44th Parl. 1st Sess.

May 28, 2024 10:00AM

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

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

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

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

1454 words

Hear!
Rabble!
add
star_border
share

SoVote

House Hansard - 319