Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is 1 and 5.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 50% of the vote.
Main Estimates 2014-15 March 5th, 2014
Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is 1 and 5.
Main Estimates 2014-15 March 5th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and I believe I will have the unanimous consent of the House for the following motion, which I am moving seconded by the Minister of Justice.
That, notwithstanding the Order made February 27, 2014, to refer Votes 1 and 5 of the Main Estimates for the year 2014-15 of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, the said Votes 1 and 5 be withdrawn from the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food and referred to the Standing Committee on Health.
Business of the House March 4th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, on another item of business, yesterday I promised to return to the House with a new date for the opposition day. The allotted day was supposed to have been today. In order to get on with the government's legislative program, I can inform the House that the sixth allotted day shall be tomorrow. Additionally, for the benefit of committees, the seventh and final allotted day of the supply period shall be Monday, March 24.
Statements by the Member for Mississauga—Streetsville—Reference to Standing Committee March 4th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, we see a paradox here. The House Leader of the Opposition has put a motion to the House asking the House to do something. We now have a motion before us, which I have put, saying let us get on with it, let the House decide the motion that he is asking it to decide. He is no doubt going to get up and vote that he does not want the House to decide the motion that he has put to the House.
It is very paradoxical, but it shows the difference between New Democrats, who do not want to get things done, and our government, which likes to get things done.
Statements by the Member for Mississauga—Streetsville—Reference to Standing Committee March 4th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has put it well. I think he has put his finger on one of the difficulties we have as a House.
We are being asked by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley to send this off to the procedure and House affairs committee, and his suggestion, of course, is that the hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville is in contempt of the House, when the hon. member came back and corrected the record.
Had the member for Mississauga—Streetsville not done that, had he kept his counsel to himself, having recognized that he misspoke but not bringing it to the attention of the House, he would have failed in his duties and obligations to this House, which is the duty and obligation to tell the truth.
Yet, his reward for fulfilling his duties and obligations is to have the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley hit him with a procedural fist in the face and suddenly say that if one is going to come here and tell the truth, if one is going to come here and correct the record, one will face consequences for that.
Member could face consequences any time that they come to correct the record. There will be all kinds of members looking around saying “Geez, I misspoke myself once in a debate”.
The member for Timmins—James Bay is another member who said that the member for Mississauga—Streetsville never apologized, even though that was after the Speaker observed in his ruling that the member had apologized. Should he be now found in contempt?
I am sure that member will come forward and say that he is sorry, that he was not aware that had happened, and he will apologize to this House for having misspoken. I am sure he will do that. I have confidence that he will do that. I hope he will do that.
However, I do not think, having corrected the record and corrected the mistake, that the member should be rewarded with the punishment of a motion for contempt.
Statements by the Member for Mississauga—Streetsville—Reference to Standing Committee March 4th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, I will not comment on whether or not the air is polluted, but I will say that there is no contradiction left on the table. The only contradiction is between the statement that the member originally made and then his correction eliminating the earlier statement, saying that it was not accurate. There is no mystery any longer. There is no question to be probed into. It is very simple. The question then becomes, what is the committee going to study?
The member for Mississauga—Streetsville would say the same thing that he said in this House when he corrected the record. He no doubt would say the same thing that he said in this House. He apologized. He corrected the record, apologized to all Canadians, and apologized here in this House.
What is the value that will be served? What is the contradiction?
I am sure the member is not under any illusion that having corrected the record he stands by the original misstatement that he made. I do not think anybody believes that in this House. I do not think anybody thinks he stands by that.
There really is no contradiction left to be studied. There is no mystery. It is a fairly straightforward matter.
Statements by the Member for Mississauga—Streetsville—Reference to Standing Committee March 4th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, I will wrap up the point of order. The hon. member makes my point well in his response, and that is, of course, to not have regard for the statement of the hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville that “I would like to sincerely apologize to all Canadians and to all members of the House..”. The statement he made in this House constituted an apology. It could not be clearer than that. It was noted by the Speaker in the ruling on March 3. Yet, the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park did not reference it.
My view is that when she comes back to the House and apologizes, she says she is sorry, that she misspoke and she was not correct, I should not then, and nor would I, encourage anybody to make that an occasion for raising a point of order asking that she be found in contempt of this House. That would not be appropriate.
Statements by the Member for Mississauga—Streetsville—Reference to Standing Committee March 4th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, I will respond to the point of order by saying that I will get to that member next. He apparently is wilfully blind to a major factor in this debate that the Speaker referenced in his ruling of March 3, that the hon. member apologized for his mistake.
The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay has spoken to the motion arising out of the Speaker's ruling and is wilfully blind to what the Speaker actually said, wilfully blind to what the hon. member said on February 25, when he said, “I would like to sincerely”—
Statements by the Member for Mississauga—Streetsville—Reference to Standing Committee March 4th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, I find the comments of the opposition House leader very puzzling. He seems to imply that his own motion is one that should not be debated and decided by the House because that would in some way mean passing judgment, or, if you will, appealing the Speaker's ruling. However, he was the one who made the motion, and he put it to the House that the House should decide on it.
Paradoxically, he seems not to want to have the House decide on it having moved the motion, which I find odd. That is why we are trying to ensure that the House can actually decide on this question.
More significantly, I ask him, if this is the path we are going down, what do we do, for example, with the member for Parkdale—High Park? I consider her to be a very honourable individual. She said that the hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville would not apologize for his statements. In fact, we know that on February 25 he told this House, “I would like to sincerely apologize to all Canadians and to all members of the House for the statement that I made”.
He did apologize for his statements. The Speaker referred to it in a ruling on March 3. Yet, the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park said that he did not. Apparently, she said something that was not true in this House. Am I suggesting that she is not an honourable person? No, she is a very honourable person. This happens.
The question then becomes, having done that, should she be found in contempt of this House? When she comes back and corrects the record and says she is mistaken—
Statements by the Member for Mississauga—Streetsville—Reference to Standing Committee March 4th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, as we debate and consider this motion, I would say to the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor that he take heed of the advice of his own colleague from Kingston and the Islands who said, in effect, that we do not want to create an environment where we discourage people from coming forward and correcting the record. That is a very important principle and I think his caucus colleague was onto something important.
I think we treat all hon. members as honourable, but we also have to create an environment that encourages that. We have to say that when they come to the House to set the record straight and acknowledge that they have misspoken, it should not be the trigger for their being found in contempt, for being dragged through the mud. But that would be the consequence if we proceed with this.
We would be creating a situation where any time any member came to the House to correct the record and to put the facts on the table, which is the duty and obligation of all of us, they would punished, rather than being treated as having been honourable and done the right thing. They would be faced with a motion for contempt, have their names and reputations dragged through the mud and face what is a very unpleasant experience here for having set the record straight and told to the truth to the House and, in this case, having apologized to the House.