SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 321 - May/30/24

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

May/30/24 10:10:47 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will now present my second petition. Store entrances often have signs saying that no dogs are allowed, but there is no indication that assistance animals are permitted. This can sometimes lead to frustrating interactions between people with disabilities and staff on the premises. Petitioners are asking that signage at the entrances to services and stores to be changed from “No dogs allowed” to “Assistance dogs welcome” and “no pets allowed”. They are also asking that these changes be paired with a campaign to educate and raise awareness among store owners so that people with disabilities who need an assistance dog can access these stores.

113 words

Mr. Ted Falk (Provencher, CPC)

May/30/24 10:10:51 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of many Canadians who are concerned about human rights protections in India. The petitioners say that according to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, various actors are supporting and enforcing sectarian policies seeking to establish India as a Hindu state. They say that Christians in India are being targeted by extremists, vandalizing their churches, attacking church workers and threatening and humiliating their congregations. They say that crimes against Dalit groups, including Dalit women and girls, are increasing. They say that Indian Muslims are at risk of genocide, assault and sexual violence. The petitioners ask that the government ensure that all trade deals with India are premised on mandatory human rights provisions, that extremists are sanctioned and that our government promotes a respectful human rights dialogue between Canada and India.

141 words

Mr. Larry Maguire (Brandon—Souris, CPC)

May/30/24 10:11:50 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by over 100 people, who are calling on the elimination of the Liberal carbon tax on home heating. It was a cold, costly winter in Westman thanks to the Prime Minister's carbon tax on home heating. The divisive Liberal government believes only provinces that vote for Liberals should be exempt from the carbon tax on heating. However, Westman residents, struggling under the weight of high prices and inflation, disagree. David from Cartwright wrote that the rules providing carbon tax relief to only some parts of Canada are “divisive and undemocratic, and that all Canadians should be exempt from carbon taxes on home heating regardless of which fuel they use.” These petitioners would agree. That is because we have seen the impacts of high prices and inflation on the ground in Westman. The Samaritan House Food Bank gave out nearly 36,000 hampers last year, an astonishing increase of 12,000, 50% above its normal annual average. The overwhelming support for this petition is plain and simple. The solution is plain and simple: Axe the tax so Westman residents, all Westman residents, can heat their homes and afford to buy food.

202 words

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

May/30/24 10:13:05 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The rules are fairly clear for the presentation of a petition. The member should be capturing the essence of it and should not be overly lengthy. It should not be a political statement. The member made reference to “axe the tax”.

52 words

Petition
Axe

The Speaker

May/30/24 10:13:24 a.m.
Watch

I am not going to entertain a series of points of order on this issue. The hon. parliamentary secretary is partially right. Petitions should be brief and should be very much the presentation of the petition. I will remind all members, please, to not offer opinions as to whether they agree with it or not. However, there is a bit of latitude and flexibility, which the Chair is happy to give.

71 words

Mr. Kyle Seeback (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC)

May/30/24 10:13:53 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition organized by Survivors Safety Matters, which is co-founded by Alexa Barkley and Tanya Couch. What they are petitioning is with respect to section 278 of the Criminal Code, which allows for the disclosure of the private records of the victim, including therapeutic and counselling records and personal journals, during legal proceedings. In fact, this also gives access to notes and records from the 988 suicide hotline. The petitioners find this to be absolutely unacceptable, because it re-victimizes victims and prevents victims from coming forward to report sexual assaults out of fear that all their records will be used against them. The petitioners are therefore calling on the Government of Canada to unconditionally protect the privacy and safety of sexual assault victims by eliminating that provision in section 278.

138 words

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP)

May/30/24 10:14:55 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition. The petitioners note that we are facing intersecting crises, the climate crisis and the biodiversity crisis, as well as pollution and resource depletion. The petitioners are calling on the government to publicly declare its support for the international crime of ecocide.

49 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

May/30/24 10:15:19 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to present a petition from my Saanich—Gulf Islands constituents. They are concerned about threats to our old-growth forest. There is one last unprotected intact old-growth valley on all of southern Vancouver Island. Constituents asked—demanded—that the government take action against clear-cut logging. I do not want to say something in English or joke around. Perhaps it is “tax the axe.” The petitioners are hoping the government will act in concert with the provinces and in the interests of first nations. We need to work with the provinces and first nations to immediately halt the logging of endangered old-growth ecosystems. The petitioners point out this affects climate change, biodiversity and indigenous rights. They urge the government to take action while there is still time.

143 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.)

May/30/24 10:16:30 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to table in regard to Canada's health care workers. The petitioners are asking for all parliamentarians, both at the federal and provincial level, to recognize the important role that health care workers play in our communities and to support them, and also to recognize the importance of immigrant credentials and getting those recognized.

60 words

Mr. Patrick Weiler (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, Lib.)

May/30/24 10:17:05 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions today. The first was initiated by Amalie Wilkinson. It has been signed by over 1,200 people across Canada, including many constituents. It notes that there are three intersecting crises we are facing: pollution, biodiversity and resource depletion crises. It notes that the most severe form of environmental damages related to these crises forms ecocide. It notes that many other countries in the world have brought in or have proposed legislation for ecocide, joining an international call to bring this type of measure in at the international level. The petitioners are calling on the federal government to publicly declare its support for an international crime of ecocide.

113 words

Mr. Patrick Weiler (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, Lib.)

May/30/24 10:18:28 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the second petition that I am presenting today was initiated by Sarah Mills and has been signed by over 3,200 Canadians. The petitioners note that the current limit placed on the content of THC does not adequately cater to the existing cannabis consumers and that it is a factor in which the legal, regulated cannabis industry is unable to compete with the illicit market, which is, of course, unregulated. They further note supporting statements from the Competition Bureau and the Ontario Cannabis Store to reconsider the current restriction on THC limits. The petitioners are therefore calling upon the Government of Canada to increase the maximum THC allowed in edible cannabis products to 100mg.

116 words

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

May/30/24 10:18:40 a.m.
Watch

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

16 words

Stand
Ask

The Speaker

May/30/24 10:18:48 a.m.
Watch

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

The Speaker

May/30/24 10:19:05 a.m.
Watch

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on May 1 by the member for Lethbridge, regarding the content of the Debates of April 30. In so doing, I would also like to comment on several points of order raised subsequently regarding the fallout of that day’s events. In raising her question of privilege, the member stated that the Debates of April 30 did not accurately reflect the previous day’s proceedings in the House. She alleged that the words “I withdraw” had been removed from the blues in the portion where the Chair had named her. The member stated that those words appeared under her name in the initial version of the blues and were attributed to her and that they could be heard in the audio recording. She added that, in this specific context, those words were not insignificant, as they showed that she had unconditionally complied with the Speaker’s request and that her withdrawal from the House was therefore unjustified. The member argued that since she was unable to participate in the debates and the votes of that day, her privileges had been breached. She also noted that this misrepresentation of her actions could amount to an improper reflection upon a member. The member was supported by some of her colleagues, who said that they had heard her say those words. Let us first review the events of April 30. The beginning of question period that day was particularly difficult. There was clearly a lot of strong language and strong reactions that required the Chair to intervene. I issued warnings, but also the possibility to rephrase their comments, to both the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister, for particular words they used, those terms being “racist” and “spineless” respectively. I subsequently asked for the word “wacko” to be withdrawn when it was used as a personal insult. I am certain all members can agree that such terms are not helpful and do not contribute to the kind of civility necessary for our proceedings. In the course of these events, the Chair was subjected to invective from the member for Lethbridge. The Chair told the member that challenging decisions of the Chair is contrary to the Standing Orders and subsequently asked her to withdraw her words. The member replied by saying that the Chair was “acting in a disgraceful manner”. At that point, since she did not appear to be complying with my request to withdraw her words, I rose, and her microphone was deactivated. Even though the member was only a few metres from the Chair, I did not hear what she said after her microphone was turned off, as there was too much noise in the House. The member was named pursuant to Standing Order 11. The Hansard blues are the unrevised transcript of the debates of the House of Commons. The Debates, on the other hand, are the record of the proceedings, with the necessary editing and grammatical corrections. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 1227, and I quote: “The Debates are published under the authority of the Speaker of the House. They are compiled using the audio recording of the proceedings as well as information provided by Parliamentary Publications staff stationed on the floor of the House.” As Speaker Milliken explained on March 20, 2001, on page 1917 of the Debates, and I quote: “The editors of Hansard always try to be fair and just in reporting and printing what we have said in the House. It is often difficult to determine exactly what was said.”

623 words

The Speaker

May/30/24 10:23:40 a.m.
Watch

An hon. member: I have a point of order. The Speaker: It is the normal tradition of the House that the Speaker finishes their ruling before points of order are raised. I will entertain them at the end of the ruling, which will happen in a couple of minutes. While the Debates are published under the authority of the Chair, the House should know that the Chair plays no part in editing the Debates. The editors of the Parliamentary Publications team craft a record that, in their judgment, best corresponds to the proceedings, without political interference and in a completely non-partisan manner. The editors may make changes to the records of the House proceedings, whether or not those changes are proposed by members, in accordance with their own guidelines and long-standing practices. Moreover, it is understood that the revisions should not alter the substance and the meaning of the members' statements in the House. The Chair learned that, on April 30, two versions of the blues had been prepared. The words “I withdraw” were indeed in the first version and were attributed to the member for Lethbridge. During the revision process, the editors listened carefully to the audio recording of the sitting but could not be certain that those specific words had been said or that the statement should be attributed to the member for Lethbridge. The word “withdraw” was clearly audible, but what preceded was not. Given the context of the exchange between the Chair and the member, the words she said immediately prior and the process of naming the member that subsequently began, the audio in question could plausibly be interpreted as either “I withdraw” or “I do not withdraw”. In addition, the particularly high level of ambient noise substantially complicated the editors’ task. Faced with this uncertainty, the editors removed the words, and a second version of the blues was produced, which was provided to the member. No comments or revisions were communicated to the Parliamentary Publications department in connection with this intervention prior to the publication of Hansard by the member for Lethbridge or her staff, or any other member or their staff. Finally, the words are not included in the published version of the Debates. While investigating this matter, the Chair also learned that the staff responsible for Debates had provided these explanations to the member in the afternoon of May 1, even before she raised her question of privilege. As the member for Lethbridge later pointed out on May 9, it is true that on the morning of May 1, a member of my staff received a question from a journalist about the difference between the blues and the Debates. On the other hand, it should be noted that the answer offered was very general and was provided even before the question of privilege was raised in the House. The Chair recognizes that the member for Lethbridge states that she said “I withdraw”. The Chair has no reason to doubt her word, nor that of the chief opposition whip, who confirmed that others heard those words. I hope she will accept that, because she began by repeating her comments, and because the noise level was so high, the Chair did not hear her say that day that she was withdrawing her words. My decision to name her seemed justified, based on the information I had at the time. If the member had begun by withdrawing her words, events surely would have unfolded differently. I want to emphasize this point. When the Chair asks a member to withdraw offensive remarks and apologize, out of respect for the Chair and the rules of the House, the Chair expects members to comply, with no hesitation, period. An invitation to withdraw words that are deemed unacceptable is not an invitation to repeat those very words. In the event of refusal to comply, a member risks being named and asked to withdraw from the House or having the Chair decide not to recognize them until they do. Members sometimes disagree with the Chair’s decisions, but it is important for all members to accept them once they are made. Disregarding the rules is one thing; disregarding the authority of the Chair when one is called to order is another. As the member for New Westminster—Burnaby stated in his point of order on May 1, 2024, criticizing such decisions in the House amounts to challenging the Chair, which is contrary to our practices. On the other hand, while it is true that the Chair exercises control over decorum during proceedings and generally does not comment on statements made outside, attacks on the Speaker or the deputy speakers outside of the House can have a corrosive effect on our proceedings. It certainly does not help the House function smoothly. In conclusion, the Chair is of the opinion that the final version of the debates was prepared in accordance with the standards applied by the debates' editors and that their decision, as well as the Chair's decision to name the member, was justifiable based on the information available on April 30. Consequently, I cannot find a prima facie question of privilege. The member for Lethbridge has clearly indicated what her words were, and that is now also part of the record. I thank members for their attention. The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill on a point of order.

914 words

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner

May/30/24 10:29:36 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my point of order relates to the manner in which you have arrived at this decision. In several previous cases of questions of privilege related to your conduct, for example, when I raised a point of privilege related to the government potentially withholding information on an Order Paper question that you had signed off in your role as parliamentary secretary in this Parliament, you had recused yourself from the decision. In this instance, you are ruling on a matter that directly relates to, once again, your conduct and your behaviour. How is it possible that you can make a ruling related to your behaviour, when precedent in this Parliament clearly shows that you should have recused yourself?

119 words

The Speaker

May/30/24 10:30:18 a.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill for raising her point of order. Because the question of privilege was germane to the question of how the blues are prepared and to how the contents of Hansard were prepared, which of course the Speaker has no role in doing, it was found to be appropriate for the Speaker to be able to issue this ruling.

66 words

Ms. Elizabeth May

May/30/24 10:30:47 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When this controversy was first brought to our attention by the hon. member for Lethbridge, I rose to speak in deep concern about the possibility that the words that were spoken, which were in the initial blues, had been changed without the member's knowledge because this is an essential piece of how this place works, that we are confident that there is no interference with respect to the words that come out of our mouths, as best as they are able to be captured by the extraordinarily talented and dedicated staff, obviously with new equipment. However, for centuries there has been Hansard, and the words of parliamentarians are recorded, we hope faithfully. I also want to make a parenthetical comment. Then, I want to ask a specific question in case your ruling included it and I missed it. One of the things about the operations of Parliament, which is to say the fragility of our democracy, is that in Westminster parliamentary democracies, such as Canada, and I would say particularly Canada, much rests on intangibles: respect, decency, unwritten rules, traditions, concern for the country, etc. There are a lot of intangibles that float around when it comes to respect. I know that when hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle was the Speaker, I vigorously disagreed with many of his rulings, but I knew, as there is no appeal of a Speaker's ruling, there would be nothing but chaos if I were to show anything but respect for the rulings I heard, no matter how passionately I disagreed. My point is this. We are in a perilous place, to all my colleagues I would say the same, and we have to be able to work together and to respect our traditions. They are intangible and imperfect, but without them, there is nothing here but chaos. My question is this. I do not know if you can respond to it now or if you will have to fill me in later. I have had the experience of saying things and the Hansard staff got back to me to say that they were not sure they heard me right and asked me what I said. What I am missing here is this. I remember the day; there was a lot of noise and a lot of chaos, so I can understand that it was hard to hear clearly. What I am not certain about, and I would feel much more reassured as I am very concerned about the point the member for Lethbridge made, is if we were absolutely certain that nothing untoward occurred between what she said and how it was recorded. Do we know if the staff from Hansard reached out to the member for Lethbridge to seek clarification before the new version of Hansard emerged with the words “I withdraw” removed?

485 words

The Speaker

May/30/24 10:33:39 a.m.
Watch

I would like to thank the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for rising on the point of order. As was contained in the ruling of the Chair, and if members were to check the ruling they would see that we do address precisely that point, that there were two times that the blues were prepared and shared, and there was a discussion on top of that between the member for Lethbridge and the people who prepare Hansard.

79 words

Mrs. Rachael Thomas

May/30/24 10:34:07 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I would offer to respond to that, actually. There was no effort made to reach out to my office to clarify what I had said that day and whether or not the blues had been changed. In fact they were changed without my knowledge and then published in the Hansard record, which was signed off by your office, all without my knowing about it. It was only after the change that I, on my initiative, reached out to your office in order to seek clarification and understand the procedure better.

97 words