House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2019, with 34% of the vote.
Business of the House February 22nd, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I have a small point for clarification. Could the minister indicate specifically which portion of the procedure with respect to the strike would be held tomorrow and which portion would he expect to be held next week? Does he know exactly when next week he would proceed with that second stage?
Business of the House February 22nd, 2007
Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the government said that the economic fall out from the CN Rail strike would demand immediate action. The labour minister has said that he expects to have the legislation through the House by next Monday.
Could the government House leader update us on his plans for this legislation as well as the rest of his agenda for the balance of this week and next week?
The Prime Minister February 22nd, 2007
Mr. Speaker, again the Conservatives try to change the subject.
The issue that needs to be addressed today is the behaviour of the Prime Minister yesterday in his false and baseless accusations. The problems are obvious. For the Prime Minister quick, partisan advantage trumps everything else every time, no matter the cost, no matter the collateral damage, no matter the innocent victims, no matter the truth.
Does the government not appreciate why Canadians are concerned about the Prime Minister's abuse of power for his own partisan advantages?
The Prime Minister February 22nd, 2007
Mr. Speaker, the government can try to change the subject as much as it likes, but yesterday we saw that the Prime Minister can often get pretty mean and petty, and it is not the first time. Remember that in Alberta he attacked federalism with his firewalls letter. Why? Because he is petty. He accused Atlantic Canadians of a culture of defeat, again because he is petty. He accused a former prime minister of supporting child pornography. How low can one get? And now, bitter and petty attack advertising, all false concocted slander.
How can Canadians have any confidence in the Prime Minister's common decency?
Privilege February 21st, 2007
Mr. Speaker, the government House leader cannot do indirectly what he cannot do directly.
The House leader said that he heard nothing spoken. I would refer him to the written Hansard of today where the Prime Minister is quoted as saying: “The Vancouver Sun has learned that the father-in-law of the member of Parliament for Mississauga—Brampton South--”.
That clearly identifies the article. There is absolutely no doubt about what was intended here and the government cannot hide behind a fiction.
Privilege February 21st, 2007
Mr. Speaker, if the House leader is in fact offended by that reference, of course I withdraw it. However, it does not undermine the basic point today, that the behaviour of the government is unacceptable and that behaviour must be corrected on the record of the House of Commons.
Privilege February 21st, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege pertaining to the deeply disturbing events that took place during question period today. The issue that seized question period is a terribly serious issue and it cannot be treated with the frivolous disregard that we saw from the government over the course of the last hour or so.
There can be no doubt about the Prime Minister's intention. He can try to hide behind the excuse that he did not get an opportunity to read his insult into the record, but there is no doubt about what that insult was intended to be.
This is a matter that has impugned the character and the reputation of an hon. member of this House. The Prime Minister was asked on no less than 12 occasions to withdraw those remarks and to apologize to this House. That opportunity, that invitation, was ignored by the Prime Minister.
He has avoided the opportunity of doing the right thing, the honourable thing, and that kind of conduct in this House by the Prime Minister or anyone else simply cannot be condoned. To move on to the ordinary flow of business without first raising this issue is absolutely untoward.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I invite you to review the record of what happened here very carefully. As soon as people have had an opportunity to read the transcript in Hansard from question period and as soon as members have informed themselves of the Hansard record, I invite you to hear arguments in this House about how the reputation of this member of Parliament, an hon. member, has been impugned by the Prime Minister and by the government, and that cannot be allowed to stand.
The Prime Minister February 21st, 2007
Mr. Speaker, the last time the Conservatives accused us of being soft on terror, they were slurring Maher Arar.
Earlier in the House, the Prime Minister said that if I doubted a particular story in The Vancouver Sun I could check with the newspaper.
Did he not check himself before proposing to use that news story in the House of Commons? Does he subscribe to the view that any old smear will do? Why will the government simply not do the honourable thing today and withdraw that allegation?
The Prime Minister February 21st, 2007
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has just confirmed that, to him, partisan advantage is everything. The truth does not matter; it is the allegation that counts. Never mind what the facts are in the final analysis. He just proved his devious and deceitful behaviour and he does not pay any attention to the consequences to any Canadian.
Will the Prime Minister withdraw those allegations and apologize to this House?
The Prime Minister February 21st, 2007
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's allegations are simply beneath contempt. The Prime Minister has attempted in the House to impugn the character and the reputation of an hon. member of Parliament. That is absolutely unacceptable.
Does he know if the newspaper story was correct or incorrect? Has he followed due process in making the allegations that he was proposing to make? Will he simply withdraw that character slur against a member of the House and live up to the basic decent standard of a prime minister?