44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 28, 2024 10:00AM
- May/28/24 11:27:42 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in this place to address a question of privilege that has been raised with regard to the Speaker's public display of partisanship.
Of course, we know that the Speaker of this place occupies a position of trust. We know that within that position of trust, he is supposed to function in an impartial manner. He is supposed to apply the rules in this place equally to all members of all parties. When he functions in a partisan capacity, however, he then betrays the trust those who occupy a seat within the House of Commons. He goes beyond the scope of his role and actually uses it then for the benefit of his political party, in this case the Liberal Party of Canada.
The events that I am talking about are several in nature, but the latest one was “A Summer Evening with the Honourable [Speaker]”, said the announcement. This was a fundraiser that was hosted just across the river in Quebec, or deemed to be hosted just across the river in Quebec, and this invitation was sent out, drawing attention to the Speaker as the keynote. However, this is not the first time. This is the latest event that brings us to the House, calling for the Speaker's resignation or calling for a vote to remove him.
Before this, there was a cocktail fundraiser dinner that was hosted just a couple of months ago where, again, he was used as the keynote of this address or this function, and, of course, as Speaker, he was promoted, again in a partisan fashion, and used as an individual who could help elicit funds for the Liberal Party of Canada, and that is not all. There is a third one that I would like to draw the House's attention to, which is that the Speaker actually, in his full outfit, jet setted to Washington and addressed the audience that he was given there. He talked about his time as a young Liberal, and in a very partisan fashion, in his address to the audience that was in front of him. That is his third strike.
However, there are two more that I would like to draw the House's attention to, for a total of five within just the last few months of him being Speaker.
In this place, there was an interaction that took place between the Prime Minister and the leader of the official opposition. The Prime Minister exchanged words, or used words to accuse the official opposition of being a “spineless” leader. In retort, the Leader of the Opposition responded with words that were similar. The Speaker of the House said nothing to the Prime Minister, but then went on to kick out the member of the official opposition, again pointing to a partisan decision.
There is a fifth incident that I would like to draw attention to; that is that I myself was removed from this place. I was removed from this place because I used these words toward the Speaker. I said that he was, “acting in a disgraceful manner.” I was asked by the Speaker of the House to withdraw my words, which I rose from my seat and I said, “I withdraw”. However, the Speaker went on to kick me out of the House, not just for a little while but actually for the remainder of the day, therefore robbing the constituents of Lethbridge from having a vote in this place.
It is the practice of the House, and it is in fact according to the Standing Orders, that should a member stand in her place and withdraw those words, she should be allowed to stay. However, the Speaker, functioning in a partisan capacity, removed me. If those blues are looked at, it is very clear that I said, “I withdraw”. It is in the official record of the House. If the audio is listened to, Madam Speaker, you can hear me say those words “I withdraw”. It is clear within the audio record of the House. However, when it came to the Hansard, which is signed off by the Speaker's office, those words, “I withdraw”, were conveniently removed.
Therefore, there is already another question of privilege before this place, which is to say, why were those words removed? Why did the Speaker's office sign off on official Hansard records that removed my withdrawal?
In this place, the Speaker must function in a trusted capacity. He must respect the members of this place. He must never be partisan in nature, nor should records ever be officially changed based on what is convenient for him.
Based on his conduct over these five incidents, we are asking for his resignation and if not, then we would like to remove him through a vote.
819 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/28/24 11:36:51 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member for Lethbridge made a very compelling presentation, but she missed the original sin, and that is that there is a sixth incident, which is the very first incident, the one in which the Speaker, in his robes in his office, not far from this chamber, recorded a video to be played at the Liberal convention. While that privilege motion was being debated in the House, only a few days later he attended the function in Washington to which the member referred.
How many apologies and mistakes does the member think are acceptable in partisanship of the Speaker? Is it 10, 20 or one?
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/28/24 11:37:39 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, according to the Standing Orders outlined by Bosc and Gagnon, on page 323, it says:
When in the Chair, the Speaker embodies the power and authority of the office, strengthened by rule and precedent. He or she must at all times show, and be seen to show, the impartiality required to sustain the trust and goodwill of the House.
Any act of partisanship is far too many, and he has done five.
74 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/28/24 12:09:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, here we are again dealing with, for the second time in less than six months, a prima facie question of privilege from a ruling of the Deputy Speaker, arising from the partisan conduct of the Speaker of the House. This is truly unprecedented. When I spoke in December 2023 to the initial prima facie question of privilege, I never would have imagined that, in just a matter of months, I would be on my feet again with the Speaker's having engaged in a very similar transgression of engaging in partisan activities.
It is of fundamental importance that, in discharging the duties and responsibilities of Speaker, the Speaker not only be impartial but also be seen to be impartial. If follows, therefore, that the Speaker must refrain from partisan activities and engaging in partisan commentary both in the chamber and outside the chamber. As the leading procedural authority for this place, Bosc and Gagnon states, at pages 323 and 324, on this matter:
When in the Chair, the Speaker embodies the power and authority of the office, strengthened by rule and precedent. He or she must at all times show, and be seen to show, the impartiality required to sustain the trust and goodwill of the House....
In order to protect the impartiality of the office, the Speaker abstains from all partisan political activity....
Aside from the excerpt, I wish to elaborate on why a Speaker must be non-partisan, be seen to be non-partisan and avoid partisan activities. That is because the Speaker is, first and foremost, the Speaker of the House of Commons. He or she is the Speaker of the entire House and for all honourable members of the House, entrusted with significant powers and authority to rule not only on matters of procedure but also on matters that go to the heart of the rights and privileges of each hon. member of the august chamber.
The Speaker is like a referee or a judge. The Speaker's rulings are final. There is no appeal. As such, in order for Speakers to fulfill their responsibilities, they must retain the respect and confidence of members. In order to do so, the Speaker must rise above day-to-day partisanship.
I will add a few caveats to that. Each Speaker, generally, has arrived in this place after running for a political party. However, when they become the Speaker, they are expected to not engage in partisan activity, notwithstanding the fact that they would have had a partisan background; other than that, they continue to serve as a Liberal or Conservative MP, but not in sit in the Conservative or Liberal caucus or any political party's caucus. There is some limited flexibility for a Speaker, if they are running for re-election at election time, to run under their party's banner.
However, even in the context of an election, the Speaker, as has been the practice, has generally refrained from making overtly partisan statements or taking partisan positions, and has generally focused, in the context of a campaign, on local issues and the Speaker's representation as an individual member of Parliament.
With that context about why it is necessary for the Speaker to be non-partisan and to acknowledge the limited caveats to that which exist, as has been the practice, the current Speaker has repeatedly failed to fulfill the standard that is expected of the Speaker to refrain from partisanship and partisan activities. This is not a case of one lapse in judgment, a one-off, but rather is part of a pattern. Indeed, there have been at least six incidents in which the Speaker has engaged in partisan activities or made partisan comments in the eight short months that he has been Speaker, including three times between December 1 and December 5, 2023.
The first incident occurred on December 1, 2023, when the Speaker voluntarily set up an interview with Laura Stone of the Globe and Mail on the topic of the Ontario Liberal leader, John Fraser's, retiring, in which the Speaker heaped praise on the Ontario Liberal leader, a partisan figure, and referred to the Liberal Party of Ontario as “our party”. At the very least, it demonstrated a total lack of judgment on the part of the Speaker to set up an interview with a national newspaper reporter to engage in what amounted to partisan commentary praising a partisan political figure in Ontario.
One could say that maybe that was just a one-off, an error in judgment, but it did not end there. The very next day, a video was played of the Speaker, at the ultrapartisan venue of the Ontario Liberal Party leadership convention, providing a partisan message to a partisan political figure, namely the same outgoing Ontario Liberal Party leader, John Fraser. The Speaker in his message spoke about his own years of activism in the Liberal Party and how he worked hand in hand with John Fraser to help get Dalton McGuinty elected.
To make matters worse, the Speaker shot the video from the Speaker's office in the House of Commons, used parliamentary resources to convey a partisan message to be played at a partisan political convention and wore the non-partisan robes of the Speaker, to add insult to injury. As problematic as that was, the message on the video was a message from the Speaker of the House of Commons, played at the Ontario Liberal Convention. When it was reported and when people saw the video, there was general shock that the Speaker had done something that clearly had crossed a line.
However, the Speaker did not have the humility even to acknowledge that he had made a mistake. He dismissed his transgression as merely one of perception. When he came before the procedure and House affairs committee, he did not accept any real responsibility, just like his friend the Prime Minister. He said that it was a big misunderstanding and that the video was intended for a smaller private gathering. I do not suppose it makes it much better that the Speaker would use House of Commons resources conveying a partisan message to be played at a smaller partisan venue of Ontario Liberals, but that is the Speaker's logic. I would say it is illogic.
The Speaker's explanation, by the way, did not add up. The explanation was outright contradicted by other witnesses who came to committee and said that the request had been made from Mr. Fraser's wife to the Speaker's chief of staff, that the video had always been intended to be played at the Ontario Liberal convention and that there was no private, intimate event that occurred or that was ever planned. However, I digress.
As the Speaker was being called out for his partisan activities of shooting a partisan video played at a partisan convention, requiring the House to be seized of a matter of the first prima facie question of privilege, the Speaker, to demonstrate his contempt, while the House was sitting and while it was seized with the matter, took off to Washington, D.C. at taxpayers' expense to hobnob with a bunch of liberal D.C. elites, where the Speaker yet again engaged in partisanship. This was while he was under fire for two partisan transgressions. It is unbelievable.
The Speaker attended a reception for Claus Gramckow, who was retiring from the Friedrich Naumann Foundation, a foundation closely connected with the Liberal Party of Canada's sister party in Germany. During the reception, the Speaker talked about his days as a Liberal youth president. The Speaker was essentially thumbing his nose at the House and demonstrating that in his mind the rules and the standards that apply to the Speaker of the House do not apply to him.
It should be noted that the Speaker did not get off scot-free for his transgression. The procedure and House affairs committee, in a report that was adopted by the House, ordered that the Speaker reimburse the House of Commons for any costs associated with the production of the video using House of Commons resources, as well as provide an apology to the House, which the Speaker initially refused to provide.
One would think that, after that, the Speaker might have learned his lesson, but it seems he did not, because we found out shortly afterwards that the Speaker had been engaging in other partisan activities. For example, the Speaker attended a Quebec Liberal Party political reception for the Quebec Liberal MNA for Gatineau. It was then reported in the National Post that within weeks of being elected as Speaker of the House, the Speaker contacted a former Liberal MP to write an op–ed praising him and attacking the official opposition.
The Speaker took it upon himself to orchestrate an op-ed attacking the Leader of the Opposition, using a friend to do so because he knew that he could not do so publicly. That is conduct completely unbecoming of a Speaker. It was calculated partisanship by the Speaker, and he hoped that he could do it in a hidden way using his friend, a former Liberal MP. However, he was caught as a result of a report in the National Post.
Now we have the latest transgression by the Speaker, which is that the Speaker's Liberal riding association of Hull—Aylmer organized an event, “A Summer Evening with the [Speaker]”. On its face, if it was simply an event hosted by his riding association and was simply billed as a summer evening with the hon. member, that would not be an issue. It has been the practice for Speakers to attend events in their riding, including events of their local association, and to do so in a way that is not overly partisan. However, that is not what happened in this case.
In fact, what was posted to promote the event was an ultrapartisan message. I think it is important to read that message, which was posted on the Liberal Party website for “A Summer Evening with the [Speaker].” It was an “opportunity to join fellow Liberals and talk about the ways we can continue to build a better future for all Canadians.” On top of that, it says, “While [the Leader of the Opposition] and the Conservatives propose reckless policies that would risk our health, safety, and pocketbooks, our Liberal team is focused on making life more affordable for Canadians”. It went on.
That is an overtly partisan message, and it is not one, two or three, but six times that the Speaker has crossed the line. It really comes down to this: How many times does this have to happen? It has happened six times in eight months. Enough is enough.
The Speaker has repeatedly fallen below the standard expected of a Speaker, a standard that has been adhered to by his predecessors. I say respectfully that if he truly had an appreciation and respect for the high office that he serves and the authority that it carries over the House, he would do the honourable thing and resign as Speaker of the House. However, seeing as he has not seen fit to do that, it leaves us no other choice, as put forward in this motion, but to vote non-confidence in the Speaker. He has lost the confidence of the official opposition and the Bloc Québécois and has demonstrated a repeated pattern of partisanship.
I urge the passage of this motion, but I hope that it does not come to that. I hope the Speaker finally does the right thing and resigns.
1963 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/28/24 12:33:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I concur with the member for Thérèse-De Blainville that the Speaker's actions at this point are indefensible. It is part of a repeated pattern in which he has exercised a lack of judgment, blinded by his long-standing partisanship. The Speaker is a partisan, pure and simple. He is a partisan Liberal, and he has been unable to separate his partisan positions, his partisan views, when discharging the high office that he holds as the Speaker of the House. In the circumstances, it is why he needs to resign.
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/28/24 12:35:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, once again, the member for Windsor West has demonstrated that he is a member of the government caucus defending the partisan Liberal Speaker of this House by conflating unrelated matters relating to the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, who is not the Speaker of the House. It is more smoke and mirrors.
If the member wants to talk about consistency, I would remind him of the position that the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, the NDP House leader, took with regard to the Speaker on the very question of the Speaker's partisanship. He said, “This cannot happen moving forward.” However, this has happened at least three more times since then. Two incidents happened beforehand but were reported after the fact, and now this incident. The member for New Westminster—Burnaby also said that if there was “any derogation from that”, the NDP would vote “non-confidence”. They have an opportunity to do so now, but again—
169 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/28/24 12:37:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member for Regina—Lewvan is absolutely right. There is no connection. It is just an effort by the Liberals to sow confusion and smear the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, all the while failing to address the issue at hand, which is the pattern of repeated partisanship displayed by the Speaker of the House. The reason they are so defensive of the Speaker is that the Speaker is a partisan Liberal who has repeatedly demonstrated that he is prepared to take direction from the Prime Minister's Office. However, that is a whole other issue.
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/28/24 1:33:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Chair has the responsibility for overseeing the House of Commons harassment policy. It is a very serious role in this place.
In 2016, the Prime Minister grabbed my late former colleague, Gord Brown, by the elbow; he also elbowed a former NDP member in the chest. The Speaker's exact words in that moment, when the member expressed that she had been injured, were, “What happened was exactly as the Prime Minister had described it.” In the Hansard, he described it as “reminiscent of a dive in the 2006 World Cup.”
Now there are three incidents of partisanship while he is in the chair. How can the NDP trust the Speaker, given his history of partisanship, to fairly adjudicate the House's harassment policy? What impact will it have on staff and MPs if he continues?
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/28/24 1:43:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to address the House. I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.
This is a Speaker's scandal. For thousands of good people, today is another sad day, a day where our democracy is being disrespected and Canadians' confidence in the House of Commons is being put to the test. The Liberals have too often demonstrated a lack of ethics since 2015, especially when it comes to high-level positions such as Prime Minister of Canada or Speaker of the House of Commons, in the case we are discussing today.
As members know, the Speaker is supposed to be impartial, non-partisan and beyond reproach. However, the Liberal member for Hull—Aylmer is struggling to figure out the difference between the role of member and the role of Speaker, or at least, he still does not understand, despite his previous mistakes, that it is not appropriate for a Speaker to engage in Liberal partisan activity. He should have seen the position as a great opportunity in his political career, but he immediately took it for granted. It is different this time, though, because he was found guilty of not being up to the task.
This is the third time in the span of a few months that the Speaker has neglected his responsibility to remain non-partisan. Let me give a quick recap of the facts.
In recent months, the Speaker has spoken at a fundraising cocktail party for a Liberal neighbour. He has addressed an Ontario Liberal Party convention dressed in his Speaker robes, and he has flown to Washington on Canadian taxpayers' dime to deliver a speech about the good old days when he was a member of the Young Liberals of Canada. I do not know whether this is because he had never dreamed of holding such a post, but his actions are unworthy of the office of Speaker.
As members will recall, the previous Speaker of the House had to resign. We cannot question the reason for his departure, but we can salute him for having the courage to leave his post with humility. He recognized his mistakes and acted accordingly, understanding that the serious nature of our democratic institutions is worth preserving. The office must always trump personal partisan ambitions. In contrast, the current Speaker has demonstrated time and again not only his inability to remain neutral, but also his disdain for the neutrality of his post through his stubborn determination to hold onto it. His apologies are not enough. In some respects, they seem like a last-ditch attempt to salvage his chances of staying on as Speaker of the House.
Now might be a good time to take a walk down memory lane to remind ourselves of the events in question. First, the Speaker participated in a cocktail reception for party activists, for which he was fined just $1,500, despite the unacceptable nature of the error. Although using his office and Speaker's robes in an undeniably partisan setting ought to have led to an automatic dismissal, the Liberals saw fit to buy peace. Next, he overstepped his authority as Speaker by ejecting the member for Carleton and leader of the official opposition, in an illegitimate and undeniably partisan manner, for using language that has now been accepted by all following further review.
Now we have learned that the Speaker of the House is set to take part in a clearly partisan event, which was advertised with incendiary anti-Conservative materials. I understand that the Speaker is still attached to his role as the member for Hull—Aylmer. I myself am very committed to constituency work, which must be done for the benefit of all citizens, even those who did not vote for us. I agree that some aspects of this work are also partisan in nature. However, the role of Speaker is so important for unity in the House and in the country that we cannot allow it to be subject to these divisive dynamics, which, in this case, played out to an unhealthy degree. The fact that the position of Speaker of the House was exploited for partisan purposes leaves a bad taste that cannot be compared or contrasted with the work of any other member.
The many events, particularly this last one, are pure provocation. They demonstrate an arrogance that undermines Canadians' confidence in our institutions and promotes cynicism toward politics in general.
As elected officials, our number one priority is to serve and represent our constituents. This job comes with a certain number of privileges, but it also comes with responsibilities. There are rules that hold us accountable to Canadians, as well as to the House that represents them. That responsibility is what we must always be thinking about for Canada's future.
The real reasons keeping the Speaker from resigning remain unclear. It may come down to ego, visceral partisanship or political pressure from his caucus or party. However, regardless of the reasons, I am once again asking the Speaker to resign in the interest of everyone, to ensure that the extremely important work that is done here can carry on properly. It is a matter of common sense, and I salute my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois, who, for once, have reached the same conclusion we have.
The current Speaker has shown that he does not intend to remain impartial. We have known for months that the Speaker does not intend to do his job properly or fairly. We are therefore asking the NDP to grow a spine and stand up for Canadians.
We will have to make a decision because, clearly, the Speaker of the House does not have the humility needed to step down, and the Prime Minister does not appear to think there is a problem. It is our duty to ensure that the House operates in an impartial and non-partisan manner. I am counting on my colleagues to put an end to this Speaker's scandal.
1020 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/28/24 6:34:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, tu quoque is the most obvious logical fallacy in debate. The member did it, too. If the member was going to take this logical fallacy to the end, she should have raised a question of privilege on any of those matters she just raised, but she will not. Why is that? It is because they do not meet the level of partisanship the Speaker has been found guilty of.
She knows in her heart that this man should not be Speaker. I encourage her to go to her House leader to say that this is the third time this has happened, so why are they making her vote to prop up a guy who spoke out against a woman who was elbowed in the chest by the Prime Minister?
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/28/24 6:47:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from South Shore—St. Margarets for his speech, in which he talked about partisanship. He said that a Speaker should rise above partisanship. That is an interesting thing to point out in this debate.
However, I wonder if he could comment on something else that we have come to expect from the Speaker, because his role is essentially to make judgment calls on what is happening in the House. It is really all about exercising judgment.
Does my colleague believe that the current Speaker has shown good judgment, and is that a quality that should be essential, along with impartiality, in the role of Speaker of the House of Commons?
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/28/24 6:48:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, obviously, judgment is a key part of any role in the House, and the judgment in this case, when one is Speaker, has to be to say, “No, I will not go to a partisan event; my role does not allow for that.” In fact, in the past, Speakers have left their party and sat as independent members when they became Speaker. That is a choice the current Speaker has to make in judgment, and he showed that his judgment errs on the side of partisanship, not on the side of being neutral. That is why he has to vacate the chair.
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/28/24 6:50:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this evening, participating in this debate gives me no joy whatsoever. However, it is always an honour, including at this moment, to speak in the House of Commons.
The matter before us is the the motion of the member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, which notes:
...the Speaker's ongoing and repetitive partisan conduct outside of the Chamber is a betrayal of the traditions and expectations of his office and a breach of the trust required to discharge his duties and responsibilities, all of which this House judges to be a serious contempt and, therefore, declares that the office of Speaker shall be vacated....
I cannot believe this is the second time in six months that this chamber has had to come to a halt to debate and ultimately rule on the fitness of the Speaker to continue. The impartiality of the Speaker is fundamental to this institution. This House is where 338 members of Parliament, elected to represent the people of Canada, come to legislate the laws of Canada. This is where vigorous debate occurs on bills proposed most of the time by the government, but also by private members and those from the other place. This is where the most powerful people in Canada are held to account. The votes in this place determine the continuation of the government. This is where, on a day-to-day basis, the most powerful people in Canada come to face an opposition. It is where their ideas have to be tested.
When bills are brought into this place, the process of debate is designed to be adversarial. It is designed to be partisan. If the government is going to propose a bill to change the laws of Canada and impose law on Canada, it has to be tested by an opposition. The only way the democratic privileges of Canadians can be protected is through an impartial Speaker whose impartiality is absolutely beyond reproach, yet here we are, for the second time in six months, debating whether that is the case with the current Speaker.
I bring members to the latest issue and question of the impartiality of the Speaker, wherein the Speaker's Liberal electoral district association advertised a “Summer Evening with the [Speaker]” and talked about “fellow Liberals” joining with the Speaker to discuss issues. I will not repeat or read the portion of this invitation that had a very aggressive attack on the Leader of the Opposition and the Conservative Party.
Anybody who read this invitation could see that this was an absolutely unpardonable departure from the norm of the Speaker's impartiality. As the member before me talked about, the impartiality of the Speaker has been well understood since the mid-17th century. This is not something new, and the entire system relies on this impartiality, so the invitation to this event alone is a departure from that.
We have heard all day the speakers from the government say that this does not have anything to do with the Speaker at all and that this is from the Liberal Party. Really? There is a date on it. Are we left to believe that the Speaker did not know about this event that was advertised with his name on it on a particular date in his riding? Of course he had to have known about this. However, that may even be beside the point. Once a Speaker is elected, would not one of the very first things that any newly elected Speaker do be to sit down with the officials of the electoral district association for their party and tell them that they cannot advertise fundraising with the Speaker's name? They cannot do that. Everybody knows this. It is so simple. There is no excuse for it.
The Liberal Party may want to claim responsibility for this to deflect from the Speaker, but no reasonable person would buy that the date in question had not been communicated to the Speaker. Is the EDA really going to have a fundraiser and put the Speaker's name on it to advertise it without checking to see if he is going to be available to attend? Of course they must have done that.
The fact that this happened is why we are here today, but even if we could say this was a mistake, a one-off, by somebody who did not know better, the problem is that the Speaker has had a history of these types of events and no longer gets the benefit of the doubt. He does not get the benefit of the doubt when the House has already gone through a protracted question of privilege over his filming of a video in his Speaker's robes in the Speaker's office, which was played at a Liberal Party convention. He does not get the benefit of the doubt when this has already happened. When the debate on that earlier question was under way, the Speaker was in Washington attending another event, where he waxed nostalgic about his history of Liberal activism in a celebrity crowd of international Liberals.
I want to set that aside for a minute and ask what the Speaker was doing in Washington that week. That was a sitting week of the House of Commons. To the Speaker of the House of Commons, no other business is more important than a meeting of the House of Commons. Presiding over question period, presiding over important votes and presiding over the procedural issues that come up in Routine Proceedings each day are core responsibilities of the Speaker. There is no excuse for the Speaker to not be in the chair for these moments, other than incapacity and illness. If a Speaker is well enough to get out of bed and go out for the day, they are well enough to be in the chair when the House is sitting.
We have seen this over and over again. We have seen travel. We have seen the Speaker vacating the chair, probably, I am told, for diplomatic functions or meetings in the lounge. There is no excuse for these things. The Speaker ran on a platform to be Speaker, saying that nobody pays to see the ref; it is all about the players. However, under this Speaker, it has been about the Speaker, and that is just as offensive as the constant partisanship.
We have other examples of his partisanship. He attended an event for the Liberal member of the National Assembly in his riding. He got a former Liberal MP to write an op-ed to prop up his own standing and attack the Conservatives. Again, it is partisan attacks. The Speaker's job is not to care what the press gallery thinks or what the school kids in the gallery think or what anybody out there thinks of their conduct. The Speaker's role is to protect the privileges of members of the House of Commons. It is about protecting members. It is about ensuring that all of the people who elected the 338 members of the House of Commons have the tools and ability to hold the government to account and express their democratic will. That is the role of the Speaker, not hanging out with diplomats, not flying off to Washington and not any of the other things.
Despite the Speaker's role of protecting members' privileges, we are still waiting for a ruling. Four weeks ago, a question of privilege was raised over the alteration of Hansard, and the Speaker still has not ruled on it. It is about time that we had a Speaker that will uphold the privileges of members of the House of Commons in an impartial fashion.
1294 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/28/24 7:02:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am here to talk about the motion at hand. The member said, the last time we debated the partisanship of the Speaker, that if there were any further transgressions of impartiality, particularly involving Liberal and partisan action, he would vote for removal of the Speaker. Therefore, I call on him to remember his words from last December and vote accordingly.
63 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
