Debates of Dec. 6th, 2024

Opposition Motion—Cost of Living Relief for Canadians

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Again, I would ask members to please be respectful. Somebody else has the floor. I will determine whether it is a point of debate or not.

The hon. member has the floor.

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

Madam Speaker, my point of clarification is this: You ruled earlier that, of course, when members referred to a party as being useless, that was okay because it was a party. If I refer to the NDP as a team of Maserati Marxists, that is acceptable.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Yes.

I think that people are just impinging on what the House will allow and what the House will not allow. Members know there are grey zones, but the points are ones that have been raised on a number of occasions. I would just ask members to please be respectful.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a separate point of order. With what has occurred here, could you please advise us how much time the current speaker has left in his speech?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The member has three minutes and 49 seconds. I am sure he is anxious to get through it, and I am sure members are anxious to get through this so we can get to other orders.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Madam Speaker, as I said, instead of changing things to improve people's lives, Bloc Québécois members have often supported the Conservatives. They voted with the Conservatives against the dental care plan, despite the fact that it disproportionately benefits Quebeckers. They voted against free contraceptives. They voted against diabetes medication. They voted with the Conservatives to cut assistance to Quebeckers.

What does the NDP want to do? New Democrats understand that people need help, and they need it now. That is why we proposed removing the GST on some essential items and on monthly bills. In other words, we want to remove the tax on Internet, cellphone and heating bills, as well as on children's necessities, like diapers and clothing. Removing the GST on essentials and monthly bills is a concrete measure that will help people. The Liberals eventually gave in to our proposal because we lobbied and pushed for it, but they got it wrong. They let people down. Their proposal is not permanent, and it does not include monthly bills. The motion we are moving today fixes the problem.

Today our motion offers to give people some real help right away and to expand it to include monthly bills, like we had initially proposed, including cellphone bills, Internet bills and home heating bills, to give people permanent relief. It is a plan that would give people meaningful relief right away, and it also acknowledges that we need to fix the cheques. The cheques being proposed right now would go out to someone earning $149,000 but would not go to a senior. That does not make any sense.

Therefore today's motion would do two things. One is to make GST relief permanent. Let us give people permanent relief and let us make sure it includes monthly bills so people can get some real relief. On top of that, let us fix the cheques.

We are making it very clear, and a vote today in the House would make it very clear, that we are saying collectively that seniors, yes, deserve some help as they are some of the hardest-hit people in our country, that people living with disabilities absolutely need some help, and that someone who just started working this year should not be excluded because they just got their job. We are calling for the cheques to be expanded and for the GST relief to be permanent and include monthly bills.

We have an important choice to make. New Democrats have always been and will always be the party of the working class. We have recently shown that very clearly, and the other parties have shown where they stand. They have shown that they do not stand with the working class. The Liberals have let down workers by making the GST relief not permanent. The Conservatives have shown that they are really on the side of the billionaires and CEOs, and they are against the working class.

We are going to keep on fighting to make sure people know we have their back. Much more work is needed and much more help is needed. We are going to continue to fight for people.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would ask the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton to please hold off. Even if he thinks I cannot hear what he is saying, I can certainly clearly hear what he is saying; therefore I would ask him to please refrain from speaking out.

The hon. member for Thornhill had a question of privilege. I am now ready to hear it.

Access to Parliamentary Precinct

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am rising on the question of privilege that I rose on earlier. It is about the occupation that took place in the Confederation Building this week. You may have heard by now, Madam Speaker, that a group of 100 protesters, in an orchestrated and coordinated fashion, entered the Confederation Building and undertook an occupation of it.

While the events occurred on Tuesday, it is in the subsequent days that additional details have come to light, which I would respectfully submit as a means to my question of privilege with respect to its satisfying the timeliness requirement.

According to the news report published, on CBC's website even, on Tuesday morning:

The demonstration started around 8:45 a.m. The protesters said they would allow MPs with offices in the building to pass through the crowd, but those MPs would have to listen to the demonstrators' demands on the way in.

Officers of the Parliamentary Protection Service (PPS) and Ottawa Police were on the scene, asking people if they had any business inside the building before letting them in.

By 10 a.m., protesters removed from the building were chanting outside. Police and PPS members intercepted and then released 14 protesters without charges.

However, in the subsequent days, additional news reports featuring additional comments and confessions by the protest's organizers came to light. On Wednesday, Politico published a piece with an interview with a protest organizer named Rachel Small, whose “goal was to interrupt the daily business of Parliament ‘by not letting MPs walk through these marble hallways’”. The Globe and Mail—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am having a hard time hearing the member. I am going to ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to check what is going on in the hall and see whether they can quiet it down.

I also want to just remind members that when we go through questions of privilege, the role of the Chair is to decide whether the matter merits priority over all other business, which I have done, depending on what the House is used to.

However, we also need to make sure that there is a brief summary of what has transpired so I can determine whether or not we need to move on and whether other members want to provide other information.

There is a raised hand from the hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster. I am not sure whether it is on the question of privilege or a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, it is just about having the floor once the member for Thornhill is done, on the question of privilege.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I want to go back to the point you just made, that a question of privilege is supposed to be something of substance. The issue here is whether it is being used to filibuster and interrupt the work of other members.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

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

Madam Speaker, we know the person heckling me, who wants women to go to backstreet abortionists, can take her turn.

The issue is the interruption of the work of the House of Commons by the false use of a question of privilege.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Again, I just want to remind members to please be respectful.

I want to ask the hon. member to indicate the question of privilege she has brought forward, in order to make sure I have a full understanding of it, but again, it should be a brief summary and not take hours to speak about.

The hon. member for Bow River is rising on a point of order.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, with respect to the comment just made by the member for the NDP, I would like him to apologize and to withdraw it. It was a totally out of line, a totally unacceptable comment to be made in the House.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I ask the hon. member to withdraw the comment.

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

Madam Speaker, I withdraw, but they voted against—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would just ask members to please be respectful and to not add more to what they have to say. I had to say this yesterday as well.

In addition, the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton thinks I am not hearing what he is saying, but I certainly do hear what he says. It is very problematic.

The issue that I raised was because when I first started the question of privilege, I should have read a document to speak about questions of privilege and how people bring them forward. I forgot to do that, so I just wanted to indicate that there needs to be a brief summary of what has transpired.

Knowing that it is a short day, we will move to the hon. member for Thornhill.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have spoken for just a couple of moments to give members context, and I will not be silenced by that member about the personal safety of members of the House and his toxic masculinity in here, the thing he accuses others of doing. I am going to continue on this context because it is important. It is not only my privilege that is breached, but it is everybody who has an office in the Confederation building and those who try to access the parliamentary precinct. I have lots of examples of where this has been heard in the House and in committee.

On Wednesday evening, I understand, the Western Standard published an insightful piece on the protest. This is where the member should be ashamed of himself. The organization that protested was supported, and the support was provided by New Democrats. The article opens as follows:

A group of approximately 130 Jewish Canadians “took over” Parliament Hill's Confederation Building Tuesday morning in support of Palestine, demanding an arms embargo against Israel.

Three New Democrat MPs, [the member for Edmonton Strathcona, the member for Hamilton Centre and the member for Winnipeg Centre] joined the 100 protestors occupying the lobby of the building, where many members of parliament have offices, while about 30 others stayed outside.

The article quotes, later, a lady named Mrs. Small:

“Three MPs came down,” said Small, naming the three NDP MPs.

“[The member for Winnipeg Centre ] said that she was so proud to be there.... I'm not trying to speak on her behalf, but I was very touched by that.”

These subsequent interviews, and these things we have read in the news, came to light later, since the events of Tuesday morning, which I submit also formed the basis of a breach of privilege and equally form the basis of the timeliness necessary in bringing this question of privilege forward.

My own parliamentary offices are in that building. In fact, they are the first door on the right when walking into that building. It was an effort to paralyze the workings of Parliament and it was essentially directed at anybody in that building. It is hard to think it was not directed at members right there on the first floor, with the protesters' true motivations coming to light, not to mention that they were seemingly aided by New Democrat MPs, which is what has compelled me to rise on this question of privilege.

Our own members, members of the House of Commons, were impeding the work of parliamentarians: to get into their offices, to have meetings in their offices, to have meetings cancelled in their offices. Those who came to the front door would not be able to even walk through the front door of Parliament Hill. That is why I am raising this point.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice states on page 107, “In order to fulfill their parliamentary duties, Members should be able to go about their parliamentary business undisturbed.... Speakers have consistently upheld the right of the House to the services of its Members free from intimidation, obstruction and interference.”

Meanwhile, Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, second edition, comments on page 176, “No impediment should be placed on the Member in going about his parliamentary business, whether in the House, on his way to the House, or while on his way home.”

Indeed, Bosc and Gagnon, at page 86, remind us that “the denial of access of Members to the Parliamentary Precinct has been found to constitute contempt of the House on several occasions.”

It might be helpful to pause here and recall the definition of the parliamentary precinct, which this very much falls within: It is the offices of members of Parliament. On page 163 of Maingot, the parliamentary precinct is endorsed:

In the parliamentary sense, the precincts are the premises that the House of Commons and the Senate occupy from time to time for their corporate purposes. It includes those premises where each House, through its Speaker, exercises physical control to enable the Members to perform their parliamentary work without obstruction or interference.

That includes the Confederation building, where access was denied, or meant to be denied, on Tuesday morning and then with subsequent media reports coming out about who was involved in those protests.

It is the intention of the NDP-organized protesters, which was revealed in those media interviews, that is critical. At page 60, Bosc and Gagnon explain:

Any conduct which offends the authority or dignity of the House, even though no breach of any specific privilege may have been committed, is referred to as a contempt of the House. Contempt may be an act or an omission. It does not have to actually obstruct or impede the House or a Member; it merely has to have the tendency to produce such results.

I find that piece very important. New Democrats put 100 people in the building at an entryway. I can guarantee members they did that because they had the intention to obstruct the free passage of anyone looking to get in, members of Parliament or those they were conducting business with.

Turning back to the prohibition on obstructing and impeding members of Parliament on the Hill, Bosc and Gagnon expand on this principle at page 110:

In circumstances where Members claim to be physically obstructed, impeded, interfered with or intimidated in the performance of their parliamentary functions, the Speaker is apt to find that a prima facie breach of privilege has occurred.

Incidents involving physical obstruction—such as traffic barriers, security cordons and union picket lines either impeding Members’ access to the Parliamentary Precinct or blocking their free movement within the precinct—as well as occurrences of physical assault or molestation have been found to be prima facie cases of privilege.

From there, two further pages of the book are dedicated to summarizing the prima facie cases of privilege, which Speakers have found over the past four decades related to members' access being fettered by protests, strikes and inflexible security arrangements.

Given that typically those clear-cut facts of each case are an equally clear principle, Speakers' rulings on questions of privilege of this nature have typically been prompt and concise. Several reports from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs that followed are richer in content and help us understand the issue at hand. I believe it would be useful to review briefly some of those principles.

In reporting to the House on two questions of privilege arising from the federal public service strike, the procedure and House affairs committee explained at paragraph 15 in its 66th report presented in April 1999:

One of the privileges of Members of the House of Commons is a right of unimpeded access to Parliament and the parliamentary precincts. Members are entitled to go about their parliamentary business undisturbed, and cannot be prevented from entering the chamber or a committee room for a parliamentary proceeding. This privilege can be traced back to at least the early eighteenth century, and is part of the heritage of all legislative bodies that trace their origins to the British parliamentary tradition. It is based on the pre-eminent right of the House to the attendance and service of its Members. Any obstruction of Members constitutes a breach of privilege and a contempt of the House of Commons.

From the same committee, following a different question of privilege, the 21st report presented in the House in December 2004 reads:

The denial of access to Members of the House – even if temporary – is unacceptable, and constitutes a contempt of the House. Members must not be impeded or interfered with while on their way to the Chamber, or when going about their parliamentary business. To permit this would interfere with the operation of the House of Commons, and undermine the pre-eminent right of the House to the service of its Members.

The report was concurred in, in the House, on May 17, 2005.

The procedure and House affairs committee later wrote, this time in its 26th report from May 2012:

As part of the parliamentary privilege, Members of the House of Commons have the right of unimpeded and unfettered access to the parliamentary precincts, and are entitled to go about their parliamentary duties and functions undisturbed and without any form of interference....

Parliament Hill, and most notably Centre Block and the Peace Tower, represent for Canadians the physical embodiment of our parliamentary democracy. As such, the grounds of Parliament Hill have become the preferred site for individuals and groups for peaceful gatherings and manifestations. The Canadian values and culture, as embodied notably by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms encourage, rather than deter, such an exercise of the fundamental rights of expression and association. The symbolic significance of Parliament Hill has, however, made it a potential target for those with malicious and illegal intentions, and the security posture on Parliament Hill must be adjusted to meet these threats.

We will recall The Globe and Mail's comment about Madam Wasser that I quoted earlier, who “said in an interview that the Confederation Building was chosen for the protest because it's a building where many parliamentarians conduct their business and protesters wanted to bring business as usual on Parliament Hill to a halt.”

Going back to the 2012 report of the committee, it restated the obligations and expectations of access to Parliament Hill, including the observation, “First, Members of the House of Commons should not, in any case, be denied or delayed access to the Hill and the precinct”. That is exactly what happened on Tuesday morning.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will remind the member that she is repeating a lot of what she has already said. We expect members to be brief when bringing new information to or discussing the matter at hand. When they start to get repetitive, I will have heard enough.

I want to allow others who have risen on this to speak, but I will indicate that Speaker Scheer on April 30, 2012, Acting Speaker Devolin on June 13, 2012, and Assistant Deputy Speaker Anthony Rota all indicated that the Speaker has a right to terminate a discussion and it does not mean that any member rising on the question of privilege has unlimited time on the floor.

I will remind the member to please be brief with anything she wishes to add.

The hon. member for Thornhill.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am talking about a serious issue where the security of members and the breach of privilege of members of the House would have occurred. I have given multiple examples of different rulings from multiple different reports within the procedure and House affairs committee. I am stating them in order to provide you with the maximum context for you to rule on this question of privilege, a question of privilege that impeded members of the House, your own colleagues, Madam Speaker, from doing their work, entering their offices and having meetings, and potentially breached their safety in this place. I would expect that members of the House would take that seriously because if this is not a question of privilege, I am not sure what is.

Similar points have also been made, sometimes word for word, by this committee. The 34th report was presented in March 2015. There was another 34th report, this one presented in 2017, in response to the 2015 question of privilege where concerns were raised about a 74-second delay for a shuttle bus and it rose to a case of a prima facie breach of privilege. Madam Speaker, if a delayed bus was found to be a breach of privilege, then I am not sure how 130 people sitting in a lobby and impeding access to members of Parliament, members of the House, to enter this place, do their work, enter their offices and feel safe, I am not sure why you would not be able to hear that as a question of privilege in its entirety.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member seems to be challenging the Chair on what I just said. As I indicated to the member, she brought some items forward that were repetitive. I wanted to let her know the procedure is that when hon. members present questions of privilege, they are all important and the summary must be as brief as possible because other members want to weigh in on it.

On a point of order, the hon. member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie.

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

Madam Speaker, I think it was inadvertent, but the hon. Speaker used the proper name of a sitting member of Parliament when quoting the former Speaker. I am wondering if the Speaker wants to clarify the rules with regard to using the proper names of currently elected members of Parliament.