SoVote

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

Mr. John Nater (Perth—Wellington, CPC)

Jan/29/24 5:10:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is with some sadness and in unfortunate circumstances that I rise to debate the concurrence motion brought forward by our colleagues in the Bloc Québécois. It is disappointing because I wish we did not have to be in a situation where we have to debate the conduct and actions of the Speaker of this House. Indeed, in a perfect world we would be here talking about axing the carbon tax, building more homes, fixing the budget and stopping crime. However, unfortunately here we are debating this issue due to not only a single lapse in judgment but what appears to be a series of lapses in judgment by the Speaker of this House of Commons. I, like many Canadians, did not expect this to happen. Indeed, I am sure many of us were surprised when this story first broke. I was just wrapping up a community event and received a text from a provincial counterpart informing me that they had just seen the Speaker of the House of Commons at the Ontario Liberal Party convention. I thought he was joking, especially since he said the Speaker was in his robes. I thought surely to goodness the Speaker of the House of Commons would not be at the Ontario Liberal Party convention wearing his robes. However, he sent me a picture of the large screen at the Ontario Liberal Party convention, and it was a picture of the Speaker in his robes in the Speaker's chambers here on Parliament Hill. I was, quite frankly, shocked. I hold the institution of Parliament in high regard and with it the office of the Speaker. While I may disagree with some of the opinions and judgments that a Speaker may offer, I have the greatest of respect for the office and the institution of Speaker. Indeed, if we were to review what was then called the British North America Act, the Constitution Act, 1867, we would see that the office of the Speaker is mentioned no fewer than four times, showing the high regard with which Canadians and the founders of this country held the office of the Speaker. Consider also that the office of the Prime Minister was not even mentioned in that original 1867 document. If we review the great history of the office of Speaker, going back quite literally centuries, we are reminded of the central role that the Speaker of the House of Commons plays in defending the rights and the privileges of parliamentarians. I need not remind members of the famous quotation from Speaker William Lenthall, who, in direct response to King Charles I in 1642, said, “May it please Your Majesty, I have neither eyes to see, nor tongue to speak in this place, but as the House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here”. The servant of this House is the Speaker. We as parliamentarians elect Speakers with the understanding that they will be impartial and will serve members to the best of their ability in a manner of non-partisanship. Indeed, if we refer to the authorities of this place, this concept is fundamental to the impartiality of the Speaker of this House. I draw members' attention to citation 168 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, 6th edition. It states: The chief characteristics attached to the office of Speaker in the House of Commons are authority and impartiality.... The actions of the Speaker cannot be criticized incidentally in debate or upon any form of proceeding except by way of a substantive motion. Confidence in the impartiality of the Speaker is an indispensable condition of the successful working of procedure, and many conventions exist which have as their object, not only to ensure the impartiality of the Speaker but also, to ensure that there is a general recognition of the Speaker’s impartiality. The Speaker takes no part in debate in the House, and votes only when the Voices are equal, and then only in accordance with rules which preclude an expression of opinion upon the merits of a question. It goes on to say, “In order to ensure complete impartiality the Speaker has usually relinquished all affiliation with any parliamentary party. The Speaker does not attend any party caucus nor take part in any outside partisan political activity.” Mr. Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to this citation from Beauchesne’s because the rulings of the Speaker are not subject to appeal. What is more, we cannot criticize the judgments of the Speaker because we, as partisan members of this House, accept that we have chosen a Speaker who ought to be acting in accordance with an impartial and non-partisan approach. When we lose the ability to trust the impartiality and the non-partisanship of the Speaker, every judgment and ruling of the Speaker has the potential to be seen in a negative context. The rules of electing our Speaker have evolved over time, to the point that we now elect our Speaker by secret ballot rather than by a motion of the Prime Minister. I am reminded of the first time this occurred, with the election of Speaker John Fraser. At the time, the then leader of the Liberal Party, the former prime minister, the Right Hon. John Turner, in congratulating the Speaker, said: You know what we demand of you, Mr. Speaker. Perfection! We want fairness, independence, decisiveness, patience, common sense, good humour, upholding the traditions of the House, knowledge of the rules and an intuition for the changing mood and tone of the House as we move through our days. Former prime minister John Turner recognized the role that an elected impartial Speaker would have in this place. As I said, the authorities of this place recognize that as well. As Bosc and Gagnon wrote: The duties of the Speaker of the House of Commons require the balancing of the rights and interests of the majority and minority in the House to ensure that public business is...protected against the use of arbitrary authority.... The Speaker is the servant, not of any part of the House or any majority in the House, but of the entire institution and the best interests of the House as distilled over many generations in its practices. That begs the question of how the Speaker of this House can continue to serve all parliamentarians when the two largest opposition parties have expressed their non-confidence in him. I want to focus on what brought us to this place, the series of events and activities that led us here. I want to quote from the remarks made by the Speaker to the Ontario Liberal convention and want to again reinforce the point that the Speaker delivered these remarks in his robes in the Speaker's office with a chyron stating that it was a message from the Speaker of the House of Commons. The Speaker said, “And boy, did we have fun. We had a lot of fun together through the Ottawa South Liberal association, through Liberal Party politics, by helping Dalton McGuinty get elected.” It is bad enough that the Speaker would make such comments, again in his Speaker's robes, but he went even further to reflect on the fact that he was the Speaker of the House of Commons, saying, “when I think of the opportunities that I have now as being Speaker of the House of Commons, it's because of people like John”. He actually reflected on that fact. The Liberal Party has tried to explain this away as a singular mistake, a one-off, but the fact of the matter is that it is not a one-off. The Speaker can claim that he was confused or did not fully understand what the video was being made for, but that does not negate the fact that he gave a public interview in which he, again, expressed partisan leanings. It was in a Globe and Mail article on December 1, 2023, which he freely undertook with a journalist. It was not as though he was scrummed on the way into question period, as many of us often are. He sat down for an interview and talked about the work of the Liberal leader, Mr. Fraser, on behalf of “our party”, on behalf of the Liberal Party. Within a period of about 48 hours, there were two specific examples of partisanship from an entity that ought to be non-partisan. What happened immediately after this came to light? After having clearly been called to account for partisan activity, the Speaker jetted off to Washington, D.C. He jetted off to relive his glory days as president of the Ontario Young Liberals. At an event in Washington, D.C., where he quickly threw in some official activities to carry on with his visit to reflect on an old, dear friend, he talked about his activities and his glory days with the Young Liberals of Canada. We are now at number three. Then afterwards, once the report was finalized and tabled in the House of Commons, we found two more examples of partisanship by the Speaker. We found out that he attended a Quebec Liberal event, which was organized for supporters and where donations were solicited, at a riding in Pontiac. Then we found out that he had actually called up a former Liberal Party MP and encouraged him to write an article defending him and criticizing the opposition Conservatives. This is a pattern of activities that we have seen coming from a position that ought to be non-partisan. Like many colleagues in this place, when the Speaker was first elected, we had some concerns. We were willing to give the benefit of doubt, as we ought to give to a new Speaker, but we had concerns going in. This is a Speaker who was elected just days after having served as the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister. This is a Speaker who, in the procedure and House affairs committee, of which I was a member when he was a member, would filibuster for lengthy amounts of time to try to protect the Prime Minister's chief of staff from testifying at committee. This is an individual who served as a senior adviser to Liberal cabinet ministers, a national director of the Liberal Party of Canada and as president of the Young Liberals of Canada. He has a long history of partisanship, which many in this House have. Many of us have histories of partisanship. That is why we get elected. That is why we run under the banner of certain parties. However, in recent times, it has been clear that those who seek the office of Speaker try to find a way to step back from partisanship. Indeed, the preceding Speaker had served as the Assistant Deputy Speaker for four years, prior to becoming the Speaker in 2019. The Speaker before that had served as both Deputy Speaker and Assistant Deputy Speaker. Of course, the former member for Kingston and the Islands, known to be an expert, served for a long period of time prior to becoming the Speaker of the House of Commons. The fact is that Speakers try to go beyond what is minimally necessary to ensure that their partisanship is not an issue. This has been quoted a few times in this place, and it is about past precedents and where things have occurred in the past. Indeed, I will quote from the Hansard of March 8, 1993, found at page 16,578 of Debates, when the then member Mr. David Dingwall, the House leader of the official opposition, said: How can an officer of the House appear to be impartial or claim to be impartial when she undertakes so active a role in the partisan activities of her own political party? How can members of the House who belong to other parties put their trust in the impartiality of the Chair under such circumstances, especially in the heat of the most partisan part of the parliamentary day, Question Period? I agree. I do not agree on much with Mr. Dingwall, but I agree with his comments in that context. Now, the Speaker made it very clear in that particular case. Speaker Fraser ruled that there was not a prima facie question of privilege on that specific issue because they were dealing with the Deputy Speaker, but he made it clear that Speakers themselves were held to a higher standard. In his ruling he said, “I have some difficulty in agreeing with the hon. member for Cape Breton—East Richmond that the Deputy Speaker is cloaked with the same exigencies that are expected of the Speaker himself or herself”. The Speaker himself or herself is expected to be beyond the pale, beyond any threat of partisanship when they are coming to this place. I would like to refer the House back to the original motion that referred this to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs because what is often overlooked is that the House had collectively condemned the actions of the Speaker already. The motion, which was passed unanimously reads: “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”. The House, collectively and unanimously, has already declared that there has been a breach of the trust of the House. The committee came back with what amounts to, I would suggest, a slap on the wrist for such a flagrant violation of the impartiality of this office. I would draw the House's attention to the dissenting report of our Conservative opposition, which laid out some of the major concerns we have with the Speaker's actions. First of all, I would point out the fact that the Speaker claimed that he did not realize this was going to be played in such a public setting, implying that perhaps it would be okay to display partisanship if there were fewer people watching it, that somehow, if it were a private gathering, it would be okay to be partisan while wearing Speaker's robes and being titled as the Speaker of the House of Commons. However, it goes beyond that. The testimony that was delivered at committee by none other than John Fraser himself indicated that it was never under discussion and that it was always meant to be shown at a public gathering of the Ontario Liberal Party. It was never even meant to be a private gathering. It was always meant to be something that would be publicly shown and livestreamed for Canadians to see. Unfortunately, it reflected that very negative concept that occurred in seeing a Speaker in his robes, in his tricorne hat, delivering a partisan message highlighting the fun that the Speaker had with the Ontario Liberal Party. It is exceptionally unfortunate and exceptionally disappointing. I have a strong degree of respect for the institutions of the House, and it is unfortunate that it has come to this. While I am on my feet, I would move an amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil. I move: That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “the 55th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented on Thursday, December 14, 2023, be not now concurred in, but that it be referred back to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with instruction that it amend the same so as to recommend that the Speaker tender his resignation in light of additional examples subsequently coming to light of his partisanship and poor judgment, including asking a former Liberal Member of Parliament to write an opinion column condemning the Official Opposition as well as attending a Quebec Liberal riding association's cocktail reception for partisan supporters where donations were solicited.”

2694 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jan/29/24 5:30:56 p.m.
Watch

I will take the amendment under advisement and will come back with a decision as to whether the amendment is admissible as soon as possible. We will continue with questions and comments. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

40 words

All Topics

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

Jan/29/24 5:32:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in the midst of this ordeal that occurred late last fall, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle tweeted this in reference to this issue: “It’s...totally unacceptable. “When I was Speaker the only fundraiser I attended was for my own riding. This is something all Speakers are allowed to do because they must run under a party banner, and other parties run candidates against them.” We now know that this was categorically false because, prior to that, and I know the member for Barrie—Innisfil is finding this surprising too, and he should, we have a photo of the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, who was the Speaker at the time, along with the member for Regina—Wascana and the member for Carleton, posing at that fundraiser he attended. We know that he was not telling the truth in that tweet. I am wondering if the member can comment on whether we should also be opening up an investigation into not only the untruthfulness of the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle but also the fact that he did something that he categorically claims to be unacceptable.

198 words

All Topics

Mr. John Nater

Jan/29/24 5:33:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the investigator from Kingston and the Islands for his crack investigatory work on this matter. I would throw it right back at him. Does he have a picture of a Speaker in his robes, in his tricorne hat, as this Speaker was doing? Was it when the House was sitting? Was it when the House of Commons was in session, or had it been at the point that Parliament had no longer been sitting, in the lead-up to a general election, as was the case? An hon. member: Oh, oh! Mr. John Nater: Madam Speaker, it is very clear that this is a pattern of abuse by this Speaker, by this Liberal-appointed Speaker, in his robes and in his tricorne hat.

127 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jan/29/24 5:34:34 p.m.
Watch

I would advise the hon. deputy House leader that he had an opportunity to ask a question and that, if he has anything else to add, he should wait until it is time for other questions and comments. The hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît.

47 words

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Salaberry—Suroît, BQ)

Jan/29/24 5:34:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. I have a simple question for him. We know that members on the other side of the House are practically spreading disinformation by saying that the report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs addressed all of the Speaker's missteps. That is false. After the study, a new event emerged. What we are asking is that the new event be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and that the committee examine it. This is not about making comparisons and determining whether the Conservatives or the Liberals are more at fault. That is not the point. The fact is that the Speaker made another mistake after the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs had finished its work and issued its conclusions and recommendations. We want to know why the Speaker did not disclose during his appearance on December 11 that he had participated in a partisan event in November 2023. Does my colleague agree that this matter should be dealt with at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs?

187 words

All Topics

Mr. John Nater

Jan/29/24 5:36:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. Bloc Québécois whip for that great question. I agree that we need to know why the Speaker did not provide all the information to the committee. Why did he not say that he had attended a partisan event in Pontiac hosted by the Liberal Party of Quebec, with Liberal supporters from Quebec, and that donations were solicited by people at the event? That is a big question. We even have information showing that he asked a former MP to write an article condemning the opposition parties here in the House of Commons. These facts are new to the committee. They were not brought up during the committee meeting, and we need to ask the Speaker of the House these questions.

132 words

All Topics

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

Jan/29/24 5:37:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have always enjoyed working with the member. We used to sit together in PROC, and I appreciate a lot of the information he shared with us today. I would say that I am concerned that this is becoming very much focused on one Speaker instead of looking at the office of the Speaker. What we have seen very clearly here, and I do not have a lot of time for this context and that context, is that the point is that when we have a Speaker, they should be above that, because we need to trust them in this place to be the voice of the House and to help deal with some of the fun issues we seem to have in this place. I am wondering if the member agrees that perhaps PROC does need to do a study that is not related to this study but to the role of the Speaker and how we can broaden the scope, so that when these types of things happen there is not a lack of clarity on what to do, but there are actual rules. We cannot continue to have these things happen, not just from one Speaker but from multiple Speakers, and we know the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle participated in a fundraising event that was outside of his riding, and that is the point. Let us get clarity so that Speakers, moving forward, know their role.

243 words

All Topics

Mr. John Nater

Jan/29/24 5:38:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member for North Island—Powell River made the comment that the Speaker should be above partisanship, and I would hope that all of us in the House can agree that whoever is the Speaker of the House of Commons has to not only be above partisanship, but also be seen to be above partisanship. I think the unfortunate case we have seen here is a series of infractions by one Speaker, the current Speaker, that have led us down this path, and we have to deal with this issue, first and foremost. Before we go to a broader study of the role of the Speaker and the office of Speaker, we have to first agree with the exigencies of the current situation, in which we have a seen a Speaker, on multiple occasions, undertake actions that have seemed to be partisan and outside the scope of what the impartiality of a Speaker ought to be. First and foremost, we need PROC to deal with the current Speaker before any further studies are undertaken on the more broad question of the office of the Speaker of the House of Commons.

193 words

All Topics

Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC)

Jan/29/24 5:40:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, and I would also like him to comment on the fact that the current Speaker has also shown a lack of judgment on numerous other occasions. Is the current Speaker the only Speaker to also have an ethics violation found against him in his role as well? Does that also speak to some of the possible lack of foresight he has had as the Speaker?

74 words

All Topics

Mr. John Nater

Jan/29/24 5:40:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Regina—Lewvan is unfortunately correct that the current Speaker is the only one to have broken the ethics law and to have been found in violation by the Ethics Commissioner for past actions, so that is a concern, and this ties into some of the concerns we all had when we tried to provide him with the benefit of the doubt, when he was first elected, with respect to his past partisan activities. We remember him rising in the House of Commons immediately after the Prime Minister physically elbowed a member from the Bloc Québécois. The current Speaker rose in his place to try to dismiss it and say that the member was diving like a soccer player. There was a real concern in the past activities we have seen from this particular Speaker in the time leading up to his taking on this current responsibility.

156 words

All Topics

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

Jan/29/24 5:41:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Perth—Wellington, who is as ever thoughtful and lays out the precedents. I am not saying I am not troubled by the events, but I am troubled by another issue, and I would like the member for Perth—Wellington to share his thoughts with the House. It is unprecedented to have removed one Speaker since the last election. If we were to remove another, would we not undermine the role of the Speaker, so that the role becomes insecure? As he mentioned, there are unwritten rules: We cannot question a Speaker's decisions, and we cannot appeal a Speaker's decisions. This is a very slippery slope we are on if we remove Speakers frequently. I do not think that the offences so far meet that threshold, but I wonder if the hon. member is troubled by the precedent we might be setting.

153 words

All Topics

Mr. John Nater

Jan/29/24 5:42:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am troubled by it. I am troubled by the entire situation. We ought not to be in a situation of removing Speakers prior to the end of a term. One of the reasons we elect a Speaker at the beginning of the term is that they ought to be there for the entirety of the Parliament, so we can build the trust that they are there from a non-partisan perspective for the entirety of the Parliament. What we have seen now is that it did not happen. Normally, a member would run at the beginning of a Parliament and be able to express their platform and their ideas. That did not happen in this particular case, because of the mid-session removal of the Speaker. This ought not to become the norm. It would certainly be my preference if we elected one Speaker at the beginning of the Parliament and they had the full trust of the House to serve out the entirety of a Parliament.

170 words

All Topics

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

Jan/29/24 5:43:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am a little disappointed that we have to be here today to speak on this issue again. It has gone through the committee, and we are here debating concurrence in it. Obviously there was enough support to get it to this place, so hopefully we can move on as quickly as possibly to some very important issues I definitely heard in my riding while I was home during the time we spent with constituents. It makes me think of the Myra Falls mine in that area, which just recently was shut down. The workers are very concerned about what that means for their future and are talking to me about the bankruptcy laws and the fact that they know their pensions are still at the bottom of the list. We have done some work on it in this place, but it has not gone through the regulatory process, and that concerns me. It is something I will be fighting for, because we want to make sure the workers of this country, when they are faced with significant challenges, get the support they desperately need. I also want to take a moment to recognize that today is a very sad day in Canada. I remember in 2017, when there were the mosque shootings in Quebec, how horrific it was to realize that had happened in our country. I had a great deal of broken-heartedness, because it was definitely not something I wanted to see as the fabric of our country. One of the things that is always hard for us in this place is how we have to face the realities that are reflected in our country and then, as parliamentarians, internalize what that means and find a way to process it, not only as individuals but as representatives of ridings across this country. Today, in the hecticness of our schedules, I hope that we also remember basic human rights and dignity for all people; that we always stand against any form of discrimination that happens in front of us or in our communities, and that we be fearless voices. Our voices carry an amount of power that not everyone is granted by their constituents, and we need to always fight against any form of hate that jeopardizes the safety of people in our country and around the world. We are here talking about the Speaker, and I cannot help but share this very strange story about being here in this place when we had, of course, the representative from Ukraine here speaking about what is happening in Ukraine. There are a lot of people in my riding who are of Ukrainian descent and were very happy to see Canada working here, and then of course we know what happened. It was the NDP that first asked the past Speaker, who did resign, to resign. We stood up and said he could not do that kind of behaviour and that he had a responsibility to this House and had failed it. It did have an impact on our communities. I had a bit of skin cancer on my forehead later last year and needed to go in and get it removed. I want to thank all of the amazing health professionals who help us in these trying times. As I lay on that table having the cancer removed from my forehead, all they could talk about was the role of the Speaker in the House and how having that person, who represented something Canadians mostly stand firmly against, in the House felt like a betrayal of their Canadian identity. As I was dealing with that and having that conversation with the people performing surgery on my forehead, it really let me know that this had a profound impact on our communities in a way we perhaps do not understand and that it is really important that when we are in the House we make sure we are doing the best we can in everything we do. We understand that people make mistakes. We are human, after all, but we have to set a tone, and when that tone is broken it is important for us to stand up. It would also be remiss of me to not talk about the fact that we had a state funeral yesterday for Ed Broadbent, who was a man of such incredible character who led the NDP so fiercely in his time as leader but also just as a continuous member of this party. He always talked about basic human rights and respecting them. He also talked very often and personally to me about having integrity in the House. He said that decorum really matters, and how we treat one another really matters. I continue to do the best I can. I can have a bad day, but I continue to try to have decorum in my behaviour and respect. Although I have heckled a few times, I do not believe I have ever heckled personally against another person in this place. I may not agree with their policies and may share that louder than I should, and I have been called on it once publicly, but I try to never attack people personally because I believe that underneath, regardless of party, we are all Canadians who really believe in our country and Quebeckers who believe in their areas as well. We must always stand up to build a better and stronger community and country. I was really disappointed and totally taken aback and shocked when I saw the Speaker wearing his robes on television when he had been shown in a video at an event that was of a political nature. I found that extremely upsetting, especially after the fragility that I was feeling in this House, as the member from the Green Party said earlier, after we did something that in this place had not really been done before. It creates a sense of insecurity within our place of work because we have to figure out how to deal with something that we do not necessarily want to deal with. We also have to figure out how to articulate what that means to our constituents when it is something new that we all have to deal with. When I saw that, I was heartbroken. I felt like it was “here we go again”. We were just getting back to some normalcy and trying to move forward on things that matter to Canadians, and here we are again put in this place where the Speaker of the House is being perceived in a way that is less than what we would like to see. I will always give grace. When we are new to something, we may not know and may not think out what it could mean. However, I really hope that any of us would take a moment to think about what it means. I always make jokes about this to my husband. People invite me to lots of things, but they are not necessarily inviting Rachel. They are inviting the member of Parliament for North Island—Powell River. They acknowledge that because I have that title, I have a role to play in my riding and in this country, and they want me, in that role, to hear something so that it can be carried back to the work in this place. For a Speaker to not think about what that means, to not be careful and conscious, does concern me greatly. I am also really disappointed about something else in this debate. When something goes wrong, we have to stop making it personal and go back to the process, because the more personalized we make things, the less we focus on changing and modifying the rules so that we can have better outcomes. We know for a fact that, with respect to other Speakers, the Conservative House leader, as an example with proof, participated in a fundraising event outside of his riding. We know that other Speakers have done the same; they have participated outside. A Speaker in their riding must participate in fundraising because they have an election to run. I think we all understand that and give allowances for it. However, when they step outside of their riding, they are no longer the MP for that riding; they are the MP for that riding and the Speaker of the House. They are both of those things and that means something. I would love to see us let go of this report. This report is done. However, if we want to see some work done in PROC around what the rules are and how we will deal with them better, let us look at what other things have happened that show concern for the Speaker and how we elevate that. The Bloc Québécois whip, when I asked a question about this, said that these rules are implied and asked why they do not understand. I understand that; it makes a lot of sense. For me, it seems like an automatic thing as well. It would never occur to me to do some of the things that I have seen done. That is just my nature. However, I also understand that it is not everyone's nature. I am not going to put a lot of judgment into that. I am just going to say that it is not everyone's nature. We need clear rules that make sure we get the kind of Speaker we want in this place so that we know what to do when something untoward happens or makes us feel uncomfortable. We are not debating it in this situation, but we are looking meaningfully at the rules, reflecting on them and making recommendations so that we can change and modify these rules moving forward. It concerns me when we focus on one person, to say it again, and not the process. I want to focus on the process so we can get to a solution, because I do feel that in this place, we are losing a lot of respect for one another. I have been here over eight years. I remember speaking about things that really mattered to my riding. I come from a more rural and remote riding, and we have particular challenges that are meaningful for us. I would stand up in a speech and talk about the people in my riding and how things were impacting them. Members from other parties would say they hear the same things too, and we would begin to have conversations about what that meant and how we could work collaboratively to create a solution so that our constituents across the board were better treated and more respected and so that the policies put in place would have a better impact on our folks. We know this is a big country with a lot of different needs and a lot of different realities. Unfortunately, I do not see that anymore. I do not believe for a minute that our country is broken because I know the people of our country. I think we go through hard times and they are extremely painful and sometimes extremely unfair, but I do not believe it is broken because we in this place do not get to decide that. Our country and the people who live in it get to decide that. I really hope that as we have these debates, we remember this dignity and remember that people are asking us not to go forward and get them angry, but to go forward and find a way for us collectively to do better by them. We are here talking about the Speaker. The NDP obviously stood up and asked the previous now-resigned Speaker to resign because we saw what happened. Unfortunately, either intentionally or unintentionally, the impact was so profound that it was really affecting how people saw their country. It was affecting the perception internationally that Canada has. We needed to stand up in that moment and say that it cannot happen, because not only did it make the citizens of Canada feel uncomfortable and betrayed, but it was also having an impact on how we were seen internationally. That is our job in this place. It is our job to stand up at those moments and say we cannot abide by that. An apology simply will not do because of the depth of the betrayal. Again, I am not here to negotiate the intention. I am here only to say the impact that this has. We are now in a position where we are seeing a lot of political mistakes that I certainly hope will stop. I hope that whoever is elected to sit at any seat in this House, including the Speaker's seat, understands that their role is to support all of us to do the work to support Canadians. That has to be our fundamental goal when we are in this place. How do we support Canadians? We do not need this instability. I hope deeply that we do not see any more of that behaviour in this place, because we need a stable place to do our jobs. I do not appreciate seeing this become so personal and not about a process or policy, and we should all reflect on what we see happening. Let us not just blame but look at how we can all do better. I think about the role of a Speaker, their commitment to being impartial and not being political in the seat, and that is really important. I thank the member who is in the seat right now. I find you in particular, Madam Speaker, very fair. Sometimes I do not appreciate when you are hard on us, and I have had a few moments where you have been very firm with me, but I will deal with that because I want to know that the person sitting in the seat will provide leadership and will not use it for any other method, except to make sure this place is dealt with in a very positive way. When I look at this debate, I hope we can move on from it and see a meaningful motion tabled at PROC around reviewing what we want to see in the future, reviewing the rules we currently have and where the gaps are and understanding that we now have a society that is changing. Everything we do is eventually going to show up on a video somewhere anyway, so we better be more thoughtful about what we do in front of a camera, especially when it is planned. We should also be careful in how we speak about our party and other parties, especially if we are in the role of Speaker.

2484 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jan/29/24 5:59:00 p.m.
Watch

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Automotive Industry; the hon. member for Victoria, Oil and Gas Industry; the hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster, Carbon Pricing.

57 words

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

Jan/29/24 5:59:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I know the member listened to my comments already in regard to this debate. Not to take anything away from the importance of the institution and the role the Speaker plays, but she raised an interesting point that I picked up on and I would like her to expand on it. There is nothing to prevent the procedure and House affairs committee from setting its agenda to review a wide spectrum of different issues. If in fact there is a need for opposition parties or any member of the government to look further into X, Y or Z, that opportunity is there because, quite frankly, it is a majority of members who make the determination as to what PROC will look at. Could the member expand on that? From my perspective, there is no such thing as a perfect human being. Mistakes do happen and there has been a great deal of remorse demonstrated. Recommendations, from I understand, have been fulfilled. Could she provide her thoughts in regard to PROC and its potential agenda in the future without—

181 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jan/29/24 6:00:46 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for North Island—Powell River.

9 words

Ms. Rachel Blaney

Jan/29/24 6:00:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that there have been expressions of remorse. I just want to start there. However, what I am really looking for are actions to follow them. I would hate to be in a position again where we have to ask the Speaker to resign. I am hopeful, very hesitantly hopeful, that we will see ongoing respect of that office in a way that will make us all feel comfortable. As to the other part of his question, yes, I think it is up to PROC. I was a member of PROC for many years and I know that it is an important committee. It is the mother committee. I think this is relevant. It should be brought up, and there is a different mechanism to bring forward this really important issue. I am not on PROC right now, so I do not know everything it is studying off the top of my head. However, I think it is also very important that in this place we do not decide in this context what the committee should be doing. That is really up to the committee to decide.

190 words

All Topics

Mr. Frank Caputo (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC)

Jan/29/24 6:01:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. Before I begin my comment for my hon. colleague, I would like to recognize the life of former city councillor John DeCicco, who passed away during our break. May perpetual light shine upon Mr. DeCicco. I wish his family all the best in this difficult time. I went to school with his son. He did a number of great things. I listened with great interest to my colleague's speech. We got to know each other at the veterans affairs committee and I respect her quite a bit. She was very truthful about her decorum in this place. I have seen with all parties that perhaps sometimes things get out of hand. We have all made mistakes. One question I have for her is with regard to her capacity as a whip. Are the exhortations she makes to this House something she is prepared to extend to her party as well? Every party needs improvement in this area.

178 words

All Topics

Ms. Rachel Blaney

Jan/29/24 6:03:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am so sorry to hear of the passing in the member's community. It is always hard to lose a community leader in our areas. It is good to appreciate them and of course their tremendous loved ones, who support them so much. As a whip, I know that we all struggle with trying to support the Speaker in providing as much decorum as possible. I have had many challenges, both in my party and outside of my party, trying to figure out how to do that. I will continue to work with my party, as I have since 2019 when I became the whip, to make sure that if our members do heckle, they do not make personal attacks and I have chats with them.

129 words

All Topics