Debates of Oct. 17th, 2013

The Environment

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by many Londoners regarding the protection of Canada's oceans. As we all know, our oceans are in a rather poor state of health, which affects our climate, our ecosystems and our economy. Canada, unlike other countries, has only protected 1% of our oceans. The Americans have protected 8% of theirs, and the Australians, 40%.

Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to protect our oceans by establishing enough marine protected areas to protect at least 10% of our oceans, which is the international target to which Canada has already committed, and thereby ensure the future health of our oceans, our economy, our environment and this important asset for decades to come.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The chair has notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

Does the hon. government House leader seek the floor?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the point of order that was raised yesterday, with a response.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I will hear the hon. government House leader first because the point of order was raised first. I will hear the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay after the response to the point of order.

Government Business, Motion No. 2

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise with a more detailed response to the official opposition House leader's point of order of last night on government Motion No. 2. Quite simply, the entire motion has a unifying purpose: the arrangement of business here and in our committees for the autumn.

As I said yesterday, it is a fair, balanced and principle-based proposal for restoring everyone's business without prejudice resulting from the prorogation and enabling the government to bring forward a Speech from the Throne. The “chapeau” of the motion, the words before paragraph (a), say just as much: “...for the purposes of facilitating and organizing the business of the House and its committees in the autumn of 2013...”.

Of course the main thrust of the motion provides for us to pick up where we left off in June with business where it was, whether it be government legislation, studies by the procedure and House affairs committee arranged by unanimous consent, a special committee that was set up unanimously in February or a finance committee study flowing from a private member's motion. We also see some housekeeping schedule amendments, by revising a couple of deadlines in our Standing Orders in view of the timeframe available for us this autumn, as well as the customary accommodation of a political party's national convention. However the principle is simple: no member of Parliament, no party, whether government or opposition, should see their priorities cut off or cut short or diverted simply because of the fact of prorogation.

As we heard yesterday, one political party, the NDP, has a concern, “a fundamental concern”, if we go by some public comments the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley made about our negotiations, with just one clause of the motion.

Our rules and procedures have a long and proven way of handling this type of objection, and that is by proposing amendments. Citation 567 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules & Forms, 6th edition, tells us that:

The object of an amendment may be either to modify a question in such a way as to increase its acceptability or to present to the House a different proposition as an alternative to the original question.

If it is the perspective of the opposition that government Motion No. 2 could be improved, then it is open to it to propose an amendment and then to let the House decide whether it is actually an improvement.

Motions that reinstate business are not novel. Page 383 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, makes reference to this procedure. If one looks back through our records, one will see that such motions have been proposed at the start of second or subsequent sessions of Parliament by parties on both sides of the House in 1991, 1996, 1999, 2002, 2004 and 2007.

Some of these motions were not just limited to the conduct of government legislation. For example, in 1996 government Motion No. 1 provided for the continuation of private members' bills as well as a series of temporary standing order amendments on the business of supply. In 2002, government Motion No. 2 provided for the re-establishment of a special committee, as we heard.

At other times, too, the House has considered multifaceted motions that either amended the Standing Orders or implemented a sessional or a special order to facilitate the conduct of our business. The most recent is Government Motion No. 17 just this May. The motion was ruled by you, sir, on May 22, 2013, at pages 16804 and 16805 of House of Commons Debates to be in order.

Should the Chair, however, be open to the hon. member's argument on dividing the motion, let me offer a few comments on that front.

Citation 557(2) of Beauchesne's advises from a 1966 ruling of Mr. Speaker Lamoureux that, “It is only in exceptional circumstances, and when there is little doubt, that the Speaker may intervene...”.

More recently, Mr. Speaker Milliken said on October 4, 2002, at page 299 of the Debates that:

Research into Canadian practice reveals few instances where a Speaker has moved to divide a motion. In my view, this indicates that the Chair must exercise every caution before intervening in the deliberations of the House in the manner requested in this instance.

As a testament to just how rare it is, pages 562 and 563 of O'Brien and Bosc refer to five previous instances where the matter of dividing motions arose. Of those cases, one saw unanimous consent giving the Speaker that authority, and another—the case forming the Beauchesne's citation I just read—saw the Chair decline to intervene. Of the three remaining cases, one instance related to a government motion proposing a new flag for Canada and the future standing of the Union Jack, an issue that any student of Canadian history or of this place would know was an emotionally supercharged debate dominating the 26th Parliament.

That motion was divided into separate motions for debate by Mr. Speaker Macnaughton on June 15, 1964. Mr. Speaker Macnaughton based his approach on the prevailing British practice at the time, since our rules were silent. Standing Order 1 required him to look to Westminster in such unprovided for cases.

With respect to that selfsame British approach, page 389 of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, 20th Edition informs us that “The House does not recognize the right of individual Members to insist on the division of motions giving special facilities for the transaction of public business”.

Government Motion No. 2 refers to facilitating or giving facilities for the conduct of public business this fall in the chamber and in our committees. We are not dealing here with an emotionally fraught debate that goes to the heart of how we identify ourselves as Canadians. We are simply dealing with a proposal to reconcile the business of the House and committees to our calendar and circumstances this autumn, but particularly to see things picked up where we left off, without just cherry-picking the stuff we like that we initiated last session. It is indeed an approach that is fair to all that seeks to allow everyone's business, not just the government's business, to be restored.

In 2002, Mr. Speaker Milliken hived off for separate debate a portion of Government Motion No. 2, which related to future travel authority for our committee, because it was not cognate with the purpose of the motion, as expressed on its face, “to provide for the resumption and continuation of the business of the House begun in the previous Session”.

As I quoted earlier, the opening words of our motion are not limited in scope to business from the past session. They make reference to the facilitation and organization of business this autumn that is going forward into this session. In our case, there is really just one element singled out by one corner of the House for objection. The way of dealing with that objection is not to throw out the motion, or even to exercise the extraordinary and exceedingly rare power to divide it. The simplest course of action is to allow the debate to proceed as normal and await an amendment to be proposed thereto. In other words, to rephrase our position, consistent with the approach laid out by Speaker Lamoureux, there is significant doubt that the best way of dealing with the situation is through dividing Government Motion No. 2.

The solution is not to veto our proposal from going forward by having the motion ruled out of order simply because one does not like it. That is not democracy. Democracy is served best through debating a proposal, considering an amendment, and making a decision at the end of the day to vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, listening to the government House leader, I was reminded of words said in this place in 2002, which he referenced often, by my friend from Halifax West, who was sitting in the Liberal government at the time, arguing exactly what I heard from the government House leader this morning. That is that there is a unifying argument, a principle, in what the Liberal government then had proposed, and that because they said the words “unifying argument”, it must have meant that everything that followed had to be cogent and contained in one motion.

Speaker Milliken did not find that argument true then. I suspect that given the precedence and also the practice of this place, it will be difficult for the Chair to find a unifying argument now.

I also recall that the person who argued against the Liberal government, Mr. Chuck Strahl, who would be familiar to many of my friends across the way, said during the debate, and I think this may be helpful:

However as far as the business of the House, the House leader's argument on the Liberal side that they just want to continue with business as usual is the antithesis of that.

The government decided that the business of the House had to stop, that it had to prorogue, clean the tables and start anew with new committees, new agendas and a whole new legislative package. For him say that all the business they want on the Liberal side has to also continue uninterrupted is simply false.

Prorogation stops some things and until the House agrees, it cannot continue as if nothing happened. Prorogation requires the decision of this House, if we are going to continue with an old agenda, a decision that each of us as parliamentarians has to be willing to take part in and vote on.

That was the point of the motion we raised yesterday, both in practice and in principle.

I will read from O'Brien and Bosc to remind my friend across the way of page 478 of Marleau and Montpetit, which existed at that time.

It states:

When a complicated motion comes before the House (for example, a motion containing two or more parts each capable of standing on its own)...

That is the test. Is each of these motions capable of standing on its own: the government's agenda to try to reintroduce all the previous legislation it killed due to prorogation, and on its other leg, coupling that with a study on murdered and missing aboriginal women? Can that vote stand on its own? Is that a distinct concept to continue?

...the Speaker has the authority to modify it and thereby facilitate decision-making for the House. When any Member objects to a motion that contains two or more distinct propositions, he or she may request that the motion be divided and that each proposition be debated and voted on separately.

Those are the rules that guide us.

Mr. Speaker, clearly the power is contained within your Chair to divide the motion as two separate issues, which we have argued.

I will remind my government House leader friend across the way that the Conservative House leader at the time, in 2002, Ms. Skeleton, quoted:

I must come to the conclusion that the motion before the House contains two propositions and since strong objections have been made to the effect that these two propositions should not be considered together, it is my duty to divide them.

That was in reference to Speaker Milliken as Chair to the intervention by the House leader.

It seems to me passing strange that the Conservatives have so consistently argued positions previously taken up by the Liberals and have forgotten all of the arguments they made when they sat in the opposition benches.

We see two clear, distinct proposals, one that we find objectionable, linked together: the government's effort to reinstate its agenda, which it shut down due to prorogation, its attempt to reset and renew, and the proposition to study the expenses of the members of Parliament, bringing further clarity and transparency; and even more objectionable, the work that had been started and initiated by this place to look into the travesty and the devastating effects of missing and murdered aboriginal women. Somehow those two are linked and must forever remain linked, and only one vote to sustain that idea or to reject it will be allowed in this place, causing members to be in opposition to their own values when voting just once.

The precedence is here. The rules are here. The Conservatives argued this very case when they were in opposition to the Liberals. It seems clear to me that they find this cumbersome, as they so often find democratic values and institutions an annoyance. However, the fact remains that members of Parliament need to be able to stand in this place and cast a free and fair vote clearly on the issues before the House. To couple things together in these omnibus motions and omnibus legislation further erodes the connection between members of Parliament and their constituents and the views that we seek to represent when we stand in this place.

Again, my friend says that there is no passionate debate going on here. I would argue quite the contrary, both on the principle of members of Parliament being able to conduct themselves in a way such that they can go back to their constituents and inform them as to what the vote was and on the substance of the matter, which is that work into missing and aboriginal women is an important enough issue to stand on its own.

Finally, my friend across the way said that if there were any recommendations to improve the motion, they should be presented forthwith. He maybe was not listening yesterday, because I did offer one. It was plucked word for word from the omnibus motion allowing the Conservatives to have their convention in November in Calgary. I have other motions available to hive off the pieces placed together that we find objectionable. If my friend across the way is looking for those recommendations, we have them already. He rejected one yesterday. If the government House leader is now open to them, we can make those submissions and divide this motion properly so that members of Parliament can freely and clearly express their views, and then the House can get on it with its business.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I thank both hon. members for their contributions to the point of order, and I will endeavour to come back to the House as quickly as possible with a ruling on the question.

Now I will turn to the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay, who has provided the Speaker with a notice of a question of privilege.

Statements by Prime Minister Regarding Repayment of Senator's Expenses

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a great honour to rise in this chamber; however, today I am rising on a question of privilege pursuant to section 48(1) of the Standing Orders. It is a question of grave importance because it concerns the new evidence that has come through the RCMP investigation, which suggests the Prime Minister provided misleading information to the House in terms of the deal that was struck between his former chief of staff, Nigel Wright, and Senator Mike Duffy. That deal was to pay the $90,000 of fraudulent living expenses for Mr. Duffy.

This is an extremely serious matter because we are dealing with the unprecedented situation of an RCMP investigation into the office of the Prime Minister, so the misleading statements are not only a breach of parliamentary privilege but are, more importantly, a breach of trust with Canadians, who expect that the House of Commons and its members will ensure that there is a standard of accountable government.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will be laying out this case today and asking that you find that a prima facie case of privilege does exist so that this matter can be properly dealt with at committee.

I want to point out right away that I would have brought this issue sooner; however, the government decided to prorogue for the month of September, so this is the first actual opportunity to bring this issue before you. As well, in the interim period between last June and this September, a number of new evidence pieces have come forward through the RCMP affidavits that have provided a much broader picture of how much knowledge was actually in the Prime Minister's Office regarding Mr. Duffy and the relationship with Mr. Wright.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to try your patience this morning by going through all the various evidence that has come forward. I want to focus particularly on one aspect, which was the issue of the payment that was made by the Prime Minister's former chief of staff, Nigel Wright, to Senator Duffy, and who in the Prime Minister's Office was aware of that deal.

We know that Nigel Wright and Senator Duffy had met over the issue of the $90,000 in fraudulent housing expenses, and according to the reports that have come forward through the media and through the RCMP, there was a deal whereby Senator Duffy would become silent on the scandal with the auditors in exchange for the $90,000 that then would be used as repayment for the expenses. When this became public, Nigel Wright resigned from his position.

Over the following days and weeks, during question period a series of very straightforward questions were asked of the Prime Minister regarding what he knew about the deal. The Leader of the Opposition wanted to find out who exactly in the Prime Minister's Office may have been aware that a particularly criminal act had occurred.

On June 5, 2013, the Prime Minister said:

Mr. Speaker, as I have said repeatedly, it was Mr. Wright who made the decision to take his personal funds and give those to Mr. Duffy so that Mr. Duffy could reimburse the taxpayers. Those were his decisions. They were not communicated to me or to members of my office.

However, we now know that this statement was false. On July 4, 2013, a letter surfaced from Corporal Greg Horton of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police that was filed as part of the application for a production order. In this document Corporal Horton explained that on June 23, 2013, the RCMP received a letter from Peter Mantas, the lawyer for Nigel Wright. This letter, Corporal Horton explains, advised that Mr. Wright recalls that he told the following people that he would personally provide the funds to repay Mr. Duffy's claim for secondary residence expenses: David van Hemmen, in the Prime Minister's Office; Benjamin Perrin, in the Prime Minister's Office; Chris Woodcock, in the Prime Minister's Office; and Senator Irving Gerstein.

As I pointed out, the first three individuals are or were working in the Prime Minister's Office, respectively as the executive assistant to the chief of staff, the former legal adviser to the Prime Minister, and the director of issues management for the Prime Minister.

The RCMP's letter also explains that the investigation revealed that the Conservative Party was initially going to repay the money for Mr. Duffy from the Conservative Party fund when it thought that the amount owed was $32,000. However, when it was confirmed that Mike Duffy had actually inappropriately taken $90,000, it was decided that this was too much money to ask the Conservative Party to cover. It was then that Mr. Wright apparently offered to cover the cost. The RCMP writes in its statement, “Some people within the PMO were aware of this arrangement...”.

According to the RCMP, the facts are clear. Under direct, clear and concise cross-examination, the Prime Minister stated in the House that the decisions to pay back the money for Mr. Duffy were not communicated to him or members of his office, but in black and white we can see that this is a complete contradiction of the evidence that has been provided by Mr. Wright to the RCMP.

There can be no doubt that within the weeks of cross-examining that occurred in the House, the Prime Minister would have sought answers from his staff regarding this issue. Can any Canadian seriously believe that in day after day of being asked to account for what happened in his office, the Prime Minister never sat down with senior staff to work out the facts of the matter?

It would also seem very difficult to believe that his staff would have heard him misstating the facts of the matter in the House and would have chosen not to correct him and would have let him intentionally state a falsehood.

This leaves us with two possibilities: either the Prime Minister's staff lied to him, which left him armed with untrue answers on the highest-profile story of the day and an unprecedented political scandal, or the Prime Minister himself perhaps chose to ignore the truth when being held accountable in this place.

Either way, this is an extremely serious breach of the rights and privileges of the members of this House, as well as a breach of the public trust to all Canadians.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, today to defend the rights of our democratic institutions by finding that there is a prima facie case of privilege, of contempt of Parliament.

For the sake of clarity, let me remind everyone here of the rights that are afforded to members of Parliament so that they can carry out their duties on behalf of Canadians.

On page 75 of the 23rd edition of Erskine May's Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, parliamentary privilege is defined as:

....the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively ... and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions...

Parliamentary privileges are of the utmost importance not only for parliamentarians but, more importantly, for Canadians, who put their trust and faith in their elected members to legislate on their behalf and to hold government to account. Therefore, they trust that government will provide truthful answers in the House. These are the basic principles that are of paramount importance if we want Canadians to continue to believe and take part in the democratic process.

Breaches of privilege can take many forms, but the one we are dealing with--misleading the House--is one of the most serious. Page 111 of Erskine May states that:

The Commons may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt.

The second edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice by O'Brien and Bosc also tells us on page 111 that the provision of misleading information constitutes a prima facie breach of privilege.

Let me also quote from page 63 of Erskine May, which tells us:

...it is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity.

I would add that this is an even important responsibility for the Prime Minister himself.

There is no doubt that providing misleading information to the House is a serious offence and a breach of our collective privileges.

Now, again, it may be that the Prime Minister himself was unaware of the actions of his staff, but it is still a breach of our privileges for his staff to have misled the Prime Minister. His staff watched him providing these misleading statements in the House, and previous speakers have ruled that this is as much a breach of privilege and contempt for parliamentarians as if the member himself had made these statements.

On December 6, 1978, in finding that a prima facie case of contempt of the House existed, Speaker Jerome ruled that a government official, by deliberately misleading a minister who in turn provided misleading information to a member, had impeded the members in the performance of their duties and consequently obstructed the House itself. Speaker Jerome said:

The complaint which is the subject matter of the question of privilege is not directly a complaint about the minister. Indeed, it is founded on the fact that it is one of the minister's officials who has calculated to contrive this deliberate deception of the House.

In the same vein, on February 25, 2004, Speaker Milliken reminded the House:

It is not, of course, absolutely necessary that the minister be aware that a document is misleading in order for a contempt to occur.

It is a very unusual and disturbing case we have before us. I have never heard before of a Prime Minister and, by extension, the House being deceived by members in the Prime Minister's Office.

Mr. Speaker, in your ruling on whether this is indeed a prima facie case of privilege, I would like you to consider the following quote from Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, page 136, which states:

It may be stated generally that any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House in the discharge of its duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence.

It is deeply troubling to think that the Prime Minister could have been deceived by members of his staff, but I think you would agree, Mr. Speaker, that it would be even more disturbing to discover that the Prime Minister knew of the deal between former chief of staff Nigel Wright and Mike Duffy and then intentionally misled the House when he stated that neither he nor anyone in his office knew about this deal.

Mr. Speaker, on May 7, 2012, you stated the following regarding a similar case:

It has become accepted practice in this House that the following elements have to be established when it is alleged that a member is in contempt for deliberately misleading the House: one, it must be proven that the statement was misleading; two, it must be established that the member making the statement knew at the time that the statement was incorrect; and three, that in making the statement, the member intended to mislead the House.

The first of these conditions has clearly been met. Statements were made in the House by the Prime Minister that have been shown to be misleading by official court documents.

The other two elements, however, do need to be clarified, and this is the reason I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, to find that there is a prima facie case so that the issue could be studied at greater depth by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Did the Prime Minister know at the time that the statements he gave to the House were misleading? We cannot answer this question with certainty at this point, but if he did not know, then at least according to the RCMP, three senior individuals within the Prime Minister's Office, two of whom are still employed there, knew and failed to tell the Prime Minister, and thus are culpable of the Prime Minister's misleading of the House.

Did the Prime Minister intend to mislead the House? Again, we will only be able to answer this question after having the opportunity to hear the facts on the matter from all individuals involved.

Let me repeat that whether the Prime Minister misled the House intentionally or as a result of being misled by his own staff, members of Parliament have had their privileges breached and democracy has suffered as a result. Canadians have not been able to receive a truthful answer from the head of their government.

This situation is unacceptable. Truth is never an option if we want our democratic institutions to work properly. That is why I am here today, and why I have explained the situation at length to my colleagues and to you, Mr. Speaker. I hope that the proper committee will be able to study this matter in depth and shed light on what has transpired.

On December 6, 1978, Speaker Jerome said:

The job that I have in matters of privilege is a preliminary, procedural review of the matter to determine whether in fact it touches the privileges of the members of the House of Commons or the House itself. ... The House itself makes the decision on whether the motion shall carry, whether it shall be amended, or in any way altered and, in fact, whether there is a contempt. I do not make that decision; the House does.

I believe that the facts before us clearly indicate there has been a breach of our privileges, and this must be further studied. The only question seems to be whether the Prime Minister deliberately misled us or whether the Prime Minister's staff lied to him. The truth will only be revealed through proper investigation at the appropriate House committee, but what we do know and what is clearly and totally avoidable is that misleading statements have been made to this House, which is not only a prima facie breach of the privileges of all members but also of all Canadians who put their faith in government.

I cannot insist enough on this point. Yes, I have stood here and presented procedure and technical points, but this is the more important point: parliamentary privileges are principally of the utmost importance for Canadians. In times of cynicism, voter apathy, and disengagement, Canadians need to have a basic trust in our democratic institutions. To that end, the severity of having a Prime Minister providing misleading statements about a criminal investigation must be addressed.

Mr. Speaker, if you find that indeed this matter does need further looking into, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion to have this case referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

I would like to leave the final word not to me but to another hon. member of this place, who spoke on two consecutive days. On January 31, 2002, he said:

I would suggest in the strongest possible terms that members of the House of Commons must be able to rely on the information they receive in response to questions placed to ministers. This goes to the very cut and thrust of the responsibilities of members of the House of Commons. A high standard has to be met....

On February 1, 2002, the same member said:

Integrity, honesty and truthfulness in this Chamber should not ebb and flow like the tides. This should be something that is as solid as the ground we walk on and as solid as the foundation of this very building in these hallowed halls. Every time we come into this Chamber, we should be reminded of that.

Mr. Speaker, those words were said by the hon. member for Central Nova who, incidentally, is now the Conservative Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.

These are wise words. I hope that the minister and all the members will follow them and I leave the decision in your hands, Mr. Speaker.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I stand to express a few thoughts on this very important issue.

I have been a parliamentarian for over 20 years and whether it was inside the Manitoba legislature or my short stay here in the House of Commons, one of the most serious issues we deal with is being truthful. We like to consider all of us as being honourable members. At the end of the day, we in the opposition anticipate that if we ask questions, we will be given truthful answers.

The leader of the Liberal Party and many others in the House asked questions specifically of the Prime Minister about an issue that has been on the minds of many Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Those were questions dealing with corruption within the PMO and the serious allegations that have flowed from the actions that Mr. Nigel Wright is alleged to have taken, including writing a $90,000 cheque; something which members of the Liberal Party have been calling for the government to provide a copy of.

Over the summer months we found out more detailed information with regard to what the Prime Minister could have or should have known. What we found out over the summer is that, indeed, there is reason to believe the Prime Minister did in fact deliberately mislead the House, and that is a very serious allegation. It is serious when an allegation is made against any member of the House of Commons, but we are talking about the Prime Minister of Canada. Did the Prime Minister of Canada intentionally and deliberately mislead the House? That is the question being posed today.

Throughout the years when allegations like this have been brought forward, what do we often see? We will see the person against whom the allegation has been made stand in his or her place and provide clarification as to whether he or she had intentionally misled the House. That is what I would like the Prime Minister to do. The Prime Minister had a choice. After all, he prorogued the session. He had a choice as to when he was going to come back to the House of Commons, when he was going to be accountable on this important issue. He chose to have the throne speech yesterday. What I and members of the Liberal Party would like to see is the Prime Minister stand in his place today and deal with this issue head-on. He owes it not only to parliamentarians but to each and every Canadian.

Canadians are concerned. They want a prime minister that is going to be honest and transparent. What happened? Did the Prime Minister's staff, as has been pointed out, not tell the Prime Minister? Did the chief of staff and the most important individuals in the Prime Minister's office keep the Prime Minister completely in the dark so he had no idea what was happening? It appears as if there were more than one or two people who knew about it in the Prime Minister's office. Did the Prime Minister in fact mislead Canadians?

Ultimately, I believe that the Prime Minister needs to stand in his place and give an explanation. Even if he takes longer to allow the issue to die down, which is maybe what he is hoping for, it is not going to happen. How much did we spend, maybe $1 million, for yesterday's throne speech? It was absolutely not necessary. We spent an excessive amount of money on a throne speech. Having said that, when matters of privilege have been raised against members, they are afforded the opportunity to respond. We would like the Prime Minister to respond to this.

In short, the Liberal Party is concerned that the assertions—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I would be a little sensitive on this issue, too, if I were those members. Absolutely.

In short, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party is concerned that the assertions made by the Prime Minister about the extent to which his own staff and advisers were informed of the illicit deal between his own chief of staff, Nigel Wright, and Mike Duffy may well be in conflict with the facts that have since come to light.

We will be adding more to this as the debate continues on this privilege, but we challenge the Prime Minister to stand in his place as soon as possible to defend what it is that Canadians have a right to know, whether the Prime Minister did in fact—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please.

On the same point, the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to a very relevant point that my NDP colleague from Timmins—James Bay raised during his excellent speech.

My colleague very clearly explained the crux of the problem, and I agree with the arguments he made. However, I would like to add a few points. The issue before us today is a very serious one. The Prime Minister made misleading statements in the House when he said that no one in his office knew about the agreement between Nigel Wright, his former chief of staff, and Senator Mike Duffy. That constitutes a breach of the privilege of all members of the House, as O'Brien and Bosc explain on page 111 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice:

...some matters found to be prima facie include the damaging of a Member’s reputation, the usurpation of the title of Member of Parliament, the intimidation of Members and their staff and of witnesses before committees, and the provision of misleading information.

Above all, this is an affront to Canadians who put their trust in this Parliament and who expect their government to provide truthful information to the House.

I can already hear the type of arguments that my colleagues opposite, particularly the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, could put forward to keep this issue from being thoroughly examined, as they unfortunately so often do. For example, I imagine that they will say that the statements the Prime Minister makes in the House are protected by freedom of speech, that an MP's privileges when he addresses the House are absolute and that we cannot conclude that a statement that is protected by parliamentary privilege can violate that same privilege.

On page 93 of O'Brien and Bosc, it states:

The House of Commons could not work effectively unless its Members were able to speak and criticize without having to account to any outside body. There would be no freedom of speech if everything had to be proven true before it were uttered.

What needs to be understood here is that parliamentary freedom provides specific protection so that legal action cannot be taken against MPs for what they say in the House. O'Brien and Bosc indicates that:

Freedom of speech permits Members to speak freely in the Chamber during a sitting or in committees during meetings while enjoying complete immunity from prosecution or civil liability for any comment they might make.

Freedom of speech allows MPs to do their work in the House in the interest of Canadians. That does not mean that MPs can provide the House with misleading information on issues where the facts are clear and spelled out in black and white—as is the case here—without any repercussions from the House. MPs, particularly the Prime Minister, cannot use freedom of speech as an excuse for misleading the people who elected them.

Former speaker Fraser clarified this concept in 1987. He said:

These institutions [Parliament and the courts] enjoy the protection of absolute privilege because of the overriding need to ensure that the truth can be told, that any questions can be asked, and that debate can be free and uninhibited.

However, there are limits to freedom of speech. Former speaker Fraser went on to say:

Such a privilege confers grave responsibilities on those who are protected by it. By that I mean specifically the Hon. Members of this place. The consequences of its abuse can be terrible....All Hon. Members are conscious of the care they must exercise in availing themselves of their absolute privilege of freedom of speech. That is why there are long-standing practices and traditions observed in this House to counter the potential for abuse.

One of the practices we have to prevent abuse is to denounce misleading statements and to determine whether they constitute contempt of Parliament.

I also expect that some of my colleagues opposite will try to claim that this is not a question of privilege because it concerns the Prime Minister's replies during question period and nothing can dictate the content of his answers.

My hon. colleagues might also say that members just happen to disagree on the facts and this is a question of debate rather than privilege.

Indeed, the Speaker's role is limited during question period, as described in O'Brien and Bosc, at page 510, and I quote:

The Speaker ensures that replies adhere to the dictates of order, decorum and parliamentary language. The Speaker, however, is not responsible for the quality or content of replies to questions. In most instances, when a point of order or a question of privilege has been raised in regard to a response to an oral question, the Speaker has ruled that the matter is a disagreement among Members over the facts surrounding the issue. As such, these matters are more a question of debate and do not constitute a breach of the rules or of privilege.

First, what we have here is not a disagreement on the facts. The facts could not be any clearer. We have the Prime Minister's statements in the House and we have the statements of Nigel Wright's lawyers and the RCMP. There is an obvious and direct contradiction there.

Furthermore, in reference to the Speaker not being responsible for the quality of the answers during question period, we are talking about cases where a prime minister and his ministers either avoid answering questions from the opposition or do not provide all the available information, which unfortunately happens far too often with this Conservative government.

There are no parliamentary rules that allow a prime minister or his ministers to provide false or misleading information, once they do choose to answer a question. This applies to any other questions.

When misleading information is provided in the House, the Speaker not only can, but must, rule on that question.

There was in fact a similar case, in 2002, when the Conservative member for Portage—Lisgar stated that the Minister of National Defence had intentionally misled the House in his response to a question about prisoners in Afghanistan during question period.

The Speaker ruled that it was a prima facie question of privilege, and the matter was referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Furthermore, I would remind the House that question period is one of the only times when the Prime Minister addresses the House and Canadians. If he cannot be held accountable for what he says at that time, then when can he be held accountable?

If the Prime Minister can say whatever he likes during question period without having to answer for what he says, how can Canadian voters be assured that their government will be held to account?

As my hon. colleague from Timmins—James Bay put it so well, whether the Prime Minister misled the House intentionally or as a result of being misled by his own staff, the upshot is that members of Parliament, and therefore Canadians, have had their privileges breached and our democracy has suffered as a result.

How can Canadians rely on the truthfulness of any information provided by the government if we do not get to the bottom of this?

I therefore hope that you will find that there is a prima facie question of privilege and that you will allow my hon. colleague to move his motion to have the matter referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

In closing, to ensure that all members have access to the relevant information on the matter, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to table RCMP Corporal Greg Horton's production and sealing order.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to table this document?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, in this matter, things are actually very clear. The Prime Minister has been very clear on this matter and there is no mystery. He had no knowledge of Mr. Wright's personal payment until May 15, after it was reported. The file was handled by Mr. Nigel Wright and he has taken sole responsibility.

As the Prime Minister said in a press conference during the summer adjournment, “When I answered questions about this in the House of Commons, I answered questions to the best of my knowledge”.

Since that time it has been reported that Mr. Wright chose to advise others in the Prime Minister's Office of his payment to Senator Duffy using Mr. Wright's personal funds. The Prime Minister also addressed this matter in the same press conference. “had I known about this earlier I would never have allowed this to take place”.

We will reserve the opportunity to review further the more detailed elements of the hon. member's arguments and get back to the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleagues who have already spoken, but I disagree with the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, who just spoke to this question of privilege.

The House of Commons is governed by its own rules, found in O'Brien-Bosc. On page 111, it states that no member of Parliament, including the Prime Minister, who is one of the 308 members of Parliament in this House, shall provide misleading information to the House, whether or not it is deliberate.

In this case—and this may also be the case in civil society—ignorance of the law is no excuse. The Prime Minister should be aware of the rules governing the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker, there is new information that you must take into account. When the Prime Minister was answering questions and when the RCMP was getting deeper into its investigation, some information started to be made public. That information must be brought to your attention.

You must look at the answers the Prime Minister gave about his chief of staff, his senior aide, who gave a large amount of money—$90,000—to a senator for inappropriate expenses.

The government and the Prime Minister must take responsibility. This government introduced an accountability bill—rightfully so—and could not stop bragging about this legislation. Now it needs to be consistent by making sure that elected members of this House are accountable and responsible.

I think it makes sense to consider as a question of privilege the responses given by the Prime Minister and some information that came out before and especially after these events.

I leave this in your hands and good judgment.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I would like to thank all hon. member for their contributions today and I look forward to further submissions on this point.

Address to Her Majesty Concerning Congratulations on the Birth of Prince George

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

moved:

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty the Queen in the following words:

TO THE QUEEN'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY:

MOST GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN:

We, Your Majesty's loyal and dutiful subjects, the Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our congratulations to Your Majesty on the birth of a Prince, a son to Their Royal Highnesses, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, and assuring Your Majesty that this happy event affords the greatest joy and satisfaction to Your faithful Members of the House of Commons of Canada.

That the said Address be engrossed;

That a Message be sent to the Senate informing their Honours that this House has adopted the said Address and requesting their Honours to unite with this House in the said Address by filling up the blanks with the words “the Senate and”; and

That a Message of congratulations be sent by the Speaker, on behalf of this House, to Their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge upon the joyful occasion of the birth of a son to Their Royal Highnesses.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, although by international standards Canada is a relatively young country, we are already preparing to celebrate our 150th anniversary in 2017. It is a very important anniversary.

As a result of Confederation we became a country and a people. We have accomplished a great deal together. Many things have changed, but Canada and Canadians have remained strong. One hundred and fifty years ago we chose to become a constitutional monarchy.

Today, our heritage makes us unique and provides a link to our past while nourishing our hopes for the future. The birth of His Royal Highness, Prince George Alexander Louis of Cambridge is a reminder of this heritage.

Since the House was not sitting at the time of the royal birth, I would like to take this opportunity at the outset of this latest session of Parliament to officially congratulate their Royal Highnesses, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, on the birth of their first child. It is my pleasure to also offer special congratulations to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II on the arrival of her great grandchild.

Prince George, named after Her Majesty's grandfather King George VI, is the third in line for the throne of Canada after the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cambridge. As such, his Royal Highness represents the continuity and stability of the monarchy and of our Canadian system of government.

Canadians' relationship with the royal family is one of mutual respect and admiration. For example, in 2012 Canadians joined people around the world in celebrating Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II's Diamond Jubilee. This was a wonderful opportunity to celebrate the Crown in Canada, our history, traditions, symbols, values and institutions.

For over 60 years, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth and His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, have exemplified the meaning of service to Canada with steadfast purpose and dedication.

During the Diamond Jubilee celebrations, exceptional Canadians from across the country who have served their fellow citizens in their communities, small or large, were awarded a Diamond Jubilee Medal. During the Diamond Jubilee year, Canada welcomed Their Royal Highnesses, the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall.

Together, we highlighted Canada's achievements and celebrated our heritage. We agreed to continue working together over the next few years to build an ever stronger Canada.

This summer, Canadians across the country were delighted to learn of the birth of our future king, little Prince George.

To celebrate the royal birth, on July 22 the Peace Tower on Parliament Hill was lit up in blue from dusk until midnight. Many Canadians sent messages of congratulations to the royal couple through the Governor General's website. Our government was pleased to send gifts to the prince himself. We sent a handcrafted Canadian muskox-wool blanket embroidered with the arms of Canada. His Excellency the Governor General and Her Excellency Mrs. Johnston, as well as the Prime Minister and Mrs. Harper, offered his Royal Highness a selection of Canadian children's books in English and French.

Finally, we were pleased to comply with the wishes of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge by offering a heartfelt donation to a special children's charity in the name of their son. Their Royal Highnesses asked that their subjects in England consider giving to a local hospital foundation and that others consider donating to children's charities, because the well-being of children and young people is an issue very close to the heart of the Duchess.

As a result, our government recently announced that we would donate on behalf of Canadians $100,000 to the Canadian Centre for Child Protection in honour of the royal birth. The centre is an extremely worthy recipient of this gift. As an example, its work to combat all forms of bullying across the country through education awareness and prevention activities is producing real results in helping to reduce child victimization. I am so proud of the work done at this centre located in my city of Winnipeg. It gives vulnerable children hope and strength to succeed, and our children and young people are our absolute greatest resource. It will help build the Canada of the future and our country will remain rich in diversity and forever strong and free.

In closing, on behalf of everyone present in the House and all Canadians, I would like to express our best wishes for health and happiness to His Royal Highness Prince George of Cambridge and his parents, grandparents and great-grandparents, especially Her Majesty the Queen.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured, as a member of Her Majesty's Official Opposition and as the deputy critic for Heritage, to speak to the government motion today. We do indeed celebrate the arrival of another heir to the throne.

New Democrats stand in support of the government motion and I am delighted to have been asked to present this address to Her Majesty The Queen marking the birth of His Royal Highness Prince George on July 22, 2013.

July 22 is an auspicious day in history and in legend. Legend has it that on July 22, 1376, the Pied Piper acted to end the plague in the town of Hamelin to secure the good health and safety of the people of that town. It was also on July 22, 1812, when English troops, under the Duke of Wellington, defeated the French at the Battle of Salamanca in Spain. On July 22, 1926, Babe Ruth, the Sultan of Swat and baseball Hall of Famer, caught a baseball at Mitchell Field in New York City. Now this would not seem so historically remarkable except that the ball was dropped from an airplane. On July 22, 2000, astronomers at the University of Arizona announced that they had found the 17th moon orbiting Jupiter.

Therefore, as members can see, before July 22, 2013, the day was already a day set aside in history to mark feats of emancipation, military victory, human achievement and discovery. However, certainly none of these rivals the joy with which the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth responds to the birth of His Royal Highness Prince George Alexander Louis on July 22. May I also add that there is no prouder community in Canada than Prince George, British Columbia.

It is in that light that the New Democratic Party members of the Queen's Official Opposition of the Parliament of Canada join the other members of the House in congratulating Prince William and his wife Kate, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, on the safe and healthy delivery of their first born child, as well as offering congratulations to Prince Charles on becoming a grandfather.

Of course, we gather in the House today to especially offer most hearty and sincere congratulations to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh on the arrival of their great-grandchild and heir to the Throne of England.

As royal biographer Christopher Warwick has noted:

Obviously the great thing is that the new royal birth secures the line of succession for the third generation, which is the first time since 1894, since the birth of Queen Victoria’s great-grandson, the future Edward VIII.

That succession has been secured to the third generation.

In addition to ruling the United Kingdom, George Alexander Louis will one day be the king of 15 other Commonwealth countries, including our great nation of Canada.

Prince George shares his name with his great-great grandfather, King George VI, her Majesty's father. The name "George," has most appropriately come to stand for the continuity of the monarchy. As many of us know, Prince George's great-great grandfather, George VI, showed, through his great courage, the ability to overcome the vulnerability of his stammer and became the symbol of one who stood steadfastly for his nation and his people.

George Alexander Louis comes from such stock and, as Mr. Warwick has noted, his birth on July 22 ensures the succession of the throne for three generations, well into the 22nd century.

Of course, as every family knows, a new baby heralds joy and renewed hope for the future. We all look forward to the milestones of our children's first words, first steps, first day of school, first love, and we stand by as parents ready to provide steady support through the challenges that may arise out of all those firsts. Along with the joy and hope a new baby brings, all parents know the feeling of renewed commitment to working toward creating a legacy worthy of the next generation. It is no different when we speak of the Commonwealth family and the legacy we would, as the nations of the Commonwealth, wish to pass on to our royal heirs, and all our children and the children of the future.

As New Democrats, we are committed to creating a peace-filled world, where human rights and equity are upheld as values, where no child goes hungry, where clean air and clean water and the health that comes from them are accessible to all, and where freedom and democracy are an integral part of everyday experience.

We wish for our children unfettered access to education, both formal and through life experience, that enlightens and enriches their lives. We wish for our children the prosperity of abundance and the satisfaction that comes from engaging in meaningful work. We wish for our children the understanding that none of us has made it until we all have, and the love of community engagement that comes with that understanding.

These words of thanks from the New Democratic Party founder, J.S. Woodsworth, come to mind. He said, as we reflect the happiness and hope we share with the Commonwealth on the birth of a royal heir:

We are thankful for these and all the good things of life. We recognize that they are a part of our common heritage and come to us through the efforts of our brothers and sisters the world over. What we desire for ourselves, we wish for all. To this end, may we take our share in the world's work and the world's struggles.

I believe that with these kinds of hopes fuelling us, we are well-equipped to forge a future that we will be happy and proud to entrust to the heirs of all our families.

Nothing says better what we wish for the Commonwealth and for the world than the words of our late New Democratic Party leader, Jack Layton, in his letter to Canadians. He said:

Canada is a great country, one of the hopes of the world. We can be a better one--a country of greater equality, justice, and opportunity. We can build a prosperous economy and a society that shares its benefits more fairly. We can look after our seniors. We can offer better futures for our children. We can do our part to save the world’s environment. We can restore our good name in the world...consider that we can be a better, fairer, more equal country by working together. Don’t let them tell you it can’t be done. My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world.

This is the legacy of leadership and humanism. It is certainly what we wish for Prince George as he grows into his role as a leader: love, hope and optimism.

As an executive member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, I can say from first-hand experience that the values and aspirations of Canadians are shared throughout the Commonwealth. The birth of an heir serves to galvanize our focus on these common goals with renewed energy and enthusiasm as we naturally look to the future together and want to do what is in our power to make sure it is a bright one.

Canada is a country rich in natural beauty, cultural history and artistic achievement. New Democrats work daily to ensure that this heritage is preserved, protected and promoted within our borders and around the world.

Canadians already enjoy a warm relationship with Her Majesty and her family, and welcome royal visits with enthusiasm, joy and boisterous celebration. We recall fondly her first visit in 1951, as Princess Elizabeth. Six years later, in October 1957, following her ascension to the throne, Her Majesty returned to Canada, a country she called "wonderful" and "exhilarating". In all, there have been 22 royal visits to Canada by Queen Elizabeth II. She has visited every province and territory. This is clearly a demonstration of her love for Canada and the loyal people who have always welcomed and celebrated her as their Queen.

In the same spirit of joy and celebration, we look forward to welcoming Prince George when he accompanies his parents on future visits to our home and native land. What a wonderful opportunity we have to further explore and expand the relationship between our two sovereign countries and, indeed, the relationship of the entire Commonwealth.

Again, all the members of my caucus stand with me in this joyful expression of congratulations and hope for the future. We celebrate the birth of His Royal Highness Prince George Alexander Louis. May he live a long and glorious life and may he know the love and respect in which he is held by the people of Canada.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the Liberal critic for the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and on behalf of the Liberal leader and the Liberal caucus, I am honoured to rise in support of this initiative and to convey our heartfelt congratulations to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, the Royal Highnesses the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall, and of course the Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on the birth of Prince George.

We need only recall the crowds that welcomed the Duke and Duchess when they visited Canada in 2011 to see proof of the affection in which they are held by so many Canadians who are truly delighted at the healthy arrival of their son.

I would like to take this opportunity to explain why the institution of the monarchy is more than just a relic of the past and why it remains relevant to Canada in the early 21st century.

First, many Canadians are still quite attached to the monarchy. While some do not feel so strong a connection, they nevertheless have no desire to deprive the queen of those people who love her and wish to keep her. This is a testament to our nation's hallmark sensitivity and respect for others.

Second, our system bestows so much power on the Prime Minister that it is healthy to withhold some of that prestige from the office-holder and confer it, albeit symbolically, on an individual who was raised from birth to embody the state and the nation.

Third, the fact that the Canadian head of state lives in another country is a peculiar quirk of our political system, but it is a quirk that serves us well because nobody has reason to wonder whether our head of state is a Liberal, Conservative, New Democratic or Green supporter. Better that she be above our partisan divisions than involved in any of our inner circles.

Fourth, while Canadians have many qualities, we are not especially gifted when it comes to debating our symbols. It may be that we know not with what or whom to replace the monarchy. That is what happened to the Australians.

Those four reasons prove that the monarchy serves our democracy well. There is a fifth, however: the fact that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II has reigned with unimpeachable dignity for so many decades.

As I reflect on Her Majesty's recently completed Diamond Jubilee celebrations, I must add that as Prince George is called to a life of service, he could look to no greater model than his great-grandmother. Her Majesty has devoted her entire life and energies to the service of the many nations of which is the constitutional monarchy.

Over the past 60 years, she has stood with Canada through key moments of our country's history and as our nation went through change and transformation has been a rock of stability and a steadfast keeper of tradition.

As any new parent will say, the arrival of a child is a time of great happiness and lifelong memories. We are thrilled to share this joyful time and are honoured to send our warm congratulations to Her Majesty and the Royal Highnesses.

If I might add one final argument in favour of the monarchy, it is said that Princess Diana had French royal blood in her veins. If that is true, her son William and her grandson George, whose name happens to be bilingual, unite the two great monarchic traditions that gave birth to Canada. Let us remember that we were born under the lily and grow under the rose.

Long live the royal baby!

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Pursuant to the order made earlier today, Motion No. 1 under government business is deemed adopted on division.

(Motion No. 1 agreed to)

Canadian Economy

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

moved:

That this House take note of the Canadian economy, and

(a) recognize that Canadians' top priority remains economic growth and job creation; and

(b) commend the government's economic record which includes the creation of more than one million net new jobs since July 2009, a banking system recognized as the safest and soundest in the world for the past six years, and the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio among G7 countries.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all parties for the speeches that have just been given in congratulations of the birth of Prince George.

It was an important moment to sit here and listen to all parties being on the same page. I am optimistic. We are moving into debate on the throne speech, and maybe it will carry on and we will all be able to support this very good throne speech.

I am very pleased to rise in the House on this day and take part in today's debate. Two and a half years ago, Canadians elected our government with clear instructions: navigate the global economy; create jobs; create growth; keep taxes low.

Canada has faced challenging times, and we have made some tough decisions. I am pleased to say that we have made the right decisions, the right choices, for Canadian employees, businesses, families and communities.

The results of these choices are clear. Debt is low and deficits are falling. Businesses are creating new jobs, new opportunities for Canadians, and Canadians are working today more than ever before. Under the strong leadership of the Prime Minister, and as we all know, the world's greatest finance minister, Canada has weathered the economic storm well, and the world has noticed.

Both the International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development expect Canada to be among the strongest growing economies in the G7 over this year and next year. For the sixth year in a row, the World Economic Forum has rated Canada's banking system as being the world's soundest. Real gross domestic product is significantly above pre-recession levels, the best performance in the G7. In addition, three credit rating agencies—Moody's, Fitch, and Standard & Poor's—have reaffirmed their top rating for Canada, and it is expected that Canada will maintain its triple A rating in the years ahead.

Since the depth of the recession, over one million net new jobs have been created, an outstanding achievement for Canada and the best record in the G7. In fact, we are not only leading the G7 in job creation but also on the strength of our balance sheet and in political stability. However, as we all know, and are too often reminded, the global economic recovery is fragile, and global economic turbulence remains. Our largest trading partners, the United States and Europe, continue to wrestle with serious challenges and are struggling to find lasting, effective solutions. Not only is the global economy uncertain, it is also increasingly competitive. Canada faces increasing competition from a host of rising powers.

In addition to the threats to the Canadian economy that lie beyond our borders and beyond our shores, I am concerned about the potential threats to the Canadian economy from within our own nation, such as the threats we hear from the leader of the New Democratic Party. As if imposing a $20-billion carbon tax was not enough, the leader of the New Democratic Party has another multibillion dollar tax hike that he would love to impose on Canadians. Last week, the New Democratic Party leader reaffirmed his plan to take over $10 billion each year out of the pockets of Canadian entrepreneurs, out of the pockets of Canadian business, to fund big, bloated government schemes.

As I traveled throughout my constituency this summer, I did not hear anyone suggest that Ottawa needed more money and that they needed less. Everyone wanted just the opposite. The New Democratic Party tax hike would target job creators, especially small and medium-sized companies, with a nearly 50% increase in their tax bill.

This NDP tax scheme would kill jobs and stall the Canadian economy, all of this during a time of global economic uncertainty.

Canadians know better. That is why Canadians gave our Conservative government a mandate to keep their taxes low. I am pleased to report that this is exactly what we have done and continue to do.

Dan Kelly, president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, said:

At a time when the economic recovery is still quite fragile, it’s important that governments focus on balancing their budgets and not hitting entrepreneurs with payroll tax hikes.

We agree with him.

Year after year we have lowered taxes not just for business but for families and indeed for all Canadians. For example, we have cut the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%. We have established a $5,000 tax credit for first-time home buyers. We have reduced the lowest personal income tax rate and have increased the basic personal exemption. We have introduced income splitting and pension splitting for seniors. Overall, the federal tax burden is at its lowest level in 50 years. As a result of our government's low tax plan, in 2013 the average family now pays $3,200 less in taxes than it paid in the past.

Not only are we delivering on our promise to keep taxes low, we are also delivering on our commitment to balance the budget. Last year's deficit was less than forecast. Our government will balance the budget in 2015.

Unlike the opposition members, who support reckless tax-and-spend policies, our government knows that Canada needs responsible fiscal management. Responsible fiscal management ensures the sustainability of public services and lowers the tax rate for future generations. In an uncertain global economy, the most important contribution our government can make to bolster confidence and growth is to maintain a sound fiscal position.

I will quote Denis Mahoney, chair of St. John's Board of Trade, who said:

We are pleased that the federal government is staying the course of their long-term plan. There is still much volatility in the global economy and a prudent course of action is a safe course of action for our federal economy.

We agree with him.

Just as our government manages debt, we are also tackling spending. We are reducing the size and cost of government to ensure that tax payers get value for their money. Through economic action plan 2013, we announced further savings in government spending totalling $2 billion through numerous common-sense improvements. These include reducing wasteful departmental spending, reducing travel costs through the use of videoconferencing and other technology, and eliminating tax loopholes.

Economic action plan 2013 announced a number of measures to close tax loopholes to address aggressive tax planning, to clarify tax rules, to combat international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance, and to improve tax fairness. Ensuring that everyone pays their fair share helps to keep taxes low for Canadian families and businesses, thereby improving the incentive to work, improving the incentive to save, and improving the incentive to invest back in Canada.

By 2017-18, both program expenses as a share of gross domestic product and the federal debt-to-GDP ratio are expected to fall to pre-recession levels.

Our government's commitment to sound public finances will help to ensure that Canada will by far maintain the lowest debt burden among the G7 countries. This is just one of the many ways we are leading the G7. I mentioned earlier that we lead the G7 in job creation.

In regard to economic action plan 2013, Lori Mathison, chair of the Government Budget and Finance Committee of the Vancouver Board of Trade, commented that our government is “...demonstrating a commitment to returning to a balanced budget in the short term, but at the same time, supporting economic growth and job creation”.

Ms. Mathison is correct. Since we introduced the economic action plan to respond to the global recession, Canada has recovered more than all of the output and all of the jobs lost during the recession. Since July 2009, employment has increased by over one million and is now 605,000 above its pre-recession peak, the strongest job growth among the G7 countries over the recovery. Almost 90% of all jobs created since July 2009 have been in full-time positions. Close to 85% of those jobs are in the private sector, and about 60% of those jobs are in high-wage industries.

These statistics are just a few of the many examples that demonstrate our strong record on job creation, but they also demonstrate that we have not been willing just to stay there, just to stop there.

Economic action plan 2013 also helps connect more Canadians with available jobs. This includes the creation of the Canada job grant, providing $15,000 more per person in combined federal, provincial or territorial and employer funding to help Canadians get the skills they need for real jobs that are in demand. We have strengthened the apprenticeship program, making it easier to get needed experience for journeyman status. We are supporting job opportunities by providing tools to persons with disabilities, youth, aboriginals and recent immigrants to help them find a job. Economic action plan 2013 will not only help individuals to find employment, but it will help all business, small, medium and large alike. It will help them to succeed.

For example, the hiring credit for small business will be expanded and extended for one year, allowing Canadian small business to reinvest $225 million in job creation. Our plan will increase support for small-business owners, farmers and fishermen by raising the lifetime capital gains exemption to $800,000 in 2014 and indexing the new limit to inflation, thereby providing federal tax relief of $110 million over five years.

In the forestry sector, we will provide $92 million over two years, starting in 2014-2015, to continue to support the industry's ongoing transformation to higher value activities and its expansion into new export markets.

Our government is also announcing economic and security initiatives that will implement Canada's commitments under the Canada–U.S. beyond the border action plan, with a view to ensuring the secure and efficient flow of legitimate goods and people across the border.

I could go on, but I also want to say a few words about our government's investments in world-class research and innovation. Since 2006, our government has provided more than $9 billion in new resources to support science, technology and the growth of innovative firms, helping to foster a world-class research and innovation system that supports Canadian businesses and economic growth. Canada's entrepreneurs and risk takers are confronted with the many challenges of a globally competitive marketplace. As the global economy becomes more competitive, Canada must continue to break through with new ideas, so our businesses can become more competitive and create and sustain high-paying, value-added jobs. By supporting advanced research and technology, our government is choosing to invest in the current and future prosperity of Canadians.

To ensure that Canada remains a global research and innovation leader, economic action plan 2013 announced a number of investments, including $225 million to support advanced research infrastructure and the Canadian Foundation for Innovation long-term operations.

In addition, there will be $37 million annually to strengthen partnerships between industry and researchers, to help transform knowledge into innovative new products and services; $20 million over three years to help small and medium-sized enterprises access research and business development services at a not-for-profit research institution of their choice; and $325 million over eight years to Sustainable Development Technology Canada to support the development and demonstration of new clean technologies, which can save businesses money, create high-paying jobs and drive innovation. By consistently supporting advanced research and technology, our government is choosing to invest in the current and future prosperity of Canadians.

We are also choosing to invest in infrastructure. That is no secret. We have been doing that over the period of the global downturn. Infrastructure investment creates jobs, supports trade, drives productivity, and contributes to economic growth and prosperity. For Canadians, our government's infrastructure investments will mean less pressure on daily work life, less congestion and shorter commutes, which mean more time at home with their families.

That is why this year our government launched the new building Canada plan, the largest long-term federal commitment to job-creating infrastructure in our nation's history. Over the next decade, we will invest $70 billion in federal, provincial, territorial and community infrastructure. This includes projects such as making improvements to Highway 63 in Fort McMurray, Alberta; building subways in the Greater Toronto Area; replacing Montreal's Champlain Bridge; building a new Windsor-Detroit crossing; and the twinning of Highway 11 in Saskatchewan. All of these projects will create jobs and are welcomed by communities across Canada.

Let me quote the mayor of Regina, who said he is “glad there's a long-term, predictable, sustainable infrastructure investment in Saskatchewan, in Regina, and right around the country”. The Toronto Region Board of Trade “commends the federal government for making important, long term enhancements to infrastructure development while supporting economic growth”. It agrees that “Long term, predictable and sustainable infrastructure financing is imperative to helping build the Toronto region transportation plan...”. The board stated that it is “pleased the federal government has renewed its commitment to helping meet this objective”. Mark Gerretsen, Mayor of Kingston, said he is “pleased to see infrastructure spending“ and that our government's long-term commitment to infrastructure investment allows Kingston to better plan for infrastructure priorities.

Of course, there are many other steps we are taking to create jobs, many other steps that are promoting growth and many other steps that are helping to realize long-term prosperity for Canada and for Canadians. I have only had time this morning to highlight a few. Thanks to our strong leadership, Canada is universally recognized for its resilience through the global recession and recovery, its low-tax environment, its highly educated and skilled labour force, its natural resource endowments and a financial sector that is the envy of the world.

By staying the course, the Government of Canada will continue to promote economic growth, continue to work toward job creation and continue to plan for the prosperity of all Canadians.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member opposite's rather breathless enthusiasm for his government's initiatives. It strikes the same chord as the government ads, which have been squandering tens of millions of Canadians' hard-earned tax dollars promoting programs and services that frankly just do not exist. We hear a lot of hot air, but we actually do not see where the rubber hits the road. Most Canadians will tell us they are being squeezed today as never before and that the vast majority of benefits from economic growth in Canada, both under this government and under its predecessors as well, have gone to those at the very top.

We hear a lot about jobs, but in fact the government has been destroying jobs. We have almost 300,000 fewer jobs in Canada than we did before the recession. Many of the jobs that are being created are precarious and low wage. I want to know what the government is going to do for the generation of young people who are facing almost 15% unemployment today and who are struggling under unprecedented student debt. They cannot get a foothold in the job market and all they hear is the oxymoron of Conservative jobs. Frankly, they do not exist. The government is betraying a generation of young Canadians.