SoVote

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

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

Mrs. Marilène Gill

May/28/24 5:47:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we are not attacking him. This term is being used by the member because he does not wish to rise above the fray. Once again, I may be a Bloc Québécois member, but I do not care which province or territory members who aspire to become Speaker come from. We have to rise above the fray. To answer my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, as a Bloc Québécois MP, I make sure that I am the last person to see any communications posted about me on my Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn or other accounts. As elected officials, we must not shirk responsibility by saying that something is not our fault and blaming the party, which in this case was the Liberal Party of Canada. The Speaker must have approved the post. If he did not, he was failing to do his job as an MP and a partisan.

159 words

Ms. Melissa Lantsman (Thornhill, CPC)

May/28/24 5:47:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by saying that trust is a really difficult thing to earn, a really easy thing to lose and an incredibly difficult thing to re-establish. What we have heard in the House today, time and time again, from members of the Liberal Party and from those who support them at every opportunity, the NDP members, is that for some reason, this is a waste of time. We have heard that this is a waste of House time or that this is an attack on the institution. In fact, it is exactly the opposite of that. It is a question of a Speaker that has brought us here, who has acted in a partisan way, not just once or twice, but three times. We are here to discuss the partisan actions of a partisan Liberal Speaker serving his partisan Liberal boss, aided and abetted by his partisan coalition members in the NDP, occupying a job and a role in this place that is distinctly supposed to be non-partisan. Since becoming Speaker of the House six months ago, he has betrayed the trust not only of the House but also of the members of the House. The impartiality of the position does not exist in his world. I have not been here very long, but I do not remember, and I do not even remember reading in history about, a Speaker who has been so embroiled in scandal after scandal and who has been chased down the street outside of this place to answer questions about his conduct. It has only been six months. If one types in “Speaker scandal”, I think the name of that chair occupant would come up as the first search term on Google. That is where we are. Let us go back. First, the Speaker recorded a video. This is the first of the three that I will talk about, and I will probably talk about some more because it is not even three; it is more than that. First, he recorded a video that he played at a Liberal partisan convention, while appearing in Speaker's robes in his office and while using Speaker and House resources to do that. He praised an outgoing Ontario Liberal leader between segments of two former leaders at a Liberal convention. I think anybody would believe that was a partisan activity. Then, the Speaker travelled to Washington on the taxpayers' dime, on the dime of the resources of his office, of the House, and he used his perch as Speaker to muse fondly about his years as a young Liberal. This is also, objectively, a partisan thing to do in a non-partisan job that is meant to be the referee of this place and to have the trust of the members to know he will act in a manner that will treat every single member of the House equally. Those are two instances. Talk about tone deaf. Finally, it is the latest offence, the one that has brought us here today, of the Speaker posting a blatantly partisan fundraising message on a website, personally attacking the Leader of the Opposition, the same Leader of the Opposition who, just weeks ago, he threw out of this place for doing the exact same thing the Prime Minister did moments before and moments after. This is, of course, after he threw out another member of the Conservative caucus for asking her to withdraw a statement, which she did. It is in the blues. We are probably going to have another day when we talk about the Speaker's frank inability to be impartial in his chair. We will get to that. In that same week, the Speaker posted an ad, and it is strange to me. I have not been an MP for very long, and I keep a fairly busy schedule. The way it works in my office is that I have a great staff, and they send me a note and ask me, “Can you do at this time? Can you be here?” I say yes or no to all of these things. In some cases, my office says yes or no to these things, knowing full well that I would want to do something and that it would fit into my schedule. Therefore, it is very difficult to believe that an ad for “A Summer Evening with the Honourable [Speaker]” mentioned, who occupies the chair, with event details, such as a time, a date and a place, would not be vetted by anyone. That does not really happen. In fact, when someone appears at events, particularly at events where they sell tickets to listen to a person, in this case, delivering really partisan messages about the guy whom he just kicked out of the House for doing the same thing as the guy who put him in that chair, it would be hard to believe that nobody in his office, nobody in his orbit or he himself would not have known that he would be appearing at a certain place, at a certain time, at this event where tickets are being sold to hear him speak. All of that is to say that one time is a mistake and two times could be a coincidence, but three times is a pattern. It is a pattern by somebody who has a deep history in the most partisan politics. We will hear from the Liberals that this is somehow an attack on the character of the Speaker, but this is exactly the opposite of that. This is talking about the role he has taken on as an impartial referee of this place, one that should treat members, as I said, equally. This is, of course, after a history of being the first Speaker with an ethics violation, so that is a historic first. I was not here at the time, but it does not take very much to go online to see how he reacted to an incident that happened in this place, when the Prime Minister elbowed an MP in the chest. He was the first one on his feet to defend that action and to say that the MP's story or version of events was experienced differently or was an overreaction. In fact, when he was asked that today, at the very time this was being talked about in the House by my colleague and friend from Calgary Nose Hill, he actually denied rising to his feet, defending the Prime Minister and putting forward an alternative version of events, talking about an exaggeration. He said at committee today that he did not say that. That brings me to the NDP. To see a party, which once stood for values and for the working class and which once was in opposition in the House, defend the Prime Minister at every opportunity, rather than somebody in its own caucus, is the definition of “weakness”. It is one of its own members who was elbowed by the Prime Minister. There are videos of it. This is not something that Conservatives are embellishing in the House. We can see it on a screen. New Democrats are defending the guy who got up on his feet to tell people that there was a different version of events or that the member was exaggerating. What is worse is that it is the Speaker who adjudicates the harassment policy in the House. How on earth would any member of the House feel comfortable or feel that they could get a fair trial with somebody who was on his feet, defending the Prime Minister before even seeing the tape, telling the member that she experienced it differently, that it was an exaggeration or that she somehow dove as if it was for the World Cup. I do not know what terminology was used; it was blatantly weird. It was bizarre. Someone called it wacko. This is what we are here to talk about today. We are talking about a man who occupies an office and who should be impartial. He has not done so. If he had even a modicum of integrity in this place, he would resign before I encourage members to vote him out.

1386 words

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

May/28/24 5:58:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, just to quote the member across the way, she gets upset and says that the latest offence that brought us here today is the posting of a “blatantly” partisan fundraising message on a website. What the member is talking about is what the Liberal Party of Canada actually posted, not, and I underline the word “not”, the Speaker. However, the Conservative Party members do not want to have justice; what they want is character assassination. The Conservatives know full well that it was the Liberal Party that did it, but they want to censure the Speaker. The member even said in her opening remarks that the reason we are here today is because of that posting. Does the member not see a problem with her assertion? She is trying to punish the Speaker for something he did not do. How does the member justify that?

151 words

Partisan

Ms. Melissa Lantsman

May/28/24 5:59:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would, frankly, be embarrassed if I were the deputy House leader of the government standing up in this place, defending the indefensible. He has members of the House speaking at length about all the Speaker's transgressions as an impartial referee of the House. He cannot do the job. That is what we are talking about today. Instead, the member is deflecting and diverting from the fact that, one, he cannot get his agenda through the House because he has decided to put the Speaker in the chair, and the Speaker has decided for himself, by his actions, that we would have this day today.

108 words

Mr. Mario Beaulieu (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ)

May/28/24 5:59:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the questions from earlier to the effect that the Bloc Québécois should not criticize the Speaker because he is a Quebecker. I believe that where the person lives should not even come into play. There was another incident with the president of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie. Some people were saying that the Bloc Québécois was attacking him because he is a Franco-Ontarian. I think we have to be impartial. Whether someone is from Quebec, Ontario or elsewhere, everyone is equal.

105 words

Ms. Melissa Lantsman

May/28/24 6:00:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think the identity politics in this place is a disease, and I do not care if the Speaker is from Quebec, Ontario, Saskatchewan or any of the great provinces in this country. We are talking about his inability to be impartial in that chair. That is what we are talking about today, and we are going to judge him accordingly.

63 words

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

May/28/24 6:00:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first off, of course, we already went through the procedure and House affairs committee, and the House took a vote. Since then, there has not been anything that justifies what the Conservatives are doing today and are doing this week. The Liberal Party of Canada made, in my judgment, a despicable mistake by posting something on its website that showed disrespect to the Speaker and disrespect to the House of Commons. The Liberals should have apologized immediately. It took them a few hours, but they finally did apologize. What we are seeing, though, is an attack against the Speaker in the same way that the Conservative Saskatchewan Party is attacking the independent Speaker of the Saskatchewan legislature as well. We have seen verbal intimidation. We have seen threats, and we have seen the use of a firearm. Not a single Conservative has condemned that. I would ask my colleague to condemn what has happened to the Speaker in the Saskatchewan legislature. Will she do it?

167 words

Ms. Melissa Lantsman

May/28/24 6:02:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I can understand why it is very difficult to keep track of all the scandals of the Speaker. I can completely understand that because every time I see him in the news, it is a different scandal. However, the one we are talking about today is the partisan posting of a fundraising event that the Speaker is part of and that he probably, might have, most likely approved, in terms of time. It is that member over there, who is screaming over me, who has become obsessed with the Saskatchewan legislature. I would say to that member to go and run in Saskatchewan if people are not going to elect him in his seat in B.C.

119 words

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

May/28/24 6:02:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill. I am quite looking forward to her intervention on this matter. It is actually quite incredible to me that we are in this place at this point. I have been listening to the debate today. I have been listening to the government side. I have been listening to what I now call the moderate wing of the Liberal government, which is the NDP, argue that this is somehow a character assassination. In fact, a member of the opposition, who functions in his role as an opposition member, legitimately fulfilled his constitutional obligation by rising in this place and presenting a question of privilege. This was in relation to an advertisement of a partisan event that the Speaker of the House was going to be participating in. The ad was itself a character assassination of the Leader of the Opposition. When a member brings a question of privilege to the House, it means they feel that their privileges, or the privileges of other members, have been violated. At that point, given all the interventions that occur, the Speaker makes a ruling. In this case, the Speaker was not able to make a ruling, because he was directly implicated in this question of privilege; therefore the Deputy Speaker made a ruling. In it, he said there may have been a violation of members' privileges. That is it. The independence of the speakership was actually effective at that point in determining that a proper question of privilege had, in fact, happened. As is the right of all members, the member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie moved a motion based on the Deputy Speaker's ruling, which is what we are now debating. It is not as though any opposition party, be it the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois or any other party, wrote this ruling. This was a ruling of the independent Deputy Speaker after the Speaker recused himself. That is what we are dealing with today. We are not dealing with a character assassination; to be frank, we are dealing with a question of character. That question of character relates to the Speaker's ability to act in an independent, non-partisan manner, to act as a referee with respect for all members and their privileges. That is, in fact, what we are dealing with today. In the short period since the Speaker was appointed as such by the House, we have not just dealt with this on one occasion; there have been two other occasions. I know that colleagues on our side have been talking about those instances. Of course, the most famous one happened in Ontario. It was shortly after the Speaker was appointed that he felt compelled, in his Speaker's robe and using the resources of the Speaker's position, to make a video for the Ontario Liberal Party convention. I recall when I first saw that video. It was a Saturday night. I was sitting there, as a former House leader, looking at this video and thinking, What in God's name is he doing? It was partisan. I recall sending a text to our current House leader, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, and I asked him if he had seen it. How could the Speaker have such bad judgment, poor judgment, that he would make such a video for the Ontario Liberal convention? Of course, that was the first time that the question of privilege came up. Then there was another incident, in Washington, D.C., where the Speaker travelled on Speaker business and ended up at a partisan event that was videotaped and broadcast on social media. There, he talked about his experiences as a Liberal Party member. Now, of course, there is the latest incident, talking about the Speaker appearing at a fundraiser. However, within the notice for the fundraiser, there was a partisan attack on the Leader of the Opposition. It calls into question not only the Speaker's ability to be non-partisan but also, in many ways, his judgment. That is the fundamental issue we are dealing with today. It did not just happen once or twice. It has happened three times at this point. I think the ability of the opposition to function in its constitutional obligation and not have confidence in the Speaker is the root of what this question is all about. When the Speaker was elected, he promised this chamber and its members that he would act in a non-partisan way, that he would not get in the way of debate and that he would be the referee, which is his role. However, time and time again, we have seen otherwise. This was not only the case in these three incidents but also in rulings and judgments, not the least of which was removing the Leader of the Opposition from the House during question period. That is something that I have not seen in the nine years I have been here. Many members whom I have spoken to, some with a long history in this place, and some with knowledge of history, had not seen anything like that occur before. I can say that I was here the day when that happened. I was watching the Speaker. We had started off on a Monday. It had been a pretty raucous question period. I know that the Speaker had, at his left hand, the notice of removal. Somebody was going to leave the chamber that day. I am convinced of that, and it happened. We actually had two members that left. One was the member for Lethbridge, and then that was quickly followed up by the Leader of the Opposition. The challenge right now is trust in the ability of the Speaker to conduct himself in this non-partisan way and with impartiality. That really is what this is all about. Again, this prima facie case of privilege that the member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie brought up is what we are dealing with today. It was not written or initiated by the opposition; it is something that was initiated by the Speaker of the House. I can say that I do a lot of events; we all do. There is a vetting process that goes on for any event that I attend by my staff to make sure that I am not using House of Commons resources and that those events that I am attending are, in fact, proper events. There is no convincing me that someone in the Speaker's office or the Speaker himself did not know what was on that invitation. Finally, I would like to finish off with what I perceive as a decline in our democracy. I see an erosion of respect for our institutions. The fact is that the Liberals and the NDP are standing up in this place and seemingly defending the actions of the Speaker, and they have been doing it since this debate started yesterday. This speaks to a lack of respect for this institution. If anyone had any honour or integrity at all, they could see the chaos this is creating. The fact is that their decisions and their lack of judgment, impartiality and non-partisanship is causing such disruption in this place. This speaks to a decline in our democracy and a lack of respect for our institutions. The first time the Speaker conducted himself in this way, when he made that video for the Ontario Liberal leadership convention, I said that he should have to resign. I believe that was the appropriate time for him to resign. Now we have two other instances where the Speaker has shown this lack of judgment and lack of impartiality. As far as I am concerned, there is no other option. Almost half of the House believes that the Speaker has acted in a way that is unbecoming in terms of his role as Speaker and that he does, in fact, need to resign. I appreciate what the Bloc tried to do before, which was to bring a unanimous consent motion to have a secret ballot when this vote occurs. I believe there are still people within the Liberal Party, and perhaps some within the NDP, who conduct themselves with honour. They see the actions of the Speaker and how that is causing a lack of respect for this place. If a secret ballot were held, I believe that some of those members, other than the ones who are going to stand up as they ask their questions, would actually want to see the Speaker removed, as the motion states.

1454 words

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

May/28/24 6:13:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the deputy leader just spoke and said this. It is not a direct quote, but it is pretty darn close, because I had to make notes as she was saying it. It will show tomorrow in Hansard. She said, in regard to this partisan posting, that her conclusions were, with respect to the Speaker, that he “probably, might have, most likely approved” of it. We have a third party that has said it was fully responsible and has actually apologized for it; then we have the deputy leader of the Conservative Party saying the Speaker most likely approved of it. That is what the Conservative Party is basing its evidence on when saying the Speaker has got to go. I think there is a lot more truth to what the member just finished saying. This is a personal thing. He said that the Speaker should have resigned long ago. Could he provide more clarification on his statement that he does not believe the Speaker should have been given one chance?

174 words

Mr. John Brassard

May/28/24 6:14:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in the first instance, shortly after he was pronounced Speaker, the Speaker engaged in a partisan message to a partisan party convention, the Liberal Party convention. He was in his robes, using Speaker resources. There have been people in this place who have resigned or have been forced to resign, and did the right thing by resigning, for much lesser grievances than that. Therefore, yes, I do believe that the Speaker should have resigned in the first instance. Now we have additional instances, two more, in fact, of partisan activity by the Speaker. That, to me, speaks more to his character, his lack of judgment and his inability to act in a non-partisan manner while sitting in the chair.

122 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

May/28/24 6:15:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this is a question and comment period, but I am going to make a comment because I am no longer sure what questions to ask in this circus atmosphere. It is degrading for the institution we represent. My colleague's leader would not have been ejected if he had made respectable comments in the House, comments worthy of the institution we represent. My Liberal colleagues are defending the indefensible. It is a lesson in politics 101. I do not even understand why we are here today. As my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue said, three strikes is the limit in baseball. Trying to be the adult in the room, the Bloc Québécois moved a motion. We made a democratic proposal that a secret ballot be held. It is a completely democratic process. I could hear people in the NDP shouting that they did not want that. Frankly, what is happening right now is degrading for the institution we represent. That is my comment.

171 words

Mr. John Brassard

May/28/24 6:16:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it will come as no surprise that I agree with many of the things the member said, including the idea of a secret ballot. However, the circus she is talking about is the product of the Liberal-NDP coalition. That coalition is undemocratic. It is bringing our democracy down. That is what I am very worried about, to be quite frank.

63 words

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

May/28/24 6:17:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in his speech, my Conservative Party colleague stressed respect for institutions, parliamentarians' work and everything we do here, but we must also respect the work of Parliament. The Standing Committee on Health is currently conducting an important study on the opioid crisis. During question period, the Conservative Party leader shouted himself hoarse levelling truly vicious accusations about the crisis. Meanwhile, people are dying out there. Right now, the Standing Committee on Health is in Montreal meeting with people who are experts on this issue. Does anyone know how many Conservative members came? Not a single one. They do not want to hear the truth. They do not want to know what community groups are dealing with. That, too, shows a lack of respect for our institutions.

128 words

Opioid

Mr. John Brassard

May/28/24 6:18:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will answer that question in less than five seconds. If the member had any respect for this institution and if he had any respect for our democracy, he would cut off the unholy alliance and coalition he has with the Liberals and allow Canadians to call an election so that we can get back to some sense of normalcy in this country.

65 words

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC)

May/28/24 6:19:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this place, the House of Commons, is the seat, arguably, of democracy in Canada, one of the most important seats and, arguably, it is also the only thing that prevents Canadians from settling their disagreements through violent conflict. Our tradition in here of solving our problems through discourse is what makes Canada Canada. What makes this place this place is the Speaker's role. It is the Speaker's charge under our Standing Orders and under our traditions to maintain impartiality. That has not happened. I want to try to implore some of my colleagues from other political parties to think about why the Speaker needs to go, in concrete terms, with regard to each of the Speaker's three roles. However, before I do that, I want to briefly comment on the deputy leader of the opposition's point that was made about trust. The current occupant of the Speaker's chair had a big trust deficit to overcome with the House, because, historically, Parliament has never had someone who had a government appointment take on the role of Speaker in that same Parliament. Not only did he have a minor government appointment; he had the most partisan appointment of all: parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister. That is like the Prime Minister's defence guy on any topic. So, there was a trust deficit to overcome. What happened, now that we are on the third incident, the third case of privilege where the Speaker has demonstrated partisan behaviour, is that it is very clear that impartiality has been breached. Now it is not just about this place; it is about Canadians' faith in this place being able to fairly and neutrally function as a place where their voices can be heard, because if the Speaker is being partisan for the Liberal Party, then the 120,000 people I represent do not have fair hearing in this House automatically. We can respect each other as partisan for our ability to be partisan, but I implore the Speaker to resign on his own accord, because his legacy is now having breached that impartiality, to the point where any decision he makes, any ruling he makes, is going to be viewed through that lens, and that degrades Canadian democracy. So, when we are talking about wasting House time, the Speaker should have resigned already. That is the right thing to do. That is what he should have done. Now, how does this impact his three roles? First of all, “the Speaker presides over debate in the House and is responsible for enforcing and interpreting all rules...of the House.” Already, the Speaker, outside of the three instances, has had to recuse himself on questions regarding the government withholding information in Order Paper questions or misleading the House. Why? It is because they were Order Paper questions he signed off on in his role as parliamentary secretary, which is problematic in and of itself. Then, with this partisanship, not just allegations, but a clear case of privilege being found, which is why we are debating this right now, when he makes the decision to remove someone, it is going to be debated through a partisan lens automatically because of this partisan finding, and he has already lost the confidence of a significant number in the House. Many opinion columns have been written, and rightly so, asking how the Speaker can continue on in his role when two of the major political parties say that he has lost confidence. This is not something that is par for the course. This does not happen every Parliament. This is the first time it has happened. It is a remarkable decline in Parliament, and he is presiding over it. If we are going to talk about people wasting the time of the House, he should have resigned already of his own accord, which is the honourable thing that he should have done. So, he cannot do his first role as he cannot neutrally preside over the proceedings of this place. His second duty is as the chief administrative officer of the House. I did raise this issue in committee, in PROC, today. I also raised this with the House leader of the NDP in debate today, respectfully, but he did not answer the question, which is this: Honestly, how, given these partisan allegations, can the Speaker be the presiding officer over the House of Commons' harassment policy? How is that possible? Let us put everything aside for a minute. This is really serious. If we look through the transcript of the day in May 2016 when the Prime Minister elbowed former NDP MP Ruth Ellen Brosseau in the chest, I draw the attention of the House to the comments of the member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, as well as the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke. The member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski said, “if we apply a gendered lens, it is very important that we recognize that young women in this place need to feel safe to come here, to work here”. She gave a whole detailed account of what happened. The Speaker jumped up, right after the member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski spoke these words, and said, “if one wants to exaggerate the situation and to make this into something that it was not, or make it reminiscent of a dive in the 2006 World Cup, perhaps we can go on.” He said, “I think [it] might have been exaggerated”. He was not only denigrating Ruth Ellen Brosseau, but he was also denigrating the account of harassment from the member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski. Then he goes on to say, “What happened was exactly as the Prime Minister had described it.” These two women had experienced it differently. Now, putting partisanship aside for a second, we are being asked in this place to suspend our disbelief that the Speaker can somehow magically go from that to being the neutral arbiter of the House of Commons harassment policy. He now has three strikes of partisanship against him. How do we or any staff member know that vexatious complaints are not going to be made? How do I know that I could go there and not have that leaked to the Liberal whip and have it go to the media? He has effectively put a chill on anybody wanting to talk about harassment in this place, and yet the NDP is propping him up. Why? Again, this boggles my mind. It is fundamentally wrong. The last thing is that the Speaker is “the representative or spokesperson for the House in its relations with authorities...outside Parliament.” Yet, the Speaker was in his robes, talking about being a young Liberal, in this capacity, in Washington, D.C. His international relation is now as a spokesperson for the Liberal Party. Come on. He just needs to resign. That would make everything easier. I have no idea what is going on in the NDP caucus right now. It boggles my mind. I have no idea how they are supporting him. It really boggles my mind. A supply and confidence agreement with the government should not include an agreement to cover up and support the partisan activities of the Speaker of the House of Commons. Then, the deputy House leader is saying that it was the Liberal Party, and the Speaker could not have possibly known about it. I would like to quote something that the leader of the Liberal Party, the CEO, the executive-in-chief of the Liberal Party said when allegations about former justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould and the whole SNC-Lavalin scandal came out. The first thing that the chief operating officer, the person in charge of the Liberal Party today, said was that the story in the Globe was “false”. How many times have we heard the Liberal Party, the commander-in-chief of the Liberal Party, say, “Oh no, it is false. That is not what happened.” I have respect for every person in this House. I would like to think I actually have a good relationship with many people in this House. Out of self-respect, how can somebody stand up here and ask this of the House? How are we supposed to believe that the Speaker did not know about this, and that we are just to take the Liberal Party's word, after nine years of hearing that the story in the Globe is false. This is just amateur hour. The Speaker should just resign. If he is watching this, he should resign. He should stop the debate and just resign. There are many other people in this House, not me, who could do this job in an impartial way. There are people who have stood up against their party from time to time, who have shown some independence in this place, who could do this job and respect the democratic traditions that this is based upon. Yet here we are, for the third time, debating this. When we are talking about a waste of time, it is not a waste of time to protect Canadian democracy, but the Speaker is sure wasting the House's time, and that is a shame.

1564 words

Presiding

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

May/28/24 6:29:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, sadly, the character assassination continues. I have been a parliamentarian for well over 30 years. I have seen New Democrat Speakers, Progressive Conservative Speakers, Conservative Speakers and Liberal Speakers. I really do not appreciate when individuals across the way try to imply that they know it all when it comes to what qualifies an individual to be a Speaker. The Conservatives then twist and distort what has previously taken place. PROC came forward with a recommendation for one purpose, and that was to fit the Conservative agenda of trying to demonstrate that Parliament is dysfunctional. When will the Conservatives give up and start looking at issues that Canadians are concerned about? Whether it is affordability, pharmacare or the dental plan, there are all sorts of issues that Canadians want us to be dealing with. Why the farce?

139 words

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner

May/28/24 6:30:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that was an embarrassingly amateur display of gaslighting, which is not befitting of a member of that tenure. If the member really wanted to do his role justice, he would have got up and refuted any of the just points I made. However, he did not. He gaslit me. That is what he has done to Canadians. If the partisan Speaker wants to put his party out of its misery, he should just resign so that those sorts of embarrassing displays can stop, and we can get on with the nation's business.

95 words