SoVote

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

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

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

Ms. Rachel Blaney

Jan/29/24 6:09:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I hope we do get to petitions today. It would certainly be timely. We have seen a lot of concurrence motions, and it is important for us to reflect on the purpose of them and whether they are actually helping us help Canadians. At the end of the day, I know that I and my NDP colleagues really want to make life better for Canadians, so I hope we can all find a space to do that here.

80 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jan/29/24 6:09:55 p.m.
Watch

Before I go to the next Speaker, I want to indicate the hon. member for Perth—Wellington's amendment, which was seconded by the member for Barrie—Innisfil, is in order. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

43 words

All Topics

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

Jan/29/24 6:10:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will start by saying I find the character assassination of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Conservatives and the Bloc is extremely troubling. The reason I say that is that, unlike a politician who is assigned to a political party and actively participates in a political party, the Speaker of the House of Commons, quite honestly, does not have the ability to give their side of the story. The Speaker of the House of Commons has to remain neutral even in a time when there is an attempt to assassinate his character, which is exactly what is going on. I find it extremely troubling that once again, and we thought we had dealt with this matter in the fall, the Bloc and the Conservatives, for their own reasons that I will mention shortly, are just absolutely insistent that they do whatever they can to destroy the reputation of the Speaker of the House of Commons. They have their motives, and I will get to what I think those are in a second. What did the Speaker do when he recognized he made a mistake? The Speaker came before the House, apologized to the House, accepted that what he did was wrong, and left it at that. This is because that is all he can do quite frankly. I learned a lesson very early on in my municipal political career, which was that one does not attack the staff. We do not attack the people who support us, the people who are there to give us advice and opinions, because they do not have the vehicle to defend themselves. They do not have the ability, the voice, that a sitting member has to defend themselves. It is the same reason we do not attack the table officers. I regret to say I have seen it happen in the House that they have been shouted at. However, we do not go after them, because they do not have an ability to defend themselves. When we elect a Speaker, we ask the Speaker to be as impartial as the table officers. The Speaker right now has to be subjected to all of this and does not have an opportunity to give their side of the story. However, what he did do was apologize. Another Speaker was basically being accused of the same thing, or was being accused of being partisan. Members already know which Speaker it was; it was the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. On September 24, 2014, he said, “Another of our time-honoured traditions is that of respect for the office of Speaker. O'Brien and Bosc, at page 313, state that ‘Reflections on the character or actions of the Speaker—an allegation of bias, for example—could be taken by the House as breeches of privilege and punished accordingly.’” That is how the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle dealt with similar accusations: Threats of breaches of his parliamentary privilege. This is not what we see from the current Speaker. The current Speaker accepted his faults, apologized for his faults and asked forgiveness. The Bloc is going to tell us now, as its members have been saying today, that it just wants to calmly say that it wants a full investigation into this to look into the new information. How are we being so unreasonable? The Bloc members want to paint a picture of their having just shown up on the scene and of being the arbiters of good versus evil, of partisan versus non-partisan. Let us not forget that it was the Bloc Québécois, on day number one, before the issue went to PROC and before anybody had an opportunity to discuss this matter, that was calling on the Speaker's resignation. As a matter of fact, and I remember it vividly, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle came out here to stand on a point of order. I am pretty sure he thought it was going to end at that, which is that the Speaker had made an error. Then the Bloc Québécois stood up and demanded that the Speaker resign. Not to be outdone, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle sprinted back into the House and said that he too called for his resignation. The Bloc Québécois has been leading this charge from day one. Its members sat there through committee and have had the debates in the House, and now they are here. Why are they doing it? They are doing it for political opportunity. They are doing it for the exact same reason that the Conservatives have jumped on the same bandwagon. They see opportunity in Quebec to take Liberal seats by showing that there is chaos within the Liberal Party. That is their sole reason. Everybody knows it; it is as clear as day and very obvious. The Conservatives just do not want to be outdone by the Bloc. They are fighting for those seats too, so they are pulling the same moves, trying to trump up and over-exaggerate allegations. I represent the riding that Peter Milliken once represented. I knew Peter Milliken in my time as a city councillor and before that. I am very aware of what the longest-serving Speaker of the House of Commons did in our riding and perhaps the one or two neighbouring ridings, what he deemed to be acceptable and what he did not. As a matter of fact, there is a CTV article from August 25, 2015, ironically written by Jordan Press when he was with the Canadian Press, a Queen's grad and a former reporter with The Kingston Whig-Standard. I will read what he wrote on what Peter Milliken had to say on that: Peter Milliken, the longest-serving Speaker in Canadian history, didn't attend the Liberal party's weekly caucus meetings, nor did he go to party conventions. During elections, he didn't attend any events where Liberal leaders stumped for votes, believing it would be “inappropriate” to be in attendance.... Milliken said the trick to campaigning as Speaker is to avoid taking stands on federal policy issues: You can say what your party's position is on a particular topic, but you don't express a position on a topic on which the party hasn't taken a stand. The same rule doesn't apply to local issues—only national ones, he said. Milliken also said he avoided attending any events where the Liberal leader was stumping for votes, believing it was “inappropriate” given how he tried to keep a firewall between him and the party.... [The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle], however, opted to attend Harper's event at a farm outside Regina where many of his supporters were in attendance to hear from the Conservative leader. Thus, while the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle was the Speaker of the House of Commons, while he was threatening MPs not to challenge his non-partisanship over the possibility of breaching his privilege, he was attending events where Stephen Harper was showing up for campaign events. The double standards are endless, and I have more examples. We can go to the Regina—Qu'Appelle Conservative Association: “Back by popular demand. Cigar and Scotch tasting, $175 per person. Dinner and shooting that will be held at the Regina—Qu'Appelle skeet shoot and dinner event.” This was not during a writ period; it was in advance that. The member will argue that away by saying, “Well, it was my riding, and so it was okay.” However, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle has countless violations. He hired his sister-in-law, in the Speaker's office, by the way, whom he then had to fire after the press found out about it. The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle shifted cash to a Tory campaign smeared in the robocall scandal. This is the same individual who then had to preside over those deliberations after the election where the robocall scandal came out. It turned out that his riding was the one giving money for the robocalls into Guelph, and he presided over it. However, do not dare question his impartiality, because if we do, we are breaching his privilege. He did not waste any time making sure members knew about that, as I previously indicated. The House Speaker, referring to the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, on December 14, 2011, used a firm linked to the Cotler calls, which were the calls that went out to say that Irwin Cotler had resigned. As well, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle broke Parliament's rules by filming a partisan video in his office, and that was not even that long ago. When I thought we were having the last debate on this, on the very last sitting day prior to the break, I referenced a tweet that the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle had put out the day before. On December 14, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle said, in reference to what was going on with the member for Hull—Aylmer, the Speaker of the House of Commons, “It’s all 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.” The next day, on December 15, just over a month ago, I said: I know that yesterday the member tweeted out an explanation as to why it was okay for him to attend a political campaign fundraiser in his own riding and suggested that it is okay to do it in one's own riding but not outside one's own riding. I am wondering if the member can just expand a bit on that and inform us why it would be okay in their own riding if they are the Speaker, but not another riding outside their riding. The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle responded to my question by saying: Madam Speaker, that is a great question. I appreciate the friendly question from the member from Kingston because there is a very important difference and it really does change the nature of it. Speakers have always had to run under party banners. Until the day comes when parties have a convention or agreement that we will not run candidates against the Speaker, the Speaker has to go into an election and has to have signs and pamphlets and organize volunteer meetings. There has never been an expectation that a Speaker would cease partisan activities in that nature for their own re-election. Previous Speakers have done that for decades. In fact, the previous Speaker, the member for Nipissing—Timiskaming, made a government announcement in his riding for government funding. Nobody objected to that because it was clear that he was communicating to his own constituents. He was talking about the work that he does as a member of Parliament and informing his constituents as to a government decision in his riding. We were aware that the former Speaker had made that announcement, but that did not offend members of Parliament because it was in his own riding. The same is true for partisan fundraising activity. That is very important. The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle told me in this House that the same can be true for partisan funding activities and members should be doing them only in their own ridings, according to him. The problem is that in 2015, the member for Regina—Wascana, which is a neighbouring riding, not the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle's riding and not the Speaker's riding, long before the election, as this was in May and the writ period did not start until August, and the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle attended a $100-a-person fundraising event. The Regina—Wascana Conservative EDA was pleased to invite them to a private networking event with the now Leader of the Opposition, the member of Parliament for Carleton, on Tuesday, May 19, at 6:30 p.m. This event was taking place in a member's home; therefore, space was very limited. They fully expected the event to sell out, and tickets were $100. Posted on May 21, days later, is a picture that has the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, the member for Regina—Wascana and the now Leader of the Opposition standing next to each other, and the member for Regina—Wascana had a caption under the picture that said that on Tuesday evening he was joined by the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle and the hon. member for Carleton at the wine and cheese event hosted by the Regina—Wascana Conservative Party EDA, and that it was a great night of discussion and fellowship. We have the Conservatives trying to use this, in my opinion, for nothing more than political chaos and political gain. The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle knows full well the countless violations that his standard would have applied to him when he was Speaker, but, for some reason, there is absolutely no shame in his approach when he makes the demands that he is making on the current Speaker of the House, who, by the way, as I said when I started my speech, acknowledged his error, apologized and asked for forgiveness. I have told members how the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle dealt with similar scenarios. He threatened parliamentary privilege upon people if they continued to challenge his potentially biased nature while sitting in that chair. What message are we sending to people? What message does this send to our children? If someone apologizes and asks for forgiveness, they are going to get doubled down on by the Conservatives and the Bloc. They are going to go after them even harder. They see them as weak now. They see them as a political target. They see them as somebody they can exploit for political gain. That is all that is happening. That is what has happened with this issue from the beginning. It is how it started, with the Bloc outdoing the Conservatives. It is completely how this was conducted in PROC. It is how this is being conducted now. There is just absolutely no sense of being able to rectify, no sense that somebody has made an apology, that somebody has said they will attempt to do better and has owned up to their mistakes, which is exactly what we are seeing. Instead, we hear from the Bloc, who are now saying that new information has come to light because the Speaker was at a provincial Liberal volunteer event. I listened with interest when the Bloc spoke earlier, because Bloc members kept repeating two fallacies. They referred to it as a fundraiser. It was not. It was a volunteer appreciation event. They also said it set a precedent. It certainly does not set a precedent. The only thing that has set a precedent with respect to this issue is the manner in which the Bloc and the Conservatives are treating it. The precedent was set, most likely, long before the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, but it certainly was a precedent that he upheld, because he continued to act in a manner that he now deems as being completely inappropriate. The Bloc wants us to believe that if we set this precedent now, it changes everything going into the future. I have news for the Bloc. This is not precedent-setting. Just so we are absolutely clear on this issue, the Bloc Québécois takes great exception, suddenly, to the Speaker going to a volunteer appreciation event at an Ontario Liberal event. I do not know how it works in Quebec. Maybe the federal Bloc Québécois and its provincial counterparts all get together, but I can tell members that in Ontario, the Ontario Liberals and the federal Liberals are two completely separate entities. We see each other at Christmastime, in my riding anyhow, and say hello and shake hands. In any event, it really offends the Bloc that the Speaker went to a provincial riding association volunteer appreciation event, but somehow the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle going to a $100-a-person fundraiser at the equivalent federal-level riding association next door to his, which he had to pay money to go to, is somehow a non-issue. Do not worry about it. It happened so long ago that it does not even matter anymore, I guess. No, that is not what this is about. It is not about the Bloc comparing the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle to the Speaker now. It is not about the Bloc Québécois comparing the present Speaker to any other Speaker. It is about a character assassination by the Bloc Québécois. That is what this is. Bloc members want to stir up political turmoil, and they are seizing their opportunity. That is all that this is.

2914 words

All Topics

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Jan/29/24 6:29:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the accusations that we just heard are absolutely ridiculous. The whip of the Bloc Québécois respectfully presented the issue earlier. This is not personal matter. It is a matter of confidence. That is what the member for Kingston and the Islands does not seem to understand or does not want to understand. I think it is the latter. He is saying that we asked the Speaker to resign. Yes, we did, because members' confidence in him had been undermined. A Speaker must be absolutely impartial in their duties. That is essential for the democratic institution in which we work. People can accuse the Bloc Québécois of many things in this federal Parliament, but they can never accuse us of not having respect for institutions. We are asking to proceed in this way in order to defend this institution. Because confidence was undermined, we agreed to participate in the study in good faith. We were not very satisfied with the outcome. Everyone knows that, because we wrote a dissenting opinion. Other facts came to light afterward, facts that should have been disclosed during the study. It was incomplete. This is not personal. The study is incomplete and absolutely has to be completed. By the same token, we also need to clarify the rules so this does not happen again, as my NDP colleagues suggested. Just saying that someone else did the same thing does not make it all okay. If a police officer gives me a ticket and I say that someone else did the same thing I did, the officer will give me the ticket anyway. We will eventually stop going back 25 years.

284 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Jan/29/24 6:31:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not know if the member from the Bloc knows what we are debating right now. What he just said that the NDP are asking for is in the concurrence motion. We are going to vote in favour of it. I voted in favour of it at PROC. I am fully aware of the concurrence motion. To set standards for the Speaker is exactly what is in there. The member suggests that the Bloc members came here with good intentions, and in a nice, calm way their whip said what they really think should be done. That would hold a lot more water if they had not been hell-bent on demanding the resignation of the Speaker. From the first opportunity they sniffed a little blood, they started circling around like a group of sharks looking to pounce on the Speaker. That is all that happened. The member knows it.

153 words

All Topics

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

Jan/29/24 6:32:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. Before I begin, I want to recognize a constituent who passed away during the break. His name was John Gnitt. I owe a debt of gratitude to John, because when I was a brand-new lawyer, opening up my own firm, he gave me my first set of robes, which any lawyer out there knows are quite expensive. My deepest condolences to his family, and may perpetual light shine upon him. My question for my hon. colleague is this. I have seen the member make a big deal out of small things and out of some things bigger than others. I wonder, if the shoe was on the other foot and if this was a Conservative Speaker, would he not be similarly calling for his or her resignation? History tends to repeat itself, so I wonder whether he would believe this if he was in the same position.

168 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Jan/29/24 6:33:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I grew up in my riding with the Speaker of the House of Commons being someone I saw all the time. I am aware of what the Speaker of the House of Commons does in their riding and region. I think that is a fair question to ask on any other issue, because I quite often ask myself, “How I would act if I was on the other side of this?” Believe it or not, I have the ability to self-reflect from time to time. However, I will say that I am very confident in my position on this issue, because I literally grew up watching Peter Milliken. I watched him from the time I was in high school. I watched him as a member of Parliament and a Speaker of the House of Commons. I saw what he did. I saw how he engaged. I saw what his role was like in this House, and I believe I am on the right side of this.

171 words

All Topics

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Jan/29/24 6:34:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked a bit earlier about the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, who also was a Speaker and broke the rules but who is now coming forward in the House, which is the height of hypocrisy. My colleague from Hamilton stated that earlier as he moved a motion at the ethics committee to have the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle come and testify, because that member also broke the rules, not only when he was the Speaker but also when he was a member of Parliament, using parliamentary resources to support his candidate from Oxford in a partisan way. My comment is this. If the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle is calling for the resignation of the Speaker, should he also resign if the Speaker resigns? That would be my question for the member. Also, does he support the three items we have identified in the report?

153 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Jan/29/24 6:35:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I support the report, and I did at committee along with the NDP. I certainly support it here. There are some good recommendations in here. Who would want to be Speaker now? Honestly, who would now want to sit in that chair knowing they cannot defend themselves when accusations are brought against them? The most they could do would be to say that they are sorry. If they do that, by the way, they should expect to be looked at and perceived as being weak while people pounce on them and look for even more blood to extract. We are in a really interesting position right now. It is important that we define what those rules are, so I certainly support the motion. I apologize to the member, but I forgot the first half of his question.

139 words

All Topics

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

Jan/29/24 6:36:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, could the member comment on the fact that we are having a concurrence motion? We had this debate for hours in December. It went to committee and was studied. We got the recommendations. A majority supported the recommendations. Today, I look to my constituents and think about what they want us to talk about in the House, which is the reality of what is happening in our communities across this land. There are issues such as inflation, affordability, the need for investments and the types of things government is doing to support Canadians. That is actually what we were supposed to be debating today: the fall economic statement. Could the member provide his thoughts on that?

118 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Jan/29/24 6:36:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, by using similar tactics, the Conservatives did not let us vote on the last fall economic statement until June 2023. It was almost summer by the time they finally let us vote on it. When we are wondering why we have not passed the fall economic statement, and when Conservatives get up to rhetorically wonder why that is in March, April and May, I hope they remember this moment and, undoubtedly, so many more moments like this to follow. It has just become a procedural tactic that is now also being utilized by the Bloc Québécois. There are very important things in the fall economic statement, things that actually mean something to people and could significantly change people's lives. However, rather than actually help people, which is the reason we are here, Conservatives and Bloc members would rather just create controversy and turmoil, sometimes where it does not even exist, because it will slow things down. Their priorities do not lie with Canadians. Their priorities lie with their political futures.

177 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jan/29/24 6:38:07 p.m.
Watch

The member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for a brief question.

11 words

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

Jan/29/24 6:38:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it will be hard to keep this short, because what we have been hearing for the past little while is really fascinating. The main thing that fascinates me is hearing a member who did not listen to the speech by my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît because he was too busy talking. We could hear him from over here. He was not listening. Then he makes a big show of being offended and upset. He just told us that he does not like it when we look at things too closely. He said that no one would want to be Speaker because they would be scrutinized. Being scrutinized is called democracy and parliamentarianism. That is quite an admission from the Liberals. He is still talking. He is not listening. He should take a moment to listen. It might do him some good. I do not know at what point someone decides to leave their critical judgment at the door just to engage in full-time partisanship, to be a partisan machine. What is the point of saying that because the Conservatives did it in the past, we have the right to do the same thing and wash our hands of it? What kind of argument is that?

211 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Jan/29/24 6:39:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member should review Hansard. In the exact same question where he said I did not listen, he also said that I said I did not like it. I had to have listened to it if I was going to make a comment. I am sorry that the member does not like the fact that I disagree with him, because I do disagree with him. I disagree with the intentions that he sets out. I disagree with the intentions of his whip. I disagree with the intentions of the Bloc on this. I think they are motivated, not by replacing the Speaker because they think it is the “right” thing to do, but I think they are motivated by political reasons only.

126 words

All Topics

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Jan/29/24 6:39:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House today. Before I get to the subject at hand, I want to acknowledge a tragic anniversary. Today is the seven-year anniversary of the Quebec mosque shooting, a horrible act of Islamophobic violence in our country. I want to extend my condolences to the families and the members of that community who are still dealing with the pain of that, to all those throughout the country who have been profoundly affected by that event and to those who are deeply concerned about Islamophobia today. I had many conversations today with members of the Muslim community about the challenge of present Islamophobia and about some of the escalating tension and division we are seeing in our society. In the course of those conversations, I had an opportunity to reflect a little on the importance of integrity. When we are looking at difficult issues, issues that may be contentious within or between different communities, what people are looking for from their politicians is integrity. That is to be a fully integrated person and to be the same consistent person, regardless of where one is and regardless of what group one is speaking to. It is very important for us in the Conservative Party to act with integrity. If we speak to one group and deliver a message in that group, and if we then speak to another group perhaps with a different perspective, then we nonetheless deliver the same message. We stand for the same things, and we believe the same things and we are the same things, regardless of who we are with or who we are talking to. We do not change who we are, how we describe our convictions or what we say our policies are depending on who we are talking to, but we are leaders with integrity. One thing that is really driving some of the tension and confusion around the government's position is that, on some of the critical issues facing our country and the world, we see very clearly an absence of integrity. We have a government that, on certain issues, has a strategy to say different things to different groups of Canadians and to try to sell them the message they want to hear. Reflecting on this issue of what integrity means and why it is so important is what brings us to this discussion today, a discussion about an action taken by the Speaker. Following a decision by the Bloc to move this motion, we are debating a concurrence motion on a report by PROC, the procedure and House affairs committee, that deals with the conduct of the Speaker. It responds to a series of incidents involving the Speaker acting in a partisan way that is contrary to what is appropriate to the office. The largest incident, the most prominent incident, was a video recorded of the Speaker wearing the Speaker's robes in the Speaker's chamber, speaking in a partisan fashion and identifying himself with a political party. When he was caught for doing that, he provided an explanation, a challenging explanation, and then, subsequently, there have been other points or revelations brought up of the Speaker acting in a partisan way. I think what we would expect from the Speaker and what we need from the Speaker is to have confidence that there is a consistency, an integrity, in his or her, as the case may be, presentation and that, as they are in a role that requires non-partisanship, they would be consistent in demonstrating that non-partisanship. Again, regardless of what room they are in or who is in the room, the Speaker would act with that kind of consistency. It is clear that this particular Speaker comes to the position with a history of partisan activity, but we would have expected that to be put aside when he took on that role, and that has not happened. This led, close to but not quite, a majority of members of the House to take the position that we needed to have a new Speaker. The reason the committee, in the end, did not recommend a new Speaker is that, ironically, the committee divided along partisan lines. When the governing coalition of New Democrats and Liberals says that it endorses the Speaker's continuing in his role, a role that has included his acting in a partisan way, and then the two real opposition parties say that they do not have confidence in the Speaker, that underlines the problem. When the Speaker's position is a point of partisan cleavage, that illustrates the problem that the Speaker is in fact no longer able to identify as a non-partisan representative of the whole House. However, in a way, the Liberals' taking the position that they did is not particularly surprising. We have a Speaker in his robes, speaking at a Liberal Party event, who was then supported by the Liberal Party in continuing in his position. Obviously, there was a problem at the end with the last Speaker, but I will give the last Speaker credit for making a very important ruling that went against what the government wanted and that protected the prerogatives of the House right before the last election. The previous Speaker demonstrated integrity in that ruling by applying the precedent and by defending the prerogatives of the House even when the government likely did not want him to. Therefore, after his resignation, when he took the fall for something that the government bears a substantial amount of responsibility, a Speaker came in who had a history of much more partisan positioning. The partisan Liberals have supported the continuation of a Speaker who engaged in partisan Liberal activity while in his office. This is unfortunate and is not defensible from a view to grand principle, but it is understandable based on past behaviour of the Liberal Party. What is perplexing is what the NDP members have in mind. Not just in this case but across the board, we have seen how the New Democratic Party is defending and protecting the Liberals from scandal prosecution. Why would the coalition partner of the government be so eager to always provide cover for a scandal-plagued Liberal Party? That is a question that is harder to explain. The NDP, for a long time now, has been supporting Liberal cover-ups, supporting the adjournment of committee meetings that are looking into scandals and preventing questions of privilege from proceeding to the House when the privileges of a committee have been violated in terms of their requests for documents. We have seen how, time and time again, when Conservatives have tried to probe Liberal scandals, Liberals have been able to rely on their cover-up coalition cousins in the corner to block those investigations. We saw this again in this particular case with the Speaker. I have been talking about integrity, about saying the same thing regardless of where one is and about presenting oneself in a consistent fashion in different environments. Far from this vision of integrity, the New Democrats have themselves twisted up into knots because they now want, for electoral reasons, to be seen to be challenging the government. They want to talk tough on the government. We heard the NDP leader's question today. He was trying to sound very tough and was asking why the current government has not done more on homelessness? He has an opportunity to oppose the government, to express his non-confidence, if he does not have confidence in how it has handled the homelessness challenge or other problems facing our country. We gave the NDP leader hundreds of opportunities in the fall to express his lack of confidence in the government if he was so willing, but he was not. The NDP is increasingly trying to perform in a tough way while, on every occasion when it counts, providing a blank cheque to the Liberal government, helping to cover up its corruption, and supporting its confidence and supply measures as it persists in showing flagrant disregard for the concerns of Canadians. The NDP brings forward motions at committee asking the government to do things that it did not include in its confidence and supply agreement with the government. It says that the situation is unacceptable, yet it continues to preserve the status quo through its blank cheque coalition with the Liberals. Most critically, when it comes to the issues of scandal and corruption we are discussing today, the NDP consistently stands with the Liberals in helping them do those cover-ups. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Mr. Garnett Genuis: Madam Speaker, I invite the member across the way to heckle a little louder, and I will respond. I cannot quite—

1471 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jan/29/24 6:51:41 p.m.
Watch

I want to remind members that, if they have questions and comments, they should wait until the appropriate time to do that. The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

31 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Jan/29/24 6:51:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is good to hear from the member—

11 words

All Topics