SoVote

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/5/23 4:13:48 p.m.
Watch

The amendment is in order. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government.

15 words

Secretary

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Dec/5/23 4:14:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one thing I take a great deal of pride in is the opportunity I had to represent the people of Inkster for just under 20 years in the legislature in the Province of Manitoba and, since 2010, being able to represent the people of Winnipeg North here in Ottawa. I have a passion for the debates that take place in the chamber, and at times even I can get somewhat political. I know that is a little tough to believe. There are some things that should be treated in an apolitical fashion. I would suggest this is one of those situations, and we should try, to our greatest ability, to ensure we treat this matter in an apolitical fashion. I would like to read part of the motion that was introduced. The essence of the motion is that “the House refers the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with instruction that it recommend an appropriate remedy.” Based on how I read the motion, just as when I first heard it, I believe that members of the Liberal caucus would say with me that it seems to be very fair. Because we all recognize the serious nature of the issue, let us have the procedure and House affairs committee deal with the issue. We are okay with that. However, I want to emphasize that the motion makes very clear that the House is to refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with instruction that PROC recommend an appropriate remedy. That is the most important part of the motion. I am not a lawyer by profession, but I am concerned about some of the statements by the mover and seconder of the motion. I wrote down specifically what the most recent speaker said, which was that the only outcome should be asking for the Speaker's resignation because he has lost the trust of the members of this House. That seems to be the absolute opposite of what the motion says. It is as if members of the Conservative Party have already drawn a conclusion, and that concerns me. It should concern all members of the chamber. I have confidence and faith in the membership of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. In the debate taking place on this important issue this afternoon, what is best is that we reinforce two points. Number one, this chamber and members should have confidence in the membership of the PROC committee, and number two, we should let the PROC committee do what is being asked of it to do, which is to recommend an appropriate remedy. The PROC committee has the resources to do what is necessary to come back to the House. The problem I have with the amendment in particular is that it tries to put a deadline on the PROC committee. It wants PROC to report back to the chamber by December 14. Again, through an amendment to the motion, we are interfering with the PROC committee, if in fact one believes, as members of the Liberal caucus and I do, that we need to put partisan politics to the side on this issue because we are talking about the Speaker of the House. At the end of the day, I would suggest, from a personal point of view, that the amendment not be supported and that we support the motion itself. If, number one, members believe in and have confidence in PROC and, number two, want to depoliticize this issue, I highly recommend that they seriously consider voting the way I have suggested from my perspective. With those few words, I will leave it at that in the hope that PROC will be able to come up with a remedy, as recommended by the motion.

639 words

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

Dec/5/23 4:20:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the issue at hand is one of great urgency. It speaks to the confidence the House has in the Speaker to perform his abilities in an independent and non-partisan manner. The amendment is completely appropriate given the circumstance we find ourselves in. The procedure and house affairs committee should deal with this matter expeditiously and then come back to the House with a recommendation. Does the hon. member not believe that for the confidence of this House and its ability to ensure the Speaker, in a non-partisan way, has the ability to make the decisions required, as there are many decisions to come, this matter needs to be dealt with at the speed the amendment calls for?

121 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Dec/5/23 4:21:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the amendment references that PROC deal with the matter in an urgent fashion, and I agree. However, politics is entering in a very real way when members speaking to the motion instruct that a resignation has to be the outcome. That is a huge jump and it is a politically partisan jump. On the issue of urgency, yes, let us get it to PROC, but when we say that PROC has to have a report in by December 14, let us remember that December 14 could be our last day. We are here at the latest until December 15, unless there is unanimous support for us to extend sittings in the month of December. Therefore, it seems to me that there is urgency, but we do not have to have the report on the day the House is recessing or the day prior, if in fact we have faith and confidence in PROC's membership and we truly want to be apolitical on this. I am taking people at face value.

173 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)

Dec/5/23 4:22:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what I find really interesting about this particular issue, which speaks to the political partisanship of it, is that when the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, the House leader for the Conservatives, originally proposed his intervention this morning, he made no reference to calling on the Speaker to resign. Then in the next intervention, the Bloc Québécois called on the Speaker to resign, and as though not to be outdone, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle ran back into the House, rose on another point of order and said that the Speaker should resign. Now he has come to the conclusion, a mere couple of hours later, that there is absolutely no other option but for the Speaker to resign. However, in the entirety of his intervention, when he started off on the matter this morning, he never once raised it. I wonder if the member can—

156 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/5/23 4:23:14 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable has a point of order.

16 words

Gantic
Rable

Mr. Luc Berthold

Dec/5/23 4:23:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the facts are very important when we are talking about partisanship and the Speaker of the House. All of that did not happen on the same day. That happened yesterday, so I would like—

37 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/5/23 4:23:29 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable is referring to the fact that this started yesterday, not this morning. It is putting into perspective the observations the member was making a couple of hours ago, so it does make a point.

45 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Dec/5/23 4:23:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not see the procedural error I made there. I certainly made an error with respect to the timing, but it was not a procedural error on which the member could stand up on a point of order. In any event, my point was to say that when the House leader for the Conservatives rose on his question of privilege, he never once made reference to the Speaker resigning. He did not do that until he decided he needed to because the Bloc Québécois was doing it. That signals that there is a great degree of partisanship going on here. To the parliamentary secretary's point, when the Conservative member made his comments and was directing that this issue go to the procedure and House affairs committee, he had already precluded what the outcome would be. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary would like to provide his insight into that.

157 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Dec/5/23 4:24:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to emphasize a couple of points. First and foremost, at the end of the day, given the importance and respect I would think every member of the House has for our democracy, our Standing Orders and so forth, and the amount of respect we should have toward the Chair, I would think we can put partisan politics to the side. That is number one. If, in fact, members are prepared to do that, we can then make some significant progress in enabling and supporting the PROC committee to come up with what would hopefully be a unanimous report on what should come of the Speaker's actions. My concern is that there are already hints that some say they want to treat it in an apolitical fashion but their actions seem to speak differently.

139 words

Mr. Corey Tochor (Saskatoon—University, CPC)

Dec/5/23 4:25:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member refers to our House leader and other members, but 150 members of this place raised the concern with this individual. It is not just one Conservative member or one Bloc member. It is members who represent every region in Canada. Canadians are watching. They are very disturbed by what has been going on in this place and to find out that it appears the head referee is in the tank for one side. That is very disdainful for Canadians who have fought for this country, fought for our democracy and freedoms. For us to throw that away in an instance of partisanship, which is now commonplace in the Speaker's office, is shameful.

117 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Dec/5/23 4:26:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what the member across the way said is that the only outcome should be asking for the Speaker's resignation because he has lost the trust of members of this House. That is drawing a conclusion before PROC is even assigned the responsibility of dealing with the issue. That is what I mean. If the Conservatives' approach is that they want to hang him and hang him high no matter what and want a resignation, and that is the position they take— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

90 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/5/23 4:27:11 p.m.
Watch

I would ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to be prudent with his choice of words considering the situation we are addressing and please show moderation.

25 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Dec/5/23 4:27:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, without any hesitation, I retract that comment and apologize. The point is that at the end of the day, if we really and truly want to be apolitical on this, the words we speak inside the House and what takes place at PROC should clearly demonstrate that. That is what I am asking for. We need to be consistent, and I hope that is what we will see.

70 words

Mr. Dave Epp (Chatham-Kent—Leamington, CPC)

Dec/5/23 4:27:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I know it is not proper parliamentary procedure to bring attention to the presence or absence of a member of the chamber. However, I do not know whether I can do that to myself. I will admit that I was not in the chamber when the amendment was brought forward, so my question to the member across the way is this. The amendment deals with deferring to the PROC committee and returning a decision by December 14. Does the amendment talk about a resignation?

86 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Dec/5/23 4:28:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member is right. The essence of the motion is this, and let us be very clear on it: “the House refers the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with instruction that it recommend an appropriate remedy.” The argument I was putting forward is that if members really and truly believe this should be apolitical, that we should treat the Speaker with the utmost respect, putting partisan politics to the side, then as a collective caucus, members should not be calling for the resignation of the Speaker of the House of Commons. It is an absolute opposite. Members cannot have it both ways.

111 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Dec/5/23 4:29:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what I am hearing the parliamentary secretary say is that he supports what is being proposed. He supports PROC studying this issue and making a recommendation. However, he believes that rather than trying to dictate the answer from the House, as the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle did in his intervention, we should let the committee do its work and provide the recommendation. This is why I am led to believe that this is nothing more than a hyperpartisan game, another one put on by the Conservatives, because of the manner in which they are treating this issue. They claim to take it so seriously but, on the other hand, treat it with such disregard and say there is only one possible outcome.

126 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Dec/5/23 4:30:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is why I started my comments talking about my history and the respect that I have for the institution. At the end of the day, given the importance of the role played by the Speaker, the Liberal caucus supports this going to PROC, but it is critically important that everyone recognize that the partisanship needs to be put to the side. The most appropriate action would be for opposition members, if they are going to continue to talk about it, to concur with that thought. Let us not draw conclusions.

93 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Dec/5/23 4:30:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think the partisan jabs by the Conservatives and the Liberals are extremely inappropriate in such an important debate. This is an important debate that affects the very foundation of our Parliament. In my opinion, those jabs are inappropriate. I rose in the House not that long ago, in October, to talk about the controversy surrounding the former speaker. At that time, I said, “Every day members of Parliament entrust the Speaker to guide this Parliament through challenging circumstances.” At that time, I said that the Speaker had done an admirable job through COVID-19, the occupation of downtown Ottawa in the winter of 2022 and the putting in place of a hybrid Parliament. I also said this: “House of Commons Procedure and Practice indicates that the Speaker's role is not just administrative and procedural, but also ceremonial and diplomatic....[T]he Speaker often acts as a representative of the House of Commons.” That is when I said that the NDP caucus thinks it is important to look at the precedents and the values of the House, and that I regretfully had to ask the former speaker to resign. That day, our party was the only one to stand up in the House and demand the Speaker's resignation. We did this because of our values and House procedures, and with deep regret. This is not something that should be done out of partisanship. It is not something that should be done in a hurry. We need to consider all the values of the House, which all Canadians truly hold dear. We need to determine what the next steps are for Parliament. Given the precedent set in October, the NDP approaches this issue with the same thoroughness of thought. We are looking at the procedures and principles of Parliament and for the best way to advance to ensure that this Parliament is something of which all Canadians can be proud. When I rose yesterday, I said very clearly that we were dismayed to see the Speaker in that video tribute to the outgoing interim provincial Liberal leader, even more so because the video was shot from the Speaker's chamber, in the traditional Speaker's robes. I also said that the House of Commons Procedure and Practice states the following: “In order to protect the impartiality of the office, the Speaker abstains from all partisan political activity”. I went on to say: “This morning's apology by the Speaker partly explains why this unfortunate situation occurred. Although we understand that the video was intended for an intimate gathering for a personal friend, it was the duty of the Speaker and his office to ensure that the message was not used in a partisan context.” Of course, we agreed that the Speaker should recuse himself from discussions on the matter. We felt that was important. Yesterday I rose on behalf of the NDP caucus to say that we believe the proper way to deal with this would be to refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. It would then be able to study the matter and recommend any appropriate remedies to ensure this never happens again. That is something that all members of Parliament should agree upon, that we need to ensure this never happens again. Particularly because of the parliamentary crisis, which I think is fair to call it, in the month of October, we need to have the assurance at all times that there is strict impartiality coming from the Speaker's chair. We understand the Speaker's explanation and his apology, but New Democrats believe it needs to be referred to the procedure and House affairs committee. We believe that this question needs to be fully studied and brought back to the House in a timely way so members of Parliament can deliberate on the decisions made by the procedure and House affairs committee. That is the committee charged with this type of situation. The Speaker's ruling earlier today set the very clear direction that this needs to go the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for timely study and for remedies to be brought back to the House. This is the approach that we believe is important and something we have been unwavering on. I do need to raise a point of consideration. I note that yesterday the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, who I have a lot of respect for, provided a very extensive reasoning for his question of privilege, which included referring this matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I thought the research that was done was thorough and effective, and I agreed with his question of privilege. That is why I noted it when I spoke after question period, not being able to speak before question period because I was at the public safety committee. As everyone knows, New Democrats in the House all have double and triple functions. None of us has a single job. We all have two, three or four jobs, so I could not be at two places at once, which is why I spoke after question period. I should mention as well that, because the NDP has 25 members, it receives smaller resources through the House leader's office than any other party. I want to say very clearly that with the very small team we have, Blake Evans and Alexandrine Latendresse do a fabulous job in the House leader's office. My office has two team members, yet we provided to the House after question period a very lengthy and well-thought-out argument that was based on what was said by the official opposition, which has far more resources and an office that is much larger. We came to the same conclusion, which I think shows that, even with fewer resources, there can be an equally effective team. I was surprised that, after I cited the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, he seemed to put aside the very learned and deep analysis that he had given to refer this to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and took quite a different stand. I am a little perplexed that he would do that after providing, in the morning, something that all members of Parliament would agree should go to the committee. I thank my team, the mighty twosome in the House leader's office, for their terrific work. The reality is that New Democrats are unwavering. We are not changing our position through the course of the day. We are not saying something different today than we did yesterday. We believe this needs to go the procedure and House affairs committee. We believe that remedies need to be provided by the committee and brought back to the House. We have not changed on this. We believe this is a serious issue. We need to ensure this never happens again. That is why the NDP is unwavering in its support of the motion. In fact, had it not been proposed by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, we would have moved that motion taking another route. It appears that the government did not initially see that this is a serious issue, but it has now agreed that it is serious. I understand that we have some consensus that this is to be referred to the procedure and House affairs committee. I welcome that because, on an issue like this, I think it is important that we have all-party agreement to refer it to the procedure and House affairs committee, which is the venue that this should be directed to, to allow it to do that timely work and then have the House consider the results of that work. I am hoping that the debate will continue at the procedure and House affairs committee if we do have that agreement. That is where this should go. On behalf of the NDP caucus, we would say that this is a serious matter that needs to be dealt with in a thoughtful manner. That is why we are supporting the motion.

1367 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 262