SoVote

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/6/23 6:05:35 p.m.
Watch

I would remind hon. members that this is not a conversation, and the hon. member has the floor and is making a speech. This is not a conversation.

28 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Dec/6/23 6:05:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague from north of the 401 has properly pointed out that Mr. Milliken no longer resides in Kingston and the Islands. He now resides in Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston. However, Mr. Milliken was one of the people who felt so under-represented by their MP they demanded that with the new redistribution they once again be included in Kingston and the Islands. We are very excited to see that the commission made that recommendation. My point is, how am I supposed to go into that room with the member for Red Deer—Lacombe and other Conservative members? They have stated in here that they will be objective, that they are going to look at all the evidence, work on getting witnesses together, bring them in and listen to the evidence, and then they will make a recommendation, but they have already stood in this House and said that they think the only outcome is for the Speaker to resign. It is absolute hypocrisy. It is just like a defendant going before a judge, and the judge says, “Listen, I know you're guilty, but I want to hear from the prosecution and defence. Put your case forward so I can make a judgment.” That is basically what Conservatives are doing. If Conservatives want to at least have the appearance of being objective, they should have just said that they support this, that it is the right motion and we should do this. Then they could have let it go to committee and then started putting their hyper-partisanship into it. However, they could not resist for even just a few moments to allow a little self-reflection and say that maybe it is not a good idea to be so partisan right now, that maybe they should at least wait until the committee hears something to suggest, and then they could pick a piece of evidence that would support their predetermined notion. However, the member for Red Deer—Lacombe could not even do that. He had to get up right away and say that he knows the outcome of this, that the man has to resign, end of story. I will support this motion. I will vote in favour of this. I will go to the committee. I will listen to the evidence. I will contribute in any way I can. Then, with the committee's work, I look forward to producing a recommendation or recommendations that we can deliver back to this House for the House to act on. I believe that is why committees are formed. I believe that is what our role is. I look forward to my participation and being able to do that.

456 words

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, CPC)

Dec/6/23 6:08:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, of course, I would never suggest that my hon. colleague was deliberately misleading the House. I am sure it was an unintentional error with regard to the riding in which our esteemed former speaker, Peter Milliken, resides. I will just make an observation about having views on a subject and then sending them off to a committee such as procedure and House affairs to have them studied. Of course, we all come here with views. It would be very strange if we did not have some kind of view formed. For some people, it is more than tentative; for others, it might only be tentative. The point is this: If we are serious about being members of Parliament with open minds, then we must be serious about the idea that, when we send it to a place such as procedure and House affairs, our minds might be changed. The member knows full well that there was a previous matter that went before procedure and House affairs relating to an Ethics Commissioner's report, in which everybody voted on partisan lines, but I did not, based upon a PROC proposal. One can break party lines. One can work against simply following party lines on a matter that is of importance to the whole House. I have done it myself; he knows that. The possibility exists, and that is a really good reason for sending this to procedure and House affairs. Does he not agree?

245 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Dec/6/23 6:09:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I actually do not disagree with a lot of what the member said, and in particular, when he talked about the fact that people can have opinions and still be influenced. That is absolutely correct. The error here was in the member for Red Deer—Lacombe stating that publicly. The perception now is that the member cannot be objective. Whether or not he has an ability to do that, he has made it very clear what he thinks the outcome should be. It would have been in his best interest and in the best interest of all Conservative members, especially those who sit on the procedure and House affairs committee, to have restrained themselves from putting forward what they believe the outcome should be. Do I agree with him that it is possible for people to be influenced? Of course I do. Everybody is human. In my case with the judge, a judge is human. A judge might have a thought in their mind about what they think about a case when walking into it, but the offensive part is when the judge would sit there and say that he already knows the person is guilty but to let him hear the facts so he can make a decision. It does not show any semblance of trying to be impartial, and that is what one has to at least try to demonstrate one is doing, which the member for Red Deer—Lacombe failed miserably on.

249 words

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ)

Dec/6/23 6:10:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think that the member for Kingston and the Islands is known in the House as someone who is not at all partisan. He is someone who, during a debate, completely steers clear of partisanship. He is beyond partisanship. He relies on facts and does not want to score political points other than in the interest of his own party; that is well known. Imagine if the situation were reversed, that the Liberal Party was hypothetically in the opposition and the Conservative Party was in power; then imagine that the Speaker from the Conservative Party had made a video, for example, at a provincial Conservative Party convention. I know that the member for Kingston and the Islands is not a partisan guy and that he relies on facts, so I would like to know how he would have reacted to this hypothetical situation.

145 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 263