Debates of March 4th, 2014

Presence in Gallery

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of Mr. Eugene Melnyk, a distinguished Ukrainian Canadian businessman, philanthropist, and honorary director of Help Us Help the Children, a humanitarian organization founded in Canada, which provides medical supplies, clothing, and vital care to children living in 220 orphanages throughout Ukraine.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I would like to request the unanimous consent of the House for the following motion. I move that this House acknowledge that the value of Canada's democratic institution, as the life of this country, cannot be reduced to value for tax dollars or return on investment; recognize that Canadians expect responsibility, transparency, and accountability from their elected representatives; and invite the Auditor General to conduct a comprehensive audit of the House of Commons' expenses, including members of Parliament, in addition to the Office of the Prime Minister, and ministers of cabinet.

I would hope to have unanimous consent so that the House would be treated equally with the Senate.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I think the members have already expressed it, but I will try anyway.

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

[Some hon. members]

No.

The House resumed from March 3 consideration of the motion.

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

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this motion on the point of privilege regarding the member for Mississauga—Streetsville is such a strange situation. We usually like to start our speeches by saying that it is an honour to rise in the House, and it is an honour, but it is sad to be speaking to a subject like this one.

My colleagues from all parties spend a lot of time going door to door, visiting organizations, participating in events and talking to their constituents. We are no strangers to cynicism and negative comments about the work that we do as MPs and politicians. As elected members of Parliament, part of our job is to change that reputation and show people that we can have a positive impact on our communities and on their daily lives. We hope to earn their trust after an election, regardless of the circumstances of the election, whether we had a hard-fought win or we came in on a wave, like the orange wave in Quebec. We all have a responsibility to earn the trust of our constituents.

It is very troubling when members do things or say things that mislead the House, as in the case before us today. This situation is worthy of being examined, especially since it is related to Bill C-23, the electoral “deform” bill. This bill will change the very foundation of our democracy. Some aspects of the bill are very worrisome, and the public is not necessarily aware of them.

I want to expand on that point. When we rise to speak during debates in the House of Commons, we are not necessarily doing so just to convince our colleagues. We certainly hope to convince some of them, but at the end of the day, we rise to speak not only on behalf of our constituents, but also to them. We communicate ideas, try to help them understand the bill and, in most cases, share our thoughts on the bill and how our party feels about it.

When we debate a subject and try to explain a bill as complex and important as the one that amends the Canada Elections Act, we have to make sure that people know the real story. When a member actually misleads the House, and therefore the people we represent—those from Chambly—Borduas in my case—and all Canadians, that is extremely troubling.

My colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley said it well: if we look at the situation, we realize that the intervention by our colleague from Mississauga—Streetsville was clearly made with the intention to mislead the House. First, it has to be said, the statement was made not just once, but twice, at two different times. Obviously we are all aware of the time we are talking about the most, which was February 6, in the House. I was here and we were all surprised to hear such a thing. However, since the member said the same thing twice, the three conditions were met. You, yourself, said so in your ruling yesterday, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member was aware of what he was doing, he intended to mislead the House and this was not really a mistake.

Yesterday, the Conservatives gave some interesting speeches—and that is being kind—and we are hearing the same things again today: the member is fair and honest. He simply misspoke and he has apologized.

As I said in the House yesterday, a mistake is forgetting someone's birthday, someone you have not seen in a long time. Mixing up the name of a riding such as Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, which is long and complex, that is a mistake. It is an easy mistake to make when speaking in the House, especially if one is trying to speak without notes.

However, when someone stands in the House—as a member duly elected by the people, I dare say—and that individual states, with confidence and certainty, that he has seen a crime committed in his riding, that is a very serious accusation.

That is a far cry from mixing up numbers, a name, a date or any other information. We realize that the member was willing to come back to the House and have his remarks corrected in the Hansard. However, I doubt that the government, which proudly claims to be tough on crime, would be willing to forgive other criminals who simply apologized. I am not saying that the member opposite is a criminal, but he did commit an unforgivable act in the House, one that could be considered contempt of Parliament. That is what we are discussing today.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons said that there was no contempt, that we have all of the facts and that there is no need to study the issue in committee. However, during question period, when the Minister of State for Democratic Reform was asked how many cases of fraud were the same as those identified by the member for Mississauga—Streetsville in the House, he said that there were some, but he did not say how many or provide any details.

The minister is not able to provide clarification, but it seems that the member for Mississauga—Streetsville can. He corrected his statement, but that led to a lot of confusion. We therefore need to clear things up in committee.

It is essential to say things that are accurate. Nobody should mislead the members of the House and much less the people of Canada. This is very serious, because this is not a routine bill. In the past, the Canada Elections Act has not been the kind of thing that gets changed frequently. The changes proposed by the Minister of State for Democratic Reform are especially significant because they had to be put forward following a series of accusations and deeply disturbing scandals. In this case, we are talking about robocalls, but there was also the in-and-out scandal and the very serious Liberal scandals, such as the sponsorship scandal.

People are worried, and with good reason, about how elections are conducted. This bill was introduced long after a motion moved by the member for Toronto—Danforth, if memory serves. The NDP asked the minister of state for democratic reform at the time to introduce a bill within six months.

Not only has all this time been spent on introducing the bill, but false statements were made that misled members. This illustrates the bad faith shown by this government, which has the gall to defend the member in question.

Ms. Therrien, for instance, stood up to disclose factual things about employment insurance. There are other situations in which public servants may have made mistakes, and this has created a difficult situation for the government. In each of these cases, the government did not hesitate to publicly destroy those people's reputations. The Conservatives did not hesitate to put the blame for a difficult situation on public servants, instead of accepting that they were elected to form a government and assume their responsibilities.

It is interesting that the government is not treating a member of its own caucus the same way, after he acted inappropriately by misleading the House and Canadians. We would have hoped that the government would show its own members the same hard line that it shows public servants and other Canadians who sometimes do difficult jobs. There is a double standard here.

We in the NDP sometimes engage in overheated rhetoric in the House. We are all guilty of that. At the end of the day, however, we are talking about the truthfulness of the facts. We are talking about misleading the House. That is what the member did, and it needs to be studied at committee. It is not an exaggeration to say that our democracy depends on it. After all, this bill aims to deform—or reform, as the minister would say—our election laws. We really need to examine this issue and have a much higher standard for the members of this House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his excellent speech on such a key issue.

In theory, we should all agree that good public policy must be based on sound research and verifiable facts. The government is amending the Canada Elections Act, the bedrock of our democracy, not just without facts, but with incomplete facts that are being presented as the rationale for amending the Canada Elections Act. Now we are seeing that it was not true, that it was all made up.

The Conservative member invented a story to try and justify the bill introduced by his colleague, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform. They are trying to mislead parliamentarians and the public by making us think that fraud has been committed when, in fact, it has not.

The Conservatives are unable to clearly show what exactly is the problem they are trying to fix. Instead, they are using backbenchers to try and convince us that a problem exists where there is none. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, although I respect and enjoy our dear friend Jean-René Dufort, it is rather sad to hear that the two best sources of information are Infoman and the member for Mississauga—Streetsville, with his false information. That says a lot about the work that was done.

It is even more mind-boggling when we consider, as I mentioned in my speech, that in its motion, the NDP asked for a bill within six months. It took much longer than that, not to mention, as we read in the media, that the initial bill was rejected by the Conservative caucus. I wonder why. That may be part of the problem pointed out by the member for Mississauga—Streetsville. After all, he said he witnessed certain things in a campaign office. There must not be many campaign offices that opened the door to the Conservative candidate, except for one, and I will let my colleagues guess which one.

In the end, these are not just simple stories about Bob in my riding who had this or that problem; we are talking about criminal offences. That is very serious.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. It is a shame to base a bill on hearsay and to finally realize that it was no more than that.

In his speech, my colleague asked a very specific question, and I would like him to come back to it. It was about the importance of sending these cases to committee. I would like him to explain, to me and to the House, why it is important for parliamentarians to carefully examine this situation in committee.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are convinced that the member misled us. What is more, the Speaker's ruling shows that the Speaker somewhat agrees with our position. As I said, and as my colleague mentioned in his comments and questions, the fact remains that the member for Mississauga—Streetsville did not simply present us with misleading or erroneous information, to put it politely and in parliamentary language. The facts he presented to us are directly related to the bill and were used by the government to support this bill that seeks to change the very basis of our democracy.

As much as I respect my colleagues, the controversial nature of these amendments and the controversy raised by this electoral “deform” bill show that the debate among members may not be enough.

I think that it is therefore all the more important to send this issue to committee to understand the accusations the member made. He retracted his comments, saying that he had heard about this happening, but there is a lot of confusion surrounding the issue. Did he see it happen? Did he hear about it from someone else? Did someone in the Prime Minister's Office tell him to say that? Did the government base the bill on that information? We believe so, but we must really examine the issue and find out more so that we have the correct information when we vote on Bill C-23. As I said, and it bears repeating, we are talking about the very basis of our democracy.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring a different perspective to the debate before us. Today's discussion has focused on a mistake made by a member of this place. However, as we have also heard from others in this chamber, the hon. member has apologized and voluntarily corrected the record.

It is not surprising that the member has proactively corrected his statement. I am pleased to say that I have known the hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville for more than 15 years. I know him to be reliable, trustworthy, and a dedicated member of this place.

The member for Mississauga—Streetsville works hard to serve the people he has been elected to represent. In fact, he is one of the most community-focused members of this place. There are countless examples of this. From his annual seniors forums and constituent round tables, to his recent job forum, yearly tax clinic, and creation of a volunteer medal, this member is dedicated to serving the community which he represents. He regularly holds town hall forums in Mississauga—Streetsville on virtually every issue, to inform and solicit input from his constituents. This member of Parliament was elected in 2011, but even before his election he was an active resident of the city of Mississauga.

He was born in Ottawa, in 1967, and his family returned to Mississauga the next year, where he has lived ever since.

The member has a keen interest in community volunteerism and public service. Having served on more than two dozen boards and committees in Mississauga, including for seven years on the Mississauga Committee of Adjustment, he gives back to Mississauga each and every day. He has an interest in working with organizations, including the Mississauga Food Bank, safe streets Mississauga, the Mississauga Sports Council, the Peel children's aid society and foundation, the Mississauga Arts Council, and the Mississauga Public Library Board.

His outreach work does not end there. The member for Mississauga—Streetsville has built a professional career, advocating for the rental housing community and affordable housing initiatives, as president and CEO of the Greater Toronto Apartment Association, a position he held from May 1999 until he was elected to Parliament in May of 2011. He regularly interacted with public officials and all orders of government throughout the greater Toronto area. His direct input into housing issues has had a major effect on public policy in Canada.

For years he hosted a widely acclaimed public affairs television program on Rogers Television in Mississauga. I watched it many times and learned a great deal about public affairs issues. He interacted with many of the leaders of the political world in Canada, and the business and arts community, and through that program enlightened and informed the people of Mississauga.

In Ottawa, he is hard at work for the constituents he represents. He serves as a member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities; and the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. These committees have dealt with a number of important topics, including opportunities for older persons in the workforce, the Centennial Flame Research Award for persons with disabilities, and opportunities for aboriginals in the workplace.

I would like to use my time today to highlight some of the important accomplishments made by the member for Mississauga—Streetsville over the past three years. I would like to demonstrate to this place that we must not let today's debate overshadow the hard work and many accomplishments of this hon. member.

I can say with confidence that this member is one of the most hard-working, community-focused members who sit in this place. He has participated in countless outreach activities each and every year, which have had a positive impact on the people he represents. The hon. member hosts a yearly job forum to provide information on the services that are available to constituents in assisting with a job search. This forum provides an opportunity to connect residents and local organizations, in the hopes of broadening their job search and helping them seek out new tools for employment opportunities.

The job forum brought out many Mississauga—Streetsville residents and employment organizations. It included a presentation from a wide variety of local organizations. Because of this forum, constituents of Mississauga—Streetsville were made aware of the wide variety of free services available to them when searching for employment. That is much appreciated in a city like Mississauga, where we have unemployment that is higher than the national average, for a number of reasons, including that we have many new Canadians who find they have to spend extra time looking for that first new job in Canada. This member takes that task seriously and does everything he can to help new Canadians integrate well into our economy.

The member also hosts an annual seniors forum, which focuses on how we can assure a secure and dignified retirement for our seniors that reflects the contributions they have made to this great country. At these forums, the member has highlighted our government's action on several files, including enhancements to the guaranteed income supplement for low-income seniors, providing an annual top-up amount that will benefit more than 680,000 seniors; and increased funding for the new horizons for seniors program, which ensures that seniors can benefit from active living and participation in their communities. The member works to eliminate mandatory retirement, allowing Canadians to choose how long they wish to remain active in Canada's workforce. He supported a pooled retirement pension plan, which is a low-cost pension option to provide additional help to seniors who are saving for retirement. This member is focused on taking strong action to support our seniors. We should not let today's debate overshadow these accomplishments.

The member for Mississauga—Streetsville has also introduced a very popular award, with the establishment of the Timothy Street Medal of Honour, for residents of Mississauga—Streetsville. Timothy Street was the founder of the Town of Streetsville, and this medal of honour was devised by the member for Mississauga—Streetsville in his honour. This award recognizes leaders in our community for their selfless dedication to making Canada a better place through volunteerism. Following the very successful Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal, the hon. member decided that his community should have an annual medal to celebrate the great volunteers in the city of Mississauga who have made a difference to our community. Each year, in January, the member presents 10 medals to residents who have been nominated from the community for their exemplary volunteer service.

Furthermore, the member can be seen at activities throughout the community each week. I see him at these events, and I am always impressed with the time he spends connecting with the people of Mississauga. Here are some examples. He recently welcomed the Minister of Status of Women for a round table at Mary Kay cosmetics, on Meadowvale. He attended a groundbreaking ceremony at the GO Transit terminal in Streetsville, with the Minister of Transport, for the Mississauga transitway project. Later that same night, he attended the World AIDS Day event, hosted by the Peel HIV/AIDS Network; and the Indo-Canada Chamber of Commerce winter gala. The list goes on.

Last month, the member for Mississauga—Streetsville attended the Vietnamese Association of Toronto new year's Tet Festival, and later that night, he attended the Shen Yun performance at the Living Arts Centre of Mississauga. He recently visited Streetsville Leisureworld to present World War II veteran Art Lett with a valentine for a vet, and to thank him for his great sacrifice for Canada. He also attended the National Council of Canadian Tamils' dinner in Richmond Hill. He joined the Minister of State for Sport as an honorary coach for the Mississauga Winter Classic between the Streetsville and Applewood hockey teams, and he attended the third annual Vianney Academy of Learning's family fun day and skate at the Vic Johntson Community Centre.

I could spend the remainder of my time today listing the many important activities that the member for Mississauga—Streetsville participates in each and every week. However, I would also like to take this opportunity to discuss some of the government programs that the member has advocated for while working hard for his constituents here in Ottawa. The member has played an important role in securing funding for central projects in Mississauga—Streetsville. The member was able to announce the new horizons for seniors funding for the people of Mississauga—Streetsville. Seniors in the riding will have new opportunities to volunteer, mentor younger generations, and help raise awareness of elder abuse, thanks to funding through the new horizons for seniors program. Four organizations in Mississauga—Streetsville have received funding through this program. They include the Peel Multicultural Council, the Canadian Coptic Centre, the Hindu Heritage Centre, and the Toronto–Sri Lankan Ex-Tamil Police Officers' Club.

However, the support does not stop there. The member knows that world-class infrastructure is the backbone of our country's economic productivity. It helps to get goods to the marketplace more efficiently, and connects Canadians and our businesses to the world, generating jobs and growth. It also has the added benefit of reducing commuting times so that families can spend more time together.

For these reasons, the member for Mississauga—Streetsville has tirelessly advocated for investments in infrastructure. The constituents of Mississauga—Streetsville have benefited from the recent investments in infrastructure funding. In fact, over $4.5 billion was invested in greater Toronto area infrastructure projects by this government between February 2006 and January 2014.

The City of Mississauga has received $250 million toward GO Transit, and the Mississauga bus rapid transitway has received an investment of $83 million. In addition, the City of Mississauga has now received a whopping $131,823,271 from the gas tax fund. This money will provide the city with the funds it needs to expand public infrastructure projects. These are just some of the many ways the constituents of Mississauga—Streetsville benefit from the representation of this hard-working member.

I would like to conclude today by reviewing the main points that are central to this debate. The hon. member has apologized and has voluntarily corrected the record. There is nothing for a committee to study. All of the facts are known.

We do not want to create an environment in which hon. members are punished for doing the right thing, and that is exactly what a continuation of this debate would perpetuate. Instead, we should continue with the business that should be before us, business that focuses on the reasons Canadians elected us. Canadians can count on our government to continue to focus on what matters to them: jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity. That is what we should be debating today.

Once again, I return to the point that we must not let today's debate cloud what the hon. member has accomplished for the people of Mississauga—Streetsville. He is a member who works hard for the people he represents. He is a community-focused member who promotes countless programs that benefit the people of Mississauga. From his annual seniors forums and constituent round tables to his recent job forum, a yearly tax clinic, and the creation of a volunteer medal, this member is dedicated to serving the community he represents. He has advocated for a world-class infrastructure system that helps people across the city and has advocated for record best investments in that regard.

These are just some of the many programs the constituents of Mississauga—Streetsville benefit from, and I look forward to continuing to work with the hon. member to increase these important investments for our city.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member who just spoke.

I have a lot of respect for all of my colleagues in the House, including the one we are talking about today. However, now that we know that the member for Mississauga—Streetsville misled the House and gave information that was not true or correct, will the member for Mississauga—Erindale have faith in the information provided by the member for Mississauga—Streetsville the next time he rises in the House?

In the future, will my colleague be inclined to wonder whether what the member for Mississauga—Streetsville says is true, since he could simply come back to the House two days later to say that he is sorry for not telling the truth?

How can we trust this member in the future now that we know he is capable of saying things that turn out not to be true?

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is quite clear. This member actually voluntarily apologized and corrected the record. There are many who have done otherwise. I have known this member for more than 15 years. I know him to be an honest, hard-working person. He has done the right thing and should be recognized for having done the right thing. If we take this opportunity to recognize that this member has done the right thing, I think we will set a good precedent for others in the future.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate hearing from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. How interesting that they are never quite as forgiving when it comes to justice issues, what with the government imposing pretty harsh minimum sentences.

I am trying to understand the logic behind his rhetoric this afternoon. He seems to be saying that an apology should suffice and that because the person stood up and apologized in the House, the matter should be considered closed.

Does my hon. colleague opposite think this means that when one misleads the House, a simple apology to the House suffices? Is rising and voluntarily apologizing sufficient in all cases? Are there any cases that he feels should go to the committee?

I have so many questions. I know the member apologized, but why did he swear to such clear and precise facts? Sometimes the media accuse members of the House of being vague and imprecise. In this case, it was the opposite. A member persuaded us to believe something by telling us what he saw and observed.

Naturally, when we heard his claims, we had to sit back and think about reconsidering our stance on the bill, but he knew, and this is no excuse, that he was trying to get us to change our minds by telling us things that were not true.

Does my hon. colleague think this means that even if the Speaker finds that the House was misled, a simple apology is always enough? Is that what people on the government benches are claiming?

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my view, there is nothing for the committee to study. All the facts are known.

In fact, what this motion does is penalize people for doing the right thing. This member realized that the record was not correct. He voluntarily came to this place. He stood here in front of all of his colleagues and said that he had made a mistake, that he was apologizing, and that he was correcting the record.

If we cannot accept that as fair-minded people, then I guess none of us knows very well the golden rule my parents taught me. I think we have to look at the facts and realize that this member did the right thing. If we persist with this kind of a motion, we will force or encourage people to not come forward and do the right thing in the future. That would be a really poor result.

Again, in my view, the point has been made, and I think it is time for this House to get back to the business of the people, which is making sure that their election laws are fair and that they have jobs, growth, and prosperity.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the course of the debate, ever since the Speaker's ruling that this House is currently aware of two completely contradictory statements before us and that we should, in his view, clear the air by allowing this to go to committee, I have been wondering why the response from the Conservative members, such as from the hon. parliamentary secretary, has been to suggest that this is some sort of punishment and that somehow we will be penalizing people for coming to this place and telling the truth. I would think quite the contrary lesson would be learned, which is that members are at their peril if they try to tell us something when they know it is not true and they later tell us that they are sorry and that it was not true.

I accept that the hon. member has apologized. He is also a friend of mine. I am not interested in destroying his reputation or taking away his voluntary achievements or his accomplishments as a member of Parliament.

However, I would like to know why on two occasions we were told that there was this actual eye-witness evidence of voting fraud, which is the substance of and at the heart of taking away the rights of Canadians in future elections, in Bill C-23, when, in fact, nothing of the sort occurred.

I think we need to get to the bottom of that, and I do not know how we do it by cutting off debate and ending this today.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member for Mississauga—Streetsville was quite clear. He corrected the record about what he did or did not see happen. He did that voluntarily. That is exactly the kind of thing we want to encourage.

My point is simply that in my view, the opposition party is using this as a matter of partisan advantage to delay debate on the fair elections act. The opposition members know what the answer to the question is. They know that there are no more facts to be brought out here. This is simply being done to delay the debate on the main legislation. I think that is a disservice to the people of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the comments just made by the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, the Speaker's ruling was very clear: misleading statements were made in this House, and we deserve to know which were true and which were false. The member presented two completely opposite versions.

I would like to quote Speaker Milliken, who preceded our current Speaker:

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

That is serious. What the member said was more than just a factual error. It is not as though he made an error in calculation or read the calculator wrong. No, what he said was very specific. He said he clearly saw fraud committed against the Canadian electorate and against Canada itself. According to the member, fraud was committed, and now we are supposed to accept that he can simply rise here and say he made a mistake in terms of what he saw.

Frankly, I do not think that is enough. We need to take this further. We need to understand exactly where the mistake was. This House must be respected, especially by members, to demonstrate that the House represents Canadian democracy. The member's remarks call all of that into question. I hope the parliamentary secretary will demonstrate that he believes in the role of the House and that this matter deserves further debate and discussion.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again, I believe that the member for Mississauga—Streetsville did not have the intention of misleading the House. When he realized that there was a question about the veracity of what he had said, he quickly came forward and voluntarily corrected the record, so there is no doubt about what he did or did not see.

That is exactly what we want to encourage, and I see no purpose in continuing this debate any longer.

Message from the Senate

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed 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.

The House resumed consideration of the motion

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I will start by discussing the essential points of the matter we are discussing today.

The member for Mississauga—Streetsville simply misspoke during the fair elections act debate last month. Entirely on his own volition, the same member later corrected the record and apologized to the House. Correcting or clarifying the record when a member says something that is incorrect is the type of action that I think members and I, and most Canadians, would expect. Sadly, based on the cynicism spread by the opposition, some might even find a politician apologizing to be refreshing for a change.

By contrast, let us compare the member for Mississauga—Streetsville's actions with those of the NDP.

Day in and day out, the NDP members make outlandish statements in the House. Often, these contain eyebrow-raising interpretations of events or facts, or extreme hyperbole. The only difference is that the NDP's sanctimony in making so many outrageous statements makes it hard for Canadians to even believe what they say, but it does sow cynicism among Canadians.

In fact, we should look at the real reasons why the NDP moved this motion.

Do the NDP members honestly feel that their rights as members were infringed upon? Definitely, no. Does the NDP honestly feel that further sanctions are warranted? No, if it were honest. Is the NDP transparent about its motives? Definitely not.

This is nothing more than an effort to create a smokescreen aimed at derailing the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The opposition is trying to do whatever it takes to derail the committee's number one priority, the fair elections act and the fine work done by the Minister of State for Democratic Reform.

Not only is the fair elections act a much-needed update to Canadian election laws, but it is also much needed now. As our Chief Electoral Officer has said, new legislation needs to be in place this spring for it to have effect for next year's general election.

However, as is often the case with the NDP's actions and policies, it has not considered the ramifications.

Motion No. 428, sponsored by the member for Burnaby—Douglas, has been referred to the procedure and House affairs committee, and I understand that it was one of the next items for study, right after the fair elections act. In adopting it, the House also adopted a deadline for the committee to do its work. This is a motion that the entire NDP caucus voted for, which does not say much since it has virtually always voted as one bloc.

If members would like to witness the NDP members and their logical gymnastics, I would like to hear them explain why the NDP is delaying study of their colleague's own private member's motion in order to study this matter regarding the member for Mississauga—Streetsville, a matter that has been resolved to its fullest extent and to which nothing more could be gained from committee study.

In fact, I have a challenge for the member for Burnaby—Douglas. If he is sincere about the procedure and House affairs committee studying Motion No. 428 quickly, then he will vote against this privilege motion. The entire NDP caucus claims that it strongly supports Motion No. 428. Why then is it delaying study of it?

The opposition is saying one thing to its supporters and then doing precisely the opposite. Do as I say, not as I do. That seems to be the creed of the NDP.

The NDP claims that it supports setting up an electronic petition system to allow more access for Canadians and to improve democracy. Let me emphasize to all Canadians watching this debate right now that by its actions in moving the motion, the NDP is trying to do nothing more than stifle a democratic committee from investigating that very proposal. Yet, the NDP does not show any regret.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Its members hate it when I point that out.

When the member for Mississauga—Streetsville misspoke in the House, he corrected the record and apologized.

When the entire NDP caucus says one thing to its constituents and then acts in completely the opposite direction in the House, it not only fails to apologize but, sadly, it does not even feel any shame.

We are still waiting on the member for Timmins—James Bay to apologize to his constituents for his reversal on the gun registry vote.

By telling its constituents one thing and doing another, the NDP's actions are an affront to democracy. Do as I say, not as I do. That is what it is saying.

Let us look at a few other important pieces of business currently at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Motion No. 431, sponsored by the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt, was passed just last month. That motion reads:

That the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to: (a) consider the election of committee chairs by means of a preferential ballot system by all the Members of the House of Commons, at the beginning of each session and prior to the establishment of the membership of the standing committees; (b) study the practices of other Westminster-style Parliaments in relation to the election of Committee Chairs; (c) propose any necessary modifications to the Standing Orders and practices of the House; and (d) report its findings to the House no later than six months following the adoption of this order.

Just like the motion by the member for Burnaby—Douglas, Motion No. 431 passed the House and deserves to be studied by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Again, and unfortunately, the NDP's obstructionist actions are causing needless delays at committee.

Yet again the House adopted a deadline as part of its order to the committee to study the issue. For this particular matter it set a six-month deadline, which means that the procedure and House affairs committee will need to wind up its work by the summer.

There is yet another item referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs just last week that the opposition seems intent on delaying and obstructing, Bill C-518, Protecting Taxpayers and Revoking Pensions of Convicted Politicians Act. Bill C-518 would strip convicted crooked politicians of their pensions. We have to wonder why the opposition wants to avoid studying this. The New Democrats should not be protecting the pensions of politicians who break the law, but by their actions on this question of privilege, that is exactly what they are doing.

As we know, private members' bills are on a guaranteed timetable that includes a deadline of 60 sitting days for a committee to consider a bill. That means that our procedure and House affairs committee would need to deal with this by the first few sitting days in September. I hate to think that their motives are sinister, so I call upon the opposition parties not to pass this motion so that the procedure and House affairs committee can get on with its work.

On top of those items of business, the committee also has other important business before it not under the gun of a tight deadline. It has been working off and on for the past two years on a review of our Standing Orders, the very rules and procedures governing how we do our work on Parliament Hill.

In October, the House voted to refer this issue back to the committee so that it could study it as part of its ongoing agenda. Also in October, the House adopted an order of reference for the committee to study a different question of privilege. I understand that the committee is still working and trying to hear from the last witnesses on that issue.

Additionally, the procedure and House affairs committee will at some point get back to the five-year review of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons. It started that project some time ago, but its conclusion awaits committee having the free time to do so.

Here we have a proposal by the NDP to send something else to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to add to its very busy agenda. We already know all of the facts here. The hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville came forward to acknowledge and apologize for what happened. He did that on his own, unrequested by the Speaker or anyone else. What is left for the committee to study? All of this leaves me scratching my head, wondering what the game of the NDP is. It has become quite clear.

The NDP is simply looking to block and delay the fair elections act despite the Chief Electoral Officer saying that we need to amend our electoral laws by this spring for them to have appropriate effect by the 2015 election.

I call upon the NDP to let the procedure and House affairs committee finally begin hearing witnesses on the fair elections act. As I said earlier, this legislation needs to become law within the next few months. Despite the NDP's filibuster at committee, Conservatives believe that the committee needs to get down to work.

I understand that the Chief Electoral Officer and other important witnesses are ready to testify. We could have started hearing witnesses weeks ago, but the NDP is afraid to hear witnesses. Why do those members not want to hear from Harry Neufeld, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, and others? I think it is pretty obvious. Of course they do not want to hear Mr. Kingsley. He gave our bill an A minus. No wonder the NDP would not want him appearing before the procedure and House affairs committee. Why do those members not want to hear from first nation groups? Why do they not want to hear from groups representing those with disabilities? I think we can all figure it out.

The NDP claims that it wanted to hear from Canadians on the fair elections act, but every action the party has taken since the bill was introduced, from the filibuster at the procedure and House affairs committee to the debate on the motion here today to add to that committee's agenda, has been an attempt to disrupt the progress of the fair elections act and to avoid hearing from witnesses. That party may not like what it hears.

Why do NDP members not come clean with Canadians and admit that they are simply trying to be obstructionist? They do not care what it costs or what important legislation is held up as a result. That is exactly why the NDP will never form government. That party simply does not understand what it is like to balance priorities, an important part of governing.

I have only known the member for Mississauga—Streetsville for about two years, but I find him to be a good and decent member of Parliament, who has delivered a great deal for the residents of his riding. He rightly corrected the record in the House after realizing that he misspoke. I consider this matter closed. Most Canadians consider this matter closed. I encourage everyone to vote accordingly.

We all make mistakes in life. We all make mistakes as members of Parliament. I have made them myself. Just this morning the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands was at our committee and I mistakenly was going to allow her to vote, although she did not have a vote. We corrected that. It was not a big deal. We own up to our errors, and that is what the member for Mississauga—Streetsville did. End of story.