House of Commons Hansard #203 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was ukraine.

Topics

Marine AtlanticOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

NDP

Ryan Cleary NDP St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL

Mr. Speaker, Marine Atlantic is a critical link between Newfoundland and mainland Canada, but for weeks now there has been an outstanding question of whether the budget would be gutted, as the main estimates indicated. The minister said to wait for the budget, but then there was not a word, not a whisper, about Marine Atlantic in the 518 pages.

Now, Marine Atlantic is referring all questions to the minister's office. Will the minister finally stand in her place and tell Newfoundlanders and Labradorians what is happening with their ferry service?

Marine AtlanticOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Halton Ontario

Conservative

Lisa Raitt ConservativeMinister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that Marine Atlantic will receive the funding it needs to continue to provide the frequency of service Atlantic Canadians are accustomed to.

TaxationOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Conservative

Joan Crockatt Conservative Calgary Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, recently, the NDP and the Liberals have actually insulted families with older children by saying they do not have child care costs. Of course, on this side of the House we understand that is not true. Residents of Calgary Centre understand that is not true. All families with children, with older children—we are talking kids over six here—have child care costs and deserve our support.

Could the Minister of State for Social Development please tell the House what our government is doing for families with older children?

TaxationOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Portage—Lisgar Manitoba

Conservative

Candice Bergen ConservativeMinister of State (Social Development)

Mr. Speaker, the member for Calgary Centre is correct. We do know that families who have older children do incur costs in raising those children, That is why we want to give them their money back and put it back in their pockets.

Recently, I was in Newmarket, Ontario. I met with high school students and their parents. Those parents were thrilled about the expanded universal child care benefit. It will give them $720 for each one of their children who is in high school, which is a huge benefit for them. They are also thrilled that we have doubled the children's fitness tax credit and have made it refundable, because a lot of those kids are involved in sports activities.

We are giving money back to parents. They want to raise taxes.

TaxationOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

NDP

Matthew Dubé NDP Chambly—Borduas, QC

Mr. Speaker, Montreal Canadiens fans are looking forward to round two.

I am sure that Calgary Flames' fans are just as excited.

However, hockey is yet another casualty of Conservative Bill C-377, which is anti-union and purely ideological.

The National Hockey League Players' Association has indicated that the bill could jeopardize trade agreements regarding video games made in Canada, hockey cards and international competitions, among other things.

Does the government understand that its botched bill will have a negative impact on the contribution of our national sport to the country's economy?

TaxationOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Crowfoot Alberta

Conservative

Kevin Sorenson ConservativeMinister of State (Finance)

Mr. Speaker, our government believes that workers should have the right to know how their mandatory union dues are spent. This is something Canadians have been asking for. That is why we continue to support Bill C-377. It is a reasonable bill to increase transparency.

EmploymentOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Independent

André Bellavance Independent Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Mr. Speaker, everyone was entirely justified in condemning the way that banks and fast food restaurants abused the temporary foreign worker program. Now the government is penalizing employers who follow the rules. Not only must seasonal businesses, such as restaurants, hotels, food processors and landscapers, struggle because of the new employment insurance rules, but they will also bear the brunt of this.

Will the Minister of Employment and Social Development abide by the Canada-Quebec accord on immigration and postpone these measures while the federal government negotiates with Quebec, which is what the Government of Quebec, the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business are calling for?

EmploymentOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Nepean—Carleton Ontario

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre ConservativeMinister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, we believe that Canadians should get priority when it comes to Canadian jobs. That includes Quebeckers. Quebeckers should get priority when it comes to jobs in Quebec. The data show that Quebeckers are available to meet employers' needs. Employers should offer higher wages and work harder to recruit Quebeckers.

We will always protect Quebeckers' jobs. That is why we implemented these reforms.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

NDP

Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, while I am glad the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister read my householder, during question period he said that in it there was information about income splitting, which of course has not been passed by Parliament and is not in the document.

I give him the opportunity to actually clarify the record, because I do not put in things that are not accurate in what I put out to constituents, unlike the government that puts out advertising about things that actually have not been passed in Parliament yet.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Nepean—Carleton Ontario

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre ConservativeMinister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, on this point of order, in fact, among the many Conservative tax cuts that the NDP member did highlight was income splitting. It is right here on page 12, pension splits. Pension income splitting is a form of income splitting, and he did trumpet it as a positive policy. We agree with him. He was right. He is wrong now, though.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I know members are not asking the Speaker to make decisions on terminology. The hon. member for Ottawa Centre is rising. but I am very concerned we are getting into an area of debate, and we are well past the end of question period.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

NDP

Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I respect my friend, of course, same city and all, but was directing my comment at the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. He used to have the job, but he no longer does, which is unfortunate, I guess. The point was income splitting.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

York—Simcoe Ontario

Conservative

Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I simply want to defend the member for Ottawa Centre and correct him.

He actually has, on two occasions, already voted on the income-splitting measures. They have been before this Parliament in two ways and means motions. It would be appropriate for him to promote the new measures in his householder. Having voted against them, it might not be appropriate politically for him to promote it. However, the House has deliberated on the matter, and he voted against them.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I would encourage members that if there are any other points they want to raise on this question, they do so tomorrow at the same time, in question period.

Foreign AffairsRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam B.C.

Conservative

James Moore ConservativeMinister of Industry

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled, done at Marrakesh on June 27, 2013.

I want to thank the Canadian National Institute for the Blind and all those Canadians who have worked so hard for so many years to ensure that on this treaty Canada would be the first G7 country to assent to the Marrakesh Treaty, which will help tens of thousands of Canadians who have perceptual disabilities and blindness to get access to books and works, so they can have full dignity in Canadian society.

Government Response to PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 21 petitions.

Sir John A. MacdonaldRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

York—Simcoe Ontario

Conservative

Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the Right Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald, founding father and Canada's first prime minister. Born 200 years ago this year, on January 11, 1815, in Glasgow, Scotland, Sir John A. Macdonald's story is the story of Canada.

Sir John A. Macdonald left Glasgow, Scotland when he was just five years old and emigrated to Kingston, Ontario. The child of a hard-working family, he grew up under somewhat stressful financial circumstances and by 15 was out working and soon after was articling at a law firm. He became a successful lawyer and businessman, but most notably a wise and skillful politician.

Astute observers will conclude that John A.'s greatest work was done before Confederation. Through his organizational skills and keen understanding of people, he was able to rebuild, modernize and unify a Conservative Party that was struggling. It is a feat that Conservative leaders have been compelled to repeat from time to time since.

However, that was only a prelude to his life's greatest achievement, Confederation and the creation of Canada.

Macdonald appreciated the threats facing British North America at the time: an expansionist and determined neighbour to the south, with hundreds of thousands of battle-hardened soldiers, many looking for new adventures; a British homeland which increasingly saw its North American outpost as a liability, costly to defend; and finally, a section of domestic society which increasingly looked to the American model with admiration, cloaking a desire for annexation in the rhetoric of Republicanism and modernization.

In this environment, Macdonald stood out as a leader who understood that the survival of a Canada distinct from the United States depended upon a new assertiveness and unity. It required the building of a sovereign dominion of Canada to be master of its own destiny. It required vision, judgement, but most of all, strong leadership.

Sir John A. Macdonald was a gifted nation builder. His vision was of a country where people could live together as citizens with a common future, sharing values in common, without regard for whether they were French or English, east or west, new Canadians or long-time citizens, city or country. It was a vision of a country of prosperity, generosity, tolerance and accommodation. His vision of Canada’s possibility and opportunity for the future remain without parallel today.

He captured it well when he said in the House of Commons, toward the end of his life:

—if I had influence over the minds of the people of Canada, any power over their intellects, I would leave them this legacy—“whatever you do, adhere to the Union—we are a great country and shall become one of the greatest in the universe if we preserve it; we shall sink into insignificance and adversity if we suffer it to be broken.” God and Nature have made the two Canadas one—let no factious men be allowed to put them asunder.

This vision, achieved by his remarkable skill at bringing people together, was consecrated in Confederation—built on the framework of the British North America Act, which was overwhelmingly personally penned by John A.

The proof of its genius is the success of Canada. While Canada is one of the youngest great countries of the world, our Constitution—the British North America Act—is one of the oldest operating constitutions. The framework has served well for almost 150 years, guiding Canada as it grew from four provinces to ten provinces and three territories—and as we have grown from 3.5 million people at Confederation to close to 35 million today. Its wise balance and structures serve us well today.

John A.'s passion for Canada and his wisdom in politics served to drive him and his ambition for the country at a remarkable pace. During his years as prime minister, Canada experienced unprecedented growth and prosperity. Manitoba, Prince Edward Island and British Columbia all entered Confederation. The Canadian Pacific Railway's transcontinental line was completed with great speed, quite an accomplishment in 1885, for the first time linking Canadians together from coast to coast.

Sir John A. Macdonald established the North-West Mounted Police, later renamed the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. He also created the first Canadian national park in Banff, Alberta. Sir John A. Macdonald bound this country together against impossible odds.

There is a story from the 1871 negotiations on the Treaty of Washington while they were under way. Macdonald was one of three on the imperial delegation and perhaps the only one who was really looking out for Canada's interests. The others seemed more anxious to try to improve British-U.S. relations.

At a social event during those negotiations, an American senator's wife struck up a conversation with a charming Canadian who was present.

“I guess you are from Canada”, she said.

“Yes, ma'am”, he replied.

“You've got a very smart man over there, the Honorable John A. Macdonald”, she commented.

“Yes, ma'am, he is”.

“But they say he's a regu'ar rascal”.

“Yes, ma'am, he's a perfect rascal”.

“But why do they keep such a man in power?”, she asked.

“Well, you see, they cannot get along without him.”

At that moment, the American senator arrived on the spot and said, “My dear, let me introduce you to the Honorable John A. Macdonald”.

As the woman looked mortified, John A. quickly set out to put her at ease, “Now, don't apologize. All you've said is perfectly true, and it is well known at home”.

I like that particular story because it captures so much about the essence of John. A., his strengths, his weaknesses, his understanding of humanity and its frailties, including his own, and it is part of that understanding that made him such a great leader.

Not only was Sir John A. Macdonald an economic visionary, he was ahead of his time as the world's first national leader to try to grant women the right to vote.

In 1885, Sir John A. Macdonald brought forward an electoral reform bill that proposed to extend the vote to both women and aboriginals. As a House leader, I would observe that the Liberals so fiercely opposed, obstructed and delayed these changes—they thought the changes were partisan and that they would benefit the Conservative Party—that they held up the bill for the better part of two years.

The bill only passed when Sir John A. and the Conservatives reluctantly removed the provision for votes for women. As a result, it delayed the vote for women until Prime Minister Borden's Conservative government completed John A.'s initiative.

However, aboriginals did win the right to vote in Macdonald's 1887 bill. Sadly, Laurier's government would remove that vote for aboriginals in 1897, an injustice that would not be corrected until Conservative Prime Minister John Diefenbaker restored aboriginal votes in 1960.

In addition to that visionary approach, Sir John A. Macdonald was a fierce defender of both our values and our borders. He ensured that Canada was a country that was distinct from the United States. He also sought to avoid what he considered to be flaws in the American model. He recognized that we were a big country geographically, a diverse country in terms of the types of people we had, and that it took a special approach to bring them all together.

Macdonald's great achievements as a politician and as prime minister seem to be all the more admirable when one considers the great challenges he experienced in a private life filled with tragedy and heartbreak—the death of his first wife, a son who died in infancy and his only daughter born with a debilitating illness.

The visionary leadership of John A. Macdonald for his Dominion of Canada, when he rendered the blueprint for what has proven to be the best country in the world, has indeed become a reality today. We can be amazed at his foresight and thankful for his legacy.

Two hundred years after the birth of our first prime minister, let us all remember that the Canada we love today was made possible by what our current Prime Minister has recently said was an ordinary man of whom little was expected but who, given the opportunity, did extraordinary things.

Let us reflect on the tremendous success of Sir John A. Macdonald's dream of Confederation, a truly personal project of global consequences of a country that is today the envy of the world.

Sir John A. MacdonaldRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

NDP

Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak this afternoon on behalf of the official opposition. Perhaps I was asked to do so because Sir John A. Macdonald was the member of Parliament for Victoria, a little-known fact, between the years 1878 and 1882, although I am told he did not actually visit the riding until considerably after that.

It must be said at the outset that Sir John A. Macdonald was truly a product of his time. He was a complex man. His contribution to creating Canada cannot be overstated. On the one hand, it is inconceivable that we would have a country without Sir John A. He had an amazing amount of what people today might call emotional intelligence. That intelligence shone at the Charlottetown and Quebec Conferences. Together with his friend, Sir George-Étienne Cartier, he forged alliances that resulted in what today we call Canada. On the other hand, contemporary Canadians must contextualize, not condone, certain beliefs and actions that history has rightly condemned.

Driven by the impossible dream of threading the world's longest railway through some of the world's most inhospitable land, Macdonald transformed a young nation into a continent-spanning dominion. Yet, he did so by what Professor James Daschuk called in a recent book “clearing the plains”, starving indigenous communities until they traded freedom for food and made way for the railroad.

He did so by importing Chinese labourers by the thousands for the hardest and most dangerous jobs. Hundreds died to unify Canada. Yet, with the railway nearly finished, the House passed laws to deny Chinese people the vote and to set a punitive head tax on immigrants from China.

Believing Chinese and Caucasians to be inherently different, Sir John A. Macdonald defended his xenophobic policy in the language of racial purity and political expediency, warning that Chinese Canadian MPs from British Columba might foist on the House “Asiatic principles, immoralities and eccentricities which are abhorrent to the Aryan race”.

Mr. Macdonald was well known as a skilled mediator with a unique ability to strike a balance between competing interests, bring people together at the negotiating table and bring together huge groups of settlers from different backgrounds and different faiths.

When Mr. Macdonald learned that the last spike had been driven into the Canadian Pacific Railway, he declared that the railway united us as a nation. A week later, however, Louis Riel was hanged in Regina, creating a new division in the country.

Mr. Macdonald created a country that was different from its powerful neighbour, America, and that left behind its British imperial origins. He blazed a completely new trail, one that was unprecedented in modern western history, proving that a colony could become an independent country peacefully.

Yet, within this nation, he established a system of residential schools to remove aboriginal children “as much as possible from the parental influence...and to assimilate the Indian people in all respects...as speedily as they are fit for the change”. The last of these schools closed within our lifetime, and their legacy of neglect, abuse and death haunts us, as it should, to this very day.

Macdonald was a product of his time, and yet in some ways he was ahead of his time. He extended voting rights to aboriginal men, a remarkable and short-lived reform that would not be reinstated until 1960. He advocated women's suffrage decades before it finally became law. His Trade Unions Act of 1872 recognized the legal rights of unions in Canada for the first time, and by intervening in a strike by Toronto typographers, he won the support of Canada's emerging working class in an election where, for the first time, the industrial future of Canada was the chief issue.

Mr. Macdonald's personal life was no less complex than his public life. At his peak, he was extremely popular, charming and charismatic. He was a clever and empathetic politician and an unrivalled negotiator. At other times, he would be consumed by despair and frustration. He was of course a man who enjoyed his drink, and had to be carried out of the House on more than one occasion. Fortunately, there were no cameras here at the time.

He was very funny. One of the witticisms that he made when he was asked to provide his occupation for a hotel ledger book, he wrote “cabinet maker”. At home, he cared deeply for his severely disabled daughter, Mary, with whom he spent time every evening telling her stories of the day's drama in Parliament.

These details and many others have emerged from recent scholarship that give us a finer portrait of Sir John A. Macdonald as we mark the bicentennial of his birth. I pay particular tribute to Professor Donald Creighton and Mr. Richard Gwyn for their remarkable works on Sir John A.

When we speak about him today, we do so neither to praise him nor to bury him. To simply chastise him and to lay the legacy of discriminatory policies against first nations or Chinese Canadians entirely at his feet would be to absolve ourselves of our obligations to right these wrongs, and to overlook an opportunity to build a better, fairer Canada that we know is possible. If we can instead be honest about our past and about this key figure who played such a central role in it, we can begin to tell a more inclusive story about our country, one that inspires us all to better it.

The problems of Macdonald's days are still alive in Canada and they deserve the attention of the House. More than a century ago, John A. Macdonald spoke about the inevitable recognition of women's equality, yet still today that equality is not recognized with equal pay or a national effort to stop the violence that threatens Canadian women every day. More than a century ago, Macdonald was the architect of xenophobic laws, yet still today we struggle to live up to our image as a multicultural nation, to welcome new Canadians to our social and economic life, and offer a haven to families fleeing violence and persecution. More than a century has passed since Macdonald built residential schools, yet still we have not closed the shameful gaps in health, housing, income and freedom from violence that separate aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians.

The 200th anniversary of the birth of Sir John A. Macdonald will not make the debate on his legacy any less polarized, but it does give us the opportunity to take stock and reflect on the progress we have made as a country and the obstacles we still have to overcome.

If by taking stock we can take any inspiration from Canada's first prime minister, I hope that it will be from his visionary spirit. He believed in overcoming obstacles that others thought insurmountable. The obstacles that we face today are not mountain ranges or rivers; they are in our cities and small towns, in workplaces and on reserves, but they are no less daunting.

As we approach a milestone for Canada, let us remember that the project Sir John A. Macdonald began is not finished. Let us still dream big dreams, and as we seek to make them real for all Canadians, let us move forward with the wisdom that can only come from an honest and complete understanding of our history.

Sir John A. MacdonaldRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Ted Hsu Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to rise today as the member for Kingston and the Islands on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada to honour on the bicentennial of his birth, Sir John A. Macdonald, a Father of Confederation and our first prime minister.

Sir John A. was an immigrant, a man with an immigrant’s sense of hope and vitality, who was also determined to play a public role in building his new country. In 1844, he was first elected as the member of Parliament for Kingston, the seat he held in this House at his death, 47 years later, in 1891.

In Kingston on June 6, the anniversary of Sir John A.'s death, people still gather annually for a memorial ceremony organized by the Kingston Historical Society. It takes place at Sir John A.'s very modest gravesite located in Cataraqui Cemetery.

In 1891, the outpouring of grief was anything but modest. Ten thousand people greeted the funeral train as it arrived in Kingston from Ottawa. Kingston continues to keep alive for us the memory of Sir John A. Macdonald with place names, events, historical markers and buildings, including his bar, the Royal Tavern, which still stands today.

Arthur Milnes and Jim Garrard of Kingston led the charge for a national celebration of the Sir John A. bicentennial.

Sir John A. Macdonald, with his political, interpersonal and constitutional skills and his determination, was likely the only person who could have brought together the provinces and colonies of British North America which formed the new nation in 1867. Sir John A. understood and was a most powerful advocate for the idea that despite the differences, a federation of united provinces would be stronger, better governed, more secure and more prosperous.

Indeed, our federation has allowed us to preserve our differences. We embrace our differences and we are thereby enriched and strengthened.

Confederation was not simply a political solution to a problem. Sir John A. Macdonald had an ambitious long-term vision for a big Canada stretching from sea to sea. Sir John A. the statesman believed that a strong government should lead in realizing that vision. Sir John A. the political leader won six majorities, allowing him to begin the building of this new Canada.

After 1867, Sir John A. welcomed three more provinces and the Northwest Territories into Confederation. He built the Canadian Pacific Railway. In 1873, he planned the North-West Mounted Police, forerunner of today's RCMP, and in 1885 created Canada's first national park, Banff.

I do not believe we will ever stop building and improving Canada, and we will never stop being inspired by the man who put his talents for politics and statecraft to work in our nation’s early years.

Sir John A. Macdonald was human and a man of his times. He and his family suffered personal tragedies. He was a man of many faults, who made mistakes and held indefensible and damaging positions, notably those regarding the treatment of indigenous peoples, damage that we must still work to overcome today.

Yet, perhaps these faults render the man more accessible. I ask members of the House, who among us do not have faults and failures and have not committed errors? Our faults are on display in the public square as we conduct the nation's business. That is part of politics. We can allow them to dominate our legacy, or we can pursue the politics of purpose.

Like Sir John A. Macdonald, we too at times are frail, but his accomplishments and his legacy can inspire us to be just as determined, to envision, to hope and work for a better Canada.

Happy 200th birthday, Sir John. A.

Statements by the Minister of National Defence Regarding Canada's Military Engagement Against ISIL—Speaker's RulingPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Before we continue with routine proceedings, I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on April 2 by the hon. member for St. John's East about alleged misleading information provided to the House by the Minister of National Defence prior to the House’s decision regarding the expansion and extension of the Canadian military engagement in Iraq and now in Syria.

I would like to thank the hon. member for St. John's East for having raised this matter, as well as the hon. Minister of National Defence, the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the House Leader of the Official Opposition and the members for Winnipeg Northand Vancouver Quadra for their comments.

In raising this question of privilege, the member for St. John's East explained that on Monday, March 30, 2015, the Minister of National Defence told the House that Canada was the only coalition partner, other than the United States, currently engaged in Syria using precision-guided munitions to strike targets dynamically. He acknowledged that the minister later admitted that that information was erroneous, that in fact every state currently engaged in air strikes in Syria is using precision-guided munitions. The member for St. John's East spoke to the minister's sacred duty to ensure the accuracy of statements, particularly when it informs members' decisions on such critical issues as whether or not to send Canadians off to war. He contended that the minister's misleading statements constituted a serious breach of privilege.

The Minister of National Defence confirmed that he had indeed provided the House with information from military officials that, at the time, he believed to be true, but that ultimately proved to be inaccurate. Accepting ministerial responsibility, he expressed his regret for conveying false information, even though he did not know it to be so at the time. He also stressed that when new information became available to the military, steps were taken to correct the record by the military and by him as soon as was possible. Together, he claimed, this proved that there was no deliberate attempt to falsify or withhold information or mislead the House.

The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons argued that the minister established beyond any doubt that he did not intend to mislead the House. Thus, he believed that from the outset, the requisite conditions for a finding of breach of privilege had not been satisfied. Finally, he concluded his remarks by challenging the validity of the hon. member for St. John's East's contention that members needed to rely on that information. He argued that it was already clear how the member would vote.

At the core of this matter is the fundamental need for members to offer and receive correct and truthful information at all times, regardless of the topic or proceeding. Members rely on accurate information to fulfill their parliamentary duties and represent the interests of all Canadians to the very best of their ability. There can be no second-guessing or pre-determination or ranking of the need for or use of particular pieces of information. Members individually judge the importance of information as they receive it.

In his ruling of February 1, 2002, at page 8581 of the Debates, Speaker Milliken reiterated the importance of the need for accurate and truthful information in Parliament:

The authorities are consistent about the need for clarity in our proceedings and about the need to ensure the integrity of the information provided by the government to the House. Furthermore, in this case, as hon. Members have pointed out, integrity of information is of paramount importance since it directly concerns the rules of engagement for Canadian troops involved in the conflict in Afghanistan, a principle that goes to the very heart of Canada's participation in the war against terrorism.

In this instance, the minister has acknowledged that he relayed inaccurate information to the House; on that there is no argument. The minister rose in this House on April 1 to correct the record and subsequently tabled a later from the Chief of the Defence Staff in this regard. But is this, in and of itself, a sufficient basis for a finding of a breach of privilege? Has it met the three conditions defined by parliamentary practice?

For the benefit of all members, the Chair would like to remind the House that first, the statement needs to be misleading. Second, the member making the statement has to know that the statement was incorrect when it was made. Finally, it needs to be proven that the member intended to mislead the House by making the statement.

Perhaps the most useful precedent in this case is that of Speaker Jerome from 1978. A careful reading of his ruling of December 6, 1978, tells us that, in that case, while a Minister also relayed erroneous information from officials to the House, the finding of prima facie was based squarely on the testimony of a former RCMP commissioner, which led the Speaker to conclude that a deliberate attempt was made to obstruct the Member and the House. Without such an admission of deliberate wrongdoing by military officials in this instance, the same conclusion cannot be drawn today.

In fact, the Minister made it very clear on April 2, 2015, page 12714 of the Debates, that officials had not, in his view, purposely misinformed the Minister when he stated:

I can absolutely assure the hon. member that neither I nor the military, I believe, at any point purposefully or deliberately misled this place or the media. I have absolutely no doubt that the military believed the veracity of the information I was given, and I accepted the source credibility of those briefing me in conveying that to this place and to the public.

The minister also stated:

It is regrettable that inaccurate information was provided, but that was not done with any mala fides, with any deliberation, or with any intent to falsify information.

With no evidence presented to the contrary, the conventions of this House dictate that, as your Speaker, I must take all members at their word. To do otherwise, to take it upon myself to assess the truthfulness or accuracy of Members' statements is not a role which has been conferred on me, nor that the House has indicated that it would somehow wish the Chair to assume, with all of its implications.

Furthermore, as Speaker Milliken stated in his ruling of April 16, 2002, on page 10462 of the Debates:

If we do not preserve the tradition of accepting the word of a fellow member, which is a fundamental principle of our parliamentary system, then freedom of speech, both inside and outside the House, is imperilled.

Based on a thorough assessment of the information brought forward, in my view there is no clear evidence that would lead me to conclude that the necessary conditions concerning misleading statements have been met, nor can I conclude that the Member for St. John's East was somehow impeded in the performance of his parliamentary duties. Therefore, I cannot find that there is a prima facie question of privilege.

That being said, the Minister did indicate that the Chief of the Defence Staff will soon be appearing before the Standing Committee on National Defence and, in addition, that he and other officials would also be willing to appear. It is my sincere hope that Members will be able to use that opportunity to find answers to any outstanding questions that they may have about this important matter.

I thank hon. members for their attention.

Interparliamentary DelegationsRoutine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Dean Allison Conservative Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe respecting its participation at the fall meeting of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly held in Geneva, Switzerland from October 3-5, 2014; and at the election observation mission of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly held in Chisinau, Moldova on November 30, 2014.

Industry, Science and TechnologyCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

David Sweet Conservative Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, in relation to Bill C-625, An Act to amend the Statistics Act (removal of imprisonment).

The committee has studied the bill and decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment.

Fisheries and OceansCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Rodney Weston Conservative Saint John, NB

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, in relation to Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.

The committee has studied the bill and decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

Ministries and Ministers of State ActRoutine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Independent

Brent Rathgeber Independent Edmonton—St. Albert, AB

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-672, An Act to amend the Ministries and Ministers of State Act and the Salaries Act (limitation on the number of ministers and ministers of State).

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise in this House and table an act to amend the Ministries and Ministers of State Act and the Salaries Act.

Its purpose is to limit the number of ministers and ministers of state to 26. The number 26 was chosen because statutorily there are 20 federal government departments plus six federal agencies whose statutory heads are all ministers.

When this government assumed office in 2006, we had a lean cabinet of 26 members. In the words of the Prime Minister, “Designed for work, not for show; more focus and purpose; less process and cost”.

Besides saving taxpayers an estimated $12 million to $15 million annually, reducing the size of cabinet would address the much larger problem of imbalance between the executive and legislative branches of government.

Making cabinet smaller reduces the mathematical probability that any member will ever be asked to serve. This would force MPs to take their responsibilities as legislators seriously, placing the interests of their constituents above their own career advancement.

Fewer rewards to be distributed means less control over the backbenches and ultimately a more functional Parliament.

Accordingly, I ask all members to support this important democratic reform legislation.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Canada PostPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

NDP

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by hundreds of my constituents, who are calling on Canada Post to improve its services. They denounce the loss of service as a result of privatization and the decision to install community mailboxes that people do not want.

We want to see an improvement, and that is what these petitioners are demanding.