House of Commons Hansard #203 of the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was children.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Alleged Inadequacy of Government Response to Foreign Interference—Speaker's Ruling The Speaker rules on the Durham MP's question of privilege regarding an ongoing foreign interference campaign by China, stating it should be addressed by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which is already investigating similar matters. 500 words.
Decorum Members debate a Liberal MP wearing a T-shirt with a slogan, raising points of order about House decorum and dress code. The Deputy Speaker clarifies rules on contemporary business attire and the use of slogans or props. 1000 words.
Criminal Code First reading of Bill C-334. The bill amends the Criminal Code, Judges Act, and Director of Public Prosecutions Act to empower survivors of sexualized violence by giving them a choice regarding publication bans on their identifying information. 700 words.
Canada Business Corporations Act Second reading of Bill C-42. The bill proposes amendments to the Canada Business Corporations Act to establish a beneficial ownership registry, aiming to combat money laundering, tax evasion, and terrorist financing. Members highlight Canada's reputation for "snow washing" and the impact on housing affordability. Concerns include the proposed 25% ownership threshold, privacy protection, and the need for a pan-Canadian approach to ensure effectiveness across all jurisdictions. 4700 words, 35 minutes.
National Strategy for Eye Care Act Second reading of Bill C-284. The bill establishes a national strategy for eye care for eye disease prevention and treatment and designates February as Age-Related Macular Degeneration Awareness Month. The strategy addresses training, research, information sharing, and treatment device review. Parties largely support it, with some raising concerns regarding provincial jurisdiction and health funding. 7500 words, 1 hour.
Canada Early Learning and Child Care Act Report stage of Bill C-35. The bill aims to establish an affordable, accessible, high-quality, and inclusive early learning and child care system in Canada, with a goal of $10-a-day care. Liberals and NDP support it, citing increased female workforce participation. Conservatives criticize it, arguing it fails to address labour shortages and accessibility issues, creates "child care deserts," and excludes private providers. The Bloc Québécois supports it but stresses respect for Quebec's jurisdiction. 47400 words, 6 hours.
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, entitled “Main Estimates 2023-24”.
John Williamson Conservative New Brunswick Southwest, NB
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 28th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts entitled “Main Estimates 2023-24”.
I wish to thank the Auditor General of Canada for appearing, as well as her team, and thank as well all committee members, the clerk, our analysts and all the other support we had to get this done.
Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, entitled “Main Estimates 2023-2024”.
Bardish Chagger Liberal Waterloo, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. We are excited to send you the 42nd report, entitled “Report on the Report of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of British Columbia, 2022”.
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the Conservative members of the procedure and House affairs committee to table a dissenting report to the main report of the committee with respect to redistribution for the Province of British Columbia.
Conservative members on the committee respect the work of the electoral boundaries commission, which consulted broadly, and therefore we oppose many of the objections; however, we do ask the commission to respectfully consider in a favourable light the objection of the member for South Surrey—White Rock to move Lantzville into Nanaimo—Ladysmith as well as to favourably consider the name changes proposed by the member for Kelowna—Lake Country and the member for Langley—Aldergrove
Bardish Chagger Liberal Waterloo, ON
Mr. Speaker, the procedure and House affairs committee has been very busy, so I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, three other reports from the—
Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont
The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable is rising on a point of order.
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Mr. Speaker, I think you noticed that the member is wearing a T-shirt with very obvious connotations. Promoting any cause at all in the House is inappropriate. It is not a scarf, or something minor. I would ask for your opinion on this situation.
DecorumPoints of OrderRoutine Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont
What I will say on this one is that we are not supposed to be wearing things that say something on them, that have writing on them. I know the hon. member is wearing something from Easter Seals; I will let her complete her report, but I will remind all members to be more judicious in what they are wearing in the chamber.
The hon. member for Waterloo.
Bardish Chagger Liberal Waterloo, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised it would be a Conservative member who would be concerned with people living with disabilities or telling a woman what to wear.
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Mr. Speaker, the problem is not the slogan on the T-shirt, but the T-shirt itself. Just as a man cannot rise without wearing a tie, it is inappropriate for a member to be wearing a T-shirt when rising to speak in the House. A certain level of respect is necessary in the House. I really do not appreciate the comment that the member just made about a simple dress-related rule in the House and the rules that we all have to follow to maintain decorum in the House.
DecorumPoints of OrderRoutine Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont
A number of members wish to speak to this, so I will give the floor to the House leaders of each party.
The hon. member for La Prairie.
Alain Therrien Bloc La Prairie, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois follows the rules to the letter. I think we are grown-up enough to abide by the rules. I would ask the Speaker to enforce the rules that are clear in this case.
DecorumPoints of OrderRoutine Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont
The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on the same point of order.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I think you made the right call when you indicated some discretion. This is much like what was done earlier today. The Speaker called for a vote, and a member stood up who was not wearing a tie; the member was still allowed to have his vote counted. I support what you have implied, which is that the member should be able to finish what she had to say, and you made a very clear statement on the issue.
DecorumPoints of OrderRoutine Proceedings
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Speaker, your ruling was clear. There is discretion in this House; all members abide by it. I do not see how anyone could object to accessibility and inclusion in the House of Commons.
DecorumPoints of OrderRoutine Proceedings
John Williamson Conservative New Brunswick Southwest, NB
Mr. Speaker, I think your ruling was judicious; unfortunately, the member could not leave well enough alone and decided to take a shot on this side. That is the problem. Because of that, I actually think you should now enforce the rules of this place, which is that one does not make statements in this House when one is not appropriately dressed. There would be problems from that side if I came in wearing an “I love Alberta oil” or “I support agriculture” shirt. Therefore, I think this member should not be permitted to finish because she did not respect your ruling, which was to continue. She had to take a gratuitous shot at the opposition for trying to work with the system and uphold the rules of this place, which we should all be trying to do.
DecorumPoints of OrderRoutine Proceedings
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, I was wondering whether you would have raised a question about a T-shirt, but you did not, and the opposition did not, so it was understood that this was going to happen. I am not sure whether we are dealing with our colleagues on the Conservatives' side being special snowflakes and feeling hurt and now wanting to shut down a voice. My question is about the colour red. I was actually very concerned; I thought that might be a Liberal colour. Since some of the Conservatives are wearing red too, should we rule on colour today? Is it the fact that it is a positive message of inclusion, or are we concerned that the Conservatives are feeling hurt once again?
DecorumPoints of OrderRoutine Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont
Again, the rule is more about slogans and props. They all fit in the same group of rules. If everyone would like to indulge me, I would be more than happy to read some of the rules, and then we will go back to the order.
Chapter 13, the “Rules of Order and Decorum”, on page 611, reads:
While the Standing Orders do not prescribe a dress code for Members participating in debate, Speakers have ruled that all Members desiring to be recognized to speak at any point during the proceedings of the House must be wearing contemporary business attire. Current practice requires that male Members wear jackets, shirts and ties. Clerical collars have been allowed, although ascots and turtlenecks have been ruled inappropriate for male Members participating in debate. The Chair has stated that wearing a kilt is permissible on certain occasions (for example, Robert Burns Day). Members of the House who are in the armed forces have been permitted to wear their uniforms in the House. Although there is no notation to this effect in the Journals or in the Debates, a newly elected Member introduced in the House in 2005 wore traditional Métis dress...on that occasion without objection from the Chair.
In certain circumstances, usually for medical reasons, the Chair has allowed a relaxation of the dress standards permitting, for example, a Member whose arm was in a cast to wear a sweater in the House instead of a jacket.
The other point I want to make is on what I said about slogans and/or props. It goes on to say:
Speakers have consistently ruled that visual displays or demonstrations of any kind used by Members to illustrate their remarks or emphasize their positions are out of order. Similarly, props of any kind have always been found to be unacceptable in the Chamber. Members may hold notes in their hands, but they will be interrupted and reprimanded by the Speaker if they use papers, documents or other objects to illustrate their remarks.
The point I am trying to make here is simply that we need to be judicious in what we are wearing. I am going to allow it, but I would caution the member on the retort back. That is what caused this to happen this afternoon.
I will recognize the hon. member for Waterloo. Let us get reports from committees done, and let us just be judicious in the future on the wearing of T-shirts with slogans in the House.
The hon. member for Waterloo has the floor.
Bardish Chagger Liberal Waterloo, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the following reports from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs: the 43rd report, in relation to its study of the main estimates for the fiscal year 2023-24; the 44th report, in relation to the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, May 25, regarding the study on foreign election interference; and the 45th report, requesting a further extension of eight sitting days to consider the 2022 report of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Ontario.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the 45th report later this day.
Laurel Collins NDP Victoria, BC
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-334, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Judges Act and the Director of Public Prosecutions Act (orders prohibiting publication of identifying information).
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to table my private member's bill on publication bans this afternoon. This bill is an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Judges Act and the Director of Public Prosecutions Act to better support survivors of sexualized violence.
Tabling this bill was made possible by the phenomenal work of My Voice, My Choice, a group of women who courageously advocated to make sure that other survivors have a choice when it comes to publication bans. Currently, there is no obligation to get consent from victim complainants when a ban has been placed on their name, and if they choose to speak out about their own experiences, they can face criminal charges. This is appalling, and I strongly believe that, as MPs, we have a responsibility to reform these systems.
I know that Bill S-12 was recently introduced in the Senate, which I was very happy to see. However, there are gaps in this government bill. I look forward to working with MPs from all parties when it comes to the House to make it better. I hope that my bill can act as an example of how Bill S-12 can and must be strengthened, to ensure that all survivors are given a choice.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I would just like some clarification about your decision earlier on wearing a T-shirt. I know that you cited the Standing Orders, but I would like it to be clear. This is how I interpret your decision. If a member decides to come to the House wearing a T-shirt with a slogan, speaks on a topic and the Chair or another member intervenes to raise the matter, the Chair will tell the member that they can finish their comments, but must dress in the future in accordance with the Standing Orders.
Tomorrow morning, if I arrive in the House in a T-shirt that reads “Vive le Québec libre”, I would be able to finish my comments, but my dress must be in accordance with the Standing Orders for my next intervention. I would just like to clarify that that is how things will work in the future. In the Bloc Québécois, we have always wanted the Standing Orders to be enforced and for things to be clear. We have always wanted the government to respect the Canadian Constitution, even though we do not like it.