Debates of March 13th, 2009

Statements by Members

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, I want to draw to your attention your ruling on the statement of the member for Edmonton—Sherwood Park.

I have had the privilege of representing the people of Kootenay--Columbia in this chamber now for 15 years and have seen an awful lot of things. Of all places in Canada, this place most of all is a place of freedom of speech. This is a place where we as members come and are accountable to each other and are held accountable by each other on behalf of the people of Canada, so naturally there is criticism.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is obvious that you were using the Speaker's ruling yesterday and the days before as a guide, without a doubt. However, my concern, as a long-term member of this House, is that the current interpretation by the Speaker may be dangerous. I am suggesting that it could very well be the thin edge of the wedge in terms of the freedom of speech that we must have in this chamber.

This is a place where we come and have a competition of ideas. In having the competition of ideas, the competition is guided by the referee, the Speaker in the House, so I would like to draw an analogy to a hockey game.

If, during the middle of a hockey game, there is a change in the way in which a referee ends up ruling on certain infractions that are now infractions that were not previously infractions, we end up in that hockey game with a whole changed game and an undesired result.

I would point out that if we look back to June 2006, the Liberals were the ones bringing their whole month of harpocrisy, which, obviously, was a play on our Prime Minister. They accused the Prime Minister of hiring a convicted fraud artist to work in the PMO.

I also would point out that Reg Alcock, a former Liberal minister, denied that he called the member for Calgary—Nose Hill sweetheart but explained that he had called our current defence minister a scumbag. These are unfortunate references that are historic and are in Hansard

We can also look at Bill Matthews, a former Liberal member in the House, who called the Prime Minister a liar and refused to apologize. I can even recall former Liberal minister Doug Young calling our friend, Deb Grey, more than a slab of bacon.

Those kinds of things have been going on in this place from time immemorial. I would suggest that in the same way that a referee in a hockey game might want to take a look at the tapes and consider the way in which the calls were made, how it may have changed the tenor of the game, that you might want to ask Mr. Speaker if he would do the same thing in reviewing his rulings and take another look at his current direction in which he is going.

I understand what he is attempting to achieve but in the same way that a referee who changes the rulings in a middle of a hockey game can completely ruin a hockey game and create infractions that are unintended, I believe we could be on the same course with the current rulings of the Speaker of this House.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on the same point generally and not to respond to the hon. member who just spoke.

I note in passing that the items he listed in his point of order where unparliamentary words were used, he listed cases where the Speaker found that they were unparliamentary. The Speaker has not changed the rule book at all. He is currently enforcing and articulating the rules as they are. Just because a member may have transgressed previously in using unparliamentary language does not provide licence for us to abandon the rules now.

The reason I need to rise on a point of order is to explicitly object to two statements that were made during statements by members. Members will recall exactly what they were and the script writers for the Conservative members will know exactly what I am referring to because they were very carefully scripted. These were the statements by the hon. member for Peterborough and the hon. member for Vegreville—Wainwright.

I should point out that this should not be taken as a personal attack. I am doing this for the sole purpose of ensuring that the Chair and the Speaker's ruling are respected. The reason we need to do that was set out in the Speaker's ruling yesterday. I will read the words, which state:

--that such provocative commentary only invites equally inflammatory responses and contributes greatly to the lowering of the tone of our proceedings.

Today I listened to the two members I mentioned make statements that began with generic references to policies or political parties, which the Speaker found to be acceptable, but in the middle or near the end the statements focused precisely on a partisan personal attack on the Leader of the Opposition.

If any members are in doubt about whether this happened, they should reread the statement of the member for Vegreville—Wainwright where he kept it generic or referred to a generic someone throughout the entire statement and at the very end turned it into a personal attack. That was sly, that was sharp and that was cute, but I think the Speaker will find that it offends the ruling he made yesterday.

I do not understand why the members on the government side have this virtually psychopathic addiction to partisan attacks but they appear to be scripted and co-ordinated, and they are there.

The Speaker has said that members' statements are out of bounds for that type of free speech. In normal debate, there is the to and fro and an opportunity to respond but members' statements, there is not.

To ensure respect for the Speaker's ruling yesterday, I am asking the Chair to review the blues and Hansard for those two statements and advise the House whether they were in order or out of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all the members who have made a contribution to this discussion, including the member for Scarborough—Rouge River. He has been a member for some time and he has a lot of experience with these matters.

I would respectfully disagree with his interpretation of yesterday's ruling. I think the Speaker from his chair did leave open the possibility that during members' statements respectful disagreements by well-intentioned Canadians could be uttered. To suggest that we cannot disagree in this House would be to suggest there is no point for this House to exist in the first place. Disagreement is a natural part of democracy. In fact, I have never seen an instance where democracy has flourished without disagreement occurring.

I acknowledge some of the frustration with members across the way. It has been the intention of some on the Liberal side to shield their leader from any form of criticism and to forbid that criticism here in the House of Commons. What I think they will learn is that here in Canada by contrast to, say, czarist Russia, someone in a position of public leadership has to prepare himself or herself to face the criticism of his fellow countrymen not out of hatred or meanness, but out of openness and democracy.

I would hope that anyone who is learned enough to live in the world of international academia, who has travelled the world and seen all of the various mutations of democracy, would come here open and willing to allow criticism to occur.

Mr. Speaker, you from your chair have done a fine job in your young career. I think that most members would recognize that you have come a very long way and are very proud to see you sitting in that chair.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a couple of comments on the same point of order because it is important that you hear from all sides of the House in terms of what happened today. First of all, we appreciate that you stood up today and intervened early in the Standing Order 31 statement period to uphold the Speaker's ruling. That makes it very clear that there is an important principle here, which is that members should not be resorting to these unbelievable personal attacks and slags on other people. That you intervened has now caused a point of order to be raised, and we should be saying that we are glad that intervention was made.

When is this going to stop? Things are really bad around here. People who watch us from the gallery or on CPAC are appalled at the kind of behaviour that takes place. To somehow characterize this as we are shutting down criticism or legitimate debate, that is not what this is about. This place is about debate, analysis and criticism and we do that every day, but this is about the kind of personal attacks that are being made.

We should be calling on the Speaker to stand by his ruling and to say to the majority of members of the House, I would dare say from all parties and maybe some people do not feel comfortable saying it, to support the Speaker's ruling. I believe that things have gone too far. We should be upholding our Speaker. How many times have we called on the Speaker to intervene and to bring back decorum? He is trying to do that, and we should support what he is trying to do. You did it today, Mr. Speaker.

I think this point of order is really mischievous. The Conservatives are trying to get around what is a very important principle here. We all know that is what it is about, so let us stick to the principle and let us stick to the issue of decorum.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as you know, I was cut off during my member's statement before my time was up. I agree that decorum is very important in this House and it should include S.O. 31s. I respect your position as the Chair to preside over that. I would also ask you to look at Hansard. I was simply pointing out the fact that the Liberal Party and the Liberal leader were stalling the economic action plan. That plan is very important for Canadians. This is a fact. What I was saying was in no way a personal attack on anyone.

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

Mr. Speaker, we on this side, the official opposition, the Liberal Party of Canada, support the ruling that the Speaker made the other day and your ruling today upholding the application of that ruling.

I would urge all members in this House, from all parties, including members of the governing party, to keep that ruling in mind when they are preparing their statements, questions, or speeches to take part in the deliberations in the House.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I know the ruling yesterday is causing some desire for discussion, so I will allow one more intervention. The hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was elected in 2006. Since that time I attend the food court of a local mall and I try to do that each Saturday for a couple of hours. One of the things I hear about repeatedly is the disgraceful conduct in this place.

I want to commend and thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your actions today. I want to commend the Speaker for taking a stand on something that is so fundamental to the operation of this place.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

As I mentioned, obviously the ruling from yesterday has provoked some discussion and it might take some time for some members to be able to adjust to it.

I will point out, as the Speaker's ruling from yesterday was brought up, that this policy does represent a shift and the shift will be from this point forward.

While the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation brought up some expressions in the past, I think the Chair is going to look at what happens now and going into the future.

The Speaker gave a very detailed explanation of the interpretation of the Standing Order and previous practice from Marleau and Montpetit and how that will be implemented going forward. If members have questions or concerns on how that will take place, they can bring them up directly with the Speaker. I am sure he can guide them in what will be allowed in the future.

I will point out one other difference. The idea of a personal attack is different from a comment made on a party in general or on a group, such as government, the official opposition, or a party. I think members might want to read that section of Marleau and Montpetit, chapter 13, page 526, where it states:

Expressions which are considered unparliamentary when applied to an individual Member have not always been considered so when applied “in a generic sense” or to a party.

That might be useful for members to examine as they adjust to the policy for S.O. 31s going into the future.

I will consider the matter closed at this point.

Government Response to Petitions

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to four petitions.

Volunteer Service Medal

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition signed by dozens of my constituents calling on the Government of Canada respectfully to recognize by means of the issuance of a new Canadian volunteer service medal to be designated the “Governor General's Volunteer Service Medal for Volunteer Services by Canadians in Regular and Reserve Military Forces”.

This very important proposal comes from veterans in my constituency. They would like to see a solid recognition of these volunteer servicemen and servicewomen who have done so much to build on the proud tradition of the Canadian armed forces.

I am deeply honoured to have occasion to speak on their behalf and to present to this House a petition that would advance that cause for them.

Canada Post

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would also like to commend you for your judgment call today in implementing the ruling of the Speaker. Good work, Mr. Speaker, keep it up.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions.

The first petition deals with the fact Canada Post has notified members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers that it will withhold two weeks' pay as part of the changes in the compensation packages. More than 200 people have signed the petition opposing its unfair decision.

The petitioners ask Canada Post to stop this injustice and pay its employees all of their privileges.

Truck Licences

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition deals with the fact that Port Metro Vancouver has placed a moratorium on new truck licences for owner-operated truck drivers by allowing unlimited licences to company trucks. With too many licences in circulation already, it is hard for truckers to make a decent living. More than 2,000 people have signed a petition calling on the House of Commons to direct Port Metro Vancouver to place a moratorium on new licences and enact a new policy to fairly distribute licences.

Employment Insurance

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to present a petition that is being circulated by members of the CAW, calling for a comprehensive overhaul of the employment insurance system.

The petitioners rightly point out that EI is a powerful economic stabilizer and, particularly during this deep recession, it is essential that this fundamental poverty prevention program be made more broadly accessible with better benefits.

Specifically, the petitioners are calling for a standardized 360 hours to qualify, an increased benefit period of at least 50 weeks, the elimination of the two-week waiting period, benefits at 60% of normal earnings based on the best 12 weeks, and a more flexible approach to work sharing.

The petitioners also point out that the government diverted $54 billion of worker and employer contributions to EI to pay down the debt and deficit instead of using that money to provide help to the involuntarily unemployed during economic downturns. That misappropriation only heightens the moral obligation for the government to restore the integrity of the EI system.

While I know that it is against the rules of this chamber for members of Parliament to endorse a petition, let me just say that I very much welcome the opportunity to present this particular petition on behalf of the over 300,000 newly unemployed Canadians since the last election.

Sri Lanka

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a number of petitions with respect to the situation that is unfolding in Sri Lanka.

The petitioners are calling on the Parliament of Canada to understand what is happening in Sri Lanka. As members will know, this government has led the way with respect to calling on the Government of Sri Lanka to immediately implement a ceasefire. We have provided in excess of $4 million toward getting aid to some of the affected areas. It is a situation for which I have hosted many town hall meetings, and a number of members on this side of the House have done the same, to really raise awareness. I am very pleased to present these petitions.

Mr. Speaker, I also have another petition to present, again dealing with Sri Lanka.

The petitioners call on Parliament to do whatever it can to raise the awareness of a bill that is being brought forward through the parliament in Sri Lanka that would severely limit the rights of Christians in Sri Lanka.

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I have one other petition to present on which I would beg for the indulgence of the House. This petition is similar to the first petition that I introduced with respect to what is happening in Sri Lanka, but unfortunately, it was not able to be certified. I would, with the unanimous consent of the House, like to present this petition, as well.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to present this petition?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

Canada—Colombia Free Trade Agreement

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition that has been signed by people who are very worried about the free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia. They are pressing the Government of Canada to stop the free trade agreement negotiations that are underway between Canada and Colombia until a study can be carried out concerning the impact on human rights. They are also asking that the agreement be renegotiated along the principles of fair trade which would take environmental and social impacts fully into account while genuinely respecting labour rights and the rights of all affected parties.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, hundreds of people in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are adding their voices to the thousands of Canadians across the country who are imploring Parliament and the government not to proceed with the Canada-Colombia trade deal.

It is for obvious reasons. The number of trade unionists who have been massacred in Colombia far surpasses that of any other country on the planet. Clearly, the human rights violations continue in Colombia.

The petitioners are asking the government to please stop negotiations and not to proceed any further until there is a full and impartial human rights assessment done on Colombia that indicates the extent, the scope, the width and breadth of the human rights violations that are taking place there consistently.

On behalf of the petitioners, I table this petition in the House.

Employment Insurance

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I present a petition today on behalf of the Canadian Auto Workers Union which has taken a great leadership role when it comes to the position on employment insurance. I thank those who have signed this petition asking for the types of reforms that the EI system needs to help those workers who, at this point in their lives, are the most vulnerable, those who are unemployed, their families and their communities.

The types of reform are changing the hours rule, eliminating the two week waiting period and the opportunity to get benefits in a more reasoned and fair way across the country.

I commend the CAW for its leadership role and thank those who signed this petition. I would suspect we will be seeing literally thousands upon thousands of these petitions from across the country because of the situation in which the unemployed find themselves. I table this petition today.

Questions on the Order Paper

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

Mr. Speaker, Question No. 44 will be answered today.

Question No. 44

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

With regard to federal funding for the Mackenzie Valley Natural Gas Project announced by the Minister of the Environment on January 19, 2009, in detail: (a) what is the amount of funding the government is offering the project proponents; (b) what is the rationale for providing this funding; (c) what will the funding be used for; and (d) what short, medium and long term benefits will accrue to northern Canadians?

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the details of the financial offer presented to the project proponents on January 19, 2009 have not been made public as they are subject to cabinet confidence and will be part of a formal negotiation process between the Government of Canada and the Mackenzie gas project, MGP, proponents.

As owner of the resource, the Government of Canada has a role to play in ensuring that, if the project proceeds it unfolds in a manner that provides maximum benefits to Canadians from all perspectives: business, socio-economic and environmental. In particular, commercializing Canada’s vast northern gas resources would greatly accelerate the economic development of the NWT and aboriginal communities, consistent with the government’s northern strategy and sovereignty objectives; generate significant GDP impacts across Canada; and offset the forecast decline of the western Canadian sedimentary basin, thereby enhancing Canada’s energy security. The Government of Canada, however, has been clear that the MGP is a commercial venture and that the ultimate decision as to whether the project proceeds rests with the private sector.

It has been estimated that the range of potential GDP impacts that would result from the development of the MGP would be $40 billion to $150 billion over 30 years, direct and indirect GDP impacts, depending on the extent of induced development, with employment gains ranging from 107,000 to 280,000 person-years. Furthermore, all provincial and territorial economies would benefit from the increased demand for materials and labour during the construction and operation phases of the project, and from the induced gas exploration and development activity it is expected to generate.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?