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.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Protection of the Right to Adequate Housing Act First reading of Bill C-423. The bill would enshrine the right to housing into the National Housing Strategy Act and provide tools to stop renovictions and unfair practices by corporate landlords. 200 words.
Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs Members debate the government's handling of the SDTC fund, which Conservatives allege is a "green slush fund" marked by conflicts of interest and mismanagement. Conservatives demand the release of documents, criticizing the government's spending, the rising cost of living, the carbon tax's impact on farmers, and crime policy. Liberals defend their fiscal record and challenge Conservative claims on issues like CBSA jobs and "fixing the budget". NDP and Bloc members also participate, addressing various government policies and Conservative criticisms. 18400 words, 2 hours.
Andrew Scheer Conservative Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK
Mr. Speaker, I was just giving the government an opportunity to defend its own economic update, but this one is different—
SyriaOral Questions
The Speaker Greg Fergus
I am going to encourage all members to make sure that, when they rise for unanimous consent, there has been negotiations among all members so that we have a reasonable likelihood of the motion succeeding.
Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to adopt the following motion, which is seconded by the members from Mirabel, Louis-Saint-Laurent and Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie: Given the construction of Mirabel International Airport, which led to the expropriation of thousands of families in 1969, given that the families who lost their homes, land and community following this forced expropriation are suffering from trauma and unspeakable pain, and given that commercial flights at Mirabel airport have ended, that this House issue an official apology to the residents of Mirabel who were expropriated in 1969.
SyriaOral Questions
The Speaker Greg Fergus
All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay.
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In response to our House leader's point of order, I want to point out that before he even had a chance to say a word—
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB
Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify what your ruling is going to be moving forward. Are we to expect now that if somebody says no before a word is spoken on a point of order, you are going to stand up and shut down that member from speaking, regardless of which party it is, from now on? Is that the precedent?
SyriaOral Questions
The Speaker Greg Fergus
I can assure all members that I am continuing with the normal practice of this House: that when there is a clear indication that there is not unanimous consent, we will move on from that.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, in a red-faced fashion, clearly flipped the bird over to this side, which is another way of saying gave the finger. That is highly unparliamentary and I would ask him to uncategorically withdraw the finger. It is not appropriate. He should apologize to all parliamentarians.
SyriaOral Questions
The Speaker Greg Fergus
I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his intervention. That is an important issue that has been raised.
SyriaOral Questions
The Speaker Greg Fergus
I see there are a number of members rising on points of order.
The hon. member for North Okanagan—Shuswap has the floor.
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Mr. Speaker, when the parliamentary secretary was making his statement, I could not understand what was being said through the interpretation because you have failed to keep order in this place. Please correct that so we can hear what is being said.
SyriaOral Questions
The Speaker Greg Fergus
Order, please. I appreciate that the hon. member is raising the issue of interpretation not being provided. That is a fair point. I will then allow the hon. parliamentary secretary to rise again.
However, to respond, once again, to the member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, when it was made clear to me that the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle was rising on seeking unanimous consent, once there is an indication that there is no unanimous consent, we pass on to other things, as opposed to what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons was rising on. It was not unanimous consent he was seeking; he was making a point of order, which does not require unanimous consent. That is the reason I allowed the member to stand up.
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, my point of order was with respect to the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, who, in a very angered, red-faced manner, flipped the bird to the government. That is highly inappropriate. The member knows that and he should uncategorically apologize for the manner in which he expressed himself. That is what we are asking him to do.
Blake Desjarlais NDP Edmonton Griesbach, AB
Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I bore witness to the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, in an outrage, disgrace this place and all members by yelling out of turn and then giving you the finger. We expect this place to have a level of decorum and respect, and the member has demonstrated multiple times a breach of the very important decorum of this place. He gave the finger. I witnessed it and many members saw it. We expect an apology and a withdrawal, and we demand that he understand the severity of the issue.
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have been a member of Parliament for 24 years. This is the first time I have flipped the bird to anybody.
To correct the member, it was not to the government; it was to the member for Kingston and the Islands, but of course, nobody deserves that, and I withdraw it and apologize to the House.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
I certainly accept that apology and take no offence to it, Mr. Speaker. Maybe it is a Kingston thing.
Alleged Intimidation During Proceedings of the House—Speaker's RulingPrivilegeOral Questions
The Speaker 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
The Speaker 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?