Debates of May 30th, 2024

Motions in Amendment

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are here to debate Bill C-64 at third reading. It will come as no surprise to anyone when I say that the Bloc Québécois will be voting against this bill. I am the last person from the Bloc Québécois who will be rising today to speak to this bill on pharmacare. We will soon be voting on it and we will see whether it passes.

What we have been saying repeatedly in the House is simple. What the Bloc Québécois wants is for the federal government to stop interfering in provincial jurisdictions. We want the money to be transferred to Quebec with no strings attached and we want full financial compensation. We want health transfers. That is what we want, and that is what we will continue to hammer home. I feel like I have to keep repeating myself in the House and that is not right. All the Bloc Québécois wants is to defend Quebeckers' rights and to simply get the money we send to the federal level back so that we can improve the pharmacare program that we already have in Quebec.

When this bill was being studied in committee, the Bloc Québécois proposed an important amendment. It read as follows:

(4) Despite subsections (1) and (2), a province or territory may elect not to participate in national universal pharmacare, in which case that province or territory remains unconditionally entitled to receive payments in order to maintain the accessibility and affordability of the prescription drugs and related products already covered by its public pharmacare.

I do not think this amendment was unreasonable. Its purpose was simply to uphold respect for jurisdictions. The committee chair rejected the amendment on the grounds that it was out of order. The reason will come as a surprise to many. The chair ruled that our amendment was out of order because, in his opinion, it would have required royal recommendation, which we obviously challenged. In committee, however, we can challenge a decision, but unfortunately, we cannot debate it. The committee therefore voted to uphold the chair's ruling.

I was rather shocked that the committee ruled our amendment inadmissible. The purpose of the amendment was simply to ensure that jurisdictions are respected and that Quebec be given the money that has already been budgeted and set out in the bill. Quebec is simply asking that its share be set aside and that the money be transferred to Quebec so that it can improve the system that already exists in Quebec. It is unbelievable that that was rejected. It makes no sense.

I think the opposite is what should require a royal recommendation. Anything that goes against the Canadian Constitution should require a royal recommendation. That is not the case here. Unfortunately, this bill goes against the very foundations of the Canadian Constitution. Let me explain.

It is rather ironic that it still takes a member of the separatist party to remind the House how the Canadian Constitution works, when the government never misses an opportunity to point out that the Constitution is untouchable and that all the issues related to it are not important to Canadians and Quebeckers or that Quebeckers do not care about jurisdictions. However, as surely as I stand in the House today, based on the polls we are seeing, I can say that Quebeckers want jurisdictions to be respected. Whenever Quebeckers are asked who they would prefer to manage services like education or health care, the vast majority of the time, the answer is the same: Quebec.

It is all the more ironic given that the Constitution I am talking about is the one that was imposed in secret by the father of the current Prime Minister, during the night of the long knives in 1982. That was a little refresher. Since then, the Liberal Party's tendency has grown stronger. Increasingly, English-speaking Canada wants Ottawa to be its real government, the one that manages the bulk of public services. Conversely, Quebec has made a different choice. Quebec wants to manage its own jurisdictions, its own health care system, its own education system, its own day cares and so on. That is the choice that Quebeckers are making and that is the clear choice that the Quebec National Assembly made when its members unanimously reiterated that jurisdictions must be respected.

Of course, pharmacare has a noble objective, that of giving every individual, every person who needs medical services or prescription drugs the ability to get those drugs for little or no cost. It is so noble that Quebec has already done it. Quebec already has its own pharmacare program. Taking care of people affected by the difficult economic conditions we are experiencing is very noble. The problem is that these measures are ill-suited to the different realities of Quebec and Canada's provinces.

Even with all the good faith in the world, this was inevitable. Health and housing are not federal matters. The House of Commons has no business getting involved in those areas. That is because Quebeckers believe that their real government is in Quebec City. As long as that is the case, the concept of fiscal imbalance will exist. My colleague from Mirabel is very familiar with the concept of fiscal imbalance. We will not stop talking about it in the House. By fiscal imbalance, I mean the fact that the provinces have insufficient financial resources in relation to their own powers, while the federal government normally has surpluses. It is hard to understand why it has these deficits given all the money it collects. Yes, it has services it is supposed to deliver, but they are not exactly high-quality services.

The responsibilities that fall under federal or provincial jurisdictions must be respected. More simply, as Bernard Landry used to say, “the needs are in the provinces but the means are in Ottawa”. Even if the federal government tries hard to deny its existence, the fiscal imbalance is a major problem that has been recognized for many years. As the population ages, the cost of Quebec's social programs is rising rapidly. The cost of pharmacare is obviously rising rapidly. It is up to the Quebec government, and the Quebec government alone, to determine where the funds for these programs should go and how to improve the pharmacare program that already exists.

Since Quebec is chronically underfunded, we might wonder, as we often do, if a Quebecker is worth less than a Canadian. The Government of Quebec is shouting itself hoarse asking for health transfers. What does the federal government have to say in response? It responds with even more intrusions into Quebec's jurisdiction. That is what we are seeing again today with pharmacare. Unfortunately, the reason Quebeckers prefer to have pharmacare and every area of Quebec's jurisdiction run by Quebec City, is that everything the federal government touches results in failure. Federal equals failure.

I have talked about ArriveCAN several times in the House. I have a question: How much does Tylenol cost when it is 7,500% higher than its cost, like the ArriveCAN app was? It is going to be expensive. That is what is happening with pharmacare. The pharmacare that the federal government is going to create is going to cost us a lot more because the only thing the federal government does is mismanage its programs, run them completely inefficiently, like it did with ArriveCAN.

Quebec's system may be imperfect, but it does not need interference or duplication of costs. It needs more money. That money is in the hands of the federal government. It is a mixed system, a system that works well between a “forgiver” and company contributions and individual payroll contributions. It is not perfect, but it works. It is based on an existing model in France. The federal government is modelling its plan after it. However, instead of simply saying that Quebec has the expertise and skills to run its own pharmacare, the federal government wants to duplicate it and make it less efficient. It is crazy and that is why the Bloc Québécois is against this type of bill and the pharmacare program proposed by the federal government.

I keep hearing my NDP colleagues remind us that the major unions, including the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, have come out in favour of moving forward with pharmacare. Of course, they had their reasons, as I will explain today. The reason is noble, the objective is noble. Improving medical coverage and offering pharmacare to people with diabetes or people who use contraception is noble, but it is not a federal jurisdiction. It is up to Quebec to decide how to do that. It would cost Quebec less to improve its own pharmacare program than to have it managed by the federal government. A ton of evidence shows that the federal government has no idea how to manage its own programs. Does anyone need to be reminded about passports or ArriveCAN? No, I will not go there. It is too late, and if the truth be told, I am a little too tired for that.

In conclusion, once we recognize, first of all, the fiscal imbalance problem, which will continue for as long as Canada is governed by the current Canadian Constitution, and secondly, the need to take steps to help our fellow citizens, the House will have to ask itself some hard questions. When the federal system was set up, important needs came under federal jurisdiction, like participating in imperialist wars. Today, the real needs are in the provinces.

Let us be honest. Instead of voting on pharmacare tonight, why not vote to reopen the Canadian Constitution and finally put an end to this farce of separate jurisdictions?

Let us ask Quebeckers to vote again, put an end to jurisdictions, and declare Quebec's independence.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Minister of Tourism and Minister responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, according to the Fédération du Québec pour le planning des naissances, every dollar invested in contraception saves the Quebec government $90 in health care costs.

Not all forms of contraception are available at this time. For example, IUDs are not covered by pharmacare. I would like to ask my esteemed colleague what she thinks about increasing access.

It is not a matter of jurisdiction, but rather it is about saying that we will work with Quebec. We want to ensure that all women in Quebec do not have to choose between paying for contraception and paying for groceries. They do not have to choose.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that any Quebecker is really trying to decide between filling their fridge or paying for an IUD.

It would be good if every contraceptive method was covered. Obviously, we are in favour of contraceptives being covered, but it is up to Quebec alone to decide whether or not they will be covered. The only role the federal government has in this is to send Quebec the money that it collects from Quebeckers and Quebec taxpayers, so that the province of Quebec, the nation of Quebec or the future country of Quebec can run its own pharmacare system.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I always like listening to my colleague.

It seems to me that Bloc Québécois MPs should at least listen to Quebeckers. There are at least two million of them united in the largest coalition in Quebec. They are specifically asking that Bill C‑64 be passed by the federal government. They are very critical of the current pharmacare situation in Quebec. They talk about co-payments. They talk about all the problems that exist in Quebec. All the community and union organizations are asking the federal government not to give in to the provinces and territories that are asking for an unconditional right to opt out with full financial compensation. They are saying that because they want Bill C‑64 to pass.

Why is the Bloc Québécois not listening to Quebeckers?

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will simply answer with a piece of advice. Why does the member not just go talk to the National Assembly and explain to its members how pharmacare would work for Quebec?

I am sorry, I forgot, they already offered. How did the National Assembly respond? It told the NDP to mind its own business. The health care system is Quebec's responsibility. The NDP has nothing to teach the Quebec health care system about how to operate.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from the Bloc for a very well-prepared and articulated speech, with its constitutional elements. Obviously, this bill is another example of federal intrusion into provincial jurisdiction, and I agree with her on the points in her speech.

Does she find the federal intrusion into provincial jurisdiction a unifying factor in this country? I hear that it is not. Does she find that taking the money would unify our country more? Is she in favour of more unification through the federal granting of funds to the provinces?

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his wonderful and inspiring question. Respect for jurisdictions is important, of course.

Unfortunately, I would still like to remind the House that when we moved a motion to respect jurisdictions, his party voted against it. I find that really unfortunate. We used to have a Conservative Party that respected jurisdictions. However, all we see in the Conservative Party now is a willingness to interfere in Quebec's policies. That is really unfortunate.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member could comment on the fact that Ontario, where I come from, does have a program. Quebec has a great program. Will the program presented by the federal government cover more or fewer medications for Quebeckers?

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really liked the premise of my colleague's question. I noticed that he said that Ontario has a program and that Quebec has a great program. I would like to congratulate him on recognizing the quality of Quebec's program.

If the Ontario program is meant to be the same, then members from Ontario should vote in favour of respecting jurisdictions next time.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a historic day: We are going to be voting on the first steps toward universal pharmacare. The Liberals have been promising pharmacare to Canadians since 1997, and for decades Canadians have been waiting to have access to essential medication.

I want to start off by sharing a story. In 2021, I was out door knocking in a subsidized housing complex. When I knocked on one of the doors, the first person to come to the door was a little girl. She was holding two mermaid dolls and she was adorable. She might have been three or four years old, and she smiled up at me. Then her siblings came running out, and they called for their mom. When I talked to her mother, she had these bright eyes, and she was listening and staring up at us. Her mom said she had not a chance to think about policies or what needs to happen because she was so stressed about how much the devices for her little girl's diabetes cost and how much the medication costs.

This family had been struggling to afford essential medications, and the costs were so high that this mother was wondering how she was going to care for her little girl. I do not know how anyone could look that little girl in the eye and say that she does not deserve access to life-saving medication. I promised that mom that I would come here to Ottawa and fight for universal pharmacare so that her little girl would have her medication covered. I am so proud to be part of a team that is delivering on that promise.

For that family and their struggle, and for families across Canada that are in the same position, it is not inevitable. They are working hard. They are doing everything right. They are trying their best to provide a good life for their kids. However, with the choices of Liberal and Conservative governments for decades, they have decided to side with the biggest pharmaceutical companies instead of everyday Canadians, instead of that little girl.

Liberals have promised this for decades, but it is only now that New Democrats are in a position of power and are able to force the government to deliver on pharmacare. While the Conservatives try to do whatever they possibly can to stop people from getting access to life-saving medication, we are going to keep fighting to deliver on the promise to that mom, to that family and to families across Canada who deserve pharmacare.

I once shared a bit of that story and then asked the Leader of the Opposition how he could look that little girl in the eye and say that she does not deserve access to diabetes medication, that she does not deserve access to life-saving devices. His answer was to spew misinformation. He said that pharmacare will “roll back the rights that unions have fought so hard and so long to secure. Our labour movement fought too hard to secure private drug plans, and we will never let a big, centralizing, bureaucratic government in Ottawa take those rights away from workers.”

However, the major unions in Canada are calling for universal single-payer pharmacare: the United Steelworkers, CUPE, the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions and Unifor. I could go on. Many of these unions have specific campaigns advocating for single-payer universal pharmacare. Unions across Canada came out celebrating the fact that the NDP was able to force the government to first provide contraception and diabetes medications and diabetes devices, but also to lay the legislative framework for universal pharmacare.

This is a huge step, and I think about some of those huge steps. Tommy Douglas had a vision of universal health care. It was New Democrats who fought alongside Tommy Douglas to get our country to a place where if a person broke their leg, they were not going to be turned away because they could not afford to fix it. I think about young kids, and we know that dental surgery is the most common surgery at pediatric hospitals. If people have essential dental costs or if they have tooth pain, then for the first time in our country's history, there would be people accessing dental care who could not afford it. We would have people like that family I talked about accessing diabetes medication and not worrying about whether they could afford it. They would not have to choose between putting food on the table or paying the rent and could access life-saving medication. This is a historic, huge step forward for our country. I am so proud to be part of the team that is making this happen.

I want to also take a moment to talk about providing contraception across Canada and what that means for women and for gender-diverse people. It is huge. I want to give a special shout-out to Devon Black and Teale Phelps Bondaroff, who are the co-founders of AccessBC, and who fought, pushed and advocated, and were successful in bringing this issue to the attention of the provincial government. I am proud that the B.C. NDP has already paved the way, offering British Columbians access to free contraception. We know that countries around the world have been doing this for decades, and finally, the federal government acknowledges that contraception is health care.

It is not surprising that the Conservatives are fighting tooth and nail to stop women from having control over their reproductive health. We know that their MPs have brought forward legislation that is trying to bring back the debate around a woman's right to choose or a woman's control over her own body. A Conservative MP went out and spoke at the rally that was calling to end abortion access in Canada. I would hope that we were past a point in Canada when a major political party is accepting of its members of Parliament calling to end abortion access. Abortion is health care. Contraception is health care.

Now, in Canada, we could start expanding our universal coverage to essential medication and to dental care. I would like to see it also expanded to mental health care. We could have a system in Canada that, if a person is sick and they need health care, they could access it.

I want to end by calling on all MPs in the House to take a moment and to think about the historic steps that we are taking. This would make a tangible difference in the lives of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. I think about that family, that little girl and what this would mean to her. I am so proud to be voting in favour of pharmacare tonight. I am grateful to be able to work alongside 24 other New Democrat MPs who have fought tooth and nail to get this piece of legislation to this point. We are going to take it over the finish line to ensure that every Canadian would be able to access the medication they need.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the passionate speech by the member from the NDP. I agree that this is really a milestone. There are medications for rare diseases, which are very expensive. There are medications for cancer treatment, which are very effective but cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. How would this national pharmacare program help to ensure that these medications are affordable to our society? I would give a hint: It is probably because it actually looks like a national pharmacare system would end up saving health care dollars rather than costing.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member stole my thunder a little.

We are talking about a universal, single-payer pharmacare program. The reason it is so effective, the reason experts and labour unions have been calling for this, and the reason civil society has been calling for it is that it would save Canadians money, and it would give access to essential drugs. It would also mean that when we buy as a single payer, we would get to negotiate prices as a single payer. It would mean that we would have so much more negotiating power.

That is why pharmaceutical companies are so opposed to it. They do not want to lower our drug costs and make less money. By ensuring that we have a single-payer system, it means those kinds of drugs are going to be more accessible to Canadians. It means that Canadians would be paying less, and it would save money over time.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's comments around the young lady and the child who did not have diabetes coverage. That is actually the reason I got into politics and fought with the Saskatchewan Party in 2011 to increase coverage for diabetes, and then again in 2016 to yet again increase the coverage for everyone in Saskatchewan who has diabetes.

Could the hon. member please tell me this: Does she know what age complete coverage for diabetes goes up to in Saskatchewan? Will the member's plan, this fake health pharmacare plan, cover it as well as it is covered in Saskatchewan? Just give the age number, please.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a member of Parliament from British Columbia, so I am not familiar with the Saskatchewan program.

However, it is written into the legislation that the federal government is going to work with provinces. Provinces are going to get on board because this is funding, transferring money, to ensure that people have access. We also know there are different age cut-offs in different provinces, and that is not acceptable. We do not want to have someone in one province be able to access medication and another person in another province not be able to access it. We want to be able to deliver health care. Everyone should have access to the medication they need with their health card, not their credit card.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, just like the hon. member, I also ran on pharmacare, both when I was a provincial member in Ontario and federally.

I am really excited to see that our government party is working closely with the NDP to make this a reality for millions of Canadians. During this process, especially through the committee, we heard a lot of fearmongering from the Conservatives, especially when it comes to private health care, that somehow this pharmacare would take away primary health care. That was not the case in the Ontario experience.

Could the member for Victoria respond to the fearmongering that the Conservatives have been raising about the state of people's private health care when we pass pharmacare through this legislation?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that they cannot trust the Conservatives when it comes to health care.

The Conservative team is full of corporate insiders and lobbyists, including their deputy leader, who is a former lobbyist for big pharma. In fact, the Conservatives' national governing body is made up of 50% lobbyists. It is not a surprise that the Conservatives are fighting tooth and nail to keep money in the pockets of big pharma at the expense of Canadians who are paying out-of-pocket for essential medication.

Alleged Breach of Deputy Speaker's Impartiality

[Chris d'Entremont, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to comment on the question of privilege raised this afternoon by the hon. member for London—Fanshawe.

Having reviewed the so-called advertisement, I can tell the House that it was a Facebook post by an electoral district association other than my own. It was posted on its own Facebook page for a free admission, meet-and-greet event, which I agreed to attend.

The choice of photograph and wording for the free social media post was neither my own, nor was it approved by me. Indeed, it appears to be the photo simply plucked from the House of Commons website and certainly was not a photo that was specifically taken for that purpose.

Had I been asked or shown this Facebook post in draft, I would not have approved it as such. In any event, I have asked the riding association in question to remove the Facebook post.

I will continue to do my best to be impartial, as I have shown in the House time and time again. I am truly sorry for the confusion that this may have caused to the House of Commons.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to the question of privilege raised this afternoon by the hon. member for London—Fanshawe.

Firstly, I want to thank our colleague, the hon. member for West Nova, for rising in the House and providing a clear first-hand account of his association with the social media post in question.

Unlike the recent controversy over the Speaker's summer rally, where the Liberal response was never directly put before the House, and instead, we had the New Democratic House leader quoting a Liberal tweet addressed to the member for Hull—Aylmer, this is a refreshing change.

For her part, the NDP deputy House leader described the Facebook post as a “Conservative Party advertisement.” It was simply none of those things. It was, in fact, simply a free Facebook post on a riding association Facebook page.

As the hon. member for West Nova just shared with the House, he neither saw nor approved the photograph or wording of this social media post for a free meet-and-greet function.

Unlike the Speaker's famous Liberal Convention video, he did not pose in his gown for a photo specially taken for this Facebook post. No House of Commons resources were used for this riding association invitation. This is a material and very clear distinction. In glancing at the photo used, it simply appears to be a standard photo one could expect to see on the House of Commons website. It seems like the post was probably the result of a volunteer quickly assembling a short posting who may have simply grabbed a flattering, publicly available photo. In fact, when one does a photo search on Google for the member for West Nova, the photograph in question is among the first half-dozen results.

However one cuts it, it is a far cry from the circumstances we saw with the Speaker 's summer rally invitation published on the red, slick professional Liberal Party of Canada website, which included the following words, “Team [Prime Minister] events are posted by local volunteer teams”.

Just to be clear between the two events in question, first, one event concerned an event organized by the Speaker's own riding association and promoted on a national political party's glossy website. It also featured nakedly partisan language trashing a political party and its leader. The other was a free ordinary Facebook post by a riding association on its own Facebook account and, to be certain, it was not the West Nova Conservative association's. It made zero reference to any other political party and was actually free of any partisanship in its wording.

As the member for West Nova shared, he asked the riding association in question to remove the post, and I have been informed that it was removed promptly this afternoon.

Of course, if the NDP members think this is bad, I would ask them to get their own affairs in order. On the New Democratic Party's slick orange website, one can find, at www.ndp.ca/team, a picture of the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, and if one clicks on it, one will see her title of “Assistant Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole in the House of Commons” along with not one but two “donation” buttons and another link to volunteer for the party. The New Democratic Party is literally fundraising on the fact that one of its members is a chair occupant.

However, this is not new behaviour. From the day of her first appointment to the roster of chair occupants on December 8, 2015, the NDP published a press release celebrating her appointment, titled “NDP MP...named Deputy Speaker”. In it, the party gushes, “People in Northern Ontario will be seeing more of [the] NDP MP [for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing] during televised parliamentary debates now that she has been named Assistant Deputy Speaker and Deputy Chair of Committee of the Whole in the 42nd Parliament.”

Nonetheless, the NDP deputy House leader, in her zeal for a gotcha moment, neglected to cite or perhaps even assess or review several critical procedural authorities.

First, this question of privilege concerned a Facebook post published on October 31, 2023. That was seven months ago. The hon. member may claim she only just became aware of it, but it was in full, plain sight of the public for seven whole months. This fact alone betrays the NDP's intention in raising this specious argument.

Regardless, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, explains, at page 145:

The matter of privilege to be raised in the House must have recently occurred and must call for the immediate action of the House. Therefore, the Member must satisfy the Speaker that he or she is bringing the matter to the attention of the House as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the situation.

The member for London—Fanshawe missed this requirement by a long shot.

Second, the hon. member for West Nova is not the Speaker. He is the Deputy Speaker.

As Bosc and Gagnon comment, at pages 361 and 362:

While the Standing Orders provide for the Speaker’s impartiality and independence by prohibiting participation in any debate before the House, there is no such clear statement as to whether the Deputy Speaker and other Presiding Officers should take part in debate. Until the 1930s, it was not unusual for Deputy Speakers to participate actively in debate and there has been controversy from time to time over the extent to which the Chair Occupants, other than the Speaker, should remain aloof from partisan politics.

In 1931, when a question arose as to the propriety of the Deputy Speaker speaking in debate, it was generally felt that the actions of the Deputy Speaker must be governed by “good taste and judgement”. Since then, and in the absence of any rule or guideline governing the political activities of Presiding Officers of the House or limiting their participation in debate or voting, the degree of participation has been an individual decision. In 1993, Deputy Speaker Champagne agreed to act as co-chair of her party’s leadership convention. A question of privilege was raised in the House by a Member who argued that this decision affected the appearance of impartiality attached to the office of Deputy Speaker and that she was therefore guilty of a contempt of the House. Speaker Fraser ruled that, given the existing practice and the absence of clear direction from the House, Deputy Speakers have used varying degrees of discretion in terms of their party involvement. He clarified that they remain members of their political parties, and unlike the Speaker, may attend caucus meetings, participate in debate and vote. The Speaker ruled that the Deputy Speaker is not “cloaked with the same exigencies that are expected of the Speaker” and that the matter did not constitute a prima facie case of privilege.

To expand on Speaker Fraser's ruling, found on page 16685 of the Debates for March 9, 1993, I would ask him to add that he also made the following pointed comment: “I am deliberately careful in not extending such a responsibility [for impartiality] by way of ex cathedra comments in this decision.”

Indeed, this decision was cited in the ruling we received just three days ago, on Monday, at page 23828 of the Debates, with the Chair saying, “While Speaker Fraser did not find a prima facie question of privilege, he did state that the level of impartiality expected of the Speaker should be higher than that of other chair occupants.”

Clearly, it would seem that the New Democratic Party's brain trust, which is loyally devoted to defending its coalition government with the Liberals at all costs, missed these important points. Indeed, that is disappointing and troubling.

As Deputy Speaker Armand LaVergne told the House on June 19, 1931, at page 2840 of the Debates, “A deputy speaker is not supposed to be impartial when he is not in the chair.”

It certainly seems that the New Democratic Party applies that particular standard when it comes to the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, given the aggressive views of her office on fundraising and volunteer recruitment. In the present case, we had a publicly available photo that was innocently used in a clear and obvious volunteer-run social media page. It was in support of an event for which long-standing authority and precedence make clear that the hon. member for West Nova was at complete liberty to attend. The NDP complaint should be dismissed for what it is: a petty, short-sighted partisan attack.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby is rising on a point of order.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will congratulate the member for Mégantic—L'Érable. I have been in this house for 20 years and that is surely the dumbest question of privilege I have ever seen raised in the House of Commons, so I—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I am going to ask the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby, who is an experienced member, to withdraw that comment.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was not referring to the member, but I withdraw the comment about his question of privilege. I am not even going to dignify that with a response.

I will come back to the member of Parliament for West Nova. What we have here is a sense that the Conservatives are applying a different set of criteria than they were in the other case I had raised in the House. Members will recall that my immediate concern was whether the Liberal Party had actually been provided the authorization and consent for the posting of that partisan post, and it had not. We immediately demanded that the Liberal Party of Canada apologize for doing something that I felt was disrespectful to you, Mr. Speaker, and disrespectful to Parliament. The Liberal Party posted without your authorization and consent.

We now have the exact same situation. I believe the member for West Nova. He is an honourable man, as you are, Mr. Speaker. He says the post, with him in his Speaker's robes, was posted without his authorization and consent. He is obviously owed an apology by the riding association, and I hope he will share that formal apology. If it was the Conservative Party that posted it, it should be the Conservative Party apologizing. If it was the riding association posting it without Conservative Party approval, then it should be the riding association fully apologizing. It was not only disrespectful to the member for West Nova, but it was also disrespectful to the speakership and to the House of Commons.

These cases are exactly the same. It is exactly the same situation. The difference, of course, is how it was proposed on the floor of the House of Commons. This afternoon, the member for London—Fanshawe rose and said there is a picture of the Deputy Speaker in his Speaker's robes for financing and—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

That looks like a prop. I will ask the hon. member just to put that paper down.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for London—Fanshawe raised the issue in asking if it was approved by the member for West Nova, yes or no? We have a response, and we honour it in the same way that we should all, as members of Parliament, honour your response.

The point is that we are talking about the exact same situation. The NDP has treated both situations in the exact same way. I am not going to even dignify what the member for Mégantic—L'Érable said, because it simply does not dignify the House.

The comment from the member for West Nova is something that we should take into consideration. I hope that there will be an apology coming shortly from the riding association or from the Conservative Party. In both cases, we should, as parliamentarians, consider the matter closed.

Mr. Speaker, through you, I would tell my Conservative colleagues to start acting like adults.