SoVote

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

May/28/24 1:20:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will finish the quote before I was so rudely interrupted. He said, “My concerns over his mental stability and his obsession with guns was only confirmed when he heckled after the passing of the motion to devolve all relevant parts of the Firearms Act to the province. He twice yelled, open carry, open carry next.” The attacks against the Speaker of the Saskatchewan legislature by the conservative Saskatchewan Party are very similar to the attacks we are seeing now against the speakership of the House of Commons. This is not something that is innocuous or innocent. It is something that needs to be taken under consideration. I have repeatedly risen in the House, talking about the incessant attacks that we are seeing on social media from the Conservative Party against the speakership of the House of Commons. I will give credit where credit is due. The members of the Bloc Québécois, despite the fact that they continue to raise procedural blockages to the House of Commons, have not attacked the speakership of the House of Commons openly on social media. Why? Because it contravenes the rules of our House. The rules of our House were set by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, the former Speaker of the House of Commons, the now House leader for the Conservative Party. He said, “Reflections on the character or actions of the Speaker—an allegation of bias, for example—could be taken by the House as breeches of privilege and punished accordingly.” The Speaker also said at that time, in this ruling that dates back to 2014, “I urge all members to be judicious in the expressions they choose to use.” That was the Conservatives when they were in power, saying that there was no transgression against attacking the speakership of the House of Commons. Now we see them in opposition not doing anything that actually helps anybody. They are blocking dental care, pharmacare, affordable housing and the consumer protection provisions that the member for Burnaby South has brought forward, which would start helping Canadians against food price and gas price gouging, which has happened with corporate CEOs determining the prices and the gouging they do with impunity. Those provisions are something the NDP has been pushing for years, and finally they are coming into being. However, all of those pieces of legislation have been blocked by the incessant attacks by the Conservative caucus against the speakership of the House of Commons. The Conservatives would have loved to have spent the next three weeks debating this, rather than getting pharmacare in place, which would help six million Canadians who have diabetes, and I will come back to that in a moment, and nine million Canadian women, who want their full reproductive rights and freedoms, to have access to contraception. For diabetes, the Conservatives' constant blocking since February 29 of the pharmacare act that the NDP initiated, pushing in this minority Parliament to get it done, hurts people like my constituent Amber, who is paying $1,000 a month for diabetes medication. She is paying that out of pocket. She is struggling because of the lack of affordable housing, because of the Harper government's refusal to build affordable housing and the current government's reluctance, until the NDP forced it to finally budget that. All of the other provisions that would help Canadians, the Conservatives have blocked. We are seeing, systematically, an attack not only on the speakership of the House of Commons, but also on all our institutions. People would say, and they would be right, that the NDP MPs are the worker bees of Parliament. We get things done for people, even people in Conservative ridings. In fact, Conservative ridings have benefited from the NDP's work perhaps more than any other, because of the success of the dental care program within even the first three weeks. More Conservative ridings are benefiting from dental care, because the seniors who have signed up are finally accessing, sometimes for the first time in their lives, it. Therefore, we are the worker bees, but we are also the adults in the House of Commons. We saw this last fall when the former Speaker made a choice that, to our minds, simply compelled that Speaker to step down. Members will recall that no other party was calling for the Speaker's resignation. We put it forward with dignity. We did not criticize or attack the Speaker. In fact, we thought the former Speaker had done a decent job. However, given its magnitude, we believed that what unfolded last fall necessitated the Speaker's resignation. We clearly communicated that; eventually, other parties agreed with us, and the Speaker did resign. We went through a process that took a couple of weeks, and we elected a new Speaker. However, the new Speaker initially made a number of errors that forced the House to consider the matter and refer it to PROC, which then referred it back to the House, and we voted on that. There were a number of sanctions and some solutions that were put into place. However, since then, we have not seen the kind of behaviour that would necessitate any kind of motion such as this, quite the contrary. The Speaker has stood up and maintained decorum, but Conservatives have not liked that. The fact is, the member for Carleton was called to order when he used an atrociously unparliamentary, disrespectful term, attacking another member of the House. He was asked to withdraw it and refused; he was then asked to withdraw for the day. That happens, and we have seen it happen with other members of Parliament. When we use unparliamentary terms, we have to ensure that we are willing to undergo the consequences that come from that. It is a question of basic personal responsibility. I know that is alien to members of at least one party in the House, but when one makes such an error, one has to be willing to accept the consequences of one's actions. However, the member for Carleton did not accept the consequences. He renewed his attacks on the Speaker. Now, we have a situation where the Liberal Party of Canada was clearly at fault and clearly disrespected the speakership by posting something without the knowledge or the authorization of the Speaker. However, the Conservatives did not attack the Liberal Party of Canada, which is what they should have done. They love to attack, so why did they not attack the author of the error? It was only the NDP that called on the Liberal Party of Canada to fully apologize to the speakership, which is ultimately, thankfully, what members of the Liberal Party did. They should have apologized right away, but they did not. However, pressure from the NDP meant that the Liberal Party of Canada apologized, which should have closed it and ended this. We should not be spending days talking through this procedural delay when, at the same time, we have pharmacare pending. The sooner pharmacare is approved, the sooner the benefits can go to people such as my constituent, Amber, who is paying $1,000 every month. Conservatives do not seem to care about that, but for her, those costs are enormous, and six million Canadians like her struggle every single month. Therefore, to delay pharmacare by putting forward procedural motions that delay the adoption of the bill means that it takes that much longer to help Amber and people like her. In this case, we are seeing a deliberate attempt by Conservatives not to look at the speakership in an impartial way, in an adult way, and if an error happens, to ensure that there is the appropriate consequence. That is what happened last fall and last December. No, they now want to invent, push and expose anything they feel they can, attack the independent speakership of the House of Commons and, in a very real way, diminish our parliamentary institutions. I lived through the incredibly dismal decade of the Harper regime, when Parliament was shut down and padlocked by Conservatives, when procedural things and the normal give-and-take of parliamentary debate ended, and when Conservatives forced through bills that were promptly thrown out by the courts. I do not want to live through that again. Most Canadians would not want to. I want to get on with helping Canadians, and that is why I will be voting “no” on this motion and “yes” to getting back to the debate on pharmacare.

1443 words

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

May/28/24 1:31:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the manner in which the member indicated that, with respect to the incident that ultimately led to the debate we are having today, it very clearly had nothing to do with the Speaker. It was the Liberal Party, which has given a formal apology to the Speaker's office and, through that, to Canadians. This is widely known; it has been publicized. The issue, then, is this: Why would the Conservative Party want to continue trying to punish the current Speaker when, in fact, it was the Liberal Party that made the posting? I have drawn the conclusion that it is because the Conservative Party wants to continue to play a destructive force inside the chamber, preventing the debates on important issues. The member referred to the pharmacare—

133 words

Debates

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/28/24 1:32:47 p.m.
Watch

I want to make sure that the hon. member has an opportunity to answer; there are others waiting to ask questions. The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

29 words

Mr. Peter Julian

May/28/24 1:32:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this is my point. The independent officers of Parliament, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, the Speaker of the House of Commons, and the independent Speaker in the Saskatchewan legislature, obviously showing too much independence for the conservative Saskatchewan Party, are all symptoms of a party that has lost its way. The Conservative Party simply does not have the ethics, morals and scruples that it did under previous leaders, who upheld parliamentary principles. We saw that in the past. We are not seeing it today, and I regret that profoundly. I think the Conservatives need to reflect on their behaviour in the House of Commons and in undermining institutions that matter to all Canadians.

117 words

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC)

May/28/24 1:33:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Chair has the responsibility for overseeing the House of Commons harassment policy. It is a very serious role in this place. In 2016, the Prime Minister grabbed my late former colleague, Gord Brown, by the elbow; he also elbowed a former NDP member in the chest. The Speaker's exact words in that moment, when the member expressed that she had been injured, were, “What happened was exactly as the Prime Minister had described it.” In the Hansard, he described it as “reminiscent of a dive in the 2006 World Cup.” Now there are three incidents of partisanship while he is in the chair. How can the NDP trust the Speaker, given his history of partisanship, to fairly adjudicate the House's harassment policy? What impact will it have on staff and MPs if he continues?

143 words

Mr. Peter Julian

May/28/24 1:34:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am glad that the Conservatives actually brought this up, and I thank the member for London—Fanshawe for having initiated the study on harassment at PROC. Conservatives were not initially in favour. It is important that they now recognize the importance of actually dealing with this in a non-partisan and responsible way. This is a vitally important issue. That is why we raised it and why the member for London—Fanshawe pushed to have this study. I have been here, as has my hon. colleague, and we have seen numerous incidents, both under the previous government and the current government. We need to have a zero tolerance policy in the House of Commons and on the Hill. I am very hopeful that we will get there.

132 words

Ms. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ)

May/28/24 1:35:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague, but during the events surrounding the Speaker last December, the NDP House leader said that he had confidence in the Speaker, but that a line had been drawn and it must not be crossed. We can all see that that line has been crossed several times since then. Today, the NDP is telling us that it still has confidence in the Speaker. As the Liberal Party's farm team, how many feet is the New Democratic Party prepared to move its own line?

94 words

Mr. Peter Julian

May/28/24 1:36:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague too, but I cannot stand by while she spreads disinformation. The reality is that, in this case, it was the Liberal Party of Canada that was at fault and that demonstrated a lack of respect, not only toward the Speaker, but toward all members of the House of Commons. That is why we demanded that the Liberal Party of Canada apologize, which it did. It was not the Speaker's fault. The Bloc Québécois should draw a less partisan line based more on fact. The fact is that, since December, the line has not moved or been crossed, and the Bloc Québécois should admit that.

124 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

May/28/24 1:37:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, just recently, my colleague spoke about the fact that the Conservatives are blocking things, not only here in the House but also at committee. They do not want to see pharmacare advanced. Not only are they blocking pharmacare, but they are also blocking things that need to get through the Standing Committee on Health and need to get through the House. Conservatives say they are standing up for the Canadian Health Food Association regarding natural health products, for example. These are issues that need to be looked at when it comes to regulatory changes. Gavin Mah and Matt Breech, who are both business owners, just met with me; they talked about the regulatory changes that might impact their businesses. Can my colleague speak about how this blocking impacts everything here in this place, especially supporting small businesses that are trying to continue to support their customers?

148 words

Mr. Peter Julian

May/28/24 1:38:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I really wanted to give a shout-out to the member for Courtenay—Alberni, who has always been a strong advocate for small businesses, not only in his riding but also right across the country. He has done an extraordinarily effective job. We saw that during the pandemic, and the response to help small businesses was largely inspired by his work. He has also played a pivotal role in fighting back against the toxic drug crisis that has killed people across this country. Sadly, we have skyrocketing rates in Alberta and Saskatchewan because of the mishandling of this crisis in those two provinces; hence, we are seeing that there is even more to do. However, the member has made an impact. If the government and the official opposition listened to him more, there would be far fewer deaths happening in Canada.

144 words

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

May/28/24 1:39:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in the first of six partisan incidents involving the current Speaker, coming out of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs as it was considering the question, a member of the committee said, “This cannot happen moving forward. From now on, you cannot have a Speaker engage in partisan activity.” Moreover, “if there were any derogation from that, in the weeks and months to come”, he said that his party would vote “non-confidence” in the Speaker. Who was that member? It was the member for New Westminster—Burnaby. Was he telling the truth then or has he just become an unmitigated falsifier of veracity today?

116 words

Partisan

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/28/24 1:40:22 p.m.
Watch

I want to remind the member that he cannot say indirectly what he cannot say directly, so I would just ask him to be very careful with how he uses his words. On a point of order, the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

45 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

May/28/24 1:40:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we just heard my colleague called a liar, but my comment is about his use of the word “veracity”. That is a big word. I think he should withdraw it; it is probably beyond the capacity of the Conservatives.

43 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/28/24 1:40:49 p.m.
Watch

I would remind the member that I have already ruled on this and advised the hon. member. The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby has the floor.

28 words

Mr. Peter Julian

May/28/24 1:40:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am saddened by the member's falsehoods. He is misleading the House. It is very true that, since the month of December—

26 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/28/24 1:41:09 p.m.
Watch

I want to remind the hon. member that he just said something indirectly that he would not say directly. Again, I think it is happening on both sides. I would ask members to please stay away from that word. The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

47 words

Mr. Peter Julian

May/28/24 1:41:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the insults and how Conservatives are handling this ultimately shows what their real goal is. The reality is that we have, and I said this in response to my Bloc colleague who was giving the same disinformation, one incident where it turns out it was the Liberal Party of Canada's fault. It has apologized. It never should have done that. It was disrespectful to the Speaker, to the House of Commons and to Parliament and it has apologized. Conservatives are using this as a pretext to hold up other legislation in the House and I find that untenable. The member has thousands of people who are benefiting from what the NDP has done in his riding with respect to both dental care and pharmacare. Rather than pretending they are not trying to block this legislation, they should just come clean with Canadians.

145 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

May/28/24 1:42:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With respect to what is acceptable parliamentary language and what is not, the term “falsehood” is used regularly because it is a description of a condition. There is a difference between someone calling someone a “falsifier”, which is a synonym for a liar, and saying that something is a falsehood. A falsehood is a parliamentary term, and I think the Speaker needs to look—

78 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/28/24 1:42:52 p.m.
Watch

I appreciate the definition the hon. member is providing. However, when it is directed at members, that is when it crosses the line. I have already put this aside. Let us hope that we can continue to put it aside. Again, I want to remind members to be careful as to how they use their words here in the House. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Lévis—Lotbinière.

73 words

Mr. Jacques Gourde (Lévis—Lotbinière, CPC)

May/28/24 1:43:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to address the House. I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands. This is a Speaker's scandal. For thousands of good people, today is another sad day, a day where our democracy is being disrespected and Canadians' confidence in the House of Commons is being put to the test. The Liberals have too often demonstrated a lack of ethics since 2015, especially when it comes to high-level positions such as Prime Minister of Canada or Speaker of the House of Commons, in the case we are discussing today. As members know, the Speaker is supposed to be impartial, non-partisan and beyond reproach. However, the Liberal member for Hull—Aylmer is struggling to figure out the difference between the role of member and the role of Speaker, or at least, he still does not understand, despite his previous mistakes, that it is not appropriate for a Speaker to engage in Liberal partisan activity. He should have seen the position as a great opportunity in his political career, but he immediately took it for granted. It is different this time, though, because he was found guilty of not being up to the task. This is the third time in the span of a few months that the Speaker has neglected his responsibility to remain non-partisan. Let me give a quick recap of the facts. In recent months, the Speaker has spoken at a fundraising cocktail party for a Liberal neighbour. He has addressed an Ontario Liberal Party convention dressed in his Speaker robes, and he has flown to Washington on Canadian taxpayers' dime to deliver a speech about the good old days when he was a member of the Young Liberals of Canada. I do not know whether this is because he had never dreamed of holding such a post, but his actions are unworthy of the office of Speaker. As members will recall, the previous Speaker of the House had to resign. We cannot question the reason for his departure, but we can salute him for having the courage to leave his post with humility. He recognized his mistakes and acted accordingly, understanding that the serious nature of our democratic institutions is worth preserving. The office must always trump personal partisan ambitions. In contrast, the current Speaker has demonstrated time and again not only his inability to remain neutral, but also his disdain for the neutrality of his post through his stubborn determination to hold onto it. His apologies are not enough. In some respects, they seem like a last-ditch attempt to salvage his chances of staying on as Speaker of the House. Now might be a good time to take a walk down memory lane to remind ourselves of the events in question. First, the Speaker participated in a cocktail reception for party activists, for which he was fined just $1,500, despite the unacceptable nature of the error. Although using his office and Speaker's robes in an undeniably partisan setting ought to have led to an automatic dismissal, the Liberals saw fit to buy peace. Next, he overstepped his authority as Speaker by ejecting the member for Carleton and leader of the official opposition, in an illegitimate and undeniably partisan manner, for using language that has now been accepted by all following further review. Now we have learned that the Speaker of the House is set to take part in a clearly partisan event, which was advertised with incendiary anti-Conservative materials. I understand that the Speaker is still attached to his role as the member for Hull—Aylmer. I myself am very committed to constituency work, which must be done for the benefit of all citizens, even those who did not vote for us. I agree that some aspects of this work are also partisan in nature. However, the role of Speaker is so important for unity in the House and in the country that we cannot allow it to be subject to these divisive dynamics, which, in this case, played out to an unhealthy degree. The fact that the position of Speaker of the House was exploited for partisan purposes leaves a bad taste that cannot be compared or contrasted with the work of any other member. The many events, particularly this last one, are pure provocation. They demonstrate an arrogance that undermines Canadians' confidence in our institutions and promotes cynicism toward politics in general. As elected officials, our number one priority is to serve and represent our constituents. This job comes with a certain number of privileges, but it also comes with responsibilities. There are rules that hold us accountable to Canadians, as well as to the House that represents them. That responsibility is what we must always be thinking about for Canada's future. The real reasons keeping the Speaker from resigning remain unclear. It may come down to ego, visceral partisanship or political pressure from his caucus or party. However, regardless of the reasons, I am once again asking the Speaker to resign in the interest of everyone, to ensure that the extremely important work that is done here can carry on properly. It is a matter of common sense, and I salute my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois, who, for once, have reached the same conclusion we have. The current Speaker has shown that he does not intend to remain impartial. We have known for months that the Speaker does not intend to do his job properly or fairly. We are therefore asking the NDP to grow a spine and stand up for Canadians. We will have to make a decision because, clearly, the Speaker of the House does not have the humility needed to step down, and the Prime Minister does not appear to think there is a problem. It is our duty to ensure that the House operates in an impartial and non-partisan manner. I am counting on my colleagues to put an end to this Speaker's scandal.

1020 words