Debates of Dec. 6th, 2024

Opposition Motion—Cost of Living Relief for Canadians

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Burnaby South has started his speech. I will take the matters of privilege after the speech is done. It has been the convention of the House to allow the speech to happen, and then the questions of privilege will be dealt with after the speech and before the questions.

The hon. member for Burnaby South.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Madam Speaker—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I have one more point of order, and I hope this is not a challenge to the Chair. I have made my decision.

The hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, questions of privilege take precedence over everything. I would ask that—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

As I have indicated to the hon. member, the convention of the House is that we let the speech occur.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. There is debate on both sides. I am speaking right now. The convention of the House is that we allow the hon. member to finish his speech. I will hear the question of privilege before we get to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Thornhill has another point of order.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a continuing point of order. The Standing Orders state that you should hear a question of privilege if I have given you the appropriate notice. I gave you that appropriate notice this morning, more than an hour ago, and the House should hear a question of privilege, particularly to do with—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

That is a challenge to the Chair, and I have already indicated that the convention of the House is that we hear the speech, and then we come back to the question of privilege during questions and comments. I would hope that members respect that.

The hon. member for Burnaby South.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Madam Speaker, it seems that the billionaire bootlickers have a concern about the fact that I am trying to bring forward a motion that calls for tax relief. We have learned that Conservatives do not want tax relief for the working class; they want it for their billionaire buddies instead. Any time we talk about tax relief for the working class, they get upset. That is what we just saw in the chamber. We will clip—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I just noticed that there was a point of order, and I missed it.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Madam Speaker, you have referenced convention of the House. Could you cite any precedent? I have been a member for a long time; I follow the procedure, and I am not aware of a single case in which a member who had a question of privilege, especially one with the urgent nature of that being raised, was told to wait. If there is a convention of the House I am not familiar with, I wonder if you could share even a single instance in which any member raising a matter of this nature has been told they have to wait for the convenience of another member, who is not speaking on the matter of privilege, until they are finished. Very respectfully, my understanding is no such precedent exists.

I know there is a requirement to provide an hour's notice, but there is also a requirement to raise the issue at the earliest possible opportunity. In fact, there are cases in which Speakers have dismissed questions of privilege simply on the basis that they were not raised in sufficient time and with sufficient proximity. I am thinking of Speaker Regan. Members are under an obligation: If they do not follow that rule, then their very serious question of privilege could be dismissed, even if it was a question of privilege deemed to have merit, simply because—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is not going to be dismissed. The hon. member will have an opportunity to raise that. The question of privilege that has been put forward is not with what is going on in the House, and it has always been a practice of the House that we allow the speech to occur. I can come back to the member after on that. I am going to stick to that; as I said, I will not take any more challenges to the Chair.

There is another point of order, and I hope it is not on this matter. The hon. member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie.

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

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that you have made this ruling. Over the last week, several Liberal members of Parliament have—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I have already indicated that I will not take a challenge to the Chair on that.

The hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster.

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

Madam Speaker, I am asking, through you, that the leader of the NDP withdraw his comments. You very clearly made the member for Calgary Forest Lawn do that, and I would expect there would be consistency and that he would have to withdraw his comments.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I did not quite hear what the hon. member said because there were a lot of discussions here at this end of the chamber. I will listen to what was said and come back to the House if need be.

The hon. member for Burnaby South.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will just begin from the top. We will make sure we clip this and show folks that any time New Democrats want to talk about a tax break for the working class, the billionaire bootlicker Conservatives get upset.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would just ask the hon. member for Burnaby South to withdraw that. Again, the words being used in the House from time to time that are directed to individual members are not acceptable. This is causing disorder. I would ask the member not to use that term, and I would ask him to withdraw.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Madam Speaker, I withdraw the term billionaire bootlicker for the Conservatives.

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

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, there is a tradition in this place that when the Speaker asks a member to withdraw, they simply withdraw and do not repeat the words again. Clearly, there is an intent by the NDP member to disrespect the Chair in this case.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I certainly did not take it that way. It is not unusual for members to repeat the word while withdrawing. I would ask members not to mention the word; that would be even better. I would ask all members to do the same with whatever words they use that cause disorder in the House; they know these words cause disorder.

The hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets, on a separate point of order.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

The Liberal lickspittle member down there needs to fully withdraw.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Again, in terms of these types of characterizations, no matter what they are, I would just ask members to stop using adjectives and maybe just speak to the issue that is before the House.

On a point of order, the hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have used the past inappropriate term of sellout Singh, referring to the NDP leader. I would like to withdraw that.