Debates of Dec. 6th, 2024

Access to Parliamentary Precinct

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I left off talking about two reports of the committee, the 34th reports, one presented in 2015 and the other one in 2017. In response to the 2015 question of privilege in which concerns were raised about whether a 74-second delay of a shuttle bus rose to the level of a prima facie breach of privilege, one of your predecessors ruled, on May 12, 2015, at page 1379 of the Debates:

In this light, emphasizing the notion of balance, questions raised by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons are pertinent with regard to defining what constitutes an impediment to unfettered access for members to the parliamentary precinct and buildings. It would indeed be unfortunate for members to carry the concept of physical obstruction to illogical and unreasonable lengths. However, I would caution that the House ought not either to fall into the trap of assessing these matters on the sole basis of the duration of a delay or impediment. One can easily imagine a situation where even a very brief obstruction, depending on its severity or nature, could lead a Speaker to arrive at a prima facie finding of privilege and to allow a debate in the House.

Most recently, Speaker Regan, on April 6, 2017, at page 10251 of the Debates, said:

The importance of the matter of members' access to the precinct, particularly when there are votes for members to attend, cannot be overstated. It bears repeating that even a temporary denial of access, whether there is a vote or not, cannot be tolerated....

Obviously these kinds of incidents, which have given rise to the issue now before us, have been all too frequent.

The 2017 report from the same committee, the procedure and House affairs committee, which followed that particular ruling, meanwhile noted, “In line with past precedents, the Committee strongly believes that the right of unimpeded access for parliamentarians to the parliamentary precinct is of the [utmost] importance and that obstruction or interference with Members engaged in parliamentary business cannot be condoned.”

The relevant precedents are, I would respectfully submit, numerous and unequivocal, and I have laid them out. A temporary denial of access for MPs to the parliamentary buildings cannot be accepted and must be addressed.

What is unique here is that parliamentarians were a part of this protest, in an effort to impede and obstruct the work of fellow parliamentarians, members of the House. It is also, I believe, part of a broader pattern of unhinged behaviour on the part of New Democrat MPs, though I know that is already a matter on which the Speaker is currently deliberating on, given their behaviour in the House late last week.

This is also a continuation of the very tactics that we have seen on our streets from unhinged mobs that think that their petty grievances allow them to target Jewish neighbourhoods, firebomb Jewish schools, obstruct synagogues and wreak havoc on our Canadian values, while abiding and abetting groups that are designated as terrorists in this country. It is essential to recall that this issue, and this question of privilege, is not about some politicians looking out for their self-interest. Rather, as Bosc and Gagnon articulate on pages 59, “The privileges of the Commons are designed to safeguard the rights of each and every elector.”

Later, on page 60 of that same book, Bosc and Gagnon, quoting from the 20th edition of Erskine May's guide on parliamentary procedure, which says, “The privileges of Parliament are rights, which are 'absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers'. They are enjoyed by individual Members because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its Members”. A similar point is made by Maingot, at page 12.

Canadians send us to Parliament to represent them and to speak out in the impassioned debates of the day. In doing so, they also expect us to comport ourselves in a professional way. That does not, of course, include engaging in illegal, disruptive, harassing and potentially threatening conduct toward our own colleagues and the institution of Parliament. It definitely does not include the delay in the business of Parliament by not letting MPs walk into their own office buildings, and it definitely does not—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

There is a point of order from the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in referring to our procedural bible, and Conservative MPs may not be aware of this, but it says very clearly, on page 144, “Questions of privilege for which written notice has been given are raised at specific times, namely on the opening of the sitting, following Routine Proceedings but before Orders of the Day”. In that sense, the member is not speaking to the question of privilege in the right order. We would have to complete Routine Proceedings and then, prior to orders of the day, go back to her hopefully completing, as she is being very repetitive, the question of privilege.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Because the hon. member started her question of privilege prior to being interrupted by orders of the day, she can continue. As it is a continuation of her original speech, I will allow it.

There is a point of order from the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was here when the member began, and the Speaker then reminded the House that a question of privilege has to be focused and is not to be used as a filibuster. The member seems to be repeating things. The Speaker also said that. I believe we are way past the point. It seems that this is a tactic as opposed to someone who is actually concerned about their rights being upended.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I will encourage the hon. member for Thornhill to make her closing arguments.

The hon. member for Thornhill.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to, but I understand why the NDP does not want to hear about a breach of privilege that its members were involved in. I am going to continue. This breach of privilege certainly does not include indefinitely occupying a building where MPs were blocked, as tough it were business as usual.

I will close by saying that, the protest in itself, I would submit, is a contempt of the House. The engagement of NDP MPs in such behaviour is unprecedented and must be called out at every single opportunity. I believe it rises to contempt. We must stand up on behalf of the sacred traditions, the rights of this place and the democratic values that we share as Canadians. Should the Speaker agree with me, I am prepared to move an appropriate motion to instruct the procedure and House affairs committee to get to the bottom of this issue and recommend the appropriate accountability.

I will end with this: All of the protesters who were there will have to remember that they will not silence members of Parliament. The NDP MPs who joined that protest will never silence the voice of those who stand up for freedom-loving Canadians in this country, ever.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to add to the question of privilege that was raised by my colleague from Thornhill. I also just want to note that I am deeply offended by the previous interventions in regard to the point of order from the member for Timmins—James Bay. For him to suggest that this is a filibuster tactic is completely disrespectful. My safety and my staff's safety were jeopardized on Tuesday, and that is not acceptable. These events need to be looked at further by the Speaker.

I just want to run through what happened that morning with me. I had arrived to the front of the Confederation Building and I had my children with me on this day, which is not something that I normally do but for some reason I had brought them with me. I had noticed that there was more of a presence of security, but I honestly did not think anything of it until I went to go into the building.

I was stopped by PPS, who told me that I could not go in there because there were about 100 people who had stormed the building and were now occupying it. I obviously was alarmed by this. The officer went over to speak to another officer, who then said that I could go into the building and that it would be safe for me. I questioned this because my office building is located on the first floor in the Confederation Building, but I was told, “Do not worry; it is just a passive occupation.”

My children and I were then escorted by PPS around the building. We entered through the accessible entrance. Once I was in my office, I already had staff there. She was advised by PPS to keep the door locked as we could hear chanting and singing, which made us very uneasy, not knowing what was going on. Knowing that protesters had also passed the entrance of the security portion of the Confederation Building, and some were standing outside the door of the member for Thornhill's office, was very concerning for me.

My mothering instincts told me this was not a safe place for my children to be with me. I then made the decision that I had to get them out of the building and, frankly, off the precinct altogether. There are not a lot of ways around that building, and I had to go through the basement. I was actually appalled and shocked at the number of people who were sitting in the accessible entrance going through security. These were stakeholders. These were Canadians who were coming for meetings. The fact that there was chaos at the front entrance of the building, and PPS was still allowing stakeholders into the building and putting them through security, frankly and honestly, is just bananas to me. I do not understand it.

I do not understand how, with chaos erupting, it would be a good idea to add more chaos and this time with Canadians who might not necessarily be familiar with Parliament Hill but were there to meet with MPs. I eventually got my children out and away from the building. I still had staff in the building, so I felt like I had an obligation to go back to my office.

I then had another staff member from—

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. The reality is that for a question of privilege the intervention has to be concise and has to deal with the question of privilege that has been raised. At the same time, if you, Mr. Speaker, believe it is a prima facie case of privilege, members then have the opportunity to make speeches such as the member is making now, which is perfectly legitimate after a ruling. The ruling obviously will not come today because we will want to examine the record and respond. Therefore, I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to keep the question of privilege to the privilege matter and not allow for speeches that are more properly the domain only after you have ruled.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I thank the hon. member for that intervention.

I see the deputy whip of the Conservative Party.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to that point of order, a personal first-hand account is very much part of the information that the Speaker must hear. It is not frivolous and it is not repetition. The member is speaking about a personal experience that is unlike anybody else's experience. That member has not only the right but the obligation to ensure that the details of her experience are detailed with regard to this matter.

I believe that, if it were one of my NDP colleague's members who had this experience with their children, he would be stopping at nothing to ensure that their voice was heard. Today, more than ever, I would hope that members of Parliament would allow my colleague, who has testimony about her experience with her children, to be heard today.

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

Mr. Speaker, for clarification, are we talking about something that recently happened in a parliamentary building or the convoy protest a couple years ago? If it is the latter, then I certainly have something to add.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

That is getting into debate.

The hon. member for Surrey—Newton.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the Sikh genocide.

There have been consultations among the parties and I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move that the House acknowledge and recognize that the crimes committed against Sikhs within India in and following 1984 constitute a genocide—

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

We will go back to the question of privilege. We need to be concise in the report of events so we can make a decision. Once we get there, then, of course, the Speaker's office will work on whether this is a prima facie case or not. We want to hear just the facts so we can bring that information up.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on my colleague who just pointed out that when we are bringing these points forward, they have to be clear and concise. They cannot be used to stretch out as a filibuster. Everyone's personal experience, and what happened to their aunt when they were visiting them, and that they feel that their rights were impeded, is not relevant to the question at hand.

We have heard about the protest. We know a protest happened. Was it undemocratic or was it democratic? Was it the right of citizens or was it not the right of citizens? It is a fairly simple question. Whether people liked the demonstration and whether they felt personally hurt because there was a demonstration are irrelevant to the question of privilege. Otherwise, we are descending into filibuster.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, our safety as parliamentarians, those who are in this place and also our staff, should be of utmost importance in this place, and so I will continue.

I had a staff member from another member of Parliament's office knock on my door and advise me that PPS was going to be removing protesters and I should keep my door locked because officers were bringing them through my hallway. Why did PPS let members' staff in the building in the first place, given there was an occupation going on and it was not removing these people? Why did PPS not advise me, all the office staff and other members down our hallway of what its plan was? Why did PPS not remove the members of Parliament and staff who were down the hallway before it started removing the people who were illegally occupying the Confederation building, making it—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I have another point of order.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to raise questions about the judgment of my colleague, but that day we all received a special advisory. Maybe if the Conservatives do not read a special advisory, it does not mean their privilege—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

We are getting into debate. If the hon. member wants to add to the question of privilege, I will allow him to speak after we have the speakers list. I know the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby will be up next on it.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

On the question, Mr. Speaker, this is new because saying the PPS failed this member is a false claim when we received the app warning. So—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I will let the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay finish up and then I will go back to the hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an important thing that is being introduced here. It is a new element. If someone did not read the warnings that were being given, it does not mean their rights were impeded, and so that is a false claim, as we all received regular updates on what was happening that day. Again, if the Conservatives are attempting to bring in side issues to continue a filibuster, they cannot bring in falsehoods about rights they claim were impeded if they did not bother to read the messages from PPS.