SoVote

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

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

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

Jan/29/24 6:04:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it goes without saying that the office of Speaker is a difficult one to occupy. One reason is that, if I am not mistaken, the rules state that the Speaker must leave his caucus and must even cancel his membership in the party. I am not sure about this, but it is what I have been told. The member made some interesting suggestions about the office, but we still have to deal with the case before us. A study was done, but facts have since come to light that we did not know at the time. Does my colleague find it interesting that the Speaker chose not to make those facts known when he was on the spot because of the previous facts?

125 words

All Topics

Ms. Rachel Blaney

Jan/29/24 6:04:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think all of this is peculiar, to be quite honest. This is a very trying time for us, and it is a very internal process. However, it is very legitimate because we have to make sure that as we do our work, we have people who are in certain roles that provide a good context for us to move forward. What I would say is that I still see the personal attack that is happening. It is not that I agree with the behaviour; that is not what I am saying at all in my speech and in my time here. What I am saying is that we have proof that other Speakers in the role have done similar activities. The member has asked me whether the Speaker should have said this or that. If other Speakers, at different times, have done the same thing he was doing, then why would he think it was something he had to confess? That is the problem. The process, not the person, is the problem. That does not mean I agree with the person. It means that we have to do better in this place, to have rules or clarity or a process of training for new Speakers. I am not sure what the answer is. That is really up to the committee, if it chooses to make that study.

230 words

All Topics

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

Jan/29/24 6:06:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I know this is difficult for all of us. I want to reflect on how the Green Party handled the previous controversy, which we found egregious. The hon. member for Nipissing—Timiskaming was in the wrong, accepted responsibility and stepped down. We are the only party in this place that did not call for his resignation. It was difficult. I hugely respect the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby. I remember the sort of intake of breath and the shock when I heard him say we thought the hon. Speaker must resign. I think it is a very dangerous thing, and it gets worse. I take the point from the hon. member for North Island—Powell River that it gets worse not just when it is personal but also when it becomes partisan. It is very difficult in this place to say that we have gotten over any sense of partisanship. I go back to Lucien Lamoureux, and of course in those days, in the 1960s, one was not elected as Speaker. He chose to leave his caucus while serving as Speaker. That is not uncommon. However, he chose to run for re-election in his riding as an independent. Two major parties stood down so he could do that. Strangely enough, it was the NDP candidate who ran against him. When he ran for re-election the second time when he was Speaker, he still ran as an independent. Nobody stepped down, and he still won. However, unless we are prepared to make those kinds of concessions, that no one ever runs again as other than an independent, we will always have the risk of partisanship, and if—

285 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jan/29/24 6:07:47 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for North Island—Powell River.

9 words

Ms. Rachel Blaney

Jan/29/24 6:07:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this is the important debate that does need to happen. We do have to find a space where we are outside partisanship, where we think, from an all-party perspective, as a place that needs to function, how we do this in the best way, moving forward. It is hard to step out of partisanship. What I would hope is that as parties, we all think very carefully about whom we send to certain committees when we are having those kinds of debates. We would like them to be as non-partisan as possible so we can actually have a meaningful debate and create rules that fit for all of us.

113 words

All Topics

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Jan/29/24 6:08:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the health care workers who supported the member through her difficult journey last month. The member talked about where this debate should take place. We know PROC has been seized with this issue. Here we are with another concurrence motion. I am not saying that this is not an important issue, but I am wondering where the debate should take place. We had concurrence motions before Christmas. I have been trying to table a petition in support of volunteer firefighters and search and rescue since early December, and the House has been seized with concurrence motions. We have not been able to table an e-petition that has been signed by over 16,000 people from rural Canada who cite that this is important. Are we going to get to that business? How are we going to get there?

145 words

All Topics