SoVote

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

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Dec/6/23 6:12:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not disagree. I learned early in my political career never to try to answer hypothetical questions, but the member raises a good point. I actually do not have an issue with Conservatives who have already made up their mind. What I have a problem with is that Conservatives have already made up their minds but are simultaneously tabling a motion sending this to a committee, so it can presumably do the work in an objective fashion. Why would they bother tabling this motion if they already know what they believe the outcome should be? That is my point. I do not disagree that there are people out there who might already have their position on this, which is fair and fine. I have a problem with members of the committee who stand here, say what their position is and then go to the committee room and try to be objective on the matter.

157 words

Hon. Bardish Chagger (Waterloo, Lib.)

Dec/6/23 6:13:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to rise here to represent the people of Waterloo. Not everyone knows this, but the history of the francophone community in our region is very important to the people who live in Waterloo. I am also the chair of the procedure and House affairs committee, and I have a lot of regard and respect for this debate. I welcome the debate at PROC. I do not make any decisions, because I chair the committee; members will determine the outcomes. However, within the parameters of this motion is reporting back to the House of Commons by Thursday. As the chair, I am uncomfortable with this issue: Do we have the resources to ensure that we are reporting back in both official languages? This motion and this issue are of utmost importance to all members in this House, and I am really hoping that all parties will agree to find a way forward, where we work as much as we can to ensure that not only do we respond as a committee but also that we respond to the House in both official languages. I am not sure what other members think, but as a person who represents a community where people often do not feel that they are represented for their two official languages, and as someone who supports and will always fight for Canada's two official languages, I just want to bring to members' attention as chair that I know that our interpreters are working around the clock. Members should understand that reporting back to the House has to happen in both official languages. Are members are willing to ensure that we do the work, so that they have the time to do their work with regard to the official languages of our country?

301 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Dec/6/23 6:15:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one thing that committees struggle with quite a bit is having those resources. I recognize the fact that the amendment to the motion instructs the House to put all the resources necessary towards the committee, and I hope that is enough; it is a short timeline. The chair of the committee would know how difficult it is, sometimes, to get witnesses to come when they are given a two weeks' notice. Now we are talking about a day or two in order to do all this properly. However, I do have great faith in the people who work here, our interpretive services and the people who translate the documents for us. A lot of people work behind the scenes, and they do this incredible work so that our country can continue to operate in two official languages, as it is supposed to do. Another thing I will promise the chair is that I will not ask a witness to answer in any particular language. I will allow them to answer in the language they choose.

177 words

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

Dec/6/23 6:16:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is important that, when we have this discussion for the next hour or so, people who are following the debate appreciate what the motion is actually calling for. I appreciate the fact that the member is pointing out what I have typically said is a bit of hypocrisy, where the motion is asking PROC to provide the remedy, but there is also the positioning of the Conservative Party. Could the member provide his thoughts on that issue again?

81 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Dec/6/23 6:17:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think it is very important that Canadians know exactly what we are voting on. We are voting on a motion that is asking the procedure and House affairs committee, which deals with issues relating to the House, to members and to the working of our Parliament for that matter, to look into this. As part of that, we will listen to evidence, hear from experts and, hopefully, hear from some former speakers, as I suggested earlier. Then we will be able to find out how we can properly deal with this particular situation. I will be the first to admit that, when I heard about this situation, I thought, “Oh, that does not seem right.” I wanted to get the context to understand how this actually came to be. However, let us deal with what our recommendations are for this Speaker; more importantly, let us try to set some parameters and put rules in place that dictate what the expectations would be moving forward.

169 words

Mr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP)

Dec/6/23 6:18:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this is an extraordinary circumstance, certainly. We find ourselves in a position where we all agree, at the very least, that this should go to the committee at which a recommendation would be put forward regarding the future for our Speaker. Part of that process should also take into account what was mentioned earlier, which was the use of House resources in direct relation to what had taken place in the Speaker's office. It is no secret that we commit ourselves, as members of Parliament, to ensuring that when it comes to taxpayer money, we respect that and we do not abuse that for a partisan purpose. That is clear for all members of this House. It has been so clear for us, as a matter of fact, for so long that we do not engage in that kind of activity. The fact that the Speaker of the House of Commons was able to use resources by which it was then broadcast to the Ontario Liberal convention is a real concern. I just want to know how the member would advise those members at PROC to conduct themselves in relation to what is a pretty serious issue and one that hopefully does not fall victim to partisanship.

210 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Dec/6/23 6:19:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my first question at the procedure and House affairs committee would be to understand the context in which the video was made. Did the Speaker know when he was making that video and sitting in that room that it was going to be broadcast to thousands of people on a big screen, or did he think it was going directly to the individual who was the recipient? I do not know. It is not that it particularly makes one situation better or worse, but did he know that it was going to be used in the context in which it was used? I actually really do not know the answer to that question and I would like to know the answer. Second, I would like to know what exactly the rules are that we currently have in place, but also how those have been followed in the past. For example, in the four years that the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle was the speaker, were there instances? We know that the Leader of the Opposition showed up to a Government of Canada event wearing a Conservative jacket, and we know that was not right. It is important to understand the context to get to the bottom of this and then pass judgment.

215 words

Mr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC)

Dec/6/23 6:20:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it gives me no pleasure to rise this evening to speak to the motion in respect to the prima facie finding of a question of privilege in relation to the conduct of the Speaker of the House and to refer the matter immediately to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The role of the Speaker is to be impartial and to demonstrate non-partisanship. There are many reasons why a Speaker must be impartial and non-partisan. The Speaker carries enormous powers over the House and the members who serve in the House. It is the Speaker who has the authority to make rulings that directly impact the rights and privileges of the members of the House. It is the Speaker who has the sole power to make decisions as significant to hon. members as expelling a member from the House. It is the Speaker who is the chair of the Board of Internal Economy, which oversees the very large budget of Parliament and decides how the resources of the House of Commons may be used by the members of the House. The Speaker is like a referee or a judge. He or she makes decisions, makes calls. When the Speaker makes a ruling, there is no appeal. The ruling is final and must be respected by members. I will be splitting my time with the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 323, explains, “In order to protect the impartiality of the office, the Speaker abstains from all partisan political activity”. The Speaker, unfortunately, has failed to abide by the standard that is expected of him as Speaker. He did so last weekend when he was quoted in the Globe and Mail praising the outgoing leader of the Ontario Liberal Party, the sitting Liberal MPP for Ottawa South, in which he made such partisan comments as referring to the Liberal Party of Ontario as “our party”. I would submit that that demonstrated a lack of judgment on the part of the Speaker, but the real reason we are here on this prima facie finding of a question of privilege is what the Speaker did after that. A video message of the Speaker was played at the ultra-partisan venue, being the Ontario Liberal leadership convention, in which he paid tribute to Mr. Fraser. He said such partisan things as “We had a lot of fun together through The Ottawa South Liberal Association, through Liberal Party politics, by helping Dalton McGuinty get elected.” Even worse is that the Speaker's video message was introduced to party delegates as a message from the Speaker of the House of Commons, as if he were speaking for the House. He shot the video on the parliamentary precinct in the Speaker's office and wore the Speaker's robes. This is more than a lack of judgment on the part of the Speaker. It is a fundamental breach of trust to the House and all hon. members of the House. The Speaker has said that this is an issue of perception. I cannot think of anything more important than perception for the Speaker, who must not only be impartial but also be seen to be impartial. On that basis, the Speaker completely failed in his obligations to members of the House. I have to say that this is the same Speaker who, when he was running for the office of Speaker only weeks ago, spoke at great length about decorum and respect and how words matter. He even made a pronouncement for the House, in an unprecedented fashion before question period, for all intents and purposes lecturing members about decorum and respect in this place. Only weeks later, we see the Speaker has shown a lack of respect to the hon. members in this place and to the high office in which he serves. The Speaker, in dismissing this as a matter of perception, has offered no meaningful apology. It does not even appear that he takes the matter seriously. One would think he would demonstrate some level of humility in the face of an unprecedented situation. Never before in the history of our Westminster parliamentary system has a Speaker conducted him or herself in quite this way. We really are in uncharted territory. Instead of attending to the responsibilities he has to preside over the House, the Speaker, at taxpayers' expense, decided to go on a junket to Washington, D.C., where he is hanging out with a whole lot of elites. He did so during a sitting week. Not only that, but he spoke at an event, in which he recollected his days as president of the Young Liberals. This is another partisan statement on the part of the Speaker using, by the way, the Speaker's office budget. Once again, this demonstrates a complete lack of judgment on the part of the Speaker, as well as his failure to understand his responsibilities not only to be impartial but also to be seen as impartial. We now find ourselves in the untenable situation where the House leaders of His Majesty's loyal opposition and the third party have called on the Speaker to resign. Those House leaders represent 150 members, or nearly half the members in the House. In the face of that and the need for the Speaker to retain the confidence and trust of all hon. members in all corners of the House, he should reflect very hard on whether he can continue in his role.

936 words

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

Dec/6/23 6:30:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there is a legitimate argument to be made when the official opposition, on the one hand, tries to give the impression of the importance of the institution and the Speaker's role in Ottawa, and on the other, says the remedy is to go to PROC and allow its members to come up with a remedy to the situation. It is as if the Conservatives are pretending to be apolitical and have confidence in the PROC committee, yet their membership, the Conservative Party, is calling for the resignation of the Speaker. To make matters even worse, at least one member is now on public record indicating that he believes the Speaker should resign. Does the member not see any problems with that?

124 words

Mr. Michael Cooper

Dec/6/23 6:31:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would note that the government House leader has expressed full confidence in the Speaker. The deputy government House leader, the member for Kingston and the Islands, sits as a member of the procedure and House affairs committee. As a loyal deputy of the government House leader, is he going to follow her direction? Is he going to be impartial? I would question that.

66 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/6/23 6:31:38 p.m.
Watch

I would just remind members that we do not try to infer positions of other members.

16 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Dec/6/23 6:31:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to remind us how the former leader of the Conservative Party, who was Speaker of the House, broke with a long tradition of impartiality and neutrality. We all agree that the current Speaker made a monumental mistake, had a lapse of judgment and made a gaffe. However, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle broke the standing tradition that once someone has been Speaker of the House, they do not return to partisan activities. Nevertheless, he later became leader of the Conservative Party. Does he not see that as a contradiction in his own speech?

102 words

Mr. Michael Cooper

Dec/6/23 6:32:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have to say I do not know exactly what tradition the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie is referring to. I can think of many examples of former speakers who have served many years, even decades, in this House, playing partisan roles, including the speaker who was born in my community, St. Albert, the Hon. Marcel Lambert. He was speaker of the House in 1962 and continued in this House until 1984.

77 words

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

Dec/6/23 6:33:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it seems to me that what is being referred to, and I am looking for my colleague's input on this, by both the member for Elmwood—Transcona and, most recently, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, is a convention which does exist in the United Kingdom. In the U.K., when one is elected Speaker, the expectation is that they shed their partisan identity. They can choose to run again as an independent, if the parties choose not to run candidates against them, and they fill out the rest of their career. This is the capstone of their career, and they leave the House of Commons as Speaker. Upon their leaving the House of Commons, they go to the House of Lords in retirement and serve there on the crossbench. That is the expectation. It has been explored in a committee. This convention was built out in a committee, which is their parallel to the procedure and House affairs committee. It is an interesting convention, and one that may have many merits. I actually discussed the idea of adopting this in Canada with the previous speaker when he was running for Speaker following the last election. However, it does not exist right now, because we have not discussed it, at least in my opinion. I wonder if the member for St. Albert—Edmonton agrees with my assessment of things.

236 words

Mr. Michael Cooper

Dec/6/23 6:34:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my learned colleague is quite right in citing what has been a long-standing convention in the U.K. Parliament, but one that does not exist in Canada and has never existed. Whether it is something that should be adopted going forward, that is a matter for further study and consideration.

53 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 263