SoVote

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

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

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

May/28/24 1:50:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there is something that is very clear. At the beginning of the member's statement, he called this a Speaker's scandal. That it is just it with the Conservatives; they love using the word “scandal”. Character assassination is something they have made into a fine art. This is not something the Speaker has done wrong. For the incident in question, the Liberal Party gave a formal apology. It has accepted full responsibility, yet the Conservatives continue with the character assassination. We have so many important things Canadians are dealing with today. We have substantial legislation and budgetary measures here to support Canadians, and they need to be debated. This includes pharmacare, dental care, the disability program, housing-related issues and the economy. There are so many things there, yet the Conservative Party continues to be focused, not on Canadians, but on make-believe scandals that—

151 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/28/24 1:51:35 p.m.
Watch

I want to remind the member he has one minute to ask a question so I can get the answer. The hon. member for Lévis—Lotbinière.

31 words

Mr. Jacques Gourde

May/28/24 1:51:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague did not have time to ask his question because his preamble was such a broad and extremely partisan tirade against the Conservatives. He has just proven once again that there are people here who are extremely partisan. He is defending the indefensible. He is defending a partisan Speaker of the House who is not impartial. I do not understand why he is so adamant about keeping him on.

72 words

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

May/28/24 1:52:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member something. We have heard a lot from the Liberals that this was an incident that the Speaker somehow knew nothing about, and he was just attending. It was an event and a fundraiser in the Speaker's own riding. I do not know about other members, but when my EDA puts out a communication for an event, I look at it before it goes out. I cannot imagine the Liberals lack such diligence that they would not look at their own information. They are now blaming the party, rather than the Speaker's incompetence. Does the member look at his own communication from his EDA before they go out? Do you actually believe the government that the member had nothing to do with the communication about a fundraiser in his own riding?

141 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/28/24 1:52:57 p.m.
Watch

That is not a question I am going to answer. I ask the hon. member to address all questions and comments through the Chair. The hon. member for Lévis—Lotbinière.

35 words

Lotbini

Mr. Jacques Gourde

May/28/24 1:53:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I understand my colleague's concerns here in the House. The role of Speaker is so important in this chamber. If there are doubts about the Speaker, there could be doubts about the entire institution.

37 words