44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 5, 2023 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, I will just pick up on the member's concluding thoughts in terms of the government's not necessarily being an expert. I think it is safe to say that is, in fact, the situation. The government is very much consulting with Canadians on the whole issue of the monument and its conceptual design. It is important to recognize that we are talking not about hundreds of people but thousands of people who provided input. The ones we need to be very sensitive to are, in fact, the veterans and family members of the veterans. I believe that the decision that was made was weighted in their favour. I think that is an important aspect to recognize.
Before I go into more of the details, I would like to put things into proper perspective. It would be wrong for me not to recognize that I do not necessarily agree with the timing of the debate itself and the decision of the Bloc to use a concurrence motion in order to raise the issue, given that there are only days left in the session and there is so much that still needs to be done under the government agenda. For example, many members who would have come to the House today would have been thinking about the affordability legislation, Bill C-56, I think, that was supposed to be debated at this point in time. I know that members, at least on the government benches, very much want to hear debates and discussions on those issues, because they are the ones Canadians are facing today. Canadians are looking to the government and responsible opposition parties to recognize the issues of affordability. The legislation that we were supposed to be debating today, I would suggest, should have been allowed to continue to debate.
I am a little bit disappointed and somewhat surprised that the Bloc used this particular opportunity to raise this specific issue, when the Bloc does have other opportunities to do it. Even given the discretion that is often used with respect to relevance to legislation, the member could have raised the issue he is raising right now in the fall economic statement, not to mention even during this legislation. He probably could have found a way to raise it, to suggest a take-note debate or to wait until there is an opposition day opportunity. In other words, I would suggest that there would have been other ways. However, that is not to underestimate the importance of the issue.
I will give a bit of a background. Prior to getting involved in politics, I served in the Canadian Forces. I had the privilege to march side by side with World War II veterans. I had the opportunity of visiting the legions with many veterans, especially when I was a member of the Canadian Forces, serving in Alberta and doing my training in Ontario and a portion of it in Nova Scotia. I gained a very genuine appreciation of the horrors of war when I saw people at the legions who had the odd drink, if I can put it that way, and would, in tears, try to get through Remembrance Day. There have been many different awkward moments when discussions have become very emotional. Even though the actions of the war were decades prior, to talk about it and relive it would bring tears, along with a wide spectrum of emotions. It was not necessarily from those who fought on the front lines; I could see it at times even with family members.
I appreciated every opportunity I had, especially while I was in the military, to have those talks and express my gratitude and appreciation to those who returned from war abroad. I understand and value the importance of war monuments. It is important that we never ever forget. Like members across the way, on November 11, I too participate in recognizing the sacrifices that have been made in order for us to be here.
I recall an occasion when veterans were present in the Manitoba legislature. I remember very distinctly being in a chamber of democracy where I could turn my chair around and touch the knees of war veterans. That is profound, much like when veterans sit in the gallery of this chamber. It is very touching because it speaks volumes about the sacrifices that have been made so we can do the things we do and can have a society based on freedom and liberty, and that operates on the rule of law. We have been blessed by the many men and women who have served our country and served in the allied forces, who have ensured that we have the benefits today as a direct result of their efforts and sacrifices. It is important we recognize that. It is one of the reasons I find it difficult to say we could have had this debate at another time. I still believe, having said what I have said, that we could have, because of where we are in the session.
There is a lot more we could be doing and saying in dealing with our veterans. As a member of Parliament, I have been aware of many issues in the veterans file. When Liberals were in opposition, we opposed, for example, the number of veterans offices being shut down across the country. Many members at the time raised questions on the issue and challenged the government of the day as to why it would close down offices. There have been concerns with regard to how services are provided to our veterans in a very real and tangible way.
Over the last number of years, a great deal of attention has been focused on Canadian veterans, whether it was the reopening of veterans offices that were shut down by the previous government or the reinvesting and topping off of hundreds of millions of dollars to support veterans. We do that in different ways, whether through direct financial compensation in overall budget increases or through the services provided.
We also recognize, as previous governments have, that we need to do what we can to support veterans when they come home, particularly veterans who have experienced the horrors of war. We need to support those who have returned because of the impact that has on them. I think of Lieutenant-General Dallaire, a former senator, who highlighted many things for Canadians—
1076 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/5/23 3:32:45 p.m.
- Watch
I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on December 4 by the House leader of the official opposition concerning the Speaker's participation, by video message, at a provincial party convention on December 2.
The Speaker, in a statement earlier in the sitting, had explained that he had been asked to record a personal message to be played as part of a tribute video to a colleague and friend from the national capital region whom he has known for many decades. He apologized for the perception of partisanship that his involvement in the said convention created. He also indicated that, if concerns were brought to the floor of the House, he would recuse himself from discussions on this matter.
As such, I fulfilled the role bestowed upon the Deputy Speaker to weigh the arguments from hon. members, assess the procedural authorities and precedents, and prepare a ruling on this matter.
It is exceedingly rare that actions involving the Speaker are questioned in the chamber. It requires a thoughtful and serious response. The role of Speaker is central to our parliamentary institutions. It cannot be seen to be diminished or drawn into partisan debate. It is with this in mind that I approached this ruling.
In his intervention, the House leader of the official opposition alleged that the Speaker failed in his responsibility to uphold the impartiality of his office. He did so by providing a video tribute, in an allegedly partisan manner, from the Speaker's office and dressed in the Speaker's attire, for the departing interim leader of a provincial party, which was shown at that party's convention. He contended that the Speaker clearly indicated a partisan preference. The member quoted extensively from numerous procedural authorities on the high expectation for impartiality that is attached to the position of Speaker of the House of Commons.
The member argued that the matter should be viewed as a contempt of the House. He pointed to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, which emphasizes that a matter of contempt can be addressed by the House, even in the absence of any specific breach of privilege. In a subsequent intervention, he called on the Speaker to resign.
The member for La Prairie, for his part, emphasized that the Speaker's participation in a partisan political activity was a breach of his impartiality. He posited that speakers need two qualities to successfully fulfill their duties: They must always show impartiality in all their activities and must show good judgment. On both counts, according to the member, the Speaker has failed to do so, and as such, must resign.
The member for New Westminster—Burnaby also spoke of the gravity of the situation. According to the member, the Speaker's actions went against the principle of impartiality, so important to the position. He called on the Deputy Speaker to find a prima facie question of privilege, and that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
Other members also intervened on the matter, but I would like to highlight a quote from House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 323, that the House Leader of the official opposition cited. It bears repeating because it succinctly sums up the requirement for impartiality by the Speaker. 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.
Allegations of partisanship against the Speaker are a very serious matter. To protect the integrity of the position, it is generally not permissible for members to call into question the Speaker’s impartiality. If members wish to object to the Speaker’s conduct, there is a clear process by which this is to be accomplished.
As stated by House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at page 323: “The actions of the Speaker may not be criticized in debate or by any means except by way of a substantive motion.”
The House leader of the official opposition acknowledged as much in his remarks, noting that this is the usual manner in which complaints against the Speaker are dealt with. While he would have this motion brought forward before the House by way of a prima facie finding of a question of privilege, this is not the course of action that has been followed in the past.
It further states, at pages 620 and 621 of the same work:
Only by means of a substantive motion for which 48 hours’ written notice has been given, may the actions of the Chair be challenged, criticized and debated.
We do have past examples of similar occurrences. On June 1, 1956, at page 4540 of the Debates, Speaker Beaudoin directed that a motion be first placed on notice to address complaints about his conduct. Similarly, on March 13, 2000, at page 4397 of the Debates, Speaker Parent took the same approach when faced with a comparable situation. He directed that a motion be placed on notice, first. In both cases, Speakers Beaudoin and Parent declined to rule on their own conduct and did not ask another chair occupant to rule on their behalf. I will note that the matter at issue in each case was dissatisfaction with a procedural ruling.
In the present case, what is at issue is the Speaker's conduct outside of the House, and whether or not it has brought into question his impartiality. As we saw, the Speaker decided to recuse himself and to entrust me in guiding the House as to the next steps to take, if any, regarding this matter.
The House leader of the official opposition elected to bring his concerns through a question of privilege and not through the preferred means to bring such a matter forward to the House, and that is to place a substantive motion on notice. I allowed the arguments yesterday, even though it is not the usual course of action, as I recognized the grave concerns some members had and wished to express.
The Chair finds itself in a difficult position, having to determine if, on the face of it, a colleague's behaviour brings into question the impartiality of the chair. This is more properly an issue for the House to decide. I also acknowledge that for all of us, the House, chair occupants and members, it is important to settle this matter as soon as possible.
On that basis, and on that basis alone, rather than insisting that a substantive motion be placed on notice, I find that this matter should have priority over other orders of the day and will allow the House leader of the official opposition to move his motion.
In the future, if members wish to take issue with the conduct of the Speaker, rather than raising points of order or questions of privilege, I would instead direct them to place a substantive motion on notice.
I thank members for their attention.
1197 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
