John Williamson

[Conservative Party of Canada, February 27th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, Canadians place immense trust in us to act in their best interest and to, at all times, work diligently for the betterment of our country.

As a Conservative, I believe that government does not always know best. Innovation does not come from a government bureaucracy but springs from hard-working Canadians. Solutions to our toughest problems come from individuals with their God given freedom to thrive.

Government has a very important responsibility to provide a level playing field with fair rules that apply to all. That is why I am proud of the Conservative record. We have lowered taxes. We respect personal freedoms. We take the tough action needed to keep our communities safe and ensure criminals are put where they belong.

We do not practise crony capitalism and we do not pick economic winners and losers. We trust Canadians with their family's best interests and we work to pass laws that reflect the timeless Canadian values of faith, freedom and family.

We know that Canada is the best nation in the world today, tomorrow and always.

[New Democratic Party of Canada, February 17th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, the no development party has sent a leadership contestant to attack jobs and economic growth. The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley must have been looking to upstage his colleagues from Nickle Belt, Edmonton—Strathcona and Halifax, as well as fellow leadership contestant Brian Topp.

The NDP travels abroad, undermining Canada and emphasizing its anti-trade, anti-development and anti-jobs policies. Here at home, it attacks our energy sector, lobbying to shut down the oil sands and with that, the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who earn a living in them.

NDP members also oppose the nuclear part of the energy sector, a sector that is important to my riding of New Brunswick Southwest. They even say that gas prices for moms and dads who drive their kids to soccer and hockey are artificially low. What industries they do not directly want to shut down, they hope to tax out of existence.

I hope the people of Skeena—Bulkley Valley listen very carefully to their member of Parliament and the NDP's anti-trade, anti-development, anti-jobs and anti-growth message.

[Diamond Jubilee, February 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, today is a special day. It marks the 60th anniversary of Her Majesty's ascension to the throne as Queen of Canada.

Since 1952, Her Majesty has exemplified the true meaning of public service. Could the Minister of Canadian Heritage please tell the House about the government's plan to commemorate Her Majesty the Queen's diamond jubilee?

[Sealing Industry, February 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's culture is built on a rich mix of people, traditions and beliefs. Our culture and history stem from our ability to live off the land while making careful and responsible use of resources. Canada's northern and coastal regions, with their reliance on hunting, fishing and sealing, are an example of this.

Could the minister responsible for the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency share with the House why our government feels a unified Canadian stance is so important in defending the legitimacy of Canada's seal hunt?

[Statute of Westminster, December 12th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday marked the 80th anniversary of the Statute of Westminster, one of the most important documents in our country's history. On that day, Canada achieved equality with the United Kingdom and our sister dominions.

As the Prime Minister said:

This important milestone reminds us foremost of how Canadians who came before us earned our country’s independence through bravery and merit, particularly in World War I.

The statute removed London's ability to make laws for Canada enshrining our equal status as a nation. Our system can be traced back to the common ties of the Magna Carta and the Westminster system of responsible government to the statute in 1931. These noble principles have universal application yet, sadly, have not been universally accepted throughout the world.

We continue to build upon our proud foundations and work closely with the Commonwealth nations. The Commonwealth shares a common history and values that the world needs: freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

[Privilege, December 5th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the issue regarding the question of privilege from the member for Mount Royal.

Last week I explained why the complaint of the hon. member for Mount Royal was not a matter for the House to judge because it falls outside its authority. I will not go through my entire submission again. I believe it speaks for itself. I will briefly summarize.

First, the resources used here to make these calls were not those of Parliament or the Government of Canada, but those of the Conservative Party. Moreover, the underlying goal of voter ID is an important activity, and those calls were within the bounds of typical political discourse.

Second, the day-to-day conduct of political parties should not be judged by the House or by its members.

Third, the hon. member has not explained how he was prevented from doing his job as a member of Parliament, beyond being asked about the issue by constituents and fielding calls on the matter. He has not given examples of how this has prevented his work in this place from being done. I accept that these calls and questions were an irritating and even maddening diversion, but they did not prevent the member from performing his duties, which I think he does well.

I would nonetheless clarify the content of the voter ID calls and the matter of erroneous information being spread since I spoke last on this issue. The member for Mount Royal said that the Conservative Party of Canada conducted calls into his riding that stated clearly that he had stepped down or was about to. That is false. The reality is that the Conservative Party did not say that the member had stepped down or was about to, only that there were rumours that he might step down.

The member for Mount Royal has said that he has no problems with a political party conducting voter identification calls. The member also admitted that there had indeed been rumours that he might resign and that there was nothing wrong with saying so.

In conducting voter identification, the Conservative Party used its traditional voter ID script, with no mention of a byelection. However, when prompted by voters on why they were being solicited or asked for their support, in those instances there was a pre-written response that the callers were to use. I would like to read this prepared response into the record.

Once the initial voter ID script was read, if a voter asked why the Conservative Party was calling, the caller would say:

Some people are suggesting that the current MP may retire, so we're calling on behalf of [the Prime Minister] and the Conservative Party of Canada to ask if you would consider supporting the Conservative Party of Canada if there is a byelection.

It is true that this might raise some questions for the hon. member. However, as he stated, those questions have been floating around for the past 12 years. In no way did the Conservative Party say that he had or would quit, only that he might. The member, however, has stated the Conservative Party went much further. That is the epicentre of this dispute.

I, for one, would concede that political parties cannot say whatever they want and that there must be some element of truth. Nothing here crossed that line, and although the calls were perhaps tough, they were still acceptable in the day-to-day world of political jockeying.

I do also want to address a point raised by the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, who compared this matter to one that occurred in 1985. In that instance, a newspaper advertisement suggested that someone other than the sitting member was the member of Parliament. This is not comparable to the dispute before us today, for a simple reason. The newspaper ad caused confusion by stating that the seat in question was held by someone other than the person who held it. On the other hand, the matter before us does not sow confusion by either claiming that there was a different member of Parliament or that the current one had resigned or was about to, only that there were rumours that he might. This is fundamentally different.

I hope you will find that no prima facie breach of privilege has occurred and agree this language falls within the boundaries of political discourse, or, at the very least, that it is not a matter for the House to adjudicate. I would also add that the hon. member has indicated he will not step down and will serve his whole term. I accept that, as I'm sure his constituents do, which puts the issue to rest.

The best place for this to be judged is among Canadians, not in the House. Otherwise, I fear you will be called upon to rule on all matters of political activity. Examples are past TV advertisements stating that Conservatives would flood cities with our soldiers or recent billboard ads stating that repealing the long gun registry would result in restricted weapons becoming unrestricted, both of which are false and groundless.

This is the peril. You are being asked to send the House into territory where it does not belong. I urge you to proceed with caution.

[Firearms Registry, November 30th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying yesterday, Canadians gave our government a strong mandate to end the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry once and for all. That is exactly what we are going to do.

The NDP has punished its members for voting with their constituents. It has sent members into committee to try to gut our legislation and is now engaging in misleading propaganda, claiming that restricted firearms would become non-restricted after the registry is abolished.

Could the minister comment on whether ending the long gun registry will do this?

[Firearms Registry, November 29th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians gave our government a strong mandate to end the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry once and for all. That is exactly what we are going to do.

However, today the members from Western Arctic and Skeena—Bulkley Valley caved to pressure from their big city elite union bosses and showed up at the public safety committee to attempt to gut our legislation.

Could the Minister of Public Safety please comment on the action of these two members of Parliament?

[Privilege, November 29th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a couple of points.

First, the ten percenter program falls within the purview of Parliament. Activities by political parties do not.

Second, members seem to be concerned about the tactics of political parties to identify votes or to win votes. Again, I submit this is of no business to the House.

Third, in this case with the hon. member, there is talk that he has put the situation to rest, and I accept that. But it is not unreasonable in a political discourse to have heard that and for it to be inserted into a script or used to explain why there are calls.

Good, strong political parties are ready for elections at any time. They will conduct work throughout the years, in this case four years, and not just wait until four weeks before the next election.

It is important that we separate these activities from the business of Parliament and the business of political dialogue outside this chamber that is legitimate and appropriate.

[Privilege, November 29th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to respond to the supposed question of privilege from the hon. member for Mount Royal which was raised on November 16 and 23, along with the submissions made by the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh. I appreciate the time you have allowed to return with a response.

For the reasons I will put before you, Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find that there is no basis to conclude a prima facie breach of privilege has taken place.

The question at hand is related to the identification of voters by the Conservative Party of Canada in the riding of Mount Royal.

As members are aware, every political party in the House identifies its voters in one way or another. This is an important part of the political process. Talking to Canadians, discussing issues with them and asking them if they support our party is nothing new.

Ultimately, the resources used to make these calls did not belong to Parliament or to the government; they belonged to the Conservative Party.

To be clear, in no way was any parliamentary resource or time used to conduct a routine political activity. We are aware of numerous circumstances where the Liberal Party of Canada was, prior to the last election, making voter identification calls in various ridings across the country targeting seats held by Conservative members of Parliament.

I will also add that, at that point, the election timing was entirely speculative, there not being an election called or scheduled until after all the opposition parties joined together and voted on March 25 for an unnecessary early election. Did those calls impinge on the work of the sitting members? Did those calls prevent the MPs from doing their jobs? No, absolutely not. This is exactly what a political party is supposed to be doing: targeting ridings they believe can eventually be won.

The hon. member for Mount Royal indicated that his ability to do his job as a representative of the riding because of these calls was undermined. This is simply not the case. As the hon. member noted, he has many bills and motions on the Order Paper and Notice Paper. Moreover, I am told that he has been very active in recent meetings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Clearly, his work in this place has not been impeded in this regard.

Moreover, members have numerous tools provided by taxpayers to communicate with constituencies as a result of being elected to Parliament. These include householders and ten percenters, among other tools. Finally, a member of the House can simply make a statement to the press, which is what the hon. member did in this case to ensure his constituents are aware of his intentions. As well, he penned an op-ed in yesterday's Montreal Gazette to inform voters of the work he is doing on their behalf. I was impressed by the volume of his work and I am sure they were too.

It may be helpful to draw the Chair's attention to other cases of rumoured byelections.

In 2003, during the New Democratic Party's leadership race, Jack Layton did not have a seat in the House of Commons. On Friday, January 10, 2003, the Toronto Star wrote that Mr. Layton had not ruled out the possibility of holding a byelection in Ottawa Centre. The problem is that no byelection was held in Ottawa Centre. Yet, the Toronto Star wrote that Mr. Layton had not ruled out the possibility of a byelection to fill this empty seat.

The Liberal member representing Ottawa Centre at the time, who is today a Liberal senator, Mac Harb, never raised a question of privilege. He never said that his rights as a member of Parliament had been violated, and for good reason: his rights were not violated. Mr. Layton was merely responding to rumours that the Liberal member might soon be stepping down.

Mr. Speaker, I will draw your attention to a line that appeared in a recent news article from iPolitics with respect to the claims advanced by the hon. member for Mount Royal. It appeared on its online news site on Wednesday, November 16. It stated:

While [the member for Mount Royal], who has an international reputation for his human rights work, has often been rumoured to be on the brink of quitting as an MP, in an interview with iPolitics, [the member for Mount Royal] said he has no plans to quit and has not been offered any positions or appointments.

I want to repeat that. The hon. member “has often been rumored to be on the brink of quitting as an MP”.

I will repeat that again. The hon. member has “often been rumoured to be on the brink of quitting as an MP”.

I will restate the essentials. The Conservative Party calls people for the purpose of voter identification. It is an important part of the job of any political party to ask Canadians if they support the party in the event of an election or byelection. The hon. member has often been rumoured to be on the brink of quitting. It is hardly an intolerable leap to insert this in a call script to identify potential voters.

This is not a prima facie breach of his privileges or the collective privileges of the House. It is, in fact, routine political discourse. For members to find this objectionable is to be shocked, shocked to find gambling going on in this establishment. Some members might be stunned by routine political activity conducted by all political parties, or at least the successful ones, but that indignation is no more surprising than Captain Renault's feigned anger in Rick's Cafe.

I should correct myself. This activity did not happen in this establishment and was not done by anybody affiliated with Parliament or under the Speaker's supervision.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to be cognizant of free and robust dialogue and democratic activities enjoyed in Canada in respect of the election of members, whether it be as a candidate, a partisan or a voter, when you come to your decision.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to be cognizant of free and robust dialogue and democratic activities enjoyed in Canada in respect of the election of members, whether it be as a candidate, a partisan or a voter, when you come to your decision.

To find a prima facie question of privilege in these circumstances would, I suggest, place an unreasonable and unacceptable chill over political discourse in this country, and therefore should only be done in the most extraordinary of circumstances. Those circumstances are not present here.

To find a prima facie question of privilege in these circumstances would, I suggest, place an unreasonable and unacceptable chill over political discourse in this country, and therefore should only be done in the most extraordinary of circumstances. Those circumstances are not present here.

Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I believe you will agree that it is clearly not a matter that the House should consider further given that there was no breach here whatsoever, and that you should rule that there is no basis for a prima facie breach of privilege.