Debates of Nov. 20th, 2024

Use of Props in the House

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to thank the Speaker for his ruling yesterday, as well as to provide some input into how we believe the ruling should be interpreted and enforced, based on previous rulings and practice.

As the Speaker indicated yesterday, “the Chair seeks the co-operation of all members to be judicious in choosing to wear buttons or pins and to be equally judicious in choosing to raise their concern with the Chair”. We do have some additional guidance on the matter from previous Speakers. In particular I would like to draw the attention of members to a ruling made on May 15, 2014, which states:

The general rule, of course, is that pins and paraphernalia are not to be worn if it causes disruption to the House. I am a bit concerned about the point of order being raised now because these pins have been worn for at least a week or 10 days, as has been my observation, to this point in time. Therefore, I am having some difficulty accepting any suggestion that it is causing disruption, because if it was, points of order would obviously have been raised earlier in this process.

I would like to point out that many of us have been wearing the pins for many, many months now without comment. I would also like to state that this point is critical and should inform how we move forward.

First, it is disingenuous and beyond belief for members to wake up one day and decide that the wearing of pins has been accepted and that while it has been in use for months it is now somehow causing disruption. If something is disruptive, it is disruptive.

Second, while I do appreciate that disorder and disruption have always been and will continue to be the standard by which pins and indeed broader behaviour are judged, we do need to be guided by the Deputy Speaker's intervention in 2014 when he said explicitly, “I am having some difficulty accepting any suggestion that it is causing disruption”. Disruption in and of itself should not mean that a pin is out of order. It is vital that we do not normalize in the chamber a scenario where the loudest and most disruptive voices can use their own disruption to try to force the Chair's hand.

Third, we should be guided by the fundamental principle of freedom of speech, the protection of which is one of the prime responsibilities of the Speaker. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice states at page 317:

It is the responsibility of the Speaker to act as the guardian of the rights and privileges of Members and of the House as an institution.

Freedom of speech may be the most important of the privileges accorded to Members of Parliament.

Yesterday during my intervention, while trying to communicate how I have expressed my freedom of speech, wearing red dress buttons to signify the ongoing genocide of indigenous women, orange shirt buttons to signify the genocide that occurred in residential schools, and now the watermelon button to signify the genocide that has been recognized by the United Nations, I was stopped before I was able to speak.

Members must be able to continue to express solidarity with constituents and individuals across Canada. This right must never be infringed upon.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I thank the hon. member from Winnipeg Centre for that substantive addition to the ruling yesterday. I will, of course, consider carefully what the member raised.

There are two more points of order, the first being from the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, who rose to his feet earlier.

Allegations Regarding Impartiality of the Speaker

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order that actually comes out of question period from yesterday.

It is well established and agreed on by everybody in the chamber that the reputation of the Speaker is an impartial reputation, and when I say “the Speaker”, I mean the chair occupant; that might be yourself, the Deputy Speaker, one of the Assistant Speakers from time to time or even somebody who sits there for a few moments to substitute when a Speaker has to depart. The point is that the impartiality of the position is absolutely critical.

In fact a former Speaker who used to sit in the chair, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle and currently the House leader for the Conservatives, once said, in a ruling on September 24, 2014, that:

Another of our time-honoured traditions is that of respect for the office of Speaker. O'Brien and Bosc, at page 313, states that:

“Reflections on the character or actions of the Speaker—an allegation of bias, for example—could be taken by the House as breeches of privilege and punished accordingly.”

There is actually more than what the Speaker at the time indicated. If members go to page 313 and look at the heading about impartiality, the immediate next paragraph starts off by saying, “On two occasions, newspaper editorials were found to contain libellous reflections on the Speaker and were declared by the House in one instance to be a contempt of its privileges and in the other a gross breach of its privileges.”

I bring this to your attention, Mr. Speaker, because following your rulings and some actions you had to take yesterday after question period, the member for Calgary Nose Hill issued a tweet that said, “Watch the Speaker (a Liberal MP) kick me out of the House of Commons and silence me for speaking the truth.” She goes on to say, “Liberal censorship is alive and well in Canada.”

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, therefore as demonstrated by the tweet and by the agreement from the Conservatives that is coming from across the way, the Speaker's chair, not you although in this particular case filled by you, but the role of whoever happens to be sitting in the chair, is not being treated in an impartial and non-partisan way.

I am bringing this to your attention not to protect your honour and your integrity as an individual, Mr. Speaker; I think you can do that well enough on your own, but I bring it to your attention because I am worried that a dangerous precedent is being set, where attacking the occupant of the chair becomes the norm. As I indicated through my research and what I had provided to you, Mr. Speaker, there has already been a well-established practice of determining that comments like the ones I cited are a breach of the privilege of the Speaker and of the House as a whole.

I would kindly ask you, Mr. Speaker, to reflect upon what I have offered to you today and come back to the House to let us know whether that kind of action will continue to be allowed in the future, whether we are setting a new precedent, or whether you will be starting to clamp down on the issue. I am greatly worried about the impartiality of the Chair. If we continue to allow the practice to occur, years from now Speakers will continue to be subject to it.

I will end my comments with where I started, which is that one of the most important things of our democracy, of our chamber and of the way this place functions is that the people who sit in the chair and the people who work at the table are completely impartial and do not bring a political agenda to their role. They sit there and do their job as servants of the other MPs of the House.

I would kindly ask that you reflect upon that, Mr. Speaker, and come back to the House and provide us with some guidance as to how we should be dealing with these situations moving forward.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, if it is your intention to have a formal ruling in response to that point of order, I would like to reserve the right to come back and issue more formal remarks.

However, I would point out that nothing that the member for Kingston and the Islands just referenced would rise to the level of libellous. The section that he quoted from the procedure and practice handbook says that was libellous statements have been seen as a contempt of the House or a breach of its privileges. I would point out that it is a true statement that the member was kicked out, but there is nothing libellous in that; that is what happened yesterday.

You, Mr. Speaker, are a member of the Liberal Party and a Liberal MP; that is a true statement. Nothing in what was just read out would in any way rise to the level of a libellous remark unless the member is suddenly realizing that being associated with the Liberal Party is in itself libellous, which I certainly would not disagree with, but I am sure some people would.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent on a point of order.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think we have seen in the last minute a lot of time for people to express their points of order, so I would like to have the same opportunity to express the point I want to raise.

Something very important came up during question period, namely a report that was tabled during the night. I say during the night because it was 1 a.m. in Ottawa when it was tabled at COP29, the conference I am attending virtually as a Canadian delegate.

The report looks at the performance of 67 countries around the world in terms of how effectively they are fighting climate change. It is entitled “Climate Change Performance Index 2025: Results”. I am not saying the title in English to be funny but because only the English version was available at 1:30 a.m. when I read it and printed it out.

As shown in the table on page 7, we can clearly see that, after nine years of this Liberal government, Canada ranks 62nd out of 67 countries. I am seeking unanimous consent to table this document, and I would point out that if the House unfortunately refuses, the House will be insulting COP29.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to table this document?

[Some hon. members]

No.

Government Response to Petitions

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to three petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

Liaison

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 107(3), I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 10th report of the Liaison Committee, entitled “Committee Activities and Expenditures: April 1, 2024 - August 31, 2024”. This report highlights the work and accomplishments of each committee of the House, as well as detailing the budgets that fund the activities approved by the committee.

World Health Organization

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition signed by the great people from the freedom-loving riding of Kanata—Carleton. They are calling on the Government of Canada to refrain from endorsing the so-called pandemic treaty drafted by the World Health Organization that has never had a single debate or vote in the House of Commons. This concern is that by agreeing to this legally binding treaty, Canada is signing away our own sovereignty and allowing UN bureaucrats who are unaccountable to Canadians the power to override our laws, rights and freedoms.

Taxation

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition here, if you would allow me. I would also like to present a petition signed by the people from Whitby, Ajax and Pickering—Uxbridge, who are devastated by the government's carbon tax, which is making their lives more expensive by increasing their costs for fuel, food and housing. Now this government plans to quadruple the tax that would only make lives more expensive. They are calling on the government to scrap all federal excise taxes on energy, the GST on oil and gas and the carbon tax.

Lebanon

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition from members of the Lebanese Canadian community in my riding of Scarborough Centre. They draw the attention of the House to the expansion of the conflict in the Middle East, which has killed tens of thousands of innocent Palestinians, into Lebanon, where Israeli military action has killed hundreds of people and injured and displaced thousands since September 23 alone.

Petitioners note what they consider endless visa restrictions for people trying to flee the war zone. They call on the government to implement a special visa program similar to what Canada provided for Ukrainians fleeing their war zone; temporary resident visas for the extended family of Canadian citizens and permanent residents who want to reach Canada; the safe evacuation of Canadian citizens and their extended families from Lebanon; and a transparent and fair process that gives priority to evacuating women, children and the elderly.

Animal Welfare

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a true honour to rise to present a petition that has been signed by over 10,000 people, in fact, 10,187 people. Some are constituents, but they are from far and wide and include eminent researchers in animal issues from York research centre and from Queen's University. It is a very long petition, with many signatories, including the Humane Society International and the Montreal SPCA. It follows on a declaration by 39 scientists called the New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness.

The petitioners, and again, as I said, it is an eminent list, call on the Government of Canada to reconsider and reform our laws as they relate to animals. The petitioners point out that animals currently under our law are not considered sentient beings and are classified as property.

The researchers and scientists confirm that sentience is the ability to experience feelings and sensations and is an ethical basis for determining that animals deserve moral consideration. Thirty-two countries have formally recognized non-human animal sentience and they are cited in this petition, including the European Union, Switzerland, China, Chile, Australia, the United States, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. The petitioners ask that Canada join this group of countries and reform our laws to recognize animals as sentient beings.

Sri Lanka

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present petition e-4981, with 593 signatures, on behalf of Eelam Tamils from across Canada, with the support of the Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam.

The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to take legal action before the International Court of Justice against Sri Lanka under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. They note the atrocity crimes, including war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, committed against the Eelam Tamil people, citing reports by the United Nations Secretary-General's panel of experts on accountability in Sri Lanka and internal review panel on United Nations action in Sri Lanka. The petitioners are deeply committed to a world that is free of genocide, and they believe accountability is essential in preventing genocide and ensuring “never again”.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, I present petition e-5058, with 636 signatories, on behalf of Eelam Tamils from coast to coast to coast. The petition describes Canada as a diasporic home to the largest number of Eelam Tamils, a nation of people facing protracted genocide for over 75 years in Tamil Eelam, their occupied traditional homeland in Sri Lanka.

First, the petitioners call upon the House of Commons to initiate proceedings by Canada against Sri Lanka at the International Court of Justice to investigate Tamil genocide, both as an injured state party on behalf of its citizens of Eelam Tamil heritage and as a state party exercising obligations erga omnes partes.

Second, the petitioners call for an internationally administered referendum among the people in the occupied homeland and in the diaspora on the creation of an independent and sovereign state of Tamil Eelam.

News Media Industry

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.

The first is on the departure of radio and television journalists and, in particular, how we are continuing to see a disappearance of crucial local coverage in our communities.

The signatories of the petition are calling on the government to extend the Canadian journalism labour tax credit to include radio and TV. They are asking the government to support Canadian-owned media by dedicating 70% of federal advertising dollars to local radio, TV, print and digital media; and to eliminate tax deductions for advertising purposes on foreign-owned Internet-delivered media sites.

Democratic Institutions

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from many Canadians who are calling to the government's attention the fact that the RCMP has reported the Government of India is interfering in Canada's elections and murdering, threatening and extorting Canadians on Canadian soil.

Petitioners are also bringing to the attention of the House that it is extremely troubling, what is being learned about what the Leader of the Opposition is doing with respect to his security clearance and not getting one.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have never been heckled when giving a petition before, but I will continue.

The signatories of this petition, and my job is just to deliver it on their behalf, are calling on the leader of the Conservative Party to get his security clearance and take action to help stop foreign governments from interfering in Canada and targeting Canadians. I am happy to present it on their behalf.

Youth Cadet Programs

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition in the House today on behalf of residents of Durham region and across Canada who are concerned with Liberal government cuts to youth cadet programs. The Liberal government has cut funding to sea cadet, air cadet and army cadet programs, leaving first- and second-year recruits without proper dress uniforms. This is shameful and many Canadians are very concerned.

The petition calls upon the government to restore funding for all youth cadet programs so new cadet recruits can be issued proper dress uniforms, to consult with local youth cadet programs throughout Canada to assess other budgetary challenges, and to also commit to long-term, stable funding for youth cadets.

The Economy

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have another petition on behalf of students across Canada who are concerned about the carbon tax and its impact on the future of our country. The petition states quite clearly that the carbon tax has contributed to the affordability crisis, which has left students and youth unable to live independently of their parents.

Therefore, these students and residents of Canada call upon the Government of Canada to remove the carbon tax to alleviate the ongoing affordability crisis that is causing students and the people of Canada to struggle.

Democratic Institutions

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I too have a petition to table that highlights foreign interference. It calls into question why the leader of the Conservative Party has chosen not to get the security clearance. It is rooted in concerns regarding everything from assassination to extortion and political interference.

It is a very serious petition, and the petitioners imply that the leader of the Conservative Party needs to get the security clearance necessary to become better informed about foreign interference.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe the rules require a petition to be addressed to the House or the government. The Leader of the Opposition will soon be Prime Minister. He is not Prime Minister yet. I wonder if it is in order for a petition to be addressed to a person who is not the Prime Minister, the government or the House.