SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 259 - Nov/30/23

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

Nov/30/23 3:38:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is very clear in our Standing Orders, and it has been a long tradition, as we all know, that for 15 minutes of every day the House sits, we have Standing Order 31, which enables members to speak for one minute on an issue they feel is most fitting for them on that particular day. The member for Brampton Centre, not once or twice, but on five occasions, was not able to get his statement out. I have never witnessed that in my experience in the House of Commons for well over 10 years now. In fact, it was 15 minutes later on another S.O. 31 that the member was able to give his full one-minute presentation. An hon. member: It is full of lies. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, even as I speak, the member across the way said that it was “full of lies”. That is the lack of respect I want to make reference to in terms of the point of order. The member for Perth—Wellington Nater— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. The member for Perth—Wellington clearly indicated that you, Mr. Speaker, are a joke. That is what the member for Perth—Wellington stated. That does not include the body language that was also used, which, in essence, was a contempt of the Speaker's chair. I would ask that the member for Perth—Wellington be asked to apologize to the House, because his actions against you, Mr. Speaker, are actually actions against all of us. The matter of the S.O. 31 should in fact be looked into by your office, because I would not want to see that type of behaviour going forward, where a member is denied the opportunity to have their full minute to express an issue they believe is important.

327 words

The Speaker

Nov/30/23 3:41:09 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for raising this issue. I see the member he referred to in his point of order, the hon. member for member for Perth—Wellington, rising to his feet.

35 words

Mr. John Nater (Perth—Wellington, CPC)

Nov/30/23 3:41:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I did indeed indicate that you were a joke. That is true. I am sorry for that. I withdraw it.

22 words

The Speaker

Nov/30/23 3:41:29 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member for withdrawing that remark, and I consider the matter closed. The hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock.

24 words

Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay

Nov/30/23 3:41:47 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this is on the same point of order. There is a long-standing rule in the House that one's comments should not bring disorder to the House. The comments by the member, which the member for Winnipeg North is defending, were so egregious, so inflammatory and so erroneous that they caused disorder in the House. I welcome the opportunity to ask you to look at the transcript of what he was saying and to come to your own conclusions.

82 words

The Speaker

Nov/30/23 3:42:27 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member on this point. The hon. minister is rising on the same point of order.

19 words

Rising

Hon. Arif Virani

Nov/30/23 3:42:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise very seldom on these kinds of matters, but I think it is really critical to appreciate the importance of freedom of expression not only in this country, but also in this chamber. In this chamber, we attempt to critically reflect the views of our constituents. There are times when I have heard things, on both sides of this chamber, and I have been here for eight-plus years now, that I do not agree with and that I am sure others do not agree with. However, the notion of shouting down an individual, not once, but five times, and preventing them from actually being able to deliver their S. O. 31 is something I have not seen before. I think it merits reflection on your part, Mr. Speaker.

132 words

Mr. Michael Barrett

Nov/30/23 3:43:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. Yesterday, after question period, it was drawn to the Chair's attention that during members' statements, the member for Mississauga—Erin Mills screamed profanities during a member's statement. The member giving the statement was me. I was not given the opportunity to repeat it once, or even six times, in spite of the fact that what I said did not create disorder, but it was a member on the government side of the House who screamed profanities. Mr. Speaker, if—

93 words

The Speaker

Nov/30/23 3:43:58 p.m.
Watch

Just because this is not on the same point of order, I am going to get to the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes and will listen to him patiently, but the member for Nunavut has been patient on her feet on another point of order, and I would like to give her that opportunity. There was a list of people who were on— Mr. Michael Barrett: Mr. Speaker, this is on the same point of order. The Speaker: No, you are raising— Mr. Michael Barrett: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about order in the chamber during members' statements— Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes. I am just letting him know that the point of order raised was in regard to the member for Brampton South, and I believe the member is raising an issue in regard to the member for Mississauga—Erin Mills. I am going to ask the hon. member, on the same point of order, to please go ahead.

182 words

Mr. Michael Barrett

Nov/30/23 3:44:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member from Winnipeg said that the 15 minutes members are given for statements are to be sacrosanct, but the member is speaking from the benches of a party that engaged in the conduct he was decrying today. It is hypocrisy for the government House leader's deputy to rise and to cry foul when his parliamentary colleagues engaged in worse conduct yesterday.

65 words

The Speaker

Nov/30/23 3:45:24 p.m.
Watch

I want to thank the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes. The reason I wanted to get back to him is that the Chair had expressed yesterday that we would look at Hansard and the video, which we did. We could not make anything out. We even worked with the folks from Hansard to see if we could detect the words the hon. member referred to. Therefore, I cannot come back to the House on that point. The hon. member for Nunavut.

88 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Nov/30/23 3:45:57 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, I am rising on a point of order based on what the Conservative leader said today during question period regarding first peoples. He used a possessive term that means indigenous peoples belong to another nation. I need to remind the House that first nations, Inuit and Métis are not owned by governments and that this Parliament needs to make sure it is educating Canadians that we are not owned by governments. There were children in the House when he made that statement. We need to remind Canadians that first nations, Métis and Inuit are first peoples and are not owned by anyone, especially the Conservatives. We need to also remind the Conservatives that when my colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, was making her intervention about genocide, Conservatives were laughing at her about her terms, her statement about genocide in the House. This Conservative Party needs to be reminded to respect first nations, Métis and Inuit.

163 words

The Speaker

Nov/30/23 3:47:22 p.m.
Watch

I thank the member for Nunavut for the two points in her intervention. The first was for reminding the House, and all Canadians of course, of the status and the importance of Canada's first peoples. I thank the hon. member for that. On the second matter, I will have to take a look at the video and get back to the House if necessary. The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot is rising on a point of order.

80 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Nov/30/23 3:47:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on that point of order, it is really unfortunate that the member, while condemning Conservatives, refused to condemn the minister who used the exact same word in her reply. I would quote from a statement released by the Chiefs of Ontario representing 133 indigenous communities. It states that, “Chiefs of Ontario and Attawapiskat First Nation have filed a judicial review”—

65 words

The Speaker

Nov/30/23 3:49:11 p.m.
Watch

I do appreciate that, but we are now venturing well into debate. It was not a debate on the point the member was raising. The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot would like to make a new point of order.

41 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Nov/30/23 3:49:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is simply to say that the point the Leader of the Opposition was making was exactly in support of first nations, who have pointed out, in summary, that the carbon tax has a disproportionate effect on first nations. It is shameful that other parties in this place would refuse to acknowledge that same fact and would try to play games as opposed to acknowledging that first nations want the tax axed.

74 words

The Speaker

Nov/30/23 3:50:18 p.m.
Watch

That is now venturing well into debate on this point.

10 words

Hon. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC)

Nov/30/23 3:50:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am hoping the government House leader can inform the House as to the business for the rest of this week and for the following week. As we are nearing the end of session, I would ask her to indicate to the House, if she is able to, the business for the week after that as I know there is usually a flurry of activity in the last few weeks of the December and the June periods. If she could update the House for that week, I know most members would appreciate that.

95 words

Hon. Karina Gould (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Nov/30/23 3:51:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-59 Bill C-57 Bill C-56 Bill C-50 Bill C-48

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will debate the Senate amendments related to Bill C-48 on bail reform. Tomorrow morning, we will call Government Business No. 31, which concerns Bill C-50, an act respecting accountability, transparency and engagement to support the creation of sustainable jobs for workers and economic growth in a net-zero economy. Tomorrow afternoon, we will call report stage and third reading of Bill C-57, which would implement the 2023 free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine. Next week, priority will be given to the motion relating to Bill C-50. We will also call report stage and third reading of Bill C-56, the affordability legislation, and second reading of Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement, which was introduced earlier today. Thursday will be an opposition day. For the following week, I will circle back to the member opposite.

153 words

The Speaker

Nov/30/23 3:52:33 p.m.
Watch

I am now ready to rule on a point of order raised on November 27 by the member for Yorkton—Melville concerning language used in question period that day. According to the member, the government House leader made insinuations on the motives of certain members in relation to their vote on the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, wondering if it was because they were pro-Russia. Her objection was echoed by the House leader of the official opposition and several members of her party. They referred to the ruling made earlier that day, where a member was asked to withdraw a statement accusing other members of being Hamas supporters. Members felt that being accused of supporting Russia was equally offensive. The member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, for his part, suggested that the statement was made, and I quote, “with the intention to be provocative and to elicit a response.” He added, and I quote, “it caused disorder in that moment”. He also suggested that the minister apologize. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons countered that the comments made respected parliamentary rules and that it was common for members from all sides to reflect on the manner in which a political party votes. I must say that I welcome the comments made by members intervening on this matter. It shows an interest in elevating the tone of debate in the House. It raises the bar for everyone. The member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie is right right in saying that the language used on Monday created disorder. This is indeed a key factor, one of the most important, in determining whether words used were unparliamentary or not. However, as explained in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 624, the Speaker must also consider the tone, manner and intention of the member speaking, the person to whom the words at issue were directed and the degree of provocation. On contentious issues, it is not uncommon for members to criticize each other’s positions or to speculate as to why they are voting a certain way. For the most part, these kinds of remarks are part and parcel of vigorous debates. Members often feel that their positions are mischaracterized by others, but that is generally a matter of debate and not something in which the Speaker gets involved. However, the Speaker does have a responsibility for maintaining order and decorum. This can become problematic when a member seeks to associate one of their colleagues with an ideology or an entity whose values we would find odious. In the past, for example, Speakers have judged it unacceptable to compare a member with the wartime fascist regime in Italy or with the racist Ku Klux Klan. As I said on Monday, I believe accusing a member of supporting a violent and anti-Semitic terrorist organization would also fall into this category. These things clearly cross a line, cause disorder and contribute to an overall lowering of the quality of our discourse. Members have suggested that being accused of supporting Russia in the current context should be treated the same way. I think in some circumstances, depending on how such allegations are phrased, that can be true. On Wednesday, for example, I felt it was inappropriate to have accused another member of, and I quote, “cozying up to Russian dictator Vladmir Putin” and I asked for that comment to be withdrawn. I am not certain the comments of the Government House Leader were quite so categorical, though they clearly were not helpful. I suspect that if one were to scour the Debates, one could unfortunately find a series of examples of members, from all parties, attempting to suggest that their colleagues were in some way sympathetic toward regimes we would find brutal or oppressive. Going forward, I would ask all members to stay away from such inflammatory statements and to not attempt to make such provocative associations. Neglecting to do so may result in a member being cut off by the Speaker and a withdrawal being insisted upon. In my statement of October 18, 2023, which can be found at pages 17591 to 17593 of the Debates, I implored members to be mindful of the effect that their choice of words has on the proceedings of the House. I said, on page 17593: ...the growing tendency to make pointed criticisms in a way that is unnecessarily personal and designed to denigrate, bully, elicit an emotional reaction or attack the integrity of the person introduces a toxicity into our proceedings that hampers our ability to get things done. This includes...making comments that question their courage, honesty or commitment to their country. Speaker Milliken made a similar point on May 26, 2009, when addressing a rash of unparliamentary language. He said at page 3703 of the Debates: I want to reiterate that certain words, while not always aimed specifically at individuals and, therefore, arguably technically not out of order, can still cause disruption, can still be felt by those on the receiving end as offensive and therefore can and do lead to disorder in the House. It is that kind of language that I, as Speaker, am bound by our rules not only to discourage but to disallow. That is why I am appealing to all hon. members to be very judicious in their choice of words and thus avoid creating the kind of disorder that so disrupts our proceedings and so deeply dismays the many citizens who observe our proceedings. I would ask all members to reflect on the events of the past several days, on the words used and on the aspersions made and the atmosphere they are creating. It is possible to criticize a party's position on the Middle East without calling members Hamas supporters. It is possible to criticize a party's position on the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement without suggesting that members stand four-square behind dictators. I would encourage all members to find ways of engaging in vigorous debate without resorting to these sorts of associations. I thank all members for their attention.

1035 words