SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 270 - Jan/29/24

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Jan/29/24 3:50:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me to rise this afternoon to add my comments to the extraordinary words of our colleague, the dean of the House of Commons. I thank him for his speech. I want to also say thank you for the strong words and memories shared by the hon. member for Beauséjour. I was particularly moved by the hon. member for Oshawa, who expressed so clearly the sense of what politics used to be like. At yesterday's state funeral, Brian Topp, in his address, referred to Ed Broadbent's time in politics as being a place where he continually displayed that one could disagree without being disagreeable. I had the honour to know Ed Broadbent before I got into politics. I did not even join a political party until 2006, but I was kind of noisy from my role as an environmental activist. I can remember times when Ed Broadbent and I got along fabulously well. Once I entered politics, we had the occasional moment when we disagreed. Famously, though, I never did get to debate Ed Broadbent in any leaders' debates, but in 1988 he actually referred to my resignation from the government of the day over a point of principal to rather make a point of the failures on some of the aspects of environmental policies. He put it to Brian Mulroney. Nothing quite alerts someone who is watching a long leaders' debate like finding themselves mentioned by Ed Broadbent in the midst of the debate. I was deeply grateful then for his support for the stand I took, and I am grateful to this day. I want to say thank you to the Prime Minister for the decision to have a state funeral. It is not easily done and is rare, but as said by the hon. member for Burnaby South, we all appreciated the opportunity to share with Ed's family in expressing our deep sorrow at his loss and our gratitude for a life well lived. In the course of yesterday's funeral, I think it was Jonathan Sas, the co-writer of Ed's new book, who referred to Ed Broadbent's first speech in this place. I remember his last speech, and I went back and found it to see whether I remembered it accurately. It was on May 5, 2005. I recommend it to people who want to watch something wonderful. I watched it on YouTube. He was surrounded by so many other people I really loved, such as Bill Blaikie and Alexa McDonough. Ed Broadbent's last speech shared some advice I think is worth repeating for all of us who remain working in this place. It has been mentioned already that he served in this place as the member for Oshawa from 1968 to 1990 but came back in 2004 as the hon. member for Ottawa Centre. In his speech, he reflected on how many people had asked him whether, in the interregnum between leaving the House of Commons in 1990 and returning 14 years later in 2004, he saw a difference. He reflected in that speech on the decline, which will sound familiar to the Speaker, in decorum and the increasingly partisan nature of debate. He said he noted “the decline in civility in the debate”. He said, on May 5, 2005, that if he were a high school teacher, he would not want to bring his students here anymore. He said, “There is a difference between personal remarks based on animosity and vigorous debate” and urged the members of Parliament present, and those words should extend to us here right now, “to restore to our politics...a civilized tone”. In closing he turned to the words of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to say that they apply in this place. He read the words that we must, as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says, recognize “the inherent dignity and...the equal and unalienable rights of all members of the human family”. That recognition of inherent rights is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in this world. In honour of Ed Broadbent, in honour of his legacy and for all those parliamentarians who have served in the House of Commons before us and those who will follow after us, let us try to listen to our better angels, as the Premier of Manitoba, the Hon. Wab Kinew, said yesterday. Let the quality and the character of our debate be elevated as we recognize in each other our shared humanity, our common commitment to Canada and that we agree on far more things than we disagree on and serve our god, our country, our community and our planet by expressing ourselves, grounded in mutual respect and recognition of our shared humanity. Thank you for your leadership, Ed Broadbent. May you rest in peace.

822 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jan/29/24 3:56:23 p.m.
Watch

I wish to inform the House that because of the tributes to Ed Broadbent, Government Orders will be extended by 37 minutes.

22 words

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

Jan/29/24 3:57:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to 102 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

35 words

Hon. Bardish Chagger (Waterloo, Lib.)

Jan/29/24 3:57:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, happy new year. It is good to be back to the chamber and to represent the good people of the riding of Waterloo. Pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 56th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, regarding the membership of committees of the House. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the 56th report later this day.

80 words

Mr. René Arseneault (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.)

Jan/29/24 3:58:11 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, entitled “MAID and Mental Disorders: the Road Ahead”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

53 words

Mrs. Shelby Kramp-Neuman (Hastings—Lennox and Addington, CPC)

Jan/29/24 3:58:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table the Conservatives' dissenting report on medical assistance in dying where mental health is the sole underlying condition. This report was completed because Conservative members of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying believe that the main report did not fully reflect the sense of urgency we heard from stakeholders and witnesses on this very serious question. For years, Conservatives have been calling for the government to introduce legislation ensuring that Canada's most vulnerable will not fall victim to a system that has often already failed them, and that the pause on extension to MAID where mental health is the sole underlying condition be made permanent. It is time for the government to finally take action.

125 words

Hon. Bardish Chagger (Waterloo, Lib.)

Jan/29/24 3:59:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 56th report of Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House today, be concurred in.

30 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jan/29/24 4:00:09 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

37 words

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP)

Jan/29/24 4:00:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do believe that you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move: That the membership of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be amended as follows: Ms. Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe) for Mr. Green (Hamilton Centre).

43 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jan/29/24 4:00:56 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

37 words

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

Jan/29/24 4:01:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House during the debate, pursuant to Standing Order 66 on Motion No. 45 to concur in the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Finance, and Motion No. 46 to concur in the 14th report of the Standing Committee of Public Accounts, no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair, and that at the conclusion of the time provided for debate, or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the motions be deemed put and a recorded division be deemed requested and deferred, pursuant to Standing Order 66.

139 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Jan/29/24 4:02:03 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

37 words

All Topics

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Salaberry—Suroît, BQ)

Jan/29/24 4:02:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I move that the 55th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented on Thursday, December 14, 2023, be concurred in. I would like to take this opportunity to wish a wonderful 2024 to all the citizens of the riding of Salaberry—Suroît. I wish them happiness and health for the coming year. Today, I am rising to speak to a report from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. It describes the study that looked into the behaviour of the Speaker, the member for Hull—Aylmer. In our opinion, it should perhaps be reviewed. For the benefit of those who have forgotten or who did not follow this story, I will take the liberty of recapping some important elements. Bloc Québécois members have principles. We are also frank and honest. We congratulated the Speaker when he was elected, but we pointed out that he was facing a major challenge because he was what can only be described as a very partisan member leaving his seat to occupy the chair, a role that demands unimpeachable impartiality. The chair requires of its occupant that they have the confidence of all members and, above all, that they maintain that confidence. I clearly remember telling him that the task would be difficult, that the Bloc Québécois wished him the best, and that we would be keeping a close eye on him because it would be no small feat to do so. Two weeks in, we saw him make what we believe was a serious error in judgment. He made a partisan speech. He showed up for an event dressed in his Speaker's uniform, complete with robe and hat. In short, it was quite clear that the Speaker was addressing Ontario Liberal supporters in his official capacity as Speaker. The video clearly showed that he was introduced as the Speaker of the House of Commons. That happened somewhere around December 2 or 3. We quickly determined that a Speaker cannot participate in such events in his official capacity. It undermines parliamentarians' confidence in him because he really needs to be completely devoid of partisanship. That caused a lot of turmoil because members were so surprised that the Speaker had given that speech. While we were discussing and debating the matter, the Speaker decided to go on a parliamentary mission to Washington in his capacity as Speaker, while the House was sitting on December 5 and 6. When we looked into the matter in committee, we learned that he had already planned that visit to celebrate a retired friend. Since he was the Speaker, he tacked on a few official meetings to justify taking a trip in the midst of all the turmoil. We in the Bloc Québécois asked ourselves a question. The Speaker does not understand that, when someone occupies the highest office, the chair, their conduct must be impeccable in order to retain the confidence of the House. The Speaker was generous on December 11 when he appeared before the committee. He delivered a long statement with sincerity, I know. However, the Speaker waited until that December 11 appearance to acknowledge his mistake and apologize. He was brave; that was not easy for him. He apologized, admitted to his mistake and said he would not make it again. After that study, the Bloc Québécois realized he had to go. It was abundantly clear that those two major gaffes had lost him the confidence of the House. Let us not forget that at least 149 members withdrew their confidence. Even so, he decided to stay. The Bloc Québécois was not satisfied with the report's recommendations. That is why we submitted a dissenting opinion. Today, we are revisiting that issue because, during the last week of sittings in December, another incident occurred. The Speaker made another appearance at a political event in the riding of Liberal MNA André Fortin. The Speaker was photographed with his colleague, the member for Pontiac, and Mr. Fortin at a cocktail fundraiser. I can honestly say that we do not understand what happened. We do not understand why, after spending days debating and adopting a report that recognized the Speaker's error, we are now dealing with another similar incident. We noticed, however, that the Liberal MNA's cocktail fundraiser happened before the video of the Speaker was shown at the Ontario Liberal Party convention. I had many questions. I wondered why, when he appeared before the Procedure and House Affairs Committee on December 11, the Speaker did not disclose that he had attended the cocktail party. As I said earlier, the Speaker acknowledged that he had made a mistake. He apologized to the House and said he would not do this kind of thing again, as it undermined the House's confidence in him. Why, then, did he not take the opportunity to disclose that he had attended the cocktail party? Why, as we were analyzing what had happened on December 3, did he not say that he had also attended a cocktail fundraiser on November 17 in the riding of a Liberal colleague who sits in the Quebec National Assembly, and apologize for it? Why did he not bring that up? For whatever reason, he did not. I did not understand that. I thought either he did not understand that this kind of behaviour was inappropriate and unacceptable and that it would continue to undermine the confidence of the members of the House, or he had not understood. Today, I stand before the Chair to raise this unanswered question again. That is why I will be moving a motion in the near future proposing that the Procedure and House Affairs Committee reconvene to discuss the issue. I still want to say something, though. Ever since I started speaking publicly about everything that happened and about the Speaker's actions, I have received all sorts of unkind emails and messages. I have been unfairly labelled. I am speaking up on behalf of the Bloc Québécois because we in the Bloc Québécois have respect for the institution, its procedures, the Speaker and the Speaker's authority. Every time that we, in the Bloc Québécois, have risen to speak, we have done so respectfully because, in all honestly, I have nothing against the member for Hull—Aylmer. He is a nice person, but we do not believe that he has what it takes to regain the confidence of the House. Some people are impugning my motives, saying that I am going after the Speaker because I may harbour certain ideas. Allow me to read out an excerpt of the motion that was unanimously passed, in other words, passed by all of the parties in the House. It was the motion that triggered the study into the Speaker's missteps. Here is the excerpt: ...as Speaker of the House of Commons, constitute a breach of the tradition and expectation of impartiality required for that high office, constituting a serious error of judgment which undermines the trust required to discharge his duties and responsibilities... What I just read is not a statement from the Bloc Québécois or the member for Salaberry—Suroît. It is a unanimous motion passed by all members of the House. When the Speaker appeared in committee on December 11, he said he agreed that he had made a grave mistake and that he would do better going forward. Let me get back to my question. We in the Bloc Québécois have been good sports. We congratulated the Speaker when he was elected. The House leader of the Bloc Québécois, the member for La Prairie, even praised him when he was elected. A few days after the Speaker was elected, all the House leaders and whips witnessed a discussion. As whip of the Bloc Québécois, I warned the Speaker that we were keeping a close eye on him. Anyone who knows the member for Hull—Aylmer knows that he is a long-time activist. He had an activist background. He campaigned, ran, and was elected on that, right up until he was elected Speaker. It has been quite an extraordinary journey. However, once someone occupies that chair and has the great authority of the House, they cannot afford to make any mistakes that call their impartiality into question. There can be no flexibility on this, because if the Speaker loses the confidence of the House, its very ability to function is threatened. As we speak, 149 members of the House have clearly expressed that the Speaker has lost their confidence because of his repeated errors in judgment and the evidence of his lack of impartiality. The Bloc Québécois made some suggestions in the dissenting opinion that we presented. Had we obtained unanimous consent, perhaps things would have been different today. In our dissenting opinion, we made two suggestions. Obviously, we urged the Speaker to exercise judgment and resign so that another Speaker who has the confidence of the House could be elected. Failing this, we proposed that a secret ballot vote be held about him. In other words, we proposed giving every member of the House the opportunity to vote again on whether he should be the Speaker. If he won the election again, then we would have been willing to give him a second chance because democracy would have spoken. However, the members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs did not support those recommendations. I am back before the House again today, and I must say that I am stunned. I do not understand why I have to come back to this issue because of the events of November 17 or 15, when he attended a federal Liberal fundraiser. I would like to ask him this question: That time, did he also consult his chief of staff? Did he consult the Clerk? Did he use all the resources available to him to double-check whether he could attend a partisan cocktail fundraiser? It does not matter whether the event was for the provincial Liberals, the PQ or Québec Solidaire. A Speaker must not participate in any partisan activities while occupying the chair. He must not even give the impression of partisan involvement. The Speaker is also friends with ministers. He is also friends with the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, who represents the next riding over. With all the lingering doubts, we wonder if he will be able to resist demands or questions from the colleagues he is friends with. Based on the analysis we are conducting today, we think the Speaker needs to come back before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to explain why, during his appearance on December 11, he did not simply tell us that he had attended an event. The Bloc Québécois is not attacking the member for Hull—Aylmer as a person. As I said, he is a good person, but this is about principles, the principle of retaining parliamentarians' confidence in the authority of the House. I hope the members listening will support the Bloc Québécois in getting to the bottom of this and in giving the Speaker a chance to explain himself with respect to the mistake he made in November. I will read the amendment we wish to move: That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: the 50th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented on December 14, 2023, be not now concurred in, but that it be referred back to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with the following instructions: (a) study new facts relating to the Speaker's participation in a political activity described as a cocktail militant, or activist cocktail reception, with the provincial member for the riding of Pontiac on November 16, 2023, and any other facts relating to the Speaker's participation in political activities since assuming the office of Speaker, if any; and (b) amend the report to include the new information and amend the committee's recommendations and conclusions in accordance with this new information.

2107 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Jan/29/24 4:20:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. I thought I heard the member move an amendment. Did she move an amendment? Are you going to read that first, Mr. Speaker?

33 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Jan/29/24 4:20:26 p.m.
Watch

I do not think that was an amendment. I will seek clarification. Did the member move an amendment to her motion?

21 words

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille

Jan/29/24 4:20:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think I made a mistake. As my colleague pointed out, I cannot amend my own motion.

19 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Jan/29/24 4:20:57 p.m.
Watch

That is correct. The member cannot move an amendment to her own motion. It is not in order.

18 words

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

Jan/29/24 4:21:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I guess we will pick up our debate where we left off on the Friday before we recessed for the Christmas break. What we discovered and what we talked about in my speech on that Friday prior to our leaving for the Christmas season was that this is actually nothing new. As a matter of fact, when the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle was the Speaker of the House of Commons, he went to a fundraiser, and paid $100 to go to it, for the member for Regina—Wascana at the time. He was there. There are pictures of him there. He was there with the now Leader of the Opposition. They have pictures documenting this. Therefore, this is not something unique to this particular Speaker. This is apparently something that has been going on. Coming from a riding that had the longest-serving Speaker of the House of Commons, I am fully aware of what a Speaker will do and how they will engage in their riding and perhaps in just one or two of the neighbouring ridings. Therefore, I am curious. Can the member from the Bloc inform the House, with respect to when the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle did the exact same thing, how many times the Bloc called for his resignation at that time? Was it one, two, three or four? Perhaps the members from the Bloc never even bothered to question it when it was the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. We are being fed this story right now that this is somehow just this Speaker because he did something wrong. It is nothing personal about the Speaker, yet the Bloc does not have a history of calling this out in the past when it has happened. I wonder if the member can inform the House as to how many times the Bloc Québécois raised the issue when it was the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle going to a fundraiser in the member for Regina—Wascana's riding and paying $100 to go there.

352 words

All Topics

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille

Jan/29/24 4:23:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, before I answer the question, I would like to make a brief comment. I do not know why the member is speaking so loudly. Every time he speaks, he seems shocked. I think I was calm. I speak French and I do not know if the member was wearing his earpiece, but I am calm. I am not being antagonistic at all. The member wants me to make a comparison and say who was right and who was wrong, but that is not the issue. The Bloc Québécois is simply pointing out that there is a new element that the members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs did not study when they prepared their report and made their recommendations. What we are asking is that the committee be reconvened to examine the new facts. It seems to me that this is not all that complicated and it would settle the matter of the Speaker's mistakes. I know that my colleague might find it amusing to try to engage me in a conflict, but that is not what I want. What I want is for us to discuss the matter calmly. The member cannot deny that the Speaker made another misstep when he attended Liberal MNA André Fortin's cocktail fundraiser. This was yet another lapse in judgment that further undermines the confidence of the House. That is all we are asking for.

243 words

All Topics

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP)

Jan/29/24 4:24:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I share the member's concern about some of the enthusiasm we hear. I also want to say that when some people speak in this House, I definitely take my headset off, because I do not like to be yelled at in two directions. I think some of the concerns being brought forward are serious ones. We just spent a period of time talking about the amazing NDP leader Ed Broadbent and the tremendous work he brought forward, part of which was bringing people together. I know other Speakers have participated in fundraising events that were quite concerning. I wonder if the member shares my concern that we need to review these rules and make sure they are clearer so the House can better hold Speakers to account.

130 words

All Topics