SoVote

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

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

Dec/6/23 6:35:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, never has the Kingston part of my riding name been more important than today, as my colleague from Kingston and the Islands and I wrestle over whose riding is home to the illustrious former Speaker of the House Peter Milliken. He is a man who served with great distinction for many years and who will make, if this goes to the procedure and House affairs committee, an excellent witness providing some information as to how we have done things in the past and how Speakers have behaved in the past. There are many, many parallels to draw upon here. There have been many Speakers in this House and in all of our 10 provincial assemblies over a period of well over a century. There are parallels not only in the Parliament in the United Kingdom but also at the House of Representatives in Australia, in the one in New Zealand, in the various Australian states, in the world's largest democracy in India and in a number of African and Caribbean countries. The parallels here are enormous. The precedents are significant. If the behaviour of the Speaker is such that it would warrant our judgment that he has been acting inappropriately, or acting outside of what is the normal expectation of the Office of the Speaker, there is no better place to determine that than the procedure and House affairs committee. If the reverse turns out to be true, then there is no better place to establish that than the procedure and House affairs committee as well. I want to deal with a few of the things that the procedure and House affairs committee ought to consider in its deliberations on this subject. The committee will have limited time, so it will have to structure its sittings with some care. I say all of this as someone who served on the procedure and House affairs committee for 15 years. Although I am no longer on that committee, I believe that still stands as not merely a record for serving on that committee, but for the length of service on any House of Commons committee for any member of Parliament in the course of the 21st century. There is no question that the procedure and House affairs committee is the right place to go. It looks at technical issues. We think of the procedure and House affairs committee as dealing with, for example, proposed changes to the Standing Orders. That is the right place to consider those changes. It is also the right place to consider and discuss conventions. We sometimes think that conventions or unwritten rules are literally unwritten, that they exist only in the ether, and we have a common understanding that is inchoate and for which there is no language. That is not actually what conventions in the Westminster tradition look like, whether they are the constitutional conventions of the British constitution, which have a reflection in some unwritten parts of our own Constitution. There is the convention, for example, that there is a prime minister, who serves as the voice of the House of Commons to the sovereign, and that cabinet speaks with a single voice. These are conventions, and they are embodied in a few very important words in the preamble of the Constitution Act, 1867, which says “the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick” being desirous of “a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom”. All that is contained in that wording. If we dig into that word, we find that that “convention” has built out considerably from there and there is a considerable amount of written material that was around at that time that explained exactly what the fathers of Confederation had in mind when they wrote that wording. I say all of this by way of saying that conventions are the product of usage, but they are also the product of discussion and deliberation and are to be found in places such as committee reports. Therefore, we have an opportunity to deal with some of the issues that are being discussed here. Is it the case, on a go-forward basis for example, that we ought to be looking at some aspects of the U.K.'s practice, in which the Speaker is expected to take a certain course of action upon retiring from the role of Speaker? Where is that not appropriate? In the past, we have not had such a limitation, and the result has been that Speakers have become Governor General and they have become ambassadors. The potential exists, in theory if not in practice, that it can influence how Speakers behave. It was with exactly this kind of consideration in mind that the Fathers of Confederation, when dealing with the issue of senators, who, they felt, might be subject to similar pressures, had to —

819 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/6/23 6:40:27 p.m.
Watch

Order. There is a lot of noise in the courtyard. The hon. member, please continue.

15 words

Mr. Scott Reid

Dec/6/23 6:40:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I was actually thinking of making the exact same observation. Even I am having trouble hearing myself right now. I was talking about how the Fathers of Confederation tried to incorporate unwritten conventions in a written instrument, or by reference to incorporate them. To understand this instrument, we have to go back and look at what was said at the Quebec Conference at the so-called Confederation debates that took place in the ancestor of this chamber in 1865, 900 pages' worth of which are recorded. It is interesting that those who ran the Parliament of the Province of Canada thought it was important enough that they, though there was no Hansard in those days, should have a special Hansard recorded of that debate so the general public could read and understand all of the aspects of the constitutional deal they were making that would not be written down. The same kind of rules ought to apply to the internal governance of this place. Those offices have their powers and authority largely due to convention, as well as due, to some degree, to what is written in the Standing Orders. That would be very profitable. PROC is the master of its own proceedings, within the parameters of the motions presented to it; however, I do not think it is appropriate to start by asking whether the Speaker was aware of exactly where the video would be used, and whether he is therefore guilty in the sense that one is found guilty in a criminal trial. He is not on trial for a crime, so mens rea is not actually a relevant consideration. It is equally possible he could simply have been exercising bad judgment, a sign of an inability to consistently make wise judgments, or of a weakness in the way he chooses to conduct himself, that makes him, although an honourable member and an honourable person, simply an inappropriate occupant of the chair. The fact is that many people would be inappropriate occupants of the chair. In fact, a majority of the people in this room, I suspect, if asked, would say, “I am not the right occupant for the chair”, for one reason or another. It has nothing to do with their character; it has to do with the fact that they are unilingual or they have to be away from this place because of family considerations, so can participate online, but not here. The Speaker should be here. There is a whole range of reasons; perhaps someone may not have the attention span or the energy they used to have when they were a younger person, and cannot sit for all those hours. One feature of being a Speaker is having a certain degree of stamina. They cannot drift off, and some debates are kind of dull. The Assistant Deputy Speaker even agrees with me. These are considerations that are relevant to a hearing of this sort. It is really a question of determining what the standards are and doing a reset so we can all be clear that these are the standards we regard as being reasonable and acceptable. We either do or do not think that the incumbent in the role of Speaker is fitting in with those expectations, now that we have had a chance to examine them in more detail. I hope that, on that basis, we will go forward and decide to vote in favour of the motion, we will trust PROC to make an intelligent report back to us, and we will have a chance to consider its report and to vote on the report in the House of Commons. It would come back to us. I have indicated in the past that I think it is best, when dealing with PROC reports, that we try to do so on a non-partisan basis. I would encourage that to happen here. I do not control that, but I think that at least one committee should be treated as being non-partisan as much as possible, both in its own behaviour and in how the House responds to its reports. That, by the way, was exactly the approach it took when a motion I proposed was considered by PROC a few years ago to change the way the Speaker is elected. I think that was beneficial. I hope we can all do the same thing here.

738 words

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

Dec/6/23 6:45:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it has been suggested by a friend and colleague of mine that the member should become a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. It might be a healthy thing to do for the committee process. I have raised this previously. The Conservative Party justifiably raised the issue as a point of order. The Speaker then reviewed everything that had been said and came back and said to have a motion that would provide a remedy. The Conservative Party then provides a remedy. The word “remedy” is incorporated into the motion that the member just finished speaking to. For many, including myself, I do not quite consider how one can have a sitting member on PROC who has already committed to the Speaker having to resign sit and try to be objective to those people who are coming forward with ideas. Does the member not agree there is at least the appearance of conflict?

161 words

Mr. Scott Reid

Dec/6/23 6:46:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, actually, in my remarks, I had meant to mention the issue of conflicts of interest and the appearance of a conflict of interest. I was going to say that the Speaker must be impartial and must be seen to be impartial, which is somewhat like a conflict of interest versus the appearance of a conflict of interest. In this case, I do not think that is what is going on, if we are talking about members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I think it would be more accurate to say that there is the appearance of having an opinion. I cannot think of a subject out there, from professional hockey to astrophysics, on which I do not personally have some kind of opinion. I also hope that I am in a position where I can be convinced by the evidence to think differently at the end of the process than I started out thinking. Sometimes I think that is unlikely, quite frankly, but I do not know how one gets around the fact that everybody has opinions. Some would be more valuable in expressing their opinions than others. All I can say is that if the member is this concerned, he could suggest to people that they recuse themselves, I suppose, although I have to say that if I were invited to recuse myself by someone from another party, I would probably say, “Thanks, but I am going to stay here.”

249 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

Dec/6/23 6:47:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I always appreciate hearing the hon. member's reflections on parliamentary process and procedure. We were talking earlier about the difference in culture around the U.K. speakership, but it does seem to me that if one were to lay down a list of former speakers and former political party leaders, one would have little, if any, overlap at all. In fact, I think one would only find one person who appears on both lists, and that is the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. Of course, when we were debating Motion No. 79 in this place, which was a motion that I brought about prorogation and the confidence convention, I did hear from some Conservative members who wanted to remind me of the important tradition of establishing conventions through practice and not writing them down. I think there was a convention around the speakership in not engaging in partisan roles post-speakership, certainly at the federal level in Canada, prior to the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle blazing his own trail in that regard. I wonder, as we are talking about this issue of partisanship in the Speaker's role, if he thinks it might be appropriate for the procedure and House affairs committee, in its investigation of this incident, to turn its mind a little bit toward that topic, being encompassed by the question of partisanship and the Speaker's office. Perhaps the committee could provide some reflections on that to the House in the course of their deliberation.

254 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 263