SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 319 - May/28/24

May/28/24 11:49:15 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is a very easy question to answer. The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle was not the keynote speaker of the fundraiser. It was not during session. The Conservative Party of Canada did not put out a note that said he would be the one speaking. I think that the member is, once again, mischaracterizing what happened. Seven times the Speaker has used poor judgment. Does the member truly believe Canadians have faith that this Speaker should continue in the Chair? If he does, I would love to see him go to his constituents and tell them that he voted in favour of the Speaker because he has done a really good job.

116 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/28/24 11:50:05 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I voted in favour of the Speaker, and I think he is doing a great job.

23 words

Favour
Voted

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/28/24 11:50:10 a.m.
Watch

That is not a point of order. That is a point of debate, as the hon. member well knows. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.

30 words

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

May/28/24 11:50:18 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, since we are on the subject of ethics, I would like to ask a question that is not entirely related to the debate we are having today but is nevertheless important. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the Speaker's decision to eject the Leader of the Opposition for calling the Prime Minister wacko and extremist. Did he agree that the Speaker should have ejected his leader?

73 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/28/24 11:50:41 a.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Regina—Lewvan is asking that the hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert repeat his question.

21 words

Mr. Denis Trudel

May/28/24 11:50:59 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will start again. It is a fundamental question of ethics, and I think it is important. Debates here are always a bit nonsensical. However, I still think we need to follow certain rules. For example, we are not allowed to use certain expressions in this chamber. The Leader of the Opposition used language here one day that is not allowed in the House. He was ejected after repeating that he would not apologize for his choice of words. As a parliamentarian, an elected member of Parliament, did my colleague really think his leader should have been ejected for calling the Prime Minister wacko and extremist?

108 words

Mr. Warren Steinley

May/28/24 11:51:35 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, no.

3 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

May/28/24 11:51:42 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the constant attacks by the Conservatives against the independent Speaker of the House of Commons are mirrored by the constant attacks by Conservatives in the Saskatchewan legislature. I want to read a text and ask my colleague from Saskatchewan to unequivocally apologize to Canadians. Jeremy Harrison, a former member of the Conservative caucus, who is now the House leader for the Conservative Saskatchewan Party, did this to the independent Speaker of the Saskatchewan legislature. This is what that Speaker said about Jeremy Harrison, just a few days ago: more disturbing is his obsession with guns and his use of intimidation both verbally and physically. His desire to get permission to carry a handgun in the legislative assembly is particularly disturbing He would start yelling—

127 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/28/24 11:52:48 a.m.
Watch

I have to remind the hon. member that we have a very short time for questions and comments. I have to give the hon. member an opportunity to answer before the time expires.

33 words

Mr. Peter Julian

May/28/24 11:52:57 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, does the member unequivocally apologize and condemn the actions of the Conservative Saskatchewan Party against the independent Speaker of the Saskatchewan legislature?

24 words

Mr. Warren Steinley

May/28/24 11:53:00 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is a ridiculous question. Why would I apologize for someone else's behaviour? Randy Weekes is a friend of mine. I was a colleague of his. He served honourably for 25 years. He made those comments. I think any intimidation and harassment should be called out, like the House leader of the NDP, who tried to intimidate and harass a staffer because she made a mistake. He continued to berate that staffer and would not let her fix the mistake when we had agreement from all our caucuses. He is one of the biggest bullies in this chamber, so he should reflect on that himself.

108 words

Mr. Peter Julian

May/28/24 11:53:38 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member has enough experience to know that the kinds of petty insults he used need to be withdrawn, and he needs to apologize.

33 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/28/24 11:53:50 a.m.
Watch

This is debate, but it is also true that there were some insults exchanged here, and calling someone a bully is not parliamentary. I would invite the hon. member to withdraw the comment. The hon. member for Regina—Lewvan.

40 words

Mr. Warren Steinley

May/28/24 11:54:13 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I withdraw the bully comment, but I still think the member should do some self-reflection.

18 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/28/24 11:54:19 a.m.
Watch

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.

11 words

Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC)

May/28/24 11:54:24 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I usually say I am honoured to be able to rise in this place and participate in debate, but I am discouraged and disappointed with the rhetoric and the deflection coming from members of the Liberal caucus, as well as from the NDP, their coalition cover-up partners, on this debate. We are dealing with a prima facie case of the violation of privilege in the House. I have been here for almost 20 years. I love this institution. I am incredibly honoured and still overwhelmed that the constituents of Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman have sent me here on seven different occasions. We see the government trying to deflect and protect the Speaker, who has now been found in a prima facie case of privilege on multiple occasions, and defend that behaviour. To me, that is disappointing to say the least. I am disgusted by it. I am such a parliamentary nerd. I read the House of Commons Procedure and Practice. We are on the third edition. I started off reading when it was O'Brien and Bosc, and now I am reading Bosc and Gagnon. I make sure that I read through the book at least once every session. At the beginning of every parliamentary sitting, in the fall, I reread chapter 20 in particular, but always chapter 3 as well because of committee operations and the work that we do. I am a vice-chair and I have to sit in committees. In chapter 3, which is on parliamentary privileges and immunity, the very first page says, “The rights accorded to the House and its Members to allow them to perform their parliamentary functions unimpeded are referred to as privileges or immunities.” The Deputy Speaker found in the case of the Speaker that he has violated members' privileges, a prima facie case that he violated our privileges. What did he violate? His impartiality. In chapter 7 titled, “The Speaker and Other Presiding Officers of the House”, under “Impartiality of the Chair”, on page 323, it states, “When in the Chair, the Speaker embodies the power and authority of the office, strengthened by rule and precedent. He or she must at all times show, and be seen to show, the impartiality required to sustain the trust and goodwill of the House.” That is why the Speaker is now in trouble, because he has not been able to maintain that impartiality. In fact, we have seen, on multiple occasions, we are talking six or seven times now, that the Speaker has been called out, caught and charged for not acting impartial. When it comes down to it, the Speaker is the guardian of the rights and privileges of all of us as members of the House of Commons, so that we can enjoy our free speech and other privileges that we have. On page 317, it says, “It is the responsibility of the Speaker to act as the guardian of the rights and privileges of Members and of the House as an institution.” It goes on to say the following: Freedom of speech may be the most important of the privileges accorded to Members of Parliament; it has been described as...a fundamental right without which they would be hampered in the performance of their duties. It permits them to speak in the House without inhibition, to refer to any matter or express any opinion as they see fit, to say what they feel needs to be said in the furtherance of the national interest and the aspirations of their constituents. When we talk about impartiality and when we talk about preserving our freedom of speech, we have the case we are dealing with right now. The Speaker held a fundraiser. It is not that he held a fundraiser that was in error because all of us, as parliamentarians, have to raise money to be able to fight elections. The Speaker has that right. The previous Speaker that the Liberals always refer to, the House leader of the Conservative Party, had that right as well. However, what was wrong in this case is that the Speaker's electoral district association advertised this as a meeting with the Speaker and used inflammatory, partisan language against the leader of the official opposition. It said that Conservatives would propose reckless policy, and would risk our health, safety and pocketbooks. That is where the prima facie case of privilege was violated, because they used inflammatory language. Again, that undermines the Speaker in his ability to maintain impartiality. We know also that he, in the issue of freedom of speech, not that long ago, threw out, first, the member for Lethbridge, who used unparliamentary language but withdrew that comment. It was in the blues. They may want to talk about it but it was in the blues and then it was edited out. We still need to get that ruling on who made that edit. The second thing is that, following that, he then threw out the leader of the official opposition, the leader of the Conservative Party, the member of Parliament for Carleton, because of inflammatory language, but did not apply that fairly, because even though the word “wacko” was used to describe the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister also, before that, had used inflammatory language, calling the leader “spineless”. There was no action, no withdrawal, no apology sought, no ejection from the chamber by the Speaker, again undermining and proving that our Speaker is not impartial. On those occasions, we talk about freedom of speech but we also have to talk about the maintenance of being non-partisan, of being impartial. It says, again, in chapter 7, under the roles of the Speaker, on page 324, that “in order to protect the impartiality of the office, the Speaker abstains from all partisan political activity”. This includes not going to caucus meetings, never mind attending Liberal fundraisers. The first time the Speaker got caught, he attended a fundraising dinner for a neighbouring Liberal. That is not allowed. He can attend his own, but he is not allowed to attend other Liberal fundraisers. He then, by video, addressed, in his robes, in full Speaker garb, the Ontario Liberal Party leadership convention. I filed a complaint with the procedure and House affairs committee, of misuse of government resources, of House resources, to further partisan activities, of which the Speaker was found guilty, and ordered to pay a fine. Again, here we go. He is supposed to be impartial. He was not. We also know that the Speaker went down to Washington on the taxpayer dime and gave a speech about being a young Liberal down in D.C.. The Speaker continues to do partisan activities, behaves from a partisan position when occupying the Chair, and undermines the individual rights, freedoms and immunities that all of us are supposed to enjoy. Instead of being the guardian of our rights, he has ejected Conservative members. He has given a pass to the Prime Minister. His overall, and I do not know what the appropriate term here would be, as I do not want to be unparliamentary, ongoing loyalty to the Liberal Party and not to this chamber is what has caused the situation we find ourselves in. Any other members in this House, from the Liberals or their coalition cover-up partners in the NDP, who stand here and say that this Speaker is impartial are sadly mistaken. I am so disappointed in the NDP. It has always stood on the grounds that they protect this institution. It is actually helping to undermine our democratic principles, the respect and honour that this chamber is supposed to hold, by continuing to support the Liberals in their ongoing reckless spending, as well as protect the Speaker, who is not up to the job. The House is seized with a question. The government has moved the motion to limit debate. The House, under the rules, is supposed to be seized with a question of privilege and rise here and discuss this and debate it and try to convince one another that we are right or wrong. It is unfortunate that the NDP and the Liberals are working together to protect the Speaker and his unparliamentary behaviour. I beg the Speaker: will he do the right thing and resign?

1406 words

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

May/28/24 12:04:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, for those who listened in yesterday or are tuning in today, let there be no doubt that this is nothing more than a Conservative Reform Party tactic. That is all it is. The issue that is before us is being used to try to say something that is not true. Instead of having a debate on issues that Canadians are having to face day in and day out, the Conservatives choose to play a destructive force here on the floor of the House of Commons. We will continue to be focused on the needs of Canadians, as the Conservatives continue to play this destructive force. When will the Conservatives get away from playing their destructive games and start focusing on what is in the best interest of Canadians and supporting the initiatives that are coming through in legislation and in budgetary measures?

144 words

Mr. James Bezan

May/28/24 12:05:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North is again up here deflecting and misleading Canadians, especially his own constituents, on the seriousness of the issue that we are grasped with. He is contemptuous in his comments, saying that there is nothing to see here, that it is all make-believe and it is all fake, which we have heard from the other side and the Liberals throughout the day. We are seized with a ruling by the Deputy Speaker that someone in this place violated our privilege, and that takes precedence over anything else that we are debating in this House. For the member to say, “Ha, look the other way, nothing to see here, folks” is wrong and misleading. He should be more honest when he is dealing with his own constituents, never mind the rest of Canada.

141 words

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP)

May/28/24 12:06:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am sorry the member is disappointed with me and my party, but that is okay. We can have that disagreement. However, it is important to note while that the Speaker may not have done himself any favours, at the same time, he has been consistent with the practices done before. I remember, the Conservatives mailed into my riding. They used to use their mailing privileges called “franking”. Monte Solberg mailed into my riding, saying I was not supporting the RCMP on the day they were burying three RCMP officers in Edmonton. That led to a point of privilege that actually passed and is in the system right now. It stopped the mailings that the Conservatives were doing. I was supposed to get reparations for that, but that never took place because there was no agreement about what those reparations would be. However, we won. How can we trust the Conservatives' sincerity in this debate when their practices are not consistent with that?

167 words

Mr. James Bezan

May/28/24 12:07:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if we want to talk about sincerity of actions, the NDP actually promised, after the last prima facie case against the Speaker's malfeasance, to ensure that they would never support the Speaker again, after his violations of participating in the Ontario Liberal leadership convention. Yet, here we are. The New Democrats said one thing, that they would never support the Speaker again as he continues to violate our privileges in this House, and they are supporting the Liberals and the Speaker in helping cover up this egregious violation of rights and privileges here in the House of Commons.

101 words