I declare the motion carried.
House of Commons Hansard #350 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was liberals.
House of Commons Hansard #350 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was liberals.
Melissa Lantsman Conservative Thornhill, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege arising from some very disturbing events that occurred just outside this place over the weekend.
On Saturday, the Parliamentary Protective Service, which you are responsible for and provide policy direction to, imposed an ideological test for entry onto the grounds of Parliament Hill. According to a video posted online, a visitor is seen being denied access because he was “not a supporter of Palestine” and does “not recognize Palestine as a state”. The visitor, of course, was denied access to Parliament Hill for the sole reason that he did not hold a political opinion considered acceptable to whoever approved this requirement for entry. To my knowledge, that is the first time that access to Parliament has been subjected to a screening of political points of view, at least documented as such.
Parliament is the beating heart of Canadian democracy. It is where Canadians often come to exercise one of the most cherished constitutional rights guaranteed to them under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and freedom of expression. Therefore, to cherry-pick that point of view, as expressed on Parliament Hill, is simply not consistent with Canadian values. It should be made clear that this is in no way directed at the officer, but a question on the policy direction that you, the Speaker, are responsible for.
It should also be made clear that the very fact that anyone cannot access Parliament Hill because of an opinion they hold, or worse that they cannot be trusted to be in the same place as someone who holds an entirely different opinion, is a stain on the state of our country and demonstrates the divisiveness that has been allowed to fester here. This is a country that has seen hate crimes rise 250% since 2015. It is a country that has seen lawlessness and the mob rule our streets. If two groups of people who have opposing views cannot enter at the same time to express those views in one place, what has become of this country?
Conservatives believe that Parliament Hill must be safe and secure while remaining open and accessible to all, including those who are peacefully protesting. All points of view from all Canadians should be heard. That is their constitutional right, regardless of whether those opinions are politically fashionable among the elites.
The litmus test of recognizing a Palestinian state as the key to enter is, in fact, also the position of the Government of Canada and many Canadian allies. I am not sure what that was all about.
Had Conservative members of Parliament sought to access the House of Commons, our place of work, on Saturday, we would have been denied access because we would not or could not have satisfied that ideological test, even though members are free to access the parliamentary precinct. That is a well-established privilege of Parliament.
The House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 107, explains, “In order to fulfill their parliamentary duties, Members should be able to go about their parliamentary business undisturbed.”
Continuing at page 110, Bosc and Gagnon write:
Incidents involving physical obstruction—such as traffic barriers, security cordons and union picket lines either impeding Members’ access to the Parliamentary Precinct or blocking their free movement within the precinct—as well as occurrences of physical assault...have been found to be prima facie cases of privilege.
This is also explained in paragraph 15 of the 66th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, tabled April 1999, which states:
One of the privileges of Members of the House of Commons is a right of unimpeded access to Parliament and the parliamentary precincts. Members are entitled to go about their parliamentary business undisturbed.... This privilege dates...back to at least the early eighteenth century, and is part of the heritage of all legislative bodies that trace their origins to the British parliamentary tradition. It is based on the pre-eminent right of the House to the attendance and service of its Members. Any obstruction of Members constitutes a breach of privilege and a contempt of the House....
The point was repeated in the same committee's 26th report, tabled in May 2012, which states, “As part of the parliamentary privilege, Members of the House of Commons have the right of unimpeded and unfettered access to the parliamentary precincts, and are entitled to go about their parliamentary duties and functions undisturbed and without any form of interference.”
Joseph Maingot makes the simple point, in his Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, second edition, at page 176, that “No impediment should be placed on the Member in going about his parliamentary business, whether in the House, on his way to the House, or while on his way home.” Further down on the same page, he wrote, “Since Parliament Hill has always been a public place, restricting the movement of the general public on the grounds would probably be considered excessive.” To punctuate that point, he added footnote 47, which reads, “There was little if any restriction on the grounds of Parliament Hill even during the 1970 October Crisis.”
Shortly following Pierre Trudeau's invocation of the War Measures Act, the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization recommended in its second report, presented to the House in March 1971:
Your Committee believes that the main problem in connection with security in Parliament is to strike a reasonable balance between the importance of allowing the public ready access to the House of Commons on the one hand and the necessity of preserving the security of the House on the other. Your Committee was governed at all times by the belief that Parliament should not be isolated from the people as a result of exaggerated security measures and that it is important in a democratic society that members of Parliament should continue to have direct communication with the public. Consequently your Committee has concluded that whatever security measures are provided...must be reasonable and consistent with the right of the public to come to Parliament.... It is not easy to reconcile these two imperatives but your Committee feels that the balance should always be in favour of permitting the public reasonable and proper access to Parliament...without intruding in any obvious way on the undoubted rights of citizens to approach their Parliament.
That sounds like common sense to me. Canadians, who elect us, have a right to come to Parliament and make their voices heard, yet it seems they have been chucked out the window in favour of the shocking news that ideological purity tests are now needed to access Parliament Hill, which is a very high impediment being imposed. Conservative MPs, even some Liberal MPs and many Canadians would fail to pass these ideological tests. Blocking politicians, especially opposition politicians, from accessing the legislature to which they were elected to plainly represent their constituents is undemocratic and unCanadian. It is the sort of thing that dictatorships do.
To be sure, I am not going to lay any blame on the constable who was seen in the video. Indeed, I do not hold any single frontline member of this service responsible. They would have simply been following directions decided much higher up. Conjuring up political ideological tests for accessing Parliament is not something we would expect any single constable to have simply freelanced, so it certainly comes from somewhere.
Subsection 79.52(2) of the Parliament of Canada Act explains:
The Speaker of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Commons are, as the custodians of the powers, privileges, rights and immunities of their respective Houses and of the members of those Houses, responsible for the Service.
You, Mr. Speaker, are responsible for that service. Subsection 79.54(2) of the same act adds:
The Director shall lead the integrated security operations throughout the parliamentary precinct and Parliament Hill under the joint general policy direction of the Speaker of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Commons.
Beyond the matter of any policy directions that you may or may not have given, Mr. Speaker, it is important to understand that section 79.55 of the act vests responsibility of “physical security services throughout the parliamentary precinct and Parliament Hill”, delivered by the PPS, in the RCMP. In fact, the director of the PPS is required by subsection 79.56(2) of the act to be a member of the RCMP. Subsection 5(1) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act makes quite clear that the Liberal cabinet appoints the RCMP's top boss, the commissioner, “who, under the direction of the Minister, has the control and management of the Force and all matters connected with the Force.”
At the end of the day, this boils down to one essential question: Was the direction to require the Parliamentary Protective Service to apply a political litmus test to anyone seeking access to Parliament Hill this past weekend a general policy direction that you approved, Mr. Speaker, or was it the direction of the Minister of Public Safety in relation to his control of the RCMP, which is responsible for physical security on the Hill? No matter how we cut it or which Liberal made the decision, ideological tests for political points of view are shocking and unacceptable and are an impediment to members of Parliament, who must have free and ready access to the parliamentary precinct at all times, not to mention all Canadians, who should be able to come to the Hill at all times for all issues.
Should you agree that this is a prima facie case of privilege, I intend to move a motion to refer this matter to the procedure and House affairs committee for investigation. Allowing this issue to be studied in committee would allow key questions to be answered. Who gave the directive? Was it you, Mr. Speaker, or was it the Minister of Public Safety who approved this ideological test for Parliament Hill access? Have ideological tests been approved for Hill access before this time?
These are very important issues and concerns, and Parliament stands for free speech in its very name. The grounds that surround our building ought to stand equally for free speech. They should not be a safe speech bubble for some speech or, even worse, for acceptable speech, nor should they be reserved only for opinions that are shared by the government or elites or are fashionable at the time.
The Speaker Liberal Greg Fergus
I thank the hon. member for her intervention.
I see that the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby is rising on the same matter.
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Speaker, as is our practice, I am asking for consideration to review the blues and potentially come back in the next day or two on this issue.
The Speaker Liberal Greg Fergus
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is rising on a similar matter.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, likewise, we would like the opportunity to review this and come back to you in a timely fashion.
The Speaker Liberal Greg Fergus
I can assure all members, especially the member for Thornhill, who raised this question of privilege, that I look forward to getting back to the House as soon as possible once the other interventions are made.
I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division, Government Orders will be extended by 12 minutes.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
It is my duty to lay upon the table, pursuant to subsection 94(2) of the Access to Information Act and subsection 72(2) of the Privacy Act, the reports of the Chief Electoral Officer on the administration of these acts for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h), these reports are deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.
Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
Liberal
Ali Ehsassi Liberal Willowdale, ON
Madam Speaker, I am truly honoured to present in both official languages the 27th report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, which is entitled “Enduring and Overcoming: The Struggle of the Hazaras in Afghanistan”.
Given the situation in Afghanistan and what the Hazaras are being subjected to, I would truly recommend that every member of the House take the opportunity and the time to read this report by the subcommittee. I want to thank every member.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, an interim report of the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency.
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Madam Speaker, it is my honour to rise on behalf of the Conservative members of the committee to offer this supplemental opinion.
This January, the Federal Court made a landmark ruling finding that the Prime Minister's Liberal government illegally invoked the Emergencies Act and used it to violate Canadians' most essential constitutional rights to freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression. The Conservatives believe that the Liberals must answer for the government's reckless abandonment of the law and the most basic freedoms of all Canadians.
That is why the Conservatives wanted to call several Liberal ministers before our committee to account for their decisions, as well as ordering them to return over the legal opinion that the government claimed to rely upon for its illegal and unconstitutional decisions. Regrettably, efforts for accountability over one of the most serious decisions any government could ever make were frequently resisted by our Liberal colleagues, backed by independent Senators, so that we still have not been able to get to the truth at committee. We fear this could be a foreboding signal of what is to come given our committee's final report.
The decision to invoke the Emergencies Act was unnecessary from the start. The Prime Minister caused this crisis by dividing people. He proceeded to violate the charter and illegally suppress Canadian citizens. Since then, the government has desperately tried to defend its actions, lying to the public by saying that the police asked the government to invoke the act, something the RCMP and the Ottawa police have both denied.
If a Conservative government is elected, we will ensure that the Emergencies Act can never again be used to silence political opposition, because common-sense Conservatives will protect the charter rights of Canadians and unite our country and our people for hope and freedom.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
The Chair has been informed that the member for Winnipeg Centre intends to move a motion. The Chair wishes to make a statement concerning the admissibility of the routine motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of the member for Winnipeg Centre, which aims to modify the Debates of June 4, more precisely to replace part of an intervention made by the member for Saskatoon West.
First, let me commend the member for Winnipeg Centre for a novel use of the motion. There may be circumstances under which a motion regarding the correctness of our records would be admissible.
Members will, however, recall that the Chair was seized on June 6 with a similar request submitted through a question of privilege, which was also raised by the member for Winnipeg Centre. The Chair determined on June 17 that the edited text of the debates, as published, was coherent with the interventions made that day. The Chair therefore considered the matter closed. I believe this is still the case.
To permit this new motion to proceed at this time would be akin to an appeal of the Speaker's decision, which is prohibited pursuant to Standing Order 10. Consequently, the Chair must rule the motion out of order and direct that it be dropped from the Order Paper.
(Motion withdrawn)
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The original interpretation of the Speaker was regarding a question of privilege, and I would submit that this is quite a different thing. The motion that has been submitted is within the framework of House of Commons Procedure and Practice. This is our bible procedurally, and I refer you to page 1229. It states:
It is a long-standing practice of the House that editors of the Debates may exercise judgement as to whether or not changes suggested by Members constitute the correction of an error or a minor alteration. The editors may likewise alter a sentence to render it more readable but may not go so far as to change its meaning.
The motion submitted by the member for Winnipeg Centre, I would submit, is in order because in Standing Order 67, we have the ability to put forward debatable motions that “may be required for the observance of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the appointment or conduct of its officers, the management of its business, the arrangement of its proceedings, the correctness of its records.”
In terms of both the question of privilege, which we understand the Speaker has ruled on, and the motion itself, I would submit that the motion is clearly in order.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
The Chair has made the ruling. The hon. member has attempted to challenge the Chair at this point, but my decision stands.
The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre is rising on a point of order.
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Madam Speaker, it is very clear that the meaning in Hansard was changed. I have spoken to many people in the legal community. They have pointed to the fact that it is troubling if members of Parliament can change legal records when it does not suit their political interests. This is a—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
This has now become a point of debate. A decision has already been rendered on this matter; therefore, the matter is considered closed.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Madam Speaker, I rise to present a petition from concerned Canadians and constituents about the situation at Via Rail. Particularly, there is a proposed new expansion that is often mistakenly referred to as high-speed rail. People who love Via Rail tend to want to support it, but the proposed high-frequency rail would hand corridor operations to a private operator. The petitioners point out the Windsor-Quebec corridor is the most lucrative part of Via Rail's network and that 70% of Via Rail's revenue comes from these corridor services. The petitioners point out that this would, effectively, gut Via Rail and negatively affect passenger rail service across Canada.
The petitioners ask that the section of the high-speed, high-frequency rail project that hands operations and services in the corridor to a private operator be taken out. This part of Crown corporation Via Rail's service radius should not be privatized.
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Madam Speaker, I rise to present a petition in which the petitioners call on the government to permanently scrap its expansion of MAID for when mental illness is the sole underlying condition. The petitioners characterize this as reckless. They note that it is impossible to determine whether someone with a mental illness will get better. It is impossible for clinicians to distinguish a rational MAID request from one motivated by suicidal ideation; therefore, this planned expansion would put some of the most vulnerable Canadians' lives at risk.
Marc Dalton Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC
Madam Speaker, on the anniversary of the brutal terrorist attack against Israel on October 7, I rise to present petition e-4985, in which 2,250 Canadians are calling on the government to stand against the rise of anti-Semitism. Bomb threats, death threats, violence, vandalism against Jewish homes, schools and synagogues and the boycotting of Jewish-owned businesses are causing many Jewish Canadians to experience retraumatization of the Holocaust and to feel unsafe in revealing their Jewish ancestry. Jewish homes, schools, synagogues and businesses must be protected.
The petition calls on the House of Commons to enact urgent public and national security measures in line with the Constitution and the Criminal Code of Canada.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The House resumed consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.
Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day
Conservative
Doug Shipley Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
Madam Speaker, I feel as though there has been a long rain delay and I have cooled off, but I am warmed up and ready to get going again. I know you are new to the chair, Madam Speaker, from when I first started, and you missed the first few minutes; if you would like me to start over—
Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day
NDP
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
The hon. member has eight minutes left to finish his speech.