Points of disorder
Immediately after Question Period each day, MPs have a chance to haggle over what's fair and what's not in the political fray. It's called "Points of Order" and often goes on and on, with the Speaker trying to sort through the exchange of barbs. A couple of years ago, someone urged me to do a detailed study of this portion of the Commons' business, just to see how far things have fallen. Certainly I'd urge parents to tune in -- you may think you're having a tough time raising polite children, but you're certainly doing better than these adults. If these were kids around the dinner table, they'd probably be sent to their rooms.
I'm cutting and pasting yesterday's Points of Order, so you can read for yourself what's all too typical of the state of debate among the parties. The only thing you're missing here in the transcript is the deliberate mispronouncing of the candidates' names in Vaughan -- which is a very nice touch, I'm sure you'd agree, if you're a fan of the nyaa-nyaa school of political debate.
I would like to raise two matters that emanated from question period, in answers provided by the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Public Safety. In so doing, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to table two sets of documents this afternoon for the information of Canadians.
The first has to do with an answer given by the Minister of Public Safety about the expenses by one Tony Genco, a Liberal candidate in the riding of Vaughan. The minister again today falsely declared in the House that these expenses were not a matter of public record.
I am seeking unanimous consent to table the expenses of one Mr. Tony Genco, which have been online since 2005, when he became the chief executive officer of the corporation referred to by the minister: all expenses from April 1, 2006 to March 31, 2007; April 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008; April 2008 to March 2009; April 2009 to March 10, 2010; and April and May 2010. All of his expenses have been online, expenses related to travel, meetings, conferences, absolutely everything. There has been proactive disclosure. It has been there for years.
While seeking that unanimous consent, I would ask the minister to consider tabling forthwith the details about how $100 million was spent by the Conservative candidate when he headed up the OPP.
The second unanimous consent request deals with perhaps a more—
Is there unanimous consent that the member table these expense documents?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: On clarification, the hon. Minister of Public Safety.
Is the hon. member for Ottawa South requesting consent for something else?
The second unanimous consent request deals with comments made by the Minister of National Defence. I would ask if the House could allow the tabling of the detailed documents around the Movember fundraising campaign for prostate cancer.
During an answer given by the Minister of National Defence, he perhaps was not aware that his unfortunate and flippant remark about the member for Beauséjour's moustache is, in fact, an insult to 115,000 Canadian men who this month are growing moustaches, raising $13 million, now leading the world in a fundraising initiative launched by the Australians.
I seek unanimous consent to table, in French and English, the detailed descriptions about the Movember fundraising campaign for men's prostate cancer research.
Ottawa South to table this document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Beauséjour certainly took it in that spirit and I do not think any offence was taken. I am simply jealous that I cannot grow a moustache the way he can, but I would be pleased to contribute to his efforts to do so by contributing to the campaign.
Brant, there were a number of assertions made, and I think that when questions are posed in the House they should have some modicum of truth.
In committee yesterday, we heard from an aboriginal gentleman who was a victim of the residential schools program and was victimized by his mother. We heard his tragic story about how difficult his life was and how he had to struggle being a victim. We heard, unfortunately, that his life led to a life of crime but that for the last six years he had turned it around. He said that, given an opportunity, he would not have a bill pass that would see him shut out from an opportunity of having employment.
The member for Brant expressed that the individual and some of the other gentlemen who were there today should be given another chance. His question today, saying that these gentlemen should not be given a chance, inferred that somehow I care less about my children or my community and its safety than he does. It is offensive and it does a tremendous disrespect to the House and to the debate that is before us.
We pose questions and they are answered, as the minister is doing. The same minister before committee admitted in answers to my questions that there were deep flaws with this bill, things that needed to be looked at and worked on. He asked for us to bring forward amendments to address those problems.
Yet, here they are in the House attacking me personally, trying to portray me as someone who does not care about the safety of my community. It is dishonest, disrespectful and below the level that should be expected in the House.