44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 5, 2023 11:00AM
- Jun/5/23 12:41:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this is on a different point, but it does relate to a decision by the Chair.
I want to seek clarification on the use of the word “phony” in the House of Commons. You will recall that, last week, I referred to the special rapporteur, David Johnston, as the “phony rapporteur”, because the Conservatives simply believe it is a fake job.
The job is fake. The idea that he is independent is fake. He himself has acknowledged that he answers to the government, not to Parliament and not to the people of Canada. In fact, his order in council lists him as a special adviser to the Prime Minister. There is no independence around somebody who is employed by the government, who is employed by the Prime Minister and who has acknowledged that he is not independent. That is point number one—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
154 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/5/23 12:42:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as I was saying, it is our contention and belief, as more and more Canadians are realizing, that the position of the rapporteur is fake and the idea that there is independence around it is also fake. The government may believe something different, but it is certainly our right as opposition members of Parliament to make that assertion.
On Thursday, my question was interrupted by the Speaker because of that word, and that really puzzled me, because I have sat in that chair before and I know the exercise that one must go through in listening to interventions and assessing whether they are orderly or disorderly. It is truly a context-driven exercise.
When I used the expression “phony rapporteur” last week, I certainly was not imputing motives on the part of any hon. member or suggesting that any member was deliberately misleading the House. In my view, the use of the word “phony” was acceptable and parliamentary in the circumstances. Citation 490 of Beauchesne's identifies a list of examples of expressions that, between 1958 and the mid-1980s, were held to be parliamentary. They are actually in Beauchesne's, in a list of words that have been ruled parliamentary. Not only is it not on the list of unparliamentary words, but it is on the list of parliamentary words. I refer you to page 147 of Beauchesne's sixth edition.
“Phony” appears on that list with four separate rulings in support of it being a parliamentary expression: Mr. Speaker Michener, on July 7, 1959, at page 5624 of the Debates; Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole Charles Rea, on July 11, 1959, at page 5849 of the Debates; Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole Charles Rea, on May 19, 1960, at page 4051 of the Debates; and Chair of Committees of the Whole Herman Batten, on April 21, 1967, at page 15206 of the Debates.
Perhaps more importantly, the expression has been in common use in the House since that time. Punching the term “phony” into the House's website search engine for parliamentary publications reveals hundreds of occasions when the term appears in Hansard. I know that I heard it often when I served as the chair occupant between 2006 and 2015.
Here is one example by then leader Bob Rae, at page 6077 of the Debates, from March 12, 2012, which has a lot of resonance in this debate. It states:
...if the hon. member is so certain about his phony allegations, perhaps he would agree with me that the time has now come for a royal commission into what happened in the last election and what happened in previous elections to ensure that it never happens again.
On February 14, 2013, the member for Charlottetown, at page 14160 of the Debates, referred to a minister's “phony performance”. On April 1, 2015—
492 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/5/23 12:46:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I take the point. I anticipated that you were going to mention that ruling, so I have something that I would like you to consider. We do have question period later on today—
36 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/5/23 12:46:26 p.m.
- Watch
I will do my best, Madam Speaker.
You are absolutely right that there is context and that it is the Speaker's job to judge many factors when considering whether or not a term or a word is unparliamentary. However, I put it to you that it is a tactic of the government to take offence at words or phrases that have been used before, and they caused the disorder—
71 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/5/23 2:11:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, “Water, water everywhere, so let's all have a drink.” At least Homer Simpson thought so as he scooped up a mouthful of sea-water to quench his thirst. Of course, while it may have the illusion of relief, drinking ocean water will not cure thirst; it will only make it worse. That is a lot like the Liberal budget. It is full of salt water.
Canadians are parched with inflation caused by massive Liberal deficits. Even prominent Liberals, such as John Manley, Bill Morneau and the finance minister herself admitted that bigger deficits would make the problem worse. Not only are the Liberals salting the water by tripling the first carbon tax and introducing a second one, but they are also racking up $63 billion in new inflationary deficits. Extra spending means extra borrowing, which means higher interest rates for Canadians.
Therefore, the illusion that Liberals are offering in response to the cost of living crisis will actually just make things worse. Canadians will not be fooled. They are smarter than Homer Simpson and the finance minister, and they are demanding the real relief that Conservatives are offering. We are offering the fresh water of lower taxes, an end to inflationary deficits and a stop to the waste and mismanagement.
215 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
