Debates of March 25th, 2011

Sit-in at Hill Office of Indian Affairs Minister--Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order, please. I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on March 10, 2011, by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development concerning an alleged sit-in at his Parliament Hill office.

I wish to thank the minister for having raised this matter and the members for Churchill and Yukon for their comments.

In raising this question of privilege, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development explained that on Wednesday, March 9, 2011, the member for Churchill arrived at his office, uninvited and accompanied by a group of the Sayisi Dene and media representatives, pressing his staff for an immediate meeting despite his absence. In his view, this constituted a protest and a sit-in. Characterizing the incident as a serious breach of trust and a serious matter from a security standpoint, the minister expressed concern that his employees were made uncomfortable and prevented from doing their work.

The member for Churchill countered that the visit was simply an attempt to obtain a meeting with the minister and not an orchestrated event with the intention of obstructing the work of the minister's office.

As all hon. members will recall, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, at page 108 states:

Speakers have consistently upheld the right of the House to the services of its members free from intimidation, obstruction and interference.

It also notes, on the same page, that:

Over the years, members have regularly brought to the attention of the House instances which they believed were attempts to obstruct, impede, interfere, intimidate or molest them, their staffs or individuals who had some business with them or the House.

In the case before us, the Chair is being asked to determine whether the unauthorized presence in the minister's office of the member for Churchill, a delegation of the Sayisi Dene and the media was tantamount to intimidation or obstruction of the minister's staff. To assist me, I reviewed the report on this matter prepared by House of Commons security, who attended the scene after being called upon for assistance by the minister's staff. It is clear to the Chair from the submissions, as well as the security report, that those occupying the minister's office were uninvited and did not have proper authorization to be there. As well, the Chair believes that the minister's staff was indeed uncomfortable, though they appeared to have handled the situation with aplomb and good grace.

I am troubled that the member for Churchill, without prior warning, took it upon herself to lead a group to another member's office. That media representatives were part of this group makes the situation that much more unfortunate. No matter how well intentioned the member for Churchill was, or how amicable the outcome of this particular incident, it was an unauthorized presence in a minister's office that left ministerial staff uncomfortable enough to warrant the assistance of security. It is a credit to the minister's staff, and it must be said to the unexpected visitors as well, that this incident did not escalate further and that the tone of the exchange was respectful.

It is well understood that members need access to ministers to fulfill their parliamentary functions but it is equally true that there are various well-known, entirely acceptable avenues available to secure such access. Members are expected to avail themselves of these mutually agreed upon opportunities rather than resorting to other unorthodox means that may place colleagues in untenable situations. Because of the actions of the member for Churchill, for almost an hour, her guests occupied the office of the minister without a previously arranged appointment. This is a clear abuse of the usual practices that all members are expected to follow. The Chair is disappointed that the member for Churchill showed a complete disregard for the common courtesies that are to be observed between members. In this case, the situation was well managed, but we may not always be so lucky.

It does not require a great deal of imagination to foresee the kind of circus atmosphere that could result if all members took it upon themselves to escort constituents, delegations or other citizens—however worthy their cause or objective—to whichever other member's office they chose.

That being said, in this particular case, in large part due to the calm, measured approach taken by the minister's staff in handling the situation, there is little evidence to suggest that the staff of the minister were obstructed in the fulfillment of their duties. The minister himself was careful not to overstate the impact of the incident on his staff. In view of the very high threshold required in adjudicating such situations, in this circumstance the Chair cannot find that a prima facie question of privilege has arisen in this matter.

The Chair expects that all members will heed the lesson of this incident in an effort to maintain the integrity of the precinct as a work environment where all members feel secure and respected.

I ask for the active collaboration of all members in this and I thank all members for their attention.

Privilege

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

March 25, 2011

Mr. Speaker:

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable David Johnston, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 25th day of March, 2011 at 7:55 a.m.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Wallace,

The Secretary to the Governor General and Herald Chancellor.

The schedule indicates the bills assented to were Bill C-442, An Act to establish a National Holocaust Monument--Chapter 13; and Bill C-475, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (methamphetamine and ecstasy)--Chapter 14.

Opposition Motion—Confidence in the Government

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Leader of the Opposition]

moved:

That the House agree with the finding of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs that the government is in contempt of Parliament, which is unprecedented in Canadian parliamentary history, and consequently, the House has lost confidence in the government.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Since today is the final allotted day for the supply period ending March 26, 2011, the House will go through the usual procedures to consider and dispose of the supply bill.

In view of recent practices, do hon. members agree that the bill be distributed now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before we start this debate, I have a few words for you. You are at the end of your term as Speaker of the House, and I would like to express how much fondness and respect we all have for you. Your rulings have left their mark on our country's history.

Mr. Speaker, you have taught us all, sometimes with a modest rebuke, sometimes with the sharp sting of focused argument, to understand, to respect and to cherish the rules of Canadian democracy, and for that your citizens will always hold you in highest honour.

This is a historic day in the life of Canadian democracy, the democracy that you, Mr. Speaker, have served so well. I have to inform the House that the official opposition has lost confidence in the government.

The government no longer has the confidence of the official opposition.

Our motion asks the House to agree with the finding in the 27th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented on March 21. This was a historic finding. It was the first time that a parliamentary committee has found the government in contempt.

Today, with this motion, we ask the House to do the same, to find the government in contempt and to withdraw the confidence of the House.

With this motion, we are calling on members of Parliament to condemn the government for its contempt of Parliament and to withdraw the confidence of the House. This is a historic day in the life of Canadian democracy, but it is also an opportunity for us to confirm our commitment to parliamentary democracy and its fundamental principles.

What principles are we talking about? That the government has the obligation to provide members of this House with the information they need in order to hold the government accountable to the people of Canada.

The principle at stake in this debate goes to the heart of parliamentary democracy: the obligation of a government to provide members of this House with the information they need in order to hold the government accountable to the people of Canada.

We are the people's representatives. When the government spends money, the people have a right to know what it is to be spent on. Parliament does not issue blank cheques. For four months, the opposition has asked the government to tell the Canadian people the true cost of its budget plans. For four months, we demanded to know how much Canadian taxpayers were being asked to pay for fighter jets, prisons and corporate tax breaks. For four months. this House and the Canadian people were stonewalled by the government and they are being stonewalled still.

For four months, we have been trying to hold this government accountable. For four months, we demanded to know the real cost of the fighter jets, prisons and tax breaks for major corporations. For four months, we did not get a single answer, aside from the contempt and arrogance of this government. And today, still, we have no answers.

We were shocked, but we were not surprised. After all, this is the same government that shut down Parliament twice, the same government that was forced, by one of your rulings, to hand over documents to do with Afghan prisoners, and we are still waiting for those documents.

In the case of the Afghan documents, the government's excuse for withholding the truth was national security. In the case of the budget documents, it invented something about cabinet confidence, but actually it did not even bother with an excuse at all.

But you, Mr. Speaker, would have none of it. You, Mr. Speaker, held that the rules of our democracy require the government to answer the questions that Parliament wants answered. The matter was sent back to a committee for action and it came back with a finding of contempt. That is why we are where we are today. The House must decide whether the government has broken a basic rule of our democracy and therefore, whether it can remain in office.

For our part on this side of the House, there is no doubt. You, Mr. Speaker, have spoken, the committee has spoken, and now the House must speak with a clear voice. It must say that a government that breaks the rules and conceals facts from the Canadian people does not deserve to remain in office.

With one clear voice, the House must declare that a government that does not respect democracy cannot remain in power. We have had enough. If this vote results in an election, the Canadian people will have the opportunity to replace an arrogant government with one that respects democracy.

To those who say an election is unnecessary, we reply that we did not seek an election, but if we need one to replace a government that does not respect democracy with one that does, I cannot think of a more necessary election.

It is not just democracy that the House will be called upon to affirm this afternoon. The House should also affirm Canadians' hunger, nay their longing, for change. It is time to change Canada's direction. It is time to get us on the right path. After five years of Conservative government, it is time to say enough is enough. Enough of the politics of fear. Enough of the politics of division. Enough of the politics of personal destruction.

Enough is enough. We need to look at the government's priorities. It wants to spend 1,000 times more on fighter jets than on helping students in CEGEP and university. We reject the government's priorities. It is offering less to seniors for an entire year than what it spent on one day of the G20. We say no to this kind of waste. The government wants to spend 1,000 times more on prisons than on preventing youth crime. Again, we say no. This government's priorities are not in line with the priorities of Canadian families. We have had it. Enough is enough.

The priorities of the government laid bare in that thin gruel that we saw earlier this week reveal a government out of touch and out of control. There is no credible plan to tackle the deficit because there are no numbers any reasonable person can believe in. There is no vision of how to sustain our health care system. There is not a word about affordable housing, not a word about child care, and nothing for the pressing needs of Canadian families in poverty.

Instead, we get jets, jails and giveaways to oil companies, insurance companies, and banks that are doing just fine, thank you very much.

So we need a change. We need to focus scarce resources where they really matter: early learning and child care; college and university education for all, especially for aboriginal and immigrant Canadians; energy efficiency and green jobs; family care for our loved ones in the home, and security and dignity in retirement. We need all of this plus a clear plan to clean up our country's finances and get us back to balance without adding to the tax burden on Canadian families.

These are the priorities of our people. These are the needs that we must serve. These are the priorities at home. However, let us not forget the priorities abroad. We have so much ground to catch up. We have a government that has lost our place in the world and lost our place at the Security Council of the United Nations.

We need a government that restores our honour, our credit, and our prestige on the international stage, a government that understands the deep and committed internationalism that dwells in the hearts of all Canadian citizens.

We need a government for the people, a government that is accountable to the people and that serves the people and democracy.

I want to conclude by saying a few words about democracy. Some members of this government have been charged with electoral fraud. A member of the Prime Minister's inner circle is accused of influence peddling. Enough is enough. People are fed up.

I return to where I started, to democracy, to the abuse of power. We have a government whose most senior members stand accused of electoral fraud. We have a Prime Minister who appointed, as his top adviser, someone who served prison time for stealing money from his clients, someone who now faces accusations of influence peddling, and is under an RCMP investigation.

Canadians look at that picture and they say, “We have had enough”. This House has had enough, enough of the abuse of power and enough of the bad economic choices.

We have a government with unique distinctions. We have a government with the largest deficit in Canadian history. It is the highest spending government in Canadian history. It is the most wasteful government in Canadian history. Finally, it is the first government in Canadian history to face a vote of contempt in this House.

This is a government and a Prime Minister that is out of touch and is out of control. It is time for a change.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of the members to support our motion.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's remarks and I want to remind the House and Canadians about the process that was followed.

Mr. Speaker, you referred this issue to the procedure and House affairs committee. You said it was a prima facie breach of privilege, which means on the surface it appeared there was a breach of privilege.

I had the honour and privilege of sitting on that committee during a constituency week when members should have been back in their ridings. We listened to some great input in committee. We heard from Mel Cappe, a number of ministers, and many other witnesses during the two days of hearings, and then a third day for another matter.

The problem is that the decisions of that committee, which should have been made after the input was received, were made long before the committee ever met. At the end, the committee was presented with the demands of the coalition opposition, one of which was that there would be a maximum of two pages in the report, two days of hearings and two pages in the report. It is unbelievable.

What is worse, the coalition demanded that there be no summary of evidence presented at the meetings to the House of Commons. We can talk about democracy and the contempt of parliamentary process, but I would ask my hon. colleague this question. If we do not provide information on the process that the procedure and House affairs committee went through for three days here in Ottawa, is it not a contempt of the parliamentary privilege of the members of the House?

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Kitchener—Conestoga for his public service on that committee, but I would draw to his attention a point in my speech indicating that the House asked for four months for the documents necessary for Parliament to make up its mind about the budget.

The member for Kitchener—Conestoga waves a binder in my face. Let me remind him that the answers we sought were not in those documents. We have been stonewalled for four months. The issue about who is to blame for contempt of Parliament lies squarely on the side of a government that when asked to provide the information necessary for the citizens of Canada to evaluate a budget, it stonewalled, objected, refused, and did not comply. This raises a fundamental issue of respect for parliamentary institutions.

The facts remain as I have stated. One cannot say that the government is in compliance when the binders do not provide the information required and when for four months, it gave us no answer at all.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with some sadness that we are all involved in this debate today. It is a historic moment that a government of Canada is being found in contempt not just of Parliament but of the Canadian people.

All members come here in an effort to represent constituents back home. There is a list of concerns and serious allegations, some of them being founded by the public prosecutor charging four Conservatives and two may likely go to jail, cancelling the long form census, and firing independent government officers and agents.

Members are meant to hold government to account. It concerns me that just last night an email was leaked from the Minister of Industry who instructed his Senate colleagues to kill the generic bill for drugs to Africa. That is very similar to how the government instructed its people in the Senate to kill the climate change accountability act introduced by the leader of the NDP.

A government is being found in contempt, which has never happened before. There have been bad governments, lying governments, and contemptuous governments in this country before, but the present government has achieved this low bar of ethics and morality. How is it we find ourselves in this position and what must we all do collectively to never allow this to happen again?

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley for his insightful remarks. He points out that we are here today because of a long pattern of abuse, not simply the withholding of documents on this occasion, which we have spent four long months in vain, seeking the documents we need to do our job, but there is a longer pattern of abuse that goes back to the shutting down of Parliament on two occasions.

When the Government of Canada was under pressure, facing just criticism from members of the House, it chose to prorogue. Canadians did not like that. It set the pattern of contempt, the pattern of disrespect, the pattern of abuse of our democracy that brings us to this place.

The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley asks our side what we can do about it. That is why we are here today, to present a motion before the House that holds the government in contempt. If we do not do this, if we allow the government to get away with this, we will endanger the democracy which is incarnated by this beautiful room.

We have to be absolutely clear on this.

What has to be done to put things right and have democracy respected? The motion moved by the Liberal Party of Canada, the official opposition, has to be supported and adopted, that is what.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the strength of the country we love is our people, but it is also the principles and practices of our democracy. People have worked for, fought for and have died for our democracy and our country. Now the government has broken the basic rules of democracy, and that is being expressed in the vote of contempt of Parliament that is happening today in the House of Commons.

Would the Leader of the Official Opposition tell us how the government's abuses of power and contempt of Parliament affect the very character of Canada? How do they affect the daily lives of people in their homes and communities in Canada?

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and friend from Vancouver Quadra asks a question that essentially transports us out of the precincts of the House and asks what this means to ordinary Canadians, the families watching at home and people at work. This is a question that affects them directly.

Many Canadians enjoy the very special privilege of rich and lucky countries, of not having to think and worry about their democracy. They entrust its protection to their representatives. They do not think about whether their democracy is in danger. They do not look up from the more important things they have to do in their lives, such as getting the kids to hockey practice and to school, doing their jobs, being with their neighbours and friends.

However, in the deep background of their lives, there must always be a confidence that their democracy works and that it works for them, and that when members of the House ask a government questions about how taxpayer money is spent, they get an honest answer. That is the crux of our democratic system, that on behalf of the woman taking her son or daughter to hockey practice, on behalf of the man going to work in the mill, they can count on us in the House of Commons to ask the questions that those citizens need to know in order to hold our government accountable. When that government fails in this most elementary task of democratic freedom, it is the duty of the members of the House to bring the government down.

[John Baird, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Carleton—Mississippi Mills, the chief government whip.

I rise today to speak to the motion introduced by the Leader of the Opposition on a matter of non-confidence in the government.

I wish I could say I am pleased to make this speech today, but I am not. In fact, I am saddened that a Parliament, which has accomplished a lot recently, will come to an end because of the reckless actions of the Liberal, Bloc Québécois and NDP coalition in forcing an unwanted and unnecessary election on Canadians.

Yesterday, I listed 10 important government bills which had received royal assent this week, bills like Bill S-6 to eliminate the faint hope clause, Bill C-48 to eliminate sentencing discounts for multiple murderers and Bill C-59 to get rid of early parole for white-collar fraudsters, a bill the Liberal leader opposed. That was a very positive week.

We also tried to pass important bills like Bill C-49, which would crack down on human smugglers and those who would take advantage of our generous immigration laws, and Bill S-10, which would get tough on drug dealers and date rape artists who would target our youth. I stood in this place just yesterday and asked for those bills to be passed. What was the response from the opposition coalition in passing these bills? No. No to getting tough on human smugglers. No to getting tough on drug dealers.

Instead, we find ourselves here today faced with the most partisan of attacks from an opposition coalition bent on defeating this government at all costs.

I know the Liberal members over there claim that the government was found to have done something wrong. What they are not telling Canadians is that this was an opposition-stacked committee that used the tyranny of the majority to get the predetermined outcome it wanted. Let us be clear. It was predetermined. After all, the members for Kings—Hants, Ottawa South, Joliette and Acadie—Bathurst said so in the media.

In my speech I could focus on all the abuses of parliamentary democracy and the absolute contempt that the opposition demonstrated, not just at that committee but on virtually every other committee of the House in overruling chairs, in making political decisions, ignoring the rules of this place, and on and on.

One may ask why we have never heard about these things. It is because the opposition coalition has a majority on every committee. Its members were the ones who demonstrated real contempt for Parliament, and they will have to answer to the Canadian people for that.

Let us be clear about what this vote of non-confidence is really about. It is a vote against the next phase of Canada's economic action plan. It is a vote against our low tax plan for jobs and economic growth. It is a vote against hard-working Canadians and their families. It is a vote that will weaken Canada's economic recovery.

It is a vote against the budget. It is a vote against our plan.

Let us be clear. The latest phase of Canada's economic action plan encourages owners of small businesses to hire more people. It provides potential employees with new opportunities to train and to hone those skills. It invests in innovation. It lays the groundwork for private sector growth to replace government stimulus. This is good for all Canadians in every region of our great country from coast to coast to coast.

For seniors across Canada, I am proud to report that our government is delivering once again. For the poorest of seniors, we are providing an important hike to the guaranteed income supplement. For people caring for infirm loved ones, we are providing support in the form of a $2,000 tax relief credit. For the many public servants who make their homes in my riding, we are providing a guarantee that we will not slash programs and eliminate jobs as the Liberals did in the mid-1990s. Instead, we will provide a strategic review to enhance efficiency and reduce overall overhead with minimal impact on service to Canadians.

I was pleased to see included a request from the Canadian fire chiefs to provide for our volunteer firefighters. Next week we could be enacting that tax credit in law, but it will not happen because of the Liberal-led coalition.

I hope Canadian colleges and universities will drive innovation and help Canada forge closer ties with promising markets like India's. Carleton University made a great proposal to do just that, but it will have to wait. We will certainly be supporting our students in new ways.

I am especially proud to say that our government is providing real support to people who find their pensions at risk because their employer goes bankrupt. The budget would provide at least some help from the federal government to the former Nortel workers, despite the fact their pension plans were provincially regulated. It is something.

Unlike previous but misguided efforts in this place, this will not hurt Canadian businesses.

In short, Canada's economic action plan is another huge help for people in my riding of Ottawa West—Nepean. It will be a huge help to my home province of Ontario. We are working closely with the government of Dalton McGuinty to cut corporate taxes to make Ontario and Canada a magnet for jobs, investment and opportunity. It will be a huge help from coast to coast to coast right across our great country. It will help secure our economic recovery. It will help create jobs and it will support all Canadians.

By voting against this motion of non-confidence in our government, the opposition coalition can stop this unnecessary and unwanted election later today. I want to urge the opposition to reconsider its support for an unnecessary and costly election. I hope it will vote for the things Canadians find truly important, for the measures that will help so many right across the country.

I move:

That this question be now put.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have always listened with interest to the comments of the government House leader, but rarely have I heard a more inaccurate account of what actually has taken place over the last several months.

I find it astonishing that a government House leader, who pretends he is respectful of the House and respectful of the Speaker's rulings, would make no reference at all to the Speaker's ruling, which responded to a four month effort on the part of members of Parliament to try to get information from the government for expenditures totalling $40 billion. The government has failed to account for that, has failed to respond to it, has failed to address it and now pretends it does not even exist. It is like talking about Moby Dick without mentioning the fact that it also happens to be a whale. There is a whale of a problem over there and the whale of the problem is that it is inaccurate.

Then there are the tiny inaccuracies. For three months the government refused to bring forward Bill C-49. There were no debate, no comments, no discussion. Yesterday the minister stood up and said that he would like to get it all done in three seconds. He is not telling the truth to the Canadian people. He is not coming clean to the Canadian people. He should know that is the problem.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what the Liberal Party is doing today is the first act in a reckless coalition with the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Québécois.

Let me say, particularly to the member for Toronto Centre and very directly, we have seen what bringing the NDP members into the cabinet room in Ontario can do. They over-governed Ontario. They over-regulated in Ontario. They killed jobs. They killed opportunities.

Most importantly, wherever the NDP has been in power, it has stolen the soul of the Canadian dream, the soul of the Canadian people.

We will not allow opposition members to do it lightly. We will take our case to the Canadian people and say that this reckless coalition is wrong for Canada, bad for the Canadian economy and bad for Canadian jobs. Simply put, we will not let them get away with it.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government House leader certainly has been trying very hard to spin Conservatives' record as something that is supporting Canadians.

We have seen him do this day after day in the House of Commons. I think he has become very familiar with it. Maybe in the most generous of moments I could give him an A for effort. There he is smiling. He could not even keep a straight face yesterday as he tried to ram through a whole bunch of government bills that he knew was impossible.

The fact is that the real record of the government is that it has the worst record on scandals in this country. It has the worst record of disclosure and of not providing information, not only to parliamentarians but to the people of Canada. It has the worst record on insider scams.

Day after day we have had to go through a litany of these issues and expose what the government refuses to disclose to the people of Canada. The fact that we are now, at this moment in this Parliament, finding contempt surely must be something that deeply disturbs even Conservative members.

We are talking about the institution of democracy. We are talking about the work that we are sent here to do—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order. I am afraid the hon. member's time has expired. There is less than a minute left for the response from the government House leader.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have great regard and great respect for the member for Vancouver East.

However, if she wants to talk about the record of the government, let me be succinct, 19 months, 480,000 net new jobs. That is the priority of Canadians. That is what they sent us here to do. That is the job that we want to move forward with, with the next phase of Canada's economic action plan.

We can start on that path. We can start on Monday, or we can start it in two months, but we are committed to jobs, the economy and economic growth.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Minister of State and Chief Government Whip]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to a motion put forward by the leader of the opposition. I must state at the outset that I find it strange that we are debating this motion when the Liberal member for Kings—Hants introduced a motion in the House two days ago relating to the same matter.

Why did he do that? He did it to avoid debate on the issues that matter to Canadians. He did it to avoid debate on the excellent budget that was introduced by the Minister of Finance and our government. He did it to avoid having a vote on the budget that is in the best interests of Canadians, including his own constituents. That is shameful.

The Liberals, Bloc Québécois and NDP coalition have been caught up in political and partisan games at the expense of the best interests of Canadians. We have seen them time and time again play these games both in the House and in committees. They are the ones who have contempt for this House and for Canadians by forcing an unwanted, unnecessary election. I suppose we should expect nothing less from them.

Let me address the report from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. It is a report that in no way reflects the committee's hearings. Despite receiving all of the information requested and hearing clear, reasonable testimony from ministers, public servants and independent experts, opposition members were determined to rig the outcome of the committee hearings. It was a true kangaroo court.

However, they were not content with that alone. Now they want to act as judge and jury for the Minister of International Cooperation. They want to use their tyranny of the majority to find her guilty when the evidence from committee shows quite the opposite. There is nothing so blind as a closed mind.

Let me speak for a minute about the Liberals. The Liberal Party should not be speaking about ethics. This is the same party that stole $40 million from Canadians. While it paid back a measly amount, much of it remains unaccounted for. I understand that 13 ridings benefited from this scandal. That is a lot of envelopes filled with tainted money funnelled through back doors of the Liberal Party. I ask the Liberals, where is the $40 million?

When one is asked, “What first comes to your mind when you hear Liberal at the federal level?”, the answer certainly is not ethics. The answer is corruption.

The Liberal plan is tainted. This is the ad scam party that opposes laws that would prevent drug dealers from targeting children outside their schools. This is the ad scam party that opposes laws to end early parole for criminals who prey on seniors who have worked all their lives to comfortably retire. This is the ad scam party whose own members cannot even play by the rules. They want to talk about ethics.

When the Liberal immigration critic said that calling so-called honour killings barbaric went too far, what did the leader do? Nothing.

When one of its members was charged with a criminal offence, what did its leader do? Nothing.

That is some ethics.

Now I turn to the Bloc. Who do the Liberals want to form a coalition with? The Bloc Québécois, a party whose primary goal is to stand against Canada, a party whose members, like the member for Sherbrooke, have attended events and fundraisers organized by the RRQ, a group that includes neo-FLQ terrorists, a party whose policies are all about metropolitan Montreal, forgetting the regions of Quebec.

It is our Conservative government that has delivered for every part of Canada and every region of Quebec.

We gave Quebec a seat at the UNESCO table.

We recognized “les Québécois” as a nation within a united Canada.

We have delivered on the infrastructure priorities of Quebec's towns and cities.

We have celebrated Quebec's history and culture, including Quebec's 400th anniversary celebrations.

The Bloc Québécois is purely trying to distract Quebeckers from the fact they have done and can do nothing for the province of Quebec.

It voted against our world leading economic action plan.

It voted against opening trade with the world for Quebec businesses.

It also voted against legislation that would impose mandatory minimum sentences for people convicted of child trafficking.

Bloc members sit in the House and collect their salaries. They sit in the House and will collect their pensions, yet they do nothing for Quebec. It is shameful.

The NDP members support an opportunist election that would not only kill the government's legislation, but also the legislation they have introduced. They would stop a bill that would provide low-cost drugs to Africa, a bill the member for Ottawa Centre now sponsors. They clearly planned on campaigning on the introduction of their private members' bills, but not on the passage of these bills. How is that for ethics.

Why would they introduce legislation they do not care about? Probably for the same reason they invited media to tour their war room a few months ago. They have obviously been scheming with their coalition partners for this election for months. The same plan they revealed to Canadians in 2008, a coalition with Liberals in the driver's seat, the NDP spending taxpayers' money with abandon and the Bloc Québécois with a veto on every policy of the coalition.

When it comes to following up on promises, the NDP cannot be trusted. An example is the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, who flip-flopped on his position on the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry when it came down to the final vote. The minute that his vote would make a real difference for law-abiding duck hunters and farmers in this country, what did he do? He jumped ship. He turned tail. He is not the only one. The members for Welland, Sudbury, Timmins—James Bay, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing and Nickel Belt all flipped their votes. I hope their voters will flip them.

How can seniors and families in their ridings trust them to make the best decisions when they flip-flop on policy because parts of their caucus are worried about losing their seats? I do not want to hear them talk about misleading. What they have done is misleading their constituents.

I believe that we have accomplished a lot in this session. Just this week, 12 new laws have been granted royal assent. These new laws are repealing the faint hope clause, cracking down on crooked consultants and protecting children from online sexual exploitation. Unlike the other parties, our Conservative government is here to make Parliament work, and there is still a lot of work that needs to be done.

The motion before us makes a mockery of Parliament. Canadians expect and deserve better. For the last five years we have delivered. We have steered Canada through the great recession. We have cut all forms of taxes the government collects. We provided seniors with pension income splitting. We reduced the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%. We introduced important tax credits: the Canada employment credit, the work income tax benefit, the child tax credit. The budget before the House goes even further while making targeted investments in people and our economy.

The other parties have no plans and no ideas to offer, so they resort to smear and slander. We have witnessed committees they control turned into kangaroo courts. We have seen them use the cover of privilege to try to convict the innocent. We are now seeing them force an unwanted election on Canadians and mislead them about their intent to form a coalition of the Liberal Party, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP.

One last jarring thought: If the coalition were to come about following the election, picture the Bloc in charge of public security, the NDP in charge of finance and the Liberals in charge of accountability. God help Canada. But enough fiction. Canadians are smarter than that. They can count on a Conservative government to stand up for their priorities and stand up for Canada.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, so little time, so many floating targets from the former general for me to shoot at.

I want to ask him about income trusts. What happened to that promise? He talked in his speech about credibility, he talked about truth and about keeping his word. Let us go to the core of what the government has done and what its leader believes. He believes that for Atlantic Canada, where there is a culture of defeat, there should be $32 million taken from the budget of ACOA, and the Minister for ACOA sits there and get robbed and says nothing for Atlantic Canada.

I am from a party that was the party of Allan MacEachen, the party of Roméo LeBlanc when we had statesmen for Atlantic Canada. There is no one from Atlantic Canada speaking up because the Prime Minister does not believe in regional development. He does not believe that we have a place in this Confederation.

What about bilingualism? The Prime Minister said it was a god that failed. So now we have Service Canada all through Atlantic Canada who are administratively unilingual. Language of work, out the door. Legislation created by a great Canadian, out the door.

What we are doing with respect to this is saying we are calling the chips right now. We want an election so people will decide to get rid of the government that does not care about Atlantic Canadians, does not care about bilingualism and worst of all, which is the subject of the motion, Conservatives will not give information to the elected representatives of Canadians. They will not give information on jets, on the Youth Criminal Justice Act, on the cost of prisons. They did nothing about the death of a 16-year-old Moncton girl named Ashley Smith. They do not care.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, according to a recent poll, the Liberals are the fourth party in terms of trust in this Parliament. They are fourth.

Do members know why Canadians do not trust the Liberals? It is because their brand is tainted; it is a corrupt party.

When, during the election, the matter of ethics comes up, I would expect Liberal candidates to put bags on their heads.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit it has been a long time since I have heard such an arrogant speech.

I have a lesson in democracy for the Conservative government's whip. To attack the legitimacy of the Bloc is to attack the legitimacy of all the hon. members who sit in this House. If an hon. member is sitting in the House of Commons, it is because the people of his riding elected him. It should not matter what party he belongs to.

When I say the whip is arrogant, I mean that the Conservative Party seems to think it is the only party that matters in Parliament. What the minister did is totally unacceptable.

I want to know whether he thinks that the voters in Saint-Jean and those in the other 50 Bloc-held ridings are all morons who understand absolutely nothing. I have news for him: the Bloc is going to come back with a majority in Quebec for the seventh time, and the government whip is going to eat his words.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we do live in a democracy. Anyone legitimately elected from Quebec is legitimately here.

However, I am questioning the Bloc. Its members have been here for 20 years. They have been here, gaining their pensions, et cetera. What have they achieved? Nothing.

They basically have no function. They have no purpose. They are nothing. I would hope the voters of Quebec make better choices.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of talk today. It is funny to hear the NDP members talk about ethics because when they had an opportunity in 2004 to throw out one of the most corrupt governments in Canadian history, they went and signed a deal with it.

We have a Liberal Party that, of course, campaigns constantly on things. It campaigned for child care. Did it do it? No. It said it would cut the GST. Did it do it? No. It said it would kill free trade. Did it do it? No.

It said that it would not cut health care and social spending. Did it? Yes. It cut $25 billion from the provinces in health care and social services. That is the legacy of the Liberal Party--

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order, please. The hon. Chief Government Whip will have 15 seconds to respond.