SoVote

Dec/4/23 12:29:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the current Speaker of the House took office after the previous Speaker resigned following a serious error in judgment. His succession was a very sensitive issue, at least, more sensitive than usual. Everyone, or almost everyone, here knows and would agree that the current Speaker was a highly partisan member. At the time, the Bloc Québécois decided it would give the member in question the benefit of the doubt. Regardless of what kind of member we are, I think that any member who wants to be Speaker has the right to hold the office and prove to everyone that he or she is impartial. I applauded him in my speech to the House a few minutes after he was elected, and told him that I was looking forward to seeing him perform his duties with the impartiality that is essential, necessary and indispensable to any Speaker worthy of the title. What are the facts here? The House leader of the official opposition clearly explained them. I will very quickly go back to a few things, if I may. First, the Speaker was in his position as Speaker of the House of Commons. He was wearing the robes of the Speaker of the House of Commons. He was in the offices of the Speaker of the House of Commons. He used the resources of the Speaker of the House of Commons for an event that was undeniably partisan. I am going to quote from the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, 2017: “In order to protect the impartiality of the office, the Speaker abstains from all partisan political activity”. It is very simple. Therefore, we have a major problem. We have heard from the Speaker of the House that we were not supposed to see this. That is troubling, because we did see it. Are there other events that we did not see? Did we see the tip of the iceberg? We have these questions in mind, and I do not think it is appropriate to have these questions come up when we think about the actions and responsibility of the Speaker, an office of critical importance for our institutions. We want to have confidence in the interventions the Speaker makes in the House. We do not want to be left wondering whether it was for the good of the House, the good of democracy or the good of the government. We do not want to ask ourselves those types of questions. On November 29, our leader asked the Prime Minister a question and the Speaker deemed it irrelevant because, according to him, it had nothing to do with the management of government operations or public administration. We raised a point of order on the issue. We want to believe that this was simply a mistake. That is what we wish and that is what we believe. He even admitted it. What do we do now? This needs to be above partisanship. We must ensure that Parliament functions. That is what people expect. We have to work for the greater good of the public. We must not allow things to fester or trust in the Chair will be lost and the work of the House might become less effective than it should be. Things in the House are rather tense right now. We can all agree. Doing the work of the Chair requires two essential qualities: impartiality and impeccable judgment. Unfortunately, after what he did this weekend, the Speaker has shown us that he has neither of these qualities. That is why the Bloc Québécois is urging the Speaker to step down without delay.

618 words

Context: House Hansard - 261 - Dec/4/23

M. Luc Berthold

Dec/4/23 12:50:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I understand. However, I think it is very important that all of the French speakers are able to hear about the facts that were reported and the articles that were published in the English newspapers directly from a member. I will continue by quoting a few things from House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition. Chapter 7 very clearly states the following: ...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. A new fact has come to light. Today, in the House, a political party asked the Speaker to step down. That is a new development that occurred after my colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle raised the question of privilege. Chapter 7 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice also states the following: “In order to protect the impartiality of the office, the Speaker abstains from all partisan political activity”. To show how much I respect the fact that the Speaker asked me to be brief, I will end with this. The participation of the Speaker of the House of Commons in a partisan Liberal activity, whether at the federal, provincial or even municipal level—if there were municipal Liberal activities—is simply unacceptable. The Speaker must be the arbiter of House debates and deliberations. Mr. Speaker, for all these reasons, I ask that you rule in favour of the question of privilege put by the House leader for the opposition and member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.

279 words

Context: House Hansard - 261 - Dec/4/23

Hon. Andrew Scheer

Dec/4/23 1:03:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I just want to again reference the statement the Speaker made today. He said, “I would like to reassure members that the principles of respect, impartiality and decorum are values I continue to prioritize for my tenure as Speaker.” Those are not things one just says; those are things one actually has to do. I ask the Speaker to consider this: Should you not agree that this rises to the level of requiring a privilege motion, you will be saying that it is okay for Speakers to engage in these types of partisan activities. I do not want to see the special way the Speaker conducts himself or herself start to be eroded because of the actions that happened this weekend if the House does not take a decision on this.

140 words

Context: House Hansard - 261 - Dec/4/23

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Dec/4/23 1:05:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do want to address this question of privilege and speak to the international role of the Speaker, which I do not think has been raised by other members. The primary role of the Speaker, of course, is to preside over this chamber, and impartiality is crucial in his work in that regard. However, the Speaker also represents this chamber in various fora with respect to international work, with respect to Canadian diplomacy around the world. The parliamentary website specifically identifies the role of the Speaker in terms of international work and diplomatic functions. Just this year, a previous Speaker made numerous international trips: at the end of June, a trip to Italy and the Holy See; in April, a trip to Denmark and Sweden; and in March, a trip to Argentina and Chile, for example. The Speaker's impartiality is crucial for their role in international diplomacy and in their work around education and modelling democracy, in some cases, in countries where there are struggles with democracy, where institutions are more vulnerable to capture and to other kinds of pressures and problems. The reality and the presentation of impartiality are critical for a Speaker's work, representing this chamber diplomatically, seeking to promote democracy. I hope that is taken into consideration as well, as the question of privilege is evaluated; that is the Speaker's role internally as well as the Speaker's role externally, speaking on behalf of members and on behalf of the House. Frankly, it is a grave scandal that we would have a Speaker giving the appearance of active partisanship while in his or her position, because that member, subsequently, will be expected to travel to other countries, to speak about our institutions and, in fact, to make the case, in more troubled context, for the importance of impartial institutions, the importance of having independent election authorities, officers of Parliament, etcetera. If the Speaker is compromised with respect to perception of his or her authentic impartiality, if compromised in that perception domestically, it becomes very challenging for that Speaker to fulfill his or her function internationally. It is a critical issue for Canadian democracy, for our own ability to represent our constituents in Canada, but it is also a pressing and important issue in the projection and promotion of our values around the world. Again, I would just encourage you, Mr. Speaker, to take this element of the question into consideration as you prepare for your ruling.

414 words

Context: House Hansard - 261 - Dec/4/23

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

Dec/4/23 3:22:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am rising to intervene on the question of privilege raised this morning by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. We were all dismayed over the weekend after seeing the Speaker in a video tribute to the outgoing interim provincial Liberal leader at the Ontario Liberal convention. Furthermore, the video was shot from the Speaker's chamber and in the traditional speaker's robes. As mentioned earlier today, the third edition of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, under the direction of Marc Bosc and André Gagnon, states the following on page 324: “In order to protect the impartiality of the office, the Speaker abstains from all partisan political activity”. The rules surrounding the impartiality of the Speaker could not be clearer. There are no ifs, ands or buts about it, and there are no exceptions to abstaining from partisan activity. This morning's apology by the Speaker partly explains why this unfortunate situation occurred. Although we understand that the video was intended for an intimate gathering for a personal friend, it was the duty of the Speaker and his office to ensure that the message was not used in a partisan context. In his statement, the Speaker also indicated that he was recusing himself from this matter directly involving him, and that he would follow the practices established in the ruling of October 19, 2023, concerning the recusal of the Speaker. We believe that it was necessary in this case for the Speaker to recuse himself. It is imperative to protect the impartiality of the Office of the Speaker. The citations and the quotes clearly show that the Speaker should not be taking part in any partisan activities. That he took part while wearing his robes in a video shot in this building makes the situation all the more clear. We believe that the proper way to deal with this at this point, as the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle made clear this morning, is to refer the matter to committee. More specifically, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs can study it and recommend any appropriate remedies so that this never happens again.

367 words

Context: House Hansard - 261 - Dec/4/23

Hon. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC)

Dec/4/23 3:25:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank the hon. NDP House leader for his contribution to the question. I want to take this opportunity to inform the House that I have gone through and looked at some of the remarks that were made today, the Speaker's statement this morning and what happened on the weekend. Just to compare this with what would happen in a similar circumstance in another area, where a group or an entity depends on the impartiality of a certain position, we could think of what would happen if an NHL referee appeared in a locker room for one of the teams, wearing his referee's uniform and giving a pep talk or positive messages to the team that is about to go out and play on the ice. How long do we think that NHL referee would continue in the post? It is a difficult thing to say, especially as a former speaker, but I believe that this has undermined the position of the Speaker so greatly that I must add my voice and the voice of the official opposition to those who have asked for the Speaker to resign. We have a number of very important rulings in front of the House. There is one on the ways and means motion, which we believe should be disallowed. The Speaker decided to allow the motion to proceed and allowed the government to bring in a subsequent bill. The Speaker's decision to participate in a partisan event now calls that decision into question. I mentioned other rulings in my earlier remarks, and I will not repeat them. However, I just wanted to inform you, Mr. Speaker, and the House of the position of the official opposition.

291 words