Debates of April 1st, 2015

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Motions for Papers

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The Chair has notice of a Question of Privilege from the hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni and I will hear him now.

The Member for Nanaimo—Alberni

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is a concerted effort by various interests in Canada to undermine freedom of religion in Canada. The government has established the Office of Religious Freedom under the auspices of the Department of Foreign Affairs, with an excellent ambassador in Andrew Bennett at the helm. I have personally made the case for freedom of religion where developing democracies like the idea but struggle to implement the reality. It is something I hope to contribute to in the next phase of my life through the newly formed International Panel of Parliamentarians for Freedom of Religion or Belief, founded in part through the efforts of the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

Last week, leaders of the faith community were here in Ottawa to express their alarm at increasing and unprecedented attempts to stifle freedom of religion, conscience, and expression in Canada. They identified deliberate attempts to suppress a Christian world view from professional and economic opportunity in law, medicine, and academia. I share these concerns, and I believe there is a growing and malignant trend by what some would call cyber trolls to engage, entrap, belittle, and embarrass politicians of faith over false constructs of the word “evolution”.

In the past month, there were a few words exchanged on social media, apparently inflammatory words: science, managing assumptions, and theory or fact related to macroevolution. My remarks were inflated by media, blended with other unrelated but alleged heretical statements, and became a top story on national media, creating a firestorm of criticism and condemnation. My profession and two institutes of higher learning were subject to slander, and constituents I have represented for 15 years were insulted in the fashion that most would find astounding in a mature democracy. Two other politicians at the provincial level were accosted, and I see this as evidence of a developing phenomenon of crowd shaming on what some would call the dark side of the Internet.

After 15 years of serving among members, most of my colleagues would know that I announced more than a year ago that I would not be seeking re-election, so why not just slough it off, shrug it off, let it blow over, and ride off into the next chapter of my life—why, indeed? Maybe it is because I have a background in science. My credentials, modest as they are, are superior on this file to those of many in the chamber and most of my critics. Maybe it is because I have Irish in me and I do not like to be bullied. Maybe it is because, in my time as an MP, I have been sued and exonerated by the courts over the use of the title “doctor”.

Maybe it is because, when I started my practice 40 years ago in Kitchener and 15 years later on Vancouver Island, there were senior practitioners who spent time in jail, accused of practising medicine without a licence. I admired them for their tenacity and clinical effectiveness, and I knew that I could improve my technical skills if I spent time with them, and in several cases I did. Maybe it is because I am tired of seeing my faith community mocked and belittled. To not respond is to validate my accusers and, worse yet, imply that I lack the courage of my convictions to stand up for what I believe. That is not a legacy I wish to leave behind.

Many colleagues represent constituents beyond the ones who elected them. I hope that no members of any faith community in Canada are compelled to defend the beliefs of their communities in the future. Freedom of religion and conscience are fundamental freedoms in Canada. Bigotry cloaked in defence of science is as intolerable and repugnant as bigotry from any other source. It is contrary to our multiracial, multicultural, and multi-faith character and the tolerance for diversity that defines us as Canadians.

I know that members on all sides of the House are concerned about bullying in general and cyberbullying in particular. The government has brought in new legislative measures to address some aspects of this brutal phenomenon, and there are many social actions that seek to shield the vulnerable, like the pink shirt initiative. We are living in an era where knowledge is increasing at an astounding pace. There are many technical advances, and it is hard to keep up with what we refer to in general as science. It has been parsed into more and more diverse pursuits of knowledge.

I know that time in the House is precious and there are some constraints on time, but I have been in the House for 15 years and am known to most in the House. With the support of my colleagues, I hope you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, the time to express my concerns to my colleagues here in the House, with the co-operation of my colleagues of course.

The question I want to ask is this. Is prevailing science always right, therefore? I want to give an example from my own life experience and that of a brilliant Canadian scientist about how wrong and how long science can be wrong. Dr. Robert Salter, one of Canada's most distinguished medical men of science, is one of my personal heroes. He pioneered innovative surgical procedures and left a legacy that has impacted millions around the world in the management of joint injuries. A tribute to this great man of science on the Hospital for Sick Children—SickKids—website said the following:

For 22 centuries, the traditionally accepted and enforced treatment for diseased and injured joints was immobilization.

Robert Salter determined this strategy was doing immense harm to cartilage and joints. His pioneering work on continuous passive motion is now used in more than 15,000 hospitals in 50 countries. His textbook, Textbook of Disorders and Injuries of the Musculoskeletal System has been translated into six languages.

Dr. Salter impacted my own life and practice in a remarkable way. It was 1986. He gave a keynote address to 500 doctors of chiropractic gathered in Toronto at our annual convention. He summed up his work this way: There are three phases we go through when we introduce a model of care that does not fit the current medical thinking. The first is universal rejection: Who do we think we are? The second is equivocation: Well, maybe. The third is universal acceptance: Of course, it is obvious.

He went on to say, “My work is now in the third phase. I'll leave it to you”—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I see the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster rising on a point of order. I will let him make his point. We are on a question of privilege, so I will ask him to be mindful of that.

The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in O'Brien and Bosc, under which we are governed, there is an ability for a member to make a brief statement on matters of personal privilege. As members know, on page 159 of O'Brien and Bosc, it says:

Members have used this procedure to make personal explanations, to correct errors made in debate, to apologize to the House, to thank the House or acknowledge something done for the Member by the House, to announce a change in party affiliation, to announce a resignation....

I am not quite sure where the member is going on this. I think we all assumed that he was announcing his change in party affiliation or his change to becoming independent. I certainly do not see any point of privilege where he has been impeded in his duty as a member of Parliament.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I will say to the member for Nanaimo—Alberni that, if he does feel that his privileges have been breached, he make that point and bring that point to the Chair's attention. If he would like to seek the floor to make other points, there are other avenues to do so, but not as a question of privilege.

As the member might know, he has to make a link between whatever may have happened or have been said and the effect it has on him as an individual to carry out his parliamentary duties.

I will ask him to get to that part of his intervention as quickly as possible. I think the House would appreciate it.

The hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the experience that I went through recently with thousands of hateful communications is still going on, frankly, because of a few words that I spoke about science, managing assumptions, and the foundations of science in general.

There are members in the House who engaged me on the controversy, as it were, and I would like to be able to answer their questions. I have no intention of attacking anyone rhetorically in the House. My personal beliefs and those of many of my constituents and millions of Canadians have come under attack, and I would like the opportunity to express those views before my colleagues here. I hope that my colleagues would support me in that opportunity to clarify what I believe on behalf of myself, many of my constituents, and people across Canada.

If I may proceed, Dr. Robert Salter began his career as a medical missionary with the Grenfell Mission in St. Anthony, Newfoundland. I note his—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. It seems that the member may wish to make points that are unrelated, as far as the Chair can tell to this point. I do not see where the link is being made to the member's privileges.

He has alluded to the support of colleagues. Am I to infer from that, that he is seeking and asking consent to have the floor to make a statement?

I see that the hon. member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor is rising on a point. Maybe I will hear him first.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I think that you, being the master of the House, should extend the privilege to this gentleman. We always preach that, when we want to get up on a point of privilege, we have something to say that is profound.

The gentleman has been here long enough that we should give him that right. I would like to seek consent for him to speak his mind, because I would like to hear it. Whether I agree or not is irrelevant. He does have that right, and we should stand up for it.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Members will know it is important that, when they seek the floor on their questions of privilege, they should make the point of where the perceived breach has been made and make the link clearly and early on.

One can imagine, as the member for Burnaby—New Westminster has indicated, that one of the most precious commodities in the House is time. If we were all seeking to make points outside of normal hours of debate or course of debate, that could get very difficult for the Chair to manage.

The hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni has had the floor for, I believe, just shy of 10 minutes, although it might be tough to say with the interventions. However, I think it has been gracious of the House to allow him to do so up to this point, as I have not yet heard anything that would indicate where his privileges have been breached. If he would like to make other points on other aspects of the debate that he is talking about, there may be other opportunities for him to do so.

I will give the hon. member the floor one more time, but I think at this point he really does need to quickly establish his points to his privileges as a member.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think we are all concerned in this place about the phenomenon, a new phenomenon that probably did not exist when our esteemed reference, O'Brien and Bosc, was written. It is this phenomenon of crowd shaming. It is when a member from the House here with 100,000 followers makes a comment and thousands of followers pound on somebody and insult the beliefs not only of this member but of millions of Canadians, and another member makes a simple comment and that makes thousands of other people begin to pound on religious faith in the country.

Since leaders have been here expressing concerns about freedom of religion, I am asking the House to indulge me and give me the time to make my case on behalf of the community I represent.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The member seems to now be asking for unanimous consent to have the floor to make his statement.

Does the House give its consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There is no consent.

If the member is now just looking to make a statement on some aspects of things he believes in, without diminishing the importance it may have to him and other members, I do have to go back to what I said: there are many things that we all feel are very important and about which we have very passionate beliefs; however, if 307 members, minus the Speaker, try to do so under questions of privilege, it would be very difficult for the Chair to manage.

I see the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands rising and then the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington as well.

The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that so many members are prepared to hear a member say things that we can only anticipate and expect that we may disagree with.

However, the right of free speech is important, and without putting words in the mouth of my friend for Nanaimo—Alberni, he is sitting in a different place today from where he was sitting yesterday. Something has occurred that has affected his freedom of speech. I would like to know what it is, and I would like to respect his opportunity, after such a momentous change as leaving from sitting there and moving to sit here. I wonder if he will cast light on that. Perhaps that was what affected his privileges.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the member is addressing the House articulately or not. Perhaps he could have expressed his point of view more cogently in his first words. However, we do not know what he is going to say until he says it.

I think we ought to give him the same benefit of the doubt that we have, on other occasions, extended to other members who have been trying to express points of privilege. Let us find out whether or not this is genuinely a point of privilege by letting him speak.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think you have already made a ruling as far as the issue of a point of privilege is concerned.

My question, Mr. Speaker, is this. If we are speaking right now at this point on a point of order, would the member have an opportunity to speak to this point of order that is on the floor right now?

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I suppose there are two aspects to the question of privilege. One is when a member alleges that his privileges have been impeded or affected, or the collective privileges of the House; the other, as the member for Burnaby—New Westminster has already read out, is a brief statement when a member changes party affiliations. The job of the Speaker then is to interpret what a brief statement might look like. As I said, the hon. member has had the floor for just shy of 10 minutes.

If the House is going to indulge in a few more minutes for the hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni, I suppose I can interpret “brief” a little more generously. However, the member for Nanaimo—Alberni has to realize that if every member took the time to get up on a question of privilege every time he or she felt moved to do so, it would be very difficult for the House to manage.

The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is right. Freedom of speech is important, and we manage that freedom of speech when we speak to various bills and motions under various rubrics throughout the day. The Chair's job is to ensure that aspect of freedom of speech is incorporated into the usual practices of the House.

However, I think the hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni can get a sense of where the chamber is at. I hope he will bear that in mind and bring his remarks to a conclusion rapidly or establish that link to where his privileges have been affected.

The hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the issue I am addressing here involves people being gagged, and it is not by party leaders necessarily. No party wants to be embroiled in controversy at the provincial level or the federal level. However, there are issues that affect many Canadians.

Scientists are gagged over a false construct related to the theory of evolution, which is bogged down at the cell. It is something I know something about. We are made up of 80 trillion to 100 trillion of them. They cannot explain where the first cell came from. Scientists are gagged and educators who disagree are gagged. Academic freedom is imperiled. In fact, anyone who dares make the slightest remark related to this has an inability to speak. A member of the Alberta provincial legislature, the new education minister, was trapped by this issue.

I have taken the time to prepare to explain a controversial issue. It has cost me something to cross to this seat so that I can address this without appending it to my party. Colleagues, who I care very much about, are dedicated to what they are trying to do.

Mr. Speaker, I am asking if you would give me the time to represent my constituents and millions of Canadians across the country who are increasingly frustrated about their freedoms being eroded. I hope members would give me the time to allow me to express myself on these issues.

One of the issues people are concerned about, like the faith leaders who were here, is freedom of expression and conscience for doctors. They are concerned about the freedom of law graduates who are under unprecedented attack from banks and corporations seeking to prevent a faith-based organization from graduating law students. Doctors are imperiled by changes to conscience provisions. Registrars from the medical colleges across the country are talking about eliminating conscience provisions. The president of the CMA has stated that eliminating conscience provisions is not acceptable. I hope that everyone in the chamber would support him on that.

I wanted to address the member, because he engaged me during this discussion, on social media. He is the science critic for the Liberal Party of Canada. He is an hon. member with impeccable science credentials himself.

The false construct that a person of faith cannot participate in science is what I am hoping to address here. The member for Westmount—Ville-Marie has a distinguished place in Canadian history as the first Canadian in space. He also has a colleague from NASA who is the fourth-longest serving person in space, Colonel Jeffrey Williams. He spent nearly six months in space, nearly one year combined. When he came back, he wrote a book about his experience and faith. Should that person's science be trashed because he is a person of faith?

Mr. Speaker, I am asking that you give me the time, with the consent of members, to carry on.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I think the House has already denied that request, so I am not sure if it is fruitful to put it to the House again.

I do want to say to the hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni that I understand that this a matter that is obviously very important to him. It has obviously affected his decision on where to sit in the House, and I am not unsympathetic to that. There may be aspects that he feels he has grievances on, but he must understand the position the Speaker is in, and that other members of the House are in, when it comes to people making decisions like this.

He has had the floor for over 10 minutes, which is more than the normal allotted time we give for most speeches at second and third reading of debate. I think in any interpretation of the word “brief”, when it comes to a brief statement, I would be on thin ground if I gave much more than I already have.

I feel bad that I have to do this, but I will have to stop him there, as he may not be surprised to hear. I do not think there is anything in there for the Chair to rule on. I have not heard anything that would indicate that his privileges have been affected. He may have made a decision, but on his ability to fulfill his parliamentary duties, to me there has been no demonstration that that has been affected by the incidents he is articulating.

From there, we will move on to orders of the day. The hon. government House leader.

Bill C-42—Time Allocation Motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code and to make a related amendment and a consequential amendment to other Acts, not more than two further sitting days shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the second day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.