House of Commons Hansard #56 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was debate.
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
Mr. Speaker, the third batch of petitions is from my constituents. They ask that the federal government make side guards mandatory on all trucks in order to save pedestrians' and cyclists' lives, and in order to save fuel.
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
Mr. Speaker, the last group of petitions is also from my constituents in Toronto. The petitioners are asking the federal government to provide a permanent investment plan to support public transit, establish a federal funding mechanism for public transit, and ensure that there is a national public transit strategy so that we can deal with the $18 billion gap in transit infrastructure needs.
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to table this petition signed by dozens of people in the Gatineau region. The petitioners want Gatineau Park to have legal protection that will preserve it for future generations.
I feel it is important to table this petition in support of the member for Hull—Aylmer. In my riding, Alfred-Pellan, a group called Sauvons nos trois grandes îles is working to protect a region along the Rivière des Mille-Îles, and I am sure that the people of Laval and Alfred-Pellan are happy that we are also fighting to protect a park in the Gatineau Valley.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon for the morning petition presentations. I have two petitions.
One is from residents of Pender Island, within my own constituency of Saanich—Gulf Islands. It is a petition that has actually been overtaken by events. The petitioners are calling on the government to await a full scientific response from the National Energy Board from its environmental review of the northern gateway. Having read the National Energy Board's review, I can only say with great sadness that the National Energy Board did not produce a scientifically-based, evidence-based report.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, the second petition comes from residents from the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. They are calling on the government to bring forward a full inquiry to get to the bottom of the attempts to defraud voters in the 2011 election. The petitioners point out that each one of these efforts was an offence under elections law. Now that the administration opposite is moving forward on Bill C-23 to have a registry of robocalls, perhaps it would also be interested in getting to the bottom of who caused them in the last election.
Francine Raynault NDP Joliette, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support my colleague from Hull—Aylmer by tabling a petition called “Together let's protect Gatineau Park”.
Many people have signed this petition to protect Gatineau Park, and I am pleased to table it today.
Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House one more time to table petitions with respect to Canada Post. The petitions are signed by people from Kapuskasing, Hearst, Fauquier, Moonbeam, Ottawa, Sudbury, Iroquois Falls, Matheson, and Timmins.
Basically, the petitioners are concerned that Canada Post and the Conservatives are axing door-to-door delivery and killing jobs. They expect that 6,000 to 8,000 people will lose their jobs, and they are concerned with respect to the impact this would have upon seniors and people with disabilities.
The petitioners ask the government to reverse the cuts to services around Canada Post and to look, instead, for ways to innovate through postal banking.
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to table a petition signed by about 100 people who are asking the government to direct VIA Rail to intervene and ensure that the railway between Bathurst and Miramichi will not be closed.
This contentious issue jeopardizes the future of passenger rail service in eastern Canada. This petition, signed by 100 or so eastern Canadians, is in addition to over 24,000 other signatures of people who want to protect VIA Rail's passenger service in eastern Canada. These people are asking the government and VIA Rail to take action to ensure that this segment of the railway will not be closed.
Hélène Laverdière NDP Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition pointing out that more than 2 million Syrians have fled Syria and another 4 million have been internally displaced within the country.
The petitioners point out this is the worst humanitarian crisis the world has seen in years and that the neighbouring countries cannot carry this burden alone. The petitioners are therefore calling on the Canadian government to significantly increase the number of Syrian refugees it sponsors, propose various measures to do so and ensure that no Syrians are returned to Syria under any circumstances.
Nycole Turmel NDP Hull—Aylmer, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition to protect Gatineau Park, signed by many constituents from the national capital region.
As I have said many times, our park is not really protected by any federal legislation. We must absolutely correct this problem for future generations. Again, I hope that all members of the House will support this bill, which will truly provide a legacy for future generations.
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Mr. Speaker, a number of regions in Canada have natural treasures that are worth protecting. There is nothing more effective than legal protection.
That is what dozens of citizens are calling for. They signed a petition to protect Gatineau Park and its 90 endangered plant and 500 endangered animal species. I am pleased to support and present this petition to the House.
Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Mr. Speaker, I present a certified petition to protect Gatineau Park.
It should be noted that even in this day and age we have to intervene to protect green space from speculation and people who have no respect for their environment. It is shocking and unfortunate that even today we still have to do this. In keeping with this legislation, I would like the House to automatically protect the environment to leave a legacy for future generations.
Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I table another petition regarding VIA Rail's passenger services between Montreal and Halifax.
The petitioners are concerned by the cuts in service in northern New Brunswick. They are concerned that not only would that create a real hardship for the residents who rely upon the rail service for personal transportation but that it would spell the end for the service all the way from Montreal to Halifax.
Counting this petition, the petitions that have already been tabled, and forthcoming petitions that have yet to be tabled, there are now a total of 24,000 signatures.
Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by a number of Canadians concerned with the current impaired driving laws being too lenient. They are asking that tougher laws be implemented, along with new mandatory minimum sentences for those convicted of impaired driving causing death. They want to see the Criminal Code of Canada redefine the offence of impaired driving causing death as vehicular manslaughter.
Susan Truppe ConservativeParliamentary Secretary for Status of Women
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, as I did yesterday, I rise because the Liberal Party believes there is, in fact, a need to have an emergency debate today with regard to the ongoing crisis taking place in Ukraine.
In particular, over the last 72 hours we have seen the deployment of Russian military troops in the Crimea area. There is a great deal of apprehension and concern both in Ukraine, obviously, and also throughout the world, particularly in Canada, where it is estimated that there are more than 1.2 million people of Ukrainian heritage and other Canadians who are very much concerned and want to convey one message as much as possible on the Ukraine crisis. This would emphasize issues such as the need for Canada to participate in observing what is happening with regard to sanctions, the issue of those who perpetrated violence during the protests, and of course, most importantly, what has been happening over the last few days regarding the deployment of military personnel.
Yesterday, when I moved the motion, the Speaker thought there might have been a day as an opposition day today or a supply day. We know that is not the case. The urgency exists today. Many are watching to see if we will move ahead and allow this emergency debate to take place. It is only four hours of our time to address what is a very important world issue that is having a very profound impact on the citizens of Ukraine. We want to send a very strong message to the people of Ukraine that we are supportive and, as a nation, will do what we can to demonstrate that we care and are prepared to act as one, wherever possible.
That would be the purpose of having the debate today. I trust, upon reflection, you will see that there is merit for it, Mr. Speaker. If not, maybe you could canvass the House to see if there is unanimous consent for it to take place.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin
The Chair thanks the member for his request. At the outset, I would state that the Chair is quite sure that all members of the House and, indeed, all Canadians feel strongly about the importance of what is going on in the Ukraine and its relevance to Canada.
Having said that, in his ruling yesterday, the Speaker articulated several reasons why he did not feel that an emergency debate was the appropriate step at this point. The member for Winnipeg North pointed out the fact that today was expected to be an opposition day, but I would point out that the opposition day happening in the near future is still pending and would provide an opportunity for that to take place. As a result, the Chair is not inclined at this point to take the suggestion.
Motion That Debate Be Not Further AdjournedStatements by Member for Mississauga—Streetsville—Reference to Standing CommitteeRoutine Proceedings
York—Simcoe Ontario
Conservative
Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the privilege motion of the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, I move:
That the debate be not further adjourned.
Motion That Debate Be Not Further AdjournedStatements by Member for Mississauga—Streetsville—Reference to Standing CommitteeRoutine Proceedings
Conservative
The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin
The motion is in order.
Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their place so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in the question period.
Seeing several members, I would ask members if they would keep the length of their questions similar to questions and comments, a minute and 15 seconds to a minute and 30 seconds.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.
Motion That Debate Be Not Further AdjournedStatements by Member for Mississauga—Streetsville—Reference to Standing CommitteeRoutine Proceedings
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, for those following along in this sordid affair of a Conservative MP being found in contempt of Parliament by the Speaker, the Conservatives have now added even further insult to injury to Canadians. The context for this was their so-called fair elections act, which would muzzle the Chief Electoral Officer and make it more difficult for Canadians to vote. They put time allocation on that. They limited the debate. Rather than consult with Canadians, they said there would be no consultations with Canadians about our elections law and no further debate in the House of Commons, and then they had evidence made up by Conservative MPs to justify and rationalize the debate. When it was pointed out that the Conservative MP was not telling the truth to Canadians and Parliament, he was found in a prima facie case of contempt by the Speaker of the House of Commons.
Extraordinarily, the Conservatives think the best way to remedy this is to congratulate the Conservative MP for not having told the truth and for what a great fellow he is, and to say that everybody does it, so that is fine too. Then, while we are in the midst of the debate about how to make this better, so that the Conservatives do not keep rationalizing their bad legislation through completely invented and falsified accounts of something so important as voter fraud, they are shutting down the debate on that.
When we only have a hammer in the toolbox, every problem looks like a nail. That is what the Conservatives do. They shut down debate, shut down Parliament, and hold the place in contempt. That is what is being done here today, nothing more, nothing less. It is shocking to me that a sitting Government of Canada finds this kind of behaviour acceptable and to be encouraged. What message are the Conservatives sending to Canadians about how much respect they have for the people who put them here, those who voted for them, and the vast majority of Canadians who did not and who would certainly not again come the next election.
My question to the government House leader is this. How do the Conservatives have the audacity to stand here and shut down debate in our Parliament when we are dealing with an issue wherein a member was held in contempt for not telling the truth about a flawed and unfair elections act proposed by his same government?
Motion That Debate Be Not Further AdjournedStatements by Member for Mississauga—Streetsville—Reference to Standing CommitteeRoutine Proceedings
Conservative
Peter Van Loan Conservative York—Simcoe, ON
Mr. Speaker, the question we are dealing with is one that is quite clear-cut. There is a motion that the comments of the member be referred to the procedure and House affairs committee. The question we have to ask is whether that would serve any utility. There is no dispute about what happened. The member made comments in the House. He came back and corrected those comments to the House. He apologized to the House for his incorrect comments. The question then becomes what would be served by reference to the procedure and House affairs committee. There is nothing new that we would learn. The facts are there. They are simple. Therefore, there is no utility in that exercise, the same as there is no utility in continuing to discuss and debate it in the House.
We know what happened. The hon. member corrected the record and apologized, which certainly should have been accepted at that point. One cannot picture anything of great utility that would come from a further discussion of the matter at the procedure and House affairs committee. If one wants to know what kind of insight could be derived at the procedure and House affairs committee, one need only look at the speeches that have occurred so far in this debate on privilege from the official opposition, that being lots of noise, no light, no illumination, and no new facts.
We know what the facts are. They are quite simple. It is time to move on.
Motion That Debate Be Not Further AdjournedStatements by Member for Mississauga—Streetsville—Reference to Standing CommitteeRoutine Proceedings
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, the government House leader is dead wrong. Let me paint a visual picture for him.
On February 6, the member for Mississauga—Streetsville rose in the House and stated that he had personally witnessed an illegal activity. This was a significant statement. A day or so later we understand that Elections Canada might have been brought into the picture by wanting to know why the member had not reported it to the police or Elections Canada. What motivated the member for Mississauga—Streetsville to make that statement and then come back to the House and say he had made a mistake?
The Conservatives talk about getting tough on crime, but what about getting tough on consequences? Contempt of the House of Commons is very serious. The only way we are going to get to the bottom of this is if it goes to the procedure and House affairs committee. The member for Mississauga—Streetsville needs to indicate what motivated him. Was it because someone from Elections Canada contacted him and asked him whether or not he had reported having witnessed this crime to the police? What precipitated it? We do not know.
The government House leader does not seem to see this as a big issue. Could he indicate clearly to the House that the member for Mississauga—Streetsville was not contacted in any fashion by Elections Canada or the commissioner? Could he indicate that Elections Canada had nothing to do with motivating the member to come back and change the record three weeks later? It is a critical point. It would go a long way if the government House leader could provide assurance on this fact. Could he clearly indicate that Elections Canada did not contact the member for Mississauga--Streetsville?
Motion That Debate Be Not Further AdjournedStatements by Member for Mississauga—Streetsville—Reference to Standing CommitteeRoutine Proceedings
Conservative
Peter Van Loan Conservative York—Simcoe, ON
Mr. Speaker, all of us in the House have a custom of taking people's word as the truth. With that custom comes a heavy obligation, the heavy obligation that they must always tell the truth. Although rhetoric and debate at times may tempt people to stretch the truth, the fact is that it is a very serious duty and obligation.
In this case, the hon. member, having misspoken, took that obligation sufficiently seriously enough that he came back to the House and corrected it. That is as it should be. When members find they have misspoken, they must come back to the House and correct that. It is an important duty and obligation.
The only thing that precipitated this motion even being in the House is the fact that the member came here himself and corrected the record. The paradox is this: should he face consequences for doing so? We would be creating exactly the opposite of the incentive we wish to see. We would be creating a situation where people would no longer be encouraged to come to the House and correct the record and tell the truth for fear of facing a contempt action, for fear of having their name dragged through the mud. We would be creating exactly the opposite of what I think we all agree is the right thing, coming back and correcting the record when members have misspoken.
That is a another reason we should not take this matter further to the procedure and House affairs committee. It would create, if I may say, an environment where people would be discouraged from carrying out their important duty and obligation of telling the truth here in the House.