There were a lot of Points of Order made today, but first some housekeeping. Yesterday, a point was made in regards to MP Erin Mills shouting expletives. I predicted that the speaker would likely not hear the words after reviewing hansard. Turns out I was right. It really wasn’t a huge prediction, and no crystal ball was needed. Hansard reviews almost never reveal off mic comments.
POO#1 – Brought to us by Allain Therrien of the BQ. While there were many points, the main issue was to have unanimous consent to denounce the report from Canadian Human Rights Commission calling Christmas, and other Christian holidays as racist. Consent was given to vote on the motion and the motion passed. Shouts of Merry Christmas could be heard.
Discussion – Kudos to the BQ on this one, as the Liberals were given no choice but to denounce the report from their own agency.
POO#2 – Pierre Poilievre moved for consent to, among other things, denounce the report raised previously by the BQ. While essentially the same, Poilievre’s motion was shot down before he could finish it’s delivery.
Discussion – It’s curious that two motions so closely related would cause this kind of split, and sheds a lot of light on the partisanship we now witness regularly in the House.
POO#3 – BQ member Mario Beaulieu rose for a motion to remind house members about bilingualism and the right of committee witnesses to answer in either official language. The motion did not get consent.
Discussion – As a bilingual, but Anglo Quebecer, I have a good perspective on this issue. Most times in Quebec, Anglos and Francos get along. Most conversations switch back and forth between languages, with Anglos speaking French, and Francos replying in English. It’s a matter of mutual respect to us. Language issues in Quebec are caused and amplified by radicals. That being said, the Quebec minister who refused to speak English despite being capable of doing so showed a lack of respect towards her counterpart who does not fluently understand French. Communication is key, and the Liberal minister making a big stink about this is simply feuling the radical disrespect. More Liberal division.
POO#4 – Liberal MP Lemieux, rose to speak about a Liberal member having to read his SBM 5 times due to Conservative heckling. In fact, Lemieux called out a Conservative member for referring to the speaker as “a joke”. The member giving the statement repeatedly claimed that Pierre Poilievre called a recent border explosion a terrorist attack. Anyone who’s been watching knows he did no such thing, but instead referred to media reports. The statement being made did, in fact, contain falsehoods and was certainly made to cause disorder.
Discussion – After calming the House each of the 5 times, Speaker Fergus allowed the member in question to restart his statement. It should be noted that the member calling the speaker a joke did stand to apologize and retract the statement. The speaker considered that matter closed. It should be pointed out that on other occasions, the speaker has not afforded the same decision in respect to Conservatives that get interrupted. This leads to the next POO.
POO#5 – Conservative Opposition Whip rose to point out that the members statements in regards to the border explosion did in fact cause disorder in the house. The Liberal Attorney General rose to argue freedom of expression. Michael Barrett rose to mention that he was not afforded the 5 restarts when he was interrupted the previous day.
Discussion – This is going to the point of consistency on the part of the speaker. A common theme in the House in respect to Speaker Fergus. Bias is perceived by many. The speaker tried to dismiss Barrett but a back and forth ensued. Speaker Fergus had no choice but to allow Barrett to continue. Calling out the speaker regarding bias is working.
POO#6 – The member from Nunavut went on a tirade about first people’s ownership by nations and made some reference to children in the house. She further complained about someone laughing during a statement. Most of her point was incomprehensible. The speaker somehow heard two points. After essentially dismissing the first with a thank you, he announce he would review hansard and get back to her.
Discussion – As I was mostly unable to comprehend the two points, I really can’t offer much commentary. I will offer insight after the speaker returns on what he understood as the second point.
POO#7 – MP Damien Kurak rose to point out that the last point didn’t take into consideration of a Liberal minister making the same remark. While trying to quote some kind of report, the speaker simply cut him off. As he rose again, the speaker cut him off a second time. Eventually, after being challenged and consulting with the tabe, Kurak was allowed to continue.
Discussion – I don’t think anyone really knows what this was all about. Maybe we will find out tomorrow.