Debates of June 2nd, 2022

Oral Questions

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Could the hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge repeat his question?

Could the member be a little more concise and clarify please?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand from the hon. member's question that he seeks clarification.

The hon. member mentioned the word “mafia” and the words “Italian prosecutor” in the same sentence, linking the two as the mafia being an Italian organization and organized crime as being only an Italian organization. Italians have suffered from this broad stereotyping for too many years, and I wish for an apology.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand my colleague's objection. I was quoting Italian prosecutor Roberto Scarpinato. I cannot say that this is about a German prosecutor because he is Italian. There is nothing bad in that. This prosecutor fought the mafia his entire life, and that information can be found on Wikipedia. I do not understand what is so offensive about what I said. I simply reported the facts.

My wife, who passed away not so long ago, was Italian. I have the utmost respect for the Italian community. I feel at home in Italy and I love the Italian people. I did not mean to insult them. However, I certainly cannot say that Mr. Scarpinato, the prosecutor, is of any nationality other than Italian.

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

Mr. Speaker, my point of order relates to Standing Order 16 and Standing Order 18, and we will, at some point today, be discussing them. However, it grieved me to see a whole class of kids, probably grades three and four, from Oakville, Ontario, be subjected to the violations of those standing orders in a very raucous, rude, I suppose we would have to say on all sides, heckling and yelling back and forth.

I ask members to please, now that we are back in person in this place, consider the examples we set for school children who visit this place.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I want to thank the hon. member for her intervention. However I will remind hon. members of three things.

First, I received some concerns yesterday about something that was said, and sometimes it is not intentional, but members should try to think it through, even when heckling or shouting across. Even though we do not want members to heckle, members should try to think through how that will affect someone else's feelings.

Second, heckling is something we want to keep to a minimum in the chamber. However, although it was a little raucous, it was not so much the heckling as members talking among themselves, which is nice, because they are talking, but if they are talking while somebody else is trying to ask or answer a question, it makes it difficult for everyone else.

Third, please do not refer to anybody in the gallery. Members are not allowed to do that. It is not allowed in the Standing Orders.

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the first report on COVID‑19 rapid test procurement and distribution.

Presence in Gallery

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

In light of your statement as you were referencing not referencing people in the gallery, I may have at that moment been waving to my six-year-old in the gallery, so I do apologize for waving to my son Matthew, who has joined us here today.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I want to remind the hon. members that we cannot do indirectly what we cannot do directly.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point order.

On my point of order, I do seek clarification. As I understand the rules, it is completely forbidden for a member to say what only the Speaker has the right to say, such as “We recognize in the gallery so-and-so, the premier of such-and-such,” but I want clarification that when I reference the school group, I am not recognizing people in the gallery in any way that violates our rules, as I understand the rules.

If I am incorrect, I would like to know.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Once again, we are back to square one, talking about how members cannot do indirectly what they cannot directly, and referencing someone, as far as I can tell, is doing that.

I do not want to start having an argument here, but I think we will go to the hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, and then if there is still an argument afterward, we will come back.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I just wanted to stand up and say I respect you as the Chair and expect you to maintain the rules of this place and to make rulings when people are out of line.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I merely want to understand the rules. I have read the rules, I know the rules and I am not challenging your ruling. I am asking for clarity. That is all.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

That is a fair question. I will go back, review them and make sure I come back with an answer for the hon. member.

The House resumed from June 1 the consideration of the motion.

Public Safety and National Security

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 3:25, pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 31, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #119

Committees of the House

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried.

Business of the House

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me just start by saying, on behalf of Her Majesty's loyal opposition—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I want everyone to hear the question. Order, order.

The hon. opposition House leader, please.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me again start by saying, on behalf of Her Majesty's loyal opposition and our leader, the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar, just how happy we are to have you back in the seat. We are thankful for the great doctors in northern Ontario for looking after you so well.

Unfortunately, we did not have a House leaders' meeting on Tuesday, so that brings up the importance of today's Thursday question about the calendar for the next week. I wonder if the hon. government House leader could advise the House and all Canadians what the business of the House will be over the next week.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, let me join my colleague opposite in welcoming you in your return to the role of Speaker. It is wonderful to see you there. I almost cannot see you because of the monument. I guess it is an homage to Fenway Park. It is our own green monster that has been constructed in this chamber. I can kind of see your head over it. It is wonderful to see you back in this place and in such fine form and good health. Welcome back.

Tomorrow morning, we will begin debate on Bill C-19, the budget legislation, which was reported back to the House from the finance committee yesterday. I want to take the opportunity to thank all members for their hard work on getting it back so quickly. Tomorrow afternoon, we will commence second reading debate of Bill C-21, the firearms legislation. Our priorities for next week will be report stage and third reading of the budget bill, and Bill C-5 regarding mandatory minimum sentences. Finally, I would like to inform the House that Tuesday, June 7 shall be an allotted day.

Standing Orders and Procedure of the House and Its Committees

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That this House take note of the Standing Orders and the procedure of the House and its committees.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to Standing Order 51(1), a motion that this House take note of the Standing Orders and the procedure of the House and its committees is now deemed to have been moved.

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division, Government Orders will be extended by 11 minutes.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I can honestly say that when I first came in this morning, this is what I had anticipated talking about. Every election cycle, members are afforded the opportunity to express some of their thoughts on what would make this chamber more functional. Ultimately, from my perspective as a parliamentarian first and foremost, I am very interested in the rules of the chamber and what takes place in our standing committees. Even toward the tail end of the debate we had prior to question period, it was noticed that a couple of members were already starting to talk about standing order changes, and I was quite pleased.

A couple of the Conservative members talked about unanimous consent motions, and UC motions are a good place for me to start. What we have seen over the years is a growing attitude of acceptance in the sense that we bring something after question period and ask for unanimous consent. It was not that long ago, maybe a week or so, when I was provided a list of UC motion requests. There were five or six or seven UC motions that were going to be proposed. As a parliamentarian, I think it takes away from the process.

We have to appreciate that a number of members, for example, will have the good fortune of having their names drawn to bring forward resolutions, bills or motions during the hour for Private Members' Business. We will often see heritage day designations or other important issues brought forward by a particular member. In many ways, I think unanimous consent motions can undermine the importance of Private Members' Business. In many cases, UC motions will ultimately be used at the last minute or because something occurred that morning: possibly a member saw something on a news flash that is brought to the chamber, with the thinking that no one could vote against it, and a UC motion is brought forward.

For many members, it is somewhat of a disadvantage because they are not made aware of the content and no caucus discussions take place. When I have talked to members from different political entities in the chamber, there seems to be a general feeling that we need to change that standing order to better reflect what would be acceptable. I appreciated the statements earlier. The question that I had for members and that we have seen in recent weeks is to give a clear indication, whether that rule ultimately changes or not, to elevate or amplify the important role that speakers have with respect to unanimous consent motions.

They have the authority to look at what is being proposed. In essence, if there is a feeling that it is not going to happen, that it is a last-minute thing or there have not been any real consultations, they can refer it back to the House indirectly or directly as opposed to entertaining the motion. I really believe it is one of the things that takes away from the individual member. Individual members have a responsibility to have at least a basic understanding of what is being asked of them. How can they have that understanding if it is brought up at the end of question period and they are expected to be quiet on it?

I say that knowing that many members feel the same way I do on the issue. I see a thumbs-up and I appreciate that. When I think of rule changes and standing orders, I know a number of members who will follow me will share a personal feeling or thought in terms of how a rule could be changed that would be to the betterment of the chamber.

I would really encourage members, not as a partisan but as someone who cares about how this chamber functions and how we can improve upon our rules. One of the things, for example, that I have always been an advocate for is the idea of a dual chamber, but my attitudes toward a dual chamber somewhat changed when I heard other members ask if we really wanted to have a second chamber. There is a main chamber and then a secondary chamber. All the good stuff happens in the main chamber and the other stuff happens in the new chamber: the other stuff as opposed to bad stuff.

The point is that we would have a secondary chamber. Another idea came out of it. The idea was instead of having a dual chamber, why not designate Friday as a debate day? In that, members could take any item that they wanted that was in second reading, whether it was a private member's bill or a government piece of legislation, and notify the Speaker on the Wednesday prior to say they would like to speak to such-and-such a bill. That initiates Friday as being a debate day. There would be no need to have a dual chamber. There is only one chamber.

We can talk about major changes to rules such as that, or we can talk about what I believe is a fairly straightforward rule change. How many inside this chamber would oppose the House looking at dress codes? I, for one, believe that a member should be able to wear anything he or she wants when making a member's statement, S. O. 31. If I want to come all dressed up in my Winnipeg Jets or my favourite football team uniform, without a jacket and without a tie, and be boastful so I can clip it and post it on Facebook as a big fan of my home team, I want to be able to do that. Some members are able to do that, but males cannot do that. There are some inequities within our dress code. Having it modernized or updated would be good. The real judges are the constituents we represent. I would like to think the prestige of the chamber would dictate that people would dress appropriately. That is one of the rules that is fairly widely accepted.

Then we might have some Standing Order rules that are pretty much straightforward. Every day I stand and say, “Madam Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand”. If I do not get to reporting my questions in time, because of let us say a concurrence motion or some sort of delay, then a minister will have to stand. What about if it were closer to the top of the Order Paper, like tabling of documents? It is a pretty straightforward request. It does not take anything away from government or opposition. It just allows for something to get done.

As to the idea of the Prime Minister's question period, I think there is a great deal of merit in it. Whether it is the Prime Minister or a premier, when I was sitting for many years in opposition, it was nice to know that there was a day designated when there was an opportunity we members were afforded. Today, I am in government. Who knows where I will be 10 years from now? I might not even be a parliamentarian.

There is something to be said about asking a question directly to the premier or directly to the Prime Minister. I make reference to premiers because when I was in the Manitoba Legislature, when we did a major overhaul, we looked at what Ottawa was doing. Ottawa has an important role that goes beyond the rules of this chamber. I know that first-hand: Provinces will look at it. Maybe in a question, I will give a specific example of that. We have an important role, and hopefully we will be able to take advantage of it.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to perhaps suggest this to the member in talking about Private Members' Business. It is unfortunate that some members who have served in this House for perhaps a decade never get an opportunity to table a private member's bill and take it through the entire process. I will bring up the experience of the former interim leader of the Conservative Party, former minister Rona Ambrose, who was able to have her private member's bill passed by this House only at the very end of the last 18 months in her term.

I wonder if the member will consider this idea. Would he approve of having twice the number of hours devoted to Private Members' Business and of changing Private Members' Business so that it is dealt with in the same manner as Government Orders, which means that a member will make a speech and then have a question-and-comment period every single time?

It has happened in the past that deputy chairs while they are in the chair confuse what is going on, sometimes because the hours change very quickly. It would be a consistent way of always dealing with it. Right now, Private Members' Business is kind of dealt with as a very long 10-minute S. O. 31.