Candice Bergen

[Taxation, November 18th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, last week I had the opportunity to visit the 3M manufacturing plant in Morden, Manitoba, which is in my riding.

3M employs 140 people from the region and has a payroll of almost $9 million per year.

We know that because of our Conservative government Canada is on track to having one of the lowest business tax rates in the G7, which helps keep businesses like 3M in Canada.

Our government believes, and experts have confirmed, low business taxes equal more jobs and more opportunity for everyday Canadians. The only ones who do not seem to get this are the Liberals and their leader.

The Liberals have promised to increase taxes on small and medium size businesses, as well as on job creators like 3M. The Liberals want to increase the costs to do business in Canada and kill hundreds of thousands of jobs in the process.

While the Liberals and their leader want to increase taxes and kill jobs, our government remains committed to lower taxes and more opportunities, of that Canadians can be certain.

[Committees of the House, November 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in relation to Bill C-343, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act (family leave). The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendments.

I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in relation to the committee's study of the federal contribution to reducing poverty in Canada.

This study started during the 2nd session of the 39th Parliament. The committee, over the years, has held numerous meetings across the country and has finally completed its work.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee is requesting that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

I wish to thank all the members of the committee, past and present, from both sides of the House, for their hard work, contributions, support, and collaboration during this long study. I also want to thank the committee staff, past and present, for its professional and excellent support.

[Employment Equity, November 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, this past summer Canadians were shocked to learn that a woman in the Ottawa area was prevented from applying for a job within the federal government because the job was open only to applicants from an identified employment equity group.

In July the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism announced that the government would review the rules on employment equity.

Could the President of the Treasury Board tell the House what this government is doing to ensure that hiring decisions are based on merit?

[Committees of the House, November 3rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in relation to Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act.. The committee has studied the bill and decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

I would like to thank members of the committee from both sides of the House for their hard work, support and collaboration during the study of this bill.

[Preventing Human Smugglers From Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act, October 28th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I want to go back to my colleague's personal experience of 18 years as an RCMP officer.

Since I have been a member of Parliament, one thing I have seen is any time we talk about mandatory minimum sentences for criminals, no matter what the crime, we just get a tremendous amount of push back, a lot of stalling and walls are always put up. There seems to be a real aversion for some opposition members to mandatory minimum sentences.

As a law enforcement officer, what did he find was the experience when people knew that if they committed a crime there would be a consequence? In this case we are talking about human smugglers and about people who want to come to Canada illegally. Could he comment on what kind of impact that makes?

[Committees of the House, October 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Our committee is requesting an extension of 30 sitting days in relation to Bill C-343, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act (family leave).

[National Family Week, October 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize National Family Week.

Canadian families are diverse and come in all shapes and sizes. Over the years, we have seen a dramatic shift in what the typical family looks like, but one common goal all families share is the desire to provide love and care and see the health and well-being of each family member flourish.

During our greatest challenges and our greatest successes in life, so many times our greatest strength comes from our family. Indeed, all of us in this House depend on the support of our families to do our job here each day.

Let us never forgot the importance of families in Canada and the pivotal role they play in our society. There is no replacement for the stability that families provide, and we must do all we can to support them.

I would like to invite all members to join us in celebrating the family at a reception after question period.

[Employment Insurance, September 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal leader is trying to have his cake and eat it too, but he cannot fool Canadians. By flip-flopping on today's Bloc bill, he thinks that Canadians will forget that he supports a $4 billion, 45-day work year. Yet even though the Liberals admit that the bill is costly and irresponsible, the Liberals' own official critic is in support of it. Who is the irresponsible one: the Liberal leader or the Liberal critic?

The fact is that the Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition supports EI changes that would cost workers and businesses $7 billion and would result in massive and permanent hikes in EI premiums. Canadian families and small businesses just cannot afford the tax and spend schemes of the Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition.

[Privilege, September 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege resulting from the outrageous and disturbing remarks made by Mike O'Shaughnessy, a spokesman for the Leader of the Opposition. It was recorded in the National Post today that Mr. O'Shaughnessy wrote in an email distributed to reporters that I “think it is okay to get rid of the life-saving gun registry, because in her mind”, referring to me, “domestic violence committed with a firearm is not a criminal activity”.

There are two issues here, one relating to using House of Commons resources to transmit inaccurate information about a member, and one relating to a slur upon my reputation, so grave that I must raise this in the House as a question of privilege.

On March 16, 1983, Mr. Mackasey raised a question of privilege in order to denounce accusations made in a series of articles appearing in the Montreal Gazette. On March 22, 1983, on page 24027 of Hansard, the Speaker ruled that he had a prima facie question of privilege. The reasons given by the Speaker are on page 29 of Jeanne Sauvé's Selected Decisions which states:

Not only do defamatory allegations about Members place the entire institution of Parliament under a cloud, they also prevent Members from performing their duties as long as the matter remains unresolved, since, as one authority states, such allegations bring Members into "hatred, contempt or ridicule". Moreover, authorities and precedents agree that even though a Member can "seek a remedy in the courts, he cannot function effectively as a Member while this slur upon his reputation remains." Since there is no way of knowing how long litigation would take, the Member must be allowed to re-establish his reputation as speedily as possible by referring the matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.

To suggest that I would somehow condone domestic violence is offensive and way beyond the standard even for political debate.

On page 214 of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, there is a reference to reflections on members. It says, “The House of Commons is prepared to find contempt in respect of utterances within the category of libel and slander and also in respect of utterances which do not meet that standard. As put by Bourinot, 'any scandalous and libellous reflection on the proceedings of the House is a breach of the privileges of Parliament...and libels upon members individually'”.

I would also refer you, Mr. Speaker, to a Speaker's ruling on October 29, 1980 at page 4213 of Hansard. The Speaker said:

...in the context of contempt, it seems that to amount of contempt, representations or statements about...members should not only be erroneous or incorrect, but, rather, should be purposely untrue and improper and import a ring of deceit.

The comments were made by the spokesman for the Leader of the Opposition who, according to the House of Commons database, is employed by the Liberal Party's research bureau and therefore his salary and his email account, from which he made this libellous comments, are provided through the House of Commons. They are not only incorrect, but his statement was politically motivated and was a deliberate attempt to tarnish my reputation in a way, as I stated earlier, that is way beyond the standard.

I will now address the other point regarding the use of House of Commons resources to transmit inaccurate information about me.

There was a prima facie finding on November 19, 2009 regarding the use of House of Commons resources to present inaccurate information about a member of Parliament. In a mailing sent to some of the constituents of the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, you concluded that the mailing contained information that was found to be factually wrong regarding his position on the long gun registry, as well as on his voting record on that matter. Of course, it turns out that today that mailing would have been correct, but at the time, it was viewed by the Speaker to be inaccurate.

I trust, Mr. Speaker, that you do not and will not view the statements made by the spokesman for the Leader of the Opposition to be accurate. In your ruling you stated:

The situation before us today is analogous to the 2005 in which a similar mailing was sent to the constituency of the hon. member for Windsor West. That mailing had the effect of distorting the member's voting record, again on the gun registry and thereby misinforming his constituents. In finding a prima facie case of privilege, on April 18, 2005, Debates, page 5215, I stated: “This may well have affected his ability to function and may have had the effect of unjustly damaging his reputation with voters in his riding”.

I ask, Mr. Speaker, that you find that there is a prima facie question of privilege on the matter of using House of Commons resources to transmit inaccurate information about a member and on the matter of the attack upon my reputation.

[Firearms Registry, September 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, today is decision day for opposition MPs. They will need to decide if they will stand up for their constituents or if they will bend to their leader's wishes.

It is time to scrap the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry that has wasted over $1 billion. We know that the long gun registry does nothing to reduce crime and we believe that taxpayer dollars should be supporting measures that actually work.

The Liberal boondoggle has gone 500 times over budget and Canadians deserve value for their hard-earned money.

Today opposition MPs will have a choice. Will they stand with their constituents, law-abiding farmers and hunters unfairly targeted by the wasteful long gun registry, or will they follow the Liberal leader and his coalition partners who are determined to maintain the registry regardless of the cost? Shame.