SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 318 - May/27/24

May/27/24 5:53:49 p.m.
Watch

No, we cannot underline whether someone is here or is not. The quorum call is as much as we can do. The hon. member, being a learned member of here and the Manitoba legislature, should know full well he is not allowed to do that. The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

53 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

May/27/24 5:54:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech that my colleague for Trois-Rivières gave previously. Not to suggest the presence or absence of any members, I would hope that all members take this very seriously. What we are talking about here is at the very foundation of, and the need to be able to trust in, our democratic institutions. At committee the other day, I had the opportunity to talk a little bit about the importance of that process. When it comes to the ballot, the election and the necessity of making sure every Canadian has that opportunity during a general election to go into that voting booth and mark a ballot, it is essential that there be trust in every step of that process. However, some things have been called into question. There have been instances of election interference, including the Communist dictatorship in Beijing pressuring members of the Chinese diaspora in Canada to vote in a certain direction. It is essential to ensure that we do everything we can to protect our democracy, and likewise in this place. When the role of the Speaker was first contemplated in the 1300s in the United Kingdom, in the early years of the establishment of Westminster democracy, there was a deep understanding of the need for a moderating voice, so that there could be parley, so that we could have discussions and debate as opposed to simply fighting wars. The carpets are still green in the people's House of Commons. The Speaker plays an important role in that process, as it is his or her responsibility to facilitate that. I talk about trust when it comes to ballots in a general election and how essential it is for each and every Canadian to have that opportunity to cast a ballot. That is, by extension, passed on to this place. Each and every member of Parliament has to be able to trust the institution. Each one of us has to navigate the circumstances of politics and partisanship, while also ensuring that we serve every constituent. I have been vocal in support of the first-past-the-post system because of its simplicity and its legacy within the Westminster system. However, when constituents walk through my office door, I have never asked who they voted for. The expectation is that I will serve them and their needs and help them with casework. We may not always agree. In fact, there are many instances where I do not agree with individuals across my constituency, but never once would I put at risk that sacred obligation that I have to serve all of the people that I represent. When there was discussion surrounding the establishment of a more formal role of Speaker, there was the acknowledgement that there had to be that moderating presence within the House of Commons to ensure that debates could take place, and for a moderating presence that could be trusted by both those who had the ability to make a change and those who would make up what we now know as the opposition; so government and opposition. Although it was not quite as formalized in those early days, and quite often ended up being the presence that pushed against, not necessarily a government, in the sense of a political party having won an election, but rather the direction that the Crown was moving the country, there had to be that voice that could be trusted by all. However, there are instances throughout the history of the Westminster system where that has not always been the case, but we have been able to build upon that history to the point where it highlights how important the role that the occupant of that chair plays. It is not just in terms of the debate. That is a big part of it and that is what people see. For all of us in this place, that makes up a significant portion of the time Canadians get to know MPs, whether it be from question period, debates or the symbols that are associated with this. However, the foundation of it is trust. The privileges of members have been violated an unprecedented number of times. I have not yet had the opportunity to look into the specifics, but there have been many questions of privilege that have been raised in the current Parliament that call into question many things. I will get to the troubling correlation that I see with that and the leadership that is attempting to guide our country right now, but Conservatives see how the sacred trust of the individual who sits in the chair as Speaker has been called into question. It is not for dislike of the individual. Many of us will have fights about policy and differences of opinion. In fact, I get so frustrated when I quite often hear my Liberal and NDP colleagues say that they are doing what is best for Canada and anybody who opposes them is wrong or is un-Canadian or something to that effect. That is not only insulting to me as a parliamentarian and representative of the people of Battle River—Crowfoot, but speaks to how we have to ensure that we take so seriously the obligation that we have as members of Parliament. There has been a series of examples, and if this was the first instance, a beginner's mistake, I would understand that. I would hope that I and many others would take seriously the need to allow someone to grow in the role, but I am so concerned that this is a trend that seems to have continued over the course of the last number of months. Further to that point, these are the public instances where we are seeing a lack of impartiality. I have heard from constituents who have called that into question in other instances that have not necessarily made media attention. Part of the sacred trust that is required for the chair occupant is that every parliamentarian needs to be able to trust that it is not only the words that are said while the Speaker takes his place in the throne at the front of Parliament, but every decision that the Speaker makes in the undertaking of those duties and many of the questions associated with that. For example, there were questions asked by the Speaker's chief of staff to the clerk to clear this in advance. There were questions asked about whether this would be appropriate. There has been a host of other concerns raised in terms of whether that partisanship can happen. We have the erosion of the ability of MPs to trust that the decisions the Speaker is making are, in fact, impartial and ultimately serve the interests of the institutions, which is what best serves, full stop, the interests of parliamentarians and, ultimately, Canadians. I will conclude with this. One of the concerns that I certainly highlighted in the discussion after the previous Speaker's resignation, when there did not seem to be many Liberals running to the previous Speaker's defence, and who was taken to court by the Prime Minister, is that we see excuses being made. We see members quick to jump to their defence saying it is sorted, but it is not their fault. I would suggest that the Prime Minister and the leadership that he has presided over during the course of the last nine or so years has led to an erosion of trust in the very foundation of our democratic institutions. As a result, I would suggest that we have to all take it upon ourselves to so diligently rebuild that trust that has been broken. If we do not, my fear is that so many Canadians will stop seeing themselves represented by those who take their seats in this place, and that would be an absolute travesty. We need to take this issue seriously. We need to ensure that we restore trust and, ultimately, ensure that the Speaker is able to operate in an impartial manner.

1351 words

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

May/27/24 6:03:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like for people to do a comparison. Imagine the opposition House leader being the Speaker in Parliament and attending a Conservative fundraiser. What did the Conservative members back then say? There was not a word, zero. Looking at what was said, the Liberal Party of Canada admitted it made the mistake, not the Speaker, and fully apologized, and now the Conservatives are demanding that the Speaker be censured and kicked out of office. The question I have for Conservatives is why they are questioning this particular Speaker, but were not prepared to question the ethical misjudgments of their current House leader when he was Speaker. A lot of people are very suspicious as to why the Conservatives are really doing this.

125 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

May/27/24 6:04:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that more Liberals are not seized with this debate because I suspect their opinion is like that of the many within the benches of the opposition who have seen this troubling erosion of trust. The reason I can say that confidently is because I have been hearing increasingly from constituents of Liberal members who are saying that they have lost trust in the ability for the government to listen to its people. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Mr. Damien Kurek: Mr. Speaker, the member is heckling that she doubts it, but I believe there is even an email in my inbox from someone in the city of Waterloo. My question to all Liberal MPs is whether they care about power first or the institutions to which we should all serve? When it comes to the issue we are debating here today, as the old saying goes, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” We have seen this pattern repeated time and time again, and it is too bad that the Liberals seem so desperate to hang on to power that they refuse to acknowledge how their attempts are eroding trust in the very institutions we serve. They are ultimately eroding the trust of the Canadians we serve.

219 words

Hon. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC)

May/27/24 6:06:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague made a thoughtful speech. He referred to this tawdry situation as being unprecedented, and he is so right. It is unprecedented in Canadian history that a Speaker would face a prima facie case of privilege in the House not once, not twice, but three times in a short period of months. Given the fact that there have been so many Speakers in the past who, in many cases, have served for many years who have never had this kind of a case brought forward, is it not shocking that we find this to be the third time it has taken place with the current occupant of the chair? Is it not shocking that the Liberal government, the Liberal members of the House and their NDP coalition partners would not call the Speaker on this and finally agree to fire him?

144 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

May/27/24 6:07:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would look back at the beginning of this Parliament, and the previous Parliament, when the then Speaker was even taken to court by the Prime Minister and the government for upholding the needed impartiality of the Chair. These questions were not asked during the 42nd Parliament, although the Liberal Party was the third party at the time, way in the back corner, but its members did not have questions about impartiality during Stephen Harper's majority government. In the three minority parliaments prior to that, where there was a Liberal Speaker presiding over two Conservative minority parliaments and a Liberal minority parliament, they did not have these questions about the impartiality of the Speaker. I implore all of my colleagues, especially those from the Liberal benches, but specifically those from the New Democrat benches, for the sake of our institutions and for all Canadians, to let us make sure the chair occupant is able to conduct themselves in a way that is truly impartial.

167 words

Hon. Bardish Chagger

May/27/24 6:09:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I take very seriously the responsibilities bestowed upon me to represent the good people of the riding of Waterloo. The member who just spoke shared about an email he received from a constituent in the riding of Waterloo, and I would ask that he share with me those concerns because I represent the diversity of opinions—

64 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/27/24 6:09:26 p.m.
Watch

That is descending into debate. Continuing with debate, the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent has the floor.

18 words

Mr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC)

May/27/24 6:09:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I will be splitting my time. It is heartbreaking for me to have to rise in the House today to speak to a very unfortunate subject. It is heartbreaking because there are so many subjects we should be talking about in the House right now. We should be talking about public finances, the housing crisis, the fact that Canadians cannot afford groceries. Canada is a G7 country where one-quarter of people have trouble feeding themselves. However, we are here this evening to talk about the Speaker of the House of Commons. Unfortunately, in the last eight months since the member for Hull—Aylmer became Speaker, he has not been up to the task. Frankly, it breaks my heart to say that because, if there is anyone among the 338 MPs that I like, it is the member for Hull—Aylmer. We were elected at the same time in 2015. Like it or not, MPs have a certain amount of fun with the people we are first elected with—in my case, it was my first time in the House of Commons. Every debate I have had with the member for Hull—Aylmer since 2015 has always been a passionate argument marked by great deal of mutual respect. Unfortunately, the facts show that, since he became Speaker, he is not where he should be. I clearly remember discussions I had with him about local concerns, as he is my member of Parliament when I am in Ottawa. I specifically spoke with him about the tramway project between Ottawa and Aylmer, as well as the sixth link. We talk a lot about the third link in Quebec City, but we also talk about the sixth link here, between Ottawa and Gatineau. The Speaker is a good person, but he is not in the right place. Everyone here remembers that he was elected following a particularly painful event, at a time when everyone felt the need for a strong authority figure. It would be an understatement to say that he has been anything but a strong authority figure over the last eight months. Once again, I take no pleasure in saying that. There have been five incidents, all of which, in my opinion, lend themselves to scrutiny and, above all, contribute to our current lack of confidence in the member for Hull—Aylmer. The first incident is the following. Shortly after being elected Speaker of the House of Commons, the member for Hull—Aylmer got on the phone and called a former Liberal member of Parliament to ask him to write something attacking the Conservative Party in his regular column in an English Canada paper. That is the first incident, because it is not up to the Speaker to influence partisan political debate, and especially not to call a journalist or columnist in order to influence his or her point of view. The former MP was Glen Pearson. Then, and this is the second incident, the member for Hull—Aylmer attended a Liberal Party of Quebec partisan event with MNA André Fortin, a guy I served with in the National Assembly of Quebec. He is a man of great character whom I respect and hold in high esteem and who had a perfect right to hold a partisan event, as anyone in a political party does. The member for Hull—Aylmer, Speaker of the House of Commons, attended that partisan event. That makes no sense. A Speaker of the House of Commons must remain absolutely neutral and not attend partisan events, whether at the municipal level, the provincial level, or any other level. Then a third, even more serious incident happened. The member for Hull—Aylmer produced a video here, in the office of the Speaker of the House of Commons, dressed in the Speaker's robes, to pay tribute to one of his Ontario Liberal Party friends. We see a lot of variation in his breach of the ethics involved in the Speaker's role. He asked a columnist to attack the Conservative Party. Then he went to a provincial Liberal Party event. Then he took part in paying tribute to a friend of the Ontario Liberal Party, and did so here, in the House, while wearing his Speaker's robes. He was found guilty and paid $1,500—really? In my opinion, it is not about money, but about honour. He failed at the task. That was the third point. The fourth incident was the following. He went to Washington to pay tribute to an old friend whom he had known through his activities as a young president of the federal Liberal Party. That was inappropriate. He could have picked up the phone to send his regards, to tell him that it was a pleasure to speak with him and wish him all the best in the future. On top of that, he went to Washington on the taxpayers' dime while the House was sitting. That was inappropriate. This did not happen in July or in early January, but while the House was sitting. We know that when the holidays come around, things are pretty busy here, but the Speaker went to an event in Washington. This was the fourth unfortunate incident. The fifth incident occurred recently, when his riding association sent an ultra-partisan invitation to federal Liberal Party supporters in Hull—Aylmer with his name on it. He was fiercely attacking the Leader of the Opposition and the Conservative Party's political ideas. That is a perfectly healthy thing to do in a political debate, but not for the Speaker of the House of Commons. The Speaker does not attack his opponents in the last election. Unfortunately, that is what he did. In a very short space of time, this Speaker, who should be above any reproach and partisanship, chose to dive head first into partisan politics. That has no place in this role. Three questions of privilege have been raised, but I feel there have been at least five incidents. I also have to add the fact that he ejected the leader of the official opposition after asking him to withdraw his words, which the opposition leader did by adding words he wanted to use to replace the words he had withdrawn. That was not enough for the Speaker. He kicked him out when, a few minutes earlier, in an attack on the Conservative Party, the Liberal leader had used a very harsh word against the opposition and the Speaker simply asked him to rephrase his attacks. The Speaker has a double standard. Today, we are grappling with very serious doubts about the Speaker's legitimacy. Unfortunately, all trust has been broken. As the Bloc Québécois members said so well earlier, more than 44% of members of the House of Commons have already publicly expressed opposition to keeping the member for Hull—Aylmer as Speaker of the House. That is almost 150 members. Unfortunately, trust is like brain cells. When they go, they are gone for good. Nothing is more important to parliamentary work than trust in the Speaker. It gives us no pleasure to conclude that the member for Hull—Aylmer is no longer worthy of the position of Speaker. He is an honest, interesting and highly partisan man, which in and of itself is not a flaw in politics. We are all partisan. We all got elected through a team, a leader, a party and a platform. That is the very basis of partisanship. We are here to speak on behalf of the people who voted for us and the people we represent, including the ones who did not vote for us. That is one thing. However, there is a difference between being ultra-partisan when we debate in public, and keeping only a glimmer of partisanship when taking on the role of Speaker. I will close my remarks with the following. I will never forget what one of my friends told me. He told me that we must always seek advice from our loved ones when we are in trouble and that when we respect someone, we should not tell them what they want to hear, but what they need to hear. I would tell the member for Hull—Aylmer to step down as Speaker of his own accord because, unfortunately, he no longer has the confidence of the House.

1422 words

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

May/27/24 6:18:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative House leader, when he was Speaker, attended a Conservative fundraiser, and there was not one word from the Conservative Party about that being wrong. Members can contrast that to a letter sent to the Speaker regarding the incident that has caused the discussion today. It reads, “I am writing to you today about an event that was posted to our Liberal website for your riding, which had language that was partisan in nature.” It goes on to say, “The Liberal Party of Canada unequivocally apologizes to you for this mistake, and we take full responsibility.” I would suggest to members that there is a fundamental flaw in the Conservative argument. The real reason behind this is that Conservatives have never liked the Speaker. Their ultimate goal is to try to demonstrate, in whatever way they can, that the Parliament of Canada is dysfunctional. The only thing that is dysfunctional in this chamber is the Conservative Party of Canada.

166 words

Partisan

Mr. Gérard Deltell

May/27/24 6:20:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, if I may say so, what the member said is flawed; he forgets something quite important. With respect to the argument of the Liberal Party, he said that it was the party's full responsibility because it uses those kinds of words when it invites people to an event. That is fair enough. However, we checked that out; one invitation was produced in exactly the same pattern, but it was only after the Hull-Aylmer Federal Liberal Association invited people. The argument was created after the fact. I say shame on the Liberal Party.

96 words

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

May/27/24 6:20:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent for his pearls of wisdom. It is always appreciated. He demonstrated through his argument that the legitimacy is not there, that the confidence is not there, and he suggested that the Speaker can use his wisdom and make the only choice left to make. Now, if he does not want to make that choice, what should we do then?

69 words

Mr. Gérard Deltell

May/27/24 6:21:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleague is a university ethics professor, and I must say that he had raised a serious question about what should happen next. Again, I hope that the member for Hull—Aylmer does the right thing. The main winner, if he leaves the position of his own accord, will be the member for Hull—Aylmer himself. He will have broken free from a job for which he has no natural aptitude. It is not that he does not have the natural aptitude for it, but he has shown that he does not have what it takes to be the Speaker instead of an ultra-partisan MP. That is part of the political debate. He defended things that, in my view, made no sense, such as the Jody Wilson-Raybould affair, the WE Charity scandal and the Winnipeg lab debacle. That is all part of public debate. If, by any chance, the member for Hull—Aylmer does not leave his post and does not do what needs to be done, which is step down as Speaker, there will be a vote. Hopefully then parliamentarians will realize that when there are two parties representing 44% of members who do not have confidence in the Speaker, the only thing to do is get a new one.

221 words

Partisan

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

May/27/24 6:22:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have just one question for my friend opposite concerning a clarification. He said at the end of his speech that the Speaker does not have the confidence of the House. I understand that the Speaker does not have the confidence of the Conservative Party. Is that what he meant? As far as I know, I do not think we have voted on that yet.

67 words

Mr. Gérard Deltell

May/27/24 6:22:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, I am not one to read a prepared speech. I use notes and refer to them while I am speaking. If by any chance my remarks misled the House, I gladly and honourably withdraw them. However, in my view, once two of the four parties have stated their opposition to allowing the member for Hull—Aylmer to remain in his position, the die is cast and the burden is a heavy one.

79 words

Hon. Bardish Chagger (Waterloo, Lib.)

May/27/24 6:23:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the conversation and the debate today. I really appreciate the comments from our Conservative Party colleague. I think this is an opportunity to truly have a conversation about what we should do. It is natural for members who sit in the House to be a bit partisan. I wonder this. The Conservatives pull the fire alarm every chance they get. We have to find a way to move forward that will ensure that the House can work properly to represent all the diversity of our country. I want to ask the member if he has any ideas. How can we improve the way we operate in the House? Does he have any ideas for ensuring that the Speaker does his job in a manner that is satisfactory to everyone?

134 words

Mr. Gérard Deltell

May/27/24 6:24:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to say two things. First, I say congratulations and thank you for my colleague's excellent French. I also want to tell her that to have a truly good start, we need a new Speaker.

39 words

Mrs. Rachael Thomas (Lethbridge, CPC)

May/27/24 6:24:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is with some sobriety that I stand and address the House today. I am rising on a question of privilege that has been raised with regard to the conduct of the main Speaker of this place. We have yet another display of public partisanship that has been put out there for folks across the country to witness, which is that the Speaker of this place is actually featured as the main guest at a Liberal fundraiser. We know that the individual who occupies the chair has been given a trusted position. He has been elected by those in this place to make sure that the rules here are adhered to in a non-partisan and an equally applied fashion. This individual has been put in that spot, yes, through an election in this place; however, just as importantly, there is a historical precedent that also needs to be taken into account. Based on that historical precedent and based on what we call the green book in this place, which are the Standing Orders that govern it, the Speaker is called upon not only to function in an impartial manner and but also to avoid any instance of even appearing not to be impartial. The fact that the Speaker was stated to be the focus of this fundraising event, making him the main draw of fundraising dollars for the Liberal Party of Canada, is actually incomprehensible to some extent. However, it is the Liberal government in power, and this is certainly not the first breach. It is disheartening, for sure, but it is also altogether disgusting, actually, to see this individual function in that capacity, when he has been given such trust by this place. In Canada, we believe that no one is above the law. Likewise, in the House, no one should be treated as though they are above the rules and practices of this place, especially the Speaker. The Speaker is the individual who applies the rules of the House. Therefore, the Speaker should be modelling those rules for other individuals who occupy a seat in this place. When he fails to do so and, instead, actually exploits his position, it is called an abuse of power. We have to call him to account on that. As Conservatives, we are standing today, and I know that we have the support of the Bloc and, I am hoping, the NDP, to hold the Speaker to account with regard to his actions and call him to a higher standard. Members will recall that this is actually not the first time we have had to do this; there have been a number of other times. Let us explore the most recent one, shall we? We know that the Liberal Party of Canada was advertising something they called “A Summer Evening with the Honourable [Speaker].” The promotional material for this event used very partisan and even inflammatory language toward the Leader of the Opposition. I will read it into the House record, so we all know what I am talking about. The invitation said: “Join us for an event in your community - you don't want to miss it! “It's an exciting opportunity to join fellow Liberals and talk about the ways we can continue to build a better future for all Canadians - because a better future starts with you. “While [the Leader of the Opposition] and the Conservatives propose reckless policies that would risk our health, safety, and pocketbooks our Liberal team is focused on making life more affordable for Canadians and moving forward with our bold plan to grow an economy that works for everyone, protect our environment, keep our communities safe, and so much more. “Especially in a minority Parliament, we can never take our progress for granted. Together, with your hope and hard work, we can keep Canada moving forward.” This was a direct attack on the Leader of the Opposition and a celebration of the Liberal Party of Canada. Could it be more partisan? It was the Speaker of this place who was put as the lead, in terms of the promotional material that was put out there. This is an individual who has been trusted to guide this place and to make sure that we are adhering to the rules; however, he himself cannot do so. Again, I will highlight the fact that this is not the first time. Interestingly, since Conservatives raised this concern, the invitation has been taken down. It can no longer be found, because the Liberals must conduct themselves in the way they always do. That is, they deny it until they can no longer do so. They then try to cover it up and pretend it did not happen. However, it did happen, and it is not the first time. Another time, just a couple of months ago, the Speaker was at another fundraising event. It was a cocktail fundraiser. It was a dinner that time—

836 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/27/24 6:30:04 p.m.
Watch

We have a point of order from the hon. government House leader.

12 words

Hon. Steven MacKinnon (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/27/24 6:30:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food: That the debate be now adjourned.

19 words