SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 203 - May/31/23

May/31/23 4:34:15 p.m.
Watch

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on the same point of order.

17 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/31/23 4:34:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think you made the right call when you indicated some discretion. This is much like what was done earlier today. The Speaker called for a vote, and a member stood up who was not wearing a tie; the member was still allowed to have his vote counted. I support what you have implied, which is that the member should be able to finish what she had to say, and you made a very clear statement on the issue.

81 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/31/23 4:34:47 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

8 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

May/31/23 4:34:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, your ruling was clear. There is discretion in this House; all members abide by it. I do not see how anyone could object to accessibility and inclusion in the House of Commons.

34 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/31/23 4:35:03 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest.

7 words

Mr. John Williamson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC)

May/31/23 4:35:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think your ruling was judicious; unfortunately, the member could not leave well enough alone and decided to take a shot on this side. That is the problem. Because of that, I actually think you should now enforce the rules of this place, which is that one does not make statements in this House when one is not appropriately dressed. There would be problems from that side if I came in wearing an “I love Alberta oil” or “I support agriculture” shirt. Therefore, I think this member should not be permitted to finish because she did not respect your ruling, which was to continue. She had to take a gratuitous shot at the opposition for trying to work with the system and uphold the rules of this place, which we should all be trying to do.

142 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/31/23 4:35:52 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

8 words

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

May/31/23 4:35:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I was wondering whether you would have raised a question about a T-shirt, but you did not, and the opposition did not, so it was understood that this was going to happen. I am not sure whether we are dealing with our colleagues on the Conservatives' side being special snowflakes and feeling hurt and now wanting to shut down a voice. My question is about the colour red. I was actually very concerned; I thought that might be a Liberal colour. Since some of the Conservatives are wearing red too, should we rule on colour today? Is it the fact that it is a positive message of inclusion, or are we concerned that the Conservatives are feeling hurt once again?

123 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/31/23 4:37:23 p.m.
Watch

Again, the rule is more about slogans and props. They all fit in the same group of rules. If everyone would like to indulge me, I would be more than happy to read some of the rules, and then we will go back to the order. Chapter 13, the “Rules of Order and Decorum”, on page 611, reads: While the Standing Orders do not prescribe a dress code for Members participating in debate, Speakers have ruled that all Members desiring to be recognized to speak at any point during the proceedings of the House must be wearing contemporary business attire. Current practice requires that male Members wear jackets, shirts and ties. Clerical collars have been allowed, although ascots and turtlenecks have been ruled inappropriate for male Members participating in debate. The Chair has stated that wearing a kilt is permissible on certain occasions (for example, Robert Burns Day). Members of the House who are in the armed forces have been permitted to wear their uniforms in the House. Although there is no notation to this effect in the Journals or in the Debates, a newly elected Member introduced in the House in 2005 wore traditional Métis dress...on that occasion without objection from the Chair. In certain circumstances, usually for medical reasons, the Chair has allowed a relaxation of the dress standards permitting, for example, a Member whose arm was in a cast to wear a sweater in the House instead of a jacket. The other point I want to make is on what I said about slogans and/or props. It goes on to say: Speakers have consistently ruled that visual displays or demonstrations of any kind used by Members to illustrate their remarks or emphasize their positions are out of order. Similarly, props of any kind have always been found to be unacceptable in the Chamber. Members may hold notes in their hands, but they will be interrupted and reprimanded by the Speaker if they use papers, documents or other objects to illustrate their remarks. The point I am trying to make here is simply that we need to be judicious in what we are wearing. I am going to allow it, but I would caution the member on the retort back. That is what caused this to happen this afternoon. I will recognize the hon. member for Waterloo. Let us get reports from committees done, and let us just be judicious in the future on the wearing of T-shirts with slogans in the House. The hon. member for Waterloo has the floor.

430 words

Hon. Bardish Chagger (Waterloo, Lib.)

May/31/23 4:39:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the following reports from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs: the 43rd report, in relation to its study of the main estimates for the fiscal year 2023-24; the 44th report, in relation to the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, May 25, regarding the study on foreign election interference; and the 45th report, requesting a further extension of eight sitting days to consider the 2022 report of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Ontario. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the 45th report later this day.

108 words

All Topics

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP)

May/31/23 4:40:45 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-334

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-334, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Judges Act and the Director of Public Prosecutions Act (orders prohibiting publication of identifying information). She said: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to table my private member's bill on publication bans this afternoon. This bill is an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Judges Act and the Director of Public Prosecutions Act to better support survivors of sexualized violence. Tabling this bill was made possible by the phenomenal work of My Voice, My Choice, a group of women who courageously advocated to make sure that other survivors have a choice when it comes to publication bans. Currently, there is no obligation to get consent from victim complainants when a ban has been placed on their name, and if they choose to speak out about their own experiences, they can face criminal charges. This is appalling, and I strongly believe that, as MPs, we have a responsibility to reform these systems. I know that Bill S-12 was recently introduced in the Senate, which I was very happy to see. However, there are gaps in this government bill. I look forward to working with MPs from all parties when it comes to the House to make it better. I hope that my bill can act as an example of how Bill S-12 can and must be strengthened, to ensure that all survivors are given a choice.

244 words

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval

May/31/23 4:42:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would just like some clarification about your decision earlier on wearing a T-shirt. I know that you cited the Standing Orders, but I would like it to be clear. This is how I interpret your decision. If a member decides to come to the House wearing a T-shirt with a slogan, speaks on a topic and the Chair or another member intervenes to raise the matter, the Chair will tell the member that they can finish their comments, but must dress in the future in accordance with the Standing Orders. Tomorrow morning, if I arrive in the House in a T-shirt that reads “Vive le Québec libre”, I would be able to finish my comments, but my dress must be in accordance with the Standing Orders for my next intervention. I would just like to clarify that that is how things will work in the future. In the Bloc Québécois, we have always wanted the Standing Orders to be enforced and for things to be clear. We have always wanted the government to respect the Canadian Constitution, even though we do not like it.

205 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/31/23 4:43:20 p.m.
Watch

I think I made that clear. I allowed the rules to be bent this one time in the interest of getting through Routine Proceedings, but let us just say it will not happen again. I believe that if we want to talk about what we are wearing in the chamber, I would invite the caucuses to maybe put a motion on the floor so that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs can look at it. It is not something we can be deciding on the floor. In the future, I would suggest that we do not wear T-shirts with slogans on them in the House.

108 words

Hon. Bardish Chagger

May/31/23 4:44:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 45th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs—

24 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/31/23 4:44:24 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for La Prairie is rising on a point of order.

13 words

Mr. Alain Therrien

May/31/23 4:44:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the last time, you allowed the member to complete her speech even though she was in breach of the Standing Orders of the House. That was clearly explained in the remarks you read. Now, she is rising wearing the same T-shirt and you have just told my colleague that you would not allow that in the future. This is the future. Now, she is rising wearing the same T-shirt. I am sorry, but at some point, there are limits. Could you enforce the standing order that you read and that is extremely clear? She is obviously in breach of the Standing Orders. It was fine earlier, but this is not earlier, this is now.

118 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/31/23 4:45:03 p.m.
Watch

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.

16 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/31/23 4:45:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, again, because I know there are certain members who are listening this time around, I will just repeat what I had indicated earlier. We saw the Speaker make a ruling, inadvertently, by allowing a member to stand for the introduction of a vote on a bill not wearing a tie and then, in your ruling, you used discretion in this situation. My understanding was that it was just so that we can get through the rubric. It is a one-time issue where we saw something earlier in a vote, and it is not something that is going to be accepted going forward because you are giving a detailed explanation. That was my understanding, so I would suggest that we just continue to get through the rubric. Members on all sides of the House have taken note of what you have said, and I am sure that the respective whips will make sure that it is reinforced in caucuses.

161 words

Mr. Ali Ehsassi (Willowdale, Lib.)

May/31/23 4:46:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is truly a great honour for me to present a petition today on behalf of the Canadian Hazara advocacy group. This is a group with members from across the country, from coast to coast, and they are particularly concerned about the persecution that the Taliban is subjecting members of the Hazara community in Afghanistan to. It is well recorded that there are many atrocities going on. Members of the Hazara community in Canada have come together and put their shoulders to the wheel to make sure that we are fully aware of this and that we do everything we can possibly do. It is important to point out that other Parliaments and municipalities have taken note of this and recognize full well that we should stand up and stand with all members of the Hazara community. In this particular case, the petitioners are rightly asking us to support an investigation by the Human Rights Council of the UN into the serial atrocities that are going on against the Hazaras. In addition, they request that we substantially increase visas for Hazaras seeking asylum in Canada through special immigration programs. It is a great honour to present this petition, and I would remind all members how incredibly important it is that we continue to pay attention and continue to stand up for members of the Hazara community.

228 words

Mr. Dan Mazier (Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, CPC)

May/31/23 4:48:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the fifth time on behalf of the people of Swan River, Manitoba, to present a petition on the rising rate of crime. The people of Swan River are demanding that the Liberal government repeal its soft-on-crime policies, which have fuelled the surge in crime throughout the rural community. The crime severity index in the rural town of 4,000 has increased by over 50% from just five years ago. What was once a safe community has now turned into a place where people fear for their lives; this is because the government's catch-and-release policies have allowed violent repeat offenders to be out on bail instead of in jail. The people of Swan River demand that the Liberal government repeal its soft-on-crime policies, which directly threaten their livelihoods and community. I fully support the good people of Swan River.

150 words