have the honour to represent in the House of Commons. I urge the government to expedite riding name changes in this Parliament, as previous governments have done, and not ignore them again in the 40th Parliament as it did in the 39th.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Criminal Code

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-293, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (means of communication for child luring).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reintroduce this bill, which would strengthen the laws that protect our children.

The luring of a child is the first step that is taken by those who would try to exploit, abuse or hurt children. However, as the law now stands, this luring is only a crime if it is carried out by a computer. As we all know, technology has changed. We know that other means of communication are now used by child predators. It is time to modernize our laws to criminalize child luring in all of its forms.

I urge all of my colleagues in the House to support the bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-294, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (luring a child outside Canada).

Mr. Speaker, in an effort to combat child sex tourism, we have laws. I was in Parliament when those laws were first proposed here. We have laws to prosecute Canadians who abuse children while travelling abroad. We know that the first step in abusing a child is the luring or the grooming of that child. That is why I am introducing this bill to add child luring to the list of criminal offences committed abroad.

I look forward to the support of all members of the House in ensuring that Canadians who lure and abuse children abroad can be prosecuted at home for their heinous crime.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Business of Supply

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place with all parties and I believe you will find consent for the following motion. I move:

That at the conclusion of today's debate on the opposition motion in the name of the member for Kings--Hants all questions necessary to dispose of this motion be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested, and deferred to 3 p.m. on Tuesday, February 10, 2009.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

(Motion agreed to)

Coalition Government

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I would like to present these attached petitions. There are over 2,500 names in two separate petitions that deal with the same issue.

I would like to thank a very proud, strong Canadian, Roma Ranger, from my riding for helping spearhead this. She is a proud Canadian who was very concerned in early December when a coalition was presented to Canadians.

I will not go through the whereas clauses but the therefore clause reads that the petitioners call upon members of Parliament to oppose any political arrangements that would replace Her Majesty's democratically elected government without first consulting Canadians in an open and democratic election.

Millions of Canadians were concerned about this. I want to thank Roma and all the people who helped her bring these petitions forward.

Interprovincial Bridge

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased once again to present a petition concerning heavy truck traffic in the downtown core of the nation's capital.

Petitioners from across the national capital region are calling on the government, for various reasons, to force the National Capital Commission to conduct an in-depth study regarding a possible bridge linking the Canotek industrial park and the Gatineau airport, which is option number 7 of the first phase of the interprovincial crossings environmental assessment and a position that is now also shared by Ontario and Quebec.

Pornography

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of residents of Brandon—Souris asking that the House request the support in legislation to protect children and the vulnerable, and to impose harsh penalties on those involved in the dissemination of pornography, including Internet pornography.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

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

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.