SoVote

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC)

Feb/8/24 10:10:41 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in my last petition, the petitioners are seeking to support the health and safety of Canadian firearms owners, law-abiding citizens of Canada. They acknowledge that sound moderators are the only universally recognized health and safety devices that are criminally prohibited in Canada. The petitioners are calling on the government to allow legal firearms owners the option to purchase new sound moderators for all legal hunting and sport shooting activities.

72 words

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Feb/8/24 10:11:17 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise to present two petitions. The first is on behalf of over 3,200 people from across the country, who note that people with disabilities often face barriers to employment along with higher costs associated with health care and housing. They note that the Canada disability benefit was delayed for over two years, as the first attempt to pass the law known as Bill C-35 was postponed due to the 2021 election. They note that the Canada disability benefit would provide much needed financial support for people with disabilities and that 40% of those living in poverty are those with disabilities. They note that the minister responsible told Canadians that implementing the Canada disability benefit is expected to take at least 18 months following the passage of Bill C-22 in June 2023. In fact, that has been pushed back further still. They note that insufficient supports in current disability programs, both federally and provincially, present a significant risk of life and health for people with disabilities across the country living in legislative poverty. They go on to note that the federal government has refused to provide an interim disability emergency response benefit similar to the CERB that was provided in the pandemic. They also note that back payments are provided to eligible recipients for other disability benefits, like the disability tax credit, and they note that the federal government has yet to budget the necessary funds for the Canada disability benefit. As a result, they have two calls in their petition to the Government of Canada. The first is to provide back payments to eligible Canada disability benefit recipients covering the time from when the Canada Disability Benefit Act received royal assent in June 2023. The second is to budget the necessary funds for the Canada disability benefit into budget 2023 to show that the government is committed to providing the Canada disability benefit to the disability community as soon as possible.

327 words

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Feb/8/24 10:13:19 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the second petition notes that volunteer firefighters account for 71% of Canada's total firefighting essential first responders. They note that the tax code in Canada currently allows volunteer firefighters and search and rescue volunteers to claim a $3,000 tax credit if 200 hours of volunteer services were completed in a calendar year. It works out to a mere $450 a year. If they volunteer more than 200 hours, which many of them do, then the tax credit becomes even less. They go on to note various reasons this tax credit is insufficient. They also go on to call for the Government of Canada to support Bill C-310 and to enact amendments to subsection 118.06(2) and 118.07(2) of the Income Tax Act in order to increase the amount of the tax credits for volunteer firefighting and for search and rescue volunteer services from $3,000 to $10,000.

156 words

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC)

Feb/8/24 10:14:22 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have signatures here from all across the country. Petitioners are asking for natural health products to be more accessible and for the new regulations to exempt natural health products, because many people depend on them to stay healthy so that they do not need to buy prescription drugs.

51 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Feb/8/24 10:14:52 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present to the House today. The first petition calls on the Liberal government to not involve itself in decisions that should be made by parents and by provinces. It identifies the fact that the Liberal government sought to interfere in New Brunswick's policy in this regard and, more recently, in policy decisions in Alberta. Petitioners note as well the statements of the Conservative leader calling on the government to not interfere in decisions that should be made by provinces and by parents, further noting that parents care about the well-being of their children and love them more than any state-run institution. The role of government is to support families and to respect parents, not to dictate to them how decisions should be made for their children.

138 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Feb/8/24 10:15:48 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the next petition is in support of an excellent private member's bill I put forward, Bill C-257. This bill would add political belief and activity as prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act. Petitioners note that Canadians should be protected from discrimination, including political discrimination, and that it is a fundamental Canadian right to be politically active and vocal. Further, they note our democracy is well served by ensuring people feel the freedom to express themselves politically without worry about employment-related or other reprisal based on their political views. The petition asks the House to support Bill C-257 and to defend the rights of Canadians to peacefully express their political opinions.

120 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Feb/8/24 10:16:36 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the next petition relates to International Development Week. I am sure that petitioners join me in wishing a happy International Development Week to all those who are marking the occasion. It is a time for discussion and for advocacy. Petitioners note some of the key failures in the Liberal government's international development policy. They note the Auditor General's report highlighting how the Liberals' so-called feminist international assistance policy has failed to measure results in terms of impacting the lives of women and girls. They further note how the approach of the government has shown a lack of respect for cultural values and the autonomy of women in developing countries by pushing positions that may violate local laws. Further, petitioners highlight the Muskoka initiative by the previous Conservative government, which involved historic investments in the well-being of women and girls, achieved value for money, measured results and actually responded to priorities identified by local women. Therefore, petitioners call on the government to align international development spending with the wise approach of the Muskoka initiative, focusing on meeting basic needs of vulnerable women rather than pushing ideological agendas.

192 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Feb/8/24 10:17:51 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the next petition raises concerns about and expresses opposition to proposals for the expansion of euthanasia to include children. It notes a proposal to legalize euthanasia for minors, including even very young children. Petitioners find the proposal deeply disturbing. They believe that killing children is always wrong and they call on the government to block any attempt to legalize euthanasia, killing or facilitated suicide for minors.

68 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Feb/8/24 10:18:29 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would next like to present a petition regarding human rights in Hong Kong, especially as they relate to immigration. Petitioners note that there has been a severe decline in the freedoms in Hong Kong. Further, people charged in Hong Kong for political offences, through a justice system that is clearly now severely broken, people who have done nothing wrong and have advocated for freedom and democracy and nonetheless might have been subject to criminal charges in Hong Kong, have difficulty getting a police certificate, etc. Petitioners note that these challenges would impact the ability of these people in Hong Kong to immigrate to Canada. Petitioners therefore ask the government to recognize the politicization of the judiciary in Hong Kong and its impact on the legitimacy and validity of criminal convictions, to affirm its commitment to render all national security law charges and convictions irrelevant for the purposes of Canadian immigration. Further, they ask the government to create a mechanism by which Hong Kong people with convictions related to the pro-democracy movement may provide an explanation for such convictions, on the basis of which government officials could grant exceptions to Hong Kong people who would otherwise be deemed inadmissible to Canada on the basis of criminality. Petitioners also ask the government to work with like-minded allies on this.

222 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Feb/8/24 10:19:47 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the final petition raises concerns about the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in the PRC and calls on the government to do more to combat this.

28 words

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

Feb/8/24 10:20:33 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time.

15 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/8/24 10:20:37 a.m.
Watch

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

Hon. Steven MacKinnon (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Feb/8/24 10:20:44 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise to respond to the question of privilege raised on February 6, 2024, by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle concerning the statements the Prime Minister made in the House. The member across the aisle has attempted to conflate two separate events. The first event took place in a joint sitting of Parliament for an address by the President of Ukraine. The second was a special event outside Parliament. The Prime Minister was asked questions in the House about the events during the joint sitting of Parliament for the address. The Prime Minister said that neither he nor his office was involved with the invitation to the individual in question for the parliamentary event. The former Speaker admitted to the House that the decision to invite the individual was his, and his alone. The Prime Minister stated, with respect to the parliamentary event—

149 words

Event
Aisle

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/8/24 10:21:36 a.m.
Watch

The hon. government House leader seems to be debating the issue. What point of order is he raising? The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.

34 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Feb/8/24 10:21:57 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the government House leader is responding to a question of privilege raised by the official opposition. I think he should be provided the amount of time and discretion needed in order to—

35 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/8/24 10:22:12 a.m.
Watch

I am sorry the hon. the member's mic was cut off, but I understand what he is saying. I will allow the hon. government House leader to continue.

29 words

Mic
Cut

Hon. Steven MacKinnon

Feb/8/24 10:22:23 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister was asked questions in the House about the events during the joint sitting of Parliament for the address. The Prime Minister said that neither he nor his office was involved with the invitation to the individual in question for the parliamentary event. The former Speaker admitted to the House that the decision to invite the individual was his, and his alone. The Prime Minister stated, with respect to the parliamentary event, “The Leader of the Opposition knows that not one parliamentarian was aware” and “no parliamentarian knew the name or the identity of the person he welcomed to this House and recognized.” The member acknowledges the fact that it was the Speaker who invited the individual to the parliamentary event, when he said, “it is understood that this individual's son approached the then Speaker's constituency office about securing an invitation to the Ottawa address.” The Speaker then, according to his statement in the House, invited the individual to the parliamentary event, and he stated that it was his decision to do so, apologized to the House for doing so, and, as a result of this action, resigned as Speaker. The member alleges, or, I would say, speculates, that the Speaker invited the individual only because that individual was invited to another event by the Prime Minister. There are no facts to support this claim, and it should therefore be treated as a speculative assumption. However, the Prime Minister has been clear that neither he nor his office was involved in the invitation of the individual in question to the parliamentary event. The former Speaker stated this fact in the House, which clearly corroborates the statements made by the Prime Minister and other ministers in this place. There is a long tradition in the House that members should be taken at their word, especially when there are no facts that would bring the remarks into question. By conflating the two events into one, the member is trying to leave the impression that these events were coordinated as one. That claim is not supported by the facts and is not supported by statements made by the Prime Minister or his ministers in the House. I would point to the statement the Prime Minister made, which was referenced by the member across the way, on September 27, 2023. He stated, “we apologized today on behalf of all parliamentarians. For the past few days, we have been saying how sorry we are about the mistake made by the Speaker of the House of Commons.” The matter of the invitation of the individual by the former Speaker is currently before the procedure and House affairs committee for consideration. Let us let the committee do its work. The referral of the matter to the committee was founded on the former Speaker's acknowledgement of his sole responsibility for inviting the individual to the parliamentary event. The member referenced page 85 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, where it states that cases of privilege involve “the provision of deliberately misleading information to the House or one of its committees by a Minister or by a Member.” There are no facts that support either that the Prime Minister misled the House concerning the invitation of the individual to the parliamentary event, or that any minister or member deliberately provided information that misled the House. The facts speak otherwise. The Prime Minister has been clear. The Speaker has been clear. There are no facts to dispute those claims. By trying to conflate two separate events, the member is twisting the narrative into a situation that bears no resemblance to what the House was debating in the fall. The question is a matter of debate and not a question of privilege.

639 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/8/24 10:25:55 a.m.
Watch

I appreciate the hon. government House leader's providing additional information. It will certainly be taken into consideration as the matter continues to be looked into. We have a point of order from the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

42 words

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Feb/8/24 10:26:13 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, with respect to the House leader's point of order, I request that he table for the House all of the documentation to back up every statement he made, including the invitation that the former Speaker sent to this individual. All MPs know that it is a matter of record and practice for the Speaker of the House to send a formal invitation for any event they have. We look forward to being provided with that information and all other supporting documents for every statement he made.

89 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/8/24 10:26:53 a.m.
Watch

I will take the hon. member's comments, in addition to the point of order, under advisement. We are now going to another point of order, from the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

36 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 278