Debates of March 4th, 2014

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

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a line that each individual member has to draw. We have to weigh what is before us. We have to make a decision based on the motion before us and then move on. That is important to our democratic process.

I really value the statement the member's mother made, to err is human but to forgive is divine. In my lifetime I have heard lots of sayings and about a lot of ways to live.

Here is what I will finish with. Someone told me once that there are two types of pain in life: the pain of discipline and the pain of regret. All of us should use this as an example. If we are disciplined, if we represent our views well and accurately, we will not have some of these regrets. However, when one of us falters and comes forward with a sincere apology and we are prepared to accept that apology, we should take it and get on with the business of the House.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that we are debating the motion because there is a prima facie case here and there are very clear criteria: the statement was misleading, it was established that the member making the statement knew it at the time, and the member intended to mislead the House.

The member did, almost three weeks later, apologize for misleading the House, not once but twice. With all due deference to the member, there are questions of degree, which some of the other members have raised, about when the House is misled. In this case, I think it is an egregious case. Does the member not think it merits having the matter referred to committee so that we can look at the appropriate recourse?

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the sentiment. As I said earlier, members have to take into consideration what they feel is the best way to proceed.

On the prima facie case, let me turn now to the work of a former law clerk, Joseph Maingot, author of Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, Second Edition. On page 221 of his most recent version, he writes:

A prima facie case of privilege in the parliamentary sense is one where the evidence on its face as outlined by the Member is sufficiently strong for the House to be asked to debate the matter and to send it to a committee.... While the Speaker may find that a prima facie case of privilege exists and give the matter precedence in debate, it is the House alone that decides whether a breach of privilege or a contempt has occurred....

We are the master of our own destiny. How we execute the business of the people is at our discretion. The member will have the opportunity to vote on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say that I will be sharing my speaking time.

I am pleased to rise today on this very important issue, which goes to the very heart of our institution, Parliament and the House of Commons. It is fundamentally important that the House debate these issues because, as the Speaker has determined, there may have been a violation of our parliamentary privilege to be able to have all the information before us, and accurate information.

In this instance, the Speaker himself has told us that the information provided to us by the member for Mississauga—Streetsville was incorrect.

Consequently, we, as parliamentarians, did not have all the information necessary to continue our deliberations and vote. A vote has already been held at second reading stage.

Consequently, it is this entire matter that is behind today’s debate. This is extremely important. I believe that the House, through a parliamentary committee, should have the opportunity to examine the facts around the misleading statements. This is not the best place in which to conduct that kind of proceeding or put questions to the member who misled the House. That should be done instead in a parliamentary committee. The committee could ask questions and examine every factor that might have motivated the member for Mississauga—Streetsville to make misleading statements.

I do not see how a member could appear in the House with a speech prepared in advance, or not, and say to himself that he will intentionally give the House of Commons incorrect information.

I find it hard to believe that anyone could do that, but that is what happened in the case of the member for Mississauga—Streetsville. He arrived in the House and even said it on two occasions. One may believe that it was a trivial mistake, but when such a gross error is made twice, I do not believe it is the result of a minor language error, as the members opposite often say, as if they were mistaken about a figure, a comma or the name of a committee.

The member did not make a trivial mistake. He said he had witnessed a criminal act, one subject to fines and consequences under the Canada Elections Act. He said so twice, which is what surprises me most. He rose in the House on two occasions, in front of all parliamentarians and in fact all Canadians, because every parliamentarian represents Canadian citizens, to say things that he knew were false. I am not making this up. The Speaker has determined that what was said was false, based on three specific criteria that Speakers have used in the past.

This entire matter should be examined more closely. It is fundamentally important in our democracy and in our institution that we be able to get to the bottom of things. We know that this was not true because the member himself apologized. The question is not whether the information was false, whether it was incorrect, because the member told us that the information was false.

He apologized, thankfully, but that is not enough.

This brings me back to the question I put to the hon. member a few minutes ago. He seemed to suggest that a simple apology could erase all past mistakes. That is not the case, and our justice system is proof of that. If I drive at 160 km/h on the highway and get stopped, I cannot get off scot-free by sincerely apologizing to the police officer and telling him I should not have done that and did not mean to cause any harm. The police officer is not going to let me off without giving me a ticket just because my apologies are very sincere.

It does not work that way, and all members know that. A simple apology cannot solve everything in our society, much less in the House, which symbolizes Canada and our democracy. It is not enough, and that is why we should get to the bottom of this matter and ask the member why he made these statements and whether he got this information from a third party.

These questions, which deserve answers, could lead to a committee report, under the normal process used by our institution. After reviewing the matter, the committee can prepare a report that will be tabled in the House. Then, all the members can read the report and examine it when the time comes to discuss it. Finally, members can vote in the House to determine whether or not the member's breach calls for sanctions.

This process must follow its course, and the next step is the vote that will take place this evening to refer the matter to a parliamentary committee.

I hope members will not show blind partisanship and will not be whipped by their whip when the time comes to vote. It would not be right if, on a question of privilege, the government used its majority and told its members, through its whip, to vote in a certain way.

This is not a government bill but a question of privilege. I hope some members, if not all of them, will support this motion to refer the matter to a committee. It would hurt our institution if such a fundamental question of privilege about a member who deliberately misled the House was settled through a simple vote won by the majority because the government decided to whip its members.

Therefore, I do hope that tonight's vote will be a free vote and that the matter can be referred to a committee. I hope to get the support of all members from all parties in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague, who is so good at explaining rules that can be rather dry.

I think it is admirable how he raised the fact that a review in committee might help us understand what could have led someone to twice deliberately break a basic rule, to tell the truth in the House.

The hon. member made an analogy to driving a car and being stopped by a police officer who notices that the driver was clearly speeding. Do hon. members not think that we must all tell the truth in the House?

I could say that I spend my time in my neighbourhood watching letter carriers with their flashlights delivering mail in the evening. I see that quite often. I have seen that at least two or three times. That would not be true. However, that would not be as serious as what happened in this case, where the member misled Parliament because he did not have a stronger argument to justify these changes in the rules.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher for his comments and his question.

Indeed, we need to look at the context in which these statements were made. We were debating an electoral reform bill, which, according to the minister responsible for the bill, appears to be based on speculation or rumours.

The member for Mississauga—Streetsville made some unfounded and completely false statements to justify the bill and the measures that were going to be implemented to address a problem. Now we see that the problem this member raised did not even exist. The government is trying to justify a bill and regulations with a situation that does not even exist.

That is the context in which the statements were made. It is even more surprising and sad for the House that members are making such statements in a context like that and that the minister seems to be doing the same thing.

The only facts he came come up with to support his bill are from an Infoman report. Although I have a lot of respect for that TV show, I do not think it should be used as the sole source of information for creating bills and amending federal laws.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to my colleague and he raised an important point. The NDP believes that apologies are not enough. People have to take responsibility and acknowledge the harm they do. We really have to take this a step further and answer to the people.

My colleague said it very well: it takes more than apologies; we have to take action and take this further. When I see the Conservatives pushing through their election “deform” bill and completely ignoring Canadians and not consulting them, in the belief that the people are going to buy this and all the rest and that their party is going to completely change the country, I tell myself that it does not make sense. I wonder what they are doing.

I would like my honourable colleague to elaborate on the point he raised, that it takes more than apologies and that we must take action. I would like him to tell us again, as he did in his speech, why it is important to refer this case to committee and to take this further so that Canadians can feel reassured about what they are hearing today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Québec for her question.

It is the general attitude of the Conservatives. They seem to think that they can come out of any scandal unscathed and that Canadians will not notice. Our role as the opposition is to hold the Conservatives to account and to ensure that those in power are accountable to the people.

All too often, the Conservatives believe that it can all be swept under the carpet, that they can move on to something else and that everyone will forget. However, the opposition will certainly not forget. We will not forget all these scandals and this Conservative deception.

I said at the beginning that I would be sharing my time. I therefore yield my place to the member for Edmonton—Strathcona.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for sharing his time with me.

This is a grave matter we are debating here. It goes to the credibility of this place. The comments that I will make at the end, I hope, will give pause to reflect on a situation where we have a majority government.

What is the situation before us? We were debating Bill C-23, which is proposing significant amendments to the Canada Elections Act, with a number of amendments that are facing huge debate across the country, but within a vacuum of ability for Canadians to speak out. In the course of the debate, the member for Mississauga—Streetsville decided to speak twice in this place and to share certain information. As has been raised here previously, it was in the course of debate on a very significant bill to Canadians that sets out the rights to exercise the franchise. The member has now apologized to the House and admitted that he misled this place on observations that he personally witnessed in the use of the voucher system.

Why is this important? It is because of changes to the voucher system that the government wants to proceed with, which is to do away with the voucher. Frankly, right now, hundreds of thousands of Canadians, from seniors to first nations to students, rely on vouchers to exercise their franchise. We are fortunate to live in a country where everyone in society has the right to vote if they are a citizen. I raise this matter because I have received letters. I understand the same letters have been sent to the minister responsible for the new election bill.

I received a letter from the president of the students' union for the King’s University College, the president of the students' union for the University of Alberta, and the student association of Grant MacEwan University. These are all major institutions in my city.

What they relayed to me and the hon. minister is that they are deeply concerned that this move to remove the voucher is going to make it more difficult. Sieger Siderius, president of the students' association for the King's University College said: “...making the ability to vote more difficult seems antithetical to the inclusive democratic system that has developed in Canada”.

The president of the students' union of the University of Alberta, Petros Kusmu, said: “Voter turnout from students and youth is already relatively low in federal elections”. They think it is important that the government move toward making it easier for students to vote, and they are deeply troubled that to remove the ability to vouch may have graver results, lowering voter turnout from students.

The students association for Grant MacEwan University expressed the same concerns. “Students unable to provide [a] valid piece of identification under the Fair Elections Act as currently proposed risk disenfranchisement”. They are calling on me to call for the government to provide expanded consultation so they can voice their perspective.

Given that the government is still refusing to allow a committee to travel to discuss this important piece of legislation, the only opportunity for a person to find out what is in the bill and what the issues are around the voucher system is to view CPAC, or come to Ottawa if they have the opportunity, if they are studying here, and observe the debate.

What did the hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville say in this place? He said:

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.

He said that once. On February 6, he again said:

I will relate to him [he means the Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification] 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. That is going to stop.

As is clear in the House, and as the members representing the government side have attested to, almost three weeks later, the member for Mississauga—Streetsville stood up in the House and confessed that he completely misled the House, not once but twice.

How are we to be assured that Canadians following this debate managed to follow every day of it, so that they will have learned that in fact this hon. member had misled the House? This is a serious matter. This is a serious bill we are discussing and it is absolutely imperative that factual information be brought forward. There have been many questions back and forth in question period about proposed changes to the Elections Act, and a lot of concerns raised on behalf of constituents about the plan to do away with the vouching system.

This is a very significant matter. We are talking about the very right of Canadians to exercise their democratic right to vote for the members in this place. We have heard from young people, certainly in my city, who are deeply concerned about this proposed amendment. We had a member testify in the House that he personally had witnessed voter fraud with the use of vouchers, and then admit he never did witness any such thing. This is not simply a case where perhaps somebody had told him third-hand that there might be some fraud with vouching. He actually stood in this place twice and said that he personally had witnessed this and had witnessed voter fraud.

What is important is that, according to our procedures, the House Leader of the Official Opposition raised a question of privilege, the member spoke to it, and the Speaker issued a ruling. In issuing his ruling, the Speaker said that he had to consider three factors based on precedent. One was that it had to be proven that the statement was misleading; two, that it must be established that the member making the statement knew at the time of the statement that it was incorrect; and three, that in making the statement, the member intended to mislead the House. The member himself has apologized that he has done all three. However, aside from that, the reason we are here debating right now is because the Speaker made a ruling in this matter and, as the procedure goes, we do not get into this debate unless there is a prima facie case of contempt in the House.

We have heard a number of members state that we do not bring forward this kind of motion lightly, and it does not happen very often, and it certainly has not happened often while I have been in this place for more than five years. Therefore, it seems appropriate, given the procedures of the House, which are laid down in a chart in our procedural book, which is agreed to by all the members in the House, that there will be a vote in this place.

What happens when we have a majority government? We are having a debate here and we begin to sense how people might vote. It may be that those members on the other side might have a bit of conscience and think that this is reprehensible behaviour and that just standing up and saying, “Oh gosh, I should not have misled the House” is not enough, and that maybe this matter should be referred to the committee and an appropriate response taken. There is no predetermination of what the response is. The member could, for example, simply be asked to come before the bar of the House and apologize to the Speaker. It is not terribly reprehensible. We are not going to lock him up behind bars and so forth.

I am stunned that the members are complaining that we are taking up the time of the House on this. Would it not be nice if instead we were using the time to decide how many communities in Canada we were going to talk with about the proposed changes to the Elections Act, so that we could actually have a debate among Canadians on how we should change the law.

Clearly, my constituents and the youth in my city have expressed their will. They would like to have a voice in this statute. They have a right not to be misinformed on what has happened with the vouching system, and regrettably they have been given misleading information in this House. We can only hope that they have been able to follow this debate and that they know that in fact there is no clear evidence of fraudulent use of the voucher system.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back to a specific point in the hon. member’s excellent speech, namely the third factor to consider.

Of the three factors that had to be proven, the third is especially interesting. It must be established that the member had an intention, which has been done. If I say that a member is a liar, the Speaker will invoke the Standing Orders, I will apologize and he will accept my apology.

In this case, there is something more. In order to employ such a stratagem, there had to be intent. He did not say that the cards came back and that people had used them. He said it took place in apartment buildings, places where there are groups of people. There were therefore several cards. It had to be premeditated. Deep down, he intended to act as he did.

In the member’s view, did he or did he not do so intentionally?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would simply have to say that it is not for me to determine. It is my understanding that the Speaker has so determined there is a prima facie case, otherwise we would not be here now, debating this matter.

What is of particular concern to me, and I am not about to compare our procedural rules with the Criminal Code, but I know as a lawyer, and as the Speaker would know as an accomplished lawyer, in the Criminal Code there is a difference between a summary conviction and an indictable offence. What is the difference? Intent. That is the difference between somebody simply being allowed to stand to say, “Oh, I'm really sorry. I quoted the wrong paper. My staff gave me the wrong paper. It's a bureaucrat's fault”, which we hear every day.

This is a case where the member has admitted to intentionally misleading the House. He never observed such a thing.

And so, it is a matter of a much higher order, I would argue. Therefore, our motion is appropriate, and the amendment. I think the public should be able to observe.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the comments made by my colleague, an eminent jurist.

In the same vein, what concerns me about the current turn of events is that on the government benches, the members seem to dismiss out of hand such an important matter as the protection of our privileges. I refer to protection for the fact that we have the right to speak in the House, but we must tell the truth.

How many of us—myself first of all—have been scolded, or worse, by the Speaker of the House as a result of complaints from the people opposite for using language deemed unparliamentary?

In this case, we have a serious violation of what is called our privilege. We take it for granted that when someone stands up and proclaims something, they are telling us the truth. We are not allowed to call someone a liar in the House. The opposition is being accused of wasting our time with this debate. I find that thoroughly unseemly, because it goes to the heart of what our privilege entails.

I am curious to know what my colleague thinks about this.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it reminds me of the early days when a number of us were first elected, in the 2008 election. My colleague from Halifax stood in this place and gave her inaugural speech. I remember it hit a lot of us very profoundly because she realized, halfway through the speech, and she said one could hear a pin drop, it suddenly occurred to her that she had the opportunity to stand up on behalf of her constituents and tell the truth, simply tell the truth, and that the truth would be heard in this place and by all Canadians.

That goes to the essence of what should be important in this place.

So, when any of us not only do not provide appropriate information but mislead the House, I think that is a significant matter and merits the attention we are calling to it.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order.

I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

March 4, 2014

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that Mr. Stephen Wallace, Secretary to the Governor General, in his capacity as Deputy of the Governor General, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bill listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 4th day of March, 2014, at 15:59.

Yours sincerely,

Patricia Jaton

Deputy Secretary

The schedule indicates the bill assented to was Bill C-16, An Act to give effect to the Governance Agreement with Sioux Valley Dakota Nation and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, on another item of business, yesterday I promised to return to the House with a new date for the opposition day. The allotted day was supposed to have been today. In order to get on with the government's legislative program, I can inform the House that the sixth allotted day shall be tomorrow. Additionally, for the benefit of committees, the seventh and final allotted day of the supply period shall be Monday, March 24.

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

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today because I want to participate in this debate and address the motion proposed by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. The motion proposes that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs study the facts surrounding the statements made by the member for Mississauga—Streetsville. I propose at the outset that we already know the facts. The question is what we do about it.

A study by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs would be redundant and a waste of time, in my submission. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is one of the busiest committees, producing more reports than any other standing committee. The committee already has numerous projects on the go, including studies arising from private members' business and a question of privilege related to Elections Canada. The committee is examining changes to the Standing Orders and is currently studying Bill C-23, the fair elections act.

At the present time, the committee is under siege by an NDP filibuster aimed at delaying the fair elections act, Bill C-23. This is unfortunate because Bill C-23 is a very important piece of legislation. This bill would protect voters from rogue calls and impersonation with a mandatory public registry for mass calling, prison time for impersonating elections officials, and increased penalties for deceiving people out of their votes. It would allow the commissioner to seek tougher penalties for existing offences and empower the commissioner with new offences to combat big money, rogue calls, and fraudulent voting. It would crack down on voter fraud, make rules easier to follow, allow for small donations in and big money out, respect democratic election results, uphold free speech, and provide better customer service for voters.

Getting back to the motion before the House, I would like to draw everyone's attention to a quick review of the facts that led to this question of privilege. On February 6, during debate on Bill C-23, the fair elections act, the member for Mississauga—Streetsville made a statement in the House about voter identification cards. He rose in the House on February 24 and corrected the record. The next day he added, “...I recognized that this was an error on my part”. He then sincerely apologized to all Canadians and all members of the House for the statement he made. He added that it was never his intention in any way to mislead the House, for which he has the greatest amount of respect.

As we know, it is a long-standing tradition in the House to accept the word of a member and to accept his or her apology. Notwithstanding that tradition, on February 25, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley rose in the House on a question of privilege charging the member for Mississauga—Streetsville with contempt; this, of course, after the member for Mississauga—Streetsville had delivered his apology to Canadians and all members in the House.

The government House leader responded by making the following point. He stated:

...the presumption in this House is that we are all taken at our word, that the statements we make are truthful and correct. That we are given the benefit of that doubt brings with it a strong obligation on us, in the cases where a member misspeaks, to correct the record so that nobody is left with inaccurate perceptions.

In this particular instance, the member for Mississauga—Streetsville, has done exactly that. Having misspoken in this House and having realized his comments were in error, he has come to this House and corrected the record.

That is the obligation that exists upon members. That is an obligation to ensure that nobody is left under false impressions. That is an obligation he has discharged. That is the obligation upon all members here, and for that reason I think that alone is sufficient to rebut any concern that there has been a contempt.

I will end the government House leader's quote there.

Also in that debate, the member for Kingston and the Islands recognized that the only reason the House was engaged in the debate on the matter was the fact that it had been raised by the member for Mississauga—Streetsville, who took his duty and obligation to correct the record seriously.

Instead of accepting the apology from the member for Mississauga—Streetsville, the NDP House leader chose to raise the matter as a question of privilege, putting the onus on the Speaker to rule.

When the Speaker finds that there is a prima facie question of privilege, the task of formulating the question to the House falls to the member who raised the issue. In this case, it was the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. As we all know, his privilege motion sets aside all business of the House. I believe he could have found another way to express his displeasure, without engaging all of us in the process, debate, and drama of a question of privilege.

The debate on his motion does not only use up the precious time of this House, but it proposes to use up a great deal of the precious time of a committee. This exercise is wasteful and unnecessary.

I will be encouraging members to vote against the proposal from the NDP for three reasons. One, the member who made the misleading statements apologized and voluntarily corrected the record. That is a very important point for all of us to realize. He apologized and voluntarily corrected the record.

Two, there is no merit in a committee study since all of the facts are known. He made a statement and he apologized for it. The real and only question left for the House to decide is how it wants to move forward on this issue considering the facts before it.

This brings me to the third reason to oppose the motion. The one outcome we want to avoid is to create an environment where MPs are punished for doing the right thing. The right thing for this House to do is to accept the member's apology and move on.

However, I am afraid it is too late for the high road at this point. The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley has the entire House going down his road.

What does the NDP want to accomplish with a committee study? I looked at the procedural references the NDP House leader cited in his presentation to his question of privilege. In his intervention, he cited a reference from page 115 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition.

His citation references a case from December 6, 1978, where Speaker Jerome ruled that a government official deliberately misled a minister and that constituted a prima facie question of privilege. The member for Northumberland—Durham, who raised the question of privilege was invited to propose his motion to the House. The motion was defeated, and the matter was not sent to committee.

The NDP House leader also referenced a ruling from October 19, 2000, regarding misleading statements made in the House. Speaker Parent stated that he could find no support for a claim that the privileges of the House had been breached; so no committee study resulted from that.

He included a ruling of our current Speaker from May 7, 2012. The Speaker did not arrive at a finding of a prima facie question of privilege there either.

There was, however, a committee study that resulted from a ruling he referenced from February 1, 2002, regarding two statements made by the then minister of defence. In that ruling, Speaker Milliken noted the need for clarity in House proceedings and the need to ensure the integrity of the information provided by the government to the House. He also stated that integrity of information was of paramount importance since it directly concerned the rules of engagement for Canadian troops involved in the conflict in Afghanistan, a principle that goes to the very heart of Canada's participation in the war against terrorism.

A motion was moved referring the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and almost a week later, on Thursday, February 7, 2002, it was adopted.

The committee heard from a number of witnesses in that case. It heard from the member who raised the matter, Mr. Brian Pallister. It heard from the Clerk of the House of Commons, and the law clerk and parliamentary counsel of the House of Commons. It heard from the hon. Art Eggleton, the former minister of national defence; the deputy chief of the defence staff; the deputy minister of the department of national defence; the chief of the defence staff; the deputy clerk of the Privy Council, counsel and security and intelligence co-ordinator; the clerk of the Privy Council and secretary to the cabinet; the assistant deputy minister, global and security policy, department of foreign affairs and international trade; and J.P. Joseph Maingot, former law clerk and parliamentary counsel, House of Commons, and author of Parliamentary Privilege in Canada.

In addition, members of the committee were invited to submit questions in writing for Commodore Jean-Pierre Thiffault, commander of the Canadian joint task force in southwest Asia.

That is an impressive list of witnesses. Obviously, there are some similarities between this question of privilege and the question of privilege in 2002, but I believe members would recognize the many significant differences. There might have been more meat on the bone in the 2002 case than the straightforward facts of this case.

Also, I think it is worth mentioning that the status of the two members involved is significantly different. The 2002 case involved a minister of the Crown. A minister enjoys a special role in providing information to the House.

That said, and despite all that was involved in the 2002 study, and all that was at stake, the committee had to focus on the task at hand, the issue of two contradictory statements made in the House.

The report back from the procedure and House affairs committee stated:

We are not concerned here with the Minister's performance as a minister, nor with the chain of command or lines of communication in the military, the Department of National Defence, or the Government.

The committee also felt it was necessary to point out the following:

Parliamentary committees charged with examining questions of privilege must exercise caution and act responsibly in drawing conclusions. They must guard against allowing partisanship to colour their judgement. The power to punish for contempt must not be exercised lightly. It exists for those rare occasions when Parliament’s ability to function is impeded or compromised.

One could, in the case before us today, connect some dots and come to the conclusion that this is not about statements made by the member for Mississauga—Streetsville. Other agendas are at play here, agendas that are clouding the judgment of the NDP. I am certain that most reasonable people would agree that the case before us is of a different scale in importance than that in 2002. Even still, the conclusion of the committee in 2002 was simple and to the point. It stated:

After a thorough review of all the circumstances, the Committee has come to the conclusion that the Minister made a mistake....

It concluded that no contempt of the House was committed.

What are the facts surrounding the statements made by the member for Mississauga—Streetsville? He made a mistake. He rose in the House and said, “I recognized that this was an error on my part”. He followed that recognition of fault with an apology to the House and to all Canadians. He made it clear that he did not intend to mislead the House.

I submit that a committee study of this case is not necessary. It only makes sense in the mind of the New Democrats, who fervently obstruct anything constructive that comes on the floor of the House and to our committees. I understand that the role of the opposition is to oppose, but in this case, it has crossed the line.

As the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs warned, in 2002, we in the House must also guard against allowing partisanship to colour our judgment in the matter of privilege. We must not execute our power lightly.

The NDP should refrain from using this question of privilege to fight its battle against the fair elections act. It only exposes its fiend, outrage, and phoney crusade in its opposition to legislation that will put everyday Canadians, not big union bosses, in charge of their democracy.

I have a number of quotations from people across the country. I have documentation from Elections Canada, in cases where it has found fraud in past elections in this country.

As well, I hear the words of my constituents, who speak on a daily basis. I can tell members that they do not want election fraud any more than anybody else in this House. Supporting the fair elections act would go a long way to giving back fair elections to Canadians.

We all know that things happen during elections that should not happen. That is what the legislation, Bill C-23, would address.

With respect to the question before us, I encourage all members of the House to see past the partisan colours of their party. Let the House get back to business, and let the committees get on with their agendas. There is no place in committee for this matter. It has been settled. The member stood up and he apologized.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments, even though we have fundamentally different views.

We believe that what happened is much more serious and that a committee should examine the issue in order to shed light on what really happened. How can an honourable colleague say that he saw people doing something with his own eyes, and then 18 days later, say that he is sorry but that he actually did not see anything.

Can my hon. colleague try to explain to us, without telling us again that the member has apologized, that we should forget about this and that the case is closed, how someone can be an eyewitness to an event one day and then, 18 days later, claim that he did not see anything?

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I see that the opposition is drawing a line in the sand. It does not want to see the light for what it is.

The member of Parliament for Mississauga—Streetsville made a mistake. He stood up in the House and he apologized. He apologized to Canadians. He apologized to all members of the House.

At this point, to behave in the manner that the NDP has decided to behave on this issue is, without being disrespectful, quite shameful.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that my friend across the way finds that discussing a member being potentially held in contempt is shameful, but the act of misleading the House about our elections law is fine. That does not seem to be a problem.

The Speaker's ruling said:

...the fact remains that the House continues to be seized of completely contradictory statements. This is a difficult position in which to leave members, who must be able to depend on the integrity of the information with which they are provided to perform their parliamentary duties.

Let us be clear as to what actually happened. By the way, the member for Mississauga—Streetsville has completely avoided the opportunity that has been afforded to him over these many hours, as the Conservatives claim, to come into the House and tell us what happened. We still do not know. We believe we should find out because there may be motivations; there may be something interesting. He said he witnessed electoral fraud, then he said he did not witness electoral fraud. He saw a crime, and then he did not see a crime. He had two weeks to decide whether he saw it and what the truth was.

Here is the point. There are three conditions that had to be met in order for us to even be having this debate. It had to be proven that the statement was misleading. He did that. It must be established that the member making the statement knew at the time that it was not correct. That was also true. Finally, in making the statement, it must be established that the member intended to mislead the House. That is also by the Speaker's reference, not by my opinion. I hope my friend would at least take the advice of the Speaker. All of those merits were met.

The hon. member condones that activity, and in fact applauds the member, for once having been caught misleading the House, he had to come back and apologize for it. I do not understand how he balances these things.

He will vote later tonight against understanding what actually happened because the member for Mississauga—Streetsville will not come into this place to defend himself.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will quote the apology to the House by the member for Mississauga—Streetsville on February 25 this year. This is what he 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.

I would submit to my friend opposite that he is taking an ultra-partisan approach on this specific issue, tainting the reputation of a man who had the courage to stand up in this House and deliver this apology. Not once has he stood up to say that he and members of his party misquote things.

I will give an ongoing example of this. We have a bill before the House. It is called the fair elections act. New Democrats changed the name of the bill. That is not the bill being debated in the House. It is the fair elections act. They refer to it as the unfair elections act. I do not know what they are referring to. The name of the bill is fair elections. There is partisanship on display, big time, yet again.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find this debate unfortunate. We are having a discussion, not because of the partisanship of the official opposition, but because the Speaker of this House has ruled that there is an issue that should come to the members in order to, quoting the words of a former Speaker, “clear the air”.

An opportunity to clear the air has not been seized by the Conservative benches. I acknowledge that the hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville did not need to apologize to the House. He could have perhaps pretended away the incident and never admitted to the incident that he claimed he saw, he had never seen.

I find the events that have taken place here extremely perplexing. As a member of Parliament, I will go back to my constituents and try to explain it. I will be unable to explain how it is that the member told us, two different times, that he saw voting cards being removed in order to stuff ballots by people who did not have a right to vote in those locations. I find that very troubling. I think we should be able to get to the bottom of it.

Calling Bill C-23 the unfair elections act is merely marketing; it is hardly misleading the House. Everyone knows that we are talking about Bill C-23. Some of us, myself included, Preston Manning included, find Bill C-23 going entirely in the wrong direction. We should try to make sure that people can vote, not remove their ability to vote.

My question to the hon. member is, would he not agree that we would have been much better served in this discussion, once the Speaker ruled, to get an explanation as to why these two very contradictory statements came before this House?

I will say that I appreciate the member for Mississauga—Streetsville apologizing. I will thank him for that, but I would like an explanation.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree that it is very disappointing that we are going through this process at this time, but for reasons somewhat different from those the hon. member just gave.

I do not know why the hon. member would have difficulty explaining it to her constituents. It is simple. If we want to talk about clearing the air, as the former speaker said, the member has cleared the air. He made one statement and he corrected it. I have a lot of difficulty understanding why the hon. member cannot tell her constituents that the member made a mistake and got up and apologized. It is as simple as that. It is not rocket science. It is very easy. He made a comment that he could not substantiate. He got up and he apologized. He said, “I would like to sincerely apologize to all Canadians and to all members of the House”.

I believe the constituents in her riding would understand that. It is human to make a mistake and it is human to stand up and say “I'm sorry”.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised to hear talk of partisanship when the Speaker himself gave the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley the opportunity to introduce a motion, because he had found that there had been a prima facie breach of privilege. There is no partisanship here. This is just regular procedure.

That raises another question that I would like to ask the Conservative member, namely, whether there will be any partisanship on his side during this evening’s vote, and whether the vote will be a party vote or a whipped vote.

I wonder whether he can provide us with that information, and whether his party will require all its members to vote the same way this evening.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our party has demonstrated that we vote our conscience. We can point to many times when we have done that in the House. We can point to very few times when that has happened with the NDP over there.

I am very surprised that the hon. member does not see the partisanship involved in this. This is all it is. It is politics by the NDP. The NDP members are using an apology made in the House to try to prolong and continue to filibuster one of the most important pieces of legislation that has been put before the House, Bill C-23, the fair elections act. We know what that is about, and Canadians know what that is about. We look forward to getting on with the job and getting it done.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the extraordinary member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine. I would like to congratulate her. It is important that we listen to what she has to say. It will be very interesting, more interesting than what we just heard.

I would like to take a moment to quote the member for Mississauga—Streetsville. I think it will give us some insight into what the word “misspeak” means to the Conservatives, or what it means to them to have misspoken.

On February 6, the member in question said the following:

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a bit 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 can or the blue box. I have actually witnessed other people picking up the voter cards, going to the campaign office [I suppose he is following them] of whatever candidate they support and handing out these voter cards to other individuals [he saw three things there], who then walk into voting stations with friends who vouch for them with no ID.

He personally saw at least four things happen. He witnessed them.

Later that same day, he said this:

Earlier this afternoon I asked the Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification a question. I think my friend from York South—Weston will appreciate this because, just like the riding I represent, there are a lot of apartment buildings in his riding. I will relate to him something I have actually seen.

That same day, he repeated and reiterated his previous statement, and I quote:

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 [first person singular] 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. That is going to stop.

Then, 18 days later, the member Mississauga—Streetsville had an epiphany. He suddenly realized that his story was completely fabricated and that he was gravely mistaken when he said that he had seen, with his own eyes, people using voter information cards to commit election fraud. It took him 18 days. I would like to know what went through his mind on February 6. Did he have a psychotic episode? Was he under the influence of drugs? Was he following instructions from his own party to make a dismal and fraudulent attempt to justify Bill C-23, which would prevent people from voting by using the voter information card they receive from Elections Canada and having someone vouch for their identity?

The Conservatives have a problem: they consistently give us public policies based on stuff they make up. Good public policy is usually based on good research and objectivity, on an analysis of a situation supported by facts to back up statements and proposals.

Bill C-23, which would implement voter suppression tactics worthy of the Republican Party, challenges a fundamental right of Canadian citizens—exercising the right to vote—based on arguments that are basically tall tales that misled Parliament.