SoVote

Dec/5/23 3:14:40 p.m.
Watch

I will say quickly that we must be judicious in our words. We will go back and listen to that and come back to the House if something needs to be done.

32 words

Hon. Karina Gould (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Dec/5/23 3:15:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 111.1, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a certificate of nomination and biographical notes for the proposed appointment of Eric Janse to the position of Clerk of the House of Commons. I request that the nomination and biographical notes be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

61 words

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/5/23 3:16:57 p.m.
Watch

It being 3:16 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. Call in the members.

39 words

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/5/23 3:32:16 p.m.
Watch

I declare the motion carried. I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division, Government Orders will be extended by 15 minutes.

26 words

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/5/23 3:32:45 p.m.
Watch

I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on December 4 by the House leader of the official opposition concerning the Speaker's participation, by video message, at a provincial party convention on December 2. The Speaker, in a statement earlier in the sitting, had explained that he had been asked to record a personal message to be played as part of a tribute video to a colleague and friend from the national capital region whom he has known for many decades. He apologized for the perception of partisanship that his involvement in the said convention created. He also indicated that, if concerns were brought to the floor of the House, he would recuse himself from discussions on this matter. As such, I fulfilled the role bestowed upon the Deputy Speaker to weigh the arguments from hon. members, assess the procedural authorities and precedents, and prepare a ruling on this matter. It is exceedingly rare that actions involving the Speaker are questioned in the chamber. It requires a thoughtful and serious response. The role of Speaker is central to our parliamentary institutions. It cannot be seen to be diminished or drawn into partisan debate. It is with this in mind that I approached this ruling. In his intervention, the House leader of the official opposition alleged that the Speaker failed in his responsibility to uphold the impartiality of his office. He did so by providing a video tribute, in an allegedly partisan manner, from the Speaker's office and dressed in the Speaker's attire, for the departing interim leader of a provincial party, which was shown at that party's convention. He contended that the Speaker clearly indicated a partisan preference. The member quoted extensively from numerous procedural authorities on the high expectation for impartiality that is attached to the position of Speaker of the House of Commons. The member argued that the matter should be viewed as a contempt of the House. He pointed to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, which emphasizes that a matter of contempt can be addressed by the House, even in the absence of any specific breach of privilege. In a subsequent intervention, he called on the Speaker to resign. The member for La Prairie, for his part, emphasized that the Speaker's participation in a partisan political activity was a breach of his impartiality. He posited that speakers need two qualities to successfully fulfill their duties: They must always show impartiality in all their activities and must show good judgment. On both counts, according to the member, the Speaker has failed to do so, and as such, must resign. The member for New Westminster—Burnaby also spoke of the gravity of the situation. According to the member, the Speaker's actions went against the principle of impartiality, so important to the position. He called on the Deputy Speaker to find a prima facie question of privilege, and that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Other members also intervened on the matter, but I would like to highlight a quote from House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 323, that the House Leader of the official opposition cited. It bears repeating because it succinctly sums up the requirement for impartiality by the Speaker. It says: When in the Chair, 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. Allegations of partisanship against the Speaker are a very serious matter. To protect the integrity of the position, it is generally not permissible for members to call into question the Speaker’s impartiality. If members wish to object to the Speaker’s conduct, there is a clear process by which this is to be accomplished. As stated by House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at page 323: “The actions of the Speaker may not be criticized in debate or by any means except by way of a substantive motion.” The House leader of the official opposition acknowledged as much in his remarks, noting that this is the usual manner in which complaints against the Speaker are dealt with. While he would have this motion brought forward before the House by way of a prima facie finding of a question of privilege, this is not the course of action that has been followed in the past. It further states, at pages 620 and 621 of the same work: Only by means of a substantive motion for which 48 hours’ written notice has been given, may the actions of the Chair be challenged, criticized and debated. We do have past examples of similar occurrences. On June 1, 1956, at page 4540 of the Debates, Speaker Beaudoin directed that a motion be first placed on notice to address complaints about his conduct. Similarly, on March 13, 2000, at page 4397 of the Debates, Speaker Parent took the same approach when faced with a comparable situation. He directed that a motion be placed on notice, first. In both cases, Speakers Beaudoin and Parent declined to rule on their own conduct and did not ask another chair occupant to rule on their behalf. I will note that the matter at issue in each case was dissatisfaction with a procedural ruling. In the present case, what is at issue is the Speaker's conduct outside of the House, and whether or not it has brought into question his impartiality. As we saw, the Speaker decided to recuse himself and to entrust me in guiding the House as to the next steps to take, if any, regarding this matter. The House leader of the official opposition elected to bring his concerns through a question of privilege and not through the preferred means to bring such a matter forward to the House, and that is to place a substantive motion on notice. I allowed the arguments yesterday, even though it is not the usual course of action, as I recognized the grave concerns some members had and wished to express. The Chair finds itself in a difficult position, having to determine if, on the face of it, a colleague's behaviour brings into question the impartiality of the chair. This is more properly an issue for the House to decide. I also acknowledge that for all of us, the House, chair occupants and members, it is important to settle this matter as soon as possible. On that basis, and on that basis alone, rather than insisting that a substantive motion be placed on notice, I find that this matter should have priority over other orders of the day and will allow the House leader of the official opposition to move his motion. In the future, if members wish to take issue with the conduct of the Speaker, rather than raising points of order or questions of privilege, I would instead direct them to place a substantive motion on notice. I thank members for their attention.

1197 words

Hon. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC)

Dec/5/23 3:40:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I move: That the Speaker's public participation at an Ontario Liberal Party convention, as Speaker of the House of Commons, constitutes a breach of the tradition and expectation of impartiality required for that high office, constituting a serious error of judgment which undermines the trust required to discharge his duties and responsibilities and, therefore, the House refers the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with instruction that it recommend an appropriate remedy.

79 words

Hon. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC)

Dec/5/23 3:42:26 p.m.
Watch

I appreciate the difficult position this scandal has put you in, and I appreciate your ruling, where you spelled out the normal course of actions for members to follow when dealing with a chair occupant or dealing with the Speaker. I appreciate that you also acknowledged the time-sensitive nature of what this scandal has caused for the House and for members. As you know, I made substantive remarks yesterday in making the case for this privilege motion. To save the House's time, I will not go through all of those again, but will just sum up the points. The Speaker has incredible authority here in the chamber. The Speaker makes decisions that are not subject to appeal. There is no higher authority whom members can ask for a second opinion should they lose out on a point of order or on a question of privilege. The Speaker's word is the command during debates. If the Speaker does not like something that was said, the Speaker can take the floor away from a member. The Speaker has the sole authority to expel a member from the chamber. The Speaker is the only person who can name someone and force them to leave the chamber for the rest of the day. That decision is not appealable either. In other parliaments, that type of thing must be ratified by the House. In our chamber, the Speaker has sole executive authority. The reason I am talking so much about the incredible powers the Speaker has is that, for members to accept someone to hold that power, there has to be trust in that person. I would like to mention that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable. That is the type of authority the Speaker has here in the chamber. Around the precinct, the Speaker also has incredible authority as well. He chairs the Board of Internal Economy. The Board of Internal Economy sets the rules about how members are able to use resources to fulfill their functions, which is everything from printing protocols and ensuring there are adequate translation services to what types of expenses are allowed. It is a very important role. For members to accept someone to hold that authority, they must have 100% trust that the person holding that position is exercising their duty free of any partisan bias and free of any favouritism or preferential treatment. It can be challenging. We all get elected through a political process. All of us seek a nomination. We join a political party. We sell memberships in that party in advance of a nomination race to win that nomination. During general elections, we pound in signs promoting our party, in terms of the brand, the policies and the leader. We all understand that. When somebody enters this place and decides to run for Speaker, they usually go to some length to assure members that they do have a non-partisan side, that they can put aside their partisanship and partisan affiliations, and that they can take the Speaker's chair, put on the Speaker's robe and be impartial. In the case of the current Speaker, the current Speaker was the former president of the Liberal Party. The current Speaker was the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, right up until he ran for Speaker. In the course of this Parliament, between the last election and the date he was elected as Speaker, the current Speaker was engaged in very partisan activities. As the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary, he was busy because there were a lot of scandals the Prime Minister was involved in. There were all kinds of ethics violations, spending scandals and allegations of corruption across multiple departments. The current Speaker would dutifully go to committee, defend the Prime Minister, engage in filibusters to prevent the committee from arriving at a decision, go on TV with other members of other parties, make accusations and defend his boss in a very partisan way. We were all asked, as MPs, to take a leap of faith with this current Speaker that after being elected, after winning a majority of the votes in the House, he would go above and beyond what might be expected. Since his partisanship was so intense and so recent, we went out on a bit of a limb to believe he would put aside all that partisanship and would conduct himself in a way that would earn that trust and would justify that trust. We gave him the benefit of the doubt. That is why it was so shocking. I could not believe my eyes when I saw the image of the Speaker in his robes, in his office on Parliament Hill, at a hyperpartisan political event. This was no quiet dinner among friends. This was a leadership election convention for the Ontario Liberal Party, a party in a province that he does not currently reside in. I was shocked. At first, I honestly thought it was a bit of a joke. I thought somebody was trying to troll me or something. I did not believe it at first. Upon seeing the other images shared and the video itself, I realized, oh my goodness, the Speaker has actually done this. Here is why it matters for Canadians. We heard the Speaker's excuse yesterday. We talked about the incredible authority, the need for trust between the House members and the Speaker. We can think of other examples of institutions in Canada in which we can all instantly recognize the need for impartiality and the need to make a serious change if that impartiality is ever broken. Imagine a case in the NHL, if there were images displayed of an NHL referee wearing his referee's uniform and giving a pep talk to the Toronto Maple Leafs in their locker room during intermission. How would fans of the Montreal Canadiens, the Ottawa Senators or the Edmonton Oilers feel if they ever had to see that referee ref a game between their team and Toronto? It would not matter if the referee did that because he happened to know one of the players or maybe he had some close personal relationship. He did not expect it to be videoed; he just thought he could go in and say a few encouraging words and then leave. It would not matter, because once one sees that image, one cannot unsee it. That doubt will always be there. Doubt is the opposite of trust. Imagine a defendant in a court case, where someone texts them an image of the judge, in his robes, at a backyard barbecue with the Crown prosecutor. The judge might have all kinds of context that he would want them to understand before jumping to conclusions, but would a defendant want to go through a trial proceeding with a judge who had shown that kind of partiality and bias? I would not. Imagine a situation between a union and management that has gone to arbitration; the arbiter is then seen at a restaurant in his attire, in the same clothes he wears during the mediation session. Now he is sitting down with one of the parties involved in the dispute. Would a union want to accept a ruling, even if there was context and a rationale behind it? Of course it would not. That is the situation we find ourselves in here in the House. That is why our recommendation to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs will be to recommend to the House that the Speaker resign. We do not believe that, to go forward, to accept those rulings without appeal, the current Speaker can fulfill that role. Yesterday, I mentioned a few very important cases that are technically still under the purview of the Speaker. One touches on whether the budget bill was properly introduced. The government made a ways and means motion error, and we contend that this motion should have been ruled out of order. That is taxation and spending. For us to trust that the Speaker made that ruling last week free of any bias or partiality is just impossible after seeing those images. I hope my colleagues in the House will agree with me that this situation is serious and that it matters not just to members but also to Canadians. This is the pillar of our parliamentary democracy. Members should support this motion and support our calls at committee for the Speaker to do the right thing, put the institution above himself as an individual, make the role primary and step aside.

1446 words

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Dec/5/23 3:52:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for bringing forward the motion. Of course, as a member of the New Democratic Party, I can echo much of the concern that he has expressed. We are very worried about this and the precedent that this has set. We are supportive of this going to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for further examination. Could the member comment briefly on what he would specifically like to see the PROC committee look into and what specific recommendations he would like it to come up with?

96 words

Hon. Andrew Scheer

Dec/5/23 3:53:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member touched on a very important point that I would like to address. She talked about precedent. One reason I brought this through in the form of a question of privilege is this: I fully believe that an important concept here is that future speakers see very clearly that this type of activity is so offensive to the House that they should take extra precautions to never find themselves in a similar situation. The member asked what specific course of action we recommend. I would just use this opportunity to again state our belief that the Speaker has reached the point where he should step aside. This would preserve or re-establish that trust between the office of the Speaker and individual MPs. I will let PROC decide how best to deliberate. We believe there is a timeliness to this. Every day that goes by, there are questions before the Chair that need to be decided. It may interest the committee to hear from the Speaker, to get to the bottom of the invitations and any correspondence that went back and forth between the Liberal Party of Ontario and the Speaker's office to help substantiate what the Speaker claims to have happened. I will leave that to the procedure and House affairs committee. However, it is our belief that at this point, the best thing for the institution would be for the Speaker to step down.

240 words

Mr. Corey Tochor (Saskatoon—University, CPC)

Dec/5/23 3:54:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to this motion and the last one, and it appears that we are going to be heading towards a meeting at PROC to discuss this. We have heard from two parties that represent almost 150 members of Parliament, which is almost the majority, calling for the resignation of the Speaker. The only other opposition party that has not stated a position on remedy is the NDP. I would like to hear from the opposition House leader on the pressures or consequences if the NDP does not side with the other 150-plus members who are calling for the Speaker's resignation. What would be the consequences for those members?

114 words

Hon. Andrew Scheer

Dec/5/23 3:55:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague has made an important point. With the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives, we are almost at a majority of the House. I just have to say, for anybody in a leadership capacity to lead a group, especially a group such as members of Parliament in the House of Commons, who are divided by party, that relationship cannot be maintained with such a significant percentage of the group not having confidence in him. I hope the Speaker reflects on that. I do not want to prejudge what may or may not happen or deal in hypotheticals, but I do not see how a Speaker could continue in the role knowing that virtually 50% of the people he has to administer over or guide have lost confidence in him. I hope he reflects on that in the coming hours and days.

149 words

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

Dec/5/23 3:56:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in a representative democracy, people who elect us to serve here must have a certain degree of faith that our voices count and that their voices are heard through us. I believe this is why we have the standing order that requires the Speaker to be impartial. My colleague from the NDP raised a question about what recommendations she would like PROC to make. In that vein, could the member also talk about the need for the impartiality of the Speaker's chair to be maintained, in order for the public to have faith in the function of Parliament?

101 words

Hon. Andrew Scheer

Dec/5/23 3:57:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this is a very profound question that warrants more time than I have. I will just quickly say this: We have a government that has, for two elections in a row, received fewer votes than the main opposition party. The vast majority of Canadians did not vote for the government, and especially when we have a government that was elected with such a low percentage of the votes, they need to have trust that, at the very least, the government is constrained by some of the rules and traditions of the House. The Speaker is the guardian of that. Canadians also have to have confidence in the impartiality of the Speaker.

113 words

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

Dec/5/23 3:57:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, to begin, allow me to thank the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, the House leader of the official opposition, for his speech. Let us keep in mind that this member has occupied the Speaker's chair, so when he raised the question of privilege, he knew full well what this is all about. He also knows why it is important for those who occupy the chair of Speaker of the House of Commons to be impartial and take on the role of the referee, not one of the players on the House of Commons ice rink. I was shocked when I first saw the video of the current Speaker of the House for the very first time. I was shocked by his comments and by the fact that, not only after his election as Speaker, but also before, in the speech he gave to be elected Speaker, the member for Hull—Aylmer made several references to the importance of words, deeds and decorum in the House. As a referee and the person responsible for decorum in the House, if he is to achieve this goal, he must, without fail, demonstrate absolute impartiality. I will remind the House about what the member for Hull—Aylmer said before he was elected. Again, everything is a matter of judgment, of course, but it is also a matter of perception. At the time, before he was elected, this is what he said to all his colleagues in the House. He used his speaking time, the time that every candidate for the speakership is entitled to, to say, “The words we use matter. Symbols matter. I know this all too well. As your Speaker, I will act swiftly to restore the honour of the House.” That statement offended me because I did not think the House had been dishonoured in any way prior to his arrival. Nevertheless, as a group, we chose to elect the member for Hull—Aylmer as Speaker despite what he said. Given his statement, we expected the honour and decorum of the House to be impeccable. Then the Speaker made a statement from his seat before oral questions. Let us not forget how astonished we were to see the Speaker make such a statement at such a time. He announced his intention to elevate debate in the House of Commons and do better than his predecessors. Who would have thought, just a few weeks later, that not only would all his attempts to do so fail, but on top of that, he would prove to be the most partisan Speaker since I do not know when? Who would have thought that the comments he made at the Ontario Liberal Party convention would have harmed the position he holds? We must also consider the way in which he said he wanted to lead the House to have better deliberations. When the referee takes sides, how are the players then supposed to respect any of his decisions? When the referee practically becomes one of the players on the ice and he decides to score a goal with his striped shirt in the opposing team's net, he loses all credibility in any decision me makes after that. It is unfortunate, but that is how it is. To remind people why we had to raise this question of privilege, I will quote some of comments from the famous video at the root of the situation we find ourselves in today. The Speaker was dressed in his Speaker's robes in the video that was seen by Liberal supporters at the Ontario Liberal Party leadership convention. The video was filmed in the Speaker's office, likely using House of Commons resources. His words were very clear. Despite the apology that he gave in the House this week, he cannot dismiss or erase what he said to the convention on that video. In reference to Mr. Fraser, the interim leader of the Ontario Liberal Party who was retiring after an election, the Speaker said, “He's demonstrated so much calm, conviction and resolve and determination, and he's held it all together at a very challenging time in the history of our party.” He very clearly stated “of our party”. Even though, in his apology, he indicated that he was not a member of the Ontario Liberal Party, that he did not have a membership card and that he did not participate in activities, he still took the time to say “our party” in front of all those Liberal supporters. When it comes to partisanship and perceptions, the Speaker, dressed in the robes of the Speaker of the House of Commons and standing in the office of the Speaker of the House of Commons, clearly failed in his basic duty to show reserve. There is a reason why no other Speaker of the House of Commons has spoken at a political convention. It has never happened before in Canada, not in legislative assemblies, not in the Quebec National Assembly and not in other parliaments around the world operating under our British parliamentary system. It has never happened anywhere. Various excerpts from the many books of standing orders and procedures of Houses of Commons operating under the British system concur in this matter. It is written. It is a rule. It is not mere tradition that requires the Speaker to refrain from partisan displays. I would like to quote from Parliamentary Procedure in Québec, third edition, at page 132. This excerpt demonstrates that non-partisanship must be demonstrated in all parliamentary systems, not just here: While the legitimacy of the Chair stems primarily from the rules that govern the selection process, the impartiality of the Chair is essentially determined by the attitude adopted by the President in the exercise of the functions of office. Of course, the rules of parliamentary procedure state that the President does not belong to any parliamentary group, does not participate in any of the Assembly's debates and votes only to break a tie, but it is the manner in which the incumbent oversees the proceedings and follows those rules that determines whether actual impartiality and the appearance of impartiality are maintained. I am saying this most sincerely: Unfortunately, with this video that was shown at the Ontario Liberal Party convention, the Speaker failed in his duty to be truly neutral and, primarily, in his duty to maintain an appearance of neutrality. I will also add my voice to that of the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, who is asking that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs as soon as possible. The solution for the Speaker is none other than to ask for his resignation, because he has lost the confidence of the House. While I am at it, I will move an amendment to the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle's motion. The amendment reads as follows: That the motion be amended by adding the following: “, provided that the committee: (a) meet within 24 hours after receiving this order of reference to consider the matter; (b) ensure this matter take priority over all other business; (c) shall have the first priority for the use of House resources for the committee meetings, subject to the special orders adopted on Monday, May 16, 2023, and Monday, December 4, 2023; and (d) be instructed to report back to the House not later than on Thursday, December 14, 2023”.

1265 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/5/23 4:07:50 p.m.
Watch

I will take the amendment under advisement for a few minutes and make a decision as quickly as possible. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil.

29 words

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

Dec/5/23 4:09:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I was also very shocked to see the Speaker address Ontario Liberal Party supporters. For most Canadians watching this debate and listening to the motion just moved in the House, I think it might seem a little like baseball. Could the member talk a little about the confidence that the House places in the Speaker? Can he talk about the effect of the Speaker's ruling? More than 120 members are now calling for his resignation. The NDP has not taken a stand on the matter. Can my colleague talk about that?

94 words

Talk

Mr. Luc Berthold

Dec/5/23 4:10:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we are in a minority government situation. This means that, at any moment, there could be a very important vote that would send Canadians to the polls. At any moment, this government could be defeated. The rulings by the Speaker of the House and his impartiality are of paramount importance. We must have confidence that the Speaker of the House will ensure that the rules are followed. The governing party, the Liberal Party, could call an election anytime it wants, and unfortunately we would always have doubts because we no longer trust the Speaker, who has shown extreme partisanship. We will always have doubts about his rulings. Were they based on rules and traditions, or on partisan interests? That is why Canadians need to pay close attention to what is happening right now and to the recommendations that will be made by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

152 words

Mr. Corey Tochor (Saskatoon—University, CPC)

Dec/5/23 4:11:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have been honoured to serve under six Speakers, this one being the sixth, and I have to say that he is the most partisan Speaker I have ever served under. It is such a disappointment to have to bring this up, as we had such great hopes for this individual, hopes of restoring respect and improving decorum. However, from his actions on the weekend, the only obvious solution is for him to resign. I would like to know whether you believe that future Speakers would view this as a precedent. If we act in accordance with our traditions, it would be to further the position as being non-partisan, but if we decide to keep the current Speaker on, it would lead to more partisanship creeping into that office. Would you agree or disagree with that stance?

140 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/5/23 4:12:37 p.m.
Watch

I will not pronounce for myself, but I am going to ask the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

23 words

Mr. Luc Berthold

Dec/5/23 4:12:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, personally, I agree with what my colleague just said. If we do not have confidence in the Speaker to be the referee, then how do you expect us to then respect his decisions and his calls for calm and order? It is total chaos. In any event, I am already wondering one thing. Two political parties have already called for his resignation and another is questioning the Speaker's judgment for taking part in a partisan activity. Three out of the four parties in the House of Commons have already questioned the Speaker's judgment with respect to his participation in an event that calls into question his ability to be non-partisan. Because that happened, I do not see what other option my colleagues at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs have. The only thing they can do is call for the Speaker to tender his resignation.

152 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 262