44th Parl. 1st Sess.
January 30, 2024 10:00AM
- Jan/30/24 10:41:31 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the comment, but these are comments that I hear from my constituents on a daily—
20 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 10:41:44 a.m.
- Watch
I thank the hon. member for withdrawing the comment.
The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is rising on a point of order.
25 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 10:41:49 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to draw the attention of the House to an incident on December 15, 2023. The member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques presented a petition in the House. At the end of the petition, he said, “I hope that as a result of petition e‑4604, the Liberal government will finally understand that it needs to meet the expectations and needs of our students and researchers.” I note that at that time, the Assistant Deputy Speaker objected to the member's statement and highlighted this rule: “The hon. member may present only the content of the petition. He cannot present his point of view on the petition to the House. I just want to make this point, because a member was about to raise a point of order on this subject.”
However, the Assistant Deputy Speaker at the time did not request an apology. That was one incident. I think there are many instances where members have been accused of going over the line in their commentary on petitions. When that has happened, other members have raised points of order. The Chair has sometimes chastened the member, encouraged the member to speed up or encouraged the member to stop.
It is without precedent that the Chair would demand an apology from a member who engages in this fairly minor and somewhat subjective transgression of the standing order. There are many examples. I have cited one of them from December 15, 2023, which I found after about 10 seconds of searching. I could find dozens of such examples where, yes, members may have gone over the line a little bit; yes, points of order may have been raised and the Speaker may even have said that the member should not have done that and should remember for the next time. However, it is not reasonable to simply make up a new standard, apply it to a particular member and require that member to apologize for such a minor infraction.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will take all of that precedent into consideration and provide some clarification.
359 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 10:45:30 a.m.
- Watch
Before we move on to a plethora of points of order, I will address the issue made by the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.
It is, indeed, true that the member can point to many examples where members have made comments on petitions that have been presented to the House. That does happen from time to time and usually gets a rebuke or reminder by the Chair for members to focus on the subject of the petition.
However, there have been instances when the Chair, in this case the The Assistant Deputy Speaker, on December 15, 2023, when a member accused another member of lacking courage to present a petition or made a comment about the member's character. The member was asked to apologize. He did apologize for having broken any rules of the House if he had, which the Chair had determined he had done. That is the reason this is being asked for here today.
This is a matter that the Chair would be pleased to come back to members about with more detailed observations as to what should and should not be done. Suffice it to say that it makes sense that members' impugning the character of other members would be considered unparliamentary and usually would require an apology. This matter is now closed on this issue.
I am going to hear the member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, who will rise on a point of order and cite some rules of procedure. After we hear him, I am going to be pretty satisfied that the matter is closed until the Chair comes back to the House.
277 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 10:47:06 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, just for clarity, in my previous statement, I said that if I had said something wrong, I apologize. It was never made to clear to me by the Table after that point that I had made an error.
Bosc and Gagnon say, “The Member may then give a brief statement to inform the House of the petition’s content”, which is exactly what the member did. It does not say that a member cannot be mentioned, which is the NDP's whole point of order in the first place. It does not say in Bosc and Gagnon that I am not allowed to do that. It does say, “The Member may not make a speech or enter into debate on or in relation to the petition”, which I was not doing. I was making a brief statement about the petition then went into the petition. I broke no rules; therefore, I will rescind my apology because I did not make a mistake.
I would also challenge you with respect to the member for Battle River—Crowfoot. He did not make a mistake either and should not be prevented from speaking in the House.
201 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 10:48:07 a.m.
- Watch
The Chair will come back to the House on this matter. I thank the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies for quoting from the rules, but as he had also quoted as a preliminary to what he had raised, there is indication as to why the member was asked to apologize and what the Chair considered at the time for the rules.
67 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 10:48:54 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I request a clarification because you said the issue was closed, and then said you will come back to the House.
28 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 10:49:00 a.m.
- Watch
This is the same matter that I heard from informal comments as from the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.
Discussion on this issue is closed. I will come back to the House with a fuller explanation so members can conduct themselves with greater clarity in the future.
49 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 10:49:42 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order that is not on this issue, as you will be coming back to the House.
The chamber is the place for members to voice their concerns with respect to—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
44 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 10:49:59 a.m.
- Watch
Order.
The hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest is an experienced member. I am going to ask him to get to the point very quickly because it is sounding a lot like debate on the current issue. Otherwise, we will move on.
42 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 10:50:33 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, some parliaments ago there was a debate in the chamber over the rights of members to express themselves vis-à-vis their whips. The Speaker at the time ruled clearly that debates from both sides of the chamber had to be made in this room and not in the corridor behind us, so members came to this chamber and made their best arguments to inform the Speaker so the Speaker could make a better ruling.
My concern is the practice of the Speaker cutting off concerned points of order on an issue before the House. He is cutting the members out of the process and leaving it up to the Speaker to make a ruling behind closed doors. We would be well served to have a debate over the rules around petitions, and I regret the Speaker's decision.
He is going to come back here to say the matter is closed without having heard from members, in good faith, who want to represent their constituents when it comes to petitions. The Speaker would be well advised to hear from MPs who are here trying to work in a good faith effort to advance this House in a way that we—
204 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 10:51:35 a.m.
- Watch
I thank the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest for raising this issue. It is a valid point, but the Chair feels they have heard enough from around the table to be able to consider this matter and come back to the House.
43 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 10:52:05 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Chair needs to clarify whether the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot will be able to speak prior to your further ruling. I appreciate you would like to take the time to—
37 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 10:52:13 a.m.
- Watch
That is very much on the subject matter that is before the House at this time. The Chair's decision stands that the member would have to apologize before coming back.
The hon. member for North Okanagan—Shuswap has been very patient. I ask him to rise on his point of order if it is a new point of order.
61 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 10:52:49 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have been very patient. I asked you a direct question that I did not receive an answer to. I hope that will also be included in your response to the House.
34 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 10:53:00 a.m.
- Watch
5 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 10:53:11 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand today.
13 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 10:53:16 a.m.
- Watch
Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 10:53:24 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is with utmost urgency I call to the House's attention the housing and houselessness emergency facing all Canadians. Just recently, the City of Edmonton declared a housing emergency, joining cities across the country that are grappling with the outcomes of poverty, displacement and addiction without the power and money necessary to truly end the crisis.
First nations, Métis settlements and Inuit communities are struggling to ensure financial sustainability for housing growth and infrastructure maintenance, forcing many indigenous people into urban centres without the important community and cultural supports they need.
In addition, this emergency has Canadians scared they will never afford a home, while rent just keeps going up, and the housing market is only making the rich richer.
I want to ground my concern in recent experience. During my time back in my riding I joined neighbours such as Linda, a retired teacher, and Tabatha and Blake from the Edmonton Public Library; leaders such as Janis Irwin, Brooks Arcand-Paul and Brad Lafortune; community organizations such as Boyle Street Community Services, Tawaw Outreach Collective, Water Warriors, Public Interest Alberta, 4B Harm Reduction Society and Bear Claw; indigenous activists such as Kokum Kathy, Will Cardinal, Rachelle Gladue and Judith Gale; and so many more in witnessing the worst outcomes of this housing crisis. We watched as encampments were torn down in the brutal cold only to be resurrected a few blocks away. This is a death sentence for some and a horrid reality unfolding across our country.
We must break these cycles of violence while building safe, affordable and supportive housing for all. As well, we need to support and enact solutions brought forward by leading community organizations, which I know are found in every riding in our country. They are organizations like those in my community, such as the Edmonton Coalition on Housing and Homelessness, Bent Arrow Traditional Healing Society, NiGiNan Housing Ventures, the Right at Home Housing Society and Radius Community Health & Healing.
We have the solutions. We just need the will. It is for these reasons I so hope the Speaker grants hon. members the important opportunity to engage in this emergency debate as soon as possible.
367 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 10:53:24 a.m.
- Watch
The Chair has notice of a request for an emergency debate from the hon. member for Edmonton Griesbach.
18 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
