44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 6, 2023 02:00PM
- Dec/6/23 3:23:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier today, during question period, it was very clear when the member for Battle River—Crowfoot used unparliamentary language, and it was very much appreciated that he was asked to leave the chamber.
However, upon reflection, I would ask that you listen to all of the proceedings that took place during that commotion. I think you will find that some very outrageous things were said. We ask that you consider not acknowledging the member's right to speak until he formally apologizes to the House.
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/6/23 4:45:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to four petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/6/23 5:25:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I present the following questions that will be answered today: Nos. 1849, 1850, 1854, 1855, 1858 and 1860.
25 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/6/23 5:26:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, furthermore, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 1848, 1851 to 1853, 1856, 1857 and 1859 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
31 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/6/23 5:26:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, finally, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
13 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/6/23 5:28:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers also be allowed to stand at this time, please.
24 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/6/23 5:54:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want people to reflect on hypocrisy. The essence of the motion is, “the House refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with instruction that it recommend an appropriate remedy.” The Conservative Party moved this motion. The Conservatives are saying they want PROC to come up with the remedy. Conservative after Conservative has already passed judgment. They are already calling for the Speaker to resign. In the hallway, one member said it is a farce and the Speaker has to resign.
Is there any credibility at all in believing members of the Conservative Party can be objective when this matter goes before PROC? I suspect not. Does the member believe there is a credible Conservative on the other side who can sit in the PROC committee and be impartial?
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/6/23 6:16:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is important that, when we have this discussion for the next hour or so, people who are following the debate appreciate what the motion is actually calling for. I appreciate the fact that the member is pointing out what I have typically said is a bit of hypocrisy, where the motion is asking PROC to provide the remedy, but there is also the positioning of the Conservative Party. Could the member provide his thoughts on that issue again?
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/6/23 6:30:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there is a legitimate argument to be made when the official opposition, on the one hand, tries to give the impression of the importance of the institution and the Speaker's role in Ottawa, and on the other, says the remedy is to go to PROC and allow its members to come up with a remedy to the situation. It is as if the Conservatives are pretending to be apolitical and have confidence in the PROC committee, yet their membership, the Conservative Party, is calling for the resignation of the Speaker. To make matters even worse, at least one member is now on public record indicating that he believes the Speaker should resign. Does the member not see any problems with that?
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/6/23 6:45:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it has been suggested by a friend and colleague of mine that the member should become a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. It might be a healthy thing to do for the committee process.
I have raised this previously. The Conservative Party justifiably raised the issue as a point of order. The Speaker then reviewed everything that had been said and came back and said to have a motion that would provide a remedy.
The Conservative Party then provides a remedy. The word “remedy” is incorporated into the motion that the member just finished speaking to.
For many, including myself, I do not quite consider how one can have a sitting member on PROC who has already committed to the Speaker having to resign sit and try to be objective to those people who are coming forward with ideas.
Does the member not agree there is at least the appearance of conflict?
161 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and talk about the issues of the day. I must say, I appreciate a number of the comments that were just made, especially one that was brought over to me. One of my colleagues on this side suggested that the previous speaker should be seriously considered for placement on PROC. I think the system might be a bit better if, in fact, that were to take place. However, I recognize that a recommendation from me to the leader of the Conservative Party to do that probably would not get him very far.
Having said that, I often hear a great deal about the institution, the Speaker and the important role the Speaker's office plays. People want to talk about that. We even had some very detailed explanations of what the Speaker does inside the House. I concur with many of those comments, such as how important it is to have a Speaker and recognize the role the Speaker plays.
Not that long ago, we did not elect Speakers; rather, they were political appointments. In the Province of Manitoba, when I was first elected, the Speakers were appointed; when I left, they were elected. I went through that transition. First and foremost, there was a great sense of pride as parliamentarians around the horseshoe inside the Manitoba legislature elected our first Speaker; for the first time, Manitoba felt that was the best way to ensure that the Speaker understood, in a very real and tangible way, that he or she represented, in that case, the interests of all MLAs on all sides of the House. We saw that as a very important step forward in Manitoba.
We did not come up with the idea. We knew Ottawa was electing a Speaker, so we took the idea and brought it into the Manitoba chamber. I sat on the Legislative Assembly Management Commission, what we call here the Board of Internal Economy, which is an important committee that the Speaker actually sits on. I recognized the role the Speaker played with respect to that committee, just as I recognize the important role, as others have emphasized, that the Speaker plays inside this chamber.
The Speaker has significant power. We saw that today when one member of the House made an unparliamentary allegation and would not withdraw it. As a direct result, the Speaker asked the member to leave the chamber, and he was unable to participate today. Because of the decision of the Chair occupant, he could not even participate in the votes. That is why, when I talked about this yesterday, first and foremost, I talked as a parliamentarian. I highlighted my experience in Manitoba, because I truly believe, given the very nature of the institution and the office, and the importance of the Speaker's chair, that we need to put partisan politics to the side.
When a member of the opposition stands up on a point of order, I often respond to it for the Speaker to take into consideration. When the leader of the official opposition came forward the other day and expressed his concerns about the Speaker in the form of a point of order, I was quiet. I listened.
We then had the Deputy Speaker, because the Speaker recused himself of the issue, canvass other members and, after canvassing, ultimately made the decision, which flowed to the Conservative Party of Canada coming up with a solution: What does the House of Commons collectively, members of Parliament on both sides of the House, have to say about the issue? This is actually what we are debating today. We are debating that the Conservative Party believes it was in the best interest of all to have this matter go to the procedure and House affairs committee, PROC, and have PROC come up with a remedy. In fact, the essence of the motion reads that the House “refers the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with instruction that it recommend an appropriate remedy.”
When I heard the motion, I did not hear one Liberal oppose it. I did not hear anyone inside the chamber oppose what was being recommended by the Conservative Party at the time. In fact, I thought that was a reasonable ask. After the opposition House leader finished his speech and after a second speech, I then stood up and made it very clear that I support the motion and, I believe, members in the entire chamber support the motion. However, we then had the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, who followed the House leader of the official opposition, say, “The solution for the Speaker is none other than to ask for his resignation, because he has lost the confidence of the House.”
I do not understand how we could have the opposition House leader move a motion saying that we should use PROC in order to come up with a remedy, but then, just minutes later, is immediately followed by the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, who I believe is the deputy House leader for the Conservative Party but I could be wrong on that, come out saying that the Speaker should resign. The best I could tell from sitting on this side, virtually right across from the member, is that the Conservatives felt they were being outmanoeuvred by another political entity inside the House. That may be why the member said what he did. However, the bottom line is that is what the member said.
The member went on to say, “That is why Canadians need to pay close attention to what is happening right now and to the recommendations that will be made by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.” After making his previous statement, he seems to be under the impression that everyone should support the motion itself, and that it is okay to go to the committee even if a member had already made up his mind. I did not understand that, but then it was reinforced earlier this afternoon by the member for Red Deer—Lacombe.
The member for Red Deer—Lacombe is a member of the procedure and House affairs committee. The remedy that is being recommended is that the matter go to PROC. I want to mention what the Conservative member sitting on the committee had to say.
During his speech, he reinforced that he believes the Speaker should resign. My colleague asked him why he would say such a thing when he is on the PROC committee and if that would put him in an awkward position. He responded, “Of course I will listen objectively to all the witnesses who will come to the committee.” How can he possibly be objective? He even said he is hoping the Speaker will go to the committee.
The member, along with the Conservative Party collectively, has already said he wants the Speaker to resign, that he hopes the Speaker will go to PROC and that he is going to be objective. He wants the Speaker to go to the committee so he can ask him some questions and be objective. Who is he trying to kid? The Conservatives have already made a determination. They already know what they want. They have a set agenda.
The longer the debate goes on, the more I witness the Conservatives trying to discredit the Speaker and the Speaker's office. They talk here about how important the Speaker's office is, but I would suggest that their actions are speaking louder than their words. As one member said on a political panel I was on just outside this chamber, when referring to the process and the issue with the Speaker, it is a farce. That is what the Conservatives are attempting to turn it into, making it look as if the chamber is dysfunctional. This is not the first time they are doing this.
I would argue they are using the Speaker's chair as part of their master plan to be a destructive force in the chamber. They do not care about being fair. They have demonstrated that very clearly. They want to demonstrate to the far right that the Speaker's office, the Speaker's chair and the institution or Parliament itself are dysfunctional.
On the sustainable jobs act, Bill C-50, do members know how many amendments the Conservatives have put forward? There are 19,938 amendments, just on one piece of legislation. Many times I stand in the chamber to talk about how the Conservative Party is a destructive force in the chamber in the way they prevent things from taking place. They constantly give Canadians the impression that everything is broken in Canada, including the House of Commons itself.
They will stand in their places, much like they are doing with the motion we have today, to say it is the government's responsibility to get legislation passed and it is the government that sets the agenda, but it is the Conservatives who consistently mess it up. They do it by using concurrence motions for reports, adjourning debates or moving motions that cause the bells to ring. They have 19,938 amendments on one piece of legislation. They are trying to convince the MAGA right that, at the end of the day, this is all broken and dysfunctional. That is what the real objective is.
I made the assumption that when the opposition House leader stood in his place and moved the motion, he was being genuine. I honestly thought that when he was looking at what had taken place, he was being genuine. However, the more I hear Conservatives speak on the issue, the more I come to the conclusion that this is just another partisan act we are seeing from the Conservative Party of Canada.
To demonstrate that, I suggest that in PROC, we will see a Conservative Party that will do whatever it can to emphasize that the Speaker has to resign. The Conservatives have already been told what they have to do. I hope I am wrong. If I am, I will apologize to the House. I do not believe I am going to be apologizing.
I believe the Conservative Party already has an agenda, and that agenda is just an extension of the behaviour we witness time and time again on the floor of the House of Commons on government legislation that has been very important to Canadians. It has the backs of Canadians and is developing an economy that will be there for every Canadian in every region of our country. Whenever it comes time to vote or debate, we see Conservative games on the floor of the House, whether it is the filibuster of debates, the many different dilatory motions they move or the many different actions they take. That is why I say that actions speak louder than words. If the Conservatives were serious about this issue and about saying that it should be apolitical and non-partisan, they would not be giving the types of speeches they are giving now and I would not be giving the type of speech I am giving.
This motion should be passed, even though the Conservative Party has already taken a position. We know that and understand that. I am somewhat grateful that I am not on the PROC standing committee. Hopefully, a majority of the members on the committee will at least be fair in their assessment of what has taken place before they pass judgment.
I can guarantee that if the Conservatives do not see the resignation aspect, we will see a minority report coming from the Conservative Party. Then, of course, I would not be surprised if we see a concurrence motion on the report. They will do anything to prevent government legislation from passing, no matter what the legislation is, including the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. That is the Conservative agenda. The far right has taken over the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada today. It is unfortunate.
I would like to think there are some things inside this chamber for which partisanship can be put to the side. I would suggest that members recognize the issue at hand, read the motion and allow PROC to do what it needs to do: meet with people, talk to witnesses and come up with a remedy that is fair to all.
I always see my waterglass half full. I am going to continue to be a bit of an optimist. Maybe we will see something miraculous coming from the Conservative Party at PROC. I will keep my fingers crossed.
2132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/6/23 7:11:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, to be honest, I am not sure how they came up with 19,938 amendments. That is what I have been told. I do not know how a committee could deal with that. That legislation is about sustainable jobs; I guess they are somewhat allergic to anything related to the environment. AI might have played a role in that.
However, I say it just to reinforce a general pattern of behaviour we are seeing coming from the Conservative Party and, to be more specific, the leader of the Conservative Party's office. We should all be concerned about that. I am sure Donald Trump would be proud, but my constituents are not.
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/6/23 7:13:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, maybe some people are counting. I could not say how many words I have actually said in the House, because I do not count. To the best of my knowledge, there is no counter, nor do I publish anything. Maybe during an election, I might say that I stand up a few times. I like to think I can be humble at times. I am very grateful to the people of Winnipeg North and to my colleagues for entrusting me with the ability to share my thoughts. I always take it very seriously. I enjoy being able to contribute to debate, both as the parliamentary secretary to the House leader and as the representative of Winnipeg North.
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/6/23 7:15:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the will of the chamber, from what I understand, is to pass the motion unanimously without a recorded vote.
21 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/6/23 7:16:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent at this time to call it 7:18 p.m.
26 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
