Debates of March 4th, 2014

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

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

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to quote from what the hon. member said in this House on February 25. He came to this House and said:

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 amount of respect.

He came to this House and he apologized. That is what we expect of members. In fact, the Chair in his ruling on March 3, 2014, said:

The Chair takes...note that the member for Mississauga—Streetsville...has apologized for his mistake.

This was, of course, the Speaker's ruling that led to the motion by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley that we are now debating.

What is interesting is that subsequent to both of those, we have, for example, the leader of the opposition's critic on these very matters, the member for Toronto—Danforth, saying:

That was not an apology. We must keep in mind that our colleague said it twice. If this had been phrased as an apology, we might be in a different universe. We might not have had a question of privilege.

It was an apology. He said “I would like to sincerely apologize”, yet the leader of the opposition's critic for this very matter says the member did not apologize. Did that member misspeak? Did he mislead the House when he said that? Is that the kind of matter that the member for Toronto—Danforth should now, as is happening to the member for Mississauga—Streetsville, be held in contempt for?

In the Speaker's own ruling, it is a matter of fact that the member for Mississauga—Streetsville apologized, yet subsequent to that the member for Toronto—Danforth denies it and says no such apology occurred. It is a misstatement of fact.

However, if we go down this path the opposition wishes to go, that is the kind of thing that leads to an ongoing argument for contempt and finding of contempt.

The opposition should acknowledge there was an apology made, and it should be accepted by all of us as gentlemen and gentlewomen.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find somewhat disingenuous the talk about how the member used the word “misspeak”, because on several occasions when opposition members of the House have had to rise to apologize, the Conservatives have never, ever let the issue go. It was never pointe finale for them. They would never say they would never bring it up again, that he or she had already apologized and therefore let us all drop it.

Let me go back to the context that the member for Outremont just talked about. Look at the context in this situation with the member for Mississauga—Streetsville. If he had witnessed the incident or someone had told him that it had taken place, I could understand some two weeks then going by and his coming back to the House to say he had misspoken because he had just found out that his information had been wrong. Perhaps he read somewhere in a document what had happened. He reported it to the House, but then came back and said he had misspoken. That happens: the evidence proves the contrary.

The context is that he saw it himself. He said on several occasions that “I saw this happen”. It took him two weeks to realize that his memory was not what it used to be.

It is a little disingenuous to say that he misspoke and that all things are innocent in this realm. They are not as innocent as they seem. Remember, it was Elections Canada that received the complaints that brought him to his feet in the House. Something happened at Elections Canada, not within his own conscience. It was about what he saw.

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

Mr. Speaker, as we debate and consider this motion, I would say to the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor that he take heed of the advice of his own colleague from Kingston and the Islands who said, in effect, that we do not want to create an environment where we discourage people from coming forward and correcting the record. That is a very important principle and I think his caucus colleague was onto something important.

I think we treat all hon. members as honourable, but we also have to create an environment that encourages that. We have to say that when they come to the House to set the record straight and acknowledge that they have misspoken, it should not be the trigger for their being found in contempt, for being dragged through the mud. But that would be the consequence if we proceed with this.

We would be creating a situation where any time any member came to the House to correct the record and to put the facts on the table, which is the duty and obligation of all of us, they would punished, rather than being treated as having been honourable and done the right thing. They would be faced with a motion for contempt, have their names and reputations dragged through the mud and face what is a very unpleasant experience here for having set the record straight and told to the truth to the House and, in this case, having apologized to the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of quick things. It seems like the member is challenging the Speaker's ruling. In his statement the government House leader said that the member did not intend to mislead the House. There are three criteria to be found in contempt of Parliament. One of them is that it must be established that the member knew at the time that the statement was incorrect and that the member intended to mislead the House. That is what the Speaker ruled on, that in fact he did intend to mislead the House. Why do we know this? Because he was arguing for this badly flawed election bill.

The government House leader has a bit of a conundrum on his hands. In his celebration of the honour and respect of the member for Mississauga—Streetsville, who was caught not telling the truth and then two weeks later had a moment of conviction, half apologized, and came back to the House, he is saying this action should be celebrated. Would it not better if the member had just not misspoken the first time, if he had not misled the House the first time? Yes, he was found by the Speaker to be in prima facie contempt of Parliament.

One of the criteria is that the MP was trying to mislead the House. That is a fact. The member just stated the contrary. He just said in effect, “I think I'm going to challenge the Chair on this one; I think the Speaker's ruling is wrong, because the member for Mississauga—Streetsville did not in fact intend to mislead the House and Canadians about something so critical as our election laws”. He says this in justifying why the Conservatives needed this massive overhaul that, by coincidence and circumstance, benefits the Conservative Party of Canada, lo and behold, why the Conservative Party refuses to have public consultations, why it refused to consult with the Chief Electoral Officer.

To the member's point about why we want to debate this and to the point about why he wants to shut this down, yes, the member did intend to mislead the House. Yes, he was aware of what he was doing at the time and he was doing it for the most cynical of reasons, to try to convince Canadians and MPs that the bill was required, that there was a problem that he had personally witnessed, a crime that he had witnessed, when in fact it was not true and he knows it was not true and he knew it at the time. How can the government House leader defend such reprehensible action?

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

Mr. Speaker, I find the comments of the opposition House leader very puzzling. He seems to imply that his own motion is one that should not be debated and decided by the House because that would in some way mean passing judgment, or, if you will, appealing the Speaker's ruling. However, he was the one who made the motion, and he put it to the House that the House should decide on it.

Paradoxically, he seems not to want to have the House decide on it having moved the motion, which I find odd. That is why we are trying to ensure that the House can actually decide on this question.

More significantly, I ask him, if this is the path we are going down, what do we do, for example, with the member for Parkdale—High Park? I consider her to be a very honourable individual. She said that the hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville would not apologize for his statements. In fact, we know that on February 25 he told this House, “I would like to sincerely apologize to all Canadians and to all members of the House for the statement that I made”.

He did apologize for his statements. The Speaker referred to it in a ruling on March 3. Yet, the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park said that he did not. Apparently, she said something that was not true in this House. Am I suggesting that she is not an honourable person? No, she is a very honourable person. This happens.

The question then becomes, having done that, should she be found in contempt of this House? When she comes back and corrects the record and says she is mistaken—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order, please.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is rising on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member appears to be insinuating that the member for Parkdale—High Park knowingly misled the House, when in fact, on February 24, the member for Mississauga—Streetsville did not apologize. He said he was correcting the record.

I would like the hon. member to retract any attacks on the member for Parkdale—High Park.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

I will go back to the government House leader in response to that point of order, but also ask him to conclude his remarks on the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will respond to the point of order by saying that I will get to that member next. He apparently is wilfully blind to a major factor in this debate that the Speaker referenced in his ruling of March 3, that the hon. member apologized for his mistake.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay has spoken to the motion arising out of the Speaker's ruling and is wilfully blind to what the Speaker actually said, wilfully blind to what the hon. member said on February 25, when he said, “I would like to sincerely”—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order, please.

I will go back to the member for Timmins—James Bay on a point of order, but I would remind all hon. members that it is a point of order specifically around a point of order, not debating an argument that has been made.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

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

Mr. Speaker, we were told last night that we cannot use the word “lie”. We were told that. We respect that. We are told that we cannot say that the member “deliberately misled”, yet the hon. member uses the word “wilfully”.

I ask the Speaker to rule that he is attempting to say that I lied in this House, which is not true. I treat my privileges with respect , and I treat this House with respect. I would like the Speaker to ensure that both sides follow rules of decency about the attempt to claim that people are deliberately misleading this House, that people are deliberately lying, or that people are wilfully misrepresenting issues.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

As a general point the Chair agrees with the point raised by the member for Timmins—James Bay, which is that there is language which is considered unacceptable in this place. The Chair would ask all hon. members to refrain from using that language.

Specifically in terms of what the government House leader said today, the Chair will review the transcript and will return to this House if necessary.

I will go back to the government House leader to quickly wrap up on his answer so we can move on to another question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will wrap up the point of order. The hon. member makes my point well in his response, and that is, of course, to not have regard for the statement of the hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville that “I would like to sincerely apologize to all Canadians and to all members of the House..”. The statement he made in this House constituted an apology. It could not be clearer than that. It was noted by the Speaker in the ruling on March 3. Yet, the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park did not reference it.

My view is that when she comes back to the House and apologizes, she says she is sorry, that she misspoke and she was not correct, I should not then, and nor would I, encourage anybody to make that an occasion for raising a point of order asking that she be found in contempt of this House. That would not be appropriate.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons of what the Speaker's ruling said on this matter.

I think it is important that we remember that we have had a ruling from the Speaker. It is not a matter of opinion. The Speaker said, “At the same time, the fact remains that the House continues to be seized of completely contradictory statements”.

The Speaker then went on to rule, based on a previous decision from the previous Speaker of the House, the hon. Peter Milliken, who said “...if only to clear the air”. If only to clear the air, the Speaker ruled that we could delve deeper into getting the truth of what occurred.

The last shambles of a discussion was a diversionary tactic. As important as the motion is that the House deal with the report of the committee that looked into the matter of unresolved issues of injustice to Jewish refugees, I agree with members who said that it was a cynical ploy and not worthy of those who have championed the cause of Israel and Jewish refugees in the past.

However, as we look at this issue right now, we have not cleared the air. I have questions, and I am very fair-minded. I have stood in this place and defended the hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville. However, I do not understand how such very contradictory statements could be made, particularly on an issue as fundamental as the right of Canadians to vote, the issues raised in Bill C-23, for which we have not a scintilla of evidence that we have a crisis in Canada of voter fraud. The only evidence brought before the House was that from the hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville, which he has now admitted was not true. We are left in a conundrum of no explanation, and time is running down the clock.

It appears that the Conservatives do not want us to do what the Speaker said we had a right to, what Peter Milliken said a House has a right to, which is to clear the air.

The air in this place is polluted with diversionary tactics.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will not comment on whether or not the air is polluted, but I will say that there is no contradiction left on the table. The only contradiction is between the statement that the member originally made and then his correction eliminating the earlier statement, saying that it was not accurate. There is no mystery any longer. There is no question to be probed into. It is very simple. The question then becomes, what is the committee going to study?

The member for Mississauga—Streetsville would say the same thing that he said in this House when he corrected the record. He no doubt would say the same thing that he said in this House. He apologized. He corrected the record, apologized to all Canadians, and apologized here in this House.

What is the value that will be served? What is the contradiction?

I am sure the member is not under any illusion that having corrected the record he stands by the original misstatement that he made. I do not think anybody believes that in this House. I do not think anybody thinks he stands by that.

There really is no contradiction left to be studied. There is no mystery. It is a fairly straightforward matter.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the government House leader could help the House understand why a member would admit to a mistake and apologize, when theoretically he could have said nothing and chose not to.

I am trying to get sense of this, and perhaps the House leader could help me understand it. Is this about a member trying to do the right thing, or, from what I hear in terms of questions opposite, is this just about politics?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has put it well. I think he has put his finger on one of the difficulties we have as a House.

We are being asked by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley to send this off to the procedure and House affairs committee, and his suggestion, of course, is that the hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville is in contempt of the House, when the hon. member came back and corrected the record.

Had the member for Mississauga—Streetsville not done that, had he kept his counsel to himself, having recognized that he misspoke but not bringing it to the attention of the House, he would have failed in his duties and obligations to this House, which is the duty and obligation to tell the truth.

Yet, his reward for fulfilling his duties and obligations is to have the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley hit him with a procedural fist in the face and suddenly say that if one is going to come here and tell the truth, if one is going to come here and correct the record, one will face consequences for that.

Member could face consequences any time that they come to correct the record. There will be all kinds of members looking around saying “Geez, I misspoke myself once in a debate”.

The member for Timmins—James Bay is another member who said that the member for Mississauga—Streetsville never apologized, even though that was after the Speaker observed in his ruling that the member had apologized. Should he be now found in contempt?

I am sure that member will come forward and say that he is sorry, that he was not aware that had happened, and he will apologize to this House for having misspoken. I am sure he will do that. I have confidence that he will do that. I hope he will do that.

However, I do not think, having corrected the record and corrected the mistake, that the member should be rewarded with the punishment of a motion for contempt.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the arguments that the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is trying to make. With all due respect, I think he is dodging the issue.

He said that we do not want to create a toxic environment, but I think that is what is happening. Since I was elected to the House in 2011, I have been shocked to see that democracy is not respected in a democratic country like ours. We are elected by members of the public, who want to know what the government is doing for them, but unfortunately we constantly find ourselves under gag orders. This Conservative government has issued a record number of gag orders.

My colleague made erroneous statements, but I am not a legal expert. My background is different from that of many of my colleagues who are experts in law. However, the member said his own volition that he had witnessed that. I would assume that that is what led the government to introduce this bill to eliminate—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order. The hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has approximately 20 seconds to respond.

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

Mr. Speaker, we see a paradox here. The House Leader of the Opposition has put a motion to the House asking the House to do something. We now have a motion before us, which I have put, saying let us get on with it, let the House decide the motion that he is asking it to decide. He is no doubt going to get up and vote that he does not want the House to decide the motion that he has put to the House.

It is very paradoxical, but it shows the difference between New Democrats, who do not want to get things done, and our government, which likes to get things done.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.