House of Commons Hansard #55 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was farmers.

Topics

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

6:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

I appreciate the member's point of order. Members normally address their comments and speeches to the Chair and not to other members.

I would ask the hon. member to direct his comments through the Chair, as members normally do.

The hon. member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

6:05 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Fletcher Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB

Mr. Speaker, is that not grand? The member gets up, has an opportunity to apologize or to correct the record, and he does not do it. Now it seems that he actually believes what he said. It was not a mistake; he actually believes that Canada's political system is just like Russia's system. The member had an opportunity to correct the record but he did not take it. That is the NDP's hypocrisy on this issue.

It is just ridiculous that we are being forced to spend time talking about this when there are so many more important issues to be discussed. I would like to thank the member for his interruption because it illustrates the ridiculousness of this situation. The member made a statement. Through his body language, I think he may be regretting what he said but I do not know. If I played the NDP game that those members are playing with us today, I would pursue that member relentlessly until he started to cry to mommy. I am not like that.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL

What the Hell? I am definitely crying.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

6:05 p.m.

John McKay

Where is my mommy?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

6:05 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Fletcher Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB

Mr. Speaker, there are some people who are starting to cry. I am not sure why, but it might be because they believe in Canada and they believe in our democracy. It might be because they cannot believe that a member of the House would compare our country, our democracy, our freedoms, to those of Russia, especially when Russia is violating the sovereignty of another country. It is just outrageous that the member said so during a debate in which the NDP is refusing to accept a member's correction of what was said earlier.

I really hope that the member does the right thing. He does not even have to apologize. He could just stand up and say that Canada's political system is far to superior Russia's system. That is all I would need, but he probably will not do that. If we used NDP logic, we would rise on a point of order and bring forward a motion for contempt of Canada because he thinks Russia's political system is better than Canada's. Everyone can read that in the blues. People will be really disappointed that the member said that. I hope he does not believe it but maybe he does. He will have an opportunity to correct the record.

We could be having a discussion about public policy, things that affect Canadians, but instead the NDP wants us to talk about this.

They want us to go to a committee and spend committee time talking about a non-issue, and that really would be a waste of time. We have already wasted this afternoon on this, thanks to the NDP. To waste the committee's time on top of that not only shows disrespect for this place but also disrespect for the Canadian taxpayer.

What is more NDP than that: no respect for the taxpayer. Nothing costs anything, and we can do and say anything, as long as we are the New Democrats. We did not really mean it, or we did mean it but we did not really say it. We want to nationalize everything and move on. Maybe that was the root of that member's Russian comment; he wants to nationalize everything.

Let us accept the member's apology and move on. He corrected the record. Let us get to business. That is what Canadian taxpayers, Canadian citizens, have sent us here to Ottawa to do. It is not to play these juvenile games we see across the floor.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

6:10 p.m.

NDP

Marc-André Morin NDP Laurentides—Labelle, QC

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get into a long, pointless exchange. Earlier, the minister said that it was time we started acting like adults, apologized and moved on. That implies that it is okay to do just about anything, as long as one apologizes.

I take my work seriously because I know that Canadians are paying me to be here to debate serious issues such as bridges that are crumbling, wheat that is rotting under tarps in the fields, mail that is not getting delivered, planes that are not flying and boats with an unknown delivery date. There are plenty of issues that need debating.

I heard a member on the other side of the House say that everyone, deliberately or not, twists the truth sometimes. That is not a very strong defence.

I alluded to Russia because I am seeing a shift here in Parliament, and I feel that Canada's democracy is deteriorating. We do not resemble Russia now, but we may eventually. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

6:10 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Fletcher Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB

Mr. Speaker, that is interesting, coming from that member. What the member said was that Canada was like Russia. He kind of moved away from that statement. If I were an NDP member, I would bring forward a motion to sanction him and then use up committee time, and then debate his comments for hours in the House of Commons. That is what I would do if I were an NDP member. However, I am not. I am a Conservative, and I want to get the job done. I want the Canadian taxpayers to get value for their dollar. I am not going to make a complaint against this member, because there are more important things to worry about and they should—

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Order, please. Questions and comments. The hon. member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member. I do have tears in my eyes. I have to ascertain whether it is because of laughing or crying. I am not really sure.

Honestly, as a roomful of political actors that we are, and we are a room full of political actors, this is quite frankly some of the worst theatre I have ever seen in my life.

Let us take a look at the timeline of some of this logic that is coming around here.

A statement was made that was not true. The member admitted that two weeks later. It is one thing for him to say that someone told him that this was happening or that he knew of someone who witnessed it and within that two-week period that person came to him and said, “I may have misspoken”. However, the member said that he witnessed it with his own eyes. It does not take two weeks for him to readjust his vision.

Therefore, I would like to ask the hon. member this. How is it that this two-week period goes by and all of a sudden one realizes that what one witnessed was not necessarily as it appeared?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Fletcher Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB

Mr. Speaker, I think those are crocodile tears I see. The member is from Gander. I just want to do a shout-out for the airport at Gander. It is a great piece of infrastructure and the people there are really great. The Nav Canada facility there is truly awesome.

With respect to the member's comment, this whole thing is a waste of our time. The government wants to be serious. Once a member has set the record straight, we move on, because if we held everyone to the standard of not accepting apologies, this place would be non-functional.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

Gordon O'Connor Conservative Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rarely stand up and speak. However, I will speak to this.

The truth is that this is all part of a filibuster on the Elections Act. First, a motion was brought against the member. In the next few days, we can probably expect concurrence motions and everything else because the NDP has declared that it would filibuster on the Elections Act.

I ask the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia whether he agrees with me.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Fletcher Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comment and his great lifetime dedication to our country through his military service and as a member of Parliament. In his own way, he has a way of cutting through everything and calling it as it is. That is indeed what is happening: the NDP members are using a political procedure to delay dealing with real issues because they know they are on the wrong side. From their perspective, anything is better than having the government move forward with some really great ideas.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

NDP

Glenn Thibeault NDP Sudbury, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. I have a couple of questions I would like to put to him, through you of course.

First, how can it be a filibuster if the bill is already out of the House and in committee? It makes us scratch our heads on that.

Second, right now we are talking about someone misleading the House. I know we want to be cautious about the words so I will be careful with that. What I am finding appalling is that we are saying this is a waste of time. The debates we have in the House are not a waste of time. When we talk about bills that the government brings forward and we present evidence in our speeches, it is not a waste of time. When we are trying to persuade one side or the other, depending on which side we are on, using evidence that may not necessarily be accurate and then is retracted, does not do anyone on any side of the House any good.

Therefore, this is not a waste of time. Rather, we are trying to ensure that all parliamentarians continue to respect this House. What seems to be missing is respect for this House.

I would like to hear my hon. colleague's comments on that.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Fletcher Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB

Mr. Speaker, let me first of all say that I think the member is very fortunate to represent Sudbury. It is a great community, and I have been there many times. It is a great mining community, with a great university and great people.

The reason why this can be considered a filibuster is because if the motion were successful, it would go to committee, and that committee is the same one that is dealing with the awesome elections act.

However, we have spent hours talking about a trivial matter when there are so many more important things going on in the world. I wish the opposition would agree. Let us talk about things that matter.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Before we resume debate and the member for Parkdale—High Park, I would let her know that there are about seven minutes remaining in the time provided for government orders today. We will get started, at least, and the remainder of the 20 minutes will be taken up when the House next resumes debate on the question.

The hon. member for Parkdale—High Park.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

NDP

Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON

Mr. Speaker, with the remaining time that I have after the House adjourns today, I will be splitting my time when the debate resumes.

I would like to focus us back on what we are actually debating, which is the question of privilege. The motion we are debating that was introduced by the House leader for the opposition, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, reads:

That the question of privilege related to the statements made in the House of Commons by the member for Mississauga—Streetsville be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

I hear members opposite saying that this is trivial and not worth the time of debate, but I want to make the case in the very few minutes I have that we are fundamentally talking about questions that are very foundational to our democracy. That is the ability of members elected to speak in the House to speak with privilege. Privilege means that we have the trust of other parliamentarians, and in fact, of all Canadians, that when we speak we are speaking with honesty and with our best attempts to make statements that are accurate and true. Therefore, when we might occasionally make mistakes, we still have the privilege of immunity in the House.

The comments we are discussing today refer to the elections act bill. I heard it referred to by a member opposite as “awesome”. I prefer to call it the voter suppression act. The comments of the member for Mississauga—Streetsville pertain to the vouching system. I want to read his comments about the vouching system and talk a bit about that. On February 6, he said:

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk...about this vouching system again. I know the minister represents an urban city. I am from a semi-urban area of Mississauga, where there are many high-rise apartment buildings. On mail delivery day when the voter cards are delivered to community mailboxes in apartment buildings, many of them are discarded in the garbage...or the blue box. I have actually witnessed...people picking up the voter cards, going to the campaign office of whatever candidate they support and handing out these voter cards to other individuals, who then walk into voting stations with friends who vouch for them with no ID.

This is not some random reference. This is very specific. One imagines a very vivid memory in the member's mind when he makes this statement. I should also say that he made this statement when the bill was under time allocation. In other words, the time for debate of the bill had been restricted by the government, for a record number of times, which itself challenges our democratic system. Then we had this statement by the member. It kind of defied belief in the sense that one would imagine the member opposite trotting after people who had picked up these random voter ID cards, following them to opposition campaign offices, and then seeing these distributed. One would wonder how the member himself would be able to do this. Nevertheless, we operate with this notion of trust, this notion of privilege, which the member is entitled to.

Then, lo and behold, a couple of weeks later, on February 24, he rose again in the House and said he was not exactly accurate. He said in fact he had not personally witnessed individuals retrieving the voter notification cards. He did not apologize for his statements.

The question here is whether he was deliberately misleading the House. I would argue that, yes, he was. Others, including our House leader, have outlined in detail how he deliberately misled the House.

He said himself that he had misled the House, and we believe that was deliberate. This was the rationale for one of the key changes to the voter suppression act, which would deny thousands of people the ability to vote because far too many voters need to have somebody to vouch for them at the polling station. There were 100,000 of such people in the last election, and Elections Canada had not determined that there was fraudulent activity.

There was activity that the government side was responsible for—

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

6:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

The hon. member for Essex is rising on a point of order.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

6:25 p.m.

Conservative

Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member has precious few minutes, but she should probably at least talk about the question of privilege rather than Bill C-23.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

6:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

I appreciate the point of order with respect to relevance. As the member may know, there is plenty of freedom for members to explore different ideas in the course of their remarks and, of course, bring that all to relevance to the question before the House as they feel fits.

The hon. member for Parkdale—High Park.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

6:25 p.m.

NDP

Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON

Mr. Speaker, given that we have gone around the world, to democracy in Ukraine, Russia, and various countries, I would think that we could talk about democracy here in Canada and the ability of Canadian voters to get to the polling stations. That is what this debate is about. It is about whether this member, through his so-called vivid memories of voter fraud, as he is calling it, were accurate, and whether his memories, which have now been proven to be untrue, were the justification for the changes that are being brought forward in the bill that will lead to voter suppression and the inability of voters to cast their ballots.

To me, that is a fundamental issue that his misleading has got us to. In my riding of Parkdale—High Park, there are many vulnerable people who are challenged in terms of getting their voter ID.

Mr. Speaker, I am out of time. I am very sorry about that. To me, this debate is not a waste of time. This debate is fundamental to our work in Parliament, and that is why the NDP is insisting that we have this debate. It is very important.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

6:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

The hon. member for Parkdale—High Park has twelve and a half minutes remaining when the House next returns to debate on the question, and, of course, the usual 10 minutes for questions and comments.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Quebec BridgeAdjournment Proceedings

March 3rd, 2014 / 6:30 p.m.

NDP

Denis Blanchette NDP Louis-Hébert, QC

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening because when I asked the new minister responsible for the Quebec Bridge a question a few months ago to see whether she would bring a new dynamic to the problem that Quebec City is having with this bridge, I was sorely disappointed.

The Quebec Bridge is one of two iconic Quebec City structures. The other is the Château Frontenac. They are postcard-worthy. That is where the similarity ends, however, and I will explain why. The Quebec Bridge is, above all, a feat of engineering. It is the longest cantilever bridge in the world. The structure was designated a national historic site of Canada on November 24, 1995. In 1987, the bridge was also designated an international historic monument by both the American and Canadian societies for civil engineering. That is quite significant.

Every day, 35,000 vehicles cross the bridge. There is a pedestrian walkway and a railway. Most of the people who use the bridge, which connects Quebec City's north and south shores, are people from the south shore. I am an MP from the north shore. These people live in ridings like Lévis—Bellechasse and Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, which both happen to be Conservative ridings.

However, I never heard these members speak about the bridge and the need to maintain it, and I never heard them standing up for the interests of their constituents. In fact, they are going against public opinion in the Quebec City area, and I find that very unfortunate.

A number of studies have been conducted on the bridge's maintenance requirements. There was the Delcan report in 2008, which indicated that there would be problems one day if we were not careful. What is more, the Government of Quebec recently published a study on the bridge deck, which needs major work because it is full of rust. I will get back to that.

I am concerned because the government has been talking about legal proceedings for nine years and not taking any action. Meanwhile, the condition of the bridge is deteriorating every day. The way the Conservatives are dealing with this issue makes me think of the F-35s. The Conservatives wanted to follow in the Liberals' footsteps so badly that they have already succeeded in surpassing them.

To conclude the first part of my speech, I would like to remind hon. members that, in 2005, the future prime minister at the time, since this was during the election campaign, gave a speech before the Quebec City chamber of commerce in which he mocked Liberal transport minister Jean Lapierre. The Prime Minister said that Mr. Lapierre was not even capable of painting a bridge and that, on election day, he would take the paint brush away from him. The Prime Minister must have lost that paint brush because nothing has been done for nine years.

It is a bit like going to a car dealership to buy a new car and being presented with a shiny, new car without any paint on it. Would we buy the car without any paint even though it was new? I do not think so.

In nine years, the government has spent $400,000 in legal fees. How long will this case go on and how much will it cost in legal fees?

Quebec BridgeAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

Essex Ontario

Conservative

Jeff Watson ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity today to speak in the House about the Quebec Bridge. The Quebec Bridge is an impressive structure of historical importance and a prominent landmark in the community. The Quebec Bridge is a vital link for transportation. CN and VIA trains use the rail lines on a regular basis, and thousands of vehicles cross back and forth daily. Thus, the Quebec Bridge supports the local and national economies as well as contributing to social vitality in the region.

I would like to briefly provide some context for my comments today.

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the Government of Canada divested itself of various transportation assets as part of removing itself from the direct management and ownership of transportation services. In this context, just prior to CN's privatization in 1993, the Government of Canada and CN agreed to the transfer of a number of valuable rail properties to CN for $1. In exchange for the properties, CN assumed certain liabilities, including the Quebec Bridge. In 1995, CN became the full owner of the Quebec Bridge and assumed responsibility for the bridge's safety, maintenance, and operation.

Upon assuming ownership, CN committed to a major maintenance program for the bridge. To support CN in meeting these restoration obligations, the Governments of Canada and Quebec agreed to contribute toward a 10-year, $60 million restoration program. The Government of Canada's commitment was $6 million.

When this 1997 tripartite agreement ended in 2006, CN had depleted the funds but had not completed some of the maintenance work, and about 60% of the bridge surface had not been painted. These procedures were to be finished as part of the 1997 agreement.

Despite several months of negotiations with CN to complete the restoration, the painting was not completed. As such, the Government of Canada initiated legal action in 2006. Specifically, a motion was filed by the Attorney General of Canada requesting that the Quebec Superior Court declare that CN has failed to meet its contractual obligations, including completing the restoration of the bridge. I understand the trial will be under way in May of this year.

I would like to reiterate that the Quebec Bridge is owned by CN and that the restoration, operation, maintenance, and safety of the Quebec Bridge rests with CN as its owner. The legal action undertaken by the Government of Canada seeks to hold CN accountable for its responsibilities as owner of the bridge and to protect taxpayers. Our government recognizes the importance of CN's completing the restoration of the Quebec Bridge and ensuring its long-term viability.

Quebec BridgeAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

NDP

Denis Blanchette NDP Louis-Hébert, QC

Mr. Speaker, I spoke briefly about a report released in the past few days.

The report has 515 pages. We only counted how many times certain words are repeated in the report: “rust” appears 2,511 times; “corrosion”, 1,090 times; and “perforation”, 834 times. Do these figures inspire confidence in the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness?

To conclude, I would like to read an excerpt from an open letter written by Mr. Luc Paradis, former president of the Quebec City chamber of commerce, published in Le Soleil on February 24:

[The solution?] What do we usually do when a heritage structure is in danger of collapsing or a property at risk could cause damage? Those responsible are served with a formal demand to take the required action and, if they do not, the initiator of the demand carries out the work and claims the costs from the owner of the structure. In the event of irreparable damage, or if the work is urgent, an injunction is the appropriate recourse.

The bridge cannot wait for the outcome of the legal proceedings under way. It is important that we have a complete report on the situation and that the government take action.