44th Parl. 1st Sess.
January 30, 2024 10:00AM
- Jan/30/24 10:19:08 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to stand in this place and present petitions. I am presenting a unique petition today, because this particular petition was offered to the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, but he refused to present it in this place.
Therefore, I stand on behalf of the people of Skeena—Bulkley Valley and present this petition that calls for a number of things, highlights the absurdity of Liberal gun rules and calls upon the Government of Canada to stop any and all current and future bans on hunting and sport shooting firearms.
It is an honour to stand in this place on behalf of the people of Skeena—Bulkley Valley and represent them, because their MP certainly is not.
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 10:19:58 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.
I know it is the second day back, but the Speaker is well aware that people cannot use petitions to make political speeches. Members are supposed to present the petitions. I would ask the Speaker to review the rules on petitions.
49 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 10:20:21 a.m.
- Watch
I would like to remind members that the tradition is for members to present petitions and not to comment on them. I would ask all members to do that.
29 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 10:20:35 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to present one of many petitions sought to be presented by MPs over the last few weeks.
It notes that the need for electoral reform continues to be an issue for citizens of all political persuasions. The petitioners note that politicians cannot agree on the best way forward, and they call for a new approach for developing a citizens' consensus on electoral reform.
The petitioners call on the House of Commons, first of all, to give citizens a voice on the subject of electoral reform and a right to make recommendations. More specifically, the petitioners would like to see a representative, non-partisan citizens' assembly that has the resources, the expert support and the sufficient time required to come to a citizens' consensus on recommendations to be delivered to the government.
The petitioners call on MPs of all parties to vote in support of Motion No. 86, citizens' assembly on electoral reform, which will be debated by this House and voted on in due course.
173 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 10:21:45 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present to the House today on behalf of my constituents, people from Skeena—Bulkley Valley and various other places across the country.
The first petition is in regard to the Liberal government's decision to cut funding for women's shelters. The petitioners note that women's shelters are sadly seeing increased demand, that the high cost of living and the housing crisis have made it harder on women and children fleeing violent situations and that we are living through a time when the Liberal government is dramatically increasing spending on bureaucracy and consultants while it is cutting $145 million of funding for women's shelters.
The petitioners therefore call on the Government of Canada to restore funding for women's shelters.
132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 10:28:00 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. I want to come back to the unparliamentary comments made by the member for Battle River—Crowfoot. My colleague from Timmins—James Bay addressed that a few minutes ago.
I want to cite a ruling from December 12. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies also attempted to do the same thing and, in an unparliamentary way, tried to mislead the House and mislead Canadians. At the time, Mr. Speaker, you will recall the ruling was that the attempt by the member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies was not permissible and that the member should rise and apologize. Therefore, I believe you should ask the member for Battle River—Crowfoot to apologize for his unparliamentary use of the Petitions sector and for misleading the House.
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 10:30:03 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I appreciate the opportunity to highlight that, very specifically, the statement I made during petitions did not politicize—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
33 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 10:33:39 a.m.
- Watch
I am going to ask once again for the member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, who was asked to apologize, to be consistent with the ruling of this Chair, because when members present petitions there should be no comment aside from the substance of the petition. To mention whether another hon. member presented it or did not, for whatever reason, it should stand as it is. Before we go to points of order, I will ask the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot to be consistent with this, to start the new year right and, please, to briefly apologize and withdraw those comments. In presenting petitions in the future, all members should just focus on the substance of the petitions and not make comments as to other issues.
I will ask the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot to please stand.
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 10:35:57 a.m.
- Watch
We are getting into debate.
The Chair did explain what was brought forward by the table officers. I ask members to continue to be patient, and we will be able to bring it forward. I ask members to please take their seats for the moment while I go through the point of order. I will be getting back to the House.
Continuing with petitions, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
72 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 10:39:04 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to bring to your attention your lack of consistency on this issue. The member from the NDP raised a point or order, and you immediately followed, saying that when presenting petitions, it should be the matter of the petition only that is addressed. Immediately following, another member made a quite extensive presentation regarding the petition he was presenting. You did not intervene then, so why would you intervene in the issue with the member for Battle River—Crowfoot?
Mr. Glen Motz: It's not because you're partisan or anything, is it?
105 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 5:08:58 p.m.
- Watch
I think it is important to all members for the Speaker to make a ruling and brief statement regarding questions raised earlier today concerning the interventions during presenting petitions.
Standing Order 36(7) is clear. It states, “On the presentation of a petition no debate on or in relation to the same shall be allowed.”
In addition, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states at page 1192, and I quote:
No debate is permitted during the presentation of petitions. Any comment on the merits of a petition—even a Member's personal agreement or disagreement with the petitioners—has been deemed to constitute a form of debate and is therefore out of order. Members are permitted a brief factual statement, in the course of which they may allude to the petition being duly certified, to its source, to the subject matter of the petition and its prayer, and to the number of signatures it carries. In any event, petitions are not to be read in their entirety and Members presenting them should avoid straying into debate or argument.
As they currently stand, the rules of the House do not allow for petitions to be debated. In essence, the role of members in regard to petitions, and it is an important role, is to act as an intermediary between petitioners and the House for the sole purpose of presenting the views of petitioners to Parliament. Thus, members should not comment on petitions they present. While some latitude is occasionally granted, the Chair has generally been quick to call members to order when they veer too strongly into debate.
This morning, in the moment, I concluded that the member for Battle River—Crowfoot was out of order because he was engaging in debate when he criticized another member for not presenting the same petition. I have had an opportunity to further review the matter, and I have concluded that this was the correct interpretation. Members are, of course, free to challenge each other during debates, within the established bounds of decorum in the House, but it is inappropriate to criticize individual colleagues while presenting a petition. This is especially true in that there is no opportunity for members to respond to the attacks launched against them. To use the occasion of presenting a petition to question another member’s commitment to their constituents is clearly inappropriate.
While the Chair frequently has reminded members of the rules for presenting petitions, when the Chair deems it necessary, it can also admonish a member that persists in breaching the rules and defying the authority of the Chair. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 320 states, and I quote:
On occasion, a Member who is called to order by the Speaker may not immediately comply with the Speaker's instructions; in such a case, the Speaker has given the Member time to reflect on his or her position, declining in the meantime to “see” the Member should the latter rise to be recognized.
In the past, there have been numerous instances of my predecessors calling members to order if they persisted in debating a matter when it was not permitted. This could reach the point of not recognizing them for the remainder of the sitting or until such time as they complied with the Chair’s direction.
This informed my decision when the matter was raised. I also considered the decision made by the Assistant Deputy Speaker on December 12, 2023, when a similar situation arose. When the member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies made a similar comment, he was called to order and told this was inappropriate. When he then repeated the same comment, he was asked to apologize.
Even if members do not agree with this approach, when the Chair directs a member to withdraw remarks and apologize, the member to whom such a request is directed is bound to do so. Disregarding the authority of the Chair can be considered a disrespect for the House.
Should the member for Battle River—Crowfoot apologize, as requested, he would then be recognized by the Chair.
I hope this clarifies the matter and I thank all members for their attention.
715 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
