SoVote

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

Dec/6/23 5:39:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member has already made up his mind. He sits on the procedure and House affairs committee, like I do. I am going to vote in favour of the motion to send it to committee for committee to do the work. However, if he has already made up his mind, what is the point of even supporting the motion? He already knows what the outcome is going to be at committee. He is not going into it from an objective point of view of listening to all of the information and then making a decision. He is, effectively, a judge in this case. As a judge, he is coming before the defendant and saying that he already knows they are guilty but that he wants to hear what they think so he can make a decision. It is absolutely ludicrous. Why even bother voting for the motion if he already knows the outcome he plans to execute when he is at committee?

164 words

Mr. Blaine Calkins

Dec/6/23 5:40:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, far be it from me to know the inner workings of the mind of the member for Kingston and the Islands, even though he purports to know what is in the hearts and minds of everybody else in this chamber. Of course I will listen objectively to all the witnesses who will come to the committee. I have been here longer than the member for Kingston and the Islands and everybody who seems to be supporting him. I have seen this show before, and I will say to any colleague willing to listen to what I have to say that I am looking forward to hearing from not only the Speaker, who I hope will come to the procedure and House affairs committee, but also all the other witnesses who would know what the conduct ought to be in the role of Speaker. I will make a determination at that particular point in time. I alone am not judge and jury on the procedure and House affairs committee. I am just one member. I will have my questions, and I expect that I will get fulsome answers from all the witnesses who appear, including the Speaker.

198 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné (Terrebonne, BQ)

Dec/6/23 5:41:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague concerning the party's position. The first position was not as clear as the one we have today. In other words, they were not originally calling for the Speaker to resign, and then they were. Now, they are asking for this matter to be studied in committee. Can my colleague quickly summarize the Conservative Party's position on the subject?

70 words

Summarize

Mr. Blaine Calkins

Dec/6/23 5:41:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the procedure to deal with this is the procedure when there is a prima facie case. We brought the issue up in the chamber, the Speaker had to make a ruling and we waited for the ruling. The Speaker found a prima facie case, which then invoked the moving of a motion. The Conservative House leader moved that motion, which is what we are debating right now. I am not sure what the member does not understand about the process. We are following the process as it is laid out, and we will see what happens should this motion get passed on to the procedure and House affairs committee. I would like to thank her party, which has been clear in what it stands for. We in the Conservative Party want a fair and objective Speaker. We believe in this country, in this institution and that the person sitting in the Speaker's chair—

157 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/6/23 5:42:59 p.m.
Watch

In the interest of giving the same time for questions as answers, I have to give someone else a question. The hon. member for Kitchener Centre.

26 words

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Dec/6/23 5:43:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am encouraged to hear the point of view of the member for Red Deer—Lacombe with respect to this going to PROC. My question for him is to understand better his perspective as someone who has been here longer than I have. My aspiration is for the process to be less partisan and more focused on the best interests of Parliament, separate from any political party. I wonder if the member could comment on whether he shares that aspiration and, if he does, whether he has any advice on how the members of PROC could proceed in a way to follow that approach.

107 words

Mr. Blaine Calkins

Dec/6/23 5:43:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the members of the procedure and House affairs committee, in the limited time I have been there, debate issues robustly. We all have our own thoughts and ideas and generally get good work done, so I am confident that the procedure and House affairs committee will work constructively toward a resolution on the matter at hand should it get referred.

62 words

Mr. Pat Kelly (Calgary Rocky Ridge, CPC)

Dec/6/23 5:44:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I usually take great pleasure in speaking in this place, this hallowed chamber where Canadians send people they elect to speak and vote on matters of national policy, but this debate certainly gives me no pleasure at all. It is a very unfortunate situation that brings us to this point. We are in the midst of the second crisis of confidence in the Speaker in this fall session alone. It has been less than three months since the resignation of the former Speaker, something that nobody in this place had seen in their time, over the incident that we all know well, wherein the Speaker recognized a person in the gallery who was later revealed to be a Nazi member of the Waffen-SS in the presence of Ukrainian President Zelenskyy. That former Speaker was let down by the Prime Minister's Office, which had failed in its basic responsibility to ensure Canada's reputational integrity. The point is that the Speaker then understood the debacle that unfolded was serious enough to render his position untenable, and as a consequence, he did the right thing, and the only thing to do under the circumstances, and resigned. Here we are only a little over two months later and we have another crisis of confidence in a Speaker. The facts are fairly well known. The Speaker chose to use his position as the Speaker of the House of Commons to participate in a political event. He appeared in his Speaker's robe in his Speaker's office in a video that was calculated to lend prestige to a sitting elected provincial legislator at a Liberal political convention. The Speaker, in his acceptance speech when he was elected as Speaker, told the House that symbols matter, and indeed they do. When the Speaker appears in his robes from his public office for a televised political convention, there is important symbolism at play. The symbols of his office are designed to convey absolute political neutrality. It is impossible to do that when, with the symbols of the office, he appears at a partisan event, a Liberal convention, lending prestige to an elected office-holder. That is an error of judgment that completely challenges the appearance of neutrality. There cannot be any hint of political partisanship in the conduct of the Speaker in order for the Speaker to maintain the confidence of members of the House. The Speaker's decision to appear at a political convention through this video telegraphs political affiliation, which is anathema to the office he was elected to by members of this place. Every member of the current Parliament was affiliated with a political party at the time they were elected. A few of them now sit as independents, but for every member of this chamber, a political affiliation played a role in their pathway to this place, including the current Speaker. Political affiliation has to be abandoned once a member becomes Speaker. Given this crisis of confidence over the fact that the Speaker appeared at this political convention by video, it is worth remarking that the Speaker was an exceptionally partisan member of Parliament. That is fine. We have many exceptionally partisan members of Parliament. I am a partisan member of Parliament. I sit in a political caucus. I pursue an agenda that I was elected upon and so did he. However, once a member takes the Speaker's chair, that has to be set aside entirely. At the time of the Speaker's election, it was remarked by some that the member had an extraordinarily partisan history. He had been director of the party, as I understand. I spent time at committee with him and he certainly had an agenda. He was a spokesperson for the government and was the parliamentary secretary for a variety of different ministers. I appeared on panels with him where he would, in an extraordinarily partisan role, deliver a message for the government. That had to be set aside for the member to maintain the confidence of this place. Now with the event of this past weekend, that is being called into question, which is why this motion is before us. I understand that he has apologized. The apology is fine, but it does not resolve the question of judgment and the lack of judgment. In the midst of this crisis, the member left Ottawa to attend meetings in Washington, as I understand. What priority could be greater than to preside over debates in this House? The trip is a part of the lack of judgment. I had a conversation with a veteran member who could not recall any time when a Speaker, other than for physical illness, chose to be away from the House of Commons on a Tuesday and Wednesday of a sitting week. There is an able Deputy Speaker and two able assistant deputy speakers. We have one in the chair tonight. Madam Speaker is an able deputy, but the point is that the Speaker's priority is the business of the House of Commons. It is not travelling to socialize or have appearances with other politicians in other countries or former politicians in other countries. The business of the House is the priority. For the Speaker to make priorities like appearing in the Speaker's robes to pay tribute to a partisan elected official at a convention and then to leave town while the House is sitting to attend a conference in Washington is a very troubling example of poor judgment. The role of the Speaker is to protect the privileges of members of Parliament, period, and to ensure that the rules of Parliament are enforced. The Speaker does that by presiding over debate, not by leaving. I am very concerned about that. It is not the role of the Speaker to worry about what the press is saying, what people in the gallery might think or how our debates look on TV. The Speaker's role is to simply enforce the rules of this House to ensure that all members' privileges are upheld. That cannot be done by being absent and it cannot be done by telegraphing political affiliation. This is the place we are at now. I hope this motion will be supported by the House so that it can have a fulsome airing at committee. I am pleased that the House adopted the amendment, which wisely ensured that this will be dealt with quickly, because we are in crisis. We are having a crisis of confidence in the Speaker and it has to be resolved one way or another. I urge members to support this motion. Let us get this into PROC, deal with this crisis and get this place back to running properly.

1129 words

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

Dec/6/23 5:54:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want people to reflect on hypocrisy. The essence of the motion is, “the House refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with instruction that it recommend an appropriate remedy.” The Conservative Party moved this motion. The Conservatives are saying they want PROC to come up with the remedy. Conservative after Conservative has already passed judgment. They are already calling for the Speaker to resign. In the hallway, one member said it is a farce and the Speaker has to resign. Is there any credibility at all in believing members of the Conservative Party can be objective when this matter goes before PROC? I suspect not. Does the member believe there is a credible Conservative on the other side who can sit in the PROC committee and be impartial?

138 words

Mr. Pat Kelly

Dec/6/23 5:55:25 p.m.
Watch

Of course I do, Madam Speaker. The member may heckle me if he wishes, but perhaps he could have listened more carefully to my speech, wherein I addressed the motion and the desirability of sending it to PROC where the process can unfold. If he had listened carefully to my speech, he would have known that I made no reference to remedy. We are debating the motion right now, but, indeed, calls for the Speaker's resignation have been made by the Conservative House leader and the Bloc House leader. This motion did not come out of the sky. This motion is the result of conduct, and we have to understand there is a reason we are even having this debate. There is a crisis of confidence, and it must be addressed through the proper remedies, including the referral to PROC, which I hope the member will vote for.

149 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

Dec/6/23 5:56:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, for my part, I do not see anything contradictory about a party having an opinion on this matter and following due process is not egregious to me, that is for sure. I look forward to PROC doing its work. One of the things I have been concerned about in the course of this debate, when we talk about the dignity of the office of Speaker, has been that the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle has been the point person for the Conservatives on this. Until the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle left the office of Speaker, we used to have a tradition in Canada that the Speaker would not go on to be partisan, never mind lead a political party or be the House leader for a political party in the House. I wonder if the hon. member would agree with me that the Conservatives have a fair case to make, which is fine, but that the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle is not the appropriate person to make the case, and the Conservatives should not be mobilizing his experience in the Speaker's chair to give credibility to their arguments. That, too, is a form of partisanship about the office of Speaker that I think is not appropriate.

214 words

Mr. Pat Kelly

Dec/6/23 5:57:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is a bit of an unusual twist by the member, but I do not see any problem with the way the opposition House leader has conducted himself in this matter. When he was Speaker, it was before my time, but I understand he did an admirable job and certainly did not appear in Speaker's robes at conventions or did any other conduct that triggered a crisis like the current crisis. He has been a valuable resource to the debate, and he certainly has valuable experience from having been a chair occupant.

95 words

Occupant

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

Dec/6/23 5:58:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, everyone is obviously wondering whether this is a good situation for the Speaker. I would like to mention two values that a Speaker would be wise to demonstrate while in office. There is impartiality, certainly. There is also judgment, because that is what the Speaker has to demonstrate in everyday life, on the throne obviously, but also in everything a Speaker has to embody. In this case, can we say that the Speaker's participation in a provincial party convention reflected these two values? I would like to hear my colleague's opinion on that.

99 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/6/23 5:59:06 p.m.
Watch

I just want to make sure we do not refer to this chair as a throne. It is a chair, but certainly not a throne. The hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge.

32 words

Mr. Pat Kelly

Dec/6/23 5:59:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the conduct had neither the appearance of impartiality nor good judgment.

13 words

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

Dec/6/23 5:59:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to this amended motion, a motion that I voted in favour of amending earlier today. Now we are speaking to the main motion, which I also plan to vote in favour of. For full disclosure, I will say that I am also a member of the procedure and House affairs committee. I spoke to this yesterday, and I discussed during my time speaking yesterday how I do feel there is a particular need for the committee to undertake this work, so I am supportive of this. I was very careful in my words yesterday, as I will be today, not to cast judgment on the issue. It would be almost a conflict of interest for me to try to pass some form of judgment on this matter and then go before committee and sit there and try to pretend that I am being completely objective to what is going on. That is where I see problems arising in comments that we are hearing from the other side of the House. The member for Calgary Rocky Ridge may not specifically have said that he thinks the Speaker should resign, and he might not be specifically calling out what he sees as the justified action. I give him credit for that in the sense that perhaps he is trying to be more objective in terms of assessing the matter and letting the committee do its work. However, he should take great offence to the fact that the member for Red Deer—Lacombe, who is a sitting member of that committee, stood in this House and went on for 10 minutes about how he has already come to a conclusion in terms of what the results of all this should be. We have the member for Red Deer—Lacombe, who, full on, has already said that the Speaker is guilty, that the Speaker should resign, and that is his position, but said to bring it to committee and he would be as objective as he possibly can and he would sit down and listen to all the evidence and try to be persuaded one way or the other. The gentleman has already made up his mind. I heard my colleague from the NDP moments ago say that he did not see a problem with a party taking a position—

396 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/6/23 6:02:00 p.m.
Watch

I have to interrupt the hon. member. The hon. member for Red Deer—Lacombe is rising on a point of order.

22 words

Lacombe
Deer

Mr. Blaine Calkins

Dec/6/23 6:02:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I believe that the rules of this place are that members should not impugn anything upon other members as to their thoughts. He is welcome to have his own opinions on the matters at hand, but when he is actually characterizing other members and impugning what their thoughts, ideas and reputations are, I believe that is—

59 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/6/23 6:02:25 p.m.
Watch

I think he is referring to the hon. member's previous speech, but I will try to be more attentive to potential inferences. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

31 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Dec/6/23 6:02:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives are very sensitive. It is becoming a common theme. Every time I get up to speak, different Conservative members come out here, most likely at the direction of somebody sitting behind a desk in the lobby who is telling them to come out here and raise these pointless, ridiculous points of order. I will let the member know that I actually take great pride in knowing that what I say obviously impacts him enough to have to run back into the room to call points of order on what I am saying. What I am saying is true. The member for Red Deer—Lacombe stood in this House for 10 minutes and went on about how he supports this motion and that he needs to see the work happen at PROC, even though he already knows what the outcome is. What I was saying a few moments ago is that my NDP colleague said that he does not see a problem with somebody having a position on something and then still undertaking the work. The difference here is that it was the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, a Conservative member, who put forward this motion. I will go through what happened, so that Canadians really, fully understand what is going on here. This shows a bit of the partisanship and the game-playing. The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle came in a couple of days ago, stood in front of this House and put out a lengthy point of order on the issue. I think it was a valid point of order. Perhaps I do not agree with every detail of what he said, but I think he brought forward a valid point of order that the House needed to reflect on. He left. The point of order was over. Then the Bloc Québécois stood up and called on the Speaker to resign. Then, as if he just could not possibly be outdone by the Bloc Québécois, the Conservative House leader, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, ran back in here on another point of order and said that he thinks the Speaker should resign, too. That is what is going on here. This is an issue of one opposition party not wanting to be outdone by the other opposition party. Here we have this motion that has been put in front of us by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. The motion at this point is pointless from his perspective, because he already knows the outcome of what he wants from this. He has already predetermined what he believes the outcome should be, and that is that the Speaker should resign. For me, being a member of the committee, I have problems with being able to walk into that room to sit at the table with my colleagues, like the member for Red Deer—Lacombe, and genuinely talk about who the witnesses would be. Perhaps one would be Peter Milliken, a great former speaker of this House, the longest serving speaker of this House, who is from Kingston and the Islands— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

536 words

Partisanship

SoVote

House Hansard - 263