Paul Szabo

[Privilege, November 18th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege relating to a matter that was raised earlier this day on a point of order.

I have given the appropriate required notice to the Chair with regard to this matter.

In the point of order, I would just mention that the Speaker had decided that this was a matter for the committee, because the foundation for any statement that may have been made, which was offensive to me, would be found in the committee transcripts. I simply want to acknowledge that the Speaker's ruling is quite correct.

It is fortunate that we now have the second edition of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 2009, edited by O'Brien and Bosc.

I refer specifically to two matters here with regard to privilege. The first matter is pursuant to Standing Order 18, which says in part:

No Member shall speak disrespectfully...nor use offensive words against either House, or against any Member thereof.

If I refer to O'Brien-Bosc, chapter 13, page 618, under “Unparliamentary Language” it states:

The proceedings of the House are based on a long-standing tradition of respect for the integrity of all Members. Thus, the use of offensive, provocative or threatening language in the House is strictly forbidden. Personal attacks, insults and obscenities are not in order.

I will also read the next sentence, which is relevant. It states:

A direct charge or accusation against a Member may be made only by way of a substantive motion for which notice is required.

Madam Speaker, this means that if a member would like to accuse another member of something in the House, they must also provide a foundation for the accusation and, in fact, the details of it.

Yesterday, in the chamber, as I have read on page 6864 of yesterday's Hansard, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the member of Parliament for Peterborough, said, among other things or in part, that I had the “abhorrent behaviour of a partisan chair”.

Madam Speaker, if you refer to footnote 176 in O'Brien-Bosc, you will find references to Debates of February 25, 1998, pages 4401-4402; and October 28, 1998, page 9512; and May 3, 2006, page 848. These are all references to words that would be described as disrespectful or offensive against a member of Parliament.

Today I offered the member for Peterborough notice of this matter and simply asked that he consider withdrawing the words and I would then not have to rise to defend myself.

Madam Speaker, I have to defend myself because if I do not, those words in the official record of Hansard may be interpreted by some to be true. So I have no choice but to defend myself by rising on this question of privilege.

Today in the House, and I have just printed this off from the blues, the member also raised further matters in which he questioned my person with regard to actions that I took. He referred to the member not even allowing him the opportunity to speak to a motion.

Madam Speaker, there is no substantive evidence or details in the member's statements that such is the case, and should the Speaker want to look at the committee, she will find that the reason is that the motion was out of order and inadmissible and, as a consequence, was not moveable. That is why he did not have a chance to speak, although the insinuation in his statement was that I had again done something not in accordance with the rules.

Based on the wisdom of O'Brien and Bosc, page 618 under “Unparliamentary Language”, I believe this is a prima facie case of breach of my privileges as a member. It is also a breach of the Standing Orders, Standing Order 18.

In normal circumstances, it would be prescribed that the member be asked to withdraw the words and to apologize for the offensive language. The member has refused to co-operate in this matter and has refused to address it. In fact, he wants to challenge it. If he wants these statements to stand, he must rise in this place with a substantive motion giving foundation to the allegations that he has raised against me about my character and my abilities as a member of Parliament.

Consequently, my privileges have been breached. I have given the member all the opportunities possible to rectify this matter. I respect the Speaker's decision that the evidence of foundation could or could not be found in the transcripts of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics of yesterday. However, since the reference in O'Brien and Bosc states that should a member want to bring:

A direct charge or accusation against a Member may be made only by way of a substantive motion for which notice is required.

That has not happened. The member should either do it or should comply with the standing practice and custom of this place which is to withdraw the words and to apologize to the House. If the member refuses to do so, I would be prepared to move an appropriate motion that this matter be taken up by possibly the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

However, the bottom line is that in this place we have had far too much dysfunction and offensive and disrespectful language of members against other members and it needs to stop. I hope that this day, the day on which the House was presented with a second edition of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, O'Brien-Bosc, be a starting point that we deal with these matters in a straightforward and respectful manner for all hon. members.

My privileges have been breached. The Standing Orders have been breached. I take it very seriously. I submit that I am prepared to move the necessary motion should the Speaker find that in fact the language used by the member was not only offensive, contrary to Standing Order 18, but also that they are without foundation because he has not moved a substantive motion to lay out the reasons why his comments have any foundation whatsoever.

[Committees of the House, November 18th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a report from the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics concerning the government response to the 11th report of the committee.

This has to do with a matter in which the committee had done a report and received a response from the Minister of Justice, which the committee was unsatisfied with and wanted to express its displeasure and disappointment with the response from the Minister of Justice to its 11th report, and to recommend to the government that it introduce into the House no later than March 30, 2010 a new access to information act that would reflect the committee's proceedings and recommendations, and furthermore, that the minister be invited to reappear before the committee before November 30, 2009.

[Points of Order, November 18th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is different from the standpoint that this does not refer to the committee. It refers to a statement the member made in the House, this chamber, yesterday, in which he described my behaviour as being offensive. That is disrespectful--

[Points of Order, November 18th, 2009]

The same one.

[Points of Order, November 18th, 2009]

A question of privilege.

[Points of Order, November 18th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Standing Order 18 states in part, “No Member shall speak disrespectfully...nor use offensive words against either House, or against any Member thereof”.

Yesterday, on page 6864 of Hansard, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage said:

This morning, in the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, I had to put up with the abhorrent behaviour of a partisan chair, who pays no attention to the rules governing parliamentary committees whatsoever. However, during that meeting, I provided the respect that each member is due.

These words, I submit, are not only offensive, but they are without foundation and if I do not defend myself there may be some who will take those statements as being fact.

Mr. Speaker, accordingly, I would respectfully request that you review the transcript of the November 17 meeting of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics to determine whether or not there is a foundation for the member's statements. Should you find that they are without foundation and that certain words in fact are offensive, I would be pleased to rise on a question of privilege and to move the appropriate motion.

[November 17th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, as we found out today in the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, the ethics commissioner has no responsibilities and no authority with regard to the Prime Minister's guide for the ethical conduct of ministers.

In fact, the only person who can determine whether there is a breach is the Prime Minister. The only person who can mete out a sanction against the minister is the Prime Minister.

In prior Parliaments there used to be an ethics counsellor between the Prime Minister and his code to advise the Prime Minister. That is not the case now.

The facts are clear. The port authority has admitted that it occurred and has said that it will not happen again. The board of directors has taken no action. They are waiting and are calling for the Auditor General to come in. The Prime Minister has refused to respond to these allegations. This is totally unacceptable.

[November 17th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, about mid-September I received an email which turned out to be from the executive assistant to the president and chief executive officer of the Toronto Port Authority. It was sent out using the generic “Dear Friend”, and it relayed information about a political fundraiser for the Minister of Natural Resources. Attached to it was a flyer that had information about a political fundraiser on September 24 at a downtown Toronto restaurant. Admission was $250 a head minimum, it said. There would be no corporate donations. The only name that appeared on the order form for tickets to this event was that of a gentleman, Michael McSweeney.

Michael McSweeney is a registered lobbyist. He works for the Cement Association of Canada. He was the one who was the principal organizer, we found out subsequently, of this fundraiser on behalf of and for the benefit of the Minister of Natural Resources whom he is also registered to lobby. The Cement Association, over the prior eight months I believe, had lobbied a number of officials and ministers, including the Prime Minister and the Minister of Natural Resources on six or seven occasions or more.

I brought this matter to the attention of the House because the Prime Minister has a guide for the ethical conduct of ministers. Annex G of that code or guideline specifically states that government resources should not and cannot be used for political purposes. The Toronto Port Authority is a federal agency. Its resources were used; the computers were used; its database was used to send out emails to people, soliciting purchase of tickets for a fundraiser for the benefit of, it turns out, the Minister of Natural Resources.

It appears that there are clear violations. There are a number of potential violations. They have been reported to the Ethics Commissioner, to the Commissioner of Lobbying, to the Privacy Commissioner and also to the Commissioner of Elections Canada. There are other investigations flowing from this that have already been brought forward.

This story broke the day before I actually asked my question, and the Minister of Transport, who is the minister responsible for the Port Authority, is quoted as saying when it was raised:

The practice is wrong, it is totally unacceptable, it is totally inappropriate.

My question to the minister was basically what the consequences would be if someone had done something that was wrong. There was an impropriety, and whether that was under the rules guiding port authorities, the Canada Marine Act, their own bylaws or the Prime Minister's own guide for ethical conduct of ministers, there must be a consequence.

To date there has been no response from either the Prime Minister or the transport minister other than to say that they would wait until the Ethics Commissioner dealt with the complaint lodged with her, and that she was doing this investigation.

The fact is, it has nothing to do with the Ethics Commissioner. It has to do with the Prime Minister's code of conduct, and I really want to know why there is no action, no answer to the allegations that have been made against the Minister of Natural Resources.

[Committees of the House, November 17th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I will not take up much of the House's time. All hon. members have had an opportunity to hear an important story that took place surrounding the subject matter of Bill C-273.

I became involved in this issue a number of years ago when a couple of constituents who owned repair shops told me about the movement that was happening and that they were very concerned about what was coming down the pipe.

As has been explained, this is a matter of competition and competition is a good thing. Competition means that people have choices and it also ensures that the purchase of goods or services is competitive and fair.

Automobiles have become more and more complicated to the point where independent auto repair shops were unable to provide the kind of service necessary for certain makes and models of cars simply because they required specialized tools, manuals and diagnostic equipment and training. This was just not possible and not really affordable.

It is interesting to note the parallel that is going on right now before the CRTC with regard to television and cable companies. The chair of the CRTC made an impassioned plea to the disagreeing parties and he basically asked them why they could not negotiate a way out of the problem. He asked them why they could not get together and deal with it. He was aware of both the issue and the problem.

The parallel is that the United States already has an arrangement between the major automobile manufacturers and the repair shops to provide the resources necessary for those businesses to continue to operate.

What we have now is basically an arrangement, and it is one of the reasons why this bill does not have to proceed. Repair shops and manufactures have come to a voluntary agreement and this agreement is in the public interest.

This issue caused members of Parliament to inform themselves, to meet with the automobile industry and the manufacturing industry, and to consult with the repair shops to determine what was going to happen.

One of the reasons I took a particular interest in this issue is because it was clear that business opportunities for independent repair shops was going to be contracted as a result of cars becoming more complicated. That meant people were going to be put out of business and families would have to find other ways to provide for themselves.

This issue became a consequence of a technological change. After warranty issues disappear, cars are lasting much longer, and there needs to be an alternative because if there is no competitive environment it means that consumers can be at risk.

A good thing has happened here. The subject matter has been discussed by Parliament under the proxy of this bill. The bill wanted something else, but ultimately the same result came out, and that is a good thing.

I am a big fan of private members' business. I know that the member for Windsor West has worked on this bill very diligently. I know he is pleased with what he has been able to bring to the table and send a message that one way or another we can make things happen here. It is always better if the parties who have a competing interest can see that there is a way for mutual benefit and that the public interest can be served at the same time. That is a good outcome no matter what we are talking about.

I want to congratulate the member for Windsor West. It has been a long-standing problem to resolve, and I think that the resolution is appropriate. The House should be proud of its participation in resolving an important issue in regard to a certain segment of our economy. To the extent that a small segment is a little bit more stable, a little more secure, then so is our country. Congratulations to the member.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, November 17th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, that is not the case. I have spoken previously, and in this debate as well. I am aware of the human rights abuses. I am aware of the position of Amnesty International. I am aware that the committee asked for an independent human rights assessment.

Making choices is not about having perfect information. Sometimes you need to decide which is the optimal option available. I have come to the conclusion that we have an opportunity to promote, encourage and work with Colombian people to address some of these human rights abuses in a small way.

I do not have to convince the member to change his vote. I am just telling him why I am voting the way I am.