SoVote

Dec/4/23 12:28:29 p.m.
Watch

I thank the member for that. There are a number of people interested in talking about this, and I will give the other parties an opportunity to speak to it. I would remind members of the House to keep it to the particulars of the Standing Orders as closely as possible. We can relitigate this on a number of occasions, but we want to keep it as concise as we can. The hon. member for La Prairie.

77 words

Mr. Alain Therrien (La Prairie, BQ)

Dec/4/23 12:29:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the current Speaker of the House took office after the previous Speaker resigned following a serious error in judgment. His succession was a very sensitive issue, at least, more sensitive than usual. Everyone, or almost everyone, here knows and would agree that the current Speaker was a highly partisan member. At the time, the Bloc Québécois decided it would give the member in question the benefit of the doubt. Regardless of what kind of member we are, I think that any member who wants to be Speaker has the right to hold the office and prove to everyone that he or she is impartial. I applauded him in my speech to the House a few minutes after he was elected, and told him that I was looking forward to seeing him perform his duties with the impartiality that is essential, necessary and indispensable to any Speaker worthy of the title. What are the facts here? The House leader of the official opposition clearly explained them. I will very quickly go back to a few things, if I may. First, the Speaker was in his position as Speaker of the House of Commons. He was wearing the robes of the Speaker of the House of Commons. He was in the offices of the Speaker of the House of Commons. He used the resources of the Speaker of the House of Commons for an event that was undeniably partisan. I am going to quote from the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, 2017: “In order to protect the impartiality of the office, the Speaker abstains from all partisan political activity”. It is very simple. Therefore, we have a major problem. We have heard from the Speaker of the House that we were not supposed to see this. That is troubling, because we did see it. Are there other events that we did not see? Did we see the tip of the iceberg? We have these questions in mind, and I do not think it is appropriate to have these questions come up when we think about the actions and responsibility of the Speaker, an office of critical importance for our institutions. We want to have confidence in the interventions the Speaker makes in the House. We do not want to be left wondering whether it was for the good of the House, the good of democracy or the good of the government. We do not want to ask ourselves those types of questions. On November 29, our leader asked the Prime Minister a question and the Speaker deemed it irrelevant because, according to him, it had nothing to do with the management of government operations or public administration. We raised a point of order on the issue. We want to believe that this was simply a mistake. That is what we wish and that is what we believe. He even admitted it. What do we do now? This needs to be above partisanship. We must ensure that Parliament functions. That is what people expect. We have to work for the greater good of the public. We must not allow things to fester or trust in the Chair will be lost and the work of the House might become less effective than it should be. Things in the House are rather tense right now. We can all agree. Doing the work of the Chair requires two essential qualities: impartiality and impeccable judgment. Unfortunately, after what he did this weekend, the Speaker has shown us that he has neither of these qualities. That is why the Bloc Québécois is urging the Speaker to step down without delay.

618 words

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

Dec/4/23 12:33:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, certainly the New Democrats appreciate the official opposition House leader's raising this important question of privilege. I just want to state that our House leader, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, will be addressing this very serious issue after question period.

45 words

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC)

Dec/4/23 12:34:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in terms of your deliberations on this matter, it is very important to put on the record the entirety of what was contained in the Speaker's video. He said this: “You were the Steinberg's manager out in the West End. I was this young little kid, well you were young too, who was working for John Manley, and we struck up a great friendship: you, me, Linda, your kids, Julie; we all just hung out. You guys were a real inspiration to Julie and me. When we were just getting together, getting married, you and Linda gave us some great advice, great hope and a lot of love. When we started having children, we turned to looking at your family and how active you and Linda were in terms of getting things done. And boy, did we have fun. We had a lot of fun together through the Ottawa South Liberal association, through Liberal Party politics, by helping Dalton McGuinty get elected. “This was really a seminal part of my life, and when I think of the opportunities that I have now as being the Speaker of the House of Commons, it is because of people like John and Linda, especially you, John, as to why I'm the person I am today. Of course, that could be, you know, a scary thing, and I am sorry to put that burden on you, but only the good parts. Only the good parts are really due to you. “John, you know, anybody can ask you to do something once, and that's fine. But when they ask you to do something twice, it's because they really like you, they really respect you and they really think you're a great person. I know that, and I've known that for well over 30 years. So thank you, John, for all the work that you've done for the people of Ontario and the people of Canada.” In light of the Speaker's statement this morning, which had the tone of downplaying the severity of this action, I would like to put on the record the ways that the Speaker shattered the impartiality he has sworn to uphold in what I believe, in tone and in content, is an endorsement video for a sitting Liberal parliamentarian. As the Conservative House leader said earlier, the Speaker made this video and statement in Speaker's robes in the Speaker's office for a video to be played at the Ontario Liberal Party convention. It was recorded for a partisan political convention in its tone and content, heaping effusive praise on a sitting partisan legislator at a political convention. It amounted to being an endorsement video. Mr. Fraser is a sitting Liberal member of the Ontario provincial legislature, and he is planning to run again. The Speaker talked about how much fun the Liberal political activities were, while in his robe in the Speaker's office. He referenced how much fun the Ottawa South Liberal association is. He referenced helping get former Liberal premier, Dalton McGuinty, elected. He talked about participating in Liberal Party politics. There are a couple of other things that my colleague did not mention that I think you, Mr. Speaker, should take into consideration in your ruling. For the Speaker to say this morning or in the media that he did not know what this was for is utterly preposterous. That, in and of itself, is an affront to the House. It shows the same bad judgment as the previous Speaker had in allowing a Nazi to be feted in this place. There is no way that three layers of staff, in the Speaker's office and at the Ontario Liberal convention, did not know what this was for. It is actually preposterous to suggest otherwise. The other thing is that this is a pattern of behaviour. He actually made the argument that he did not know in this Parliament, when he was the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister. I want to read it into the record, because this is important to the point that the argument that he needs to exercise better diligence has been used twice before. My colleague mentioned one; I want to mention the other. It is from a CBC article subtitled “Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion calls for ethics training in wake of latest breach”. It states: The conflict of interest and ethics commissioner is recommending that all federal ministers and parliamentary secretaries report to his office for training after [the current Speaker] became the latest high-profile Liberal to violate the Conflict of Interest Act. The article talks about the ethics violation in which the current Speaker found himself when in that role. I encourage you to read it, Mr. Speaker. The former conflict of interest commissioner said this: “Being dual-hatted does not mean [the Speaker] can circumvent the rules of the Act by simply wearing his MP hat”. The article goes on to state that it is preposterous to say that a seasoned parliamentarian did not know. The article states that the Speaker “apologized for his ‘unintentional error’” and said, “I will redouble my efforts to be more diligent in the future”. Where have we heard this before? He said he would be more diligent when he gave information that should have gone to the House to a teenage blogger; this is now twice. I encourage you, Mr. Speaker, to look at the statement this morning through this lens. It is a pattern of behaviour. I have to close with this. The speech was broadcasted on TVO, so it is not just we who were affected. Anybody who was watching the broadcast would have seen the Speaker of the House of Commons, in his office and dressed in his robe, giving a partisan speech. That is an affront not just to the people of the House but also to every person we represent. Why is it? I want to echo what the Bloc House leader said, which is that we need to make this place work. If we are, rightly I think, questioning the Speaker's impartiality every single time because of a pattern of behaviour of “I did not know” or “I will be more diligent in the future”, democracy is eroded. This place is eroded. This place has to work, and now we have a very serious question. In closing, I want to read the terms of employment for the pages in this place. It is posted on the parliamentary website: The House of Commons administration is a non-partisan workforce where respect, support and promotion of the democratic process are an organizational value. Pages may not participate in any activities, including on social media, that are politically partisan or that could give rise to the perception that they could not perform their duties impartially. What kind of example is the Speaker setting for our pages if he is wearing his robe outside the House? What would happen if they wore their robes out to some sort of political convention? This is also about setting an example for our youth. This is such a serious issue that the House of Commons proceedings, as my colleague said, should not be proceeding without a ruling on the matter. This is very, very serious and very disappointing, and I cannot believe we are here again, two months after a Nazi was feted in the House.

1268 words

Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC)

Dec/4/23 12:41:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on this very serious question. I wish to do so so that the people watching us in Quebec and all francophone communities across the country understand what we are talking about right now in the House of Commons. Today, we provided notice of a question of privilege concerning the Speaker's public participation in partisan events over this past weekend. As the Speaker himself indicated this morning in his statement, I hope that he will recuse himself from the deliberations concerning this question of privilege. This is an extremely sensitive issue, especially since the question of privilege has been compounded by a number of other issues. The Conservative Party asked that the question of privilege be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to study the event and recommend any appropriate remedies. Today, another political party asked that the Speaker simply resign. This is an extremely serious matter that deserves to be looked at very seriously. Words and deeds matter. I am going to quote the member for Hull—Aylmer, before he took the role of Speaker, from the speech he made in the House to all his colleagues and to all Canadians. Let us not forget that before the vote, all those running to become Speaker were given the opportunity to make a speech in the hope of winning the support of their peers, their fellow MPs. The member for Hull—Aylmer took advantage of his speaking time to call for respect, saying, and I quote: The words we use matter. Symbols matter. I know this all too well. These are weighty words in relation to the events reported to us by The Globe and Mail this weekend. Subsequently, we have had the opportunity to see them on social networks and, today, they are being repeated just about everywhere on all platforms and in all media. Let me remind members what happened. The Globe and Mail published an article on Saturday under the following headline, “John Fraser finishes his time as interim Ontario Liberal leader as party elects permanent replacement”. The article was written by Laura Stone. She quotes the Speaker of the House quite remarkably. Here is how the member for Hull—Aylmer referred to Mr. Fraser: “He's demonstrated so much calm, and conviction and resolve and determination, and he's held it all together at a very challenging time in the history of our party.” Let me repeat that last part because it is very important for what happened next: “He's held it all together at a very challenging time in the history of our party.” I will now quote an excerpt from the statement made by the Speaker of the House this morning, at the opening of the House, speaking about that video. Hon. colleagues, it was played at a convention for a party that I am not a member of, in a province where I do not live in and where I have been unable to vote for nearly three decades. I can remember the Speaker's exact words in the video, which was viewed by a number of Canadians. The Speaker of the House, wearing his robes and standing in his office, said of Mr. Fraser that he “demonstrated so much calm, and conviction and resolve and determination”, and “held it all together at a very challenging time in the history of our party”. That is the opposite of the statement the Speaker of the House and member for Hull—Aylmer made this morning. What does he mean by “our party”? Regardless, the video went even further. The Speaker of the House took part by video in the election of the leader of the Ontario Liberal Party. This is an excerpt of what he said in the two-minute video produced as part of a tribute to Mr. Fraser, and I quote: “We had a lot of fun together through the Ottawa South Liberal Association, through Liberal Party politics, by helping Dalton McGuinty get elected. This was really a seminal part of my life. When I think of the opportunities that I have now as being Speaker of the House of Commons, it's because of people like John and Linda, and especially you, John, that I am the person I am today.” In that same video, once again, the Speaker himself mentioned his affiliation with the Liberal brand. He was wearing the Speaker's robes and standing in the Speaker's office, and the video was probably filmed using House of Commons resources. For the benefit of the people tuning in, I will just remind them that the video was played at the Ontario Liberal leadership convention as a message from the Speaker of the House of Commons of Canada. As I mentioned earlier, he made these remarks while standing in the Speaker's office in West Block and wearing the Speaker's robes. The decision to take part in a political convention is in and of itself very ill advised for someone who must be seen to be non-partisan. Some people may say that the situation would have been different if the member for Hull—Aylmer had done this wearing jeans in his backyard and using a personal computer rather than House of Commons resources, but that is not true. The Speaker of the House is the Speaker of the House, regardless of the circumstances and regardless of what he is wearing. When he does something like this while deliberately dressed in the full regalia of his non-partisan position in the offices of the Speaker of the House of Commons, that is what we would call a partisan gesture on the part of someone we would expect to show absolute non-partisanship. I thought it was important, and I still think it is important, that we inform all of the francophones across the country who watch our proceedings of what is going on. It is important to remember that the House of Commons Procedure and Practice is very clear on the non-partisan nature of the position of Speaker of the House of Commons.

1046 words

Mr. Mike Morrice

Dec/4/23 12:48:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to reiterate that this is a really important question of privilege being raised. However, there is live translation of all House proceedings, and I believe that we have heard from several members of the Conservative Party on the point. To your point earlier, I understand that we are looking to get new information on this question of privilege, and I wonder whether you could speak to that.

78 words

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/4/23 12:49:19 p.m.
Watch

When hearing members, the Chair is interested in hearing the facts and explanatory arguments on an issue. Pertinent and new information is welcome, but it should be understood that it is not intended to allow members to continuously take on interventions. I am getting close to the point where I can make a determination as to how to proceed on this particular issue. As I said before, when I took on the job as Deputy Speaker, I asked my predecessor, Bruce Stanton, whether it is a tough job and whether I would be making any decisions. He said, “No, it is the easiest thing I will ever have to do.” This is the second time I am having to make a decision in this respect. I want to hear the facts as they come forward, but I would ask members to try to stick to the facts as much as they possibly can. I know that there are two other people who want to present some facts, but I think that I am soon going to wrap up this debate, because I have heard enough to be able to make a decision shortly.

195 words

M. Luc Berthold

Dec/4/23 12:50:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I understand. However, I think it is very important that all of the French speakers are able to hear about the facts that were reported and the articles that were published in the English newspapers directly from a member. I will continue by quoting a few things from House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition. Chapter 7 very clearly states the following: ...the Speaker embodies the power and authority of the office, strengthened by rule and precedent. He or she must at all times show, and be seen to show, the impartiality required to sustain the trust and goodwill of the House. A new fact has come to light. Today, in the House, a political party asked the Speaker to step down. That is a new development that occurred after my colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle raised the question of privilege. Chapter 7 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice also states the following: “In order to protect the impartiality of the office, the Speaker abstains from all partisan political activity”. To show how much I respect the fact that the Speaker asked me to be brief, I will end with this. The participation of the Speaker of the House of Commons in a partisan Liberal activity, whether at the federal, provincial or even municipal level—if there were municipal Liberal activities—is simply unacceptable. The Speaker must be the arbiter of House debates and deliberations. Mr. Speaker, for all these reasons, I ask that you rule in favour of the question of privilege put by the House leader for the opposition and member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.

279 words

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/4/23 12:52:39 p.m.
Watch

I thank the member for his intervention. We are down to the last couple of interventions. Let us make sure we stick to the points being put forward and that they are new points. If they are repetitive, I will shut them off and go to the next person so we can move on. I believe there are another couple of points of order to come after, and I want to make sure we are as judicious as possible with the time of this House. The hon. member for Saskatoon—University.

92 words

Mr. Corey Tochor (Saskatoon—University, CPC)

Dec/4/23 12:53:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, December 4, 2023, is a date that will be quoted in future rulings and references to the House, unfortunately. I do not enter this point of privilege debate willingly, but obviously, for all members of the House, this is a significant shot to our democracy. I will not go over the other points members have raised about the ethics violation and the conflict of interest decisions that have been ruled against this individual, but I will talk about my experience. As members may know, which might be new to some members of this chamber, I was honoured to be the 25th Speaker of the Saskatchewan legislature before coming here. I will speak a bit about my experience as Speaker of the Saskatchewan legislature and then how I found myself out here. I think it is important to really break down the role of Speaker. We all speak to different school groups, and when people come for tours of the legislatures or the House of Commons, they obviously have some of the same questions. If they sit in on question period, they all have questions afterwards, such as, “Why didn't the government answer this?” and “Why did this happen?” I think back to when I was Speaker—

214 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

Dec/4/23 12:54:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is all fascinating, but you did rule about staying focused. We do not need a history of people visiting the legislature. We need to know whether this was or was not a breach of the House.

46 words

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/4/23 12:55:01 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member for that intervention. Knowing that there are a number of speakers on this question, I will ask the hon. member to shorten up the history lesson. I know he was a great Speaker of the House in Saskatchewan, but I would ask him to get to his point. The member for Saskatoon—University.

59 words

Mr. Corey Tochor

Dec/4/23 12:55:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will make my remarks as short as possible, but they are important, because they boil down to what the issue is here today. When we explain what we do here and how Westminster democracy is supposed to work, we say it is through vigorous debate that we arrive at a conclusion and answer questions that face our country. How that debate is administered is through the impartial position of the Speaker. That is why Speakers have a distinctive look, a look that is different from that of other members. They have a uniform that identifies them as something different in this place. That is why pages have a uniform. That is why the officers at the table are wearing their robes, which signify how differently they need to act. The Speakers need to be the impartial rulers of our proceedings. That is one of the reasons they wear robes, the uniform. When school groups come here, we explain that in the process of debate, when the Speaker rises everyone should zip it because of the respect we have for whoever is in that position. After what we witnessed over the weekend, I do not know how we would explain to a school group on its next visit to this place how a Speaker can be impartial if they have taken part in a political partisan event. It is wrong. Everyone knows it is wrong. We talked about how this individual was a page at one time. There is a parliamentary tradition of trying to encourage the pages to take a side or give an opinion. I have been elected for two terms provincially and two terms federally and have not been able to get one partisan answer from any clerk or any page in both the legislature and the House of Commons because they take this seriously. When they go through training, they know they are not to partake in partisan activities because of the importance of their roles. For our Speaker to have this lapse in judgment and throw away hundreds of years of tradition to take part in a political event blows my mind. I will get into some new remarks on how I got to this location. As I was serving as the 25th Speaker of Saskatchewan, my country was hurting. Canada's direction was obviously taking us down a dark path. We could see this as early as 2018, and this is where—

411 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

Dec/4/23 12:58:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are hearing about the member's personal political journey, which is a filibuster. Could we just stay on point?

29 words

Hon. Andrew Scheer

Dec/4/23 12:58:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I know the NDP does not like anything to get in the way of the Liberal agenda, but this is not a filibuster; we are discussing and debating the actions of the Speaker. Nobody went home to their ridings Friday expecting this to happen. The Speaker chose to do this and has put the House in this situation. This is such a big deal that when the House does not have a Speaker, through a resignation or any other—

82 words

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/4/23 12:59:15 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Kitchener Centre is rising on a point of order.

13 words

Mr. Mike Morrice

Dec/4/23 12:59:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the remarks we just heard were the history of the member's time getting to this House of Commons, which has nothing to do with what is meant to be spoken about on the floor of the House. I share the concern of other members and would like to see how we can get to closure on this and continue the business of the House.

71 words

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/4/23 12:59:45 p.m.
Watch

We are really getting into the weeds, I believe. I want to make sure we get to the issue of the question of privilege before us. Just to give the House a heads-up, there are a couple of other questions of privilege to be raised today, so I want to move through the next couple of stages to make sure I have the information available to render a decision. The hon. House leader for the opposition.

77 words

Privilege

Hon. Andrew Scheer

Dec/4/23 1:00:11 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, very briefly in response to the Green Party's latest intervention, we are talking about judgment. It is not that we are debating a specific line in the Standing Orders. It is incredibly important that we hear the context of other members' experiences from other parliaments, because it is in that context that we can determine as a House whether or not a grave error in judgment was made by the Speaker.

74 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Dec/4/23 1:00:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, maybe there are more I am not aware of, but my understanding is that we have three former Speakers in this chamber: the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, the member for Nipissing—Timiskaming and the member who is speaking. I think it is important to hear from members with specific expertise on the role of the Speaker who have been Speakers. They understand the pressures on them far more than I do, as I have fortunately never had to take off my partisan colours for any reason. I want to hear what the member's experience is and what he has to say.

107 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 261