SoVote

Dec/5/23 4:45:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I know I can be partisan often. I know the member can be partisan often. I think we both, with his long experience and myself having been in this rodeo a few times as well, know that there are times when it is appropriate to be partisan and times when it is clearly not. This is one of those times when it is clearly not appropriate to be partisan in any way. We are dealing with an institution that has led our Parliament for more than a century and a half. It is vitally important that we preserve the institution, that we ensure that best practices are part of the institution, and that the procedure and House affairs committee, if we adopt this motion, which seems almost certain, will be charged with finding those remedies to ensure that this type of situation does not occur again moving forward. I think all members of Parliament will approach this in a thoughtful way, in a non-partisan way, in a way that gives credit and merit to our Parliament. We are the reflection of Canadians and Canadian democracy and we need to act in that way. There are times when it is appropriate to be partisan. This is not one of those times. We must ensure that we are doing something that is to the benefit of Canadian democracy and Canada's Parliament.

233 words

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Dec/5/23 4:47:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to start by thanking the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, the House leader for the NDP, for the measured tone he is taking in this conversation, both in his comments this afternoon and yesterday, and for the substance as well. I think the approach he has taken has heightened our democracy. I would like to follow up on the comments we heard with respect to how the procedure and House affairs committee would deal with this. Of course, we have seen in the last year that the committee has been a particularly partisan one, where we have seen some measure of theatrics at times. I would like to know if he could give advice to the MPs on that committee and/or to the House on how we might see PROC move ahead with this in a way that reflects the answer he just gave to the member for Winnipeg North.

156 words

Mr. Peter Julian

Dec/5/23 4:48:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member is a relatively new member of Parliament, but he certainly understands the importance of us removing our partisan hats at key moments in our nation's history. This is one of those times. When we went through the convulsions of what was an unprecedented situation in October, where I felt very strongly it was appropriate, as did the NDP caucus, to ask for that Speaker's resignation, I have not done that this time because I feel the circumstances are different. I also think we have to take a measured, thoughtful approach on this issue. That is why the procedure and House affairs committee, I believe and certainly hope, and I know the member does as well, will step up and understand the importance of the situation and, in a non-partisan way, offer those remedies that can be brought back to the House in a timely way. These are things of vital importance. I know there have been times in this nation's history when all members of Parliament have stood together. One just has to think of the COVID–19 pandemic where members will recall that decisions had to be made by unanimous consent. We took those decisions together to provide supports for Canadians right across the country. To the credit of every member of Parliament, we all stood together to ensure that Canadians had the wherewithal to weather the pandemic. This is another example of that kind of situation where MPs have to stand together. I think the members of PROC will understand that and work together to provide those remedies.

269 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Dec/5/23 4:50:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think of the procedure and House affairs committee and the opportunity that will be there for the committee. I think about the potential witnesses. Canada is part of the Commonwealth, and in the Commonwealth, there are experiences that can be drawn upon that would help the procedure and House affairs committee come up with a remedy to the situation. I just want to get my colleague's thoughts regarding the importance of PROC being able to entertain, at the very least, the possibility of having some important witnesses, potentially even some of our friends in the Commonwealth, who would be able to contribute, who may have some real, tangible experiences on the issue. They could reflect on what has taken place in Canada in the last 40 to 50 years. PROC does provide that opportunity and it will have the time to look over things and ultimately come up with a better remedy because of the research capabilities of a standing committee.

165 words

Mr. Peter Julian

Dec/5/23 4:51:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I always appreciate the questions from my colleague from Winnipeg North. The reality is that the procedure and House affairs committee will make those decisions. However, I do feel it is important that there be a timely resolution on this for obvious reasons. This is a priority, and it has to be a priority given that it is a House supporter for procedure and House affairs. At the same time, it is important that those remedies be provided in a timely way. I think all of us would allow the procedure and House affairs committee members to decide how to balance out the timeliness with getting witnesses as well as to help provide the supports for developing the remedies. That is a balance they will have to achieve, and I wish them the best of luck in doing that.

141 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/5/23 4:52:43 p.m.
Watch

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, Correctional Service of Canada; the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York, Health; and the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, carbon pricing.

62 words

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

Dec/5/23 4:53:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am rising to speak to this important motion that has been put forward by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. It reads: 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. I think that this is a good course of action that came out as a result of a ruling earlier today that this is typically the proper course of action in order to deal with this. I echo some of the comments that I have heard through the House in this debate, specifically as they relate to trying to reduce the partisan nature around this particular issue. As others have indicated, the Speaker's chair is extremely important in our democratic institution, in the Westminster parliamentary system specifically, which we utilize here. Despite the fact that a Speaker is elected by his or her peers in this place, the Speaker might come from a particular political party and obviously does, although not always. We usually run under a political banner. Once we get to this place and actually elect a Speaker to sit in that chair, the Speaker does need to ensure that they are completely impartial in terms of how they are running the House. Of course that should extend to what the Speaker does outside of the House as well, because having the perception of impartiality is just as important as having actual impartiality as it relates to the role of the Speaker. I come from the same riding as former Speaker Milliken, who is the longest-serving Speaker of the House. I must admit when I first heard what had occurred, he was the first person I thought to contact to get his opinion on this. I have not had an opportunity to do that yet, but I think calling on former Speakers and former people who have worked in the clerk's office to seek guidance on this is extremely important. That is why I think it is important that we do get this issue before the procedure and House affairs committee so that we can do that study. I know there have already been calls in this House that are a predetermined outcome as to how people see the result will come back from committee. I prefer to err on the side of allowing the committee to do its work, to properly investigate this and to call people like former Speaker Milliken and other people who perhaps worked in the Speaker's office to provide important insight into the role of the Speaker, how they should be perceived inside the House, outside of the House and how important that role is. Being a member of the procedure and House affairs committee, under the assumption that this motion will pass and be sent to committee, I look forward to the opportunity to do that, to properly do that research, to look into it and do it, as the member for New Westminster—Burnaby said moments ago, as quickly as possible given the serious nature of this and the fact that it is something that we are tasked with dealing with immediately. What that outcome will be and how the committee ends up reporting back, I think, will be based on the deliberations that occur in the committee based on the content of the information that is received and how we assess the content based on other examples of what has occurred. Then the committee can make a recommendation back to the House in terms of what it sees the appropriate course of action would be. For members to get up in the House, including the one who just heckled me moments ago, to say that there is no other option and that 150 or so members feel a certain way right now, then my question for that member would be what the point is in even sending this to the committee.

717 words

Mr. Scot Davidson

Dec/5/23 4:58:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, no one was heckling the member. He constantly does this for attention.

19 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/5/23 4:58:15 p.m.
Watch

I heard it and I did not interrupt it. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. Mr. Mark Gerretsen: It was Corey. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): We do not refer to colleagues by name in the chamber. Could the hon. member retract, please?

49 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Dec/5/23 4:58:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, thank you for validating my claim, because it did occur. The reality is that—

17 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/5/23 4:58:51 p.m.
Watch

I asked the hon. member to retract the mentioning of the name of the person, please.

16 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Dec/5/23 4:58:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, another member asked who it was, and I said the person's name. I should not have done that and I apologize. Back to the substance, what I was trying to say was that— Mr. Corey Tochor: He did not retract, though. Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Madam Speaker, the exact same member is still heckling me.

58 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/5/23 4:59:11 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member apologized, which, in my view, means that he retracts what he said, because he apologized for saying it. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

29 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Dec/5/23 4:59:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as I said, when a member stands up during questions during this debate and make claims that 150 members of his caucus already feel a certain way, it makes me wonder what the purpose is in even sending the matter to committee if the outcome has already been predetermined, at least by one particular group. However, it does not diminish the fact that the committee can still do very good work on the matter. I think the committee could actually use this as an opportunity not just to figure out the proper recourse in terms of what should be done now about what has occurred and what the proper remedy is, but also to set a precedent and certain rules, and to establish a best practice to ensure that something like this does not happen again. I do not know the context for why the Speaker chose to do this, nor will I try to guess as to what it was, but I will say that the Speaker has stood and apologized; he has recognized that it was not the best course of action. He has nonetheless done that, which is I why I think it is extremely important that we accept it but still determine whether there are other courses of action that need to be taken. There is also an amendment on the motion that came forward. It was odd, because the motion was moved, and then the second speaker from the same party put forward an amendment. I do not know why they did not just include it in the full motion. It was: That the motion be amended by adding the following: “provided that the committee: (a) meets within 24 hours of receiving this referral order to study the matter; (b) prioritizes this matter over all other business; (c) has first priority in using the resources of the house for committee meetings, subject to special orders adopted on Monday, May 16, 2022, and Monday, December 4, 2023; and (d) is tasked with reporting to the house no later than Thursday, December 14, 2023.” The original motion set the context for the work that needed to be done and for how important it was, and then it appears as though the amendment that came forward just moments later got very prescriptive in terms of how to deal with the issue. I would have thought that this would all have come together. It certainly does not appear to be an amendment that was proposed as a result of having listened to the debate. From how it was tabled, I perceive it to be something that was well planned in advanced. My sense is that it is probably to try to pressure political parties one way or the other with respect to potentially voting against one part but not the other. Maybe, tactically speaking, it is a good move. However, that certainly does not support the notion that has been widely spread around the House during discussion, which is that this should be a non-partisan issue. If my assumptions are correct, that would suggest that there is a partisan nature to the manner in which the amendment has been tabled, and obviously I would have a concern about that. However, I do want to see the matter sent to committee. I think it is extremely important that we have a resolution, that we set some parameters for how Speakers are expected to engage in the future, and that we have something reported back to the House that we can then debate and determine how to move forward with. I will return to what I said when I began, which was about the importance of the impartiality of the Speaker. As many members of the House know, with a good Speaker, yourself included, Madam Speaker, after a while, people do not look at them as being associated with a political party; they start to just respect the fact that the Speaker is non-partisan, However, we do come from a partisan nature; the vast majority of us who are elected to the House are elected under a political banner. Nonetheless, it is really important that once somebody is elected into that position, they ensure that they do it with utmost impartiality in order to avoid a situation that can be seen as their favouring one side or another. I will be the first to admit that, during my time here, there have been times when I have agreed wholeheartedly with what Speakers have said, and that there have been times I have not agreed with them. During the time I have been here, all the Speakers who have sat in the chair have been of the political party I am associated with, and sometimes I do not agree with them and am frustrated by a particular ruling they make. There is an appropriate way to handle this in terms of when the Speaker is doing their very important work of being impartial. They receive advice from the Clerk's table. I remember once asking Peter Milliken how he used to deal with situations where he would have to rule on something like that. He told me that he took the advice from the clerks around the table, and then at the end of the day it was his decision as to how he would proceed. Having that kind of authority is extremely important, and that is why we need to ensure that impartiality continues. I will conclude by saying that I hope the matter goes to the procedure and House affairs committee as soon as possible so we can deal with it there and report back to the House.

954 words

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

Dec/5/23 5:06:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate what the member has indicated in his support, in essence, for the motion. That is a positive thing. When I spoke earlier, I talked about the amendment and said that I had reservations about putting in a time limit. I would not want members to think that I do not recognize the urgency of the matter. I look to my colleague to provide his thoughts on whether, at the end of the day, it would be nice to see PROC deal with the matter as quickly as possible and also to get a report back also as quickly as possible.

104 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Dec/5/23 5:07:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this is, to be honest, my concern over the matter. The amendment that the second Conservative speaker put forward basically dictates that the work be done by December 14, which is nine days from now. Any of us who have been on committees know the work that goes into finding witnesses, bringing them before committee, listening to the witnesses, making sure they are available to attend, and having the resources, although I do recognize they have indicated the resources are extremely important. I guess that if one comes from a perspective of already knowing what one believes the outcome should be, then one may as well just ask the committee to report back tomorrow, because one already knows what the outcome will be. I genuinely feel as though we need to have the proper time to be able to do this. I do not think anybody who sits on a committee of Parliament would argue with the view that nine days just is not enough time to properly do due diligence. We will see how Parliament ends up ultimately deciding on whether we, as a collective, think that nine days is enough.

194 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Dec/5/23 5:08:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on the member's comments, and I made reference to this in questions and answers when I had the opportunity. PROC has demonstrated that it has wonderful membership, and to give a vote of confidence to the PROC committee is in essence what the motion itself does, to say very clearly that it is PROC that would come up with the remedy. The biggest concern I had was from the member who moved the amendment, who said at the end of his speech that the only outcome should be asking for the Speaker's resignation because he had lost the trust of the members of the House. If members make that sort of comment here, it seems to me they are in essence making a decision potentially as a caucus. When it goes to the PROC committee, we do not want to see that sort of partisanship against PROC's doing what it needs to do, which is to make sure it is very thorough on its report. Could the member provide his thoughts on that?

183 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Dec/5/23 5:09:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my Conservative colleague who tabled the amendment that the parliamentary secretary references was heckling across the way, “I am open and transparent.” I am not going to disagree with him on that. He certainly is. He is very transparent. All I would ask is this: What is the point of the motion? Why is he even bothering sending this to committee if the objectives in this are very open and transparent, which is what he stated, that there is no possible outcome other than the one the member indicated? This lends itself to the member from Burnaby, who talked about this, and basically anybody who has stood up to talk to this and talks about impartiality and letting the committee do its work. Yes, let the committee do its work. I know there are lots of prosecutors in this room. Have they ever had a judge who sits down and says that they already know the defendant is guilty, but to let them hear the case? Come on. That is what we are getting from the Conservatives. I hope we can genuinely see beyond that; I hope there is an opportunity here to really look into this at committee.

203 words

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP)

Dec/5/23 5:11:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is important for all of us to remember that this current issue does arise in a context. The context is that we just had the rather disturbing occurrence of having seen a Speaker resign because of a serious lapse of judgment. I think it is fair to say that the confidence of the House and of the Canadian public was tested and shaken. Now we find ourselves with another issue of a Speaker whose judgment is being called into question. My question to my hon. colleague is twofold. First, could he give us his thoughts on how the context of just having lost a Speaker might bear on how we proceed moving forward? Second, there is not only an issue of impartiality but also perhaps an issue of a misuse of House resources for partisan purposes. Does the member have any thoughts on this aspect?

148 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Dec/5/23 5:12:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will address the second part first. What the member is raising is exactly why this needs to go to PROC, so the committee can look at that. If I try to prejudge that now and say what I think the outcome is, as a member of that committee, I am showing that I cannot be impartial when I sit and listen to the evidence that comes. Therefore, I look forward to doing that. In terms of how this plays into what happened previously this fall with the Speaker, it is certainly unfortunate that we find ourselves in this position. However, the two issues can be treated in isolation. I do not think they are connected in any way other than the fact that it is the Speaker of the House of Commons who is the subject of both. Having said that, I certainly regret and find it troubling that we are here once again, but I do also respect the fact that the— An hon. member: Oh, oh! Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Madam Speaker, I am getting heckled again. I respect that—

186 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 262