Debates of Oct. 18th, 2023

Persons Day

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, you ought to know that when rules are not followed or when there is a derogation from a rule, and when that is pointed out to the Speaker, the Speaker then enforces the rules.

The Standing Orders are the property of the House. It is up to the House to decide when we are not going to follow a rule or when we are going to change a rule. This is a standing order that the House has adopted. You are a servant of the House; you should follow the standing order.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I would like to thank the hon. member for pointing out the Standing Orders. He is indeed correct; there are written Standing Orders. However, there is a long tradition in the House that the Speaker has the ability to—

[An hon. member]

Preside over Statements by Members.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Can I ask the hon. member to please allow me to finish, as I have the floor at this time? I will be happy to recognize the hon. member for a point of order.

It is really important that we understand that the Speaker does have this ability to make a statement. We will have full Oral Questions at the end of this statement from the Speaker. It is an important message, which I think members would appreciate hearing because it gives an indication as to how the Speaker is going to be proceeding in the months and years to follow.

Order.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition is rising on a point of order.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, every day in the House, the opposition has occasion to respond to the actions of the government and hold the government accountable for its actions on behalf of Canadians. That happens at 2:15 p.m. every single Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. That is not a “may”. That is not a “possible”. That is a “shall”.

There is nothing in the clause that creates question period in the Standing Orders that allows the Speaker to arbitrarily change the time in order to give a speech. I will note that the Speaker has a plethora of occasions to stand on his feet to make any point he wants or any declaration he likes. He does not need to do it in the middle of the sacred period during which we hold the government to account.

If I may, this is the first time in all of my years here that I have seen a Speaker interrupt question period to make a speech. I have never seen it.

Furthermore, the fact that you have risen to your feet in order to impose, apparently, a series of guidelines that are not approved by the Board of Internal Economy or voted on by the House of Commons, and that you are doing it in violation of one of the rules that are already in place, suggests a very serious and unusual departure from the normal way in which Parliament exists. The government is here to serve Parliament, not the other way around. We ask that you allow us to proceed with question period and that you make your statement afterward.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I would like to thank the hon. member for Carleton for his intervention. I would like to inform the House, though, that this is not the first time that the Speaker has interrupted the proceedings to make a statement from the Chair between the point of S.O. 31s and Oral Questions.

So that everybody can understand this very clearly, my immediate predecessor, for example, has done this on at least two occasions, and it has also been done by Speakers in the past. I am going to continue with this statement. I think it is important for all members to understand this.

I would like to reassure the member for Carleton and all members that there are going to be no new Standing Orders that would require the approval of members.

I would invite members to listen to this statement in order to be able to improve order and decorum in this House.

Order and Decorum in the House

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

As promised before the constituency week, the Chair would like to make a statement on order and decorum in the House.

In a very simple way, order and decorum are signs of respect for each other and for the institution, respect which is necessary for productive debate in a deliberative assembly. It is, in fact, fundamental to Parliament’s ability to fulfill its constitutional role.

I decided to stand for Speaker because, in the eight years that I have been a member, and prior to that as a keen follower of parliamentary proceedings, I have noticed a deterioration in the collective decorum in this place. It is important to note that this deterioration was not inevitable. It is not a natural outgrowth of the advent of social media. We can choose to conduct ourselves differently.

I suspected other members felt the same way and, during the many discussions that I held recently with members from all sides of the House, I have confirmed this feeling. Decorum and disorder was the one issue that was most often mentioned to me in the one-on-one exchanges that I had, and not just in passing. Perhaps most importantly of all, members felt that bad behaviour dishonours not only ourselves, as elected members of Parliament, but also Canadian democracy.

On October 3, 2023, when I was invited to take the Chair for the first time, I said:

We need to make sure that we treat each other with respect and that we show Canadians an example, because there can be no dialogue unless there is a mutual understanding of respect. There can be no ability to pursue arguments, to make points be heard, unless we all agree to extend to each other that sense of respect and decorum.

I meant it then and I mean it now.

Members should not be surprised by my statement today. Not long ago, on May 8, my predecessor rightly said in a ruling on decorum, which can be found at page 14090 of Debates:

The rules and practices governing order and decorum are intended in part to ensure that proceedings are conducted in a civil, courteous and respectful manner. In particular, members are expected to address each other through the Chair and to avoid making any offensive or disruptive remarks. For example, stating directly, or indirectly, that a colleague is a liar, or has lied, is unacceptable.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would usually ask if this was a filibuster, but for the purposes of planning, I wonder if the Speaker might indicate to the House how long he expects to continue.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

First, that is not a point of order.

I will let members know that it will continue for the time that it will take. It should not be too long.

The House is a place where freedom of speech is primordial and where views are strongly held and vigorously defended. While the Chair must allow the widest range of individual expression possible, members are expected to be mindful of their words and behaviours within the realm of what would be considered parliamentary.

I wish to echo the words of Speaker Milliken, which can be found at page 3719 of the October 5, 2006, Debates:

But the exercise of that freedom of speech ought to be based on the underlying principle of respect to the House and to other members. Conduct should not cause a disruption to proceedings.

It would be an understatement to say that we have been plagued in recent weeks by what any observer would have to admit is an unusually noisy chamber, particularly during question period. Some of the disorder is being triggered by questionable language or provocative statements.

But much of it also appears to be generated by interruptions, interjections or other demonstrations...actions that seem to be designed to drown out or plainly disrupt those asking questions or those answering them. But when the noise reaches levels where no one, not even the Speaker, can hear what is being said, the House as a whole loses some credibility.

So I appeal to all hon. members for cooperation. I will continue to try to give members wide latitude in expressing their points of view, but I ask for all members' assistance in ensuring that we can all hear the member who has been recognized and who has the floor.

Going forward, I will be fair and will ensure that all members, regardless of which side of the House they sit on, can freely speak their minds, vigorously hold the government to account, challenge each other’s ideas and thoroughly consider public business. However, as your Speaker, I will equally be looking for ways of improving the overall decorum in the House and I will be dogged in that pursuit.

I commit to doing this as your servant, to enforce the rules that you yourselves have given the House on your behalf. I will do so with humility and with an outreached hand. Within our purview, all the Chair occupants will work collectively to ensure that the rules of order and decorum are respected, applied consistently and applied to the same standards.

As another of my predecessors, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, stated on December 12, 2012, at pages 13215 and 13216 of Debates:

My task as Speaker is to ensure that the intensity of feeling expressed around some issues is contained within the bounds of civility without infringing on the freedom of speech that members enjoy. The Chair tries to ensure that our rules are adhered to in a way that encourages mutual respect.

However, all members will recognize that ultimately the Speaker must depend on their collective self-discipline to maintain order and to foster decorum. My authority to enforce the rules depends on the co-operation of the House.

Our electors expect all members to make greater efforts to curb disorder and unruly behaviour. So I urge all members to reflect on how best to return the House to the convivial, co-operative atmosphere I know all of us would prefer.

Because of the collegial character of the House and the broad privileges enjoyed by its members, no one—not even the Speaker—can act unilaterally to improve the level of decorum in the chamber.

Despite my own strong individual determination to maintaining the dignity and decorum of the House, ultimately those efforts will come to naught without members themselves taking responsibility for their behaviour and conduct, and showing their own personal efforts in comporting their business in an appropriate and civil manner. I will therefore need your help in order to succeed.

From what I have observed over the years as a member, the following issues have deteriorated and need to be addressed.

First, excessive, disruptive and loud heckling must be toned down. Occasional heckling has always been a part of our proceedings, and a lighthearted or clever comment will often enhance debate rather than detracting from it. However, far too often, heckling is boorish and rude, designed to intimidate, insult or drown out others. Members have a right to be heard and to hear the proceedings going on around them. The frequent and time-consuming disorder that heckling creates must stop. Excessive interruptions must be curtailed.

Second, while I am committed to protecting the individual privilege of freedom of speech necessary for our debates, too frequently our ideas and thoughts are expressed in provocative terms leading to tense exchanges that harm the necessary collegiality for our work. We have, in the past, had members likening their colleagues to Mussolini or calling each other racists or shouting obscenities. Latitude in expressing one's point of view will be given, but questionable language and unnecessarily provocative statements will no longer be tolerated.

Finally, the growing tendency to make pointed criticisms in a way that is unnecessarily personal and designed to denigrate, bully, elicit an emotional reaction or attack the integrity of the person introduces a toxicity into our proceedings that hampers our ability to get things done. This includes coming up with fake titles for members in order to mock them or making comments that question their courage, honesty or commitment to their country.

I would also include comments designed to draw attention to the absence of members as a means of embarrassing them, even though this is against our rules. As many of my predecessors have underscored, members must go to multiple places to fulfill their duties.

I will point out that there are examples of these sorts of comments on all sides of the House. Insofar as personal attacks can be limited, I will use whatever tools I have at my disposal to do this.

The above-mentioned issues tend to be displayed most prominently during statements by members and the daily question period. This is unfortunate, because it is when our proceedings receive the most attention from those watching, or from the public in the galleries, and from which clips are most widely circulated on social media.

These are the issues I will focus most of my efforts on resolving.

While the House is the master of its own proceedings and the Speaker its servant, the Chair has the authority to enforce rules of debate to maintain order and decorum so that the House can conduct its business in an orderly fashion. The Standing Orders of the House state explicitly that the Speaker shall preserve order and decorum and decide questions of order. This duty, which extends to the other chair occupants, carries with it a wide-ranging authority covering matters as diverse as the behaviour and attire of members, the conduct of proceedings, the rules of debate and disruptions on the floor of the Chamber and in its galleries.

As such, any challenge to the authority of the Chair by refusing to respect a call to come to order, to withdraw language ruled to be unparliamentary, to cease irrelevance and repetition in debate or to stop interrupting a member who has the floor can be addressed through recourse to a number of options. For instance, the Chair may recognize another member or refuse to recognize a member until the offending remarks are retracted and the member apologizes immediately in person, or at a later time in writing, to the Speaker. As a last resort, the Chair may name a member, which is the most severe disciplinary power at the Speaker's disposal.

In the days and weeks ahead, as I proceed as outlined above, I will continue my discussions with individual members, as well as with House officers in the different parties, to see how we can join forces in our collective objective of improving the decorum in our proceedings.

I thank all members for their attention and invite them to reflect on the statement I have made today. I also wish to indicate that members are always free to come and see me if they wish to discuss the matter further.

The Economy

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, after eight long years in power, this Prime Minister is not worth the cost, especially not in Quebec, where the inflation rate is at 4.8%. That is a lot higher than elsewhere in Canada.

After eight years of inflationary deficits, the solution that the Bloc Québécois and the Liberals are now proposing is to drastically increase costs with a tax on gas and diesel, which drives up the cost of all products that are transported.

Will the government finally reverse its inflationary policies so that Quebeckers can buy gas and groceries and put a roof over their heads?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, we will not take lessons from the Conservatives.

What the Conservatives are proposing to the Canadians who are watching today is to make cuts to services, investments and Canada's future.

Canadians know that we have a plan to help them prosper in the 21st century economy. More importantly, Canadians realize that the Conservatives are too dangerous for this country, and they trust us to move forward.

Housing

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I will ignore the member's lack of decorum and his emotionally charged approach to focus on Canadians, because I can actually take it. I can take the debate and have it out in the open.

He talks about cuts. Canadians are making cuts in their own lives. We now have a new phenomenon in Canada, which is the middle-class homeless. We used to just have young people living in their parents' basements; now we have parents moving into their children's basements.

Will the Prime Minister reverse the inflationary policies that doubled housing costs and are forcing seniors to move into their kids' basements just to avoid going homeless?

[Anita Anand, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has a AAA credit rating, the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7 and low unemployment. In addition, we will always be there to support the middle class, whether it is six million seniors with the old age security benefit, 11 million Canadians with the grocery rebate or four million Canadians with business supports. What we do on this side of the House is invest in Canadians to build a stronger economy day after day and year after year, and we will continue on that course.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, incompetent rating agencies mean absolutely nothing to the unhoused seniors who say that for affordable housing in metro Vancouver, the only thing that turns up is “nothing, nothing, nothing”. Nor do they mean anything, to quote from the CBC, to him: “Living in his broken-down car, homeless man says he has until Thursday to move.”

We have nurses and carpenters living in parking lots after eight years of the Prime Minister doubling housing costs. Will the Liberals stop driving up the cost of living so that Canadians can house, feed and heat their families?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, here is the truth for seniors. The global inflation problem is not going to be fixed by cutting dental support to 3.5 million seniors, and that is what the Leader of the Opposition would do. On top of that, to get to the tens of billions of dollars of cuts he is talking about, it would mean cuts to our health care system, and it would mean making sure, unfortunately, that the investments, like we saw in B.C., to transform our health system would not happen. What does that mean? It does not mean just poor health outcomes. It means more costs in the future, it means a less resilient country and it means a much worse future for our seniors. That is what he is peddling.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, it is actually the government that is promising over $10 billion of cuts right now, because it suddenly woke up and realized that it was bankrupt. When we were in office, we managed to balance the budget while growing health care spending every single year and, in fact, growing it faster than the current government. However, today the biggest threat to the health of Canadians is homelessness. People are losing their homes because the Prime Minister has doubled the cost of housing.

Will he realize, with people living in parking lots, that after eight years he is just not worth the cost?

[Anita Anand, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the party opposite, on this side of the House we do not balance budgets on the backs of Canadians. On the contrary, we invest in Canadians.

Let me give members one example: lifting almost 500,000 children out of poverty with the Canada child benefit. Every single time there is an opportunity to support Canadians, what does the other side of the House do? They vote against. That is not the way we will build a strong economy—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Once again, I would like to remind members to please conduct themselves in a way that is appropriate. I will also ask members to please keep their voices down so that at least the Speaker can hear what is going on, if not the member who asked the question.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Foreign Affairs

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right about one thing: They do not balance the budget on the backs of Canadians; they run massive inflationary deficits on the backs of Canadians.

On another matter, our hearts were broken to see a hospital in Gaza struck by a missile. Disinformation peddled by Hamas and regurgitated by CBC was then amplified by the Prime Minister. Does he agree with President Biden that the offending missile originated with terrorists in Gaza?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, our government has been unequivocal in condemning the terrorist attacks of Hamas against Israeli citizens. We are also adamant that attacks on civilians are wrong. We call on all parties to observe international law.

Our hearts go out to the innocent Palestinian victims who have died as a result of this attack. We will continue to work with partners around the world to call for a humanitarian corridor.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the terrible conflict that is tearing apart the Gaza Strip, civilians are losing their lives or living in unspeakable distress. Humanitarian aid needs to get to the civilians on the Gaza Strip and aid has to get there unconditionally, no matter where it comes from. To do its work under these circumstances, Canada needs a strong voice. It needs a strong voice to convey the desire for peace on behalf of our Israeli friends, Palestinian friends or friends of peace in general.

In that spirit, will Canada join the initiative undertaken by the United States with Italy, Germany, France and the United Kingdom?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs was one of the first to go to these regions to show that we are there for our Israeli friends and our Palestinian friends. We were one of the first nations to speak out in a strong voice about the situation between Israel and Hamas. We are continuing to push for a humanitarian corridor. We are here to stand up for the rights of all innocent civilians.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we were one of the first nations, but our nation has too little weight on the international stage to be the only voice. We need friends and we need credibility.

Since we have heard nothing about that, am I to understand that the Prime Minister of Canada, over the past 11 days, has not once talked to the President of the United States? As they say in Quebec's two neighbouring countries, “you must walk the talk”. We have a similar expression in Quebec.

To give these fine words and good intentions any substance and credibility, is it not time for the Prime Minister to start walking?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this crisis is truly horrible for everyone involved. There are many innocent victims on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides. Since the beginning of this crisis, the Government of Canada, both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, have been in contact with our allies and members from the region.

We are there to provide leadership and co-operation in resolving this conflict.