44th Parl. 1st Sess.
January 29, 2024 11:00AM
- Jan/29/24 4:26:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for North Island—Powell River, I also take my earpiece out, not because it is loud, but because I quite frankly do not want to hear what the other side has to say.
This is an important issue, because it speaks to the confidence the House has in the Speaker to make objective rulings in a non-partisan manner. My expectation, and I am sure that of my colleague in the Bloc, is that the Speaker is to make those rulings in an objective, non-partisan manner, but the activities of partisanship and the continued bad judgment speak to a real problem.
My question is a pointed one. Does the hon. member have confidence in the Speaker to be objective and non-partisan and to act in the manner they should as they take that chair?
143 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/29/24 4:31:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I did not say anything of the kind. I will continue.
There are two fundamental rules for a good Speaker: good judgment and non-partisanship. What I am saying is that between the time when the report was tabled and today, new information has come to light. That is why the Bloc Québécois thinks that we should redo the work.
I have a question for my colleague. At the meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, was there an opportunity for the Speaker to do the honourable thing? Did he have an opportunity to do that?
105 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
