44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 8, 2024 02:00PM
- May/8/24 4:40:32 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we are talking about budget 2024 and the budget implementation act. In the budget report, the Liberal government makes a claim that the GDP, the gross domestic product of our economy, is set to grow by 3.5% this year. GDP is a good measurement because it talks about the health of the economy, and admittedly, a 3.5% growth is not bad, if that is indeed what it is going to be, but members are not to forget that this is just a forecast. However, factoring in unprecedented population growth in Canada, and we are 3.5 million people more now than we were in 2019, the statistics look rather anemic.
David Williams, vice-president of policy at Business Council of British Columbia, notes that annual GDP per person in the province of British Columbia is actually shrinking. Per person GDP has been decreasing steadily under the Prime Minister. The calculations have been done by economists, and it works out to about $4,200 per person. Canadians are not getting richer, despite the optimistic spin the Liberals and the finance minister are putting on what is really an anemic economic performance.
Budget 2024 also announces once again, just as the Liberals have done in every budget since I was elected five years ago, that their economic policies will improve Canada's productivity numbers. Our poor productivity metrics is a well-known problem, which has been admitted to by our current Minister of Finance.
It works out to the following: For every $100 an American worker produces, their Canadian counterpart pumps about $72 into our economy, so only 72% is efficient. That does not mean Canadians are not working as hard as Americans. We are probably working as hard or harder than our American counterparts, but we do not have the tools, the technology or the investment to grow the economy. As America's productivity improves, Canada's is lagging due to mismanagement and bad leadership by the Prime Minister.
His former minister of finance, Bill Morneau, in a book he published shortly after he resigned from his position as the finance minister, said that he tried try to get his boss, the Prime Minister, to focus on the problems with Canada's lagging productivity, but the Prime Minister showed little interest. He said that the Prime Minister was more focused on wealth redistribution rather than on wealth growth, looking at the things that grow the economy, such as encouraging private investment in innovation and resource development, making strategic tax cuts and deregulation, getting new Canadians working sooner and developing strategies for scaling up our technology sector so that job growth happens here in Canada rather than south of the border in Silicon Valley, Boston or Texas.
I would add to this as well that a strategy for growing our productivity is freeing up interprovincial trade. Economists say that would add substantially to our productivity. What are we getting instead are tax increases on Canadian investors, which is scaring people away so their investment dollars might just go somewhere else.
I pointed out that the current Minister of Finance has also commented on this, and she has recently said that economic growth, business investments and productivity are an urgent challenge for Canada, if not the most important challenge for Canada. It sounds like the Minister of Finance understands that this is a challenge for Canada, as did the former minister of finance, but in Canada, our Prime Minister admits he does not spend a lot of time paying attention to these sorts of things, such as monetary policy or the impact his fiscal policy might have on inflation and interest rates.
Leadership sets the tone. What we have here again is lots of promises. The Liberals will say, “Sunny ways are just around the corner”, and that we should just believe them this time. As always, our Prime Minister gets an A for announcements and an F on delivery.
In talking about the budget, I just want to touch on inflation, interest rates and debt servicing. Under the misguidance of the current Prime Minister, Canada's inflation hit an all-time high. The Bank of Canada had to respond with higher interest rates, which are having a negative impact on citizens, on homeowners and on businesses, as well as on the national economy. With a debt of over a trillion dollars now, interest rate payments are over $50 billion a year, which is more money than Canada transfers to provinces for health care.
I just want to summarize with this: Struggling families cannot afford higher taxes and more inflationary spending that drives up the cost of everything and keeps interest rates high. There used to be an understanding here in Canada, an unwritten social contract saying that if one worked hard, got an education or on-the-job training, and then got a good job and a powerful paycheque, that one could save up to buy a house. One could buy the house, maybe pay the mortgage off in 25 years, or if one made a few extra payments early on, in 20 years, and then save up for one's retirement. It was simple but secure. Under the Liberal government, that dream is all but dead. To hear the Liberals speak, sunny ways are just around the corner. The Liberals have been around for nine years, promising that “this time you can believe us”, but they are not delivering.
It is time for the Conservative Party to take over the governing side of the House to get Canada's economy back on track. It is time to turn the hurt that the Liberals have caused into the hope Canadians desperately need.
958 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 4:47:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I request that the ordinary hour of daily adjournment of the next sitting be 12 a.m., pursuant to order made Wednesday, February 28.
28 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 4:47:51 p.m.
- Watch
Pursuant to order made on Wednesday, February 28, the request is deemed adopted.
13 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 4:47:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the member across the way that, in fact, Canada is not broken and that we are on the right economic track. The Conservatives are very good at spreading misinformation. That should not be a surprise to anyone who follows the debate.
For example, the member said that we are scaring away investors. Last year, Canada was number one in the G7 countries for GDP, based on the population base in terms of direct foreign investment for the first three quarters. Worldwide, we were number three on a per capita basis.
How can the member or the Conservative Party across the way try to mislead Canadians by saying we are scaring away investment when we see that kind of reality staring us in the face?
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 4:49:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would point out that, with Canada's very high real estate costs, many of our investment dollars are going into real estate. One economist called it a “black hole” for investment. That money could otherwise be going to much more productive industrial use.
I believe this is what Canada is lacking: investment in technology and industries that are really going to grow our economy. That is one reason our productivity rate is so much below the rates of other competing nations and, in particular, the United States, our closest trading partner.
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 4:49:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member raising the cost of housing as a prime issue. He called it a “black hole”. I would say that, in some regards, the financialization of housing is parasitic, particularly when it comes to workers and working-class people.
The hon. member raised the way in which housing costs have ballooned out of control. I would put to colleagues the parable of the carpenter. Some 10 or 15 years ago, the average wage for a carpenter was about $42 an hour. The house that they would build would be about $300,000 to $350,000 for a home. If we fast-track to today, this present moment, the same carpenter, that master craftsperson, has an average salary of $49 an hour, but the homes they build are $700,000 to $800,000 for a home.
Does the hon. member agree in the economic theory stating that the surplus value of workers' wages is being redistributed to the ultrawealthy and captured by the banks, the financial class and the real estate class of this economy, which do not actually produce the wealth? It is the worker who produces the wealth in this regard.
200 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 4:51:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I agree that the average worker should be able to afford a home in this country. A well-paid carpenter should be able to afford an average house. It may not be the luxury house that he happens to be building or framing; however, every person in Canada who has gone to the effort of getting an education or on-the-job training, and who has a good job, should be able to fulfill the dream of owning a house.
As for the black hole, I just want to clarify that the cost of real estate is so high and there is so much money going into real estate. Sometimes the government states that our debt-to-GDP ratio is not that high, but if we factor in all the debt, private debt for mortgages, the numbers are quite astronomical, and that is a drag on our economy.
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 4:52:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we do not really have a lot of time in this place to dive into things like productivity. What increases Canada's productivity? Why do we lag in productivity? I have long found a line by Paul Krugman, a Nobel Prize-winning economist, pretty compelling. It is, “Productivity isn’t everything, but in the long run, it’s almost everything.”
I have heard answers to that over the years, and I know I do not have time now to get into the research of why that is. The notion that Canada and our economy is based on hewers of wood and drawers of water makes our productivity quite low. Countries with high productivity have value added in their exports. They do not ship out raw logs, raw bitumen or raw product. They have a lot of value added with worker contributions.
As our exports increasingly become low-value, unprocessed resources, productivity falls. However, I do not hear from many of my colleagues in this place, or anyone, decrying that we are shipping out raw bitumen or raw logs. That is what hurts productivity.
189 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 4:53:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for that very thoughtful comment. Indeed, shipping out raw materials is not as productive as actually further manufacturing products. However, I made a point in my speech about the importance of Canada developing its high-tech sector, to scale it up into international competitive standards. We are failing in that.
63 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the wonderful opportunity to be able to speak to Bill C-69, the budget implementation act, on behalf of the residents of Davenport, who I am so privileged to be able to represent.
I voiced support for Bill C-69 right off the bat for a very simple reason. As do many of us here, I want a better future for young Canadians, who are going through adulthood in a world that is plagued by crises ranging from war and climate change to global inequality and economic instability. Our federal government wants their hard work to be rewarded, as it has been for us.
We want them to see and believe that our country can work for them and for their future children. That is why budget 2024 is so important.
Budget 2024 is our plan to build a more resilient, affordable, inclusive Canada where every Canadian can afford to buy or rent their own home; where everyday bills are not a major source of stress; where corporations no longer take advantage of hard-working, middle-class families; and where everyone has a fair chance at a good middle-class life. Passing Bill C-69 is how we will arrive at that destination.
I am going to focus on three key sections of what is a very big budget implementation act, but I will say that the theme of the overall budget this year is fairness for every generation. While I might focus a lot on gen Z and the millennial generation, there is fairness for every generation in our budget and in our budget implementation act.
The first section I am going to talk about is with regard to cheaper Internet, home phone and cellphone plans. A major part of our plan is making life cost less.
Inflation has now been back within the Bank of Canada’s target range for three months in a row. However, more work is needed to help reduce the cost of living, including the cost of essential services in day-to-day life.
Last year, we made a commitment to reduce the cost of cellphone plans by 25%, as too many Canadians still pay far too much for their cellphones and Internet. That is why budget 2024 announces our intention to amend the Telecommunications Act, to better allow Canadians to renew or switch their Internet, home phone or cellphone plans.
Through these amendments, carriers would be prevented by the CRTC from charging Canadians extra fees to switch companies. In addition, they would be required to help customers identify new plans, including lower-cost plans that exist, at the end of a contract, and they would also have to provide a self-service option for customers to switch between or end their plans.
Together, these amendments would help more Canadians save money by getting fairer prices and paying fewer fees, no matter where they live. In addition, to ensure that Canadians can keep their expensive devices working for longer, budget 2024 announces that we will launch consultations this June to develop a right-to-repair framework with the goal of increasing product durability and repairability. On top of saving consumers money, this framework would aim to facilitate a more circular economy by reducing the number of products in landfills, a win-win if I have ever seen one.
The next thing I want to talk about is more affordable and modern banking. “Fairness for every generation” also means a banking system that is more flexible. We all know that banks charge a multitude of fees, from ATM fees to monthly service fees and non-sufficient funds fees, or NSF fees, which are charged when there is not enough money in a bank account to cover a cheque or pre-authorized transaction.
Budget 2024 states our intention to support Canadians who are struggling financially by introducing regulations that will cap these punitive fees at $10. These new regulations would also require banks to alert consumers when they are about to be charged an NSF fee, provide a grace period to deposit additional funds and restrict multiple fees for the same transaction and the number of fees that may be charged in a 72-hour period.
I know that a number of banks already do some of these things already. What we want to do is make this uniform right across all financial institutions in Canada.
Because more and more transactions happen online, our government is also working to modernize the services offered by Canadian banks to keep up with the needs of Canadians.
Budget 2024 announces that the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, or FCAC, is in negotiations with banks to secure enhanced agreements to offer modernized zero dollars per month and up to four dollars per month bank accounts that reflect today’s banking trends, including more transactions. This would especially help youth and students who are just opening their first bank accounts.
That is not all. Bill C-69 also includes legislative amendments to expand the mandate of the FCAC to supervise Canada’s consumer-driven banking framework. Budget 2024 proposes to provide $1 million to the FCAC to support preparation for its new responsibilities and to begin development of a consumer awareness campaign. It also proposes $4 million over three years to the Department of Finance to complete the policy work necessary to establish and maintain oversight over this framework, including a national security regime.
However, before we go any further, let me explain what this could mean for Canadians. Known to many as open banking, consumer-driven banking allows consumers and small businesses to safely transfer their financial data to service providers through a data-sharing channel known as an application programming interface, or API. This happens quite literally at the click of a button. Currently, an estimated nine million Canadians share their financial data by providing banks, credit unions and other providers with their confidential banking credentials. This process, known as screen scraping, is incredibly unsafe and puts both consumers and our entire financial system at risk.
A Canadian consumer-driven banking framework would empower Canadians to access and share their financial data without having to share access to their bank account. It would also provide access to new products and tools to help Canadians better manage bills, track a budget, make more informed financial decisions, secure a loan and even help young Canadians when it is time for them to buy their first home.
An era of open banking is here, and Canada deserves to be part of it. I would add that it cannot come too soon. We know that most countries around the world have already moved forward with open banking. Also, having spoken recently to the Canadian Bankers Association, I know it is very supportive of open banking and has indicated that open banking will also put a regulatory regime in place that will protect against fraud and other risks to Canadians online.
The last section I want to talk about is doing more to crack down on predatory lending. In terms of protecting Canadians, our federal government is also working to prevent more vulnerable individuals, like newcomers, low-income Canadians and youth, from being deceived and trapped by illegal lenders who try to bypass the criminal rate of interest. Last year, our federal government advanced amendments to change the definition of “criminal rate” in the Criminal Code from an effective annual rate of interest that exceeds 60% to an annual percentage rate, or APR, that exceeds 35%.
Building on these changes, federal budget 2024 proposes additional Criminal Code amendments against offering or advertising credit at a criminal rate of interest. These amendments empower law enforcement by prohibiting offering credit at a criminal rate of interest and allowing for prosecutions of illegal and predatory lenders without needing the approval of the Attorney General.
Federal budget 2024 also announces that we intend to work with provincial and territorial governments to harmonize and enhance consumer protection measures in respect of consumer lending, focusing in particular on high-cost loans and payday loans. Actions taken could include everything from capping the costs of optional insurance products for high-cost loans, including payday loans and strengthening payday loan regulations, to enhancing monitoring and data collection practices in the high-cost loan market. These proposed measures would limit the risk of harmful debt cycles and help more Canadians keep more of their hard-earned money in their pockets.
Our government is taking action to build a fairer Canada, with transformative measures that will give people back control over their personal finances and banking choices, cap banking fees and give Canadians better access to digital banking, lower-cost accounts and stronger consumer protection. We can unlock the promise of Canada so that younger generations can build a better life, as their parents and grandparents did before them, but we cannot do it alone.
I hope that my hon. colleagues will support Bill C-69 and join us in our vision of a better, brighter future.
1516 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 5:03:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I enjoy working with the hon. member on the finance committee. We have both spoken about the importance of productivity in the economy, though maybe from different perspectives.
The government has been in power for nine years now and this is its latest budget. There is a gap between U.S. and Canadian incomes and GDP per capita, which is now at a record deviation, meaning that the gap between what Canadians are earning and what Americans are earning has never been greater. At what point will that gap start to be reduced?
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 5:04:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I, too, enjoy working with my hon. colleague on the finance committee.
The issue around productivity and business investment is not a new one in Canada. Actually, we have been tackling productivity for more than 30 years, and business investment for the last 20-plus years. I would say that it is not just federal budget 2024 where we have made huge investments in our economy, in our economic infrastructure and in Canadians so that we can continue to give Canadians the tools and the skills to be able to succeed and for Canada to have a prosperous economy, both now and in the future. I think a number of the measures that we have in our budget will help with the productivity issue, as well as with the business investment issue.
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 5:05:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in 2021, the Centre de recherche sur les milieux insulaires et maritimes, CERMIM, set up the LOREVA project. This is a project to locate, recover and recycle ghost fishing gear. Ghost fishing gear refers to the snow crab traps that have remained on the bottom of the St. Lawrence. The project was financed by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' ghost gear fund. We developed a technique using an underwater robot that preserves the seabed. It is one of the finest techniques currently available for preserving marine species. We collected over 200 traps and more than 35 kilometres of rope. That is the equivalent of five tonnes of plastic material that was recovered from the St. Lawrence.
There is nothing in the budget that renews funding for this ghost gear program. I wonder why the government refuses to extend funding for this project.
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 5:06:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question, but I actually do not know the answer.
I will say that I am very proud that we have made a historic amount of investment in research, scholarships and new strategic research infrastructure in our federal budget 2024. We have put $5.9 billion, which includes $2.4 billion for core research grants and to foster top-tier Canadian talent via more scholarships and fellowships through Canada's research granting councils. I am not sure if any of those dollars will actually help with the very important issue that my colleague has mentioned, which should be addressed.
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 5:07:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I was really disappointed in the budget. As I have said very clearly, I think auto theft is an issue in this country, but the government put $45 million toward auto theft and $22 million toward the issue of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls. That sends a really strong message that this country values cars more than it values indigenous peoples. I am hoping that the government can do better, because that was shocking.
Today, my private member's bill will be put forward for second reading. It is in support of putting in a framework for a guaranteed livable basic income in response to call for justice 4.5 of the National Inquiry into Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls, which is something all parties have committed to uphold, all 231 calls for justice. I am wondering whether the hon. member will support my call to implement a guaranteed livable basic income.
158 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 5:08:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will be supporting the hon. member's bill. In the last Parliament, I also had a private member's bill to introduce a guaranteed basic income. I was very proud to do so, so I am very happy that the member is also supportive of that.
On indigenous peoples in Canada and funding in the federal budget 2024, I am very proud of the historic investments our government has made over the last eight and a half years that we have been in government. I know that we have a lot more to do, and I look forward to working with the member and other colleagues in this House to continue to strengthen and invest in a new nation-to-nation relationship.
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 5:09:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am rising to add to the intervention made by the member for the New Westminster—Burnaby on Wednesday, May 1, in relation to respect for the authority of the Chair.
Page 311 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, in relation to functions performed by the Speaker with respect to enforcing the rules that guide the work of this place, states, “the Speaker presides over debate in the House and is responsible for enforcing and interpreting all rules and practices and for the preservation of order and decorum in the proceedings of the House.”
The Speaker has the ultimate authority regarding the interpretation and application of the rules of the House and its Standing Orders. The Speaker is the final authority on these matters. Since 1965, Speakers' rulings have been closed to appeals. They are final.
Page 319 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, in relation to the rulings by the Speaker, states, “Once the Speaker has ruled, the matter is no longer open to debate or discussion.” This applies not only to procedural matters, but also to questions for the maintenance of order and decorum. Our procedural authorities are definitive on this particular point.
Page 319 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, in relation to addressing the maintenance of order and decorum, also states:
The Speaker can call to order any Member whose conduct is disruptive to the order of the House. For example, if it is a question of unparliamentary language, the Speaker usually asks the Member to rephrase or withdraw the word or expression.
If the Speaker has found it necessary to intervene in order to call a Member to order, he or she may then choose to recognize another Member, thus declining to give the floor back to the offending Member.... The most severe sanction available to the Speaker for maintaining order in the House is “naming”, a disciplinary measure reserved for Members who persistently disregard the authority of the Chair.
It is both unusual and unfortunate that the Speaker has had to invoke this sanction. We need to be mindful that these extreme situations do not become normalized in our proceedings.
Finally, I would like to address the allegations of bias on the part of the Speaker that have been raised by some members in the House and outside the House.
Page 323 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, on the impartiality of the Chair, states:
Reflections on the character or actions of the Speaker (an allegation of bias, for example) could be taken by the House as breaches of privilege and punished accordingly.
On two occasions, newspaper editorials were found to contain libellous reflections on the Speaker and were declared by the House in one instance to be a contempt of its privileges and in the other a gross breach of its privileges.
In 1981, a Minister complained that remarks directed to Speaker Sauvé by the Leader of the Opposition constituted an attack on the former’s authority and impartiality. The following day, the Minister rose on a question of privilege calling for the matter to be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. However, the Leader of the Opposition withdrew his remarks and the matter was taken no further.
Despite this clear precedent, we have seen many recent examples of Conservative MPs engaging in exactly this conduct, including numerous tweets that can be found on X from April 30. In one day alone, the Leader of the Opposition referred to the “Liberal Speaker”; the member for Edmonton Manning also referred to the “Liberal Speaker” and stated, “The speaker is doing [the Prime Minister's] bidding”, and so on; the member for Edmonton West referred to “The shamelessly partisan Liberal Speaker”; and the member for Kelowna—Lake Country referred to the “Liberal Speaker” and repeated this in a video that she also posted on X.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: This is not necessarily something that should have clapping from across the way.
Mr. Speaker, also on April 30, the member for Sturgeon River—Parkland tweeted, “The partisan Liberal Speaker”. The member for King—Vaughan also referred to the “Liberal speaker”. The member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes referred to, again, the so-called Liberal Speaker in a video on X and said that the government is “being protected by a Speaker who is obviously biased to ensure that they have the protection from accountability and questions”. Finally, on the same day, the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South referred to “the Liberal Chair”.
Furthermore, on May 1, the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry stated in a tweet how partisan the Liberal Speaker had been the day before, while the member for Lethbridge, in a May 2 post on X, referred to the “Speaker's partisan decision”.
Members need to be mindful that the actions of the Speaker must not be criticized in a frivolous manner. It undermines not only the authority of the Chair but also the authority of the chamber. Page 323 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states, “The actions of the Speaker may not be criticized in debate or by any means except by way of a substantive motion.”
On December 15, 2023, the House leader of the official opposition moved a substantive motion regarding the conduct of the Speaker. The motion did not find consensus, and as such, the matter is closed, but despite this, Conservatives continue to ignore the rules, ignore the precedent, and openly criticize the Speaker, which is very serious.
The Leader of the Opposition wants to declare himself to be above the law by vowing to take away the rights of Canadians through the abuse of the notwithstanding clause. He also wants to destroy any institution that gets in his way, which includes the House of Commons. While the official opposition wants to destroy our institutions, we will continue to stand up for them.
I urge the Speaker to reflect on the behaviour of members of the official opposition. One need only reflect on the Conservatives' reactions as I was reading this important address on the issue.
1076 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 5:17:36 p.m.
- Watch
I thank the hon. member for the input.
I believe that the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill is rising on the same point of order.
26 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 5:17:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you consider the following.
Many times, people of all political stripes in this place will raise concerns about the term “misinformation”, or something is happening with misinformation. It is actually a serious problem. However, we cannot characterize “misinformation” as language that is used to criticize government policy. That is often what happens with the government; it tries to characterize the word “misinformation” as language that criticizes the government.
When we talk about decorum and about use of language, we have to be very careful to not define unparliamentary language as language that is used to hold the government to account. I understand that the government might not like being held to account. However, it is the job of the official opposition, as the Standing Orders lay out, for us to do that. I would ask you to consider that.
With respect to my colleague's other point he made about the Speaker, it is fact that the Speaker of the House of Commons made a video in his parliamentary robes that was shown at a Liberal Party convention. Much contention erupted in this place over that. Not only is it incumbent on people in this place to maintain decorum in their relationship with the Speaker, but it is also incumbent on the Speaker to maintain neutrality and its appearance in this place, without fail. I would also say that it is the role of the Speaker to bring the light, not the heat, to the House of Commons.
Those are all things I hope the Speaker considers when responding to my colleague's rather inflammatory comments.
278 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 5:19:43 p.m.
- Watch
I thank the member for the further update.
I believe that the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby is rising on the same point of order.
27 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
