Debates of March 3rd, 2014

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

A lie is a lie, Charlie. It does not matter how you say it. A lie is a lie. What are you talking about? If you lie because you have the protection of the House, it is still a lie.

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

Stand up. Tell me I am a liar.

[Some hon. member]

Clearly if you are, because you have the protection of the House, it is still a lie.

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

Are you saying I am a liar?

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

I said if you lie because you have the protection of the House, it is still a lie. You want me to stand. I am standing.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, order. The hon. members will take a seat.

Just a word to all hon. members. Certainly we are aware of the context of the question that is before the House. Nevertheless, in reference to the use of the word “lie” in the context of that debate, “lie” is still considered unparliamentary language, even in this context. Members are aware that this is a question that will be referred to the committee if the House so decides when this debate is finished. It will then be taken up under consideration.

Drawing conclusions as to what the committee may find on that question may be getting ahead of ourselves if we are choosing to use that type of language in the course of the debate.

I would ask all hon. members to perhaps measure their words in that respect and not pre-conclude what the committee may decide. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate that. I think you are an excellent speaker and are very judicious. It is unfortunate that my colleagues on the other side will say anything off camera to divert attention from what we are dealing with here.

They might want to act like a clown act in a sports bar, but we are dealing with the parliamentary tradition here and the question of “if”. If someone walks in to deliberately mislead this House, that cannot be taken cheaply. If someone is dealing with legislation and claims to have witnessed a crime that never occurred, that is an attempt to undermine the work of fellow legislators, because they are claiming that they have evidence. If they cannot bring evidence, and they decide to make up evidence, that is mendacity of the worst sort.

If we decide that simply because the Conservatives have a majority, it is okay to misrepresent, that simply because they have a majority it is okay to make up facts, that if they have a majority it is okay to say whatever they want whenever they want, as long as if they get caught, they come in and correct it, it is not okay.

We can look at the Westminster tradition around the world, and nowhere is such a cheap standard allowed.

I am not asking for what the committee will find. Again, I would actually be very surprised if a Conservative-dominated committee would ever take on the issue of parliamentary work and the obligation to the Westminster tradition above their own narrow self-interest.

However, in Australia, it is a crime. People go to jail. It is a serious issue. What happens here is serious. For members to come in, make things up, misrepresent, and claim to have witnessed crimes that never occurred, there have to be consequences. Shame would certainly be a strong consequence, but I have not seen any shame over on that side tonight.

I look forward to the committee's work.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy the entertainment of the member opposite who gave his soliloquy on misrepresentation and telling the truth. He also suggested that we needed a mirror.

I suggest that the member look in the mirror on the other side, say in Timmins—James Bay. When the member of Parliament for Timmins—James Bay told his constituents, the actual voters, that the member was going to support the removal of the gun registry, but when it came to a vote changed his mind and voted to keep the gun registry, was it a misrepresentation?

When the member for Timmins—James Bay puts out a pamphlet saying “Look at all the good things the government has done for the north”, but voted against every single item on the page, was that misrepresentation?

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

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to Canadians back home for that. We are talking about people misleading the House of Commons, and that member says it is entertaining. I am sorry, but this is not drunks in a sports bar; this is Parliament.

Large amounts of investment have come into Timmins—James Bay, and I am proud of it. That has nothing to do with the issue of contempt of Parliament. What is contemptuous is that group over there who refuse to deal with the issue of whether that member for Mississauga—Streetsville knowingly misled this House while a bill was being debated. That is the question, not the—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please.

In the same vein as my earlier comments, references to knowingly misleading, by practice and convention, have been in the same category of unparliamentary language as the previous word, as I mentioned earlier, with respect to lying. They fall in the same category. I urge members to keep their language measured in reference to the debate.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Western Arctic.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I do not like having to stand here and talk about the honesty and dishonesty of parliamentarians. This is actually a noble debate, which has real significance to us all, and we should all learn a lesson from it. I do not want to hear the comment that we should all take the opportunity to misrepresent the facts in Parliament. We need to understand what the debate is about.

Unfortunately, one member has been clearly shown to have said something in Parliament that was not the case. We are debating this now. However, what we learn from it is more important than what happens to the member sitting across the way. What we learn about our Parliament and about each individual and their relative honesty when they speak in this Parliament is the important part of the debate. That is why this is a debate about privilege. It is a privilege to speak in this House, but it is only a privilege if we tell the truth.

I say to my colleague that this is not a hanging exercise. This is an exercise to restore the faith of Canadians in our Parliament. When I hear comments from the other side that we all lie, that we are all stretching the truth, this is something we should all take to heart. Is it not the case?

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

Mr. Speaker, for people watching back home, they will notice that we have traditions that are based on the concept of honour. I am not supposed to use the word “lie”, and I am not supposed to use the word “mislead”, but it is based on the sense of honour.

We are honourable members because we have certain privileges, and the privilege that is given to us is because we are obligated, at the bottom of all of our other obligations, to tell the truth. This is like a court of law. We cannot, and I will not use the word “lie”, in a court of law. We cannot make up facts in Parliament while legislation is being decided because it is an attempt to mislead. However, for us to say that we would never use that language because it is unparliamentary, but that we would accept that behaviour, is certainly not acceptable. We have to take a position.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the statement made by the member that is at issue was something like, “I personally witnessed certain things”. That was repeated, and then some 19 days later was at least partially retracted.

The member has referred to parliamentary traditions in other countries. He has talked about the crime of contempt of Parliament in our sister democracy, Australia. I would like his comments on what the implications are for parliamentary debate if this were to be left unsanctioned.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my hon. colleague raised this because we are attempting tonight to remind the members on the other side that we are part of the Westminster tradition. This is a parliamentary system where precedents are looked at around the world. Therefore, for a member to walk in and claim he has witnessed a crime and that is not true is serious. For him to say that he would relate something he has seen and then go on to claim to have witnessed a crime in order to influence a debate that changes the rights of Canadians to vote is serious. If that level of misrepresentation is deliberate, knowing, and attempting to mislead, it is found in the three steps in the prima facie finding. If the committee turns around and states that is just the torquing and embellishment of party members and the Conservatives who are conditioned to this, then that will be looked at in the U.K. and in the other parliamentary systems. I would imagine that they would look at Canada and think that this a country that holds its parliamentary privileges very cheaply, if one could make such an egregious statement.

The hon. member never apologized. He came in and attempted to correct the record to protect himself legally but he did not apologize. That is not honourable.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is in fact a question of legitimacy.

Is it legitimate to give a speech, to exercise a privilege in fact, and to do so in a partisan or non-partisan manner? It is a privilege to be able to rise and debate matters in the House. When one uses the House to make a mockery of democracy, all legitimacy is lost.

Respect in this place is crucial. However, because of the cynicism shown by the parties—especially the party across the aisle—in our discussions and debates here in the House of Commons, Canadians have begun asking themselves whether the Conservatives have the legitimacy to govern and to make decisions and whether voting for them is the right thing to do; they are wondering about how the Conservatives will represent the population. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

In light of the debates and all the heckling we often hear in this place, one wonders whether we are even worthy of doing this job, namely representing Canadians. Are we worthy of representing Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for putting it in this context. When we talk to average Canadians, they say how cynical they are with the behaviour of the House of Commons because they believe that the issue of facts and truth are continually thrown aside. That is a serious undermining. It is a legitimacy crisis for faith in the democratic system. We are dealing with a bill that may deny Canadians their right to vote in certain instances. That has to be looked at carefully and prudently. That is our obligation.

My hon. colleague is correct that we have been given certain privileges to do this work, to be able to examine law, change law, and debate law. However, if we use those privileges to subvert the rule of law, and it is known and it is found, then to shrug it off or simply use a Conservative majority to shut down debate, sweep it under the rug, prorogue, and carry on is a subversion of the notion of democracy. This is not about a witch hunt. Rather, it is about whether an attempt was made to undermine the development of a new law in this country. That is serious. It must be dealt with because we have a larger obligation to the Westminster system, not just here in Canada.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, in light of this afternoon's debate, I did want to make a short statement with respect to the business of the House.

First, the sixth allotted day will not be tomorrow. I will return to the House at a later time to designate a new date.

Second, the first item to be considered tomorrow under government orders shall be Bill C-8, the combating counterfeit products act, at third reading.

Finally, I give notice that with respect to the consideration of the privilege motion of the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, at the next sitting a minister of the crown shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that the debate be not further adjourned.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I am sure the House appreciates the notice that was given on behalf of the government House leader.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Statements by the Member for Mississauga—Streetsville--Reference to Standing Committee

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the discussion this afternoon. I usually do not get involved in these types of proceedings. In fact, this is the first time in 10 years that I have presented my point of view on this type of issue, which comes up from time to time. This is my observation.

I hope the people at home watching this will see it for what it is. Somebody made a statement that was not correct. That person corrected the statement, and we move on. That is how this place works. Many people, except for maybe you, Mr. Speaker, and myself, have misspoken during their time here and have regretted what they have said. In that case, members can stand and say they are sorry or stand and just correct the record, and we move on like adults.

However, what we have witnessed here today was a lot of finger-pointing and exaggeration. If people live in glass houses, they should not throw stones. If we really wanted to nitpick what the opposition members have said over the years or over the last hour, we could find all sorts of flaws.

We could do that. We could go to committee and go through all this. We have an important—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I do not wish to interrupt hon. members, but the hon. member may not have been in the chamber when I addressed this point a little earlier. Despite the context of the question that is before the House, we are still staying away from references specifically to lying or references to any indications around misleading the House. That is language that is traditionally considered to be unparliamentary, so I would ask the hon. member to steer clear of those kinds of characterizations.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going in a different direction. What I was going to point regarding the quite irrelevant comments made by a member of the House is that in the big picture, what else could this Parliament be doing? We could try to represent the people who sent us to Ottawa by passing laws or debating issues that matter to Canadians. There are many people outside of this room or, I will bet, even half the people in this place, who are not paying attention to what is happening here because the debate is insignificant. It is not worthy of this chamber because it is not important enough.

A member made a statement and realized it was not correct. He corrected the record, and we should move on. However, the opposition wants this to go to committee and use valuable committee time to debate this correction. If we were to do this every time, we would have committees only examining what other members of Parliament say. This is a slippery slope that we are on. We have to accept one another's apologies when we misspeak. Again, Mr. Speaker, you and I do not do that, but when others do, it is a parliamentary custom.

We have the fair elections act, which I sometimes call the awesome elections act, which needs to be dealt with. However, rather than dealing with that, members of the opposition would like to debate an apology from a member on a relatively minor issue. There are other things going on in the world, like the economy. Canadians would like us to focus on the things that matter to them and their families, such as their security and the sovereignty of our nation. Thank goodness we live in Canada. As we all know, there are some nations that are presently having their sovereignty violated, and there are some nations violating the sovereignty of other nations.

We in the House of Commons have all agreed that what Russia has been doing in Ukraine is wrong and very serious. What does the opposition want to talk about? It wants to talk about whether someone corrected the record within a certain period of time. That is what opposition members want to talk about. They should look outside or watch cable news. They will see—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle is rising on a point of order.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the debate is getting a bit off topic. I do not really see what Russia and Ukraine have to do with this except for the fact that our system here in Canada is starting to resemble theirs.

I would like the minister to get back on topic.