44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 8, 2024 10:00AM
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/24 10:20:37 a.m.
- Watch
Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/24 10:30:21 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order respecting the committee consideration of Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code with respect to adoptive and intended parents, standing in the name of the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster.
Now that the bill has been reported from committee and is now in the possession of the House, I would like to draw the attention of the Speaker to amendments made at committee that should be ruled inadmissible.
During the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities' consideration of the bill, amendments were made to clauses 1, 8, 14 and 17 that exceed the scope of the bill as adopted at second reading. Moreover, the amendments infringe on the financial prerogative of the Crown. Without commenting on the merits of the amendments, I will say that each of the four amendments seeks to add a new concept to the bill and therefore exceeds the scope of the bill as adopted at second reading.
I would also add that, in addition to exceeding the scope of the bill, the amendments would seek to authorize new and distinct spending for purposes not authorized by the Employment Insurance Act or any other statute or appropriation.
During clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, the chair ruled as follows in relation to the amendment to clause 1. He stated:
The current amendment attempts to create another benefit, whereby an indigenous child could be placed with a claimant different from the child's parents, following different processes from the provincial adoption process as stated in the bill, and the claimant could be entitled to obtain a 15-week benefit drawn from the treasury.
As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 772:
“Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.”
In the opinion of the chair, the amendment proposes a new scheme, one that imposes a new charge on the public treasury, and as such it would require a royal recommendation. Therefore I rule the amendment inadmissible.
The member for Winnipeg Centre moved a motion to challenge the ruling of the Chair. The committee voted to overturn the ruling of the chair, and the clause was adopted as amended.
Since the same amendment was moved on clauses 8, 14 and 17, the chair ruled these amendments inadmissible on the same grounds as the amendment to clause 1. The decision of the chair was then challenged for each of these amendments and the—
467 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/24 10:30:58 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, since the same amendment was moved on clauses 8, 14 and 17, the chair ruled these amendments inadmissible on the same grounds as the amendment to clause 1. The decision of the chair was then challenged for each of these amendments, and the chair's ruling was overturned. The committee then proceeded to adopt the amendment in question to clauses 8, 14 and 17.
Since the amendments were deemed inadmissible by the chair of the committee on the grounds that they exceeded the scope of the bill and give rise to the need for a royal recommendation, I therefore submit that the amendments be struck from the bill and a new version of the bill, without the offending amendments, be reprinted for consideration at report stage of the said bill.
132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/24 10:30:58 a.m.
- Watch
Order.
A member has risen on a point of order.
I know that many members ask for respect in the House. However, when someone from an opposing party has the floor, those same members speak at the same time even though it is not the time to have discussions. This applies to both sides of the House and I hope MPs will show more respect to the person who has the floor.
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
76 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
