44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 4, 2023 11:00AM
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today. I very enjoyed my talks with the member for Vancouver Centre. We have had a number of great conversations about various issues, including seniors issues. I have found her to be an outspoken supporter and critic when it comes to seniors issues. It is an absolute privilege to be standing here on legislation she has no doubt proudly brought forward.
This is an act that would amend the Criminal Code to create an offence for long-term care facilities, their owners or their managers who fail to provide necessities of life to residents of the facilities.
I believe it was Rawls who said that if we could go back to what he called the “original position”, meaning if we knew we were entering society but did not know how we were going to enter society, it would make sense that, if we knew one of the outcomes was to be in one of the more difficult positions in our society, we would want to do everything we could for such individuals.
For example, one could be sitting outside the world, and one could come into this world not knowing where one was going to come in, whether one was going to come in as Bill Gates, a billionaire, or whether one was going to come in as someone at the other end of the economic spectrum. If coming in as Bill Gates, one would probably be fine. One's concern would probably be if one came into a more challenging place in our society. For example, on the challenges an individual who faces a disability may have, one would want to make sure society was innately fair to persons with disabilities.
I believe this is a little analogous here. If in fact we knew we might have the lottery and might end up as an individual without any sort of control over our life whatsoever, with perhaps reduced faculties going forward, we would want to make sure this society, this country, was fair to those individuals. Unfortunately, that is not always the case today.
I, of course, as everyone else in here, will be in that situation hopefully at some point in my life. That is a little different than the original position, in that most of us will be in the position where we will be coming toward the winter of life, and perhaps facing reduced faculties and having our complete life, from food to recreation or even just to seeing daylight, completely at the control of someone else. What a difficult position to be in.
I revel in the wisdom of folks who are a couple of years my senior, and so I have often had conversations with individuals. It can be a very challenging time for individuals who have had very high-functioning lives or have been in charge of the destiny of many others in life. These are people who have been surgeons and doctors, or people who have had other lives under their control and who had control over everything in their life and have been successful in life. They find themselves now in a state where they are completely reliant on others. What a sacrosanct responsibility for those individuals who are now in charge of these individuals who have given so much to society and who have built the greatest country in the world.
We have such an incredible responsibility to make sure those people who built our country are taken care of. Unfortunately, we heard through the pandemic and before the pandemic that oftentimes people just did not get fair treatment in their life. That is why this legislation is a step in the right direction. We, as a society, have to make sure those individuals who have given their entire lives to building this country, building the best country in the world, are protected. If others are in fact letting them down, there must be consequences for not providing these people the care when they need it most. Individuals in some cases are completely and utterly reliant on those individuals, so if there is neglect or, worse, willful neglect or even purposeful harm, these individuals must be held accountable.
That is why I will be proudly voting for Bill C-295. I thank the sponsors of this bill for bringing it forward.
731 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/4/23 12:33:32 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, certainly the New Democrats appreciate the official opposition House leader's raising this important question of privilege. I just want to state that our House leader, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, will be addressing this very serious issue after question period.
45 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/4/23 12:41:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on this very serious question. I wish to do so so that the people watching us in Quebec and all francophone communities across the country understand what we are talking about right now in the House of Commons.
Today, we provided notice of a question of privilege concerning the Speaker's public participation in partisan events over this past weekend.
As the Speaker himself indicated this morning in his statement, I hope that he will recuse himself from the deliberations concerning this question of privilege. This is an extremely sensitive issue, especially since the question of privilege has been compounded by a number of other issues.
The Conservative Party asked that the question of privilege be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to study the event and recommend any appropriate remedies. Today, another political party asked that the Speaker simply resign. This is an extremely serious matter that deserves to be looked at very seriously.
Words and deeds matter. I am going to quote the member for Hull—Aylmer, before he took the role of Speaker, from the speech he made in the House to all his colleagues and to all Canadians. Let us not forget that before the vote, all those running to become Speaker were given the opportunity to make a speech in the hope of winning the support of their peers, their fellow MPs. The member for Hull—Aylmer took advantage of his speaking time to call for respect, saying, and I quote:
The words we use matter. Symbols matter. I know this all too well.
These are weighty words in relation to the events reported to us by The Globe and Mail this weekend. Subsequently, we have had the opportunity to see them on social networks and, today, they are being repeated just about everywhere on all platforms and in all media.
Let me remind members what happened. The Globe and Mail published an article on Saturday under the following headline, “John Fraser finishes his time as interim Ontario Liberal leader as party elects permanent replacement”. The article was written by Laura Stone. She quotes the Speaker of the House quite remarkably. Here is how the member for Hull—Aylmer referred to Mr. Fraser: “He's demonstrated so much calm, and conviction and resolve and determination, and he's held it all together at a very challenging time in the history of our party.”
Let me repeat that last part because it is very important for what happened next: “He's held it all together at a very challenging time in the history of our party.”
I will now quote an excerpt from the statement made by the Speaker of the House this morning, at the opening of the House, speaking about that video.
Hon. colleagues, it was played at a convention for a party that I am not a member of, in a province where I do not live in and where I have been unable to vote for nearly three decades.
I can remember the Speaker's exact words in the video, which was viewed by a number of Canadians. The Speaker of the House, wearing his robes and standing in his office, said of Mr. Fraser that he “demonstrated so much calm, and conviction and resolve and determination”, and “held it all together at a very challenging time in the history of our party”.
That is the opposite of the statement the Speaker of the House and member for Hull—Aylmer made this morning. What does he mean by “our party”?
Regardless, the video went even further. The Speaker of the House took part by video in the election of the leader of the Ontario Liberal Party. This is an excerpt of what he said in the two-minute video produced as part of a tribute to Mr. Fraser, and I quote: “We had a lot of fun together through the Ottawa South Liberal Association, through Liberal Party politics, by helping Dalton McGuinty get elected. This was really a seminal part of my life. When I think of the opportunities that I have now as being Speaker of the House of Commons, it's because of people like John and Linda, and especially you, John, that I am the person I am today.”
In that same video, once again, the Speaker himself mentioned his affiliation with the Liberal brand. He was wearing the Speaker's robes and standing in the Speaker's office, and the video was probably filmed using House of Commons resources. For the benefit of the people tuning in, I will just remind them that the video was played at the Ontario Liberal leadership convention as a message from the Speaker of the House of Commons of Canada. As I mentioned earlier, he made these remarks while standing in the Speaker's office in West Block and wearing the Speaker's robes.
The decision to take part in a political convention is in and of itself very ill advised for someone who must be seen to be non-partisan. Some people may say that the situation would have been different if the member for Hull—Aylmer had done this wearing jeans in his backyard and using a personal computer rather than House of Commons resources, but that is not true. The Speaker of the House is the Speaker of the House, regardless of the circumstances and regardless of what he is wearing. When he does something like this while deliberately dressed in the full regalia of his non-partisan position in the offices of the Speaker of the House of Commons, that is what we would call a partisan gesture on the part of someone we would expect to show absolute non-partisanship.
I thought it was important, and I still think it is important, that we inform all of the francophones across the country who watch our proceedings of what is going on. It is important to remember that the House of Commons Procedure and Practice is very clear on the non-partisan nature of the position of Speaker of the House of Commons.
1046 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/4/23 12:48:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to reiterate that this is a really important question of privilege being raised. However, there is live translation of all House proceedings, and I believe that we have heard from several members of the Conservative Party on the point. To your point earlier, I understand that we are looking to get new information on this question of privilege, and I wonder whether you could speak to that.
78 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/4/23 12:50:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I understand. However, I think it is very important that all of the French speakers are able to hear about the facts that were reported and the articles that were published in the English newspapers directly from a member.
I will continue by quoting a few things from House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition. Chapter 7 very clearly states the following:
...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.
A new fact has come to light. Today, in the House, a political party asked the Speaker to step down. That is a new development that occurred after my colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle raised the question of privilege.
Chapter 7 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice also states the following: “In order to protect the impartiality of the office, the Speaker abstains from all partisan political activity”.
To show how much I respect the fact that the Speaker asked me to be brief, I will end with this. The participation of the Speaker of the House of Commons in a partisan Liberal activity, whether at the federal, provincial or even municipal level—if there were municipal Liberal activities—is simply unacceptable. The Speaker must be the arbiter of House debates and deliberations.
Mr. Speaker, for all these reasons, I ask that you rule in favour of the question of privilege put by the House leader for the opposition and member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.
279 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/4/23 12:59:45 p.m.
- Watch
We are really getting into the weeds, I believe. I want to make sure we get to the issue of the question of privilege before us.
Just to give the House a heads-up, there are a couple of other questions of privilege to be raised today, so I want to move through the next couple of stages to make sure I have the information available to render a decision.
The hon. House leader for the opposition.
77 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/4/23 1:03:38 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I just want to again reference the statement the Speaker made today. He said, “I would like to reassure members that the principles of respect, impartiality and decorum are values I continue to prioritize for my tenure as Speaker.” Those are not things one just says; those are things one actually has to do.
I ask the Speaker to consider this: Should you not agree that this rises to the level of requiring a privilege motion, you will be saying that it is okay for Speakers to engage in these types of partisan activities. I do not want to see the special way the Speaker conducts himself or herself start to be eroded because of the actions that happened this weekend if the House does not take a decision on this.
140 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 1:11:59 p.m.
- Watch
I will caution the hon. member to get to the point because there are a number of things I want to get moving on. We are already a little over an hour into this question of privilege. I want to give it its due time, but I also want to take it back and then render a decision in the House as soon as possible as Deputy Speaker.
The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.
76 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/4/23 1:18:53 p.m.
- Watch
I thank the hon. members for their interventions. I believe I have enough to take back. I am going to come back to the House on this one. There is a fair amount of information to look at, and it is incumbent on me to come back as quickly as possible on this.
On a new question of privilege, the hon. House leader for the opposition is rising.
68 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/4/23 1:19:31 p.m.
- Watch
I am going to cut the member off because we have two other questions of privilege and I would like to get those out of the way before I go to a point of order. I apologize.
On a question of personal privilege, we have the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.
54 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/4/23 1:22:10 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we know that the Conservatives are trying to talk the clock out, but if there is a question of privilege from a committee, it has to be brought from the committee. The member did not have that support, so he is trying to overrule the Chair of the committee, who made a ruling.
It is up to you to, then, decide whether you are going to overrule the Chair of a committee to whom this was brought forward and who had the support of the majority of the committee. It would set a very bad precedent for the Speaker to allow the member to override a committee Chair. I do not think that is within our rules.
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/4/23 1:22:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, first of all, the member said it was a point of order. He was actually making arguments regarding the question of privilege, which he will have an opportunity to do. He is intimately involved in these proceedings and, I am sure, will have a great deal to say about it.
I did begin my remarks, which maybe the member for Timmins—James Bay was not listening to, by mentioning that I am speaking in the context of the provisions of Standing Order 116(2)(a) and (b), provisions that, by the way, I mentioned in the discussion at the committee. The member may or may not recall that during some of the back and forth at the natural resources committee, I informed the Chair and the member for Timmins—James Bay, as well as other members, that they should be careful about whether or not they respect the rules, rights and privileges of members because, unlike what was the case in the past, there is now a provision of the Standing Orders whereby members can seek a remedy in the House.
The member would be right most of the time, but he should have heeded my warnings in this case because I read Standing Order 116(2)a) and (b) to him and to other members in committee, and I have read them in the House again. They do speak to my right to highlight violations of privilege. If the member wants to speak to the issue later, he can. I, of course, think this is an extremely important issue of privilege.
We see the complicity of the NDP; in fact, in some cases, the NDP is worse than the government in trying to shut down members of Parliament and deprive them of their right to speak. I think workers in the member's riding and across the country will take note of that.
I would like to provide you with the evidence that I am speaking of in terms of how Standing Order 116(2)a) and (b) was violated in the proceedings of the natural resources committee. It was violated in a number of ways. The first instance was when the member for Peace River—Westlock was seeking to be added to the list of speakers and was in fact arbitrarily prevented from doing so. Committee rules allow any member who is present, even if they are not a regular member of the committee or a substitute, to be able to participate in the proceedings of the committee, with certain limited exceptions. They cannot vote, but they can participate by speaking, etc.
I will draw the attention to the House of when the incident happened. It was 3:50 p.m. on October 31. This was a continuation of the meeting of the natural resources committee that began on October 1. Mr. Viersen had been seeking to have himself added to the list. I apologize. This will be challenging because I need to cite some evidence from the transcript. I know that in committees it is our convention to use surnames; of course, in the House, we do not use surnames. I will do my best to switch it over in every case, but I apologize for my error previously and I apologize in advance if I err again. I will do my best.
Mr. Charlie Angus: Oh, oh!
Mr. Garnett Genuis: Mr. Speaker, the member for Timmins—James Bay is very keen to get into this conversation. Frankly, I am sure he is embarrassed right now because his conduct at committee was—
602 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/4/23 1:26:43 p.m.
- Watch
Let us try not to take partisan shots at parties as we roll along. I am hearing a lot of chatter, but I am also hearing attacks happening as well. Let us just stick to the questions of privilege that we are trying to raise and try to use the time of the House as judiciously as possible.
The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is rising on a point of order.
73 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/4/23 1:27:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we have had continual interruptions and harassment from the member for Timmins—James Bay while we are trying to talk about a serious question of privilege.
I am beginning to think that my privilege to listen to the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is being infringed.
51 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/4/23 1:27:44 p.m.
- Watch
I will once again remind members of the House of Commons to keep their comments to themselves if they possibly can so we can judiciously get through the questions of personal privilege that have been brought to the attention of the Speaker's Office in accordance with the rules.
I urge the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan to continue to make his point.
66 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/4/23 1:29:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the member is out of order in terms of bringing forward his question of privilege. There is no committee report before the House to be able to raise the issue that he is, in fact, raising. Some might believe that the member is trying to filibuster.
51 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/4/23 1:29:37 p.m.
- Watch
Again, I urge everyone to stick to the points in order to make the prima facie case they are trying to make that it is a question of privilege.
29 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 1:30:23 p.m.
- Watch
I will use my line here, and I need to make people aware that when they bring a question of privilege to the floor, the role of the Chair is to decide whether the matter merits priority over all other business. In making their preliminary arguments, members should briefly explain the background and the main facts that give rise to the question of privilege. The focus should be to demonstrate that there is sufficient evidence of a prima facie case.
I would ask the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan to make the case that this is actually a question of privilege, or we will have to move on.
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
