Debates of March 4th, 2014

Foreign Affairs and International Development

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

I know that is not true? Mr. Speaker, I absolutely know it is true? If the government whip would like to read a court document from time to time, he would know that is exactly what his party did.

All of this the Conservatives have done to help rig the next election, to put a little more favour for the Conservative Party of Canada, and in the midst of this, the Conservatives move this concurrence debate. In the midst of this, they say there is something more important to talk about than contempt for Canada's Parliament, that there is something else that needed to happen today and today only, as if it were somehow timely.

This is extraordinary. These folks get us used to all sorts of deplorable tactics. It is an abusive relationship they have with Parliament.

I move, seconded by the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie:

That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.

Let us get back to the debate at hand.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:

Vote #72

Committees of the House

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion defeated.

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

Mr. Speaker, if I pick up the thread of where we are, I can now address a question to the hon. House leader for the official opposition, who had finished his speech.

This is not just a procedural question but a substantive one. Now that the motion has failed, what is his view on the value of the debate the government members have now insisted we pursue for the next coming hours?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and all Conservatives just now voted to delay a debate that was going on in the House about a Conservative MP who misled Parliament about the Conservatives' own unfair election act. This is what they have resorted to, because they do not have the facts on their side. They do not have evidence on their side. They have to make up stories about election fraud that they claim to have witnessed and then claim to have not witnessed.

The Speaker in this case found that the member had exhibited contempt for Parliament, one of the most serious accusations that can be made of a member of Parliament. Rather than discuss the merits of that, the Conservatives have attempted to take three hours away from that debate.

The Conservatives also put us on notice, just last night, that they want to shut the whole debate down on a question of privilege over one of their members having misled Parliament. Rather than trying to justify it and saying what they will do to prevent MPs in the future from doing what the Conservative member for Mississauga—Streetsville did, they did two things. First, they congratulated him. They said, “Well done, sir”, first for having been caught, “those things happen”. Then he came in and said that it was a misstatement of facts.

The Conservatives' reaction to the debate on a sitting MP being found in contempt of Parliament, or the very likelihood of that, is to shut down completely debate about an election act that is the foundation of our democratic principles, which Canadians have fought generations to sustain and maintain.

In our history we have always found ways to come together when deciding the rules of the game, when deciding how Parliament should conduct itself, how elections will conduct themselves. However, this Minister of State (Democratic Reform), and I use the term loosely, decided that he would make an exception. They would only consult with Conservatives, not Canadians and not the Chief Electoral Officer. They would only meet with Conservatives about what the rules should be. Some of the rules in place in this election act are against misdeeds and actions by the Conservative Party itself in the last election. They are having to clean up their own mess, their own fraudulent behaviour.

This debate today is only an attempt to delay the inevitable, which is one of the Conservative members being found in contempt of this place, joining the illustrious ranks of Bev Oda and Art Eggleton, who lied about Afghan detainees. They should be ashamed of themselves and their dirty tactics.

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

Mr. Speaker, the issue before the House right now is actually a report from a committee dealing with the fate of certain Jewish refugees in the Middle East and their treatment and the history there. It has probably escaped many people watching at home on television that it is what is being debated right now.

Since that is the actual item before the House, I was wondering if the hon. member, on behalf of the NDP, as their lead speaker on this very important item of public policy to many Jewish-Canadians and people who take an interest in the Middle East, could tell us the position of the NDP on the two recommendations in the report we are actually debating right now.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is what the Conservatives have come to. They did not move this debate yesterday. They did not think this debate was important enough to move last week or whenever this report was in hand. They thought it was important to move this debate today and say that the plight of Jewish refugees coming from Europe is important to talk about today, not yesterday, not the week before, not when we were debating other things, but when we are debating a contempt motion against a Conservative MP.

How dare the Conservatives use issues to cover over the fact of their own contempt for this place and suggest that Jewish refugees is the topic they would use and then say, “How dare anybody speak to a contempt motion against a Conservative MP?” That is the fact of the matter. The Conservatives know what they are doing. Shame on them for doing it.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the House leader for the official opposition whether he, like me, has started to hear from constituents about their feelings on someone who has deliberately misled the House on such an important topic as elections, a very fundamental part of our democracy.

I have started to receive emails and phone calls in my office from people expressing their real concern about the direction this is headed and the real concern about what the Conservative Party is doing.

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

Mr. Speaker, the traffic in my office has been incredible on this, and not just on the initial action of the Conservative backbencher MP who knowingly misled the House, according to the Speaker of the House of Commons.

If that was not bad enough, the Conservative Party's reaction to this was to do two things. The first was to rationalize it and say that everybody does it. The Conservatives said that they do not justify or commend it, but everyone does it, so it is okay. The second action by the Conservative Party, its natural reaction to one of its own members being caught having misled the House, was to say that he came forward, and what a good fellow he was.

We asked why the member took two weeks to come forward and admit that what he said, twice, was completely untrue. He said it once during debate and then again a couple of hours later. The Conservatives said that it was a misstatement of facts. Why did it take him two weeks?

The thing he claimed to have seen was electoral fraud. It was stuffing ballot boxes. Lo and behold, Elections Canada seems to have some interest in a sitting member of Parliament having witnessed a crime. It wonders why a member of Parliament, or any citizen, having watched that, did not report it. He also claimed that he saw the ballots being taken out of the dumpster and used by a party. Which party's office would he have had access to, as a Conservative? I have no idea. They were used by a party to then illegally vote in an election. That is what he claimed to have seen.

What an incredible statement by the Conservatives. In reaction to one of their MPs being caught out, they rationalize it, congratulate him, and say that everybody does it, so it must be okay. That is shameful.

Now we see this. Now we see the government being willing to invoke closure on the whole thing and shut it down.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the House leader earlier asked the NDP if it could explain its position on the two recommendations. I would just read the second one, which states:

The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada encourage the direct negotiating parties to take into account all refugee populations as part of any just and comprehensive resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian and Arab-Israeli conflicts.

I was just wondering if the member opposite could explain why he is avoiding answering why it is that the NDP cannot support that resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is unbelievable. There is no shame on that side of the House.

If the Conservatives want to go through the historical reference, I welcome the parliamentary secretary to stay and wait for the answer. If they want to go through the historical reference of which party in the House of Commons stood up for Jewish refugees when they were being expelled from European countries, it was the New Democratic Party, previously the CCF.

If the Conservatives want any lessons in history as to who stood up for the Jewish people, we welcome that type of debate. We welcome that type of observation of history, because it was his party, in a previous incarnation, that refused those same refugees, along with the Liberal Party.

Let us get to the reason and motivation for the topic of this debate, as the leader of the Green Party asked about earlier. The only reason, the only motivation for this, and the reason the Conservatives did not move it yesterday or find the urgency on Friday or Thursday or previous days, is that they wanted to move this concurrence motion today, because what we are talking about today? We are talking about one of his members of Parliament, whom he supports and whom he just voted to support, having been found in contempt of Parliament by the Speaker of the House of Commons. That is what they are deliberately doing today.

It is contemptuous. It is adding insult to injury for Canadians that they seem to so disregard the truth and have such ambivalence toward Parliament, the place we are all meant to support, regardless of our political persuasion.

These folks have gotten to the point where it is campaigning all the time. It is total war all the time. They stand up and use the argument that some report from a committee, today of all days, and no other day, needed to be debated. The coincidence suggests that what they are trying to do is what they always do: avoid accountability, turn their faces away from Canadians, and not do what they are meant to do as members of Parliament, which is hold government to account and hold this country in some modicum of respect.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, individuals who are viewing what is happening today in the House might be a bit confused.

A report was tabled. The first speaker talked at length about the Jewish refugee factor, which I am going to comment on toward the latter part of my comments. That was followed by the NDP House leader talking about the privilege issue, which we debated for several hours yesterday, and reading into it the motivation for having this bill here.

I am going to add a bit more on the issue of priorities. Yesterday I raised the importance of what is happening in Ukraine. I will try to make all three issues relevant to the debate we are having right now.

Where do I start? It is strange that the government, through the PMO, would have chosen today, of all days, to bring forward this particular report. Is the report important? Absolutely. It is very important. We in the Liberal Party do not question that whatsoever.

We find it strange that the Conservatives would bring it forward and have that debate today. Why do we say that? If we review what took place yesterday, it was a serious privilege issue that would be referred to the procedure and House affairs committee. We hope and trust that the Conservatives will do the right thing by voting in favour and allowing PROC to deal with the situation.

The situation is that a member did intentionally mislead the House, which is a violation of the rules of the House and potentially puts this member in contempt of the House. The only way that can be appropriately dealt with is if PROC is afforded the opportunity to call witnesses. Yesterday I even suggested a couple of witnesses, including the member for Mississauga—Streetsville.

In a nutshell, the issue we talked about yesterday is that the member for Mississauga—Streetsville made a specific statement on February 6. I will cite an abbreviated portion of the statement. 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.

The point is that the member witnessed an illegal activity. When he made that statement, he acknowledged that he witnessed an illegal activity. Did he go to Elections Canada? Did he report it to the police?

Several weeks later, the member stood in his place in the House. He did not necessarily apologize but said that what he said on February 6 was wrong.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

It is not relevant.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I indicated that I would bring forward all three issues to make it relevant.

What motivated him from the day he made the statement on February 6 to when he made the retraction on February 24? When I addressed the issue, I suggested that maybe the member was contacted by Elections Canada. I had no way of finding out if that was true. I did not put in an inquiry, but someone did. There was an alleged email that indicates that Elections Canada was aware of the member's statement. I asked the parliamentary secretary if he asked the member for Mississauga—Streetsville whether Elections Canada contacted him. There was no answer.

I believe that the member needs to come to the PROC committee to answer the question, was that the motivation that caused him to retract his statements?

I would say that it is clear proof that the member did intentionally attempt to mislead the House and that there does need to be a consequence. At this point I will not say what type of consequence it should be, but we do need to recognize that it would be a contempt of the House and that it needs to be dealt with. That was the debate yesterday.

Then we ask ourselves why they chose this motion or report today. By having this issue reported today it prevents that debate from continuing.

From the perspective of the Liberal Party, we want to get to the truth of the matter. It does not mean we need to have endless debate inside the chamber.

Yesterday I stood in place on behalf of the Liberal Party and said there was a serious crisis in Ukraine and that we needed to deal with what was happening there. In the last 72 hours Russian troops have been mobilized in Crimea and are causing all sorts of issues. We can think of it in terms of its impact on Ukrainians and Ukraine, but I would suggest that it has an even more profound impact on the whole region and the world. The financial markets have been responding to this. People of Ukrainian heritage around the world are concerned about what is taking place in Ukraine, and in Canada, as I indicated, there are 1.2 million people of Ukrainian heritage plus others. One does not have to be of Ukrainian heritage to care about what is taking place in Ukraine.

Yesterday I moved a motion that we have an emergency debate on the issue, given the mobilization of Russian troops and the impact that is having, and given what the Government of Canada has said in terms of the Canadian ambassador in Russia—

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

Order, please. The hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni is rising on a point of order.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to draw to the attention of the Chair the fact that we had a vote to go back to a very important concurrence motion here. It is the report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development recognizing the Jewish refugees in the Middle East and North Africa.

With all due respect to the member, I know that Canadians are concerned about Ukraine. We had a delegation visit there just recently and we had an emergency debate a couple of nights ago.

I was wondering if the member would like to address the issue of the debate today, the concurrence motion.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

The hon. member for Winnipeg North on the same point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. If the member had been listening to the NDP presentation, he would have found that almost the entire presentation was on what I was referring to. At the beginning of my presentation, I clearly indicated to the House that I would be talking about three issues, including the report, and then clearly demonstrating why all three are relevant to my comments. Therefore, the member needs to be a bit more patient to understand the relevance to the issue at hand.