SoVote

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

May/28/24 7:16:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, let me say a few kind things about another member of Parliament, of the House, who is a former Speaker himself, the member for Nipissing—Timiskaming. He was a good Speaker. He applied the rules as best as he could and tried to control us as well as any person can control us from the chair. That member made one mistake, and he resigned honourably to protect the Speaker's job and the role that it represents. That is 600 years of history that starts from the mother Parliament and is here in our own Parliament. Now we have a Speaker who, on the second formal vote, still has not chosen to resign. I put it to— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

126 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/28/24 7:16:47 p.m.
Watch

Could I invite the hon. members on both sides to take their conversations outside the Chamber? The hon. member for Calgary Shepard has the floor.

25 words

Mr. Tom Kmiec

May/28/24 7:16:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member for Nipissing—Timiskaming honourably stepped down to protect the speakership and the Speaker's office from being further attacked and from further losing the confidence of members of Parliament, and he made one mistake. He was a Speaker whom I voted for, because I had the confidence that he would be neutral in his role. The current Speaker does not have my confidence.

68 words

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

May/28/24 7:17:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I spoke about that this morning. Today, we are wasting a day talking about this motion. In my opinion, the answer is clear. The Speaker should step down. What is more, for the past several months, the atmosphere in the House has been rather toxic and difficult. Anyone who watches the debates in the House can see that members on both sides of the House call each other names and that the tone has become very aggressive and acrimonious. How does my colleague think that we can renew Canadians' confidence in our democratic system with the way that members have been speaking and debating in the House in recent months?

112 words

Mr. Tom Kmiec

May/28/24 7:18:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Bloc Québécois member for his good question. I am currently serving my third term in the House thanks to my constituents in Calgary Shepard, and I have to say that it is a great privilege to serve as an MP. I find that, before every election, the tone and the words that are used in the House become more intense. I think that we need an election. We need to either call an election or elect a new Speaker. That way we can reset and start fresh. Those are the only two choices: a new Speaker or an election.

110 words

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

May/28/24 7:19:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's fluent bilingualism. I also believe, and I am a little concerned that he does not share this, that there has to be due process. We have a situation where the Liberal Party of Canada made an egregious error, disrespecting the Speaker and disrespecting the House of Commons, by posting something without the authorization or the knowledge of the Speaker, and the NDP condemned the Liberal Party of Canada for doing that and demanded an apology, which was finally issued. It seems to me that the member respects due process. He should be directing his comments to the Liberal Party of Canada, not to the Speaker, and I am concerned about, not his approach, but many of his colleagues' attacking the Speaker, when he knows that the rules of the House are such that we cannot attack the Speaker or decisions. This is something that dates back to the former Speaker, the member from Regina—Qu'Appelle, who is currently the Conservative House leader. We have also heard Conservatives attack other Speakers, like in the Saskatchewan Legislature, and the news out of Saskatchewan is appalling. Will the member condemn what happened in Saskatchewan when the conservative Saskatchewan Party directed attacks against the independent Speaker?

211 words

Mr. Tom Kmiec

May/28/24 7:20:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what I did not hear the member talk about is his statement. I will remind him of it. He said, leading up to the vote, “This cannot happen [again] moving forward. From now on, you cannot have the Speaker engage in partisan activity.” He said that if there were any derogation from that, in the weeks and months to come, his party would join in voting non-confidence in the Speaker. He has that opportunity now.

80 words

Mr. Eric Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC)

May/28/24 7:21:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if members think ethics and integrity are important, I think most Canadians would be stunned at the fact that we would have to say, “six strikes and he should be out”. We are still here, six strikes in on the Speaker of the House, over and over again, as the Liberal MPs mock and just say, “Why not ten?” They have such a low bar they have set for themselves that we are here again today. The Speaker has been in the role for eight months, and there are numerous examples, time and time again, of his being incapable of being neutral, impartial, and non-partisan. Let me talk about the six strikes from my perspective. We are aware of what happened late last year. The Speaker had the extremely poor judgment to record a video in the Speaker's office, in his Speaker's robes, talking at the Ontario Liberal Party convention, doing a video praising another Liberal. It is completely unacceptable. The second strike was when the Speaker did an interview, cited in his role as Speaker in The Globe and Mail, regarding Mr. John Fraser, to whom he paid tribute by video. He referred, in his role as Speaker, to the Ontario Liberal Party as “our party”. It is completely unacceptable and just common sense not to do that as a Speaker of the House. If that were not bad enough, right in that time frame, the Speaker decided, when the House was sitting, to take a trip to Washington, D.C. It is nearly unheard of for the Speaker of the House of Commons to leave the country when the House is sitting, let alone when under a cloud of scandal, calls for his resignation and debate about his future. It was poor judgment to leave the country, not just when the House was sitting but also when he was under a cloud of investigation, scandal, criticism, and calls for his resignation. One would think that would be enough, but it goes on. He gets to Washington, D.C., as Speaker, goes to a private retirement party for a friend instead of being in the House of Commons, and gets caught on video talking about his partisan, Young Liberals of Canada history and how great those times were back in the day, and celebrating his Liberal roots. This is literally while he is under calls for his resignation for time and time again not showing impartiality but showing bias and partisanship towards the Liberal Party. That is number three of the six strikes we are now at. Number four is the photos that came out right around the time that PROC finished its investigation, showing that the Speaker attended a Quebec Liberal Party fundraiser locally, just across the river. When one is Speaker, they should not go to partisan fundraisers for political parties of any jurisdiction. That has just been the common-sense consensus of every Speaker we have had in this country for over 150 years. That is a strike again. Now we get to where we are when the Speaker, knowing the amount of criticism that has been lobbed rightfully against him, gets caught using such partisan language on an invitation to a partisan Liberal fundraiser for himself that it would make the member for Winnipeg North blush, probably. It is not just an accident to do all of this. Here is the thing that is interesting. After all of what I have just laid out, the Speaker promised, because the NDP propped him up, that this would never happen again. He said that he would put procedures in place to make sure that it would never happen again, and that he would be be completely impartial. This was just a rough start, and he wanted a new slate to do it all over again. One would have thought that the Speaker would have gone back to his riding association as he organized fundraisers, and thought, “Maybe we should watch the way we word our invitations.” I am not one to give free political advice to anybody on the other side of the aisle, particularly when it comes to fundraising, but nobody forced the Speaker to hold the fundraiser. He had promised to have procedures in place so this would never happen again. He could have simply mailed a letter out from the president of his riding association saying, “Our Speaker is busy being the Speaker and should be non-partisan. I am John Smith, the president of the Hull—Aylmer Liberal Association. Donate $100 to help out our local candidate in the next election.” It would have been free advice that would not have gotten him in trouble. However, it was put in an event, and here we are again. That was strike number five, and I am not done yet. The sixth strike was today. I am a member of the procedure and House affairs committee. The Speaker appeared today to talk about the topic of violence and harassment prevention policies of the House, PROC, Board of Internal Economy and so forth. The member for Calgary Nose Hill had an exchange with the Speaker about his past, his judgment and his actions of being overly partisan, and that it was on the floor of the House of Commons that the Speaker wrongfully defended the Prime Minister when he was not accused of but admitted to elbowing the chest of an NDP MP. What frustrated me as I sat in the room and listened was what the Speaker said in response to the member for Calgary Nose Hill's calling him out, saying the Speaker questioned the former member's integrity and her events of the story, literally mocked her on the floor of the House of Commons minutes later and suggested she took a dive reminiscent of something in the World Cup. He was called out for it. In the committee today, and anybody can go and watch the exchange, he said, “I can tell you that I never questioned Ruth Ellen Brosseau's accounting of the situation.” He literally stood up on the floor of the House of Commons, and it was infamous because he mocked her, and the Prime Minister had to apologize. The Speaker never did. Here he was today, when he was confronted about that situation, and I have to be careful of the words I use in the House so I do not get a point of order, and what he said in his response was completely false. People can listen to what he said that day only a few years ago, and can watch the footage from the cameras in here. That is strike number six. In 150 years, this country has now had 38 speakers. The current speaker is the 38th. I am not saying they have all been completely innocent. There have been blemishes. There have been issues. However, to have a Speaker with so many accusations against him of being partisan, having poor judgment, showing bias, and of not being neutral and impartial, and to have a couple of strikes, is not good. Some people say, “Three strikes and you're out.” We are at six strikes. The Speaker has not been here for eight years; he has been here for eight months. We have had Speakers who have served for about 10 ten years. Peter Milliken was raised earlier. He did not have eight issues and ethical violations in a matter of 10 years. The current Speaker has six strikes against him, from what I have outlined here tonight, in eight months. The question needs to be, “Who is the common denominator?” Liberal MPs have gone on to be Speaker before, with success in being able to balance. When the Speaker is elected, there is a tradition that the Speaker gets dragged in by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, dragged to the chair. That tradition is the fun part that everybody sees on TV. Nobody forced the Speaker to run in the first place. He did not ask me for my opinion, and it is probably better that he did not. I kind of wish that he had, because I would have told him that I did not think he was the best fit for the job, because whether it was in the ethics committee or public accounts over the years, time and time again, he was constantly unflinching in his defence of the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party, no matter what. It was a recipe for disaster. We need to have a Speaker in the chair who can be respected, command the respect of the House and allow us to get to business. We are here tonight not because of Conservatives. We are here because the Speaker, over and over again, has violated trust and has violated the code that for 150-plus years has not resulted in issues. The simple thing I will say again is that it is time for the Speaker to resign. Let us put a new Speaker in the chair, one who can unite the House and focus on the democratic importance we have in the chamber.

1555 words

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

May/28/24 7:30:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member does his best in terms of trying to talk about the great offences. One of the offences he talked about is the fundraising issue. The Conservative House leader was the Speaker, and he actually— Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

44 words

Offences

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/28/24 7:31:16 p.m.
Watch

Order. If members have something to contribute, they should wait until the appropriate time. I do not know how many times we have to repeat that in the House. Members have been here for a long time. I will ask the hon. member to start over and, hopefully, he will not be interrupted. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

62 words

Secretary

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/28/24 7:31:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the opposition House leader was the Speaker of the House. He not only had fundraisers for himself as Speaker, but also had fundraisers for other members, at least one that we are aware of. The Conservatives do all sorts of hokey-pokey stuff on it, but the bottom line is that we have to take into consideration the twists and turns that the Conservatives consistently use to present some sort of a picture that is not accurate. Why do the Conservatives continue to try to demonstrate that the parliamentary precinct is dysfunctional, when the only thing that is dysfunctional is the Conservative Party of Canada, better known as the Reformers?

112 words

Mr. Eric Duncan

May/28/24 7:32:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is the typical Liberal response. It is everybody else's fault but theirs. There are six strikes that I outlined in my speech: the video he made; the comment in The Globe and Mail about the Liberal Party being “our party”; his trip to Washington, D.C. and talking about his history in the Young Liberals of Canada; attending a Quebec Liberal Party fundraiser across the river when he was Speaker; the invitation that went out that was completely inappropriate and over the top; and then, the shameful comments he made today, completely distorting the reality of what he said and, again, attacking the integrity of an NDP MP. The NDP has no problem propping him up. Which six of those are wrong? None of them. They all happened, and Liberals continue to give him more chances, wrongfully. He has zero reason to give up the chair, if that is going to be the attitude of the Liberal Party. The more strikes he has, the more they seem to love him.

176 words

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

May/28/24 7:33:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, to say that we are going to blame the Speaker for something that was the fault of the Liberal Party of Canada, I absolutely cannot agree with that. It was a post that was done in complete disrespect— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

46 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/28/24 7:33:48 p.m.
Watch

Order. I know whoever is going to answer the question is very capable of doing so. That individual will not need any help. I would again remind members, if they have questions and comments, to please wait until the appropriate time. Otherwise, it is using up some of the time that members may want to ask a question and cannot be recognized. The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

70 words

Westminster

Mr. Peter Julian

May/28/24 7:34:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Liberal Party of Canada showed disrespect to the Speaker. The Liberal Party of Canada showed disrespect to the institution of Parliament. For the Conservatives to point the finger at the Speaker, when the Speaker did not authorize, and had no knowledge of, what the Liberal Party was posting on its website is passing strange. It is a denial of due process. We know that this debate is holding up an important debate that the NDP has initiated on pharmacare. There are about 18,000 people in the member's riding that would benefit from the pharmacare provisions to help people with diabetes and about 25,000 people in his riding would be helped by the provisions around contraception. The Conservatives seem to want to prolong this debate rather than simply allow the debate on pharmacare to take place. Will the member recognize that due process means, now that we know the facts, that the Conservatives—

159 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/28/24 7:35:29 p.m.
Watch

I have been trying to give the hon. member a signal. I want to allow the hon. member to respond. The hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.

30 words

Mr. Eric Duncan

May/28/24 7:35:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would argue that I feel I have a pretty good pulse on the thoughts of people in Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry. There are about 100,000 people who want to have an election so that Canadians can decide on all the issues the NDP keeps talking about, and more importantly, the NDP constantly propping the Liberals up. The member who just spoke, the House leader for the NDP, was at the PROC meetings when it made the report on the first set of ethical violations and poor judgments of the Speaker. New Democrats said that they will make sure this never happens again, and if he does anything further, he is going to have to resign. He does it, and it does not count. It does count. The Speaker knew. Was he going to randomly just show up at this fundraiser by accident the night it happened? No. The Speaker knew he was going to be at a fundraiser for his riding. He was going to be speaking at it. It was his choice to host all this, and knowing the history only months ago, he should have had better control and processes to make sure this did not happen. It was poor judgment, and he should not have done it. The NDP has to stop propping him up and giving him free rein to keep committing these multiple ethics violations.

236 words

Mr. Corey Tochor (Saskatoon—University, CPC)

May/28/24 7:36:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to take my place here and to follow the great speaker we heard earlier. I was shocked when he outlined the six strikes. Not one or two strikes, but six strikes. There is a seventh one, with the doctoring of Hansard, which has not been ruled on for weeks by the Liberal Speaker. We need a new Speaker. Madam Speaker, my remarks will be through you, but they are really directed to the power that is being held in this place by the NDP. We have an agent of the Crown, our Speaker, and I am most concerned about the orange portion of that Crown. The orange portion used to stand for the common man, for the common person in this place, and it has fallen so far from that position. The green carpet in this place is to represent the common people the NDP used to represent. Those people have been ignored by the NDP. Some would say they have been forgotten. It is an interesting exercise to consider the NDP's position with all these violations. The most recent violation, not the one that we are talking about today, but the last one, is the most telling. It is due to that allegation the NDP referenced, that if the Speaker messes up one more time, then there is going to be hell to pay. Guess what? The Speaker messed up. We are here. We have yet to hear the ruling on the Hansard cover-up that is going on right now. We are looking at seven violations, and maybe more, within eight months, and you have confidence in the Speaker?

278 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/28/24 7:39:07 p.m.
Watch

I want to remind the hon. member he is to address all questions and comments through the Chair, so I hope he will abide by that. The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby is rising on a point of order.

41 words

Mr. Peter Julian

May/28/24 7:39:19 p.m.
Watch

You are quite right to point this out, Madam Speaker. This is exactly how the Saskatchewan party has treated—

20 words