SoVote

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/5/23 4:58:15 p.m.
Watch

I heard it and I did not interrupt it. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. Mr. Mark Gerretsen: It was Corey. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): We do not refer to colleagues by name in the chamber. Could the hon. member retract, please?

49 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Dec/5/23 4:58:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, thank you for validating my claim, because it did occur. The reality is that—

17 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/5/23 4:58:51 p.m.
Watch

I asked the hon. member to retract the mentioning of the name of the person, please.

16 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Dec/5/23 4:58:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, another member asked who it was, and I said the person's name. I should not have done that and I apologize. Back to the substance, what I was trying to say was that— Mr. Corey Tochor: He did not retract, though. Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Madam Speaker, the exact same member is still heckling me.

58 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/5/23 4:59:11 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member apologized, which, in my view, means that he retracts what he said, because he apologized for saying it. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

29 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Dec/5/23 4:59:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as I said, when a member stands up during questions during this debate and make claims that 150 members of his caucus already feel a certain way, it makes me wonder what the purpose is in even sending the matter to committee if the outcome has already been predetermined, at least by one particular group. However, it does not diminish the fact that the committee can still do very good work on the matter. I think the committee could actually use this as an opportunity not just to figure out the proper recourse in terms of what should be done now about what has occurred and what the proper remedy is, but also to set a precedent and certain rules, and to establish a best practice to ensure that something like this does not happen again. I do not know the context for why the Speaker chose to do this, nor will I try to guess as to what it was, but I will say that the Speaker has stood and apologized; he has recognized that it was not the best course of action. He has nonetheless done that, which is I why I think it is extremely important that we accept it but still determine whether there are other courses of action that need to be taken. There is also an amendment on the motion that came forward. It was odd, because the motion was moved, and then the second speaker from the same party put forward an amendment. I do not know why they did not just include it in the full motion. It was: That the motion be amended by adding the following: “provided that the committee: (a) meets within 24 hours of receiving this referral order to study the matter; (b) prioritizes this matter over all other business; (c) has first priority in using the resources of the house for committee meetings, subject to special orders adopted on Monday, May 16, 2022, and Monday, December 4, 2023; and (d) is tasked with reporting to the house no later than Thursday, December 14, 2023.” The original motion set the context for the work that needed to be done and for how important it was, and then it appears as though the amendment that came forward just moments later got very prescriptive in terms of how to deal with the issue. I would have thought that this would all have come together. It certainly does not appear to be an amendment that was proposed as a result of having listened to the debate. From how it was tabled, I perceive it to be something that was well planned in advanced. My sense is that it is probably to try to pressure political parties one way or the other with respect to potentially voting against one part but not the other. Maybe, tactically speaking, it is a good move. However, that certainly does not support the notion that has been widely spread around the House during discussion, which is that this should be a non-partisan issue. If my assumptions are correct, that would suggest that there is a partisan nature to the manner in which the amendment has been tabled, and obviously I would have a concern about that. However, I do want to see the matter sent to committee. I think it is extremely important that we have a resolution, that we set some parameters for how Speakers are expected to engage in the future, and that we have something reported back to the House that we can then debate and determine how to move forward with. I will return to what I said when I began, which was about the importance of the impartiality of the Speaker. As many members of the House know, with a good Speaker, yourself included, Madam Speaker, after a while, people do not look at them as being associated with a political party; they start to just respect the fact that the Speaker is non-partisan, However, we do come from a partisan nature; the vast majority of us who are elected to the House are elected under a political banner. Nonetheless, it is really important that once somebody is elected into that position, they ensure that they do it with utmost impartiality in order to avoid a situation that can be seen as their favouring one side or another. I will be the first to admit that, during my time here, there have been times when I have agreed wholeheartedly with what Speakers have said, and that there have been times I have not agreed with them. During the time I have been here, all the Speakers who have sat in the chair have been of the political party I am associated with, and sometimes I do not agree with them and am frustrated by a particular ruling they make. There is an appropriate way to handle this in terms of when the Speaker is doing their very important work of being impartial. They receive advice from the Clerk's table. I remember once asking Peter Milliken how he used to deal with situations where he would have to rule on something like that. He told me that he took the advice from the clerks around the table, and then at the end of the day it was his decision as to how he would proceed. Having that kind of authority is extremely important, and that is why we need to ensure that impartiality continues. I will conclude by saying that I hope the matter goes to the procedure and House affairs committee as soon as possible so we can deal with it there and report back to the House.

954 words

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

Dec/5/23 5:06:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate what the member has indicated in his support, in essence, for the motion. That is a positive thing. When I spoke earlier, I talked about the amendment and said that I had reservations about putting in a time limit. I would not want members to think that I do not recognize the urgency of the matter. I look to my colleague to provide his thoughts on whether, at the end of the day, it would be nice to see PROC deal with the matter as quickly as possible and also to get a report back also as quickly as possible.

104 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Dec/5/23 5:07:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this is, to be honest, my concern over the matter. The amendment that the second Conservative speaker put forward basically dictates that the work be done by December 14, which is nine days from now. Any of us who have been on committees know the work that goes into finding witnesses, bringing them before committee, listening to the witnesses, making sure they are available to attend, and having the resources, although I do recognize they have indicated the resources are extremely important. I guess that if one comes from a perspective of already knowing what one believes the outcome should be, then one may as well just ask the committee to report back tomorrow, because one already knows what the outcome will be. I genuinely feel as though we need to have the proper time to be able to do this. I do not think anybody who sits on a committee of Parliament would argue with the view that nine days just is not enough time to properly do due diligence. We will see how Parliament ends up ultimately deciding on whether we, as a collective, think that nine days is enough.

194 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Dec/5/23 5:08:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on the member's comments, and I made reference to this in questions and answers when I had the opportunity. PROC has demonstrated that it has wonderful membership, and to give a vote of confidence to the PROC committee is in essence what the motion itself does, to say very clearly that it is PROC that would come up with the remedy. The biggest concern I had was from the member who moved the amendment, who said at the end of his speech that the only outcome should be asking for the Speaker's resignation because he had lost the trust of the members of the House. If members make that sort of comment here, it seems to me they are in essence making a decision potentially as a caucus. When it goes to the PROC committee, we do not want to see that sort of partisanship against PROC's doing what it needs to do, which is to make sure it is very thorough on its report. Could the member provide his thoughts on that?

183 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Dec/5/23 5:09:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my Conservative colleague who tabled the amendment that the parliamentary secretary references was heckling across the way, “I am open and transparent.” I am not going to disagree with him on that. He certainly is. He is very transparent. All I would ask is this: What is the point of the motion? Why is he even bothering sending this to committee if the objectives in this are very open and transparent, which is what he stated, that there is no possible outcome other than the one the member indicated? This lends itself to the member from Burnaby, who talked about this, and basically anybody who has stood up to talk to this and talks about impartiality and letting the committee do its work. Yes, let the committee do its work. I know there are lots of prosecutors in this room. Have they ever had a judge who sits down and says that they already know the defendant is guilty, but to let them hear the case? Come on. That is what we are getting from the Conservatives. I hope we can genuinely see beyond that; I hope there is an opportunity here to really look into this at committee.

203 words

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP)

Dec/5/23 5:11:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is important for all of us to remember that this current issue does arise in a context. The context is that we just had the rather disturbing occurrence of having seen a Speaker resign because of a serious lapse of judgment. I think it is fair to say that the confidence of the House and of the Canadian public was tested and shaken. Now we find ourselves with another issue of a Speaker whose judgment is being called into question. My question to my hon. colleague is twofold. First, could he give us his thoughts on how the context of just having lost a Speaker might bear on how we proceed moving forward? Second, there is not only an issue of impartiality but also perhaps an issue of a misuse of House resources for partisan purposes. Does the member have any thoughts on this aspect?

148 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Dec/5/23 5:12:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will address the second part first. What the member is raising is exactly why this needs to go to PROC, so the committee can look at that. If I try to prejudge that now and say what I think the outcome is, as a member of that committee, I am showing that I cannot be impartial when I sit and listen to the evidence that comes. Therefore, I look forward to doing that. In terms of how this plays into what happened previously this fall with the Speaker, it is certainly unfortunate that we find ourselves in this position. However, the two issues can be treated in isolation. I do not think they are connected in any way other than the fact that it is the Speaker of the House of Commons who is the subject of both. Having said that, I certainly regret and find it troubling that we are here once again, but I do also respect the fact that the— An hon. member: Oh, oh! Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Madam Speaker, I am getting heckled again. I respect that—

186 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/5/23 5:13:28 p.m.
Watch

I interrupt the hon. member because it is true. The hon. member for Saskatoon—University, who is a former speaker himself, should know better than to keep interrupting members who are speaking. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

41 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Dec/5/23 5:13:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as political as I am, unlike that member and the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, who were previously speakers and had to execute this impartiality, I have never been put in that position. I find it very interesting how some of the most hyperpartisan people from the Conservatives also happen to be former speakers. In any event, there is an opportunity here for the committee to do its work. I look forward to doing that work at the committee and reporting back to the House.

88 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

Dec/5/23 5:14:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I certainly look forward to the procedure and House affairs committee's taking a serious look at this. I am interested to see what conclusions it will draw. We would be remiss in this debate if we did not call to the House's attention that the person who raised this issue initially is a former speaker. The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle has defied a lot of standing conventions about what former speakers do. Typically, speakers do not run for the leadership of a political party. Typically, they are not the House leader. Making the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle the chief spokesperson for the Conservatives in this regard has done a disservice to the issue. I would be happier to see the Conservatives pick some other capable person from their caucus to be the lead person on this criticism, because it is actually not appropriate for a former speaker to play such actively partisan roles. I do not think it reflects well on the office. When we talk about raising the spectre of partisanship around the Speaker's office, a poor way to make that point is to be a former speaker now acting in one of the chief partisan positions in the House for a caucus, such as House leader. Could the member offer some of his own reflections on the appropriateness of a former speaker being the lead attack dog on such an issue?

242 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Dec/5/23 5:15:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member answered his own question. I will say this: Before coming to the House, I was the mayor of Kingston, and I had the opportunity to come to Parliament, to the House of Commons, on a couple of occasions. I actually remember meeting the former speaker, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, and reflecting on how calm and non-partisan this particular individual was. Now, 10 years later, to be sitting here and for him to be one of the most partisan people in the House is truly eye-opening for me. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Mr. Mark Gerretsen: He is absolutely right. Madam Speaker, I will be the first to say that I am nothing like Peter Milliken, who was from Kingston and the Islands. He was a non-partisan Speaker. He did his role very well. He was elected under a Conservative minority government to be—

154 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/5/23 5:16:31 p.m.
Watch

We will leave it at that. The time is up. Is the House ready for the question? Some hon. members: Question. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): The question is as follows. May I dispense? Some hon. members: No. [Chair read text of motion to House] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): If a member participating in person wishes that the amendment be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

103 words

Mr. Gerald Soroka

Dec/5/23 5:17:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like a recorded division, please.

9 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/5/23 5:17:57 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, December 6, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

23 words

Ms. Michelle Ferreri (Peterborough—Kawartha, CPC)

Dec/5/23 5:18:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is always a true honour to stand in the House of Commons to speak on behalf of the best community in Canada, Peterborough—Kawartha. After eight years of a Prime Minister who has recklessly spent taxpayer money, we have a cost of living crisis. If the economy does not work, then nothing works. Charities and social programs suffer, and everything we need to take care of our most vulnerable is no longer available. Why are there tent cities across this country? Why are full-time employed nurses living in their cars? Why are seniors forced back to work? Why do we have the highest rate of food bank usage in history? Why are Canadians getting poorer? Why do we have the lowest GDP per capita growth rate since the Great Depression? It is because we have a Prime Minister who does not care about monetary policy. Those are his words, not mine. This is basic Budgeting 101. Most kids can tell us that if we spend more money than we make, we are going to have a major problem. That is exactly what the Prime Minister has done. He did not understand what would happen if he borrowed gobs of money. He was warned many times, but, as we have seen over and over again, the Prime Minister refuses to listen to the people. He doubles down on policy that creates chaos and suffering. The Prime Minister promised everyone that interest rates would stay low for a long time. Who remembers the exchange on CTV in 2020 with the Prime Minister? CTV's Glen McGregor said, “Future governments are going to have to carry that debt. The servicing costs on that are going to be very high.” The Prime Minister replied, “Sorry?” Glen McGregor responded, “The servicing cost on that debt that you are going to have to carry, that you're adding to right now. Right?” The Prime Minister said, “Interest rates are at historic lows, Glen.” Three years later, we are in a very serious situation. The current housing minister is also on record telling Canadians that interest rates will stay low for a long time and not to worry. Surprise, just as Conservatives predicted, they did not; now we have chaos and suffering. In order to understand how we got here, we need to understand why. What is the motivation of the Liberal-NDP government? It believes that government knows best and that it will take care of the people, that the people are not capable. Let us take the Liberals' favourite talking point, for example: child care. This is a classic example of a program that has created more losers than winners. The Liberals drove up inflation by overspending and borrowing gobs of money, which drove up the cost of living. What happened? That promised money to make child care more affordable became less valuable, because this is the cycle of overspending. Child care centres now need more and more money, because money is worth less. It is a vicious cycle, and we will never get out of debt. We will go further and further into debt. Do members know that, right now, we are spending more on servicing our debt than we are on health care transfers in this country? It is wild that a government in charge of fiscal responsibility has not seen what it has been doing. It does not understand that when one spends more than one makes, one accrues debt. The government does not have money. It has Canadian taxpayers' money, and it can only make money by taxing people. That is what we have seen in this country. People's paycheques have decreased over and over again. Because I am the critic for families, children and social development, I want to read an open letter by ADCO, which is the Association of Day Care Operators of Ontario. It really explains the ideology behind the government and why it is so important to understand this. The letter says, “The framers of the program,” referring to the $10-a-day child care, “seem to have a strong preference for building a government-run child care system, even if it means parents with young children have to work more hours so that they can pay higher taxes to cover the costs. The assumption seems to be that all children are better off in government-managed institutionalized care and that all parents can and should be employed full-time.” This out-of-control spending has caused chaos in every sector of our country. As I have said, when the economy does not work, nothing works. However, we have a finance minister and Prime Minister who continually gaslight Canadians and tell them that they have never had it so good. Canadians are not stupid, but they are miserable. I want to read some messages that have come through to me: Hi, Michelle...I'm a single mom of a 19 YO in college and a 15 YO in high school with no child support. I'm paying almost $1600 rent plus approx $1000 for utilities, car payment and insurances for a 3 bedroom townhouse in the “ghetto of Burlington”. As tenants move out, they are gutting the units, adding central air, stainless appliances and raising rents to over $2500. I work in healthcare and live basically cheque to cheque. I only buy groceries that are on sale or in the reduced bin. Thankfully I was gifted a large freezer and buy fresh items on sale and am able to freeze. I make a decent wage. I do not know how others do it making less than I do. Something needs to be done. There is also this one: We bought our house six years ago and we have a variable mortgage, so we are already feeling the effects of the higher interest rates. Over the last year and a half, our mortgage has gone from $3400 a month to $5000. My husband and I both work full-time and we have two young kids. We have had to rent our basement in order to afford our mortgage increase. If even one single month goes by that we don't get the rent income, we will not make our mortgage. If our mortgage continues to rise, even with the rent income, we won't make our mortgage. It is extremely scary. Every time the interest rate rises, I wait for the letter in the mail to tell me how much higher my mortgage is going to be. It's terrifying and quite literally taking away from the quality of life that I can offer to my children. That is the message I cannot say loud enough in this House: Our children are feeling the consequences of this. I recently gave a talk about basic politics to grade 5 students. They are 10 years old. We did a mock House of Commons. It was very fun to get these kids engaged in politics. I said, “Okay, we get to decide what issue you guys want to debate. We will take a vote and do the majority.” Six kids raised their hand. Do members know what the number one issue was for every one of them? It was that everything is too pricey. They said their parents cannot afford gas, cannot afford food and cannot afford the mortgage. This is the burden we put on our children when we do not put fiscal responsibility first and when we do not care about monetary policy. That is exactly what the Liberal Prime Minister has done, and it is hurting our most vulnerable. We can read any headline. Charities cannot make it happen anymore. Today is International Volunteer Day, but people cannot find volunteers because they cannot afford the gas to drive to volunteer. That is the reality of what we are living in this country. We have put forth lots of solutions. I will be brief in what the solutions are, but the real solution has to come down to the fact that the government cannot tax the farmer who makes the food. Farmer Brown from Ontario phoned me this week. He said that he wanted me to tell the Prime Minister that the carbon tax will make everything cost more, that everything must go up in price. Whatever they spend to make the product, they have to get back when they sell it. Whatever amount the carbon tax is increased by, the price will have to go up that amount. They have to get that money back, and the only way to do that is to raise prices. Farmer Brown gets it. Why does the Prime Minister not get it? We are long overdue for common sense, and Conservatives will bring it.

1484 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 262