Mr. Speaker, I am rising to add some comments to the point of order that you are currently considering, specifically in response to the question raised on April 18 by the deputy opposition whip. This was related to the use of a false and derogatory title in the House by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment.
On Monday afternoon, the NDP House leader rose and made a substantial intervention concerning references to the “NDP-Liberal government”. Given that he has essentially hijacked the point of order before you for his own political concerns, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to rise to offer some brief comments in response before you rule.
The point of order raised earlier this month urged you to apply your views about fake titles, as mentioned in your October 18, 2023, statement, which you often quote, Mr. Speaker. I will read the specific sentence from page 17585 of the Debates. It states, “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.” That is exactly what the parliamentary secretary had done when he used a false and derogatory title for the Leader of the Opposition, which the deputy opposition whip brought to your attention.
An example of another false title would be if I were to, for example, describe the member for New Westminster—Burnaby as the deputy government House leader. While my colleague certainly does yeoman's work carrying the government's legislative agenda here in the House, encouraging and supporting so many time allocation and closure motions that Stanley Knowles would roll over in his grave, he does not actually get paid for that work. Therefore, to describe an NDP member as the government House leader's deputy would, indeed, be incorrect.
The NDP House leader is, however, seeking to expand the scope of the Speaker's earlier ruling to suppress debate in the House on a matter of increasing political sensitivity to him and his party. In his argument, the NDP House leader cited the Deputy Speaker's ruling on March 29, 2022, at page 3689 of the Debates. This was delivered after the Liberal Party and New Democratic Party entered into their agreement for a parliamentary arrangement, the so-called supply and confidence agreement.
I will read other passages of that ruling, which my colleague appears to have overlooked. It stated, “Fundamentally, the agreement in question is a political one. It is not the Chair’s role to interpret or give meaning to such agreements between parties.... In the current case, it is not for the Chair to determine if this agreement between the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party is a coalition.” In other words, the characterization of the agreement is a matter of debate in terms of what it is, what it means and how government decisions are understood and held to account.
The facts are simply that, in the present Parliament, no single party holds a majority of seats in the House of Commons and our Westminster system of government requires the government to command the confidence of the House. Therefore, if one party does not have the votes to achieve that alone, the votes have to come from somewhere else. In the present Parliament, New Democrats and the Liberals have voted together approximately 92% of the time. If we remove Private Members' Business and opposition day motions from that mix, that percentage rises to something in excess of 97%.
If New Democrats are feeling the heat about their decision to prop up the tired, broken and broke government and are concerned about having to defend their choices on Canadian doorsteps soon, they could have simply shown us all the ultimate act of opposition and voted against the federal budget. Asking the Speaker to instead censor speech, which, as uncomfortable as it may be for the NDP, reminds Canadians of why the government remains in office every day longer that it does so, is simply not right. Fundamentally, the concerns of the NDP House leader are not a question of order. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit that it also goes beyond your remit of maintaining order and decorum in the chamber.
As you said in your October 18, 2023, statement, Mr. Speaker, “The House is a place where freedom of speech is primordial and where views are strongly held and vigorously defended.” Moreover, “the Chair must allow the widest range of individual expression possible”. Later you added, “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.” Conservatives are vigorously holding the government, and those who sustain it in office, to account.
The very essence of our responsibility as parliamentarians is to speak for our constituents and help them understand how and why decisions are made. Put simply, Mr. Speaker, you must deny the NDP House leader's request to censor political debate in the House of Commons.
