Debates of Nov. 29th, 2024

Alleged Intimidation during Proceedings of the House

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are limits to presenting alternative realities and ignoring the facts. The Conservative members are currently making speeches that have nothing to do with the question of privilege raised by my colleague from London—Fanshawe. What the member is talking about was already addressed by the Speaker this morning. The Speaker of the House made a statement about the interactions the Conservatives are currently attacking without cause.

I want to read the Speaker's statement. He said, “I also wish to take a few moments to address another situation that occurred after the vote. After the result was announced and Bill C‑78 was adopted”—

[The Acting Speaker, Bloc, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

I thank the hon. member.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel-Marie-Marie), Bloc, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

I ask all members to show a little decorum. The Chair has the floor.

The point of order was a matter of debate. The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie may rise on the question of privilege when the other members have finished.

The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes has the floor so he can finish his speech.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is a significant amount of evidence that can be offered by members of the official opposition in the form of video. It is not offered with any form of partisan context; it would simply provide an unbiased accounting for what occurred.

I will close with this: It is important that when there is an accusation of harassment in this place, it be taken seriously, but it is also important that the real context of what unfolded be understood and appreciated. Certainly, all of the details I have provided are true, but they are also incredibly important and paint a real picture about perhaps the sincerity that is being used in the offering of the question of privilege that has been raised by the member for London—Fanshawe.

[The Acting Speaker, Bloc, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

I thank the hon. member.

I want to remind all members rising to intervene on this question of privilege to try to go straight to the point, in other words to the points that were raised in this question.

The deputy House leader of the official opposition.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what happened yesterday in the House is unacceptable on many levels. It is especially unacceptable for a member, from any party, to intimidate a staff member from another party in the lobby.

This is the part of the story that the deputy leader of the NDP left out, but yesterday, the member for Vancouver East literally used her position, her authority, to belittle and intimidate a Conservative Party and official opposition staffer. I think this story need also be mentioned—

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Conservative member's comments have absolutely nothing to do with the question of privilege that was raised by my NDP colleague from London—Fanshawe. I would ask him to come back to the question before us now and not cause distractions in order to change the subject.

[The Acting Speaker, Bloc, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

The hon. deputy leader of the official opposition can continue his intervention and try to come back to the question of privilege being discussed here. Obviously a bit of latitude is always given by the Chair.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can understand that the NDP member would be terribly embarrassed by the actions of his colleague from Vancouver East, but I would remind him that it was his colleague, the deputy House leader of his party, who mentioned what had happened in the lobby during her speech on the question of privilege. I therefore have every right to set the record straight and lay out the real version of what happened in the lobby following this incident.

The member for Vancouver East was so aggressive that the employee in the NDP lobby had to physically take hold of her and remove her from the Conservative section of the lobby to stop her from harassing the Conservative Party employee. Many of us witnessed the incident.

Again, once you are fully informed of the facts, I encourage you to accept the invitation extended to you several times by my colleagues who described this event, to ask to see the video footage taken after the mace was removed from the House to get a clear, fair, and honest idea of what happened, based on all the facts and all the evidence brought before you.

As mentioned by the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, I cannot accept my colleagues being intimidated here in the House by four members of an opposing party, who went to his desk to berate him, to spread falsehoods and to claim all sorts of things that did not happen and that never happened.

I invite you to be prudent. I invite you to look at all the facts. You will see that what we saw yesterday evening was an expression of uncontrollable frustration by the NDP who, my goodness, must have regretted its vote to keep the current government in power, once again.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I believe that the Chair has heard enough arguments. All of this will be taken into consideration.

The Chair will come back to the House if necessary in due time.

The House resumed consideration of the motion, of the amendment as amended and of the amendment to the amendment.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a simple comment for the member for Winnipeg North. I want to congratulate him. He has spoken over 300 times on this parliamentary question of privilege debate, which is 10 times more than, I believe, any other member in the House of Commons. He has contributed quite a lot to the debate.

My question for the member is a question of fairness. Does he think that every member in the House should have the same privilege and opportunity to speak to this bill as he has had? If he does not think we should all have the opportunity to speak to it over 300 times, then how many times does he think, 150 times, 100 times, 50 times? I just want a number that would be fair to every member to be able to speak to this parliamentary debate on this specific motion to represent our constituents.

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

Madam Speaker, that is an interesting question. I would recommend that the member review the Hansard and look at my thoughts on parliamentary reform, dual chambers and the potential of using Fridays, and how we can ensure that every member is afforded an opportunity to address virtually any issue. I think that there is a great deal of merit to it.

I am a parliamentarian, first and foremost. Part of my role, as the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, is to hold opposition members to account for their behaviour. The member will find that, out of those 300 times the member has cited, as I do not count, what I am doing in part is trying to get the official opposition to be accountable for its irresponsible actions. That is why I highlighted the fact that what we are witnessing is borderline contempt of Parliament. I do not say that lightly. I have been a parliamentarian for close to 35 years; I am not sure as I do not know the actual number. Canadians should be concerned about this type of abuse of power, even when the leader of the Conservative Party is in opposition.

My time has run out. I respect that fact and will wait for the next question.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Diversity]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member for Winnipeg North his opinion as to why the Conservative Party is stopping this chamber from doing its work over the last several weeks, if not two months now.

I really find this very challenging and it is, frankly, appalling. It is halting our democracy from doing the work it needs to do. That is deeply concerning, as we talk about democracy, foreign interference and the protection of these touchstone values.

First, why is the Conservative Party stopping our democracy by halting this chamber?

Second, why is the Leader of the Opposition not getting a security clearance? Is he running away from something? Is there some question mark, some shadow in the closet, foreign interference, something like that?

Why is—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from the parliamentary secretary. He has posed it in two ways. The first one is in regard to the process that we are witnessing. People following the debate need to understand that we are debating a motion that the Conservatives introduced, which takes the issue and says it should be dealt with at PROC, yet they have now put up literally hundreds of speeches, not interventions. The member opposite made reference to me, in terms of interventions. They have actually put up hundreds of speeches on the issue.

By doing that, they are preventing the House from being able to deal with a wide spectrum of issues. One of those issues that the members make reference to is the issue of foreign interference. He posed the other question in regard to why it is that the leader of the official opposition has not agreed to get the security clearance. I personally believe that it is because he has something that he is hiding from his past. He is scared that by getting that security clearance, Canadians will find that out. We need to find that out.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am fascinated by that recent comment, that there might be something in the Leader of the Opposition's past that, if he gets a security clearance, gets to see it and is required to not speak about it, will somehow become public. I do not see how that works.

This is a terrible secret that is known to the Prime Minister, something that is a scandal, something that is terrible. The Prime Minister, who leaks regularly from this classified information, has not shared it with anybody.

What on earth is the member, in his parallel universe, talking about?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would ask the member to follow the ball here. What we are talking about is that every leader in the House of Commons has—

[An hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Can I ask the hon. member to allow the parliamentary secretary to answer?

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Everyone has the right to answer what has been asked of them.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. I do not know what riding he is from; I will remember. He is having a really hard time controlling his toxic masculinity. I know, certainly, because they use sexist—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We are not going to start a debate on this. I have already ruled. The hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston will have to allow the hon. parliamentary secretary to answer. There will be other opportunities to contest or diverge from the opinions of one another.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.