44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 5, 2023 10:00AM
- Dec/5/23 12:12:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.
The first is with respect to climate change. The most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that we are feeling the impacts in Canada today with the increase in floods, wildfires and extreme temperatures.
The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to move forward immediately with bold emissions caps for the oil and gas sector that are comprehensive in scope and realistic in achieving the necessary targets for Canada to reduce its emissions by 2030.
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 12:13:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have a petition that comes from community members in the Kingston, Frontenac, and Lennox and Addington region, in particular, Frontenac Secondary School.
The petitioners are calling to the attention of the government that school food programs are recognized around the world as essential to the health, well-being and education of students. They note that data from Statistics Canada for 2022 indicates that one in four children in Canada lives in a food-insecure household and that Canada is the only G7 country that does not have a national school food program.
They are calling on the Government of Canada, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development to prioritize funding for a national school food program through budget 2024 and for its implementation in schools by the fall of 2024.
146 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-56. I think the manner in which the bill has had to be dealt with regarding the programming motion is unfortunate. It is a bill with targeted measures in it for Canadians. It is a bill that I believe the entire House supports. I know that Conservatives voted for it at a previous stage, and the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon stood up and said he supports the bill.
Conservatives have used multiple tactics to slow the bill down in moving along each step of the way, yet they say they support it. I find it really troubling that Conservatives know better than to vote against the bill, because they know it would have a meaningful impact for Canadians, yet that at the same time, they choose to drag it out, delay the vote and delay the actual measures' getting to Canadians. They support the measures but just do not want to see them get to Canadians, because that might make the government look like it is doing a good thing, and Conservatives could never allow something like that to occur, even though they clearly are in favour of the bill.
I find it very interesting that, for months, this has been the unfortunate reality of the bill. It was an extremely important measure by the Minister of Finance, if not the first measure, then one of the first introduced in the House when it resumed in September. It was tabled, and Conservatives continued to put forward speakers on the issue and then finally did vote in favour of it to go to committee, where there was a lot of discussion. We finally had to say that it was time to program it to get it back before the House so we could vote on it so people could get the measures, because it has been three months since it was introduced.
I find that extremely disingenuous. I think it feeds into the narrative of the question from the parliamentary secretary to the House leader a few moments ago when he asked why Conservatives are taking this approach, especially when it comes to something they believe in, support and recognize is so important for Canadians. It comes back to the core fundamental of the Conservative Party of Canada right now that the only thing that matters to it is to delay and to prevent the government from actually doing anything. It will use every procedural tactic to do that, as we have seen with a number of different issues, including the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement that—
441 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 1:53:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, for the Canadians who may not pay a lot of attention to what goes on in the House, I will just explain what happened there.
I spoke about nothing but the bill and its relevance. Somebody in the back rooms of the Conservative caucus decided to send somebody in here because I was about to talk about the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. The member literally sat on the edge of his seat waiting for the word “Ukraine” to come out of my mouth. As soon as it did, he jumped up on a point of order as though to try to indicate there was no relevance. That is what is going on right now. That is where the Conservative Party of Canada is right now. That is how Conservatives feel about the issue. They are so afraid of Canadians' finding out where they stand on the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement that they literally send people in here, when they see I have gotten up to speak, to sit on the edge of their seat waiting in anticipation for—
185 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 1:55:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, talk about walking on eggshells. I have not even gotten to that point yet. The member is trying to predict where I am going in my speech and is rising on a point of order pre-emptively because he is afraid I am going to make a comparison between the approach of Russia and the approach of the Conservative Party of Canada. I have not even gotten to that yet. All I said was that the member was afraid I would do that. I did not even actually make the comparison.
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 1:56:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I can tell we are in a position that makes the Conservatives feel very uncomfortable. Are we not? That is quite obvious based on what is going on from that side of the House.
However, I can focus my entire comments on the particular action that the Conservatives are doing right now. The measures in the bill are ones that the finance minister introduced in September. They are measures that the Conservatives voted in favour of at the time to send the bill to committee, but they still are in a position now where they are not even willing to let it move on. We had to get to the point where we had to program the bill because they are not interested in actually getting supports for Canadians, and they never have been as long as the current government has been around. All the Conservatives have been interested in are delay tactics and trying to prevent, in every possible way that they can, pieces of legislation from going forward, just to prevent the government from doing anything. The Conservatives are not even doing what they should be doing in the House, which is to try to hold the government accountable.
203 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 1:57:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, maybe the member can familiarize himself with the rules so the next time he stands up he can actually reference what it is that I did that was against the rules, because he is not even doing that. He is just calling a point of order so he can ramble incoherently.
The reality is that the bill—
60 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 1:58:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, actually, could the member bring those to me? I feel so incredibly proud to represent a community and be able to tell constituents that I have stood up on their behalf so many times in the House of Commons. If the member would like to perhaps do a joint householder with me for our communities, to compare how many times I have stood up versus how many times she has stood up, it would be a great opportunity for us to celebrate how we are able to represent our constituents. I get a kick out of it every time when Conservatives stand up and say that so-and-so has spoken so many times—
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 1:59:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am pretty sure I heard some of the member's own colleagues yell “no” there.
It really comes down to a bill that has substantive measures in it for Canadians. It is a bill that Conservatives voted to send to committee. It is a bill that the whole House seems to be supportive of in terms of the measures contained within it. Even the Conservatives know better than to try to vote against this one, so what do they do? They put absolutely every delay tactic possible in place to prevent the bill from actually moving forward and getting supports to Canadians. This way, the Conservatives can say they were supportive of it the whole time, even though they allowed absolutely no efforts to actually get it through the process. Once again, we are now in a position where we have had to program this—
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 4:22:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, what I find really interesting about this particular issue, which speaks to the political partisanship of it, is that when the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, the House leader for the Conservatives, originally proposed his intervention this morning, he made no reference to calling on the Speaker to resign. Then in the next intervention, the Bloc Québécois called on the Speaker to resign, and as though not to be outdone, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle ran back into the House, rose on another point of order and said that the Speaker should resign. Now he has come to the conclusion, a mere couple of hours later, that there is absolutely no other option but for the Speaker to resign. However, in the entirety of his intervention, when he started off on the matter this morning, he never once raised it.
I wonder if the member can—
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 4:23:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do not see the procedural error I made there. I certainly made an error with respect to the timing, but it was not a procedural error on which the member could stand up on a point of order.
In any event, my point was to say that when the House leader for the Conservatives rose on his question of privilege, he never once made reference to the Speaker resigning. He did not do that until he decided he needed to because the Bloc Québécois was doing it. That signals that there is a great degree of partisanship going on here.
To the parliamentary secretary's point, when the Conservative member made his comments and was directing that this issue go to the procedure and House affairs committee, he had already precluded what the outcome would be. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary would like to provide his insight into that.
157 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 4:29:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, what I am hearing the parliamentary secretary say is that he supports what is being proposed. He supports PROC studying this issue and making a recommendation. However, he believes that rather than trying to dictate the answer from the House, as the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle did in his intervention, we should let the committee do its work and provide the recommendation.
This is why I am led to believe that this is nothing more than a hyperpartisan game, another one put on by the Conservatives, because of the manner in which they are treating this issue. They claim to take it so seriously but, on the other hand, treat it with such disregard and say there is only one possible outcome.
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 4:53:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am rising to speak to this important motion that has been put forward by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. It reads:
That the Speaker's public participation at an Ontario Liberal Party convention, as Speaker of the House of Commons, constitutes a breach of the tradition and expectation of impartiality required for that high office, constituting a serious error of judgment which undermines the trust required to discharge his duties and responsibilities and, therefore, the House refers the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with instruction that it recommend an appropriate remedy.
I think that this is a good course of action that came out as a result of a ruling earlier today that this is typically the proper course of action in order to deal with this. I echo some of the comments that I have heard through the House in this debate, specifically as they relate to trying to reduce the partisan nature around this particular issue.
As others have indicated, the Speaker's chair is extremely important in our democratic institution, in the Westminster parliamentary system specifically, which we utilize here. Despite the fact that a Speaker is elected by his or her peers in this place, the Speaker might come from a particular political party and obviously does, although not always. We usually run under a political banner. Once we get to this place and actually elect a Speaker to sit in that chair, the Speaker does need to ensure that they are completely impartial in terms of how they are running the House. Of course that should extend to what the Speaker does outside of the House as well, because having the perception of impartiality is just as important as having actual impartiality as it relates to the role of the Speaker.
I come from the same riding as former Speaker Milliken, who is the longest-serving Speaker of the House. I must admit when I first heard what had occurred, he was the first person I thought to contact to get his opinion on this. I have not had an opportunity to do that yet, but I think calling on former Speakers and former people who have worked in the clerk's office to seek guidance on this is extremely important.
That is why I think it is important that we do get this issue before the procedure and House affairs committee so that we can do that study. I know there have already been calls in this House that are a predetermined outcome as to how people see the result will come back from committee. I prefer to err on the side of allowing the committee to do its work, to properly investigate this and to call people like former Speaker Milliken and other people who perhaps worked in the Speaker's office to provide important insight into the role of the Speaker, how they should be perceived inside the House, outside of the House and how important that role is.
Being a member of the procedure and House affairs committee, under the assumption that this motion will pass and be sent to committee, I look forward to the opportunity to do that, to properly do that research, to look into it and do it, as the member for New Westminster—Burnaby said moments ago, as quickly as possible given the serious nature of this and the fact that it is something that we are tasked with dealing with immediately.
What that outcome will be and how the committee ends up reporting back, I think, will be based on the deliberations that occur in the committee based on the content of the information that is received and how we assess the content based on other examples of what has occurred. Then the committee can make a recommendation back to the House in terms of what it sees the appropriate course of action would be.
For members to get up in the House, including the one who just heckled me moments ago, to say that there is no other option and that 150 or so members feel a certain way right now, then my question for that member would be what the point is in even sending this to the committee.
717 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 4:58:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, thank you for validating my claim, because it did occur.
The reality is that—
17 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 4:58:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, another member asked who it was, and I said the person's name. I should not have done that and I apologize.
Back to the substance, what I was trying to say was that—
Mr. Corey Tochor: He did not retract, though.
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Madam Speaker, the exact same member is still heckling me.
58 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 4:59:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as I said, when a member stands up during questions during this debate and make claims that 150 members of his caucus already feel a certain way, it makes me wonder what the purpose is in even sending the matter to committee if the outcome has already been predetermined, at least by one particular group. However, it does not diminish the fact that the committee can still do very good work on the matter. I think the committee could actually use this as an opportunity not just to figure out the proper recourse in terms of what should be done now about what has occurred and what the proper remedy is, but also to set a precedent and certain rules, and to establish a best practice to ensure that something like this does not happen again.
I do not know the context for why the Speaker chose to do this, nor will I try to guess as to what it was, but I will say that the Speaker has stood and apologized; he has recognized that it was not the best course of action. He has nonetheless done that, which is I why I think it is extremely important that we accept it but still determine whether there are other courses of action that need to be taken.
There is also an amendment on the motion that came forward. It was odd, because the motion was moved, and then the second speaker from the same party put forward an amendment. I do not know why they did not just include it in the full motion. It was:
That the motion be amended by adding the following: “provided that the committee: (a) meets within 24 hours of receiving this referral order to study the matter; (b) prioritizes this matter over all other business; (c) has first priority in using the resources of the house for committee meetings, subject to special orders adopted on Monday, May 16, 2022, and Monday, December 4, 2023; and (d) is tasked with reporting to the house no later than Thursday, December 14, 2023.”
The original motion set the context for the work that needed to be done and for how important it was, and then it appears as though the amendment that came forward just moments later got very prescriptive in terms of how to deal with the issue. I would have thought that this would all have come together. It certainly does not appear to be an amendment that was proposed as a result of having listened to the debate. From how it was tabled, I perceive it to be something that was well planned in advanced. My sense is that it is probably to try to pressure political parties one way or the other with respect to potentially voting against one part but not the other. Maybe, tactically speaking, it is a good move. However, that certainly does not support the notion that has been widely spread around the House during discussion, which is that this should be a non-partisan issue. If my assumptions are correct, that would suggest that there is a partisan nature to the manner in which the amendment has been tabled, and obviously I would have a concern about that.
However, I do want to see the matter sent to committee. I think it is extremely important that we have a resolution, that we set some parameters for how Speakers are expected to engage in the future, and that we have something reported back to the House that we can then debate and determine how to move forward with.
I will return to what I said when I began, which was about the importance of the impartiality of the Speaker. As many members of the House know, with a good Speaker, yourself included, Madam Speaker, after a while, people do not look at them as being associated with a political party; they start to just respect the fact that the Speaker is non-partisan, However, we do come from a partisan nature; the vast majority of us who are elected to the House are elected under a political banner. Nonetheless, it is really important that once somebody is elected into that position, they ensure that they do it with utmost impartiality in order to avoid a situation that can be seen as their favouring one side or another.
I will be the first to admit that, during my time here, there have been times when I have agreed wholeheartedly with what Speakers have said, and that there have been times I have not agreed with them. During the time I have been here, all the Speakers who have sat in the chair have been of the political party I am associated with, and sometimes I do not agree with them and am frustrated by a particular ruling they make.
There is an appropriate way to handle this in terms of when the Speaker is doing their very important work of being impartial. They receive advice from the Clerk's table. I remember once asking Peter Milliken how he used to deal with situations where he would have to rule on something like that. He told me that he took the advice from the clerks around the table, and then at the end of the day it was his decision as to how he would proceed. Having that kind of authority is extremely important, and that is why we need to ensure that impartiality continues.
I will conclude by saying that I hope the matter goes to the procedure and House affairs committee as soon as possible so we can deal with it there and report back to the House.
954 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 5:07:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this is, to be honest, my concern over the matter. The amendment that the second Conservative speaker put forward basically dictates that the work be done by December 14, which is nine days from now. Any of us who have been on committees know the work that goes into finding witnesses, bringing them before committee, listening to the witnesses, making sure they are available to attend, and having the resources, although I do recognize they have indicated the resources are extremely important.
I guess that if one comes from a perspective of already knowing what one believes the outcome should be, then one may as well just ask the committee to report back tomorrow, because one already knows what the outcome will be. I genuinely feel as though we need to have the proper time to be able to do this. I do not think anybody who sits on a committee of Parliament would argue with the view that nine days just is not enough time to properly do due diligence. We will see how Parliament ends up ultimately deciding on whether we, as a collective, think that nine days is enough.
194 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 5:09:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my Conservative colleague who tabled the amendment that the parliamentary secretary references was heckling across the way, “I am open and transparent.” I am not going to disagree with him on that. He certainly is. He is very transparent. All I would ask is this: What is the point of the motion? Why is he even bothering sending this to committee if the objectives in this are very open and transparent, which is what he stated, that there is no possible outcome other than the one the member indicated?
This lends itself to the member from Burnaby, who talked about this, and basically anybody who has stood up to talk to this and talks about impartiality and letting the committee do its work. Yes, let the committee do its work. I know there are lots of prosecutors in this room. Have they ever had a judge who sits down and says that they already know the defendant is guilty, but to let them hear the case? Come on. That is what we are getting from the Conservatives. I hope we can genuinely see beyond that; I hope there is an opportunity here to really look into this at committee.
203 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 5:12:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will address the second part first. What the member is raising is exactly why this needs to go to PROC, so the committee can look at that. If I try to prejudge that now and say what I think the outcome is, as a member of that committee, I am showing that I cannot be impartial when I sit and listen to the evidence that comes. Therefore, I look forward to doing that.
In terms of how this plays into what happened previously this fall with the Speaker, it is certainly unfortunate that we find ourselves in this position. However, the two issues can be treated in isolation. I do not think they are connected in any way other than the fact that it is the Speaker of the House of Commons who is the subject of both. Having said that, I certainly regret and find it troubling that we are here once again, but I do also respect the fact that the—
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Madam Speaker, I am getting heckled again. I respect that—
186 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 5:13:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as political as I am, unlike that member and the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, who were previously speakers and had to execute this impartiality, I have never been put in that position. I find it very interesting how some of the most hyperpartisan people from the Conservatives also happen to be former speakers.
In any event, there is an opportunity here for the committee to do its work. I look forward to doing that work at the committee and reporting back to the House.
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
