SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 319 - May/28/24

May/28/24 12:50:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I do not thank my colleague for his remarks, because I find them highly disrespectful. As we know, the Bloc Québécois is doing well in Quebec. Perhaps that explains why the Liberals are accusing us of colluding with the Conservatives and of leaning to the right, if not the far right. Meanwhile, the Conservatives say we have joined the Liberals in promoting socialism. This is what the House has been reduced to: rhetoric and caricature. Personally, I am just trying to do my job fairly and properly. The Speaker tried to participate in yet another partisan activity, despite knowing he could not. Today we are debating a motion about the confidence we have in the Speaker and the fact that he must exhibit impartiality and judgment. This matter has moved to the top of the agenda because it is a priority. Last time, we were told that the Speaker would learn from his mistakes and would not repeat them, yet he has in fact repeated them. We need to talk about this. I could then respond at length to the other questions, but I see that my time is up.

199 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

May/28/24 12:51:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague. I believe that his intention and his party's intention is not to just do this as a tactic to block pharmacare from getting to people who need help. They are genuinely concerned about the Speaker's office being used for partisan reasons. It is clear that we call on the Liberal Party to apologize for breaking the rules and for what it did. When we look at the Conservatives and their track record, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle got a $500 fine for using his office for partisan reasons. When he was Speaker, he used his office as a home base for a barbecue that was partisan. There were an number of violations that the Conservatives had, and then they are here as hypocrites when they call out the Speaker of the day on issues of relevance. We know that their real intention is to block pharmacare and to block help from getting to people who need the medicine they rely on. Can my colleague comment on the true intentions of the Conservatives?

187 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie

May/28/24 12:52:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, let us be clear. I am not giving a speech here to slow down or block the pharmacare program. Personally, I would like every individual and every citizen to have access to the medication that they need. That is very important, and we want that to go forward. That being said, we have serious concerns about the way that is being done, and rightly so. For example, Quebec is not being consulted, and the program is not being aligned with the existing program. The work keeps being done in layers of silos. I am not rising today to delay the passage of the bill, quite the contrary. We are debating a fundamental issue: the partiality of the Speaker. Can he be trusted to do his job in the House? Even though I get along really well with him, we see that he is unable to be neutral and use good judgment when deciding on his activities. That is serious. Members can use sophistry and say that another Speaker before him was even worse, but that is not the issue. Today, we are looking at the actions of the current Speaker.

192 words

Mr. Rick Perkins (South Shore—St. Margarets, CPC)

May/28/24 12:53:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would ask the member about the member for New Westminster—Burnaby's quote after the first incident. He said to the media, after the incident with the Speaker, “This cannot happen moving forward. From now on, you cannot have the Speaker engage in partisan activity”. He also said, “if there is any derogation from that, in the weeks and months to come”, his party would be voting “non-confidence” in the Speaker. Can the member explain why the NDP is going back on the word of its House leader?

99 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie

May/28/24 12:54:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague obviously needs to ask him that question directly. I would say this to my colleague. People decide for themselves whether to believe a politician's promises and commitments. We can see how consistent some of the parliamentarians here are.

43 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

May/28/24 12:54:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it brings us no joy to speak on a matter like the one we are seized with today, but we must do it, because the Speaker's role is important. The Speaker's job is to maintain order in the House of Commons. He must ensure members do not cross the floor to hit each other, as we have seen in other parliaments. He must make impartial decisions about the operation of the House of Commons. Today, we are once again debating the Speaker's impartiality. I would like to provide a little historical background, if I may. We inherited Britain's parliamentary monarchy. The first Speaker was either Sir Peter de la Mare, in 1376, or Sir Thomas Hungerford, in 1377. Back then, the Speaker was considered as much the King's man as the servant of the House. It was not until 1642 that the Speaker broke with the Crown, when Speaker William Lenthall stood up to Charles I as the King sat in the Speaker's chair, demanding the heads of five parliamentary leaders. Despite threats, Speaker Lenthall stood up to the King, thereby cleaving his role from the Crown. After this, the speakership was still an appointment coveted by the parties in power, since it gave them extra leverage to promote their ideas and ideals. Only in 1728, when Arthur Onslow became Speaker, was the role severed from the party in power and shifted toward impartiality with the establishment of the first standards of independence and impartiality, which are still associated with the role today. By the time Charles Shaw-Lefevre became Speaker in 1839, the principle that the Speaker should abstain from all political activity was already firmly established. Unlike the United Kingdom, Canada was not obliged to waste much time debating the Speaker's role, since it was spelled out in the Constitution of 1867, the British North America Act. Apparently, not everything was covered, since we are now in a grey area that the rules did not account for. Now, I would like to talk a little about the impartiality that the Speaker should show. The authority and duties of the Speaker of the House of Commons arise largely from the Constitution and the written rules of the House. Page 317 of Bosc and Gagnon's House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, reads as follows: The duties of the Speaker of the House of Commons require the balancing of the rights and interests of the majority and minority in the House to ensure that public business is transacted efficiently and that the interests of all parts of the House are advocated and protected against the use of arbitrary authority. It is in this spirit that the Speaker, as the chief servant of the House, applies the rules. The Speaker is the servant, neither of any part of the House nor of any majority in the House, but of the entire institution and serves the best interests of the House as distilled over many generations in its practices. Despite the considerable authority of the office, the Speaker may exercise only those powers conferred upon him or her by the House, within the limits established by the House itself. In ruling on matters of procedure, the Speaker is expected to adhere strictly to this principle, delineating the extent of the Speaker’s authority and in some cases offering suggestions as to matters which the House may see fit to pursue. Still according to Bosc and Gagnon, it states on pages 323 and 324 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice: When in the Chair, the Speaker embodies the power and authority of the office, strengthened by rule and precedent. He or she must at all times show, and be seen to show, the impartiality required to sustain the trust and goodwill of the House. In order to protect the impartiality of the office, the Speaker abstains from all partisan political activity.... My colleague has already mentioned a few examples. We see there is a flaw in the Standing Orders when it comes to situations like the one we are dealing with right now, specifically, when activist and partisan activities have taken place outside the House. True, six days after the activity in which the Speaker took part, the Liberal Party said that the press release was its fault and that the Speaker was in no way involved. I seriously question how this party operates and the kind of planning it does. Certainly the Speaker has a right to thank the party's volunteers. Personally, I would have waited for a time when the House was not in session, such as the Quebec's national holiday, or Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day for francophones, or even July 1. Then impartiality would have been respected. That said, the Liberal Party sent a press release without even asking authorization from the person concerned regarding the wording. They did it without even asking the team in that riding if it was really what they wanted to disclose, if it was cautious or proper. The party sent press releases about its own MPs and, in this case, about an MP who is Speaker of the House of Commons. However, they did not inform and or consult MPs on the contents of that press release. Apparently some parties are more democratic than others, because I have always been informed about the content of press releases. When I did not agree with the content of a press release, it was changed. The same applies for all my colleagues. Perhaps this is something that needs improvement. It is the fault of the Liberal Party, of the party organization. As I was saying, we can ask questions about the timing of the activity, about any follow-up, about how no one monitored the contents of the publication, about how the party did not consult its own MPs before publishing something and about how the team of the member for Hull—Aylmer failed to follow up to ensure that its own press release could be used instead of the party's highly partisan release. Apparently, the member for Hull—Aylmer's team did prepare a press release. In closing, the current question pertaining to the House's confidence in the Speaker arose not only as a result of a highly partisan press release from the Liberal Party of Canada, at a time when the Speaker was still sitting, when he could have waited to do another activist activity, but also as a result of the decision that he made and that openly raises the question of partisanship. Had the same event been held when the House was not sitting, it would not have created the problems it is creating now. An impartial Speaker is essential to the functioning of the House of Commons. The impartiality of this office must be so complete that every time the Speaker opens his or her mouth, no member should be able to recall which party the Speaker comes from. That is what full and total impartiality and neutrality look like. As things stand now, unfortunately, that is not the case with this Speaker. When he makes a decision, between 44% and 45% of the members of the House wonder whether the decision is truly impartial. No one should ever have to wonder about that, regardless of which side of the House they sit on.

1241 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)

May/28/24 1:03:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I note that the member is admitting that it was an error on the part of the Liberal Party. Political party business is of no concern to the House of Commons. In fact, when a member rises during question period to ask a question dealing exclusively with party business, the Speaker rises to say that this is out of order in the House. I would ask, therefore, why the member and her party want an error by a political party, whose activities fall outside the scope of the House, to thwart the will of the House that the member for Hull—Aylmer be Speaker? This was settled by a vote a few months ago.

117 words

Error

Mrs. Julie Vignola

May/28/24 1:05:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would have liked my full remarks to be taken into account. I mentioned, and I even repeated it a few times, that the Liberal Party had erred, not just by sending a hyper-partisan release but by failing to ask the member or his team for authorization as to the content. I also mentioned that a mistake had been made, in that no one followed up and it took six days before someone woke up. Apologies are fine, but I will use the analogy of a Kleenex box to illustrate my point. Someone takes a pin and pokes hole after hole in the Kleenex box. At some point, someone apologizes, so each of the holes is plugged. When all is said and done, has my box of Kleenex been fixed? The answer is no. The same is true of confidence.

143 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC)

May/28/24 1:06:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it seems that the Prime Minister and the Speaker are having a personal competition to see who can break the most ethics laws and continue to get away with it. The Prime Minister has three in his name. The Speaker has one ethics violation in his name, and there are now three instances where he violated the chair with partisan activity. Would my colleague from the Bloc agree that the time has finally come for the Speaker to do the honourable thing and resign?

86 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola

May/28/24 1:06:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will again use an analogy to explain how apologies are no cure-all. This will be in response to my colleague`s question. If I take a sheet of paper and crumple it up, this represents all the harm, all the mistakes, all the ethics breaches and all the lack of judgment a person is guilty of. Then, each time the person apologizes, I try to flatten out the sheet of paper so that it reverts to its original shape. The paper will still be creased all the same. That is what is happening. People will remember, and here in the House, we remember that despite the 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8,000 apologies and some $500 fines here and there, the sheet of paper remains creased and the confidence is still gone.

138 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

May/28/24 1:07:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there is nothing new about the fact that reflections on the character or actions of the Speaker could be taken as breaches of privilege and punished accordingly. It is even written in our procedural bible. This evening we are going to hold a vote. An overwhelming majority of members will say that the Speaker should not be attacked, because we understand the context of this situation. Will the Bloc Québécois accept the result of a democratic vote this time? It is going to lose. It is once again calling the Speaker's position into question when we know that the Conservatives have done everything they can to oust him and try to attack him as Speaker.

122 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola

May/28/24 1:08:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, are we attacking the Speaker personally? No. We are just trying to ensure that the person in that role is impartial and neutral and that we do not have to wonder, every time the Speaker opens his mouth, whether his decision is impartial or neutral. This is not a personal attack. I really like the member for Hull—Aylmer. However, he is not doing so well in his current role. We are not working with the Conservatives. We respect our values and decorum.

86 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

May/28/24 1:09:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is my sad duty to rise in the House with another Conservative blocking motion, as the Conservatives have done for the last couple of years. Ever since Erin O'Toole left as leader of the Conservative Party and the member for Carleton became the leader of the Conservative Party, the Conservatives have brought chaos into the House of Commons, and constant delays. We saw this with the issue of dental care, which the NDP provoked the government to put into place. So far, 100,000 seniors in the first three weeks of the program were able to access dental services, in many cases for the first time in their lives, and many of them in Conservative ridings. Two million seniors have signed up and tens of thousands are signing up each week. We know that, starting next week, people with disabilities and families with kids under 18 will be able to sign up for dental care. The Conservatives have blocked that systematically. Now we have another procedural move by the Conservatives to try to block passage of pharmacare, which would help six million Canadians suffering from diabetes and nine million Canadians who are looking to control their own reproductive health without huge financial costs. Particularly, women's reproductive freedom is absolutely fundamental. The Conservatives have been blocking that bill since February 29. They know that it is back in the House today and instead of allowing a vote to take place, they have been steadfastly blocking this with consideration of this procedural motion that will be voted on tonight, thanks to a procedural move that was made a few hours ago. Then we will finally be able to move on to issues that are of real concern, like putting in place pharmacare for six million Canadians with diabetes and ensuring that nine million Canadians have access to contraception. This is fundamentally important. There is also the issue of affordable housing that the NDP, the member for Burnaby South and the entire NDP caucus, has pushed the government to put into place. Therefore, we will start to see the construction of affordable housing after a dismal two decades, first under the Conservatives, when we saw housing prices and food bank lineups double. Tragically, the Liberals did the same thing, keeping in place many of the Harper-regime policies that have had such a profound detrimental impact on Canadians. I would point out the infamous Harper tax haven treaties that cost Canadians $30 billion each and every year, according to the PBO. It is sad beyond belief that we are unable to pay for so many important things that would make a difference in lives of people and NDP initiatives that are blocked constantly by the Conservatives. At the same time, the Conservatives seem proud of the fact that they continue to give $30 billion a year to overseas tax havens and the very wealthy. Those are my concerns. We know that this is a procedural delay. It is designed to block pharmacare. However, there is an underpinning that I find extremely disquieting, which is that the Conservatives are trying to run roughshod over our independent institutions, writ large. What happened in the Saskatchewan legislature over the last few months is absolutely despicable. No Conservative has apologized. No Conservative has stepped forward and talked about what happened with a former member of the conservative Saskatchewan Party. The House leader of that party has been intimidating the independent Speaker of the Saskatchewan legislature. Not a single Conservative has stepped up and said “That is unacceptable.” Saskatchewan MPs sat with that member, Jeremy Harrison, who has been both physically and mentally intimidating the independent Speaker of the Saskatchewan legislature and not a single Conservative has stood to say that it is wrong. Therefore, this ongoing attack against the Speaker at the federal level—

645 words

Mr. Warren Steinley

May/28/24 1:14:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member has been here a long time. I did say that harassment is wrong—

25 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/28/24 1:14:16 p.m.
Watch

I am sorry, but the hon. member is rising on a point of debate, not a point of order. If the member is not in agreement with what the hon. member is saying, then he needs to wait until questions and comments and he can make his comment then. Members may want to look at the procedures manual and policy manual to ensure that they are rising on proper points of order, so we can keep the House going. I do have a point of order and I hope that it is not with respect to what I have just ruled. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

109 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

May/28/24 1:14:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my concern is that when we are talking about someone bringing a gun into the legislature, it would be nice if the Conservatives all signed something, but they refuse to, and they continue to tacitly go along.

39 words

Mr. Rick Perkins

May/28/24 1:15:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. That hon. member knows that this is debate and not a point of order. I would ask that those kinds of interventions stop, as the deputy government House leader does.

39 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/28/24 1:15:14 p.m.
Watch

Everything that is being said is points of debate. Again, I would ask members to please allow members to do their speech without interruptions, unless they know for sure that it is truly a point of order on which they are rising. The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

50 words

Mr. Peter Julian

May/28/24 1:15:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is exactly the point. The Conservatives threaten; they cut people off. As for the decorum in the Saskatchewan legislature, I need to read into the record what Conservatives in Saskatchewan have done to the independent Speaker, because it is very germane to the kinds of ongoing attacks against the speakership of the House of Commons. We elect a Speaker. We ensure that the Speaker continues on good behaviour. What we have seen is the Conservatives attacking in a way that we have never seen before. I have raised constantly points of order about the social media posts that have been the most disgusting, disrespectful material possible, attacking the speakership of the House of Commons. It is unbelievable. It is something that Conservatives in the past ruled very clearly on, saying that in no circumstances was it appropriate to attack the Speaker or the speakership, yet Conservatives now do this routinely, as if destroying the speakership is some kind of childish game to them. What happened just a few days ago in Saskatchewan is indicative of that lack of respect for our institutions that we see routinely now from the member for Carleton and the entire Conservative caucus. No members speak up. Only the member for Richmond—Arthabaska had the courage to stand and say that what was happening in the Conservative Party was unacceptable. He now sits as an independent. Thankfully, at least one Conservative was willing to do that. I know that other members of the Conservative caucus have strong misgivings about what Conservatives are doing now in the House and the attacks that they are levying against all our institutions, whether it is the Bank of Canada, or the Parliamentary Budget Officer, or the Auditor General or the speakership of the House of Commons. There are Conservatives that have profound misgivings but they are not voicing them. I would ask the Conservative caucus to reflect on what the member for Carleton has done and the kinds of attacks the Conservative Party and Conservative members are levying against our parliamentary institutions, our democratic institutions, our independent institutions, and speak out. It is fine to convey misgivings privately. It takes courage to speak up publicly. I would encourage them to speak publicly. What happened in Saskatchewan is happening here. We will be able to get through, with a vote this evening, this procedural game the Conservatives are playing to block pharmacare. What happened in Saskatchewan is even more distasteful. I will read now into the record the comments by the independent Speaker of the Saskatchewan legislature, directing his comments toward the attacks of the conservative Saskatchewan Party, including from ex-members of the Conservative caucus. He talks about the obsession in Saskatchewan of the government House leader, former member Jeremy Harrison, former member of the Conservative caucus, saying that what is “more disturbing is his obsession with guns and his use of intimidation both verbally and physically. His desire to get permission to carry a handgun in the legislative assembly is particularly disturbing.” He also said: Another incident reported by a former special constable was when the Government House Leader [Jeremy Harrison] flaunted the rules concerning weapons when he brought a hunting rifle into the Legislative Building. He owns many weapons including a .223 AR-style 4-shot clip lightweight which looks like an assault weapon. Weapons like these can be easily converted to more than four shots As I stated before, my experience with the Government House Leader includes threatening gestures whenever I rule against him in the Assembly. He will start yelling at me and standing up and flashing his suit jacket. As the gestures and behaviour became more aggressive, I worried that he might be carrying a handgun. My concerns over his mental stability and his obsession with guns was only confirmed—

642 words

Saskatchewan

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/28/24 1:20:03 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Longueuil—Saint‑Hubert is rising on a point of order.

16 words