44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 5, 2024 11:00AM
- Feb/5/24 3:52:05 p.m.
- Watch
As the hon. member knows, the Chair has made a ruling on what is permissible for presenting petitions. I will ask the hon. member to withdraw those comments and give a brief summary of the petition.
36 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/5/24 3:52:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw them and apologize. I draw the attention of the House to a remark I made earlier in the statement, which is that it is my first petition. I am learning the rules as we go.
I want to thank the constituents of Winnipeg South Centre who have put this petition forward. I represent one of the largest Ukrainian populations in Canada and am grateful they have chosen, alongside other members of my community, to engage in the democratic process through me by allowing me the opportunity to put the petition forward.
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my constituents of Etobicoke Centre to present a petition concerning Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. It was signed by over 60 of my constituents just last week. They are petitioning Parliament, including MPs on all sides, to support the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement and pass it swiftly.
The petitioners note that President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian Canadian Congress have called on the Parliament of Canada to swiftly adopt the legislation.
They note that the misinformation regarding Canada's carbon pricing scheme's having an effect on the agreement has been widely debunked. They ask all parliamentarians to affirm their unwavering support for Ukraine by swiftly passing Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement.
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/5/24 3:53:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition signed by residents of Winnipeg North, who are calling on all members of Parliament of all political parties to support the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement.
It is a very timely petition, and it is a pleasure for me table it.
47 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/5/24 3:54:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the next petition today comes from students and the community of St. Thomas More Catholic School in my riding of Kingston.
The petitioners call upon the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to prioritize funding a national school food program for budget 2024, with implementation in schools by the fall of 2024.
67 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/5/24 3:54:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.
The first petition is on behalf of members of my community who are calling the attention of the government to the warning by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that rising temperatures over the next two decades will bring widespread devastation and extreme weather, and that the climate crisis requires a drastic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to limit global warming to 1.5°C.
Therefore, they call upon the Government of Canada to move forward immediately with bold emissions caps for the oil and gas sector that are comprehensive in scope and realistic in achieving the necessary targets Canada has set for a reduction in emissions by 2030.
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/5/24 3:55:30 p.m.
- Watch
The petitioners specifically reference data that says that one in four children in Canada lives in food-insecure households, that Canada is the only G7 country without a national school food program, and that school food programs are recognized around the world as essential to the health, well-being and education of students. Over 388 million children in at least 161 countries receive free or subsidized meals at school.
69 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, I am pleased to rise on behalf of Nunavut with respect to petition no. 12799012. This is similar to petitions already tabled by other MPs, but I wanted to table it because 51 Nunavut residents signed the petition, specifically people from Iqaluit and Rankin Inlet, who deserve the same answer as others who might be seeking the same thing.
The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to support Bill C-310 and to enact amendments to subsections 118.06(2) and 118.07(2) of the Income Tax Act in order to increase the amount of the tax credit for volunteer firefighting and search and rescue volunteer services from $3,000 to $10,000.
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/5/24 3:57:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition from over 3,500 people concerned about the impact of rodent glue traps, which violate the principles of humane treatment and animal welfare. Oftentimes birds, bats and even pets are caught in these traps, undergoing immense suffering.
The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to implement an immediate ban on rodent glue board traps across Canada due to their inherent animal cruelty and environmental impact.
76 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/5/24 3:57:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a second petition, signed by over 2,000 people concerned about the impact of fireworks in Canada. The petitioners note the impact on animals, including pets, as well as on people who have post-traumatic stress disorder. They also note that there is an environmental impact and that the Government of Canada is responsible for air quality.
The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to support the replacement of fireworks with light displays.
79 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/5/24 3:58:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present today.
The first petition calls on the government to butt out of decisions that should be made by provinces and parents. The petition is in support of the rights of parents to have a role in their children's lives without the interference of the state. It notes that in the vast majority of cases, parents care about the well-being of their children and love them much more than any state-run institution does.
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, my second petition is in support of a private member's bill, Bill C-257, that would add political belief and activity as prohibited grounds of discrimination to the Canadian Human Rights Act. There are prohibitions on discrimination of various kinds in federal jurisdiction, but no such prohibition on discrimination on the basis of political belief or activity. The petitioners note that it is a fundamental Canadian right to be politically active and vocal, and also that protecting this right benefits our democracy and leads to great vitality in our public debates.
The petitioners want the House to support Bill C-257.
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/5/24 3:59:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my final petition denounces the government's cuts to women's shelters. It notes that at a time when the government is wasting so much money in other areas, it has made a terrible cut to women's shelters. The petitioners ask the government to restore the funding.
50 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/5/24 3:59:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/5/24 3:59:48 p.m.
- Watch
Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/5/24 4:00:02 p.m.
- Watch
I wish to inform the House that I have notice of a request for an emergency debate.
I invite the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot to make a short statement.
32 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/5/24 4:00:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 52, I request an emergency debate on the impact on the forest industry and its workers, but also on consumers, of the recent decision by the U.S. government to raise anti-dumping and countervailing duties on Canadian softwood lumber.
On Thursday, February 1, 2024, the U.S. Department of Commerce announced plans to substantially increase the countervailing and anti-dumping duties it levies on Canadian softwood lumber. If the United States government maintains its preliminary assessment, the duties would almost double from 8.05% to 13.86% starting in August.
The software lumber dispute is a bad serial and the episodes have dragged on for decades. As their cash is being siphoned off by the United States, our forestry companies find themselves unable to modernize and slowly decline. The U.S. is causing considerable harm to our resource-rich regions, where hundreds of communities rely on the forest.
Despite losing all its cases before the various trade dispute settlement bodies, the U.S. continues to maintain hostilities. The traditional approach, where the government issues a press release to express disappointment and challenges U.S. decisions before trade tribunals, is not working because the U.S. is acting in bad faith on this issue. This is particularly true in Quebec, where stumpage rights are awarded in open auctions using a mechanism quite similar to what our neighbours do south of the border.
An emergency debate in which parliamentarians would have the opportunity to express their support for the affected populations and, above all, to propose innovative solutions, could make an essential contribution and allow us to resolve the impasse to which we were led by the U.S. government's stubbornness. The current context and the scale of the announced tariff increase call for an urgent debate; hence my request for such a debate, which I hope the Chair will convene at the earliest opportunity.
324 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/5/24 4:02:20 p.m.
- Watch
I thank the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for his remarks, but I do not find that the request meets the requirements of the Standing Orders.
28 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/5/24 4:03:15 p.m.
- Watch
In his intervention, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan referenced several events that had occurred during meeting no. 80 of the committee, which began on October 30, 2023. While the meeting was suspended on several occasions, it adjourned only on December 13, 2023.
The first concern raised by the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan was in relation to events surrounding the member for Peace River—Westlock who had sought to participate in the proceedings, though he is not a member of the committee. Secondly, he indicated that instead of giving him back the floor after giving a ruling, the chair of the committee had recognized another member to speak even though he was the one who had the floor prior to the Chair’s ruling.
The member argued that both incidents had limited debate on the matter before the committee. Therefore, in his view, the chair of the committee violated Standing Order 116(2) and the Speaker should order that all subsequent proceedings to this be nullified.
The Standing Order states:
(a) Unless a time limit has been adopted by the committee or by the House, the Chair of a standing, special or legislative committee may not bring a debate to an end while there are members present who still wish to participate. A decision of the Chair in this regard may not be subject to an appeal to the committee.
(b) A violation of paragraph (a) of this section may be brought to the attention of the Speaker by any Member and the Speaker shall have the power to rule on the matter. If, in the opinion of the Speaker, such a violation has occurred, the Speaker may order that all subsequent proceedings in relation to the said violation be nullified.
The first element I would like to address relates to process. The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan elected to raise his concerns through a question of privilege, but he was in fact raising a point of order, in that he was asking the Chair to enforce a specific standing order. As such, I can already determine that it is not, in fact, a prima facie case of privilege.
Turning to the points raised by the member, I will attempt to deal with them separately, beginning with the matter that relates to the Chair’s role in applying the provisions of Standing Order 116(2).
In a ruling from April 1, 2019, Speaker Regan explained the purpose of Standing Order 116(2), at page 26496 of the Debates, stating:
Essentially, it seems to the Chair that this new rule is intended to safeguard debate in committee from a procedural hijacking, so to speak, that would permanently end debate on a motion.
To answer whether the matter now before the House is one which Standing Order 116(2) intended to address, the Chair has scrutinized the blues from the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources.
It is the Chair’s understanding that when the matter was raised in the House, the debate on the motion the member wished to speak to was still ongoing and that he did subsequently participate in debate on the same motion. Given that debate on the motion had not yet concluded when the member brought the issue forward and that members could still participate, the Chair can only conclude that no violation of the Standing Order has occurred.
As for the member’s contention that the member for Peace River—Westlock was not allowed to speak during the proceedings, I would draw the attention of all members to Standing Order 119, which reads:
Any member of the House who is not a member of a standing, special or legislative committee, may, unless the House or the committee concerned otherwise orders, take part in the public proceedings of the committee, but may not vote or move any motion, nor be part of any quorum.
Members need not be substituted to participate in the proceedings of a committee, unless the committee has adopted a motion to limit participation as is its right. I understand from the review of the situation that the committee chair’s decision was challenged and was sustained by the majority in this instance. The Chair can therefore confirm that this element does not relate to the conditions outlined in Standing Order 116(2) under which the Speaker would normally intervene.
As outlined by former Speakers on many occasions, the Speaker's authority does not normally extend into committee matters, unless the committee sees fit to report the matter to the House. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at pages 152 and 153 states:
Speakers have consistently ruled that, except in the most extreme situations, they will hear questions of privilege arising from committee proceedings only upon presentation of a report from the committee which deals directly with the matter and not as a question of privilege raised by an individual Member.
On March 23, 2015, one of my predecessors added, at page 12,180 of the Debates:
This is not to suggest that the chair is left without any discretion to intervene in committee matters but, rather, it acknowledges that such intervention is exceedingly rare and justifiable only in highly exceptional procedural as opposed to political circumstances.
Despite the concerns raised by the member, in the absence of a report from the committee on these issues, it is not for the Speaker to intervene in this matter as it remains within the committee’s authority to manage.
I thank all members for their attention.
944 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/5/24 4:03:15 p.m.
- Watch
The Chair wishes to rule on a question of privilege.
This is about a question of privilege raised on December 4, 2023, by the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan concerning proceedings in the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and the application of Standing Order 116(2).
48 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
