Debates of Oct. 21st, 2026

Hungarian Heritage Month Act

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-294, An Act to designate the month of October as Hungarian Heritage Month.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to introduce legislation to designate October as Hungarian heritage month, with thanks to my seconder, the hon. member for Vancouver East.

As we commemorate the 70th anniversary of the 1956 Hungarian revolution, this bill would provide an important opportunity to recognize the remarkable contributions of Hungarian Canadians to our nation's social, economic, academic and cultural fabric.

From the first Hungarian immigrants in the late 19th century to the tens of thousands who arrived following the 1956 uprising, their resilience, talents and determination have helped build our country. With some 350,000 Canadians of Hungarian descent, from myself, proudly, to business leaders like Peter Munk, Nobel Prize winner John Polanyi and global music star Alanis Morissette, Hungarian Canadians have made their mark in Canada and on the world stage. Hungarian heritage month would help to celebrate that legacy and ensure that it is passed on to future generations.

I would like to thank His Excellency Miklos Lengyel, Hungary's ambassador to Canada, for his assistance with this initiative.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Red Bridge

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

This is a petition on behalf of the people of Kamloops and elsewhere in the riding who want to see federal funding for the fast-tracking and rebuilding of the Red Bridge. This is a cultural landmark. It has been in Kamloops for many years. It was burned down by arson. It connects the area of Tk'emlúps te Secwépemc with Kamloops mainland over the Thompson River. It is time that this bridge get rebuilt with federal funding.

Barriere Fire Hall

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. In doing so, I want to highlight Barriere, British Columbia.

Barriere needs a new fire hall. Its fire hall is over 70 years old. It services many communities in the area of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. The people of Barriere are very hard-working, industrious people. They deserve a new fire hall for their safety, especially given wildfire season. I invite and encourage the federal government to fund the fire hall in the upcoming budget on November 5.

Canada Post Corporation

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today for my first petition, I rise on behalf of my constituents in Mission who are concerned about their post office. They call upon the Government of Canada to maintain the full operation of our iconic downtown post office so that small businesses can continue to use those services.

The second petition I would like to raise today is also regarding Canada Post. I will admit it is ironic that I am standing in the House to present this petition, as it is for something the Liberals campaigned against me for in 2015, but my constituents are very concerned with the Liberal government's decision to end door-to-door delivery. While I am totally fine with community mailboxes, some people are not, and I present this petition in good faith.

For my third petition, many Canadians are worried about the sustainability of Canada Post in rural communities across Canada. We know that there are serious problems with the management and oversight of public finances through this Crown corporation right here in Ottawa. It has not been nimble or quick enough to serve Canadian interests or adapt to a modern technology. The petitioners are calling for a change in leadership at Canada Post here in Ottawa to save rural postal services.

Animal Welfare

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the good people of Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry to present a petition.

I want to thank constituent Sue-Anne Atkins for her advocacy and leadership on this animal rights issue. She says that records indicate that hundreds of piglets have been used in Canadian military training exercises despite the availability of more humane and scientifically relevant alternatives.

The 1,509 Canadians who signed this petition are calling upon the Government of Canada to prohibit the use of live animals, including piglets, in Canadian Armed Forces medical and trauma training and to transition to fully modern, non-animal simulation technologies.

I am proud to table this on behalf of the petitioners' today.

Cost of Baby Formula

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to present a petition today on behalf of mothers and fathers in Regina and southern Saskatchewan who are concerned about the rising price of baby formula.

The price of Similac has doubled in the last two years. That represents an expense of approximately $400 per month for mothers who are unable to breastfeed. The petitioners call for a parliamentary committee to study the root cause of the recent price increase, whether it be tariffs, price-fixing, government regulations or anything else, and for the committee to make recommendations to keep baby formula affordable and available to Canadians to ensure the health and well-being of infants and mothers.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to present this petition today in the House of Commons.

Emergency Rooms

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to table a petition that deals with the Prime Minister's commitment to deliver $5 billion over three years to improve health care facilities.

The petitioners want to see Seven Oaks emergency services re-established. We are hoping that the provincial government will work collaboratively with the federal government to make that happen.

United States of America

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a petition that was first sponsored by my former NDP colleague, MP Alexandre Boulerice, which he passed on to me because 27,119 signers had raised their concerns.

Ambassadors accredited to Canada are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that respects Canadian sovereignty, values and the principles of diplomacy. Foreign envoys must maintain decorum, impartiality and respect toward the government and people of Canada, and there are concerns that certain actions of and statements by the U.S. ambassador, Pete Hoekstra, have been inconsistent with the standards of conduct expected of a diplomatic representative to Canada.

Therefore, the signers call on the House of Commons to formally review the conduct of U.S. ambassador Pete Hoekstra and, should the review find that the ambassador's actions are inconsistent with diplomatic protocol and detrimental to Canada's interests, the Government of Canada is to take appropriate diplomatic measures, including the possible request for his recall.

Foreign Affairs

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions.

The first arises in the aftermath of the referendum that happened in Alberta this week. It is signed by over 40,000 Canadians. The petitioners recognize that the Alberta Prosperity Project, the driving force behind Monday's referendum, has met with officials from the Trump administration seeking financial support. The petitioners note that, with the Trump administration's extortion of Venezuela for its oil and continued threats against Canada's sovereignty, they worry Alberta is a clear target.

The petitioners call on the federal government to invoke its authority under section 53 of the Supreme Court Act to refer the constitutionality of Alberta's Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, to the Supreme Court of Canada and to direct the foreign influence transparency commissioner to immediately investigate the meetings between the Alberta Prosperity Project and the Trump administration.

The second petition raises a similar concern about foreign interference and was signed by nearly 15,000 Canadians.

The petitioners note that Parliament has a responsibility to ensure that political activity in Canada is conducted transparently and free from improper foreign influence, so they call upon the House to mandate that a committee study the risks of foreign interference and foreign funding associated with political advocacy in Canada, including advocacy related to separatist movements. They request that relevant federal authorities assess and report to Parliament the nature and scope of any such risks identified and that we consider any legislative or policy measures necessary to strengthen transparency, enforcement and safeguards against foreign interference and foreign-funded political activity in Canada.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Motions for Papers

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers also be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Alleged Mis-characterization of Members' Remarks

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise at this moment on a question of privilege arising from remarks made in this place by the hon. member for Halifax on October 7. I have to admit that I do so with sadness, because I much prefer, as a parliamentarian in this place, particularly as a woman parliamentarian, to encourage younger women in politics. In my 15 years as a member of Parliament, this is the first time I have risen on a question of privilege, but I have given one hour's notice of my intention to rise on this day on a question of personal privilege, pursuant to Standing Order 48(1).

I now do so because of the remarks that were made. Let me frame this issue in terms of the offence. The offence is one of imputing improper motives and essentially doing indirectly what a member is not allowed to do directly. In reviewing the hon. member for Halifax's second reading speech on Bill C-39, which I am sure the Speaker shall do, I do believe she violated my privileges and those of others by imputing improper motives and essentially doing indirectly what cannot be done directly, which is basically accusing other members of lying.

I will quote from her speech, in which she said, “This bill [Bill C-39] has been subject to a wild disinformation campaign, some of which has been perpetrated by members of this House.” This can only be understood as a direct attack on the honesty—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member across the way to not heckle me or repeat the same disparaging remarks that gave rise to this question of personal privilege in the first place.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

To the hon. member for St. Catharines, we are on a question of privilege, which the Chair would very much like to hear and understand.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is an important point. Had the hon. member said there was misinformation being spread, I would not be standing here right now. However, as a prominent member in this place and as someone who practised environmental law, has read Bill C-39, takes issue with specific points and ties those points to the text of the legislation, it is deeply offensive to be called a liar through the smear of a “wild disinformation campaign”.

It is the job and duty of members of Parliament to study legislation and suggest ways in which legislation can be improved to allow the public to know what our concerns are. In other words, vigorous debate giving rise to disagreement is not a violation of privilege, but to essentially smear the reputation of any member who stands in this place, including the member for Edmonton Strathcona, who was specifically referenced in the member for Halifax's speech as lying about the impact on labour rights, is.

I repeated those same critiques about part 3 of the bill. This is an omnibus bill with many sections. I will try to be concise about this, but the hon. member repeated that this bill is subject to a “wild disinformation campaign”, and she felt it her duty to separate fact from fiction. To be accused of lying and of having motives of disinformation is deeply offensive.

In reference to our parliamentary privileges, and I specifically look at Standing Order 18 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, there is no question that imputing deliberate deceit and dishonourable motives to parliamentarians, who are fulfilling their constitutional duty to scrutinize legislation, crosses the line. As well, Standing Order 18, and this is established in chapter 3 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, explicitly prohibits any reflection upon a member's personal or professional integrity, as that obstructs our ability to discharge parliamentary duties without improper interference. There is a very large difference between opposition and deceit.

I did make attempts to ask the hon. member to apologize so I would not find myself standing here and publicly calling out her scurrilous and completely dishonourable speech. In this case, I would conclude by asking that there be a ruling that, in the opinion of this House, the remarks made by the member for Halifax accusing members of a campaign of disinformation constitute an unparliamentary reflection on members' integrity and that she be directed to unequivocally withdraw the remarks.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I thank the hon. member. It has been noted. We will get back to the House on this point.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we take the issue the leader of the Green Party has raised very seriously, but I would advise that we take a look at some of the debates that have taken place. I reference Bill C-9, in particular, as a very emotional debate. Often debates inside the chamber become very emotional due to all sorts of allegations and suggestions, and at times there is misleading information. This is very technical. It is about intentionally making a statement that tries to dishonour, if I can put it that way, another member.

At the end of the day, I have not heard anything from the member across the way that could not be termed as a dispute over facts. I do not see the merit of the Speaker having to investigate it further. I would reserve allowing the member she referenced to provide some additional feedback, but I think if you were to review the debates over the last while, you would see that nothing out of the norm has been said.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are supposed to bring questions of privilege at the first opportunity available. Even from the member's own statement, she has waited almost two weeks, as there was a constituency week in between, to bring this up.

I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North. Nothing improper was said during the statement. We talk about misinformation and disinformation in this House on a regular basis on all sides.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I will again recognize the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, but just so this does not cause a debate about the question of privilege, as that is not the purpose of this, I will note that if the member has additional information that she would like to share, which I assume is from the content of the letter, I will let her add that bit of information before we proceed to orders of the day.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the latitude.

I know that the rules require speaking at the earliest opportunity. The speech the member gave on October 7 was at 8 p.m. I spoke on Bill C-39 at 11 p.m., and I was not aware of the member's speech until I saw reference to it in media reports. I then spoke to the Speaker and did attempt to speak directly with the member for Halifax, and I asked for an apology so that I would not have to be in this place now.

I hope that addresses the issue of rising at my earliest opportunity. I did hope to resolve this short of rising on a question of personal privilege.