Debates of Feb. 20th, 2020

Opposition Motion—Coastal GasLink Project

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, you cannot imagine how happy I am to hear that my colleague does not want to see that.

In fact, yesterday evening, I felt somewhat obliged to respond to a comment from a candidate to the leadership of the Conservative Party, who congratulated two men in a truck. He said that, by dismantling a barricade and loading it into two pickup trucks, these two men went and did what the Prime Minister of Canada failed to do.

I was astounded to see that someone who aspires to be the Prime Minister of Canada is encouraging people to take the law into their own hands by sending in some muscle to take down the barricades in a place where tensions are running high.

I urge my colleague to speak to this party leadership candidate, even if it is just to say that this is an example of what not to do. Civilians must not be told to go confront other civilians on the mistaken assumption that their actions will help resolve a potentially serious crisis.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I concur with many of the statements my colleague made.

I listened to the minister's comments, as well as the questions that were asked. My colleague asked the minister if the Prime Minister would be attending the meeting and it was deflected. We asked this question yesterday and we are asking it again today. Do you believe the Prime Minister should be at the meeting the hereditary chiefs have requested?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member that he is to address the question to the Chair and not the individual member.

The hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I said at the top of my speech, leadership is very much a question of attitude. I think legitimacy comes from the way a leader handles issues.

Waffling and the appearance of weakness, assuming it is only the appearance, will certainly not inspire confidence or get the people and representatives of the Wet'suwet'en nation to believe that he is starting to be serious and that they can sit down with him.

That is not what we are seeing. I think the Prime Minister needs to take the bull by the horns, put his toque back on and go to British Columbia to meet with them. Better yet, the leaders, or some leaders, of the Wet'suwet'en nation are coming to Belleville and Quebec. He should meet with them then.

I know how much he likes a photo opportunity. This would be a great one, and he would be starting a conversation.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Madam Speaker, there is a proverb that says, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”. I am starting from the assumption that our Conservative friends had good intentions in moving today's motion. Nevertheless, we need to realize that the last thing we need today is a tone that leads to confrontation. I think what we need instead is a tone that leads to collaboration, discussion and negotiation.

We absolutely cannot subscribe to the Manichaean view on display in the Conservatives' motion, implying that there are good guys on one side and bad guys on the other. Who are we to determine or judge that sort of thing? I think we do not have all the information to make that kind of call.

I sense some sordid partisan motives behind today's motion, and I do not like it. We really do not need that kind of motive in a situation like this one. On the contrary, we need to work in a spirit of collaboration, as I was saying earlier. That is the only way to arrive at a peaceful solution to the conflict that is happening right now.

On the other hand, we cannot condone the current lack of leadership on the part of the Prime Minister and his government. The government is needlessly letting the situation drag on and, as the saying goes, “the longer we wait, the worse things will get”.

On Tuesday, we were treated to the Prime Minister's mollifying words when he delivered a statement filled with platitudes. There again, I would say that the perfect is the enemy of the good. This speech was filled with platitudes and we saw how effective it was. In fact, it was so persuasive that instead of convincing the protesters to end the blockades it resulted in new ones being erected yesterday, whether it was out west or, as pointed out by the leader of the Bloc, on the line linking Mont-Saint-Hilaire to Montreal. Stations in his riding and mine were closed.

In Saint-Basile-le-Grand and Saint-Bruno-de-Montarville, users of public transit were surprised to find out that they were also being taken hostage by this conflict even though on Tuesday the Prime Minister had called for it to end. Suddenly, they could no longer use public transit. What is happening is of great concern.

I have to say that the Prime Minister's many tearful displays of contrition over the past few years, while entirely justified, do not bring us any closer to reconciliation. To achieve true reconciliation, the government needs to make good on the lip service it has been paying for many years now.

In 1982, in the aftermath of the iniquitous repatriation of the Constitution at Quebec's expense, the current Prime Minister's father entered into constitutional negotiations with first nations. Those constitutional negotiations were never concluded, and now here we are today. What we are experiencing today is the result not only of the government dragging its feet since the 1980s, but also the totally unacceptable treatment our first nations have endured for centuries.

It is time to stop paying lip service and actually walk the talk. In that regard, it is important to note, as the leader of the Bloc Québécois pointed out a few minutes ago, that our party is the only one that has put forward any concrete proposals for dealing with the crisis.

These are solutions that go beyond lip service and do not require forceful interventions that could potentially make the situation much worse. I urge the government to stop seeing the members opposite as a monolithic group who are all of the same mind, since that is not the case, and to be receptive to the proposals that have been made so far. I think there are still some people on the Liberal government side who have not yet realized that they are a minority government and that we have to work together and take the best ideas from all sides. The Bloc Québécois has proposed some concrete ideas. The Bloc leader referred to those a few minutes ago. I urge the government to take action.

It is important to recognize that the government's procrastination is forcing the provinces and Quebec to act in the federal government's place, and they will end up getting the blame for the actions they take. We have even heard ministers, including the Minister of Transport, suggest as much. This shows a lack of leadership and a lack of courage from the Liberal government.

The Quebec National Assembly adopted a motion on February 18. I want to read it out.

THAT the National Assembly reaffirm its adherence to the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples;

THAT, accordingly, it invite the governments of Québec [and] Canada to maintain egalitarian nation-to-nation relations with the indigenous peoples of Québec and Canada....

The next part is important to our Conservative friends.

THAT it acknowledge that the current conflict, which stems from the Coastal GasLink pipeline project, is having an undesirable impact on railway network users and on the economy [of Quebec];

THAT the National Assembly call for a negotiated, peaceful political solution to the current crisis, in order to prevent violence.

The consequences are so dire for the Quebec economy, the Canadian economy and mass transit users that Quebec's premier was forced to seek an injunction and consider the possibility of intervening. What is the federal government waiting for?

The federal government claims to want to avoid the kinds of crises we have seen in the past, but its procrastination is leading us straight into a potential crisis. What is it waiting for?

I would appeal to that desire for social peace and urge the protesters at the blockades to consider that their protests and actions have gotten society to pay attention to their demands and hopes for next steps. I hope that this will lead us to sit down and finally negotiate with first nations.

That said, the protesters must realize that if they continue, the us-versus-them mentality will persist. That mentality certainly does nothing to foster understanding, negotiation and co-operation.

If everyone is serious about negotiating a solution, then actions need to be taken by all sides.

That is what we expect from a government, even a minority one.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to acknowledge my colleague's remarks and remind the House, if he did not say so at the beginning of his speech, that he is a former minister of public security. If there is anyone who knows what it means to enforce the law, it is him. I would also like to acknowledge him and his government for their excellent response to the tragedy in Lac-Mégantic that shook Quebec and all of Canada.

Now, in his remarks, the hon. member referred to forceful interventions. He obviously disagrees with that approach. Without naming us, he was targeting us indirectly. I understand that, too. It is good politics.

However, is enforcing the law a forceful intervention? Section 5 of the RCMP Act gives authority to the Minister of Public Safety.

The Premier of Quebec said this morning that the blockades would be removed as soon as the injunction was issued. The Premier of Quebec said that the law exists and that the police could intervene.

Does the hon. member agree with the Premier of Quebec, who said that laws must be obeyed?

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I had the opportunity to mention a few moments ago, the current Liberal government's procrastination is forcing the Quebec and provincial governments to consider the possibility of intervening to enforce the law.

Of course what is going on right now is illegal. Of course everyone would like a peaceful solution to the conflict. However, the Liberal government's attitude is driving the provinces and Quebec to consider intervening, which will only make the situation worse. No one thinks that intervening will improve the situation, quite the contrary. Once again, I appeal to this government's courage and initiative and urge it to intervene to prevent the situation from getting worse. I will conclude by saying that, unfortunately, letting this situation drag on encourages others to try the same thing. The leader of the Bloc Québécois mentioned this in connection with the line between Mont-Saint-Hilaire and Montreal.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Official Languages)]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening with great interest to the comments made by my esteemed colleague from Montarville.

It is odd that the Bloc Québécois, whose main talking point is that the federal government must avoid interfering in Quebec's affairs as much as possible, is now asking why the federal government will not intervene regarding the blockades in the interest of public safety in the province of Quebec.

Like my esteemed colleague, I am old enough to remember what happened at Oka in 1990. The Sûreté du Québec was dispatched to the barricades. Then the federal government was asked to intervene, and the conflict went on for 78 days, or two and a half months.

First of all, I would like to ask my esteemed colleague what he remembers about Oka and how it relates to today's situation, which affects the entire country, not just a small area of Quebec. What does he remember about those notorious 78 days, for that is how long it took to reach a resolution?

Second, what he calls procrastination on the government's part is actually an effort to enter into dialogue with key stakeholders that is happening as we speak.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure where my colleague was when I gave my speech. I never asked for the government to intervene with respect to the blockades in Quebec. That is not what I asked for.

In fact, I said just the opposite. I asked the government to sit down with the nations involved, beginning with the Wet'suwet'en nation, in order to come up with a solution to end the blockades across Canada, including in Quebec. As far as I know, and correct me if I am wrong, the federal government still has a fiduciary responsibility to first nations. I therefore call on the government to do its job, under the Constitution that it imposed on us, and look after our indigenous nations.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, as always, I am extremely honoured to stand in this House, the people's House, to represent the people of Timmins—James Bay on unceded Algonquin territory. Let us just reflect on that a moment. This is not just some nice thing we Canadians now say, when we do the land recognition. It is a statement of understanding that there are outstanding historical rights and land issues running across our country, and we need to acknowledge that. That is one of the reasons we are here today.

We are at an unprecedented moment in Canada's history, a moment when we can all come together and rise up to meet the challenge, or we can give in to our lazier base motives of political machismo and spite. I believe we are now dealing with a crisis that has moved from Wet'suwet'en territory out across Canada, and it requires leadership. It requires us, as parliamentarians, to recognize it and be honest with each other. This is bigger than all of us, but if we do not rise to the task, the risks to our nation right now are very serious.

We can come together and try to untangle this extremely complex Gordian knot, or we can play to the usual base in this House of division. I find this opposition motion from the Conservatives to be very telling of their political tactics. This motion has us standing in this House today to “condemn the radical activists who are exploiting divisions within the Wet’suwet’en community”.

It is our job to recognize that there needs to be a conversation not only with the Wet'suwet'en people, but also with indigenous people across this country. It is not for us to say that if they support a gas line we will support them and to have Parliament come down in the middle of a very tense motion.

I point to the other motion the Conservatives brought forward. They were willing to use this national crisis to try to bring down the government and save the opposition leader's political career, who has been rejected by his own party. That is not leadership. That is more of the same kind of joker chaos politics that we do not need at this time.

This past weekend, I joined thousands of young people in the streets of Ottawa. People were also marching in Montreal, Halifax and Vancouver. It was extremely inspiring to see these young people, young indigenous leadership, stepping forward at the front of the march. I spoke to many of them and asked where they were from. They were from places such as Kanesatake, Kitigan Zibi, Fort Albany and Barriere Lake.

I think of the Leader of the Opposition who told these young indigenous people to check their privilege. I know he was not serious. I know he was just doing it as a dig, a slur, a spite, but that is not leadership. The message it is sending to this young generation is that this Parliament is in opposition to their hopes and dreams, and that is not Canada.

I think of the young woman I met from Fort Albany, and the Conservatives would tell her to check her privilege. Her grandparents were at Federal Court this week for the St. Anne's residential school crisis, where some of the worst crimes in history committed against children happened. Her grandparents in Fort Albany are still fighting, and Conservatives would tell this young woman to check her privilege.

I think of Kanesatake and the Mohawk people who have been there since long before us and who will be there long after us, and the Leader of the Opposition is telling the woman I met to check her privilege. Of course he has a $900,000 slush fund for treats and perks. That is quite privileged.

I also think of the amazing young woman I met who spoke up from Barriere Lake, Quebec. Barriere Lake's territory has been stripped of forestry and has been flooded out time and time again by massive hydro dams, and the people have received nothing. Her parents, grandparents and great-grandparents have fought just to stay on that land. To tell her to check her privilege is not on.

Then there is Kitigan Zibi. There are so many young people from Kitigan Zibi. Kitigan Zibi is not very far from Ottawa. It is an incredible Algonquin community right beside Maniwaki. Maniwaki has clean drinking water, but Kitigan Zibi does not. The Conservatives tell the world that they can drive a bitumen pipeline through the Rocky Mountains, but we cannot get clean water to a community that close to Ottawa. This is why people are marching.

What we need to do here today is to not play games with these kinds of motions that the Conservatives are using to divide the Wet'suwet'en people.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

We need to say we have a much bigger crisis. We need to start to untangle this and find a way to de-escalate, because—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Would members respect the time the hon. member has for his speech. Members can listen to what he is saying and then ask questions.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not lose any sleep over angry Conservatives heckling and shouting. They are the same kind of people who are on Twitter, and they probably have their own troll farm giving them messages.

We need to deal with a way to end the railway blockades. I want to talk about how we move forward on that, because I am very concerned that this issue could spiral out of control very quickly. To see the language from the Conservatives about the mob and the radicals and the professional protesters and the eco-terrorists is putting us on more and more dangerous ice.

I was absolutely shocked that Peter MacKay would post a tweet of an ugly confrontation of some guy in a truck shouting at young indigenous people and telling them to drop dead, and that Peter MacKay would promote that vigilantism. That is not what we do in Canada and we cannot allow that to happen.

I would urge my Conservative colleagues to remember what happened at Oka and Elsipogtog. I remember with Ipperwash Mike Harris standing up and saying, “I want the g.d. Indians out of the park.” Dudley George died and an OPP officer's career was ruined.

Never again would the OPP take those kinds of orders from a government, and I am very pleased today to see that the RCMP is offering to step down in Wet’suwet’en. That is a good first step.

I would like to take a minute here to recognize two important people whom I have come to know. One is the late Wayne Russett of the RCMP who I negotiated with many times. He was an incredible diplomat in defusing situations on blockades.

I got my political start on a railway blockade. The Conservatives make it seem like it is just people who are lazy and do not want to go to work, but when people are on a blockade it is because they have no other choice. They have been betrayed by a process and betrayed by a system. It took the people of northern Ontario standing up on a railway blockade to get the issues of environmental protection on our land recognized, and it brought Canada to a better place.

One of the key negotiators besides Wayne Russett was officer Jim MacDonald of the OPP, who came in with the subpoena and the injunction. Officer Jim MacDonald is a big man with a big voice. We became very good friends because he knew what we were doing was right, and he knew that the OPP was being put in a very difficult position.

We need to start looking at how to defuse the situation. The Prime Minister's plan to replace the RCMP with indigenous police is showing a continued lack of leadership. The Prime Minister needs to move beyond saying we are here to talk and here to listen. I appreciate the minister's talk about how we are going to move things forward over the next number of years, but we have a crisis now.

When I see young indigenous people walking in the streets with signs saying that reconciliation is dead, it is heartbreaking, but it is something I have heard again and again in the communities as their frustrations grow. That frustration is real and it is up to us to say that reconciliation is not dead because it is the obligation of the government and settler state.

Indigenous people have nothing to reconcile. It is their lands that were taken, their children who were taken, and it is their rights and their rules of law that have been undermined time and time again. When they are walking in the streets saying that reconciliation is dead, it is up to us to raise the bar.

The Prime Minister has said he is willing to listen. That is a good sign, but he needs to be willing to listen and to meet. He needs to show leadership. What is happening in the Wet’suwet’en territory now has touched off something much bigger, much more tense and much more complex. The possibility of something going wrong at one of those railway blockades is very real. There is the possibility of someone getting hurt. The possibility of some idiot driving a truck through a crowd is very real.

That is why the words we say in this House matter. We have to be able to de-escalate this. These blockades are putting enormous economic pressure on our country right now. That is why we need to be able to put an offer on the table. In order for people to step back from a blockade they need to know that something is going to change.

This morning, the RCMP said that they were willing to step out of the Wet'suwet'en territory. I think that is a very good step.

To do that then we cannot just, as the Prime Minister suggested, replace it with indigenous police and have life carry on. We need a time for discussion. We need to ask Coastal GasLink to suspend work and suspend moving into the territory while this negotiation takes place. It is not that radical a thing to say, because nothing is going to happen in that territory until this gets decided anyway.

Third, it needs to be the Prime Minister himself who goes to Wet'suwet'en territory to sit down and meet. I am very pleased that the Minister of Indigenous Services met with the Mohawks in Belleville. I think that is a very positive step, but it is the Prime Minister who needs to show leadership. He needs to put on the table that we will deal with these issues between the hereditary chiefs and the elected band councils.

I have nothing negative to say about the people who signed the agreements. I have nothing negative to say about the political leaders and business people who moved forward believing they had an agreement. However, clearly, within the indigenous community, there is a deep divide that needs to be addressed, and we need the Prime Minister there.

Fourth, I would say that the Prime Minister needs to meet and appoint a special emissary to start building trust. I cannot speak for Senator Murray Sinclair, and I have spoken with him on this issue, but it should be someone like Murray Sinclair or someone of a stature that is respected. Then we would agree that nothing happens until we go through this. Are we then going to say that the pipeline just moves ahead? No, we are going to sit down and talk with the Wet'suwet'en people and find out where we go next.

Then I would ask the Prime Minister, following an agreement, to set up those meetings to reach out to the Mohawk people who are on the blockades, because we need to get the trains moving, and urge the Mohawks to recognize that there will be huge impacts on all of us. However, they are going to want to see good faith, because they are not just going to walk away at this moment.

There is a fifth issue, which is probably the most difficult for the government to agree to. We need a coherent plan to deal with the catastrophic climate change that is coming. The days when it was just business as usual, and we could keep pumping up greenhouse gas emissions without any credible plan, have hit a brick wall.

I was out on the street seeing young people marching everywhere. They get it. They get that the promise of getting another pipeline, planting some trees and then getting another pipeline and planting more trees is not cutting it. They want to know why our carbon footprint is getting bigger and bigger every year.

We need to have a credible plan, and certainly that is going to be a discussion about Teck Frontier right now, because Jason Kenney has put that front and centre. This has become the Conservative proxy war, which I believe is destabilizing the issues that we need to address in order to get this blockade issue dealt with.

On the October Thanksgiving weekend in 2000, when I had never dreamed of becoming a politician, I was standing at the blockade when the OPP came at night and set up cars to come and arrest my neighbours who were farmers and miners, Algonquin and Ojibwa people standing to defend the watershed of the region.

I got a call from the Crown prosecutor's office. I will not say who it was in the office, but someone called to say that they had just gotten a call from Mike Harris and he wanted 100 people arrested.

I asked the person from the Crown prosecutor's office what they were going to do. He said that there was not a judge within 300 kilometres who would sign a mass warrant for arrests, because they knew this was a tense situation. All they were asking the demonstrators to do was to not escalate.

We actually had this dance of negotiations between police and the protesters, who both understood that we needed to find a way out of this without it spiralling, because it could have spiralled very fast.

Having that experience of negotiating with police, I understand the tensions they are put under in this situation, so it is very unhelpful to have the Conservatives speak again and again about enforcing injunctions. There are so many rail crossings across this country. There are so many ways that people can rise up, and they are rising up.

This is a moment when Canada could recognize that this crisis could have been the LNG project, it could have been Teck or it could have been any number of things. This crisis has been 150 years in the making. This young generation of indigenous people is going to be heard.

It is up to this Parliament to say that we have to find a way to rise to this challenge, to recognize that it is bigger than all of us, to recognize the dangers of allowing this thing to spiral, because if it spirals and someone gets hurt then there will be no trains running. The impacts and the divisions between Canadians would be enormous.

I have been talking with some of the young indigenous people. I have to say that, when they were marching in Ottawa, a number of people waved and showed support. That is what Canada is.

Canada is a country that is coming to terms with a colonial past that we never understood we had, but we have it. It is there. It is real. It is being lived in the lives of young generations of first nations children.

I saw a sign that one young person posted. It said, “First you tried to take us off our land, and now you are trying to take our children.” The Conservatives might think that is apples and oranges, but we have a $10-billion class action lawsuit being brought forward by the AFN. We have a government that has spent millions of dollars fighting the principle that there has been systemic and reckless discrimination, not historical but ongoing, against first nation children.

What is the most important relationship to first nations people? It is not with a pipeline, I can tell members that. It is with their children. They have never seen a commitment to address the fact that the destruction of their children, families and identities is ongoing.

When members on the Conservative side talk about the rule of law, that does not really pass the nod test in indigenous communities that know that, when they sign agreements with the federal government, those agreements last just as long as the government wants them to last and then they walk away.

I saw that in Barrière Lake. There was a beautiful agreement to rebuild that community. The government walked away. I saw that in Kashechewan, where they had a plan to move them off. There was a signed agreement, and the government walked away from that. We had commitments to end the fights on child welfare, and the government walked away from that.

For the government to be nice, saying that it is going to listen and saying, “Take down the barricades and blockades,” is not going to cut it with indigenous people who have been lied to time and time again.

There is an urgency right now to try to de-escalate the situation. I am not saying anything less about the Wet'suwet'en and what is happening in the Wet'suwet'en territories and the discussion that needs to happen. We need to get this thing addressed.

However, we need to get the trains moving and to give Canadians certainty that we are apprised of the seriousness. That is going to come from leadership from the Prime Minister.

We also need to send a message to the indigenous youth who are marching across Canada and their allies that the issue of reconciliation is not dead. We just have not done a very good job on it. The issue of environmental crisis is real. The planet is burning and Canada has failed.

When we address that, then I think we will be moving to a better place because there is nothing better, there is nothing more hopeful in this country than this young generation of indigenous people who will transform this nation for the better.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think everybody recognizes and agrees that unanimity is not possible. We have to respect the will of the people.

Does the member recognize, based on the number given by the National Coalition of Chiefs, that all 20 elected bands are for the project and the majority of hereditary chiefs are in favour of the project?

Where is the line between doing what the majority of people want and waiting for 100% support, even if we know we will never achieve 100% support?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is a profound question that Canada is going to have to confront.

I think it is very unfortunate that the Conservatives have decided to use this as a motion to divide people by saying they “condemn the radical activists who are exploiting divisions”. The Conservatives are exploiting the divisions right now. That is what is happening.

As for the signed agreements, I would refer to Senator Murray Sinclair. I have worked on resource development projects. I have been involved in resource development projects. I have helped sign agreements. This can be done in very good faith.

However, as Murray Sinclair said the other day, when dealing with impoverished communities that are being given promises, as the Paul Simon quote goes:

...pocketful of mumbles
Such are promises

I would then go to the next line:

All lies and jests
Still, a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest

I find the Conservatives' use of numbers on the Wet'suwet'en that they will support and the Wet'suwet'en they will not to be pretty much—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Order. The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is rising on a point of order.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There are many things about the member's initial remarks that would be defamatory if made outside the House, especially those about the Leader of the Opposition, and we showed forbearance during some of those comments. However in his most recent intervention he used the word “lying” in reference to other—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

This is getting into debate.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

The member used the word “lying”, Madam Speaker, in reference to other members of the House. That is very clearly a matter of order. That member, notwithstanding his strong opinions, should be expected to follow the rules of the House.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I did not hear the word “liar”. We will take a look at Hansard and will come back to the House if necessary.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know the Conservatives are against so many things and now they are against Simon & Garfunkel. I quoted a lyric. I said, “All lies and jests, still a man hears what he wants to hear and he disregards the rest.” That perfectly sums up my opponent. I never called him a liar. The member is just disregarding the facts.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am a big fan of Simon & Garfunkel but the context in which one uses a word, or misuses it, matters. The record will show that, as part of a quotation or anything else, we cannot use unparliamentary language and we cannot use a quotation or lyric as an excuse to use unparliamentary language.

I would invite you, Madam Speaker, to review the tape and if necessary at a future point correct the member on his unparliamentary behaviour.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We will come back to the House on that if necessary.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think you would recognize that it would set a very dangerous precedent for us not to be allowed to quote Simon & Garfunkel. I know my hon. colleague is upset that I did not quote Nickelback but I just have not heard them enough. It would be a very dangerous precedent to say Simon & Garfunkel is somehow insulting to Conservatives. I think they can rise above that. I trust that you would understand, Madam Speaker.