SoVote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jan/29/24 7:09:54 p.m.
Watch

There seem to be some conversations going on at the other end that are disturbing the speakers in the House. I would ask members, including the minister, to please step out to the lobby and have their conversation there. The hon. member for Bay of Quinte.

46 words