We will consider the matter closed.
House of Commons Hansard #387 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was policy.
House of Commons Hansard #387 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was policy.
Alleged Intimidation During Proceedings of the House—Speaker's RulingPrivilegeOral Questions
Liberal
The Speaker Liberal Greg Fergus
I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on November 29 by the member for London—Fanshawe concerning alleged intimidation during the proceedings of the House.
In her intervention, the member claimed that before and during the taking of the last recorded division on Thursday, November 28, the disorderly behaviour of many Conservative Party members reached an unacceptable level. She alleged that members were disruptive to the point where she and her colleagues could not hear their names being called by the table officers.
Furthermore, she indicated that her caucus had, prior to the vote, alerted the Chair and the Table to the possibility of intentional disruptions because of what she felt was inappropriate behaviour in the shared opposition lobby. This made it difficult for her to carry out her duties as the deputy House leader for the NDP and constituted a breach of privilege and even a contempt. The member described the behaviour of the Conservative Party members both in the House and in the lobby as unacceptable, toxic and designed to intimidate other members as they carried out their parliamentary duties.
The member for New Westminster—Burnaby weighed in to support the member's question of privilege. In addition to commenting on the lack of decorum during the vote, he alluded to what he considered as other objectionable behaviours by some Conservative Party members, whom he accused of being inebriated, and reminded the House that the party whips are responsible for ensuring a safe workplace that is free of harassment for members and employees who work with them.
Other members intervened on the matter, frequently with conflicting accounts of what occurred in the lobbies leading up to the vote, as well as on the floor of the House during the sitting and after adjournment. In particular, the House leader of the official opposition rose to fully deny the accusations made by the member for London—Fanshawe and the member for New Westminster—Burnaby. He detailed the events of the evening in question as he saw them, stating that it was the members of the New Democratic Party who acted in a harassing manner toward members and staff of the Conservative Party. He argued that if any contempt occurred, it was a result of the behaviour of New Democratic Party members, who stormed up the aisle to confront the Chair at the adjournment of the House and then approached the Conservative benches to confront some other members. He therefore requested that the member for London—Fanshawe withdraw her question of privilege.
The Chair will first deal with concerns about behaviour in the opposition lobby. As described in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 295, and I quote:
Connected by doors to the Chamber, the lobbies are furnished with tables, armchairs and office equipment for Members' use. Members attending the sitting of the House use the lobbies to conduct business and are able to return to the Chamber at a moment's notice. The party Whips assign staff to work from the lobbies and pages are stationed in the lobbies to answer telephones and carry messages. The lobbies are not open to the public. Security staff control access to the lobbies in accordance with guidelines set by the Corporate Security Office after consultation with the Whips.
Whips and their staff have always ensured a harmonious cohabitation within the opposition lobby, a shared working space currently used by the three opposition parties as well as independent members. By tradition and convention, the lobbies have been viewed as a sort of sanctum that affords members and caucuses the needed privacy to plan and coordinate their work in the chamber. However, lobbies are not an extension of the House chamber, at least not in terms of its deliberative function. Ultimately, how lobbies operate and are regulated is an administrative matter under the purview of the Board of Internal Economy, as are other working spaces beyond the chamber.
On the issue of the consumption of alcohol within the parliamentary precinct, Speaker Regan addressed the matter in a ruling on a question of privilege on November 20, 2018, at page 23625 of the Debates:
Subsection 52.3 of the Parliament of Canada Act gives the board, not the Speaker, the legal authority to:
...act on all financial and administrative matters respecting
(a) the House of Commons, its premises and its staff; and
(b) the members of the House of Commons.
Accordingly, the right forum to raise such matters...remains the Board of Internal Economy.
The use of the lobbies and the behaviour of members and their staff using the lobbies is therefore a matter that should be brought to the Board of Internal Economy. To that end, I would encourage any member who is concerned about this to raise it with their representatives on the board so that it can be addressed there.
The whips of all parties also play a crucial role in the management of the lobbies. The Chair therefore strongly encourages them to look into this issue and work together in finding a suitable solution that all can adhere to. Indeed, the Chair has written earlier today to the whips of the opposition parties to this effect.
Concerning the behaviour of members in the House during the vote on Thursday, November 28, the excessive noise did indeed hamper members' ability to hear the clerks conducting the roll call. The Chair intervened midway through the vote to call the House to order.
I also made a statement the following morning, referring members to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 643, which sets out the conduct expected during the taking of a vote, which includes not making any noise. In my statement of November 29, found at page 28,339 of Debates, I stated:
The Chair hopes this will serve as a good reminder to all members of the expectations in regard to decorum during divisions. I understand that some votes are the subject of strong disagreements, but it is still expected that all members comport themselves appropriately.
And so I remind the House again that when votes are being called, members are to remain respectful so that they can be conducted in an orderly fashion. I would add that the adjournment of the House should also happen in an orderly fashion and that approaching the Chair or the seats of one's colleagues to carry on arguments is not helpful or conducive to a respectful atmosphere. While the House had technically adjourned when such events took place on the night in question, the repercussions of these actions have a negative impact on the manner in which the House operates.
The member for London—Fanshawe also complained that, in addition to the noise, the pointed heckling was inappropriate and was received by many members as harassing or intimidating. As Chair, I wholeheartedly agree that the level of noise in the chamber during the last vote on November 28 was indeed outside of the acceptable range. The lack of decorum and noisy disruptions experienced that evening do not meet the expectations Canadians have of us.
The member for London—Fanshawe equated the events to interfering with her ability to carry out her parliamentary duties. While I understand the member's concerns, I cannot conclude that it resulted in any member not being able to vote or participate in proceedings.
Therefore, I cannot agree that the member was interfered with in the performance of her parliamentary duties. What happened that night was clearly a breach of decorum. I do not excuse this or seek to normalize it, but I am not aware of any precedents where incidents of this nature rose to matters of contempt or breaches of privilege.
I nonetheless take concerns about harassment and intimidation very seriously. While moments of strong disagreement and political tension are common in this place, there is still an expectation that we, as elected officials, treat each other with civility and respect. Apart from being a deliberative and law-making body, the House is also a workplace. In addition to members, employees of the House administration and staff from political parties themselves support within these august walls our parliamentary democracy. They are all entitled to a safe working environment at all times.
The Chair believes that these concerns warrant, at a minimum, a discussion between the whips. They, and in fact any member voluntarily seeking productive solutions to conflicts, may explore available support options provided by the House administration to help mediate this situation.
Before closing, I would like to point out that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is currently conducting a study on the issue of harassment. This study arguably already provides the remedy the member for London—Fanshawe seeks, namely, referring the matter of harassment and intimidation to that committee. The counterpoints raised by the House leader for the official opposition could also fit within the committee's existing study.
Moving forward, as Speaker, I have strong expectations that the whips will address the matter in a serious and timely way. Of all the workplaces in Canada, the House of Commons, as the heart of our democracy, should serve as a role model. Members are passionate in defending their views, and this can bring vigorous debates in the House. However, when away from the cameras, we are all colleagues and we should all work together to ensure a productive and safe workplace for not only ourselves but also our staff and all those who support us in this great place.
Notwithstanding the seriousness of the matter raised, I cannot find that this constitutes a prima facie question of privilege.
I thank all members for their attention.
The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle is rising on a point of order.
Alleged Intimidation During Proceedings of the House—Speaker's RulingPrivilegeOral Questions
Conservative
Andrew Scheer Conservative Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK
Mr. Speaker, I certainly listened to your ruling. I understand that it was basically addressed to the question of privilege raised by the NDP member about what may or may not have happened in the lobby. You have ruled that what goes on in the lobby does not fall under the purview of a question of privilege.
In response to that, points were raised about the erratic and unhinged behaviour of the NDP members in the chamber, even though the mace was off the table. I am just wondering whether you are going to come back to address those questions that were raised as well.
Alleged Intimidation During Proceedings of the House—Speaker's RulingPrivilegeOral Questions
Liberal
The Speaker Liberal Greg Fergus
I will invite the hon. member to take a look at my ruling, where that question was actually addressed.
There is a point of order from the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
Alleged Intimidation During Proceedings of the House—Speaker's RulingPrivilegeOral Questions
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, is “erratic and unhinged” considered parliamentary language in this place?
Alleged Intimidation During Proceedings of the House—Speaker's RulingPrivilegeOral Questions
Liberal
The Speaker Liberal Greg Fergus
That is a very good question. I have heard that language being used before in this place, and it was considered acceptable at the time. As, of course, members know, that language has been used here before.
The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby is rising on a point of order.
Alleged Intimidation During Proceedings of the House—Speaker's RulingPrivilegeOral Questions
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Speaker, that language was utterly inappropriate from my colleague, the official opposition House leader. It borders on misogyny. I would suggest, given the Conservatives' history of being drunk and disorderly in the House of Commons, they should take lessons from your ruling.
Alleged Intimidation During Proceedings of the House—Speaker's RulingPrivilegeOral Questions
Liberal
The Speaker Liberal Greg Fergus
I appreciate the hon. for Regina—Qu'Appelle. However, I do not want to open up a debate on this issue between the two members.
I will ask again that if members have matters to discuss on this particular matter and on what had happened on Thursday, November 28 at the vote, they would please come speak to me in the chair. Of course, I have taken into account all the issues that have been raised before, and I think the Chair has been very generous in terms of hearing concerns that were raised by multiple members on the question.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary 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 responses to 12 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.
Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
Conservative
Dominique Vien Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 26th report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in relation to Bill C‑378, an act amending the Canada Labour Code in regard to complaints by former employees.
The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment.
Iqwinder Gaheer Liberal Mississauga—Malton, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in relation to the supplementary estimates (B), 2024-2025.
Joël Lightbound Liberal Louis-Hébert, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 21st report of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology in relation to the motion adopted on Thursday, December 5, on telecommunication companies' service contract practices.
George Chahal Liberal Calgary Skyview, AB
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, entitled “Concerns Arising from Parliamentary Budget Officer's Report”.
Bonita Zarrillo NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-423, An Act to amend the National Housing Strategy Act (right to adequate housing).
Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to protect Canadians from greedy corporate landlords whose tactics unfairly raise rents, evict tenants and harm Canadians. I thank the member for Vancouver East for seconding the bill and for her work to shine a light on the financialization of housing in Canada.
The bill would enshrine the fundamental human right to housing into the National Housing Strategy Act. It is one of the fundamental rights that the Liberal government deliberately left out of that very same housing act. The bill would provide the government with the tools to stop renovictions, demovictions and the unfair business practices that are making people homeless.
The NDP wants the housing needs of people to be prioritized over the profits of predatory corporate landlords, REITs and even unethical Liberal government pension funds. The Liberals' national housing strategy has failed to uphold people's rights to adequate housing, in favour of making real estate investors rich. Like the Conservatives before them, Liberals prioritize multi-million dollar corporations over fundamental human rights of Canadians.
Everyone, regardless of income, background or circumstance, deserves access to a safe, accessible and affordable place to call home. This is the human right that the bill would enshrine and make a reality.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have three very important petitions to present today. The first is on behalf of concerned Canadians who are bringing to the House's attention the fact that Conservative members of Parliament for Brantford—Brant, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock and Lambton—Kent—Middlesex went on a taxpayer-funded trip to France in June. It is deeply troubling that the duly elected members were not allowed to speak to fellow MPs while there. In fact, they were forced to return early from the trip.
The Canadian petitioners are calling upon the Conservative members of Parliament who wasted taxpayers' money, and who put their party leadership rules above their duty to taxpayers, to repay in full those wasted costs.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, the second petition is, again, another very important petition on behalf of Canadians. It is calling to the attention of the House that the media has reported that Conservative members of Parliament are not allowed to speak publicly without the approval of their leader. It is deeply troubling that duly elected members are put in this position. The petitioners also indicate that the Conservative leader has proven himself to be insincere and that he preaches freedom to speak but denies it for his own caucus.
The petitioning Canadians are calling upon the leader of the Conservative Party to allow his members of Parliament—
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont
The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is rising on a point of order.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether you could just clarify the rules around members of Parliament, in particular members of the Liberal caucus, signing their own petitions.
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont
While I appreciate the help, I just want to make sure that everyone summarizes the petitions they are presenting to the House.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has the floor.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, I will be tabling the petitions momentarily, and the member can then see the signatures that are on it.
The petitioning residents of Canada are calling upon the leader of the Conservative Party to allow his members of Parliament to provide support to their communities, to access the housing accelerator fund and to remove the gags.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, a third petition, again another really important one from Canadians, brings to the House's attention the fact that the RCMP has reported that the Government of India has interfered in Canadian elections. There is deeply troubling testimony with regard to foreign interference, from which Canadians learn that Conservative MPs are involved in foreign interference.
The petitioning Canadian citizens are calling upon the leader of the Conservative Party to immediately obtain his security clearance and take action to prevent foreign governments from interfering in Canadian affairs and targeting Canadians.
I am very proud to present the petitions on behalf of Canadians.
Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am presenting three petitions today. The first one is on the prison needle exchange program. Constituents in Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon are against the government's providing needles so inmates can do illegal drugs. That is not safe and it is not good for correctional officers. It is not good for inmates. Petitioners are calling for that government policy to end.
Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC
Mr. Speaker, the second petition is on natural health products. Petitioners in Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon are calling upon the Government of Canada to reverse its attack on natural health products, which will decimate small businesses and a billion-dollar industry in Canada. Again, it is a policy that will hurt workers and businesses alike.
Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC
Mr. Speaker, in the third petition, petitioners are calling for further support for the Lets'emot Regional Recreation & Aquatic Centre, which brings together indigenous communities and the District of Kent to provide adequate recreational facilities in the District of Kent.
Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
Mr. Speaker, I stand to table a petition signed by residents of Wiikwemkoong Unceded Territory and others near the region, who are calling on the Government of Canada to assist in the funding required to build a vital elders home facility in Wiikwemkoong. The petitioners note that funding has been received from the Government of Ontario, CMHC and community members, but a funding shortfall of $20 million remains.
Petitioners also note that the Government of Canada has also funded health care facilities in the largely indigenous community of Moosonee, a long-term care home for the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte and a seniors long-term care facility in Rankin Inlet.
The current facility in Wiikwemkoong has reached the end of its life expectancy, and it is vital for the community to ensure that elders can stay in their community to share their knowledge and experience with younger generations. Petitioners indicate that this would actually impact their ability to also remain in close proximity to their family. They also do not want to be subjected to another era of assimilation.