Debates of March 4th, 2014

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

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are not debating whether the member for Mississauga—Streetsville is a good person. I have worked with him, and I like him, too. We are debating something altogether different. I heard the member use the word “misspeak” three times. To misspeak is to make a mistake.

I want to read the member for Mississauga—Streetsville's exact words.

I have actually witnessed other 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...

That was on February 6. On February 24, he said the following:

I made a statement in the House during the debate that is not accurate....I have not personally witnessed individuals retrieving voter notification cards from the garbage cans or from the mailbox areas of apartment buildings.

I would not call that misspeaking. I have another word for it. If I did the same thing, I would be accused of doing something that I am not allowed to say here. If I were in court and had stolen something, I would still go to prison even if I apologized and said I was sorry.

Does the member not think that after what happened—which is more than just misspeaking—that there should be more serious consequences than simply saying that everything is fine because he apologized?

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member asked if there is not more to this, and should there not be consequences. Without talking to the person in question, I am sure that he regrets having misspoken. He corrected that. He may even be embarrassed by it, but I am not going to speak to that.

The consequences have been served. The member did the right thing by standing up in the House and clarifying what he meant. To push this further would be nothing but partisanship and grandstanding. Most Canadians would agree with me that this matter is closed.

[Jean-François Fortin, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying that the Bloc Québécois will support the motion to refer this question of privilege to committee.

As we have already heard, there are two contradictory statements before the House, and that makes it difficult for members to rule on the integrity and veracity of the statements that were made.

It is important for the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to examine the statements and all relevant information that would help them to shed light on this contempt of Parliament. Given the circumstances, it is increasingly difficult to determine what is true and what is false in the debate on Bill C-23.

It is increasingly difficult for the public to understand and assess the credibility of the information they get from the government. We all remember the government's false advertising to promote a training program that did not even exist.

Does the member also disapprove of the increasing amount of misinformation we are seeing from his government?

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member talks about misinformation and what have you. This is exactly the point that I have been trying to get through some of the thickness across the way. It is that the thing has been clarified. There was some wrong information put out, and the member has apologized for that. I do not know what else any of us could expect from the man. It is done.

Again, this is all about obstructionist policies. New Democrats do not want a fair elections bill to go forward. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why. Most of us sit on committees in the House, and in our transport committee, one thing the party across the way pushed for, in light of the tragedy that occurred in Lac-Mégantic last summer, was to travel to facilities to try to make sure we do things better for rail safety. In order to hold up this bill, that is one of the things New Democrats tried to hold the transport committee and all other committees up for ransom on.

I guess they have that right, but let us come clean. This is not about the member for Mississauga—Streetsville. This is another stall tactic. How long they want to do it only time will tell.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his presentation. As always, it was easy to understand, it was very straightforward, and it makes common sense.

I am trying to grasp, quite honestly, the reason this issue would be sent to committee. A statement was made here and then the statement was rescinded here. Other than as a stall tactic, I am trying to get a handle on why the member thinks New Democrats would take this to committee. When they illegally took some $340,000 from unions, which was illegal, we did not put up any protest. Maybe we should have, because that was illegal. This was a misrepresentation.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am feeling much better now that I know that I am not the only person in this place who has been thinking there was some funny stuff going on. I am glad to hear the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex feels the same way.

The member knows this is not about what the member in question apologized for. Again, it is about obstructing the fair elections act bill. His guess is as good as mine as to what the motive would be, but there is no doubt that is what it is about. It may be that New Democrats do not want to hear from people like Mr. Kingsley, who asked for this when he was in that position. It is funny that when a government gets asked to do different things and then does them, everybody wants to hold them up. It makes no sense to me.

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

Mr. Speaker, this question is much more profound than they realize.

We were elected by the people and given the title of “honourable members”. Voters are under the impression that the person they are sending to represent them is honest. To me, honesty means telling the truth. We cannot just apologize and forget the whole thing. That worked when we were children and snuck cookies from the cupboard.

People from the 46 municipalities of Laurentides—Labelle are likely watching the debates on television and are trying to get a sense of what is being discussed. If those voters realize that it is possible for MPs to distort the truth in order to support their arguments and then simply have to apologize for having done so, they will be bitterly disappointed. It will make them more cynical.

This is more serious that we realize. We cannot just apologize and move on.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member across from here. I do not know the gentleman well, but I have run into him. He seems like a decent guy, as well as the member for Mississauga—Streetsville.

The member is basically saying that a member, or anyone else, should not apologize when he or she makes mistakes. It is an incredible statement. For the life of me, I will not be able to figure that one out, but maybe the member just misspoke and might like a chance sometime to clear that up in the House.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

As a parliamentarian, I want to remind all my colleagues, and myself, that we have a responsibility to Canadians, a responsibility to the House of Commons itself, which establishes the procedures and practices of the House, and a responsibility to our colleagues who are elected members who vote on bills.

This question of privilege reminds us that, although we are parliamentarians and have privileges such as freedom of speech, we cannot use those privileges any way we like and deliberately mislead the House and our constituents by making statements we know to be incorrect in order to achieve a personal or partisan objective. What is more, in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, on page 115, it states:

Misleading a Minister or a Member has also been considered a form of obstruction and thus a prima facie breach of privilege.

We also have a duty to earn the trust of our constituents and the voters who vote for us. The practice of making false or contradictory statements in the House needs to end. It can serve only to fuel the public's cynicism about politicians and the disengagement the public has from its civic duty, which is to vote. It is already extremely difficult to get voters to the polling stations.

It is very important to me that we understand that it is in our best interest to faithfully apply the rules and procedures, as set by the House of Commons. We can have a bias based on our political stripes—I understand that—but we must show that the public's interest is our primary concern. We must do so objectively and with integrity, which means illustrating our points of view and the benefits of the bills we introduce without using smoke and mirrors. That is how we will win the respect not only of our constituents, but also of our parliamentary colleagues.

This is what the member for Mississauga—Streetsville said on February 6:

I have actually witnessed other 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.

That is quite absurd because, as we know, when we go to the polling station the card in question is not enough.

When the member for Mississauga—Streetsville said “I have actually witnessed”, he was saying that he had witnessed criminal offences being committed. That is a very serious statement that should be taken very seriously because it refers to election fraud.

The member for Mississauga—Streetsville told Parliament that he had witnessed acts prohibited by Canadian law, acts that constitute election fraud according to Elections Canada. It is not a simple statement or mere speculation or even a misinterpretation. He said that he saw it with his own eyes. He said that twice, on two separate occasions in the House, to his colleagues. The first time, he asked the Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification a question, and the second time, he addressed his colleague from York South—Weston.

On February 24, the member for Mississauga—Streetsville once again rose in the House to make a new and completely contradictory statement, saying that he had made a statement that was not accurate:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to debate that took place on February 6 in this House regarding the fair elections act.

I made a statement in the House during the debate that is not accurate. I just want to reflect the fact that I have not personally witnessed individuals retrieving voter notification cards from the garbage cans or from the mailbox areas of apartment buildings. I have not personally witnessed that activity and want the record to properly show that.

That means that what he reported was not the truth.

Here is what I am wondering about: Why did the member for Mississauga—Streetsville change his version of the facts? Why did the member for Mississauga—Streetsville wait 18 days before giving us the new version of the facts?

Is it because Elections Canada contacted the member for Mississauga—Streetsville in the interim? Since this is clearly a case of electoral fraud, a very serious accusation, will Elections Canada investigate?

I think it is unacceptable that those members voted on Bill C-23, which is currently being rushed through committee, on the basis of false statements by one of our colleagues. Some colleagues decided how to vote on Bill C-23 on the basis of unfounded and inaccurate statements. That is a serious blow to democracy and to the integrity of parliamentarians.

Erskine May is even more clear when it comes to a member later admitting that statements he made were false. Page 111 of Parliamentary Practice, 22nd edition, informs us that the Commons may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt. It also states that, in 1963, the House resolved that in making a personal statement which contained words which he later admitted not to be true, a former member had been guilty of grave contempt.

We have a duty as parliamentarians to build a relationship of trust with our constituents. I represent the people of Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles in the House of Commons. My constituents have the right to be able to count on me and the right to know what we are doing here. They also have the right to know where we stand on bills and why we are voting for or against them.

If tomorrow, someone from my riding of Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles asks me why I did not support Bill C-23, based on what this person heard or read in the speech the member for Mississauga—Streetsville made in the House on February 6, 2014, I would think that my constituent had been misled. That is very serious, which is why it is important to act with integrity. All parliamentarians need to understand their duty and responsibility towards the public, towards voters and towards our mandate as parliamentarians.

The statements we make in the House are not limited to the House. They have repercussions on people all across Canada.

When I think about the contradictory statement made by the member for Mississauga—Streetsville, I realize that the vote on Bill C-23, which is currently being fast-tracked through committee, will be based on erroneous information. The debate on Bill C-23 was not fair and honest. What is worse, it is tainted by an unfounded accusation for the sole purpose of getting the bill passed.

Is that our mandate as parliamentarians? I do not think so. Is that how we should be introducing bills that will affect the lives of millions of Canadians?

I highly doubt it. I want to talk more about our responsibility as parliamentarians. We spend many hours working on laws that affect the lives of Canadian families. If we do not follow the rules that are in place, what impact will these laws have on the daily lives of millions of Canadians?

The member for Mississauga—Streetsville should be questioned by the appropriate committee about what he did, so that we can determine where those allegations came from and why he used them to support Bill C-23.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague for her eloquent speech. She rightly pointed out our obligation, as elected members, to be accountable to our own constituents. It is important that people can have confidence in the House and the mandate they gave us, namely to represent them in an honourable manner. Allowing recent events to go unchallenged is unacceptable. We must get to the bottom of this issue.

As I have heard from both sides of the House, we can sing the praises of this member and his great bond with the people in his riding, but can we ask ourselves what could possibly have motivated a member to come up with such a story?

Indeed, this is the process that we will be engaging in if we manage to bring these people before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Is there not undue pressure to pass a bill that is not based on anything real?

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, coincidentally, this happened just as Bill C-23 was being introduced.

I would like to think that this is not the case, but we cannot help but conclude that there must be a link between what the member said and the goal of wanting to fast track this bill through committee.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, for Canadians watching, what we are dealing with here is the finding from the Speaker that there has been a prima facie case of privilege.

The common practice in this House, as described by former clerks of this House, is to refer that matter to committee for further study.

We need certain legal measures taken, because what we have here is a member who stood in this House and, in trying to persuade fellow members of this House and the Canadian public, said he personally witnessed people breaking the law. This member did not just have a slip of the tongue in that he said it once. He said it twice, on two separate occasions.

When something happens once, I think we all recognize that someone can slip up. However, when something is said twice, that is a sign of a deliberate, intentional statement. That statement was also completely false.

I have stood in this House for almost six years now and listened to the Conservatives say to Canadians that we have to get tough on crime, we have to hold people accountable, we have to hold people responsible. Young people who may have been caught with a marijuana cigarette when they were 20 years old have been denied, by the government, the right to apply for a pardon. People have committed crimes that have not been serious crimes and that have not created great victims, yet the government says they have to pay a heavier price, that they have to be accountable for their actions.

However, what happens when a Conservative stands in this House and deliberately misleads this House, not once but twice? The government says that all that person needs to do is to stand up and apologize. There is no consequence. There is no further action to be taken by anybody, according to the government.

That is wrong. It is hypocritical. The government has made a practice of decision-based evidence making. That is what it does. It comes to a decision without the evidence. The evidence here is clear. We should be sending this to a committee to find out why this member deliberately attempted to mislead this House, what was behind it, and to take steps to make sure that member is accountable for his actions, just as the government wants Canadians to be accountable for theirs.

I would like my hon. colleague to comment on that.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is not a small matter; it is about values and ethics.

Like many of my colleagues, when I got into politics, I assumed that, here in the House, we would solve real issues, state the truth and be truthful.

In the matter before us, the member made a misleading statement. He said things that were inaccurate and he will probably try to say that he did not intend to mislead the House. However, who is the House? We are the House.

If we feel as though he misled us, it is no trivial matter. Apologizing and going on to something else is not trivial. This is about elections and voter cards that were used illegally to increase the number of votes for one party. This means that the vote itself must be called into question.

It is important to be consistent and to be truthful in what we do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent and enlightening speech. She clearly explained the issue that is before the House today.

If I relied on Conservative Party members on the other side of the House, I would have no idea what the issue is. After hearing the speech by the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, I no longer understood the point of the debate.

I would like to remind hon. members of the topic of debate. In the context of the electoral “deform” bill, Bill C-23, the member for Mississauga—Streetsville rose in the House and made misleading statements. He misled the House.

We therefore asked the Speaker to investigate what had been said in the House to determine whether, prima facie, the member made false statements and misled the House. The Speaker responded in the affirmative. We have three criteria that allow us to determine whether the House was misled, and these criteria were developed by the Speaker himself.

I am going to summarize them. First, it must be proven that the statement itself was misleading; second, it must be established that the member making the statement knew at the time that the statement was incorrect; and, third, the member must have intended to mislead the House.

According to the Speaker’s ruling, the situation meets those criteria prima facie. That is why this matter is before us. Will we refer it to the parliamentary committee responsible for examining this kind of issue, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs?

After hearing the speeches of the members on the other side of the House, I believe we have lost sight of the motion. Hon. members will remember that it 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.

It is nothing more or less than that. I think that is clear. The member for Mississauga—Streetsville seems to have made two completely contradictory statements. We must go further and examine this issue.

Why must we do so? It is possible that the member spoke with Elections Canada or that Elections Canada communicated with the member. We do not know what happened. All we know is what the member himself said.

Hon. members will recall what he said in his speech on February 6. To paraphrase, he said that he lived in a very urban, very densely populated riding where there are a lot of apartment buildings and blue boxes. He claimed that people had found Elections Canada cards that had been discarded by voters in those boxes, and that they had picked them up so that they could take them to the offices of other parties, claim a new identity and possibly vote illegally.

It is a serious accusation for a member of Parliament to rise in the House and say that he has personally witnessed election fraud in Canada.

Let me go back to the original quote. I would like to do so because I think it is always better quote the member himself. What he said was very specific. That is why we have to wonder what the facts really are.

I would like people to pay attention to the details of what the member for Mississauga—Streetsville told us in the House. In response to a question he was asked following one of his speeches in the House on February 6, he said precisely this:

I will relate to him something I have actually seen. On the mail delivery day when voter cards are put in mailboxes, residents come home, pick them out of their boxes, and throw them in the garbage can. I have seen campaign workers follow, pick up a dozen of them afterward, and walk out. Why are they doing that? They are doing it so they can hand those cards to other people, who will then be vouched for at a voting booth and vote illegally.

A question is being raised in the House. The member for Mississauga—Streetsville did not merely miscalculate. He did not merely conjugate a verb in such a way that we did not know whether it was in the future or the past tense. It was not a typographical error. It was a specific and very detailed error. It would be very difficult for me to be mistaken for about three minutes of a speech. There might be perhaps one or two incorrect words in my speech, and I would definitely rise in the House and apologize for my mistake.

Here we are talking about a complete paragraph from the speech of a member of the House, where he said that he had actually seen a fraudulent act committed against the Canadian electorate. When he was asked to apologize and he returned to the House on February 24—18 days later—he did not do so. He merely stated that some of what he had said might have been inaccurate.

What was incorrect in all that? One specific thing? Everything? We do not know, and that is why it should be looked into by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The hon. member should provide more detailed explanations to Canadian voters, because those given so far are insufficient. He gave a brief apology of a few sentences in the House, whereas he made a 15-minute speech, and what he said over three minutes or so was downright incorrect, according to what he says. That merits the attention of this House.

We must have confidence that what is said in the House is accurate, honest and true. We cannot allow members to come into the House and say things as inaccurate as that. If someone truly saw what the hon. member claimed to have seen, that constitutes fraud. That is a violation of the Canada Elections Act. We are beginning to move into the criminal field. There are serious consequences for witnessing that kind of activity and keeping silent for three years. The member claimed to have seen this in 2011. This is 2014, and for all that time, he said nothing. He witnessed a very serious fraudulent act in his constituency and did nothing.

In this case, it seems to me, a member of Parliament has a much greater responsibility to act than an ordinary Canadian citizen. He knows this very well. He is a legislator. He is very familiar with the consequences of such a serious act. He has to report it. Either he failed to report that act, and today he is trying to hedge and have people believe it was a mistake, or it truly was a mistake.

I would like Elections Canada to tell us if there were any reports and if the member came forward at that time. Do we know what happened? That is deserving of the attention of this House.

Again, in the context of Bill C-23, the electoral deform bill introduced by this government, we want Canadians to vote in elections. For years, the voter turnout rate has been in constant decline. We should bring it up.

According to opposition members, the content of Bill C-23 will unfortunately achieve the direct opposite. It will stop people from voting and decrease the turnout rate even further.

With respect to voter cards, 800,000 seniors and 70,000 members of first nations used them to vote. Under the terms of the bill now before us, they would unfortunately no longer have that right. That is precisely why the member rose in the House. He wanted to condemn a practice that, as we see it, has helped people vote, rather than prevented them from doing so.

If this case is referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, we definitely want everything open to the public. That is why I am moving a motion. I do not want this to take place in camera.

I move, seconded by the hon. member for Québec:

that the motion be amended by adding, after the words “House Affairs”, the following:

“, and that all procedures in respect of this order of reference be held in public”.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The amendment is in order.

The hon. member for Sherbrooke for questions and comments.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent speech and for the amendment he proposed to the original motion. If the motion is adopted this evening after the vote—and I truly hope that the Conservative members will support us—we must ensure that the meeting is held in public. I look forward to seeing the results.

With that in mind, I would like to hear the member's thoughts on whether we can still trust the member for Mississauga—Streetsville. In the future, this member will speak to other bills and present facts in the House. Can we trust the speeches and the facts that the member will give down the road? Can we still trust this member and what he says, and will we know whether he is telling the truth?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Sherbrooke for his comments and question. I would like to congratulate him on the excellent work he is doing in his riding. I know that he works very hard for his constituents. I have met many of them who have told me as much.

Canadians must be confident that the elected members of the House are always acting in good faith and are always there to shed light on the truth and to debate bills honestly and respectfully. Canadians are increasingly cynical about whether things are happening by the book and about whether Parliament is working to deliver what Canadians want. When they elect us, they expect us to work for them. The public sometimes wonders whether members are just here to serve their own interests. That is not a member's role. Members are here to represent the people, and that is why we are referred to by our ridings and not by our own names. The idea is to represent the people here in the House.

As for the member in question, we are debating whether or not he made misleading statements. The Speaker's ruling demonstrates that, prima facie, the member met the three conditions, and therefore may have misled the House. Now it is up to the member to prove that he did not mislead the House. If he did, it will be most unfortunate.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am truly worried about the state of democracy in this country, and I am not the only one. When I travel around my riding of Hochelaga, people tell me they are too. When the smallest positive thing comes from the government, they are happy, because they no longer expect much from the Conservatives.

A member said certain things here, and then he said the opposite, namely, that what he had said was not true. Then another member, the hon. member for Peterborough, said that he did not commit electoral fraud at all, and yet he is under investigation and four charges have been laid against him.

Democracy is really taking a hit, and I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the comments made by my hon. colleague from Hochelaga, and she is right. Many Canadians are discouraged. It is important not to lose hope. They see that people on this side of the House have integrity, even though integrity is seriously lacking on the government side. The Liberal Party was just thrown out of office because of integrity problems. It seems that we are heading in the same direction.

Is there a rule that says that a government loses all integrity after 10 years in power? I have to wonder. Unfortunately, the member for Mississauga—Streetsville has proven that we are heading in that direction

I hope the members on this side of the House will be able to emphasize the fact that that we will maintain our integrity. We will certainly not follow the Conservatives' example.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak in today's debate. This is my first time speaking on a privilege motion, and it is not a subject I take lightly. Respecting privilege is a critically important part of the work we do as parliamentarians. I will get right to the point.

Some may call me naive, but I believe that all members of this House who come to this place make every effort to represent their constituents to the best of their ability. However, at times unfortunate incidents do occur, and words sometimes get spoken that we later may regret. Our friends in the media watch like hawks for this moment, no different from the partisan political instincts among us that watch for political opportunities from our opponents to be capitalized on. I would submit that, in large part, this motion is one of those moments.

To be clear, I am not attempting to belittle this incident. It is critically important that all members of this place strive to be accurate and factual in the things we say. In large part, that is why I believe we have Hansard, so that our words and votes can be part of the public record. Hansard ensures that we as parliamentarians can be held to account by the citizens who elect us to this place. Never let us forget that ultimately we are accountable to the citizens in our home ridings all across this great country. From time to time, even in my relatively brief time here, I have observed members who have done or said things and, upon reflection, issued an apology. While the demands for an apology may well be at times motivated by partisan interest, the act of giving an apology is one that all Canadians can share and understand. However, not in this place, if we are to support the motion moved by the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

Let us make no mistake. There has been an apology in this place, although it has been suggested otherwise. I reviewed the record of Hansard. It is clear that the member for Mississauga—Streetsville stated:

I would like to sincerely apologize to all Canadians and to all members of the House for the statement that I made. It was never my intention, in any way, to mislead the House, for which I have the greatest...of respect.

That is undeniably an apology from the member in question. Does anyone in this place doubt what I just said is an apology? I would submit not.

I understand that accepting an apology can be difficult for some; more so in this case, as ultimately none of us in this place takes a situation like this lightly, nor do I submit we should. However, the larger question that remains is this. What is the outcome?

The opposition motion suggests that we send this matter to a parliamentary committee for further study. Let us just think about this for a moment. The record of Hansard is clear. We know what was said. We know a correction was subsequently made, and an apology—I would submit, a sincere apology—was offered by the member in question. We can debate on this topic for the next six weeks, but we cannot and will not change what was said, corrected, and then apologized for.

Likewise, we also know from parliamentary precedent in previous rulings that this House has a long history of accepting apologies, even in cases touching upon the privileges of the House of Commons. The fact that this House has a long-standing precedent of accepting apologies is a source of frustration to some. Obviously, the motion of the NDP House leader represents that view, rather than to accept this apology.

The motion suggests that we send this matter to the procedure and House affairs committee where it could be studied further. What is there left to study? All the material facts are already before the House. The House is in a position to make a decision based on the facts that lie before it.

Not only does the House have the benefit of all the facts being laid out before it, but the hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville rose in his place in the chamber and apologized. At the risk of sounding too direct, the House is basically tasked with accepting that apology or not. In that regard, the parliamentary precedent is very clear, much as the Speaker established in his ruling yesterday.

As each of us has undoubtedly experienced at one time or another, “sorry” can often be the hardest thing to say, but it is absolutely the right thing to do in a case like this. Apologies often go a long way in resolving an issue. So too do they here in the House.

It is interesting that the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley often speaks of the need to increase civility in this place. I would ask the member how we increase civility if we choose to reject the principles of accepting an apology from a member who asks for our forgiveness.

I can share an event that recently occurred in my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla. Two weeks ago, the leader of the official opposition was in my beautiful riding. My riding, like many, is significantly impacted by the new electoral boundaries redistribution. While at a public event in my riding, the Leader of the Opposition made the claim that there was gerrymandering in this process. The Leader of the Opposition did this with no factual evidence and in the process impugned the reputations of three individuals tasked with the very difficult job of riding redistribution.

I should point out that the leader of the official opposition did not offer an apology for his comments, but I know that the good people of Okanagan—Coquihalla would accept an apology from the Leader of the Opposition if one were offered. That is why I can say quite firmly that I will not be voting in favour of the NDP motion. The citizens of Okanagan—Coquihalla do not seek punitive measures where a humble apology has already been tendered.

Before I close, I believe it is important that the House not create an environment where members are punished for doing the right thing, in this case offering an apology. Let us not forget that the member's apology and his comments will forever be on the record in Hansard.

This debate is about many things. That, I would submit, is why it is an important one. There are indeed frustrations and challenges with outcomes, as will be the case in this debate. However, we must be careful to balance those challenges and frustrations with how they can impact the ability of a member to essentially right a wrong and offer a sincere apology in the process.

This is an important debate, and I would submit that it needs to serve as a reminder to all members of the need to strive for accuracy in our comments and interactions. Let us also consider the need to have an avenue to correct our mistakes and to apologize when we have made an error. I believe that lessons will be learned from this debate, but they will not be enhanced by further study at a parliamentary committee. As such, I will not be supporting the motion.

I would also like to thank all members for taking this time to hear my comments. I realize that we may not agree on the outcome of this debate, but I believe that we all share the importance of having this discussion. I will be accepting the apology of the hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville, and I ask that all members of the House vote against this motion.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. However, I disagree with him on one point in particular.

He said that an apology is enough to erase everything someone did in the past and to let that person avoid facing the consequences.

Some people can make mistakes or commit crimes that are punishable in our society. Does he think that if a criminal just apologizes, regardless of the crime he committed, he should be able to avoid facing the consequences?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously the member in question rose in his place and gave a sincere apology, not just to the member opposite and not just to everyone in this place but to all Canadians. This is the consequence of the member rising, giving information that he later regretted, and apologizing for it. There are consequences. It is taking up time and resources that we could be spending discussing issues in our ridings.

I acknowledge that history cannot be unwritten. What went into Hansard is there. The reality is that the member has to go back to his constituents. I would say that the consequences are very real and are being felt by the member.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, throughout our lives as parliamentarians, we sometimes witness people making wild statements in moments of passion. Sometimes we hear people say things without really thinking. Often, members apologize, we accept their apology, and it ends there.

In this case, however, things have gone a little farther because we wonder what the intention was. Forgetting something, misquoting and deliberately saying something are vastly different from each other. That is the crux of the matter: was there or was there not ill intent?

To what extent does my colleague think an apology can exonerate a person who did something wrong? Where does he personally draw the line?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that he brings the human element to our job. We have so many issues thrown at us, we have to ask ourselves where we are going. We debate many things in this place that are important to Canadians. Obviously, members representing the facts as accurately as possible is absolutely important, but again I go back to the point I made in my speech. What outcome do we want by going over the same facts we have before us, which are written in stone in Hansard? What do we expect a parliamentary committee to further discover?

One of the most important things we can do is acknowledge that an inaccurate statement was made, regret was shown, and the House deliberated on that and came to a decision. I say to the member, I do not know where one strikes the line. That is why there are 308 of us to cast our votes and say what is reasonable. Hopefully we can get past these things and focus on the priorities of Canadians.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague talk with great thoughtfulness about an issue that touches us all in the House. It talks to the very integrity of the House. When a mistake is made and an apology is given, we have a choice. Do we accept that apology in good faith and in the spirit it was intended or do we not?

My Cape Breton mom used to say that to err is human but to forgive is divine. When one offers a sincere apology, we have a choice. We can either say that we are prepared to accept that apology or not. I felt that the member's apology was sincere.

I have heard members opposite try to find different ways to challenge the question. Was it a genuine apology, or did the initial comments have intent behind them? The way I look at it is that if the member in question had said nothing, we would not have known. In good faith, the member stood up and made that apology.

My colleague from Okanagan—Coquihalla gave an eloquent statement today. He gave his formal comments with a great degree of compassion and heart, which is something we could all learn.

At what point do we say that one can make an error but be forgiven and be understood by the House to be forgiven? Where do we draw the line where we say no, under no circumstances is the House ever prepared to do that? It is easy to be mean and ill-intended. At what point do we take people at face value and in good faith? Could my colleague respond to that with his thoughts, please?