SoVote

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

May/28/24 4:45:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would request a recorded division.

8 words

May/28/24 4:56:53 p.m.
Watch

I declare clauses 318 and 319 carried. The next question is on clauses 320 to 322. If a member participating in person wishes that the clauses be carried or carried on division, or if a member from a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

61 words

Hon. Ruby Sahota

May/28/24 4:57:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

7 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/28/24 5:08:34 p.m.
Watch

I declare clauses 320 to 322 carried. The next question is on clauses 323 to 341 of the bill. If a member participating in person wishes that these clauses be carried or carried on division, or if a member from a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

64 words

Hon. Ruby Sahota

May/28/24 5:08:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

7 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/28/24 5:20:14 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-59

I declare clauses 323 to 341 carried. The House has agreed to the entirety of Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023, and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, at third reading stage.

53 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC)

May/28/24 5:21:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, before question period, I was just getting into the relationship between the Speaker of the House and the Prime Minister. It is worth noting that in 2023, the Speaker was the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister. As I was saying, the Prime Minister himself has three ethics reports written in his own name. I was alluding to, and I asked a question of one of the Bloc members earlier concerning it, the fact that it sure seems like there is a contest or a competition between the Prime Minister and the Speaker to see how many ethics violations or breaches of trust they can have and get away with it. The NDP continues to prop them up, despite these things piling up. Let us take a look. Since 2015, there have been no fewer than 10 Liberal ministers and parliamentary secretaries who have been found guilty of violating and breaking ethics laws of this institution. On top of that, there was a PMO staffer. There are also multiple members of the existing cabinet who are still sitting who have ethics violations. One of them happens to be the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs. One happens to be the international trade minister, and one happens to be the minister of sport. Therefore, there seems to be a chronic problem within cabinet, which is what the Ethics Commissioner said of Joe Peschisolido, former Liberal member for Steveston—Richmond East, that there was a chronic issue. In 2023, when the Ethics Commissioner specifically wrote about the member for Hull—Aylmer, CBC published an interesting article. In it, the Ethics Commissioner said: “After years of serving in senior government positions, [the member] should have been aware of the rules or should have sought advice. I am quite concerned that someone with the breadth of experience of [the member] would fail to recognize the possibility of a contravention”. The Ethics Commissioner also said: As a parliamentary secretary since 2015 and having served for several years on both the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics and the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, [he] should be well versed on the functioning of both regimes and the importance of consulting the Office. I am quite concerned that someone with the breadth of experience...would fail to recognize the possibility of a contravention. Those are pretty damning words from the Ethics Commissioner. What did the member for Hull—Aylmer, now the Speaker of the House, have to say at the time? He said, “I will redouble my efforts to be more diligent in the future to ensure my obligations under the act are fully met.” He has really doubled down, has he not? In fact he has tripled down, with three more violations. They are not so much ethics violations per se, but they are serious lapses in ethics by the Speaker. There is the video, a partisan video for a Liberal fundraiser, which we have talked about in the House already, in which he was wearing his Speaker's gowns in the Speaker's office, giving a speech and a video remark. Then he went to Washington, not just as the member of Parliament for Hull—Aylmer, but as the Speaker of the House, to talk to young Liberals in Washington. That is another one, number two. What should be strike number three and out is the new one that we are debating again here today, where the Liberal Party of Canada had on its website an invitation to have a fine evening with the Speaker of the House of Commons, and it used his name, which I cannot do. If the Conservative Party of Canada is going to use my name on a fundraiser, it is going to ask me about it. It is going to coordinate with me about it. It is going to check with my schedule to see whether it works for me to be able to come and do the event. Of course I will have to say, “Yes, I can,” or “No, I cannot.” The fact that it got this far tells us that the Speaker said “Yes, absolutely, let us do it.” That alone should have been the first thing that came to his mind. I want to finish quickly with one more baseball reference. Angel Hernandez was an umpire in major league baseball; he had been for over 30 years and is widely regarded as one of the worst umpires in major league history. He has finally retired. It is time that the Speaker of the House of Commons follows the example of Angel Hernandez and resigns.

793 words

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

May/28/24 5:26:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is really quite unfortunate that the Conservatives have chosen this particular issue to incorporate as part of their theme, whether through character assassination or filibustering, trying to portray the false image that Parliament in Ottawa is dysfunctional. My question to the member is this: Why does he believe that he should be attempting to censure the Speaker when it was the Liberal Party of Canada that has taken full responsibility for the issue in question? That means the Liberal Party should be punished, as opposed to the Speaker.

91 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

May/28/24 5:27:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, maybe they should both be punished because, as I said in my speech, the only way the Speaker's name can actually end up on an invitation with a specific date, time and location is if he approved it. That is the only way that that could happen. It has been a complete nightmare and disaster ever since he took the chair. Three lapses, three partisan, very deliberate incidents, have happened under his watch. The only character assassination that has gone on has been the assassination of the character of the House, the chamber that the Speaker is supposed to preside over. He has been an absolute failure. He should do the honourable thing and resign.

118 words

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

May/28/24 5:28:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the speech by my colleague from Cypress Hills—Grasslands. In fact, I want to tell him how disappointed I am. I could see where he was heading. He started off with a metaphor when he said that, after three violations, it is time to resign. I was hoping he would use a baseball metaphor because I am a baseball fan. He ended his speech by talking about baseball and mentioning the career of a star umpire, and that got me excited. Unfortunately, he did not use the requisite metaphor for the occasion. I am going to show him how disappointed I was and do it with a question. What happens after three strikes? I would like him to tell us.

129 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

May/28/24 5:29:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, strike three and someone is out. That is what needs to happen. I hope that all parties will vote to remove the Speaker. It needs to happen. As I said before question period, it seems like “Oh, we'll give him another pitch, let him have strike four. Oh, maybe we'll let him have strike five.” No, strike three, he is out. It is time for him to resign, or let us vote him out.

81 words

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

May/28/24 5:29:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this kind of juvenile torch-and-pitchfork attempt to undermine the office of Speaker and to undermine Parliament is something I find very disturbing. We have seen, just recently, the same thing happening with the conservative Saskatchewan Party. The independent Speaker of the Saskatchewan Legislature has said that he was both verbally and physically intimated by the conservative Saskatchewan Party House leader, who is a former member of the Conservative caucus, Jeremy Harrison. The Speaker of the legislature said, “[The desire of this man] to get permission to carry a handgun in the legislative assembly is particularly disturbing,” and “My concerns over his mental stability and his obsession with guns [have been] confirmed”. This is from the independent Speaker of the Saskatchewan Legislature. Not a single member of federal Parliament from Saskatchewan from the Conservative caucus has spoken up to denounce the intimidation, to denounce the threats. I would like a member of the Saskatchewan Conservative caucus to stand up and apologize and denounce the actions that have taken place in the conservative Saskatchewan Party in the Saskatchewan Legislature.

185 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

May/28/24 5:31:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the member thinks we are standing. We are standing in Ottawa in the federal Parliament, not in the Saskatchewan legislature. I have two points on that. First, this fall there is going to be an election in Saskatchewan at the provincial level. Maybe the member should put his name on the ballot if he is so concerned about what is happening in Saskatchewan, and see how the people of Saskatchewan like him. Second, the member used a very important term: “independent”. The Speaker of the Saskatchewan legislature actually operated independently. The Speaker of the chamber, who is from the Liberal caucus and was propped up three times by the member right there, continues to violate the chamber as a partisan hack. The Speaker needs to resign. Shame on the member for supporting him.

142 words

Mrs. Marilène Gill (Manicouagan, BQ)

May/28/24 5:32:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Thornhill. To begin, I would like to convey to the House my respect for my colleague, the member for Hull—Aylmer, who is an affable, warm and cordial person and who also happens to be the Speaker of the House right now. I wanted to make the distinction because it is not the individual, the MP himself, who is being called into question, but rather the embodiment of his role as Speaker. Beyond that, as many have said yesterday and today, it is the very functioning of the House of Commons that is being called into question. I am taking the time to reiterate this distinction, which makes perfect sense but seems to be misunderstood by government members. I listened to the debates yesterday and I am listening carefully today. It has to be said that if someone does not understand this distinction, it is difficult for them to take part in this debate, because it is the very basis on which it rests. In the same vein, since we have to make this distinction between the role of Speaker and that of member of Parliament, I would say that we must also manage, as members of the House of Commons, to distinguish between the roles we take on. I would invite the members of the governing Liberal Party to reflect on the fact that they are not here to protect one of their own, but to protect democracy and the institution that is the House of Commons. I think we need to be mindful of the motion we are considering today, because it arises from a question of privilege. This implies that the Speaker ruled in favour of the member who raised this question of privilege. I would like to quote from the Speaker's ruling on the question of privilege because I think it is useful. In ruling on this matter, I would like to clarify that I am not passing judgment on the alleged facts but rather on the priority these allegations should be given. While a motion could indeed be moved during routine proceedings, such motions are subject to interruptions in proceedings that could delay a decision on them indefinitely. As for opposition motions, they depend on the allotment of a supply day. Quite clearly, it is in the interest of the whole House to resolve this particular matter quickly and with all due seriousness. As a result, I find that a prima facie question of privilege exists in this case. The Chair clearly places a great deal of importance on this question. Since yesterday, members interested in discussing it have been accused of obstructing the business of this House, which I believe to be untrue, as the Chair's ruling shows. This debate is much needed. We are asking for a solution and for the issue to be addressed in a timely manner. When such a motion of privilege is moved, it has to take priority. I am repeating myself, but giving priority to this motion underscores the importance of the debate currently taking place in the House. Although I said that we must, first of all, keep the motion in mind, members must also accept that we are not engaging in obstruction. Rather, we are trying to resolve an outstanding issue that is currently creating a vacuum. The question is to determine whether we still have confidence in the Speaker or not. I spoke about the Liberal members, but I invite all members of the House to do the same thing, to adhere to the same principles the Speaker must adhere to, namely impartiality and discernment. It is worthwhile to note that the root of the word “impartiality” is “party”, so there is that notion of neutrality. Once again, this is not a question of political stripe. We are talking about the very role of Speaker, which should be above all partisan considerations. I would like to take a moment to remind the House of the highlights of the story that led to this debate that has been going on since December 2023, since the Speaker of the House participated in an event organized by the Liberal Party of Ontario. The Speaker demonstrated then that he was unable to act with the neutrality I spoke of or show good judgment. I will identify four elements. He gave a speech in the Speaker of the House's robes, gave his title as Speaker of the House, and produced a video in the Speaker of the House's office and, by extension, using the House's resources. I am limiting myself to this portion of the story, although there are many more, since I believe that the member for Hull—Aylmer, either on this one occasion or on many others, patently demonstrated by his actions that he did not understand the obligations associated with the position of Speaker of the House. Worse yet, once he was criticized for his actions, he failed to admit that they were unacceptable. He regretted none of his actions, although they were cut and dried and, as was stated in committee, could not be interpreted any other way. However, he did regret the video that was publicly broadcast. It is the fact that it was publicly broadcast that he regretted. He does not acknowledge his mistake, but regrets how it was interpreted. It remains a mistake, regardless of how it was subsequently interpreted. Moreover, he does not acknowledge any partisanship in his actions. He also fails to mention other, similar partisan actions he took while he was speaker. His refusal to admit his mistake supports the idea I shared earlier, that the Speaker does not understand the obligations associated with his position. Worse still, it shows his inability, whether voluntary or involuntary, to make amends. There is no change possible because he does not understand, and he refuses to apologize, understand or change his behaviour. This incident, isolated from the ones that would follow, such as the speech in Washington, already attests to a lack of impartiality and judgment. We are now in May, but as early as last December, the Speaker demonstrated his inability to perform his duties. As we know, the legitimacy of his role is built on trust. That trust has eroded over the past few months and, as my colleague from Trois-Rivières was saying yesterday, the lack of trust turns into mistrust, and mistrust turns into defiance. Over half of the House is calling on the Speaker to step down. When the Speaker fails to perform his duties and refuses to learn from it, when he loses the trust of the House and refuses to earn it back, when he knowingly harms the work of this institution, the House of Commons, in other words, Quebeckers and Canadians, we reach a point where the Speaker could regain the esteem and respect of the entire House by doing the only honourable thing that a Speaker who is not discharging his duties can do, and that is to leave. Madam Speaker, before we move on to questions and comments, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion: That, given that the House is currently debating a non-confidence motion in the Speaker of the House on which the House will have to vote, that the Speaker is usually elected through a secret ballot, and that the secret ballot prevents any attempt to influence the vote and ensures that the result represents the real will of the members of our assembly, the House defer the vote planned for today until Monday, June 3, 2024, at 3 p.m. and that the vote be conducted by secret ballot in the House.

1317 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/28/24 5:41:54 p.m.
Watch

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion? Some hon. members: No. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs Alexandra Mendès): Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

40 words

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

May/28/24 5:42:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that members of the Bloc have bought in, hook, line and sinker, to the Conservatives' con job in regard to what they are doing today. Here we have a Liberal Party post that appears in a social network, and we have the Conservatives and the Bloc teaming up in an unholy alliance to assassinate the character of the Speaker of the House of Commons. I find that quite shameful. Why does the member believe that the Speaker should be censured for something he was not part of? The arguments that have been presented for the last two days seem unfair and fundamentally flawed.

108 words

Censured

Mrs. Marilène Gill

May/28/24 5:43:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North is making it clear that he could never be the Speaker of the House of Commons because he does not understand the impartiality and discernment needed for the job. That is what he just said: He does not understand and it seems unfair to him. We need to look beyond perceptions and really acknowledge what the role of Speaker involves. The person who occupies the chair must be able to rally all members so that we can do the work that Quebeckers and Canadians are asking us to do as quickly as possible.

100 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

May/28/24 5:43:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. It was interesting. I think that everyone here is committed to respect for the institution and the impartiality of the Speaker of the House. The current Speaker comes from Quebec, which is rare. I think that is important to note. There is a bit of information that was shared: Acting in good faith, the Speaker checked with the Clerk of the House and took every step to guard against any appearance of partisanship. It was the Liberal Party that made the mistake in the end. It was neither the Speaker nor the Speaker's office. That is an important nuance. Past Speakers have made mistakes, sometimes worse ones. Speakers like Milliken or a current Conservative member made mistakes, and they were never systematically asked to step down. Now we have a Quebecker in the chair. Does my colleague not think that this is an anti-Quebec attack?

156 words

Mrs. Marilène Gill

May/28/24 5:45:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, we need to rise above the fray, because it does not matter where the Speaker is from. What matters to me is that the Speaker has the skills to do his job and that he earns the trust of the entire House. As for the anti-Quebec conspiracy, that is not what this is. Other parties are stuck on this because we are the Bloc Québécois. The fact remains that we need to settle this issue. It is not about partisanship, hence the idea of, as I said, rising above the fray. We want this to work. This needs to work for everyone. I would ask everyone to do the same thing I am trying to do.

127 words

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

May/28/24 5:46:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we have seen much more serious transgressions. Since I have been in the House, there have been Speakers from Ontario, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia. Each time, the Bloc Québécois always supported the Speaker, even when the Speaker made a mistake. For the first time, we have a federalist Speaker from Quebec. Now the Bloc Québécois has changed its ways, after supporting all the previous Speakers. A Quebec MP has become Speaker, but the Bloc Québécois attacked him constantly today. That worries me. My question to my colleague is this: Why is the Bloc Québécois attacking a Speaker who comes from Quebec?

119 words