Debates of March 4th, 2014

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

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we carry on, I would remind all hon. members that characterizations of other members as being strangers to the truth or perhaps not being truthful, if these are in any way imputing the motives of another hon. member, are generally seen as unparliamentary. I just caution hon. members to avoid that type of characterization or expression, perhaps, in the course of their remarks.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Victoria.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in the answer by the parliamentary secretary he appears to have avoided the question before us, the issue of privilege, and spoke instead about vouching. I would like to speak to that and ask his views on it, and then ask his views on the merit of the substance of what we are here to talk about.

Apparently some 800,000 Canadians use voter cards and vouching, particularly 70,000 aboriginal people, because the kinds of identification he listed are often not available to some of the poorest of our fellow citizens and seniors, who do not have them at hand and the like.

That strikes me as a very weak defence, but that is not what we are here to talk about. I simply want to respond and ask him this, the question I asked of my hon. friend from Welland: if a member stands before us and apparently is making a point based on evidence, a factual assertion that he saw a particular form of voter fraud, which he then later retracts and says in fact did not happen, that it was simply an anecdote or a made-up story, to use words that I think I am allowed to use, does that not have an impact on the fundamental nature of parliamentary debate?

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is right that Canadians would expect that when someone is elected and stands in the House of Commons and makes an argument for something, they are doing that with truth in their hearts.

I believe that the member for Mississauga—Streetsville was making a strong point about a change that we must make to protect the very integrity of our election voting system in this country.

When he made this statement, as he mentioned here, he gave some inaccurate information, but that is not reason to question the motives and the underlying principles of the message he was trying to send, which is the fact that we have to make these changes to restore integrity to our democratic system, to our elections system, so that the people who do rise here and speak are dutifully elected by people who actually have the right to vote.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to stand again to respond to the member's justification of his colleague's inaccurate comments on the basis that they were to made restore integrity to our system, when in fact we know that this is the very kind of act that undermines our system.

I would like to go back to my previous question. When the word “apology” is missing, when the words “I am sorry” are missing, when there is no indication of remorse of any kind, no indication of the kind of harm that this may have done to the integrity of the House, when it is basically just a declaration that he had not personally witnessed that activity, does the member actually consider that an apology?

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as I said when I answered the question previously, we take the member at his word. He said he made inaccurate statements. He corrected those statements, but the underlying principle of the issue that he was talking about was the very fabric of our electoral or democratic system.

He was very passionate about that and was making a strong point about the fact that vouching and voter identification cards are both open to irregularities and abuse. That is what is really important. That is why the fair elections act has been brought forward, and that is why we need to pass the bill. We need to have the filibuster stop in committee and to deal with these serious issues.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the third little spot in a row to stand up and talk about this point does not exactly scream diversity, does it?

Earlier, I asked my colleague from Welland a question. As I mentioned, I hoped that I would have a longer period of time because I want to get this out. I want to air this.

What we are talking about here, is my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley moved that there be a prima facie finding of contempt. The Speaker found that the matter merited further consideration by the appropriate committee. We have a motion. We have a decision. The Speaker then invited the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley to move the traditional motion. That is what happened. The Speaker is referring this issue to committee.

I have found it very curious, over the past day and a half, that Conservative members have stood up in the House and by the way they are arguing and presenting the “facts”, which I will put in air quotes, it sounds like they are disagreeing with the Speaker. They are saying that it is not contempt. It was not to mislead. I just heard the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley say that he believed the member meant this, and that he believed that the member did not mean that.

It sounds to me like they are disagreeing with the ruling of the Speaker to send this to committee. I have not understood this argument. I have not understood how or why they would bring this forward.

However, now it is starting to become clear. Procedurally, I did not understand that it was possible to vote against the Speaker's ruling, but I now understand that this is exactly what we have here.

We live in a day and age where communication is instant. I can read media reports well before the newspapers are printed the next day. I will read from a Globe and Mail article by Josh Wingrove. The first paragraph says:

The Conservative government is signaling it will vote down a motion to study whether one of its MPs misled the House of Commons, rejecting a finding by the Speaker that the issue deserves a closer look if only to “clear the air.”

That was my "ahah" moment. Maybe I am slower to get to it than others, but the Conservative government is going to vote against this. That is unbelievable to me.

We have a spokeswoman from the whip's office saying that all of the facts are known on the issue, so there is nothing for a committee to study, and there is little to be gained by sending the issue to committee. There is also a quote from the government House leader, who said:

The question you have to ask is if that is actually going to serve any utility? There’s really no dispute...Certainly, one cannot picture anything that will come of great utility from further discussion of the matter.

They are going to vote against this. I find that pretty unbelievable.

First of all, I heard my colleague from Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley say he believed that this is what the member meant and he believed that the member did not mean to mislead us. If he believes it, how about we have it aired out? How about we actually talk about it and figure out what is going on? Why did he make these statements? What was the intention here?

Let us go back to what the Speaker 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.

Those are not very many words. They are two sentences, but those two sentences have a lot of weight. Members “must be able to depend on the integrity of the information with which they are provided to perform their parliamentary duties”. Parliamentary duties. Parlement. We are here. This is a place where we use words, where we talk, and where we have debate. It is a place of words.

I know that in the U.K., where our parliamentary tradition comes from, there is no paper. It is all in the spoken word. We are nothing but our words. We are nothing but our integrity and our words. Parlement.

We have a situation here where someone has diminished not only their own integrity but also the integrity of Parlement, of Parliament, and the ability for us to rely on our words, put weight on them, and believe in them.

I think that the Speaker made the right ruling and I do not know how the vote is going to turn out. Maybe there will be some rogue MPs on the Conservative side, but it looks like they are going to vote it down, and I find that truly outrageous.

There is another thing that I find truly outrageous. I am at what I perceive to be the end of the debate. I was here yesterday at the beginning of the debate. I heard the Speaker's ruling and then the response from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. If the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is speaking, I would take that to be the words of government. That is not an individual private member speaking on a private member's motion; that is the word of government.

I was sitting in this very chair and I could barely stand to listen to the argument put forward. I have a lot of respect for the parliamentary secretary, I think he is a good guy, but the arguments he was putting forward were really sending me pretty close to the edge. There was one point in the debate where, I do not know if you noticed, Mr. Speaker, I actually threw up my arms and screamed. I do not see it recorded in Hansard, but it happened, because I was overcome with how preposterous the argument was that the parliamentary secretary was putting forward.

Now I have the opportunity to dissect the argument he was putting forward and I have been looking forward to this. He started by saying the following:

A few things have been said this afternoon that I think have not been accurate, and I want to try to set the record straight.

That is a good goal, but did he actually set the record straight? I do not think so, because he went on to say:

The other thing I want to point out, and I do not think it really needs to be pointed out to members, particularly any member who has been here for any length of time...there are opportunities when all members, and I emphasize all members, tend to torque their language a bit, perhaps to embellish or to exaggerate. Is that something we should encourage? Certainly not. Does it happen regularly? Yes, it does.

He talked about torquing language, embellishing, exaggerating, and asked whether it is something we should encourage, “I have exaggerated, I will stand here in the House of Commons and admit that I have exaggerated”, but let us look at what the member for Mississauga—Streetsville 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—

Maybe he can see through walls:

—walk into voting stations with friends who vouch for them with no ID.

He states again, referring to the minister:

I will relate to him something I have actually seen.

This is not exaggeration, this is not torquing, this is not embellishing. This is saying something that did not actually happen.

I will go back to the parliamentary secretary's speech. He went on to state:

I am suggesting that this happens perhaps all too routinely in this place, but should it then be considered contempt? My friend opposite continues to make the point that it was contempt. Again, that is simply not accurate. The Speaker has merely referred this to committee for an examination.

I am going to go back to what the Speaker said. He stated:

...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.

Members should get ready because I am going to be going back to these two quotes a lot. The parliamentary secretary continued:

The problem we now have before us is that because the member for Mississauga—Streetsville came back to this place and corrected the record, he is now facing possible sanction

That is not the problem we have here. The problem is not that this guy might get his wrist slapped. The problem is that he stood up in the House, not once but twice, and said, “I have actually witnessed people doing these actions”. It is unbelievable.

The parliamentary secretary went on to state:

What the consequence or the net result of this may be is that the truth begins to be pushed underground.

What? How is the truth being pushed underground when the statements were not based on truth?

If somebody comes in and says “I did not actually see that”, how are we pushing truth underground by actually exposing it to light? How would we be pushing truth underground by actually referring this to committee and saying “Hey, member for Mississauga—Streetsville, what happened here? Why don't you tell us in your own words? Were you all excited about things? Did you want to contribute to the debate? Did you want to catch the eye of the Prime Minister?”

We actually have to have this discussion at committee. I do not think the truth is being pushed underground at all.

The parliamentary secretary then goes on, but there is so much material to work with that I am going to go to a point further on in his debate.

He says:

Since the Chair has not found the member to have lied, even though my colleagues opposite keep trying to tell that tale, they perhaps should stand up and set the record straight, because the Chair did not find the member for Mississauga—Streetsville to have deliberately misled this House

In other words, he did not find that he had lied, merely that the committee should take an examination and try to clarify the comments surrounding the member's statements of February 6.

I will go back to the piece of paper in my hand. The Speaker found that there were contradictory statements, and I do not think we can put enough emphasis on the fact that we have nothing but our integrity and the words that we say in this House. Our laws are created based on Parliament, on the fact that we get to stand here and speak and use our words and tell our stories from our ridings. One would hope that those stories were actually true.

The parliamentary secretary then went on to say:

While I know the opposition wants to convince Canadians that there is some nefarious reason behind the comments of my colleague from Mississauga—Streetsville, I would purport to you and everyone else in this place that he merely did what so many of us have done previously: in the heat of debate, he had simply gone overboard.

Mr. Speaker, you have heard me admit to exaggeration. I am sure that, under duress maybe, most of us in this House would admit to exaggeration, but we are not talking about being in the heat of debate and simply going overboard. This is not the heat of debate. I am looking at the quotes from the member for Mississauga—Streetsville. This is not a vigorous back-and-forth. This is not a moment in which all of a sudden someone says, “Oops, I didn't mean to say it that way.” This is two interventions, and I will repeat the words.

I have actually witnessed other people....

It was not even something like “This could happen, and, like, I have seen some folks picking up the cards, and maybe this happened.” He said, “I have actually witnessed other people picking up the voter cards”. He said, “I will relate to him something I have actually seen.” This is not the heat of debate. This is not a bit of an exaggeration. This is saying something that was not based on fact.

The member admitted it was untrue. I cannot get over the arguments put forward by government that this is just about a bit of torquing, a bit of exaggeration. The Conservative members are saying that if they exaggerate, they should not be punished for exaggeration.

First of all, it is not an exaggeration. Second, we are not actually talking about punishment. I do not believe that the Speaker, and I have his words here, said “And therefore, we send this man to committee to be punished”. No, not at all. He said we actually have to send this to committee. What we are doing is we are sending it to committee.

The Speaker does have a line in there about at least clearing the air. The member for Mississauga—Streetsville stands up, he says that he did not mean to say what he said, he wanted to set the record straight, and then nothing more. There is no more.

This is what we do. We get to the bottom of things. We air things out at committee. Sometimes we travel. Sometimes we hear from Canadians. Sometimes we hear from expert witnesses. In this case, we have to hear from the person himself who actually said these statements. We need to know why, what was going through his mind, and what was happening here.

The line that made me throw up my hands in exasperation was, “Would I like to see everything said in this place said in a reasoned, sensible manner, devoid of the partisanship that we see all too often?”.

I am going to skip to a little later to where the partisan piece came up in his speech again:

Opposition parties are trying to score some political points here, and I do not begrudge them that. It is what opposition parties do. They opposed Bill C-23, the fair elections act. We understand that. We understand that they are trying to do everything in their power to delay, obstruct, or perhaps even kill that piece of legislation. I get that. However, that is what I believe is truly behind the motion we are debating today.

Really? Then I think the Speaker would have probably seen through that. If the Speaker thought that this was just to delay, I hardly think he would have found this to be a prima facie case.

I want to go back to the scoring of political points, that we would like to see things devoid of the partisanship that we see all too often. The opposite is true here. If we look at the statements that the member for Mississauga—Streetsville made, that is the example of what the parliamentary secretary is talking about. Those statements are an example of someone trying to score political points. Those statements are an example of the partisanship that we see all too often.

The member was trying to score political points, saying things that were not true to support a position after the fact. If we want to talk partisanship, if we want to talk political points, I think we should go back to these statements: “I have actually witnessed other people picking up the voter cards..”.

Why would he say that? Was it being said to cause mischief, to validate the Conservatives' points after the fact, instead of having a hearing on whether we need changes to the Elections Act?

I will finish with the parliamentary secretary saying the following:

In conclusion, I agree, and I believe my colleague the member for Mississauga—Streetsville would also agree, that if one does not speak accurately in this place, records should be corrected. If one does not speak with accuracy on any point, whether it be legislation or during debate, it should not be tolerated. However, when is it right to punish someone for correcting the record? When does one become a victim for speaking what one needed to say, which was to correct the record?

Oh, so the member for Mississauga—Streetsville is a victim here. Right. The big, bad opposition is ganging up and punishing him. Give me a break. That is the wickedest twisting of words that I have seen in some time.

I believe that the Speaker was right in his ruling. I think we need to have an airing out of this. We need to understand what the member was doing. I do not think he was a victim. I do not think we are trying to punish. I think we are trying to get to the bottom of something in Parliament, where we use our words to talk about these issues, to debate these issues, and to represent Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my hon. colleague for her brilliant speech.

She talked about Parliament being a place of words. She talked about integrity and trust. If we want to have debates that are healthy and remain healthy, we need to be sure that our colleagues are always telling the truth and always saying things that are accurate.

What risk do we run if people assume that they can do terrible things and then simply apologize to make everything right? Would that not undermine our mutual trust?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his thoughtful question because it is about trust. He was talking about the trust that our constituents put in us. I know they put their trust in us, and then they have another chance to express that trust, or not, in four years. There is this idea that we are here for four years, and if they do not like us they can vote us out in four years. I do not see those two points as being the only points of entry for our constituents or the public to be engaged with us as parliamentarians. If we are going to have an engaged citizenry, we have to maintain that trust between those two election points. We have to be here and speak the truth.

The truth can be our truth. My truth is a social democratic truth. I believe that the government is here to support our communities and support people to be the best that they can be. That is different from a traditional Conservative truth about government getting in the way of us being the best that we can be. Those are two different ideologies. We can have debates, again, with our language, our words, in the House, based on those ideologies. That is fair and legitimate. However, we have to be truthful. We cannot descend into saying whatever we think will help us to win. We have to be more convincing and compelling. We owe that to our constituents.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Halifax for her comments in her speech.

I find it curious. The government interrupted the debate earlier today, for some number of hours. However, we had some debate on this yesterday; we are debating it for a number of hours today. Yet, with all that opportunity, the member for Mississauga—Streetsville, who is at the heart of this conversation and took only 30 seconds or so some days ago to issue his version of events, has failed to appear.

Now the Conservatives are talking about voting against this ruling to pass this on to the committee so we can understand what happened. Why did the events change? Why did he make something up and two weeks later say it did not happen? Is Elections Canada involved, et cetera? He has chosen not to make his case.

Conservatives are saying they have heard everything that they need to hear. It was a 30-second half apology from the member. The Speaker qualified in his ruling that in making the statement he did that the member intended to mislead the House. That is the qualification for why we are having this debate. That is serious. In defending his reputation, the Conservatives are pretending that somehow he is a victim and that his reputation is being besmirched. I would have thought that the next logical step, then, would have been for the member to appear and correct the—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please.

Members may recall that in the course of debate, it is not appropriate to refer to the presence or absence of members in the House.

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was not referring to his presence here in this moment. I was referring to the fact that he has not chosen to take any of the many speaking spots that were available to defend his honour. Excuse me, but I was not referring to the instance that we are in right now.

The fact is this, and it is an important fact. The government House leader, the deputy, a bunch of Conservatives, time and time again, have said that he said in his apology that he did not intend to mislead the House. Yet, we have the ruling from the Speaker saying the exact opposite. Therefore, Canadians are left wondering who to believe: the impartiality of the Speaker, who is meant to provide the rules and govern this place, or the person who is in the conflict itself, having been caught in a misrepresentation of fact over a government bill that is going to change election laws in Canada.

To my hon. friend from Halifax, is this as simple as the Conservatives say it is? He is an honourable guy who made a mistake and he should be thanked and congratulated for having knowingly misled the House, or having knowingly issued something he knew to be untrue and misleading. Or, is this a moment where we need to take this a little more seriously than the Conservatives are currently doing, and certainly the member for Mississauga—Streetsville, who has again chosen not to defend himself or to provide any explanation to Canadians or the House of Commons?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question and for raising this issue in Parliament to begin with.

We would be in a very different position, if yesterday we stood in the House, and in response the member for Mississauga—Streetsville took the floor and answered the questions we had. We might have taken the floor again and asked more questions, and who knows, pointed more fingers. He might have stood up and said “I accept what you're saying to me, and here's my explanation”.

If his voice had been here to explain, I do not think we would be where we are today. Instead, we do not have that voice. We have members on the other side saying, “I believe this is what he meant. I believe that he didn't mean to mislead us”.

It does not matter what they believe. How about that we actually find out? That is the whole point that the Speaker is making here. If only to air out the facts, we need to bring this to committee. We need to find out what happened because our entire parliamentary system and how we engage in debate could be undermined. I am not saying it is, but it could be. That is why we need to go to committee. Again, if the member's voice had been added to this debate, we would not be here.

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

Mr. Speaker, since I came to the House in 2011, the government has consistently increased sentences for offenders and introduced minimum sentences. Offenders are sorry for what they did. A driver who hits an elderly woman is sorry for what he did. Thieves are sorry. However, what is done is done. We cannot erase the past.

Things were done in this case, and I think that credibility, ethics and truth are on the line here. People must have confidence in their MP.

Can the member tell us what she thinks about this system, where there is one set of rules for MPs who apologize and another set of rules for the public, who keep seeing longer prison sentences?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. The analogy with our criminal justice system is very interesting.

I think about the fact that we rely on rehabilitation. If someone does something wrong, we get them to realize what they have done wrong, and then hopefully there is rehabilitation. How do we have rehabilitation? In Nova Scotia, if one is a youth engaged in the criminal justice system, we have a restorative justice program. When one is involved with the criminal justice system, at any point along the line one can sit down and maybe talk to the victim and the people involved in one's community and neighbourhood, to find out how it has impacted people. That is part of the rehabilitation process.

If we are to make that comparison here, which is interesting, there is no rehabilitation because we are not discussing what happened. We are not saying that this was in the heat of debate. “It was the heat of debate, and I went into crazy town”. The member just stood up, said he was sorry, and it was over. Where is the point at which we get to fix that system? Where is the point at which we get to say, “Here is a better way that Parliament could work. In these situations, we could maybe handle them differently”.

It is not all about the member for Mississauga—Streetsville. Rather, it is about Parliament. That is an interesting comparison that my colleague made on the justice system, and I wonder where we do have rehabilitation in this case.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I sat in the House all day today and had the opportunity to hear members' views on both sides of the House. As I listened to them speak, a couple of premises came through. I have heard members opposite say that this is not about the member for Mississauga—Streetsville, then I have heard some pretty uncharitable comments about the member for Mississauga—Streetsville. I have heard others say that he apologized deeply for what he did, then I heard others say that it was not a good enough apology or that it was not an apology at all.

In fact, I recall the member for Vancouver Quadra, just a few moments ago, saying that the member for Mississauga—Streetsville did not apologize at all. I found that very interesting.

I would like to read if I may, the apology, to ensure that it is put on the record. I have found that we are imperfect beings trying to do perfect jobs, or at least as perfect as we can. I think my colleague opposite, who just made some comments about how we do what we do, said in some of her earlier comments that we do not always get it right. That is true.

In any event, let me, if I may, address what the member for Mississauga—Streetsville actually did say. 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 this House, for which I have the greatest amount of respect.

I might end my comments this evening with that quote again, just to make the point of what he said.

Am I here to challenge his motives? My goodness, in all the years I have been a member of Parliament, I have seen and heard members on both sides that have frankly given rise to shameful conduct in this House. The Speaker has had to sort out a person for over-speaking or calling people names or attributing titles to them that, quite frankly, were not deserved. It is the lowest of parliamentary conduct for all of us in this House when we resort to that level of name-calling, and frankly, babbling.

My Cape Breton mother once said to me, and she said it very sincerely, “Ed, you have two things in your life. You have your name and you have your integrity, and you don't mess up one without messing up the other”.

I think of the member for Mississauga—Streetsville and I think about the circumstances he has found himself in. Here is what has happened. He over-spoke, misspoke, call it as one might, then too late for some, he withdrew the comment. After he withdrew the comment, he apologized, and he apologized, I thought, with a sincerity that frankly this House could benefit from if we listened.

By the way, am I here to canonize the original comments or the member for doing that? I do not think so. Do we not think that this member, by having to go in front of the House, as he has had to do, and saying what he has had to say, was correct to do that? Frankly, he had no choice. He had to do it. Was it the right thing? It was absolutely the right thing to do.

Let us be measured, colleagues, by always doing the right thing, even if sometimes it takes a little longer.

The other point is that the whole country, at least some of those who watch CPAC, and I hope every Canadian does, would be aware that this member of whom we are speaking, our colleague, had to stand in front of this House and sincerely apologize in front of this House, in front of all of us, and in front of Canadians. For those who say that this is not about him, that is not what it has sounded like to me.

If members do not think that is paying a price for doing something, I can assure them that it absolutely is, whether or not he stood up after that and made representations about why he might have done what he did. Frankly, we are all here as members of the House of Commons to ensure that we protect the integrity of this House and represent Canadians the best way we can.

Was that Canada's finest moment or this House's finest moment? I would suggest not. However, what cheek to say what is in his heart or what he meant by that? I am prepared to accept it at face value when someone says to me, “I deeply apologize”. I want to come back to the words, “...sincerely apologize to all Canadians and to all members of the House...”.

I am prepared to accept that member's statement at face value. I am not sure why others would not. If I said that to members, I would hope that my colleagues would accept it with the same spirit and intention as I meant it.

Here is what is troubling. In response, here is what a few folks have said. I mentioned that the member for Vancouver Quadra said that there was not an apology made. I heard the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley say, “Let us take the words directly from the member for Mississauga—Streetsville. He said in his alleged apology...”.

For shame. By what right would any member imagine that it was an alleged apology, unless we were trying to play politics? I am sure that is not the intent of members opposite and not the intent of members on this side either.

The member for Toronto—Danforth said, “The second thing is the retraction. I am not going to call it an apology because that is not the way it was phrased”.

I am going to go back to the phrase “I would like to sincerely apologize”. I am not going to second-guess our colleague.

By the way, our colleague happens to be a Conservative, but he is our colleague. I am not going to impugn his motive when he gave an apology. I am not sure why we would want to do that unless there was some kind of gain. I wondered about that, because I have heard comments back and forth. A lot of what I heard today did not refer so much to the member for Mississauga—Streetsville as to the issues surrounding the fair elections act. I respect that members on the other side of the House may not necessarily agree with our position on that, and that is fair. However, it feels to me like this situation is being used as a whipping post to make a different point at the expense of a member. How low does that go? That is just not right. When individuals give us their word, we accept that word. We have an obligation to do that.

I know that the thought was to take this to committee to see how much more we could get out of it. When the member stands up and says that he made an error and then says that he withdraws that comment and after that apologizes, is there more that would come from committee than has been explored in this House?

The Speaker referred it originally to this House to review. We are kind of like a court. I am not sure if I would call it a tribunal or a preliminary court. When that happens, we actually get to hear the evidence. We have what the individual said on record, not only the misstatement but the apology. When we get both of those sides, we as members of the House can evaluate whether we accept it. However, to impugn motive, when we do not know what it was, is the part I have the most difficulty with. Could it have been exaggeration and excitement or whatever? I am prepared to say to any member of the House that if he or she has anything to tell us and comes back and says “I sincerely apologize”, I would accept that.

We all know that, when someone withdraws a comment, sometimes at the urging of the Speaker, sometimes not, or apologizes for over-speaking, we all applaud that individual. We thank that person for showing class and dignity for doing that. It begs the question why we are not prepared to offer that same class and dignity.

I said in an earlier question that to err is human and to forgive is divine, something my Cape Breton mom taught me. Why can all of us not just do that? When somebody deeply apologizes, why can we not accept that at face value, unless there is another motive behind it? It would not be proper for me to assign any motivation behind that.

Ironically, we might not have heard about the member's comment except he stood up and said “oops”. I am not trying to make an oops sound casual here. What I am saying is that, if the member had never stood up and said he made a mistake, apologized, and withdrawn his comment, we might not ever have known. However at least he had the class to do that.

We could show more class ourselves by taking him at face value. That is an obligation of every member of Parliament. Any of us could find ourselves in that position. If we find ourselves in that position, would it not be nice to see a bit of charity from the other side? Would it not be nice for members on the other side to say they understand that might happen and accept at face value that the statement is being withdrawn and the individual is apologizing?

I imagine being in this place and in that position. Would I want members to condemn me for the rest of my life, saying I lied, that I misled the House, that I did inappropriate things? That would not be fair or proper. That would not show any charity at all. It would not show what we as members of the House of Commons should be doing, which is getting on with the business of the House and never letting anything slide that should not slide.

We should acknowledge the fact that the member stood up and retracted his comment and apologized. I would challenge any member to do that if found in that position. Would a member not want me to forgive him or her? I would ask a member to forgive me if I over-spoke. I would hope to have the support of the House were I to make that mistake. Not being perfect, I may well make many mistakes. I have been here long enough to have made a few, and I am sure a few more will happen.

I would like to remind my colleagues that the member has been humbled in the House. I want to repeat his apology just so it is crystal clear. I want to read his apology, so no one in the House can say he did not apologize. It is important that it be re-read for the record. As I read it, I would ask all members to listen to it one more time, because if any of us were in the same situation, we would expect that same sense of charity that I would expect we would offer to him or to any member of the House if found in that circumstance. Here is his apology:

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 have the deepest respect for the House of Commons and all members within it. I am proud to call them all colleagues, whether they are in my party or another party. I would ask that the same sense of spirit go forward as we make every effort to clear this issue and get on with the business of the House.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 8:05 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion, the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #74

Privilege

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the amendment defeated.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The next question is on the main motion.

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