SoVote

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

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/28/24 7:39:54 p.m.
Watch

That is not a point of order. That is a point of debate. I want to remind members to please wait until it is time for questions and comments to add any additional comments. I would ask members to please not contribute, but if they want to have conversations, to please take it outside. The hon. member for Saskatoon—University.

61 words

Mr. Corey Tochor

May/28/24 7:39:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, through you, to the members in the chamber, the disrespect that the NDP caucus shows for this place is most stunning. It is most stunning that you will not look at the facts that have been laid out. There are over six violations, and the proposal is just to let it go and to say it is the party. There are a lot of things we put our names to in here. Like many members have pointed out, there is nothing that goes out from your office that you are not accountable for. Whatever is in that brochure, a ten percenter or anything that has your name on it, you know the message because you are accountable for it. You are accountable because it has your name on it. It comes from—

135 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/28/24 7:40:43 p.m.
Watch

Once again, I will remind the hon. member to speak through the Chair. Maybe he would prefer to look at the Speaker so that he does not address it directly to the member. Again, I want to remind the hon. member that he is to address all questions and comments through the Chair. The hon. member for Saskatoon—University.

60 words

Remind

Mr. Corey Tochor

May/28/24 7:41:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have been speaking through the Speaker. I have respect for this place. I view the debate that goes on here as the most important debate in all of Canada. Canadians from all corners of this great country send 338 people here, and when we get here, the first order of business is to elect a Speaker. It is the most crucial thing we do to start a term in this place. I note that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster. An important part of our role is to elect an impartial Speaker. Obviously, we have erred. The Speaker has blind spots that are too large to paper over. The last time we had a violation of this magnitude, we talked about procedure, saying that it was going to go through a certain lens, that we were going to have certain people informed. However, there is another group. Interestingly, when I was preparing for my speech and talking to some of my colleagues, pages came up, and I started talking about the role of a page. Do members know that not a single page has been fired this term? Pages, for the people watching at home, are the people who help us. They bring over important documents. They let us know if a guest is here. They facilitate the debate. An important role for them is to be impartial. The first thing they learn in page school is that they have to be impartial. They cannot post on social media. They cannot share an opinion publicly. If they do, they are fired. Not a single page has been fired from this place because they take their role seriously. How this relates to the Speaker, which is an interesting twist, is that he was a page at one time. I think he knows what is right and wrong, but unfortunately he keeps picking the wrong decision, not once, not twice, but six times. We are soon to find out about a seventh time. To the NDP members who will be voting in this, I would say, historic vote, our debates here cannot happen without an impartial Speaker. It is one of the most important roles we have, so we need a Speaker we can trust, not one who is an agent of the Crown. That Crown, unfortunately, with the Prime Minister and his unholy alliance with the NDP, is lacking in common sense. This lack of common sense is, I think, born into these members. It is the common sense to know that if one is the referee, one cannot take part in partisan activities. As pointed out earlier, I was once honoured to hold this position in Saskatchewan. I was the 25th Speaker of the Saskatchewan legislature. It was an honour, and it is a peak of my career that I do not know if I will ever surpass. I loved that job; I loved it with all my heart. However, there was another calling that was greater: this country. I was worried about the country that my two boys were going to inherit after the ruinous Liberal Party was done with it. What did I do? Knowing that I could not be in a partisan role as Speaker, I put down my robes. I resigned my speakership so that I could take part in a partisan event, which was the nomination for my seat. I did that because I hold ethics, being impartial, being a referee, to a much higher role than just someone who wears a pointy hat and funny robes. However, even that is important. Madam Speaker, you wear those robes because they identify you as someone different who holds that seat in this chamber. It is something special to be identified with the uniform of a Speaker. It is therefore with a heavy heart that I ask the current Speaker to lay down his robes. He has discredited, embarrassed and tarnished the office he holds.

669 words

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

May/28/24 7:46:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, unlike the member opposite, I was not a Speaker, but I do have a bit of experience at the provincial level. I have found Speakers of different political parties all to have their own unique characters and styles in terms of their performances inside the House. I do not see anything with regard to the substance of the motion today that justifies the type of action that the Conservatives are, in essence, saying should be taken. One of those things, for example, is that if two political parties want a Speaker to be gone, then the Speaker should step down. If Saskatchewan only has two political parties in the chamber, would it be okay to draw the assumption that, if a Speaker does not have the support of an opposition party, the Speaker should step down?

138 words

Mr. Corey Tochor

May/28/24 7:47:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that question could only come from a member of a caucus that has a leader with three ethics violations. The corruption and rot over there go deep, and such a question highlights how much these ethical lapses have become a part of this place under these guys.

49 words

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

May/28/24 7:47:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the current Speaker of the Saskatchewan legislature actually referenced this member in his final statement to the legislature on May 16. This is in the legislature's Hansard, and the Speaker talked about the member who has just spoken. He said the following: The signs of inappropriate behaviour by the Government House Leader took place with a former Speaker. The Government House Leader, MLA for Meadow Lake, bragged that he could get the Speaker to rule in any way that he wanted. There is plenty of evidence that did take place. The Government House Leader would text the Speaker how he should rule on a regular basis. The Speaker resigned and ran federally. Could the member confirm that he is the man that they are referring to, who would rule any way the government House leader wanted? How does the member explain this quote from the Speaker of the Saskatchewan legislature?

153 words

Mr. Corey Tochor

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

Madam Speaker, that member has been spending way too much time within the Liberal caucus; now it is just gaslighting, all the time. That is the most— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

33 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/28/24 7:49:01 p.m.
Watch

Order. The member has had an opportunity to ask a question, and if he has anything else to add, he can wait until the appropriate time. That goes for every member in the House. There are other members who are weighing into the debate, and I would ask them not to do so. The hon. member for Saskatoon—University can continue.

62 words

Ask

Mr. Corey Tochor

May/28/24 7:49:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that just highlights the importance of the role that you hold right now as a referee, and that is what we need too: a good Speaker. I am asking the Speaker to lay down his robes today.

39 words

Mrs. Anna Roberts (King—Vaughan, CPC)

May/28/24 7:50:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we all remember the events of April 30 when the Speaker kicked out our leader. I want to quote exactly what we heard from the previous leader of the NDP when he said, on that same date, that the Speaker should step down and that, in his career, he has “never seen such blatant partisanship” from a Speaker. Does my colleague have comments on the former NDP leader agreeing with everyone else in the House? I would love to hear them.

85 words

Mr. Corey Tochor

May/28/24 7:50:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that was back when the NDP was a true party. It was a socialist party. I do not agree with the New Democrats' thinking, but I knew where they came from. Now they have devolved into a power-hungry, fart-catching party of the Prime Minister. It is embarrassing to see, in questions from the New Democratic Party, that it has stooped so low.

66 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/28/24 7:51:25 p.m.
Watch

There is still some heckling going on, or some individuals are trying to participate in the debate. I would ask them to wait until the appropriate time. The hon. member for Saskatoon—University has 30 seconds to wrap up.

40 words

Mr. Corey Tochor

May/28/24 7:51:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is so nice of you to respect the clock and give me the last 30 seconds here to just wrap up my comments. I would like to thank everyone for helping us get here. I also want to talk directly to the people who are helping the Speaker out right now. He needs help. He has embarrassed the office of Speaker, and he needs to be convinced to resign.

72 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/28/24 7:52:08 p.m.
Watch

Again, I just want to remind members to please hold back. If they have anything to add, they should keep it for the next questions and comments. However, now we are going to debate. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster.

43 words

Mrs. Rosemarie Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster, CPC)

May/28/24 7:52:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we know that the role of the Speaker carries great responsibility in the House. It is critical to the functioning of our democratic institution. The Speaker has a duty to enforce the rules and the traditions of the House, whether written or not. The Speaker has the responsibility to maintain order and to preside over debates. The Speaker is also entrusted to safeguard the rights and the privileges of all members in the House. It is a role that carries great influence and great power, a role that requires a high level of trust in the individual that holds the office. That is why it is imperative that the Speaker carry the role of impartiality. To act otherwise is a breach of the trust that is required of the Speaker. That is where we find ourselves today: The trust between the Speaker and the members of the House has been broken. Once again, the Speaker has shown complete disregard for the neutrality required of him in the role that he holds. The Liberal Party's advertisement of “A Summer Evening with the Honourable [Member]” was overtly partisan. There is no question about its partisan nature. It contained language and messaging that was clearly inciting about the leader of the official opposition and the Conservative Party. It is no surprise that the Liberal Party has come rushing in, trying to shield and to defend the Speaker. However, it is the Speaker who allowed his name to be used to promote the event. In doing so, he tied the office that he holds to the language and partisan messaging used in the invitation. That is unacceptable. The appropriateness of his actions are not even in question here. The Speaker did not maintain the neutrality required of him in this role. In fact, the Deputy Speaker has now ruled that the Speaker acted in a partisan manner. Therefore, it is already decided that the Speaker acted inappropriately. His pattern of behaviour is simply unacceptable. It is my opinion that the Speaker must resign. If he does not, then he must be removed. Without the confidence of members of the House, the Speaker cannot be trusted to govern this place in a manner that is fair and that is also impartial. Let us be clear: As has been stated over and over again this evening, this is not strike one, strike two or strike three for the Speaker. This is a pattern of behaviour. I know that all members of the House will recall when the Speaker used his official Speaker's robes, his office and his title in an unquestionably partisan video broadcast at an Ontario Liberal Party event. That he used his office and the title that he holds to further partisan efforts was a clear violation of his role. That was then followed by partisan speeches in Washington, D.C., delivered using his title as Speaker of the House of Commons, where he reminisced about his days as a young Liberal. Of course, we know that the Speaker has also spoken at neighbouring ridings' Liberal fundraising events. If there was any trust left after any of these single incidents, it has only been further shattered after each and every one. It also makes us question whether there have been other violations that just have not come to light as of yet. The Speaker has now repeatedly failed to uphold the neutrality and impartiality that is required of the office he holds. After so many incidents, it cannot be argued in a believable way that it was simply an oversight. The Speaker has intent. He has shown to Canadians and to members of the House his intent to use his office to further his partisan interests. In fact, this pattern of behaviour actually creates more doubt and more questions about how the Speaker wields his power and authority in this chamber. The Speaker's decision to oust the opposition leader from the chamber for the use of the word “wacko” is quite fresh in everyone's mind. That was a notable ruling from the Chair that stands out even more given the free pass that is regularly given to the Prime Minister for the use of similar language. Given the pattern of behaviour that has been established, are Canadians and we as members of Parliament expected to believe that a decision of that nature was not motivated by partisanship? The Liberal government seems quite comfortable with the Speaker's behaviour. While his partisan endeavours suit the Liberal government's interests, I think Canadians would have hoped they too understand that a hyperpartisan Speaker undermines the integrity of our democratic institution, an institution that we all have a shared duty to uphold. Perhaps what is most concerning is the position that the Liberals' NDP partners have taken. The NDP seem to be very forgiving of the Speaker's repeated actions, despite assertions previously made by the member for New Westminster—Burnaby. It was not that long ago that after the Speaker delivered his remarks at a Liberal Party of Ontario event, which, as members will recall, was done in his official robes from the Speaker's office using his title of Speaker, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby went on public record putting a line in the sand for the NDP. He told Canadians that the NDP would call for the Speaker to step down if such an incident were to happen again. Well, it has happened again, and the Deputy Speaker's ruling confirms this. The Speaker has acted in a clearly partisan manner, but that line in the sand from the NDP has now suddenly disappeared and is nowhere to be seen. That empty threat from the NDP was also accompanied by excuses that the Speaker was improperly briefed in his role. In fact, the member went so far as to suggest that this was a shortcoming of our institution itself. That excuse from the NDP somehow suggests that the Speaker could not be expected to know that participating in hyperpartisan activities would be inappropriate, and that in doing so, he would be undermining the institution. I would expect that any individual who holds the office of Speaker possesses sound judgment. That is a minimal trait that should be expected of the Speaker, who presides and makes rulings in this House. Regardless, the excuse of not knowing cannot be used over and over again. The Speaker must take responsibility for his actions. While it is not shocking that the NDP is yet again eager to protect its Liberal masters, it is nonetheless shameful. It is absolutely imperative that the Speaker of the House, regardless of their party affiliation, carry out their role in a manner that is impartial and neutral. That neutrality ensures that the Speaker can maintain the trust of all members in the House. It is what fosters good order in this place, and it gives credibility to and confidence in the rulings that are made by the Chair. That trust has been lost, and the Speaker's continued defiance of the neutrality required of him has shattered any hope of it being repaired. The Liberal government and its NDP coalition partners have a responsibility to protect our democratic institution. They cannot continue to defend the unacceptable partisan conduct of the Speaker. Only with a new, non-partisan Speaker can we restore the trust that has been broken and get on with the important business of the House.

1257 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/28/24 8:02:04 p.m.
Watch

It being 8:02 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the privilege motion now before the House. The question is on the motion. If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

88 words