44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 4, 2023 11:00AM
- Dec/4/23 1:01:22 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is incredibly disappointing that other parties would suggest a Speaker's history, the understanding of the rules of this place and the essential elements that allow us to do our jobs—
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/4/23 1:09:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is troubling that we are forced to have this discussion in this place. I will reference another privilege discussion that I observed a number of years ago under a previous Speaker, under a previous government. The reason I reference it will become very apparent shortly.
It happened to be an NDP member at the time, who was on the opposition bench in the official opposition under former prime minister Stephen Harper and the then Conservative government. There was a discussion about the privileges of a member being violated because the security guards did not allow ease of access to the chamber in the old Centre Block, which, of course, is a little different circumstance than now. An extended discussion took place about the particular NDP member's ability to access the House of Commons and that in the likelihood that ability was hindered in any way, it would have been a violation of the member's privilege, a privilege that is guarded so dearly.
Most people watching would hear of the idea of a question of privilege and probably have many questions about what the big deal is. When it comes to the privileges we have in this place, they are so carefully guarded, because that is the mechanism for which we are able to represent the people who send us here to perform our sacred duties.
When it comes to the discussion that took place on that question of privilege on the few moments that an NDP member was unable to enter this place in a timely manner, which could have led to her not being able to perform her duties, there is a direct correlation to the discussion we are having here today because—
290 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/4/23 1:12:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, not very often will I defend the NDP whatsoever, but I find it interesting that the NDP would be opposed to an example that gets to the very heart of what we are discussing. In that case, it was the physical—
44 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/4/23 1:16:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention by my colleague from Manitoba. I would simply say this. When it comes to the role that partisanship does play in the House, I, among many others, are known for their partisanship.
I do find it troubling that there would be members of this place who would use a debate that is about defending the rights and privileges of members to represent their constituents, including when that partisanship takes place, which is why I very carefully selected the example I did about an NDP opposition member's ability to access the chamber. I make that quick connection to the debate that we are having here today.
If members look at the back of their IDs, they will see the very clear rules of privileges and what parliamentary privilege means with respect to accessing the parliamentary precinct. A member's ability to access this place goes beyond simply the physical ability for us to walk into this chamber. It needs to ensure that members are able to, in an uninhibited fashion, trust the institutions and infrastructure of this place, including the role of the Speaker as the arbiter and a non-partisan voice that does not take preference over another.
To sum this up very quickly, the actions of the Speaker have called into question whether myself or any other member of this place can truly trust the actions of the Chair to ensure that the role of the Speaker and the sacred obligation that this has within our parliamentary system is maintained. Without that, it devolves into something that truly does abuse our privileges.
270 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/4/23 1:29:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. To ensure that we are following the rules in this place, which is the reason there are so many issues here today, I would refer the House to the 2017, the third, edition of Bosc and Gagnon. Regarding questions of privilege, it says, “Whenever any matter of privilege arises, it shall be taken into consideration immediately.” I therefore find it very troubling that the Liberals, and specifically their coalition partners in the NDP—
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/4/23 2:58:32 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Canadians depend on affordable proteins like chicken, yet over the last eight years, families are forced to cut back on these essentials. Canadian farms lead the world in environmental best practices, but the Liberals choose only to punish them with higher costs, red tape and a quadrupling of the carbon tax. A chicken farmer near Redwater, Alberta, is already paying nearly two grand a month in the carbon tax. Come the middle of winter, that cost will double. Those costs are passed on to Canadians who are already struggling to put food on the table.
Will these Liberals take the tax off families, farmers and first nations, finally?
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable how out of touch that ag minister is. Jake from Vermeer's Dairy near Camrose saw a bill of $1,700 in carbon tax charges alone last month. It is going to be more as winter settles in on the Canadian Prairies. It is clear that these Liberals do not have an environmental plan but, rather, a tax plan that punishes those who are best equipped to lower the price of food in this country.
My question is simple. Will those Liberals tell their Liberal-appointed senators to pass common-sense Conservative Bill C-234 to axe the tax so farmers can feed our people?
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
