44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 20, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/20/22 12:39:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for her question.
I agree that Ottawa residents have suffered enough. I hope that I explained in my speech, and now in my answer, that this blockade should never have taken place.
The government's mistake was to allow the protesters to settle in and get organized. Things should never have gotten to that point. Extremists should never have gained so much visibility.
It was a mistake for the government to let this happen. It should have acted earlier, and it should never have gotten to the point of illegitimately invoking this law.
100 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 12:40:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I sure hope I am wrong, but I heard, in my ear, someone using the F-word, referring to me saying, “Why don't you just eff off”. I hope I am wrong. I hope that I did not hear that, but I want to bring that to your attention.
61 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 12:40:22 p.m.
- Watch
I thank the member. Certainly, there did not seem to be anything from this end from what I can gather. I am wondering if maybe, while there was some interpretation happening, there may have been somebody speaking near the interpretation booth. I am not sure, but we certainly did not hear anything from here. I did not have my earphone on for the translation, so I am not sure if it would have been virtual or not. I am sure if it had been virtual, we would have heard the interruptions here. I am assuming that someone will look into what happened there.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord.
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 12:41:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, first, I need to clarify something. The Emergencies Act was assented to on July 21, 1988, and it replaced the War Measures Act. I would agree that there are important, not to say fundamental, differences between them. However, both acts set out the manner in which we wish to articulate our interventions and responses to the worst situations, namely a public welfare emergency, a public order emergency, an international emergency or a war emergency. There is nothing ordinary or trivial about this act. It is the heavy artillery of legislation. It must only be invoked sparingly and with the utmost prudence.
Today, we must decide if using this act in the current situation is appropriate. Are we in a state of emergency? If the answer is yes, does the seriousness of the situation justify invoking the Emergencies Act? If so, as provided for in subsection 17(2), what area is affected by this state of emergency?
Subsection 17(1) of the act provides for the Governor in Council to declare a state of emergency after holding consultations under section 25. Pursuant to section 25, this means that “the lieutenant governor in council of each province...shall be consulted”. This exercise should usually make it possible to determine, with a modicum of reliability, if a situation exists in a province that requires us to invoke the Emergencies Act.
In the interest of being thorough, subsection 58(1) provides that the report on the consultations must be provided with the motion for confirmation of the potential proclamation. The Governor in Council's proclamation, dated February 15, 2022, states that the consultation under subsection 25(1) did take place, and it “declare[s] that a public order emergency exists throughout Canada and necessitates the taking of special temporary measures”.
What does that mean, exactly? Like all the other members of the Bloc Québécois caucus, I think that ratifying this proclamation at this point in time would be a grave error that could have worse consequences than the situation it seeks to address. Even setting aside the fact that no end date is given for the allegedly temporary proposed measures, there are plainly at least two big issues with the proclamation. First of all, and this is no small matter, it is clear that there is no state of emergency as defined in the act, which I think nullifies any argument for authorizing the proclamation under section 17(1). The definition of a public order emergency is set out in section 16 of the act and requires “a national emergency”. This national emergency is itself defined in section 3 of the act, which states that the situation must be such that it “cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada”. It also states that the situation must “exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it”.
However, the protests and the occupation in Ottawa and elsewhere in Canada have all been dealt with. The blockades have been removed and the offenders punished without the need to invoke the Emergencies Act. The existing laws and provincial and municipal powers to intervene were clearly sufficient. Moreover, the majority of premiers consulted by the Prime Minister confirmed that they did not need this act and made it clear that they were opposed to using it. In fact, of the 13 premiers consulted, only three said they supported invoking the act. How then can anyone seriously argue that the whole country is in a state of emergency?
The Premier of Quebec even said as much to the Prime Minister. Page 5 of the report attached to the proclamation says that “municipal police and the Sûreté du Québec have control of the situation”. It then says that “the use of the Act would be divisive”.
The least we can conclude from that is that the national emergency, which the act states is a condition for declaring a public order emergency, simply does not exist.
Furthermore, in the worst-case scenario, the report on the consultation with the provinces under in subsection 25(1) of the act would only justify the declaration of a public order emergency in the three provinces that were affected and that supported the declaration, namely Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, and British Columbia.
The premiers of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Quebec all said that they had the situation under control and did not support the invocation of this act.
Unless the government has no regard for these premiers, it certainly cannot claim that there is a national emergency in these seven provinces as required by the act.
As for the premiers of Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, the report merely states that they have not issued public statements. It would be pretty difficult to interpret that silence as a call for help or as approval to invoke the Emergencies Act.
As for Quebec, I will simply read the quote from the report on the consultations regarding the proclamation. It takes up just three short lines in an eight-page document:
The Premier of Quebec said that he opposed the application of the Emergencies Act in Quebec, stating that municipal police and the Sûreté du Québec have control of the situation, and arguing that the use of the Act would be divisive.
Under subsection 17(2) of the Act, the emergency, if it existed, was in only three provinces, so the proclamation should have stated that there was a situation in the provinces of Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, and British Columbia, rather than indicating that a state of emergency exists throughout the country, as appears in the third paragraph of the declaration.
The government's claim that the lieutenant governor in council of each province and the commissioners of Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut had been consulted and that it had therefore concluded that a state of emergency exists throughout the country inevitably suggests either a serious lack of judgment or equally serious wilful blindness. As the Premier of Quebec rightly said, this is not an inconsequential mistake, but a potentially divisive act. Do we really need this?
Moreover, it sets a dangerous precedent. This kind of law constitutes a serious argument to convince anyone that the Government of Canada has the power to control its territory. Invoking it on a whim anytime an unexpected situation causes headaches and creates major policing challenges actually weakens its impact. The most powerful weapons should be used only as a last resort. They tend to be more effective as a deterrent than when they are put to use.
Let us be clear. The situation that has been happening on Parliament Hill for the past three weeks is unacceptable in a democracy and should never have been tolerated this long. In a democracy, the right to express disapproval of our leaders' decisions and the right to assemble are sacred.
However, we must bear in mind that each individual's rights end where another's begin. Abuse of those rights is a violation that can and actually should always be punished. Have we reached the point of bringing out the heavy artillery? I do not think so. It might happen one day. We cannot rule it out. As I see it, this act should be delayed for as long as possible and be used as rarely as possible—ideally, never.
In conclusion, the invocation of the Emergencies Act at this point could be seen as a clumsy or perhaps desperate move on the part of a beleaguered Prime Minister trying to make it look like he took action to deal with a situation that is unacceptable in a democracy. Either way, it is a serious, dangerous move whose consequences will not be fully understood for years.
It is therefore my intention and that of the entire Bloc Québécois caucus to vote against the confirmation motion, and I urge my 306 colleagues, be they NDP, Conservative, Green, Liberal or independent, who also care about democracy and the rights we enjoy because of it, to reject this motion.
1393 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 12:51:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the unholy alliance between the Bloc and the Conservative Party against the Emergencies Act is actually quite disappointing. Contrary to what some of the premiers might actually be saying out west, Alberta has asked for support from Ottawa. The province did not have access to tow trucks. In the province of Manitoba, the premier literally begged and pleaded for Ottawa to get more engaged and show leadership just three days before the act was brought in. The premier of Ontario supports the measure. The interim chief of police indicates that, in essence, it is because of the measure that we can look outside today and start to see Ottawa's citizens getting back their city.
Why does the Bloc continue to support the Conservatives, and not support real people in our communities by voting in favour of this legislation?
141 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 12:52:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question.
Unfortunately, from listening to him, I can tell that he did not even read the documents he now wishes to endorse. He should read the report on the consultations with the provinces, which is appended to the proclamation. That is where I found the text I just read. It is in that document that we can see that only three provinces asked for the proclamation: Ontario, Newfoundland and British Columbia.
If he did not read these documents, I suggest that instead of rising to speak, he allow other members who have read the documents to have their say, so we can have an intelligent discussion about the situation.
117 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 12:53:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his speech.
The Liberals said that we needed to have the necessary measures to deal with the problem in downtown Ottawa. Now, that situation has been settled. Why do we still need these measures? Perhaps the government wants to have these unlimited powers?
50 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 12:53:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.
I completely agree with her. The situation has been resolved, as I said in my speech.
It is a difficult situation, we agree. It is unacceptable. People cannot block off streets like that. If there had been a fire or if someone had fallen ill on Wellington Street, it would have been impossible for an ambulance or the fire department to get there. I agree that this is unacceptable.
That said, the situation was resolved through the police. It was almost nice to see the various police forces supporting each other. That is how the situation was settled.
The Emergencies Act needs to be kept for real emergency measures, otherwise we will be shooting ourselves in the foot. It is much like the story of Peter and the wolf. We cry wolf when there is no wolf. At some point, there will be a wolf, but our cries will not be heard.
I am urging us to show restraint. The Emergencies Act should be invoked when there are emergency measures to be taken. If there are other ways to deal with a situation, we should use them. If the act is to be invoked, it should be done sparingly and judiciously, selecting the places where it applies. It was only three provinces, not the ten provinces and three territories, that asked for it.
232 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 12:54:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I had the honour of travelling to Poland with the hon. member for the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. We have seen anti-Semitic symbols flying in our nation's capital. Many of the organizers of the convoy are well-known far-right figures who are known for their white supremacist ideologies.
Can the member speak to the need to tackle anti-Semitism across the country and ensure that this kind of thing never happens again?
80 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 12:55:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, whom I also appreciate very much.
I could not agree more with her. I looked at the protesters flying American flags, Canadian flags, Quebec flags and so on. It is easy to conflate all the causes and make comparisons to anti-Semitism. However, we are really far from that. If we were in a situation like the one Poland and Germany experienced in the dark years we would prefer to forget but can never forget, the Emergencies Act would obviously be called for. However, we are not there.
Conflating situations like this is dangerous. First, it does a disservice to the memory of victims of the Holocaust. Second, it undermines the sound, informed and intelligent management of situations here at home.
128 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 12:56:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Kanata—Carleton.
I rise today to take part in this historic debate in the House of Commons on the invocation of the Emergencies Act. I want to begin by thanking police chief Pam Mizuno and the men and women of the Windsor police force. The operation to clear the blockade of our community’s lifeline, the Ambassador Bridge, was professional, effective and, above all, peaceful. They restored order at home and provided the blueprint for the peaceful operations in our nation’s capital.
I thank the Ottawa police force and its police chief, Steve Bell. I thank the OPP and RCMP, and the police forces from communities across Canada, be it Peel, Durham, Calgary or beyond. Through the bitter cold of an Ottawa winter, when all they wished for was to return home safe with their families, they met the challenge with courage, professionalism and restraint. They have restored the rule of law and returned Ottawa to its residents. I thank them.
I thought carefully about what I wanted to say today in the House of Commons, not wanting to repeat too much of what has already been said. Last weekend, my family flew in from Windsor to join me in Ottawa for a special ceremony at the Embassy of the Republic of Poland. My father Richard was being honoured with the Cross of Freedom and Solidarity, which was presented by the Polish ambassador, Dr. Andrzej Kurnicki, on behalf of the President of Poland.
The Cross of Freedom and Solidarity is given to members of the democratic opposition movement in Poland, and to members of the Solidarity movement who were imprisoned or killed by the communist authoritarian regime in Poland, including during the imposition of martial law. My father was a member of the Solidarity movement, the first free and independent trade union in the Soviet bloc. He was the chair of Solidarity in a factory of 7,000 workers. They fought for the rights of workers and citizens.
On December 13, 1981, the communist dictatorship of Poland declared martial law on its people. Civil liberties were suspended. Communications were cut, both within Poland and to the outside world. Thousands of tanks, armoured vehicles and armed soldiers poured into the street. At 20 minutes past midnight, the police came to our door and arrested my father. For two weeks, our family did not know whether my father was alive or whether he was dead.
It was only many days later, when my mother was in an outdoor farmer’s market picking up groceries, that a kind and courageous police officer carefully approached her. He told her not to turn around and not to look back. He slipped a note from my father into her pocket, written on a cigarette paper. It said, “Don’t fret; I am alive, and I am being held in detention.” Thousands of Solidarity members were rounded up that night, and during the subsequent years of martial law, many were killed.
During the ceremony, my father dedicated the Cross of Freedom and Solidarity he received to the memory of his cousin, Jozek Widerlik. Jozek was a 24-year-old shipyard worker, shot and killed by the military police coming out of a Gdansk shipyard during the protests in 1970. That same system that arrested my father and killed his cousin dubbed my father an enemy of the state. Canada gave us safe harbour, and in 1983 my family arrived at Pearson airport as political refugees.
Why do I raise my family’s story today? For one, that ceremony at the embassy and my father’s experience under martial law weighed heavily on my thoughts, because two days later we were debating the invocation of the Emergencies Act. It is a discussion and a decision I take seriously and with caution, but I support the rule of law and giving our law enforcement the tools they need to restore the rule of law, and I support these measures. Most telling is that my father supports these measures.
As members can imagine, we have talked a lot about the situation in Canada, and I am grateful to have that opportunity in these difficult times. However, I also raise my family’s story because I have heard many people during the protests, and here in this House, compare the Emergencies Act to martial law and to communism. Such language only inflames. It does little to advance our understanding of the Emergencies Act, and it cheapens the contribution and memory of the thousands, like my father, who fought communism and suffered under martial law.
It is important here to talk about the democratic safeguards in place that distinguish the Emergencies Act. The first point that bears repeating is what these measures are not: This is not the use of military forces. These measures do not displace the local and provincial law enforcement. The operations in Ottawa clearly demonstrated that.
Both Houses of Parliament must have the opportunity to debate and vote on the act within seven days of its invocation. The act automatically expires after 30 days, but Parliament can shorten its duration at any time. A joint oversight committee must be set up to oversee the operation of the act, and a public inquiry must be held immediately after the expiration of the act to analyze the basis for its invocation and its execution. Finally, and most importantly, all measures of the Emergencies Act must be subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The right to protest peacefully is sacrosanct, a cornerstone of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and it is a fundamental part of who we are as Canadians. We know that civil liberties organizations are already challenging the invocation of the act, and that is a good thing. We should challenge it, question it and debate it as MPs, as journalists, as civil society and as Canadians.
The key question many people ask is this: Does the threat meet the threshold? To answer that, I will provide another perspective, the view from my hometown in Windsor. There, a five-day blockade of the Ambassador Bridge shut down the very lifeline of our community, which is cross-border trade.
That blockade disrupted 400 million dollars' worth of trade that crosses the bridge every single day. The hurt this inflicted on our community is beyond measure. Thousands of workers in auto plants were sent home because parts could not get through; businesses were brought to their knees; farmers could not get their produce to market; small businesses along Huron Church Road, like Fred's Farm Fresh market, to this day remain heavily impacted because of the barriers still in place; children cannot go to school; residents struggle to get groceries or access health care, and Windsor police resources continue to be diverted away from community policing to secure the bridge. Those are just the immediate impacts. The long-term impact on investments and jobs in my community is unknown. The scale of disruption to businesses and livelihoods and to our national economy meets the threshold of a national security threat.
Another important question being asked is this: Are these measures necessary?
Ottawa's police chief answered that question on Friday when he said unequivocally that both the provincial and the federal emergency powers were critical to the peaceful end of the protests. With measures like those to keep children from protest areas, measures that disrupt the finances that fuel the protests, and measures that prevent the occupation of critical infrastructure like the Ambassador Bridge, the Emergencies Act provides tools that help authorities to uphold the rule of law and keep the protest from spreading and taking hold in our communities.
However, it is important to emphasize that these measures are not imposed on communities that do not need them. These measures will be felt only by a few hundred unlawful protesters in communities like Ottawa, Windsor and Coutts, where disruptions took place.
A remarkable scene unfolded yesterday. Outside the gates of Parliament, hundreds of police officers were peacefully restoring public order and the rule of law on Wellington Street, which had been occupied for over 21 days. Metres away, inside the doors of the House of Commons, Parliament was in action, exercising democracy, debating the Emergencies Act.
The rule of law and democracy are intertwined and interdependent. One cannot exist without the other. The source of our democratic government is the ballot box, not the barricades, and here I want to return to the Cross of Freedom and Solidarity, for Pope John Paul once said, “There is no freedom without solidarity.”
Solidarity means responsibility, not just for oneself but responsibility for others, looking out for our neighbour and being aware of how our actions impact the lives of those around us. Canadians who got vaccinated exemplified that credo. It means, at times, the willingness to give up a little of our freedom to protect the lives, safety and well-being of others. Sometimes it is about the willingness to give up something more. The greatest symbol of freedom in solidarity is a few short steps away from Parliament Hill, where we Canadians gather every November 11. Let us return to that spot, for it is there, in times of turmoil and trouble, that we Canadians will always find our compass and our way.
1582 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 1:06:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to be crystal clear. I do not support the government with respect to these emergency actions. My office has never been so busy. This is the busiest it has been since 2019, when I was first elected, with emails and phone calls. My constituents are disturbed by their Prime Minister and what he has said. A lot of these people who are calling me are Liberal supporters.
My question for the member is this. Do you apologize for the Prime Minister's comments on racism and misogyny when you get calls, and what answer do you give?
101 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 1:07:15 p.m.
- Watch
I would remind the member that he should not use the word “you” because he is directing the question directly to the member when he should be directing it through the Chair.
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
38 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 1:07:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I believe that all of us have to first look at ourselves in this chamber with respect to our rhetoric and the words we use. I agree that we all have a role to play in turning down the temperature in our country, making sure we avoid divisive language as much as possible and coming together as Canadians.
I can tell the member that I have also heard from many in my constituency who were deeply hurt by the protests that took place on the Ambassador Bridge, the thousands of jobs lost, the workers who were sent home and the businesses that were brought to their knees. The Emergencies Act we are bringing forward here will help to make sure that never happens again on our Ambassador Bridge.
130 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 1:08:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
His account of what happened to his family is unfortunately similar to what I have been told, and what my aunt and family friends have told me, about October 1970, and I totally understand the horror he must have experienced back then.
What is happening now is not about the army, it is about protesters. I kept reading and rereading, and I wondered what powers the police did not have before the Emergencies Act was invoked.
Were they unable to issue fines? Were they unable to co-operate? Were they unable to enforce a court order? What powers did they not have that were suddenly given to them?
119 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 1:09:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to begin by saying that one thing that was remarkable about the operations here in Ottawa over the last couple of days is that we had police authorities from all across Canada coming to work together. The chief of police described it as a true team Canada approach and a true team Canada effort. We saw police from Calgary, Peel Region and Durham, as well as the Sûreté du Québec.
It is that team Canada approach that I feel is going to get us through this turmoil. It is important that we not lose sight of that, as well as of the fact that these measures are subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects Canadians from coast to coast to coast and will keep us on the good side of this new legislation.
146 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 1:10:15 p.m.
- Watch
Uqaqtittiji, many Canadians are struggling to get beyond the party politics, because it is mainly party politics that are being debated throughout this House. It is in part due to the effectiveness of the extremist ideologies that have infiltrated their minds, causing them to fear the Emergencies Act. Can the member explain to Canadians how their civil liberties are not being violated in this Emergencies Act and why they do not need to fear it?
75 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 1:10:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. colleague for that key question we should be asking ourselves. I reiterate that the Emergencies Act is fundamentally subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These measures are targeted. The time is limited as well. There is a 30-day sunset clause. At any time, Parliament can vote to reduce the timing of it. There is also a joint oversight committee that has to be struck, which oversees the enactment and operation of the Emergencies Act. There are many safeguards in place to protect the rights and freedoms of Canadians. That is the fundamental question we are debating here today.
108 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 1:12:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, although it is an honour today to rise in the House of Commons to discuss and debate imposing the Emergencies Act, I do so with a heavy heart. I am fiercely proud to be Canadian. I love our country and everything about it. That is why I am here today. It is a big part of why I ran and had the courage to put my name on a ballot, and that is why I must use my voice today as we take these historic measures. Undeniably, this is one of the most important debates that we will have in the House.
The debate is about a solution to a very big problem. It is a problem that we have seen exceed the ability of the Ottawa police force and other police forces across the country to address on their own. It is multifaceted, it is menacing and it is an attack on our democracy. The protesters here in Ottawa just outside this building, the seat of our federal government, stated that their goal was to take down the government: to overthrow this democratically elected government. This certainly raises alarm bells in my head.
As we know, on Friday, all parties agreed to cancel the debate in the House on the Emergencies Act because of the emergency that was happening just outside this building. It was not considered safe for us to come to this building to debate the Emergencies Act. Let us all pause on that. I would say that when the elected representatives of this country are unable to safely debate in the House, it is an emergency of national significance.
I have received many emails, phone calls and messages from residents in my riding of Kanata—Carleton about these measures. I have been actively participating in and listening to this lengthy debate, and I would like to use my time today to share my view and to provide answers to the questions that many people seem to still have. I would also like to clarify that it is my job to represent the residents of Kanata—Carleton to the best of my abilities. This is not about partisan politics, and it does not matter what stripe of politics I believe in. It matters that I rise and represent the will of my residents. That is exactly what I am here to do today.
Why did we invoke the Emergencies Act? Canada is a rule-of-law country. By declaring a public order emergency under the act, we followed the law and we are acting within it. There are clear conditions set out in the Emergencies Act for a public order emergency to be declared, and these conditions have been met. Everyone in this chamber knows that the situation, particularly here in Ottawa, grew in intensity and in level of threat over the past 25 days. The threats at our land borders have mostly been managed to date, but with the benefit of planning and experience. The financing of the illegal occupation here in Ottawa has, as has now been exposed, required additional legislative powers to end it. The Ottawa Police Service acknowledged days ago it did not have the capacity to deal with this situation as it evolved over the last—
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
554 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 1:15:46 p.m.
- Watch
Order. I do want to remind the member for, I believe, South Shore—St. Margarets, and I do not know how many times I have already mentioned it while he has been in the room, to please hold on to his thoughts and the questions he may have. It disturbs the individuals who are speaking. I know that I have personally heard from individuals who have asked that order be held in the House so that they do not hear interruptions during speeches and votes.
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
