SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 318 - May/27/24

Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.)

May/27/24 3:04:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as we have been making clear throughout question period, the only thing the Conservatives want to do is cut and cut, and actually put taxes back on home builders. When it comes to fiscal policy, let me quote the Parliamentary Budget Officer speaking last week in the other place. He said that Canada compares “rather favourably on a debt-to-GDP ratio with G7 countries. We are probably the least or second least indebted country.” The Conservatives are absolutely wrong about everything, including fiscal policy.

89 words

Fiscal
Debt

Mr. Philip Lawrence (Northumberland—Peterborough South, CPC)

May/27/24 3:05:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in the next election, we will let Canadians decide exactly who is wrong. If people listen to the Liberals talk about this, they would think they have never had it so good. That could not be any further from the truth. The fact is that we have tent cities from coast to coast. We have students who are living underneath bridges. We have workers who are living in their cars. If the Liberals will not listen to Canadians and they will not listen to the Conservatives, they should listen to their own regulators. They should stop the spending and drive down costs so that Canadians can keep their homes.

111 words

Hon. Mark Holland (Minister of Health, Lib.)

May/27/24 3:05:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there will be a next election and at that moment in time, Canadians will be able to look at who has the record of stepping up and supporting vulnerable people. I can say that the record of the Conservative Party of Canada in our country in standing up and fighting for vulnerable people, fighting for people who do not have homes and fighting for people who are in poverty is abysmal, and that is just the plain facts. Every time the Conservatives had a chance to stand up and fight for those who were in need, they instead turned to ancient, trickle-down economics that do not work, and they will try it all over again. People have seen the game, they know what is up, and I do not think they are going to buy it.

139 words

Election

Ms. Michelle Ferreri (Peterborough—Kawartha, CPC)

May/27/24 3:06:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, after nine years of the NDP-Liberal government, Canadians are hungry and homeless. In the Minister of Housing's own backyard, 10 people are going homeless every single week. One in four Canadians feels they do not even have enough money to live. Canadians are spending 64% of their income on housing, which under the Prime Minister has doubled. While tent cities become normal and the Liberals gaslight Canadians and tell them they have never had it so good, the Conservatives are fighting. When will the Liberals wake up up and vote in favour of our “build homes not bureaucracy” bill?

105 words

Hon. Sean Fraser (Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.)

May/27/24 3:07:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague would like to talk about my community. I want to take an opportunity to thank the service providers at shelters like Viola's Place. I want to thank our partners at Coady's Place, who are benefiting from a multi-million dollar investment to build more affordable housing. I want to thank the Antigonish Affordable Housing Society for partnering with us to build more units for vulnerable families in that community. However, let us take a minute to talk about the member's community. She shows up for ribbon cuttings for projects that we have funded when she voted against them in the House of Commons. It is important that our words match our actions if we are going to solve the housing crisis. I hope the Conservatives will do the same.

137 words

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan (Châteauguay—Lacolle, Lib.)

May/27/24 3:07:58 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-356

Mr. Speaker, our government tabled a plan to free up 250,000 new housing units by 2031 on federal, provincial, territorial and municipal public lands. The Conservative leader has debated his housing plan, Bill C‑356, which will sell federal buildings to the highest bidder with no guarantee of affordable housing. Can the public works minister explain to Canadians how our federal land conservation plan will create affordable housing across the country?

74 words

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos (Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.)

May/27/24 3:08:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Châteauguay—Lacolle is right to talk about affordable housing. Do members know how many affordable housing units the Conservative leader created across the country when he was the minister responsible for housing? That would be six affordable housing units. The good news for us is that we are building 8,000 units in Quebec because municipalities are taking the lead. Unfortunately, the Conservative leader's bill would scrap those 8,000 housing units to be built by municipalities. The other good news is that we will set up a $500-million fund in the coming months to make more housing and public buildings available to serve the communities.

119 words

The Speaker

May/27/24 3:09:17 p.m.
Watch

I am going to ask the member for Portneuf—Jacques‑Cartier to speak only when recognized by the Chair. The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

27 words

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

May/27/24 3:09:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, while Winnipeg Centre has among the highest rates of youth poverty in Canada, Resource Assistance for Youth, Inc.'s level up job placement and education program has been placed at risk by the Liberals' funding delays. After seven months of waiting, this has forced RaY to discontinue vital programming for youth and lay off staff. It is shameful. Will the minister restore the funding, save the level up program and protect the livelihoods of marginalized youth during an affordability crisis?

82 words

Ms. Lisa Hepfner (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth, Lib.)

May/27/24 3:10:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, youth employment and skills strategy has been hugely popular this year across the country. So many programs are looking for this funding to support our youth, to get them back into the workforce. Absolutely, I support these organizations getting the funding they need to continue.

47 words

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

May/27/24 3:10:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, while the number of people living unsheltered is up across the country by almost 90% since 2018, in my community it is even worse. The number of people living rough has almost tripled. A recent PBO report shows the government is investing less than one-seventh of what is needed to even cut the rate of chronic homelessness in half. The government seems to have billions to subsidize the largest companies in the country. When will the government do better by those living unsheltered and commit the funds they need to close this gap?

96 words

Hon. Sean Fraser (Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.)

May/27/24 3:11:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his advocacy on behalf of the most vulnerable who call his part of the country home. With respect, we are going to make the investments necessary to support some of the country's most vulnerable, including by partnering with communities that serve homeless Canadians, but also by making the investments necessary, worth billions of dollars, to build out the affordable housing stock so people have a durable solution. There are no immediate solutions to solve the challenges that so many Canadians are facing, but consistent investment over time, as we have been doing and will continue to ramp up, is going to make a meaningful difference in lives of some of the most vulnerable Canadians.

122 words

The Speaker

May/27/24 3:11:59 p.m.
Watch

It being 3:12 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of the member for Beloeil—Chambly relating to the business of supply. Call in the members.

40 words

The Speaker

May/27/24 3:26:50 p.m.
Watch

I declare the motion rejected.

5 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/27/24 3:27:28 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-58

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-58.

24 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/27/24 3:39:30 p.m.
Watch

I declare the motion carried.

5 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/27/24 3:39:58 p.m.
Watch

I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on Tuesday, May 21, by the member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie concerning the Speaker's alleged lack of impartiality. In his intervention, the member stated that the Liberal Party's promotional material used to advertise the Speaker's participation in an upcoming constituency event contained inflammatory partisan language targeting the leader of the official opposition. According to the member, this constitutes an unacceptable display of partisanship that calls into question the Speaker's impartiality. As such, this matter required immediate priority consideration. The member for La Prairie also intervened to support this position. The member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie further contended that the standard procedure to raise concerns over the Speaker's conduct, namely through a substantive motion proposed during Routine Proceedings following the appropriate notice, is deficient insofar as its consideration can be easily adjourned or interrupted. Once interrupted, such a motion is then transferred to the Order Paper under Government Orders, leaving it in the hands of the government to reschedule a resumption of the item. The member posited that the government could forestall a decision of the House on such a motion indefinitely, potentially frustrating the will of the majority of the House on such a critical question. The member for New Westminster—Burnaby also intervened on this matter. He challenged the premise of the question of privilege, which in his view was based on an incorrect interpretation of the events and of the rules governing motions on the conduct of the Speaker. The member also reiterated his concerns regarding the recent attacks on chair occupants. While this last issue is perturbing, I will not address it. My ruling will focus solely on the matter raised by the member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie. While I did not expect to have to rule on another question of privilege regarding the Speaker, it does give me the opportunity to expand on my ruling of December 5. At the time, while I did find that there was a prima facie question of privilege on another matter questioning the Speaker's impartiality, I also stated at page 19501 of the Debates the following: In the future, if members wish to take issue with the conduct of the Speaker, rather than raising points of order or questions of privilege, I would instead direct them to place a substantive motion on notice. I did so to emphasize that there is a procedure in place to address concerns about the conduct of the Speaker. That process is outlined in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 323: “The actions of the Speaker may not be criticized in debate or by any means except by way of a substantive motion.” This process is also in line with the precedents we have from June 1, 1956, which can be found at page 4540 of the Debates, and from March 13, 2000, at page 4397 of the Debates. While it is true that the House has a process for withdrawing or reaffirming its confidence in the Speaker through a substantive motion, the current rules for considering these motions do not seem responsive enough to deal with this type of issue. As members might imagine, few precedents exist in this area, besides those already cited and the December ruling. In another decision, rendered on March 9, 1993, on a question of privilege relating to the participation of a deputy Speaker in outside partisan activities, Speaker Fraser also stated that a well-established official procedure exists to reprove the conduct of chair occupants. While Speaker Fraser did not find a prima facie question of privilege, he did state that the level of impartiality expected of the Speaker should be higher than that of other chair occupants. While he could have insisted that members place a motion on notice, Speaker Fraser instead took the matter under advisement as a question of privilege. In so doing, he took the context into account. I also believe it is vital to account for the specifics of each situation. Indeed, it may be necessary to separate grievances regarding the way chair occupants manage House proceedings from those relating to their conduct outside the House. Members no doubt regularly disagree with the decisions rendered in the House, and I could not allow every decision to rise to a question of privilege or point of order. However, outside activities that result in complaints are far less common and should therefore be dealt with in an extraordinary manner. In December, I ruled that the House itself should as soon as possible pronounce itself on the Speaker's conduct outside the House and the doubts it could raise about his impartiality, and I am of the same opinion today. In ruling on this matter, I would like to clarify that I am not passing judgment on the alleged facts but rather on the priority these allegations should be given. While a motion could indeed be moved during routine proceedings, such motions are subject to interruptions in proceedings that could delay a decision on them indefinitely. As for opposition motions, they depend on the allotment of a supply day. Quite clearly, it is in the interest of the whole House to resolve this particular matter quickly and with all due seriousness. As a result, I find that a prima facie question of privilege exists in this case. However, I must point out that a substantive motion placed on notice remains the procedure required to address the conduct of chair occupants during proceedings. I will continue to apply this distinction until the House provides new instructions for dealing with accusations that the Chair is partial based on conduct that occurs outside the House. I now invite the member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie to move his motion.

980 words

Mr. Chris Warkentin (Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, CPC)

May/27/24 3:46:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I move: That the Speaker's ongoing and repetitive partisan conduct outside of the Chamber is a betrayal of the traditions and expectations of his office and a breach of the trust required to discharge his duties and responsibilities, all of which this House judges to be a serious contempt and, therefore, declares that the office of Speaker shall be vacated effective immediately before the hour of meeting on the next Monday the House sits following the day this resolution is adopted and directs that the election of a Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 2(2), shall be the first order of business at that Monday's sitting of the House. I regret to stand yet again to declare that the Speaker is a partisan Liberal. I do not say that as a critique or a criticism. While I might do that in a different setting, today I bring that up to say that those are the facts. The fact is that the Speaker has a very long history of partisan Liberal political activity. As a young person, the Speaker was the president of the Young Liberals of Canada. He took an activist role in that position, building Liberal organizations and connecting with Liberals from coast to coast. I was involved in young Conservative politics, so I know a bit about what is involved there. I can tell members that nobody gets involved in youth politics because they are non-partisan. It is a very partisan environment. He went on to be a staff member for several Liberal cabinet ministers. As a matter of fact, he was so well known within Liberal politics that Stéphane Dion appointed him to be the national director of the Liberal Party. After being elected, he took on what is probably one of the most partisan positions in the House of Commons, which is becoming the pit bull to defend the Prime Minister as the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary. I say all of that simply to give context to why many in the House were concerned or had reservations about electing the member for Hull—Aylmer to become the Speaker of the House of Commons. It was evident that the member who is now the Speaker had a very partisan history, and he did it very well. As a matter of fact, oftentimes he would disrupt committees and agitate processes and procedures to try to defend the Prime Minister, especially when the Prime Minister was coming under scrutiny for the litany of scandals that he has now found himself in.

431 words

Mr. Chris Warkentin (Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, CPC)

May/27/24 3:51:00 p.m.
Watch

The Speaker has a very important role in the House of Commons. Yes, it is always going to be or, for the most part, throughout our entire history, it has been a person who is elected from among us. Moreover, we all get here because of partisan activities. We went and campaigned against other parties or other individuals within our local communities. We eventually got elected to this place. People who are looking to become the Speaker are not here through a different mechanism than the rest of us; however, the Speaker usually has a history of working well with other parties and with other members of the House. That is not the case for the member for Hull—Aylmer. As a matter of fact, he has aggressively defended the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's Office over the procedures and the rights and privileges of members in the House. To give some level of context and contrast, I would like to draw to members' attention a bit of recent history. When the House of Commons, through its committees, had requested, in many ways, in different ways, information about the documents that had not been forthcoming regarding the firing of lab scientists from the Winnipeg lab, the predecessor to the current Speaker went so far as to sue the government, the Liberal government, to defend the decision of members of the House of Commons. He was elected as a Liberal member of Parliament. He did this because the Speaker serves as the servant of the decisions of the House of Commons. They are there to execute the will and the decisions of the collective House of Commons. I am sure that the former Speaker was uncomfortable with launching a lawsuit against his own party's government, but he did it, because that was the role of the Speaker. To contrast that and to, I guess, draw the members' attention to comments made by the current Speaker, on November 16, 2020, I was serving as the chair of the ethics committee. The committee was reviewing the unbelievable revelations that had started to flow out, the allegations of huge amounts of money being given to the Prime Minister's friends during the COVID payouts, specifically with regard to up to a billion dollars that had been committed to the WE organization. The ethics committee began a process of looking into that organization; in due course, it discovered that, previous to getting the commitment of nearly a billion dollars, this organization had given significant amounts of money to the Prime Minister's family. It was in these discoveries that the committee was looking for more information from the government, but the government was not forthcoming with that documentation. The members of the committee, including members of the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP, came together and constructed a motion that was being debated at the committee. The Liberals, through a filibuster, were refusing to allow that motion to ever get to a vote on requiring the government to produce documentation. This documentation would either prove or disprove information about money given to the Prime Minister's family members from the WE organization, which later got a commitment of nearly a billion dollars. In a lengthy intervention at that committee, the member for Hull—Aylmer, who is now the Speaker, was leading the charge on behalf of the Liberals. At the committee meeting, he said, “If this motion ends up passing, as the opposition holds majority at the committee, its validity will be immediately questioned and there will be serious questions about the ability to enforce it.” He did not slip up: He went on to say, “Mr. Chair, this is very important. Let me repeat. If this motion ends up passing, as the opposition holds the majority at this committee, its validity will be immediately questioned and there will be serious questions about its ability to be enforced.” It is not wrong for a member of Parliament to get elected and defend their government with all their ability. I hope to have the privilege to do that. What is inappropriate is for somebody who serves as the Speaker to continue that conduct. That is the part that seems confusing to the current Speaker. As a matter of fact, when he ran to be the Speaker, he acknowledged that he had had many partisan positions and played partisan games; he said that he wanted to be judged by his conduct going forward. He asked for us to trust him. He said that, effectively, the proof would be in the pudding. We have some facts that we should go through. The other thing he said was that the Speaker should be a referee and not a participant in the game. I can tell members that he has had more headlines for his misconduct since he has been in the position of Speaker than have the vast majority of members of Parliament in the House. We had other reservations about the fact that he had been found guilty by the Ethics Commissioner of a breach of rules with regard to ethical behaviour. However, those were secondary to what we believe needs to be a non-partisan behaviour of any Speaker of the House of Commons. Unfortunately, the revelation of partisan activity has really been historic. This is a type of history nobody should ever want to make. I do not think there has ever been a Canadian Speaker who has been a legend and been found guilty of so many partisan involvements while in the Speaker's Chair. I will just go through a few. The list has now grown to such a length that it would take me much longer than my speech would allow to go through them all. It was discovered that, last October, he called up a former member of Parliament, who is now an opinion writer, and asked that person to write an op-ed slamming the official opposition for its effort to hold the government to account. Next, in November, it was discovered that he attended and spoke at an event for his provincial Liberal association in Pontiac, for his provincial counterparts in Quebec. They were soliciting support from the community for the upcoming election. Obviously, they were looking for financial support. In December, and this is when it all broke loose and became national news, the Speaker undertook to videotape a partisan video tribute that was broadcast at the Ontario Liberal Party's leadership convention. The tribute was for the outgoing interim leader of the Liberal Party. However, it was wrong on so many levels: It was at a Liberal Party convention where they were obviously soliciting support for the next general election. Yes, the tribute was specific to an individual who was leaving an interim position, but he would also be seeking re-election, so it is not as though it was just some tribute. However, far worse than just paying tribute to a Liberal candidate as a non-partisan Speaker is that the Speaker recorded it in his full Speaker's robe and in his Speaker's office. One would think somebody somewhere would have raised alarm bells. However, it gets worse: When it was all made public, his defence was that he did not think anybody was going to find out. He said that he did not know it was going to be put on the big screen; he thought he could get away without anybody knowing. Then the Liberal Party, again coming to his defence, said that, in fact, it was not clear to him that it was going to be exposed to the public. All of them in agreement believe that it would have been all right if it just had not become public. That in and of itself raises a massive question of conduct and of character. In the days that followed the fallout of that scandalous video, the Speaker jetted off in the midst of a sitting week. It happens rarely, if ever, that a Speaker does so, but the current Speaker did. He went down to Washington. We would have imagined he was going there for some very important, high-level meeting that obviously would have required him to leave Parliament; however, we then found out he actually went there to pay tribute to a good Liberal he came to know while he was the president of the Young Liberals. He made another tribute to a Liberal while he was travelling on the Speaker's budget. Now we have the revelations of this summertime evening with the Honourable Speaker of the House. The details of the event have been circulated, and they are interesting. They are very partisan. They attack the official opposition and the leader of the official opposition. I had the opportunity to actually go through other invites that were posted to the same website, the Liberal Party of Canada's website about events in local communities. By far the most partisan descriptor of any event posted on that entire website is attributed to the Speaker of the House of Commons. Then, of course, we have the cover-up. It is all fine because now the Liberal Party of Canada, obviously a disinterested and independent body, has come racing to the Speaker's defence. It says that he did not know it was going to be posted there. Therefore, it is okay, and the Liberal Party of Canada will take full responsibility. It says that was the party's doing and that this is a template it uses for all kinds of events on the website. I went through all the events. There is only one other event that has the same text, and it was posted in the midst of this scandal. It is not as though it was there for a long period of time. It was just recently posted, and it is the only other event with the same descriptor. This is not a boilerplate template. This is another effort by the Liberal Party to cover things up. However, the interesting part is this: If one looks at the fine print at the bottom of the website, it reads, “Team [Prime Minister] events are posted by local volunteer teams.” There is also a “learn more” link, as well as a link to “submit a ticketed event.” My party does not know when I hold a local event unless I tell them. My local association is very effective at doing the good work of raising money and political support in my community. The Conservative Party of Canada does not organize these things; they are local events by local volunteers and other folks. The interesting part is that the former PMO staff member and former president of the Hull–Aylmer Federal Liberal Association now serves as the Speaker's chief of staff. It does not seem to me that the individual would have been appointed because he was really well versed in parliamentary procedure. It is clear what his credentials were. I say all of this to say that he knows how the system works. Nothing gets fed to the party without somebody at the local level sending it there. The event was clearly a decision of the local folks. Any member of Parliament in this place, when they are expected to show up at an event, does not have the event planned without their knowledge. Therefore the Speaker knew about the event, and there is a chief of staff who is very politically astute and has been engaged at the local association level who is now serving as the chief of staff to the Speaker. Nothing checks out about these revelations and the now new explanation that the Speaker has given. The Speaker has demonstrated countless times that he is unfit to be a non-partisan Speaker. He is a very effective partisan Liberal. We have lost trust in his ability to govern this place.

2018 words

Partisan

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

May/27/24 4:08:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is interesting hearing the Conservatives, not once, not twice and not even three times, but constantly having it in for the Speaker. I was not here on the day of the election of the Speaker because I was working on my daughter's campaign in a provincial election at that point, and I could not be here. Coming back, I heard comments in regard to the Conservatives' shock and surprise that the Speaker actually won. From day one, the Conservatives have actually not supported the Speaker. I find that unfortunate. I will not ask the reasons as to why— Mr. Chris Warkentin: I will tell you.

110 words