SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 316 - May/23/24

May/23/24 4:40:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member brings up a very good point. We know how critical personal support workers are in our communities. We know how effective they are in helping people avoid having to go to emergency rooms, which, frankly, saves us money. We know that this is a critical need, and we also know that there are fewer and fewer people getting into this profession. We have to encourage the provinces to invest in this specific skill. In my province of Ontario, I am deeply concerned about what the province has done to undermine the profession. There is a two-tiered system now under the Ford government with personal support workers, and it is not right. When a personal support worker can make more at Starbucks than they can in this role, it is not right. I would absolutely advocate for more support for PSWs.

145 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

May/23/24 4:41:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, what do we have to do to live to 120? We mind our own business. Generally, that is a good technique for being well liked, for getting people's respect and for not getting into trouble. It is rather surprising to see that Canada has been around for 157 years while systematically not minding its business. That is a record. Essentially, if we put it in good French for Quebeckers to understand, today's motion calls on the government to mind its own damn business. We have to use the same crass, sloppy tone as the Prime Minister in drafting the motion. The motion calls on the House to remind the Prime Minister that, despite his claims, it is not true that people do not care which level of government is responsible for what. It is his father's Constitution. It is a family quarrel. It is sad that it has come to this, because while we are constantly fighting over jurisdictions—and let us face it, Quebec is right, because the Constitution is very clear—there are people who are suffering, who do not have health care and who do not have housing. While these people are suffering, we are bickering over dental insurance, health transfers and the conditions that will or will not be attached. There are human consequences to this. With this motion, we are conveying a message from all governments in Quebec, going back as long as there has been a social policy in Quebec. I would actually like to quote some premiers who were by no means separatists. The member for Winnipeg North talked a lot about our separatist attitudes, but it is not merely an attitude. It is at the core of who we are. I have a quote from a premier who said, “the provinces are then put in a position where no longer as legislators they decide as a matter of provincial policy that this is the type of social service their people require or desire, but rather their status is reduced to the mere right to decide whether or not they will participate in a programme that already has been decided at the federal level and which is now offered to them on a cost-sharing basis....in our opinion, shared cost programmes force a measure of uniformity that is beyond the dictates of desirability.” That was said by Ernest Manning, who served as the premier of Alberta from 1943 to 1968. In 1982, René Lévesque said that, in order to ensure the development of our society, the amending formula for the Canadian Constitution should recognize a general veto power or the right to opt out with full financial compensation in every other case. This continued with the Johnson government and the Charest government. In fact, all governments have asked for balanced federal spending power and the right to opt out with full financial compensation. This includes governments under which several of the current members served, including the member for Bourassa, now a Liberal MP in the federal government. He sat behind Jean Charest and made this demand, as did the now-famous member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis and the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, who served under Jean Charest. Several others, including the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, who was part of Action démocratique du Québec and was also in the “yes” camp in 1995, have also made this demand. At one time or another, Quebec members were in favour of this. I am delighted to see that the Conservatives are going to support our motion. They took a few nights to think it over, after voting against our amendment to the amendment to the budget, which called for exactly the same thing as this motion. Sometimes consistency must be learned. Spending power has become a disease in Ottawa. We are talking about fiscal imbalance. At the time of Confederation, the federal government's responsibilities were very limited. There was no social policy and no welfare state. What evolved into today's welfare state, and what became social policy, health, education and assistance for the less fortunate, are things that the federal government handed over to the provinces because it was not interested. Religious orders took care of that. Since Protestants lived in Upper Canada, in Ontario, and Catholics lived in Quebec, the government decided to leave religious matters to the provinces. Over time, these responsibilities have become critical components of the modern state in terms of quality of life, longevity, productivity, social and industrial policy, and more. Unfortunately, the Constitution did not set out that the revenues that would become the most significant for a government would be shared equally between Quebec and Ottawa, which means that today, the provinces are drowning in responsibilities while the money is in Ottawa. This was never the intention. Normally, if the spirit of the Constitution had been respected, the government would have thought that if it was going to take tax points, tax bases, the ability to tax, then it should send it to the provinces so that they can be autonomous and the spirit of the Constitution would thus be respected. However, because of a flaw in the Constitution, something called spending power has developed, the spending power under which Ottawa assumes the right to withhold money, attach conditions and literally put a gun to the provinces' heads, telling them that they will not get the money if they do not do what the federal government wants, even though Ottawa has absolutely no right to legislate in areas such as health, education, higher education, scholarships and so on. This is a serious problem. This is a major problem first of all for transparency, because when Ottawa decides to cut transfers and funds, the public essentially experiences service cuts. From a democratic standpoint, people do not always know who to blame. In the 1990s, Quebec had to reverse course on ambulatory care and home care after Ottawa made budget cuts. People thought the Quebec government was responsible. Jean Chrétien admitted that balancing the budget was easy for him because he could simply make cuts and no one would be the wiser. This is a democratic problem. This is a policy consistency problem, because each province has its own preferences. Guess what? That is a good thing. Each of them learns from the others. Ottawa boasts about borrowing Quebec's model and applying it to everyone else. So kind of Quebec, they say. When that happens, how does innovation move forward in other areas? How are the provinces supposed to innovate and get ideas from one another in upcoming areas of innovation? It is impossible. We are also vulnerable to cuts. That is a message to the Conservatives because there is a big chance they will be in power soon. They are as excited as kids on Christmas. They know it is coming. They tell us that they respect provincial jurisdictions. The Harper government did this. They respected provincial jurisdictions. Essentially what they are saying is that they are going to respect provincial jurisdictions so much that they will not pay the provinces another penny, that they will make cuts to the transfers, that they will not index them. Then, since the Liberals generated a massive debt by sticking their noses in the provinces' business, they are going to pay down the debt and the provinces will have to do what they can on health. The Conservatives need to understand that if they are in power some day, they will have to live with the problems caused by the Liberals and they will have to index the health transfers. This just shows that Quebec is vulnerable to a change in government in Ottawa. It is also a denial of democracy. This spending power has become a disease that is more serious than we suspect. I sat on the Standing Committee on Health for several months. We have reached a point where, when we say that Quebec's jurisdictions must be respected, we are told that it is no big deal, that spending power lets us do whatever we want. I heard my colleague from Thunder Bay—Rainy River and my NDP colleagues say so. Physicians' federations are coming to Ottawa one after the other to ask for money, knowing that spending power will trample over the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. For example, and this applies to a lot of other areas too, each federation asks for its own small program with its own small fund without realizing that, ultimately, the problem is systemic. The problem is that transfers need to be paid to Quebec with no strings attached in order for all needs to be met. The spending power, the fiscal imbalance, makes Quebec vulnerable, makes our constituents vulnerable. More than that, it absolutely undermines Quebec's decision-making capacity. It forces Quebec to negotiate because the money is in Ottawa and then Ottawa will brag about it. Earlier my Liberal colleague spent 10 minutes telling us what she had negotiated with Quebec. It should not have been up for negotiation. The money should have gone directly to Quebec City. Forcing a partner to negotiate is not a negotiation. It is what we call holding Quebec hostage. If the other provinces want that to happen, that is their business, but when the federal government creates a new program in the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec, it is only natural that there be a bit of respect for Quebec, for the position of all its governments in history and that it be offered the right to opt out with full financial compensation.

1636 words

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

May/23/24 4:51:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have a fairly straightforward question that I put to other members of his caucus. There are many seniors who would benefit from the dental program and the proposed pharmacare program. We even have a disability program. Some provinces might have some supports and other provinces do not. Does the member not recognize that many of his own constituents, as well as constituents throughout all 338 constituencies, would benefit from these programs? Does he not think Canadians should be receiving these types of benefits throughout the country?

89 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

May/23/24 4:52:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, a large majority of Quebeckers think it is important for governments to respect their areas of jurisdiction. That is the case in my riding. People come to see me. They are deeply insulted because not only is the federal government meddling in Quebec's affairs, but it is making a mess. People have to get out their credit card, go to the CRA portal and wait, without necessarily knowing how much they are going to get back. That was the case for a long time. The Liberals fuel this perverse argument that if we want Quebec to set up programs that reflect Quebeckers, it means we are working against our people, against the health of our people, against the well-being of our people. The fact the the member for Winnipeg North is even asking this question discredits his intellect.

142 words

Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC)

May/23/24 4:53:25 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-234

Mr. Speaker, since my colleague quoted me during his speech, I would like to ask him a few quick questions. First, I would like to know why he committed the sin of omission when he assumed that we were inconsistent. Conservatives are very consistent. We did not support the Bloc Québécois's proposed subamendment on the budget for a very simple reason. In its subamendment, the Bloc Québécois wanted to eliminate the protection we wanted to give to farmers. The Bloc proposed respecting the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces, and granting Quebec and the provinces the right to opt out with full compensation. That is what the Bloc is doing today too, and we support that. However, the Bloc Québécois also suggested that we withdraw our subamendment, which proposed abolishing the tax imposed on farmers, which then gets applied to food, by immediately passing Bill C-234 in its original form in order to build housing, not bureaucracy by requiring cities to increase residential construction by 15% every year as a condition for obtaining federal infrastructure funds. I have a great deal of respect for my colleague. I sincerely wonder how he can live with himself, trying to mislead people like he just did a few moments ago.

221 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

May/23/24 4:54:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable asks me how I am able to live with a so-called lie. Facts have never been the Conservatives' strong suit, so that is pretty funny. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Mr. Jean-Denis Garon: Mr. Speaker, you can call the member to order. I know he has discipline issues. Sometimes those issues can be corrected, and there is no age limit. The Conservatives say that they voted against Quebec's right to opt out with full compensation because they first needed to see that the government was infringing on Quebec's jurisdictions, meddling in municipal affairs, violating Quebec laws and imposing conditions directly on municipalities. He was the mayor of a city. I want to welcome him to the federal scene. If he likes trampling all over the jurisdictions of municipalities and the Quebec government, he will be fine here. He will like it here.

158 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/23/24 4:55:43 p.m.
Watch

I want to make a quick reminder. During debate, there is one person who asks a question and one person who answers the question. The hon. member for Mirabel.

29 words

Mirabel

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

May/23/24 4:55:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight one thing. There may be heated debates, and that is perfectly fine, but a modicum of decorum must be maintained in the House. I want to point out that, throughout my speech, I was utterly incapable of hearing myself. The member for Mégantic—L'Érable showed a lack of respect, consideration and decorum. I think that should be noted.

70 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/23/24 4:56:17 p.m.
Watch

I was hearing things from both sides during the intervention. The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable on a point of order.

26 words

Mr. Luc Berthold

May/23/24 4:56:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the member for Mirabel was offended by my comments. I was simply trying to get him back on track.

25 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

May/23/24 4:56:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, first of all, it was not about the substance of what was said, but it was really about the heckling. I am sitting next to the member for Mirabel, and I could not hear him respond. My question is this. In the last budget, the government told Quebec that it has until January 1 to sign an agreement or it will negotiate with the cities on housing. That is illegal in Quebec. The Conservative housing plan does the same thing. It is forcing cities to increase construction by 15% or else it will cut its support in other areas. That is illegal in Quebec. We saw this during the Harper years. The federal government has continued to grow its tentacles and its size. Basically, in Ottawa, between the Liberals and the Conservatives, is it not six of one and half a dozen of the other?

147 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

May/23/24 4:57:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the problem goes deeper than that. When a party comes to power in Ottawa, it has few responsibilities while running a modern state but very deep pockets. Generally speaking, Conservative governments start abusing Ottawa's spending power when they take office. In this case, the Conservatives jumped the gun a bit by saying that they would simply be infringing on the jurisdictions of cities, such as Quebec City. A condition is a condition, whether it comes with a penalty or a reward.

84 words

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

May/23/24 4:58:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to talk about interference. Actually, I am not pleased. I find it rather irritating to talk about interference because we always have to talk about it, given that many people in this Parliament do not understand what it means. I was happy to hear my Bloc Québécois colleagues explain, each in their own way, what our motion means. My explanation of the motion will be very brief. First, we condemn the federal government's intrusions and we do not want them to happen any more. Second, it is false to claim that no one cares and, third, we give a very simple solution. We want the right to opt out with full compensation. That does not take anything away from anyone. All we have to do is take our money and give it to those with expertise in the area where we want it invested. It is up to Quebec and the provinces to make the decisions. If the other provinces are okay with know-it-all Canada telling them what to do, then good for them, but Quebec is not okay with that. It is simple. The government just has to give us the right to opt out unconditionally with full compensation. I repeat that the right to opt out must be without conditions. I hope that someone will finally realize it because Quebec does it better. It is a shame for the rest of Canada, but Quebec is better. All the major social and economic advances that Quebec has made, it did so by opting out of federal programs. We opted out of the Canada pension plan. That allowed us to create the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, one of the finest institutions in Quebec. It runs the Quebec pension plan, which is very effective and is working very well. By opting out of the special employment insurance benefits, we managed to create our parental leave, a progressive system that does not exist anywhere else. It is exceptionally effective and has allowed an increased number of parents to participate in the workforce, especially women. By opting out of the federal student loans, we created our own system and we have a university system that is one of the most accessible in the world. It is not perfect, but it performs very well. We are able to take care of ourselves. By opting out of the federal labour programs, we created our own employment policy, and it works well when the federal government does not get involved. It is simple as that. A few members of Parliament seem to see the motion as an attack. Quite the contrary, it is a defensive manoeuvre. Let us manage our own affairs with our own money. That is what we are saying. I hope the member for Winnipeg North does not repeat his bad metaphor about the ATM. It is our money that we put in that ATM. We put our own money into that machine, so I should not be embarrassed to make a withdrawal. The taxes were paid by Quebeckers, and I want the money to be used efficiently. If the federal government adds another program on top of the one Quebec already has in place, it will not be efficient. I do not think that is so hard to understand. Why duplicate bureaucracy? It is to score points with voters. That is the answer. The saddest part of all this is that it will allow the Prime Minister to make a grand announcement, with his hair blowing in the wind, and look good on television, but in four, five, six or seven years' time, or perhaps even in a year or two, the government will realize that millions of dollars were gobbled up by the middlemen. Not only do the Liberals want to interfere in our jurisdictions, but they are not even capable of doing the work themselves. They contract it out. I would like to correct the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, who tabled an amendment and wondered why we rejected it. In his amendment, he said that this is a public dental plan. I am sorry, but it is not a public plan. Sun Life is not public. A private company is going to line its pockets through a highly imperfect system which a number of dentists in Quebec have already announced they have no intention of participating in. This is a far cry from Quebec's public dental plan which, we agree, is basic and very rudimentary, but was set up by Quebec. Why is Quebec's dental plan not perfect? It is because we only have half the money. Then, people wonder why we want to be an independent country. Well, it is so that we can manage our affairs in peace, so that we can be good neighbours instead of difficult bedfellows. That is all it is. It is as simple as that. The federal government interferes more and more every year. It is simple. Give us the right to opt out with full compensation. I have already talked about pharmacare. Last fall, the federal government proposed setting up a sectoral round table on workforce training. However, it has no business doing so, since Quebec is already looking after that. Many of my colleagues have already mentioned funding for Quebec and municipal infrastructure and housing throughout today's debate. Quebec will look after that. When the federal government comes in with conditions, particularly on housing, we recall that it took three years to start building social housing because the federal government wanted to impose its views. We always have to fight for everything. Now we are asking questions and they are saying that we are trying to pick a fight. Can we not simply examine the issue objectively and try to take effective action? I would like to ask the government members the following. Who is being deprived of something when the Quebec government, which already has programs, is given the envelopes intended for Quebec? This has already been done for child care, which the Liberal government likes to brag about from time to time. Is child care working well? Yes, it is. Is child care in the rest of Canada not doing as well because Quebec is managing its own affairs? No, it is not. Leave us alone. It is simple. Why did the federal government give us child care money? The answer: We were on the eve of an election and it made for a great announcement. The government showed up in Quebec to make a great announcement on the eve of an election. When a possible payoff is on the table, it is all fine. It shows that this government does not act in the public interest or for the common good, but with election aims in mind. In fact, when did it start announcing these seemingly generous programs? It was back when the government's poll numbers hit rock bottom and it faced the prospect of being wiped off the electoral map. It boggles the mind. The government enters panic mode and starts making announcements. If it had transferred the funds to the provinces, it would not have been able to take credit for doing this or that, or say as an election promise that it would do something else. Unfortunately, and sadly, governments often make commitments and promises on the eve of an election. Much later, however, it becomes apparent that it was all talk. I want to draw everyone's attention to the school food program, which I want to warn the government about. Organizations are already in place in Quebec. The Bloc Québécois applauds the release of those funds, a billion dollars over five years, but do members know what year the Liberals made that promise? It was in 2015. It is now 2024. The federal government announced this program with great fanfare and wants us to be happy and wants us to believe it, but could the government give us a little credit and respect people's intelligence? What is happening is that the federal government has too much money and, because it has too much money, it does not need to be cost-effective. That means that it is not being careful about its spending and that it is becoming embroiled in scandal after scandal. It costs the federal government two and a half times more to process an EI claim than it costs the Quebec government to process a social assistance claim. Two and a half times more is the federal government's idea of being cost-effective. There is nothing to be happy about when these people start sticking their feelers into our health care system. Passports fall under federal jurisdiction. Why do the Liberals not start by being good at what they are responsible for? It costs the federal government four times more to issue a passport than it costs the Quebec government to issue a driver's licence. That is the federal government's idea of cost-effectiveness. Why do they not start doing their job. Nothing has been done since 1997 to deal with the shoreline erosion caused by navigation on the St. Lawrence River. They do not care about that, but yet they want to manage our dental insurance program. Enough is enough. That is it. It is that simple. Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer is calling out the fiscal imbalance and this ridiculous spending, saying that in the very short term or the medium term, the provinces' finances are not sustainable. When he talks about the provinces, he is talking about Manitoba, Ontario, all the others, not just Quebec. Quebec is so distinct, we always say “Quebec and the provinces”. If the federal government could show a bit of respect and take care of its own jurisdictions, everything would go more smoothly.

1672 words

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

May/23/24 5:08:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, whether it is the disability program, the dental program, the pharmacare program or the housing needs of Canada, I believe many of the measures we see before us today are there because Canadians have an expectation of the government and the government is providing these services. I like to think they are services that should be available across the country. I will use the specific example of diabetes and the medicines that are required. Many of the members' constituents across the country will benefit from that, as will many of the constituents I represent. Is that not a good thing? Does the member not support that?

108 words

Mr. Yves Perron

May/23/24 5:09:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we are fine with applying this everywhere. That is not the problem. The problem is that Quebec is unique and has its own organizations. It is a distinct nation. Let us manage our own affairs. That is all we are asking. The feds are not good at doing the things they are supposed to be doing. I will give a quick example, the AgriRecovery program. The Union des producteurs agricoles spoke to the media just today because 11% of businesses believe they will be forced to close in the coming year. More than 50% are unable to pay their debts right now or are scared. The situation is bad. AgriRecovery is the last-resort program that is used when all the other programs fail. It is meant to be an emergency program. Quebec asked for it in November. Today is May 23, and I have yet to get a date from the government. Then these people come along and say that they will manage our affairs because they are better at it than us.

176 words

Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC)

May/23/24 5:10:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do not have much time, but I will use all the time I have to speak to this motion. As I mentioned earlier, we will be supporting this motion. However, I would like to talk about the folks behind this motion, the Bloc Québécois. The Bloc Québécois claims to be a pro-independence party, but as we see today, and as we are seeing more and more, it is more of a pro-dependence party. The Bloc Québécois depends on the Liberal government for its very survival. Bloc members like the Liberals because they are just like them. They are like brothers. I concede that they are not twins and there are some differences between the two parties. The first, the Liberal Party of Canada, claims to be a federalist party, but it believes that the federation is an albatross and does not respect the autonomy of the provinces. The second, the Bloc Québécois, claims to be a pro-independence party, but it owes its survival to the Prime Minister, whom it supports in all his spending and taxes. The Bloc Québécois likes having a big, interventionist government in Ottawa. The Bloc Québécois votes against budgets and economic updates in principle, but it is quick to vote for this government's budgetary appropriations and the federal government's excessive spending. If we think about it, when a party always votes with the government on centralizing federal and Liberal government spending, it means that it also wants big government, a morbidly obese government. That is what the Bloc Québécois supports here, in Ottawa. As proof, I would mention the fact that, since he arrived in Parliament in 2019, the Bloc Québécois leader has voted in favour of 100% of the Liberal Prime Minister's budget allocations. That is not insignificant. He voted 205 times to authorize $500 billion in additional federal spending. In fact, $500 billion is almost equal to Quebec's entire GDP, as the leader of the Conservative Party mentioned this morning. That is half a trillion dollars. That is a whole lot of money. Here are some examples. The Bloc Québécois voted in favour of $20 million of the $60 million spent on the ArriveCAN app. It voted to increase the number of federal public servants by 110,000. It voted to help private companies, consultants, get increasingly large federal government contracts. Contracts went up from $10 billion to $20 billion. If we take the time to look closely, it is clear that the Liberal and Bloc Québécois ideologies are similar. What did this $500 billion of inflationary spending, which was supported by the Bloc Québécois, do? It increased inflation. It doubled the cost of housing. As a result, the dream of home ownership has drifted out of reach for young families, because the down payment for a house has become so high that it is no longer affordable, not to mention the interest rates for repaying the mortgage. It is becoming unaffordable for young families, all across the country. This is what happens when a party decides to always support the government. When it comes to real change, there is only one option for Quebeckers: the Conservatives' common-sense plan to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. As the leader of the Conservative Party and, I hope and believe, the future prime minister of Canada said today, “with a small federal government, we will let Quebeckers make their own decisions. They could decide to keep more money in their pockets or to give more money to their government in Quebec City.”

657 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/23/24 5:14:46 p.m.
Watch

It being 5:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply. The question is on the motion. If a member participating in person wishes that the motion 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.

78 words

Mr. Yves Perron

May/23/24 5:15:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded vote.

7 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/23/24 5:16:03 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Monday, May 27, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

23 words

Hon. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC)

May/23/24 5:16:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to contribute to the point of order raised by the NDP House leader on April 30 and May 1, to which the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader made a significant addition on May 8. At its heart, the point of order is, I believe, an effort to censor and silence the fallout from the controversial events that happened during question period on April 30, an event none of us will forget any time soon. The hon. member for Lethbridge was called to order about comments concerning the Chair. She withdrew those comments, yet was named by the Chair and kicked out for the day. The member's withdrawal of her comments, which was recorded in the blues, never made it into the day's Debates. That is an important distinction, because the blues are the temporary recording and transcript of what happened in the House, but what actually gets published and permanently put up on the parliamentary website, and indeed printed, are the Debates. The withdrawal was in the blues but somehow never made it into the into the permanent record. The Chair is currently seized with a question of privilege concerning that alarming editing of our records to align with the Speaker's conduct. Then, the Prime Minister referred to the Leader of the Opposition as having “spineless leadership”. Though the Speaker may have chided the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister was neither sanctioned nor disciplined. Immediately after, however, the Leader of the Opposition's next question also offered strong language, yet the Speaker applied a different standard to the Conservative Party's leader than he did to the Liberal Party's leader. As a result, the Leader of the Opposition was also named and banished from the House for the day. Conservatives left the House for the balance of question period, as you might understand, after our leader had been, incredibly, ordered to stop questioning the Prime Minister about British Columbia's disastrous drug decriminalization experience and to leave the chamber. Nonetheless, I am not here to litigate that matter. The main substance of the point of order now before the Chair lies in tweets many members of the Conservative caucus published in the minutes immediately following the shocking decision to name the Leader of the Opposition and expel him from the House in the middle of question period. The NDP-Liberal coalition spokespersons on this matter have each suggested that various Conservative MPs must “withdraw their tweets”, which I assume means deleting the tweets, and apologize before returning to the House. In other words, they would prefer Conservatives just stay silent and not draw any public attention to how the House is operating during these days of an NDP-Liberal coalition government in Canada. As I mentioned, those members raised this as a point of order. As you would know, points of order concern House proceedings and irregularity in procedures. It is also well established that statements made outside the House do not fall within the Speaker's purview to maintain order here, under points of order, within the chamber in ensuring that House proceedings run smoothly. I would refer the Chair to page 620 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, which says quite clearly, “The Speaker has no authority to rule on statements made outside the House by one Member against another.” In fact, this point was made by the Assistant Deputy Speaker on April 30, when the NDP House leader first raised the point of order, saying, at page 22816 of the Debates, “The other [aspect] that was brought to the attention of the Speaker was the fact that statements are being made outside of the House by a member. The Speaker has no authority to rule on that, as the hon. member has indicated.” Several of your predecessors have been invited to weigh in on statements made by members outside the walls of the chamber. In one of the earliest rulings concerning tweets, Speaker Milliken held, at page 1284 of the Debates for April 1, 2010: It is clearly impossible for the Chair to police the use of personal digital devices by members, for example, by trying to distinguish whether certain texting has originated from the Chamber or not. Nor would the Chair want to change its longstanding practice of refraining from comment on statements made outside the House. In any event, as you will recall, Conservative MPs exited the chamber after the Leader of the Opposition was named, so they had tweeted from outside the House. Moreover, since the leader and the hon. member for Lethbridge had been named, their subsequent tweets, which were among those of concern in the point of order, simply could not have been published from inside the chamber. Turning back to the precedents on point, one of your more recent predecessors, Speaker Regan, said on November 20, 2017, at page 15303 of the Debates, “the Chair's role is very limited to the review of the statements made in a proceeding of Parliament. In other words, the Chair cannot comment on what transpires outside of the deliberations of the House or its committees.” Speaker Regan expanded upon this point in his October 30, 2018, ruling, at page 23033 of the Debates, stating, “As a result...the Speaker cannot be officially apprised of anything said to have transpired outside the walls of this place”. Another of your predecessors explained the underlying principle for this approach on February 9, 2012, at page 5096 of the Debates: We know that outside the chamber, when a member or anyone may say something that would offend or call into question someone's character, there are remedies that are not available inside the chamber. That is usually why the authority of the Speaker does not extend outside the chamber for things that are said. In sum, Mr. Speaker, I would urge you to heed the well-trodden ground of your predecessors and find that the member's comments made outside the House, including tweets, simply do not come within your jurisdiction to maintain order within the chamber. A point of order raised on this very question simply is not under the Speaker's purview. Before concluding, there is one final point I would like to add, because I know the Chair is seized with a couple of different aspects of the events of April 30. In a May 1 Canadian Press article on the opposition leader's naming, one might read this passage: A spokesman for [the Speaker] said Wednesday that the Speaker didn't just single out [the leader of the opposition], noting he also asked [the Prime Minister] to reframe one of his questions after he called [the member for Carleton] a “spineless leader”. “The prime minister reframed his answer,” Mathieu Gravel said. Mathieu Gravel is the spokesman for the Speaker. That is a direct quote: “The Prime Minister reframed his answer”. The quote goes on: “The Speaker offered [the Leader of the Opposition] four opportunities to withdraw his comment and reframe his question. [The Conservative Leader] did not avail himself of those opportunities.” That is the Speaker's spokesman speaking on behalf of the Speaker publicly to the media on events that happened in the chamber. Let me read Hansard from that day. There is the first interaction with the Speaker, saying, “I am going to ask two things. The first is that the hon. Leader of the Opposition withdraw that term, which is not considered parliamentary.” The opposition leader then said, “Mr. Speaker, I replace ‘wacko’ with ‘extremist’.” The Speaker got up again and said, “I am going to ask the Leader of the Opposition once again to simply withdraw that comment, please.” The Leader of the Opposition said, “Mr. Speaker, I will replace it with ‘radical’.” The Speaker then goes on to say, “I am going to ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition one last time to simply withdraw that comment, please.” Here is the key phrase that comes next; the Leader of the Opposition said, “Mr. Speaker, I simply withdraw it and replace it with the aforementioned adjective.” Here we have the spokesman for the Speaker saying that the Prime Minister reframed his answer, as an excuse for why the Prime Minister did not face any sanction. The spokesman for the Speaker said that the Speaker offered four opportunities to withdraw his comments and reframe his question, and that the Leader of the Opposition did not avail himself of those opportunities. As I just said, the Leader of the Opposition absolutely did withdraw it and reframe it, exactly as the Speaker's spokesman said publicly in the media but in a way to suggest that it did not happen. It actually happened, if we look at the video of that day's events and Hansard, which is printed. If it is fair game for the Speaker, through his spokesman, to comment outside the chamber on House proceedings with what, I would submit, is an incorrect and inaccurate spin, then it can only be equally fair for other members to make their own comments outside the chamber about what happened during this unprecedented sequence of events. I trust that any ruling on this current point of order from the NDP-Liberal coalition would not result in double standards being created or extended.

1602 words

Debates