44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 22, 2022 10:00AM
- Sep/22/22 11:14:38 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am sorry to have to interrupt today's debate, but this is an important question of privilege. I will be as brief as possible.
I rise on a question of privilege regarding threatening comments made by Mr. Dale Smith, an accredited member of the parliamentary press gallery, following a question I raised in the House yesterday. I am raising this issue as soon as possible after having been made aware of these comments.
76 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/22/22 11:14:43 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Smith posted the following comments on Twitter yesterday: “Genuis tries to includes lyrics from ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’ in his question, and I cannot adequately tell you how lame it is. When horses are this lame, you shoot them. #QP.”
Mr. Smith said he thought I was lame, and that when horses are lame, we shoot them. This is not normal political discourse, and I ask how I should respond to a comment like that. Some would say, “Oh, surely he was joking.” However, the problem with so-called jokes implying threats toward public officials is that as the target of these comments, I am somehow supposed to understand and be okay with a threat on the basis of someone's presumed intentions. I am just not okay with this.
If there is context to such a threat, not everyone is going to understand that context. Mr. Smith has 26.3 thousand Twitter followers. His tweet about me has, at the moment, 122 retweets and 824 likes. The process by which violence is incited against public officials is one in which comments are made that do incite violence that may or may not be serious, but then others pick up on them.
Furthermore, I do not think I should have to explain to my wife, my five young children or my parents what level of risk is associated with a violent comment like this. The plain language is going to be interpreted a certain way, especially by those who are close to me.
In the current climate, we should all know the risks associated with explicitly inciting violence against public officials. There is significant precedent for recognizing threats against members as constituting a violation of privilege. Page 198 of the second edition of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada tells of an incident in 1758 when the Nova Scotia House of Assembly proceeded against someone who made threats against a member.
In a ruling on September 19, 1973, Speaker Lamoureux, at page 6709 of Debates, stated that he had “no hesitation in reaffirming the principle that parliamentary privilege includes the right of a member to discharge his responsibilities as a member of the House free from threats or attempts at intimidation.”
On February 6, 1984, the member for Peace River rose on a question of privilege arising out of a telephone conversation between a member of his staff and an official in the office of the president of Canada Post Corporation. The member alleged that the official had been abusive. The official complained that the member for Peace River's office had not cleared questions asked by the member in the House with the president's office and warned that if this was not done in the future, the member could expect little co-operation from Canada Post.
The member for Peace River argued that this was an attempt to inhibit his freedom of speech, influence his actions in the House and hamper him in his role as spokesman for the official opposition. The Speaker, on February 20, 1984, ruled the matter to be a prima facie question of privilege.
On March 24, 1994, at page 2705 of Debates, Speaker Parent described the seriousness of the issue of intimidation this way: “Threats of blackmail or intimidation of a Member of Parliament should never be taken lightly. When such occurs, the very essence of free speech is undermined. Without the guarantee of freedom of speech, no Member of Parliament can do his duty as is expected.”
All of these past cases involved a threat from a person who did not have parliamentary access. Mr. Smith is currently an accredited member of the parliamentary press gallery, which gives him relatively unfettered access to the Hill. He may be up in the press gallery some time today. He may follow me in the halls or hang around outside our caucus room waiting for me. I should not have to consider whether or not I will encounter someone who has made a threat to me in the halls of Parliament. That current reality of access impacts my ability to perform my functions as a member of Parliament.
Mr. Smith is an accredited member of the parliamentary press gallery, and the gallery has its own policies and its own responsibilities. The press gallery's own website says the following regarding “Generally Accepted Journalistic Principles and Practices”:
Misuse of this access by any one member or member organization could erode the professional relationship that exists between the institution of Parliament and the Parliamentary Press Gallery, leading to negative consequences for the ability of members to perform their work.
As a result, accreditation is a privilege—not a right.
Madam Speaker, you have a responsibility to protect the rights of members, and I have no doubt that you will discharge that responsibility promptly and properly.
The press gallery also has responsibilities, and I would like to see the gallery take swift action to revoke Mr. Smith's privileges. This is an opportunity for the gallery to show that they do take seriously the issue of threats made against public officials. At the very least, Mr. Smith's privileges should be immediately suspended pending further review. I do not want to see a person who has made threats against me in the gallery anytime today or in the future.
I note that today, Mr. Smith is doubling down on his comments and accusing those who raise concerns about this behaviour of so-called rage farming. He has made it clear that he does not see his behaviour as wrong and that he will not relent.
I hope that all members of the House, along with the many principled and thoughtful members of the press, will be able to stand together in denouncing these kinds of threats and in defending our democracy and the security of public officials from these kinds of statements.
While in this case it is my privileges that have been violated, I know that politicians and journalists receive these kinds of threats in other contexts. This case is fairly unique because of the prominence and position of the person making the comments. When people like Mr. Smith make comments like this, it gives other people a feeling of licence to behave in the same way. Under these circumstances, and for the good of all members, the press gallery and the House must take a clear stand.
Madam Speaker, if you find this to be a prima facie question of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.
1106 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, respectfully to my hon. friend, there seems to be a bit of a confused sense of who is responsible for what. He says the federal government does not impact the price of gas or groceries and does not prepare cakes; it is not the one making and setting the price for this. This seems to ignore the fact that the federal government is responsible for fiscal policies and, indirectly, for monetary policy that clearly shapes the price of goods.
Let us talk about a more direct case of responsibility, that is, the price of gas. The government has what the finance minister calls the carbon pricing scheme, or what we call the carbon tax scheme, perhaps. She has said, and it has been said by other members, that this exists to raise the price of gas. That is the whole logic behind those who defend this policy. They say that we need to raise the price of gas because, allegedly, that is going to be good for the environment. However, the government could make a simple choice and not raise taxes on gas.
Will the member acknowledge that the price of gas, if nothing else, is actually something the government has a significant impact on and support our proposal to have no new taxes?
216 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question for the government member who just spoke. The government talks often about how much money it is giving to people, saying that it is going to give them more money here and more money there.
Does the government appreciate that it does not generate its own money? The money it gives away, it takes from either present people or from future generations. In fact, the government is doing that now with its planned scheduled tax increases on January 1 and April 1 of next year.
First, does the government acknowledge that any money it spends has to come from citizens or future generations? Second, does the member agree that now is not the time to be raising taxes?
125 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/22/22 6:19:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to be able to resume the remarks I was making previously on this bill to create Hindu heritage month, a bill recognizing the immense contributions of the Hindu community to Canada's national life in so many different areas.
The last time this motion came up, I was also speaking about the way we have moved from using heritage months to recognize ethnocultural communities to now increasingly recognizing religious communities as well. I think these acts of recognition for faith communities are of some particular importance. For many people faith is more fundamental than ethnocultural identity. It also has a different kind of substance and depth.
It is relatively easy for us to go through the process of experiencing the food, dress and language of another ethnocultural group, but it is much harder to try to really understand the internal logic and view of the good life advanced by another religion on its own terms, but in a pluralistic society that understanding is very important. Of course, understanding does not mean agreeing. Understanding and respect can be very consistent with also firmly asserting the truth of one's own convictions, but living out a healthy pluralism is about still seeking to draw from the insights of particular religious traditions other than one's own, recognizing that our understanding of the human condition and of the world around us is well served by a willingness to draw ideas and insights from different religious traditions.
I believe that pluralism is not just a feature of a political system, but it is a virtue to be developed by individuals. To develop the virtue of pluralism is to seek to understand other ideas on their own terms and to be able to think about the internal logic of the other without losing one's own grounding in one's own tradition. It is to cultivate the ability to step into the intellectual space offered by another religious tradition, while still being fully able to see its potential flaws and step out of it. In this sense, I am defining pluralism as an intellectual virtue, a quality of the mind that citizens and leaders should seek to develop.
Virtues are defined by Alasdair MacIntyre as qualities of character that allow an individual to achieve good internal practices and sustain us in the relevant quest for the good. The good practice of pluralism requires intellectual curiosity and substantive open-mindedness on the part of individuals to the insights of religion and of different religions. This goes beyond mere acts of recognition and seeks to understand and learn from the ideas of others.
One can and should develop this virtue while still retaining a sense of one's own grounding. Pluralism is different from relativism. Relativism denies that things can be true and false. However, pluralism is to emphasize that I can retain the sense that there are objective points of true and false, while still being able to mentally put on the thinking of another tradition long enough to really understand it and to take it seriously, and that I can learn from insights of that tradition or way of thinking.
I have tried to develop this kind of understanding of Hinduism. For those of us from Abrahamic religious traditions, Hinduism as a religion can be particularly difficult to understand. This is because the typically Abrahamic way of thinking about religion is very different from the Hindu tradition. The different communities really mean something substantively different even when they use the term “religion”.
The Abrahamic faiths, particularly Judaism, Christianity and Islam, are rooted in the concept of a single all-powerful God who provides direct and decisive revelation, who outlines the moral framework for us to live by through that revelation and who expects to alone be the object of worship. These faith systems do build on past revelations, with Christianity seeing itself as building on Judaism and Islam seeing itself as building on both, but they are also senses in which these are revolutionary ideas, in that they call for a decisive separation from other religious practices. All the Abrahamic traditions emphasize some concept of one God, one truth, leading to one right path.
For the practitioners of the Abrahamic faiths, religious doctrines that are absolute in nature can coexist with political doctrines that are pluralistic; that is, we do believe in the existence of one right path and we also believe in the freedom of individuals to find it on their own. Religious freedom in the Christian tradition emphasizes that human free choice and freedom to pursue God without state interference is a consequence of the absolute belief in created human dignity.
Hinduism is different from the Abrahamic faiths in that it has the concept of plurality directly within it theologically. An expansive open-ended pluralism is not just defended as a valuable feature for political communities. It actually exists right within the religious community of Hindu believers. We can find monotheists and polytheists and people with very different ideas about moral questions and aspects of religious practice who all identify as Hindus.
Hinduism is not defined by a belief in a particular god or gods and it is not defined by a creed. Hinduism is a kind of family of spiritual practices and religious ways of life. As it has developed into its modern form, it has continued to grow and adapt as an organic thing, preserving the past while adding to it. This is most notable in how the early Vedic traditions of Hinduism evolved with the development of the Upanishads, introducing monotheism into Hinduism as a kind of superstructure over top of but also including the older polytheism.
Hinduism finds ways of preserving aspects of the old while developing the new. Hinduism has also developed a unique kind of pluralism within itself that willingly incorporates ideas from other religions. The best summary of a religious dialogue between Hindus and members of Abrahamic faiths is this apparent exchange between the founders of India and Pakistan. Mahatma Gandhi once said, “I am a Hindu, a Muslim, a Christian, a Parsi, a Jew.” To this, Jinnah replied, “Only a Hindu could say that.”
In conclusion, we are all blessed to live in a country where we can practise our faith, share our traditions and learn from each other. Our Canadian pluralism ought not be taken for granted, as we are seeing threats to religious freedom on multiple fronts. From violent extremists who vandalize temples, mosques, churches and synagogues to make people feel unsafe in their religious practice, to governments that deny people's ability to practise their faith openly in the name of so-called secularism and governments that fail to respect conscience and the charitable status of faith-based organizations, we see that threats to religious freedom are growing in Canada. I am committed to fighting in this place to defend pluralism and religious freedom for as long as I am here.
Once again, I thank the Hindu community for its significant contributions to this great nation.
1188 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
