Derek Lee

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, one of the Conservative members opposite is the Prime Minister's point man on the Conservative election financing scandal and a parliamentary secretary who covers for a number of cabinet ministers.

Why then, on the national day of apology to residential school survivors, did the member engage in inexcusably hurtful and demeaning remarks toward aboriginal Canadians?

The member publicly complained about compensation to residential school survivors saying:

Some of us are starting to ask, are we really getting value for all of this money and is money really going to solve the problem?

He went on to say:

—we need to engender the values of hard work and independence and self reliance.

Aboriginal Canadians have always been independent and self-reliant for thousands of years and they could teach that member the meaning of hard work and what it is like to get his hands dirty in order to feed his family.

The member should recognize this and should apologize.

[Points of Order, June 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With respect to the vote that was just taken prior to the point of order, I wonder whether the member for Calgary Northeast would want to reconsider his vote in light of the fact that it appeared to me that he took his seat literally two seconds before the roll call vote reached him. He could not have been here for the reading of the motion.

[Extension of Sitting Hours, June 9th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the member may have forgotten about the first nations. We will probably hear more about that on Wednesday. It is an honest mistake, I know.

I want to recommend to the member that he consider my suggestion that one of the problems here is the issue of respect, that would be the respect between the political parties here and respect for the institution.

He will recall that almost every Thursday right after question period the official opposition House leader asks what we call the Thursday question. The purpose of that is to allow formally on the floor of the House the government to outline to all members of Parliament what the business of the House is likely to be for the next five days.

What has happened in this Parliament is the government House leader makes a speech. It is a show and tell exercise. He outlines everything that has happened for the last month. Then he says what the theme for the week will be and then he outlines about 20 different things.

If the House thinks I am just making this up, I want members to look at the projected order of business. The project order of business allows us to know what business is likely to be dealt with in the House today. Do you know how many government bills there are on that list, Mr. Speaker? There are 18 government bills listed on the projected order of business for the House today. That is not respect for members. That is just putting everything into the suitcase and saying, “Here, do that”. As the government suggests to us that we should be sitting an extra 35 hours or so over the next eight or so sitting days, I think it should at least have enough respect to outline exactly what it wants, not the entire inventory. The government should just tell us what it wants and negotiate something that would allow us to make progress in getting that done.

What does the hon. member think about that?

[Extension of Sitting Hours, June 9th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, as a backbencher I am confused as to why there would not have been some kind of discussion and agreement between the parties at the House leaders' meetings, which happen once a week, eyeball to eyeball, across an oak table upstairs. I have been there in a previous incarnation. I have witnessed the walkout of the Conservative chair of the justice committee. I have been there.

I do not really understand why these things are not working. The government now is seriously at risk of not getting this motion in the absence of any kind of negotiation.

I will put it to the Liberal House leader that 20 years ago, and the member for Egmont will remember this, this type of motion used to pass in the House. We used to sit one, two or three nights just before the June break to try to get work done, but it was all through negotiation. When the Progressive Conservative Party had a majority, it still negotiated.

Does the Liberal House leader not think there is a misunderstanding or lack of comprehension somewhere in the system when we, as four parties sitting around a table, cannot even come to some agreement on what bills should get to what point and pass before the summer break? What is broken here?

[Extension of Sitting Hours, June 9th, 2008]

Order, Mr. Speaker.

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to hear the remarks of the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, if for no other reason than he had other things to say. He was involved in the committee work that led to the creation of the Conflict of Interest Code and he was able to say that it was never envisaged when they developed the code that this type of outcome would happen. That is very important for the record. I am not sure I have heard it from others here today, but I thank him for putting that on the record. That is important both for us here in the House and for the Ethics Commissioner.

Then I ask him, in the event that a member here were to be advocating outside the House and inside the House, let us say, for the use of two official languages in one of the provinces and he or she got involved in a lawsuit and that lawsuit might entail the risk of costs being awarded against--

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would just say, “Oh my gosh”, God forbid that something that happened in this place would have an impact on something that happened out in the rest of Canada. Things that happen in this place are supposed to have an impact on what happens outside. That is the reason why we have the privilege and free speech.

The member, in his interesting remarks, suggested, and he actually said that the passage of this motion would result in an expansion of the privilege right, of the right of free speech, and I did not quite understand that. I do not agree with him if he believes that to be the case, particularly in light of subsections 4(a) and 4(b) of the Parliament of Canada Act which strictly limits our privileges, including the right of free speech, to those in existence at the time the Constitution Act was passed.

I will read the section for the record, if it is useful:

4. The Senate and the House of Commons, respectively, and the members thereof hold, enjoy and exercise

(a) such and the like privileges, immunities and powers as, at the time of the passing of the Constitution Act, 1867, were held, enjoyed and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom and by the members thereof, in so far as is consistent with that Act; and

(b) such privileges, immunities and powers as are defined by Act of the Parliament of Canada, not exceeding those, at the time of the passing of the Act, held, enjoyed and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom and by the members thereof.

It is actually legally impossible for us to actually expand our privileges, including the free speech right, and so I would ask him to perhaps respond to that and maybe adjust his suggestion that we were so expanding them.

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, earlier in the debate, prior to the hon. member's remarks, there was a statement by one of the Conservative members. It was his understanding that the motion would impact outside the House and committees and that it would give members rights and freedom that they do not have now.

I did not quite understand that, but I would ask the hon. member this. Is that any part of his understanding of this and would he not agree with me that all the motion does is reaffirm the rights and privileges of members to free speech, as they have always been, virtually forever, in this place? It does not create anything new outside of Parliament. It is solely within the House. It clarifies the continuing existence of those privileges right up to the present.

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, as he is an experienced member, does he think the debate on this appears to be a little on the partisan side? Normally on privilege matters like this it is not so partisan, which is one of the reasons we send it to a committee. It is less partisan and we usually end up with consensus and unanimity on these Standing Order changes.

I think the same speech writers write for all of the Conservatives speaking to this. We can see the theme in all of the speeches. It is more partisan than we would like it.

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, this is a rare opportunity for a member to actually respond when that member has been quoted, in this case, I think, quite unfairly, by the hon. member in his remarks.

First, he said that this proposed amendment should have more study and more consultation. I should say that there was quite a bit of consultation. In the drafting of this motion, I had a lot of help from a lot of experienced people.

Having said that, I think the motion had proper consultation and is properly drafted. I would actually accept that such a matter would be referred to the procedure and House affairs committee in the ordinary course. That is normally what we do around here but the problem is that the procedure and House affairs committee is currently not meeting. It is essentially dysfunctional and has not met for a couple of months. The members cannot hold a meeting because they do not have a chair, or they do not have a person who would be the chair or they do not have a chair who could be supported. Essentially, it is in gridlock. That is why this motion purports to deal with this.

I would put the issue back to him. In his remarks, the member stated very clearly that my motion and my position in here is that members of Parliament should not be accountable for remarks they make outside the House.

That is totally false, totally wrong. My motion deals only with the remarks and the free speech of members inside the House and at committee. Things that happen outside are still to be governed, and will always be governed, by the rules of the land. In fact, the lawsuits we have referred to in this place all carry on.

The Prime Minister has commenced a lawsuit against the Liberal Party. The Prime Minister probably has, should he not succeed in this, a contingent liability, just as the member for West Nova has. The only thing is that no member of the House, at this point, has been dumb enough to write a letter to the Ethics Commissioner claiming that. Also, no member has been dumb enough to write a letter to the Ethics Commissioner saying that the Prime Minister has an asset in suing and that he should cease, desist, recuse and file a notice.

I ask the member to please try to correct the record. My motion deals only with remarks of members inside the House and does not affect what happens outside the House.