44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 27, 2024 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, it is a pretty critical point in the legislative agenda that has come up.
I agree with the Bloc Québécois member and her argument that there are many bills we would like to discuss.
I appreciate that this is a critical time right now. We have a lot of legislation that we need to discuss in the House, legislation that our constituents have sent us to this place to get through. It is serious things that are so important, such as Bill C-49, Bill C-59, Bill C-70 and Bill C-64. We have two opposition day motions just this week. We are trying to deliver the help that Canadians so desperately need, including through legislation like the fall economic statement, which the official opposition has filibustered at committee for months and which is something that would deliver a great deal of support in terms of housing.
Something I am particularly proud of as a part of that piece of legislation is actually the removal of the HST on psychotherapy and counselling services. It is something that would help those who are working within that profession, and something that I actually had a conversation about just yesterday with a psychotherapist who asked me when we would be getting the legislation passed. I said we are working on it and trying to make sure it goes through. The person I spoke to needs the fairness for the removal of the federal tax to occur. She spoke to me about how important it was for her clients to have equality within the services that are provided to them. We know, of course, that we are in a mental health crisis and that every bit of assistance helps in that regard. That is one piece of legislation that the official opposition has filibustered at the committee.
There are, of course, amendments to the Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia accord act that we need to get through. There is the foreign interference act, which is of course becoming more and more important as we move through this parliamentary session.
I do not know how many times New Democrats have to talk about how incredibly important pharmacare is. We certainly know that the official opposition does not believe that. I think about the millions of Canadians who rely upon that piece of legislation to help them afford the medications they need, diabetics in this country, and I believe there are 3.7 million of them, who need the legislation to go through so they would not have to worry about the cost of their diabetes medications and devices. So many constituents have written to me thanking me for moving that forward.
Those are the key pieces of law that we need to get moving in the House. Yes, we are sitting until midnight most nights to do that. New Democrats believe in that absolutely because it is for people that it is important. There is an opposition party determined to delay every single one of the bills. Time again, the Conservatives have obfuscated, filibustered, screamed and yelled in outrage and then attempted to delay and stall all of that progress, all of those supports. I find it unacceptable.
The fact is that what the Conservatives are now calling out, in terms of their outrage, is that the Speaker seems to have been caught up in supposed partisan activity that clearly was not of his doing. He did everything he was supposed to do, ran through the permissions that he was supposed to get, and yet mistakes were made. The partisanship that the Conservatives are so outraged about actually fuels their own partisanship fire of trying to find yet some other thing that they can hold on to, so much so that it will delay again all of the incredible supports that we need to get to people.
I see this every day, whether I am at the procedure and House affairs committee or here in the House. The Conservatives are desperate to cling on to anything they can, and destroy whatever we are trying to do in the process, to show that this place does not work, because that fits into their communication strategy. I am sorry, but I am not going to allow something to fit into their communication strategy to disrupt what needs to happen for my constituents.
The member across the way for Winnipeg North did quote the letter, but I want to mention it again. We are here, in this case, over a tweet that was sent out by the Liberal Party without having consulted the Speaker. The letter is very clear. It is from the national director of the Liberal Party, apologizing very clearly to the Speaker. It states, “The Liberal Party of Canada unequivocally apologizes to you for this mistake, and we take full responsibility.”
Was there a mistake made? Absolutely. Is it horribly unfortunate? Absolutely. Are we punishing the right person in this instance? No. Should there be more vigilance on this issue? Absolutely, of course. However, calling for the Speaker's resignation is clawing to the communication strategy that benefits one group. It does not benefit the entire House. I do not agree with that. We on this side of the House do not agree with that.
We have to work on the legislation that the people have sent us to work on. We have a very important job, and I have no time for all of the bickering and squabbling. Canadians need this place to work. They need us to get to work. We can make this all about ourselves or we can make it about them. Canadians deserve that. New Democrats want to help deliver the supports they need. The work is urgent, and the official opposition just wants to delay. That is all I have to say on this matter.
987 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 5:28:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in listening to the member, I was thinking about programs. Through co-operation, the Liberals and New Democrats have been able to achieve some wonderful things for our constituents in dental, pharmacare, child care, disability and housing-related issues
Today we are supposed to be debating the fall economic statement, which has within it the doubling of the rebate top-up for rural Canadians. There are a lot of substantive things we could be doing to support Canadians. In good part, things are happening because of the co-operation we are getting from New Democrat members.
We can disagree on legislation, but can the member expand on why it is important to at least allow the majority of the House to get the important stuff through?
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 5:29:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we are not in a unique situation in the House of Commons in trying to work collaboratively on legislation. It is not a wild idea. There are so many governments, legislatures and parliamentary institutions around the world that figure out ways of coming together to make things better. They do it through different forms of proportional representation, an issue I would love the government to have taken seriously. There is a partisan dig.
However, this is not unusual. I have said many times throughout my career that there are members within this place who think this is about them. They are here because it benefits them. It benefits a very small number of people who already have a great deal of power and privilege. I am here in this institution to represent the people who do not have that power or privilege. I am here to try to redistribute wealth and power, because that is what democracy truly calls for. As lofty as those goals may be, and as difficult as I find incremental progress, those are the things we work together on to ensure that Canadians truly benefit.
191 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 5:31:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I know when I hear somebody give an intervention in the House and they have already arrived at a conclusion, that they fill it with blanks as to how they got there. The fact is that the New Democratic Party is an ally to the Liberal Party here in the House of Commons and is not going to vote it out at this point in time. It is not going to do anything against the party that is its lifeblood at this point in time, so let us not pretend there was any rationale there.
I will say that when I come into the House and look at the way it operates, it is ridiculous. There is a whole bunch of stuff that the government is getting completely wrong, and parliamentarians have much less input, in my opinion, than they used to have. That is wrong.
The main thing that we are talking about today is the person who sets the rules for the House. Our job as the opposition, and the member's job as part of the opposition supposedly, is to make sure those types of things, like the way this place functions, happen appropriately. That is not happening. Why will the member not admit that and try to get to a path of fixing what is becoming more and more broken? I say that with absolute clarity.
232 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 5:32:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there is a clear perspective I was talking about in my speech on what Conservatives believe is broken or what they are trying to make appear to be broken. This institution can run quite well if they allow it to do so.
What I find ridiculous is the insulting manner in which the member tried to ask his question. It is up to all of us to create the rules that govern this place, so he is wrong with respect to what he said about the Speaker's creating those rules.
We as a caucus will, absolutely, look at the motion. We will take it to caucus on Wednesday. We will discuss it. We will take the time to do so. What I find offensive is Conservatives' use, which I do not appreciate or agree with, of this institution for their own partisan games.
I am entirely clear in my mission here in the House to deliver what my constituents and the people of Canada need, and I do not believe that is the Conservative Party.
178 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 5:34:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I agree with many of the things my colleague said.
I especially agree with the fact that we are here to work for people and to get results. I am always saying that, every day. My colleague knows me well enough to know that I believe what I am saying. I am appalled by the fact that members are playing partisan politics.
However, we are currently dealing with a loss of confidence. I understood the explanations that she gave about the much-talked-about letter or message. Nevertheless, we had already lost confidence in the current Speaker because of the previous incidents that occurred. Once members' confidence has been shaken, that is a problem. We cannot look at this new situation and say that maybe it is just a little mistake because it is the first time that such a thing has happened. No. This is the third time, the fourth. With each new mistake, the doubt grows. Do we believe it when we are told that he did not see the message? I do not want to insult anyone, but I am going to give members of the House the privilege to have doubts. That is the problem.
I agree with the member that we need to get to work. Does she not think that we should deal with the confidence issue and elect a new Speaker to resolve this issue so that we can work for ordinary citizens?
242 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 5:35:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's question.
The Liberal Party of Canada made a mistake. That is what is at issue here. The Speaker did not make a mistake. The Speaker verified all communications related to this matter and got permission. It was an error made by the Liberal Party.
That is the crux of the issue today.
60 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 5:36:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's speech. I know that neither she nor I normally likes sports metaphors, but we have something going on here that seems quite obvious: When the game starts to go badly, as it is for the Conservatives in the current Parliament, then one has two choices. In Parliament, one can either take the ball and try to disrupt the game by pulling the fire alarm or—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 5:37:14 p.m.
- Watch
Order.
The hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke has the floor.
13 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 5:37:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, when things are not going well, in terms of getting things done in Parliament, we can try to up our game, make positive suggestions and seek co-operation with other parties; otherwise, we can grab the ball, pull the fire alarm, go for distractions and delay, and hope that we will somehow benefit from that in the long term. In her speech, the hon. member made the good point that, in the meantime, Canadians suffer from inflation, health crises and all kinds of other things. There is important work we can do here to help them.
As such, despite not liking sports metaphors, would the hon. member agree with me that what we have going on here is a failure to actually work on behalf of Canadians?
133 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 5:38:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I do not mind sports metaphors. It is true that the Conservatives are trying to take their ball and bat and run home, but the member hit it out of the park in terms of his question. I was on the doorsteps in many elections, but in the last election, I promised my constituents that I would get real things done for them. While it is not exactly perfect, and I certainly do not love all the things that Liberals have put forward, we are doing some core, key work that will help people. Again, millions of Canadians will receive medications that they desperately need. Let us focus on that instead of ourselves.
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 5:38:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.
Today is a sad day, because we cannot help but be disappointed. I will read part of the motion that was moved. It states, and I quote:
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 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...
That is serious. We are not trying to figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. This is something extremely important. The role of the Speaker of the House is the highest office in the House, so the Speaker must be beyond reproach.
For some time now, I have been hearing that the Speaker made a mistake, that these things happen. I think it could be x, y or z. The key word in the motion is “trust”. What is trust? It is the ability to rely on someone else, and I will add without having to check constantly. Trust is an element of faith. Members should have faith in the Speaker. Unfortunately, that is not the case.
One mistake can happen. Three mistakes is a pattern. It is not the same thing. We have to be careful. Unfortunately, I believe that the Speaker did not understand what his role entailed. I think he wanted to take up the role and he is happy to be in it. However, I do not think he understood. We are talking about comprehension. I would like to provide a bit of background. I love to play with words. The word “comprehension” comes from the Latin “comprehendere”, which means to grasp the whole situation. I do not think the Speaker has been able to grasp all that he is. His vision is a little narrow. He sees part of the whole situation, the partisan part. Having worked with the member for Hull—Aylmer on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, I can attest that partisanship is part of his terms of reference.
Members will not be surprised to learn that the Bloc Québécois is going to ask the Speaker to step down. We have not had any confidence in the Speaker since December. This is nothing new. Despite the fact that most members of the House are actively contesting them, the Speaker continues to make decisions that show a lack of impartiality and neutrality. Neutrality is rather demanding concept, but we should at least be able to expect the Speaker to be impartial. In this case, impartiality is the ability to choose for the common good. Unfortunately, we do not think that the Speaker has that quality.
We are talking about repeated errors. Let us make a distinction between three different words that deal with the same thing. What is a mistake? A mistake produces an unintentional result. If someone is following a path and takes a wrong turn and gets lost, they can backtrack and find their way again. That is fine. People can make mistakes once. It can happen once.
There is a difference between a mistake and an error. An error is when someone should have known. In these cases, the Speaker should have known. A person cannot be Speaker and assume that they can attend a function wearing their Speaker's robes without sending an implied message. That person cannot assume that a partisan message like the one recently sent by the Speaker does not have any consequences. They cannot do that. That would be an error.
There are things that are more serious than a mistake, like negligence. Negligence is when someone should have known better, but did not bother to know. They did not pay enough attention to know what they should have known. It is like saying that a doctor acknowledged symptoms, but did nothing about them. That is negligence. The Speaker's repeated negligence bothers me. As an ethicist, I am bothered by this. I believe that the Speaker, our supreme adjudicator, collectively brings us to make the right choices, to be guided the right way. Currently, because of the lack of trust, we are uncertain. The lack of trust turns into mistrust. Then we look at all of the Speaker's actions and we wonder if he is in the right place, on the right side. Mistrust does not make for a good environment. It is something that makes us too prone to looking at and questioning every action. We cannot doubt the Speaker's decisions every day.
I pay close attention to the Speaker's actions, and I find him extremely partisan. Some of his decisions are a bit hard to take. I am not saying that all of his decisions are partisan, I am saying that none of them should be. He is just not quite up to the task.
It always makes me smile when I hear him address members as his colleagues. A Speaker has no colleagues. The people under his authority are not his colleagues. His inability to elevate himself is exactly the problem. I am not blaming him for being partisan, but a person cannot be partisan and be Speaker at the same time. There is no overlap between the two roles. Depending on the circumstances, this would be a mistake, an error or negligence.
If we cannot trust the Speaker, or if we distrust the Speaker, what happens next? Distrust leads to defiance. Defiance is precisely what creates trouble, being unable to accept authority and then going a little overboard to compensate for too much partisanship. The issue at the centre of our debate is trust, or should I say, a lack of trust, which leads to defiance and, in turn, worsens an already tense situation.
I repeat that the Speaker holds the highest office and must therefore be beyond reproach. If I were in his shoes, I would be questioning myself when I stood in front of a mirror. I would be wondering if I were the right person for the job. I have a great deal of respect for the role of Speaker. It is a very important position, but one needs to be better prepared.
Earlier, my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît was saying that someone who holds the position of Deputy Speaker of the House may be in a better position to fulfill all the duties that come with the position. I think it is difficult to take someone who is very partisan, which is nothing to be ashamed of, and make them Speaker overnight. I can understand being partisan, but that is incompatible with the role of Speaker.
I think that the Speaker should make the only choice he has left, since his first choices were not very good, and decide himself to step down.
1188 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 5:46:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat disheartening how the Conservatives, in particular, along with the Bloc, have already predetermined that they want the Speaker, the individual, out of the chair.
At the end of the day, the Liberal Party of Canada has taken full responsibility for the incident that we are actually talking about. The Liberal Party of Canada apologized to the Speaker and, through that, to Canadians. It has already been done.
We are talking about punishing the Liberal Party of Canada by trying to censor the Speaker of Parliament. That is a bizarre and, in my opinion, bad thing to do.
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 5:47:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North. I love to hear him speak, by the way. I feel he needs to know that.
The Conservative and Liberal members may have different motives in this case. In response to my colleague, yes, this latest oversight was the Liberal Party's fault, and it was acknowledged as such. Not every injury is fatal. There were two previous incidents. Then there are all the little, daily incidents that are not deadly sins but that still smack of partisanship.
I like the member for Hull-Aylmer. I have worked with him a lot, but I just do not think he is the right person for the job. I would think he is unhappy in this job too, because it cannot be easy being challenged like this every day.
Again, perhaps the solution is a serious dose of introspection coupled with a fairly firm invitation from our side to leave. I value the position enough to ask the Speaker to leave.
169 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 5:48:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank and congratulate my colleague from Trois-Rivières for his remarks. Of course, when it comes to ethics, among the 338 members of Parliament, he knows a lot more than many.
As the member for Trois-Rivières said, the Speaker is not a colleague of members of the House of Commons. His role is above that. However, in the speech he gave when he became Speaker, the member for Hull—Aylmer focused a lot on the fact that we needed to elevate debates in the House and that we were here first and foremost for Canadians, which is true. As Speaker, however, is he here first and foremost for Canadians or is he also here, perhaps even first and foremost, to protect the right of all parliamentarians to express themselves properly?
We should also keep in mind that all the incidents took place outside the House. I counted five. Three specific ones were very serious, but there have been at least five.
What is, therefore, the Speaker's role in this place with respect to those he calls his colleagues?
191 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 5:49:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, things that happened outside the House nevertheless affected the Speaker's legitimacy to sit in the House. This is serious because, once again, the Chair is an important position that demands the most exemplary conduct. It is not a good look if the Speaker lacks legitimacy.
We are not the only ones who asked the Speaker to resign. Quite a few members here have done so. I realize that it may not be the majority, but even one is too many. When one person believes that the Speaker lacks legitimacy, that sends a message. When there are 100, that sends another message, and so on.
Even though the incidents occurred outside the House, I believe that the Speaker's legitimacy has been completely undermined. The conclusion is obvious.
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 5:50:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as a number of speakers before us have said, we could clearly be talking about something that has more of an effect on our constituents. It goes without saying that this matter, this episode, must not be very enthralling for the public. In fact, they must be about as interested in this as they are in Denis Coderre hiking the Camino de Santiago, which says a lot.
That said, institutional mechanisms are still important. I think our colleague said that. If, in the very House itself, the Speaker no longer has the confidence of a large portion of this Parliament, it acts like a wrench thrown into an extremely precise spot in the works, causing them to break down.
Partisanship aside, the office of Speaker has some very high-level requirements. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that a Speaker cannot sit in their caucus and they must even give up their party membership. The requirements are that strict.
Why does my colleague think it is so difficult for some people to move from one role into another?
187 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 5:51:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is not easy being the Speaker. It is not easy to be impartial. It is not easy to strive for neutrality. It is a hard thing to do, and that is why the position has such high-level requirements.
Although our constituents are not interested in day-to-day debate, I would say that this affects them a great deal because it affects the House, which is not working well.
Therefore, as my colleague said, I believe that the Speaker was unable to show that he had what it takes.
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 5:52:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Because of the importance of this debate and the constitutional requirement related to members' participation, I would ask for a quorum call.
31 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 5:52:48 p.m.
- Watch
I will ask the clerk to count the members present.
And the count having been taken:
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot now has the floor.
31 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
