44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 6, 2023 02:00PM
- Dec/6/23 2:17:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Speaker has lost the moral authority to preside over this House.
The role of Speaker requires impartiality and non-partisanship. The Speaker betrayed the trust of this House when he gave greetings at the Ontario Liberal convention—
42 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/6/23 5:44:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I usually take great pleasure in speaking in this place, this hallowed chamber where Canadians send people they elect to speak and vote on matters of national policy, but this debate certainly gives me no pleasure at all.
It is a very unfortunate situation that brings us to this point. We are in the midst of the second crisis of confidence in the Speaker in this fall session alone. It has been less than three months since the resignation of the former Speaker, something that nobody in this place had seen in their time, over the incident that we all know well, wherein the Speaker recognized a person in the gallery who was later revealed to be a Nazi member of the Waffen-SS in the presence of Ukrainian President Zelenskyy.
That former Speaker was let down by the Prime Minister's Office, which had failed in its basic responsibility to ensure Canada's reputational integrity. The point is that the Speaker then understood the debacle that unfolded was serious enough to render his position untenable, and as a consequence, he did the right thing, and the only thing to do under the circumstances, and resigned.
Here we are only a little over two months later and we have another crisis of confidence in a Speaker. The facts are fairly well known. The Speaker chose to use his position as the Speaker of the House of Commons to participate in a political event. He appeared in his Speaker's robe in his Speaker's office in a video that was calculated to lend prestige to a sitting elected provincial legislator at a Liberal political convention.
The Speaker, in his acceptance speech when he was elected as Speaker, told the House that symbols matter, and indeed they do. When the Speaker appears in his robes from his public office for a televised political convention, there is important symbolism at play. The symbols of his office are designed to convey absolute political neutrality. It is impossible to do that when, with the symbols of the office, he appears at a partisan event, a Liberal convention, lending prestige to an elected office-holder. That is an error of judgment that completely challenges the appearance of neutrality.
There cannot be any hint of political partisanship in the conduct of the Speaker in order for the Speaker to maintain the confidence of members of the House. The Speaker's decision to appear at a political convention through this video telegraphs political affiliation, which is anathema to the office he was elected to by members of this place.
Every member of the current Parliament was affiliated with a political party at the time they were elected. A few of them now sit as independents, but for every member of this chamber, a political affiliation played a role in their pathway to this place, including the current Speaker. Political affiliation has to be abandoned once a member becomes Speaker.
Given this crisis of confidence over the fact that the Speaker appeared at this political convention by video, it is worth remarking that the Speaker was an exceptionally partisan member of Parliament. That is fine. We have many exceptionally partisan members of Parliament. I am a partisan member of Parliament. I sit in a political caucus. I pursue an agenda that I was elected upon and so did he. However, once a member takes the Speaker's chair, that has to be set aside entirely.
At the time of the Speaker's election, it was remarked by some that the member had an extraordinarily partisan history. He had been director of the party, as I understand. I spent time at committee with him and he certainly had an agenda. He was a spokesperson for the government and was the parliamentary secretary for a variety of different ministers. I appeared on panels with him where he would, in an extraordinarily partisan role, deliver a message for the government.
That had to be set aside for the member to maintain the confidence of this place. Now with the event of this past weekend, that is being called into question, which is why this motion is before us. I understand that he has apologized. The apology is fine, but it does not resolve the question of judgment and the lack of judgment.
In the midst of this crisis, the member left Ottawa to attend meetings in Washington, as I understand. What priority could be greater than to preside over debates in this House? The trip is a part of the lack of judgment. I had a conversation with a veteran member who could not recall any time when a Speaker, other than for physical illness, chose to be away from the House of Commons on a Tuesday and Wednesday of a sitting week.
There is an able Deputy Speaker and two able assistant deputy speakers. We have one in the chair tonight. Madam Speaker is an able deputy, but the point is that the Speaker's priority is the business of the House of Commons. It is not travelling to socialize or have appearances with other politicians in other countries or former politicians in other countries. The business of the House is the priority. For the Speaker to make priorities like appearing in the Speaker's robes to pay tribute to a partisan elected official at a convention and then to leave town while the House is sitting to attend a conference in Washington is a very troubling example of poor judgment.
The role of the Speaker is to protect the privileges of members of Parliament, period, and to ensure that the rules of Parliament are enforced. The Speaker does that by presiding over debate, not by leaving. I am very concerned about that. It is not the role of the Speaker to worry about what the press is saying, what people in the gallery might think or how our debates look on TV. The Speaker's role is to simply enforce the rules of this House to ensure that all members' privileges are upheld. That cannot be done by being absent and it cannot be done by telegraphing political affiliation.
This is the place we are at now. I hope this motion will be supported by the House so that it can have a fulsome airing at committee. I am pleased that the House adopted the amendment, which wisely ensured that this will be dealt with quickly, because we are in crisis. We are having a crisis of confidence in the Speaker and it has to be resolved one way or another.
I urge members to support this motion. Let us get this into PROC, deal with this crisis and get this place back to running properly.
1129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/6/23 5:56:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, for my part, I do not see anything contradictory about a party having an opinion on this matter and following due process is not egregious to me, that is for sure. I look forward to PROC doing its work.
One of the things I have been concerned about in the course of this debate, when we talk about the dignity of the office of Speaker, has been that the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle has been the point person for the Conservatives on this. Until the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle left the office of Speaker, we used to have a tradition in Canada that the Speaker would not go on to be partisan, never mind lead a political party or be the House leader for a political party in the House.
I wonder if the hon. member would agree with me that the Conservatives have a fair case to make, which is fine, but that the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle is not the appropriate person to make the case, and the Conservatives should not be mobilizing his experience in the Speaker's chair to give credibility to their arguments. That, too, is a form of partisanship about the office of Speaker that I think is not appropriate.
214 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/6/23 6:02:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Conservatives are very sensitive. It is becoming a common theme. Every time I get up to speak, different Conservative members come out here, most likely at the direction of somebody sitting behind a desk in the lobby who is telling them to come out here and raise these pointless, ridiculous points of order.
I will let the member know that I actually take great pride in knowing that what I say obviously impacts him enough to have to run back into the room to call points of order on what I am saying. What I am saying is true. The member for Red Deer—Lacombe stood in this House for 10 minutes and went on about how he supports this motion and that he needs to see the work happen at PROC, even though he already knows what the outcome is.
What I was saying a few moments ago is that my NDP colleague said that he does not see a problem with somebody having a position on something and then still undertaking the work. The difference here is that it was the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, a Conservative member, who put forward this motion.
I will go through what happened, so that Canadians really, fully understand what is going on here. This shows a bit of the partisanship and the game-playing.
The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle came in a couple of days ago, stood in front of this House and put out a lengthy point of order on the issue. I think it was a valid point of order. Perhaps I do not agree with every detail of what he said, but I think he brought forward a valid point of order that the House needed to reflect on. He left. The point of order was over.
Then the Bloc Québécois stood up and called on the Speaker to resign. Then, as if he just could not possibly be outdone by the Bloc Québécois, the Conservative House leader, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, ran back in here on another point of order and said that he thinks the Speaker should resign, too.
That is what is going on here. This is an issue of one opposition party not wanting to be outdone by the other opposition party. Here we have this motion that has been put in front of us by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. The motion at this point is pointless from his perspective, because he already knows the outcome of what he wants from this. He has already predetermined what he believes the outcome should be, and that is that the Speaker should resign.
For me, being a member of the committee, I have problems with being able to walk into that room to sit at the table with my colleagues, like the member for Red Deer—Lacombe, and genuinely talk about who the witnesses would be. Perhaps one would be Peter Milliken, a great former speaker of this House, the longest serving speaker of this House, who is from Kingston and the Islands—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
536 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/6/23 6:10:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think that the member for Kingston and the Islands is known in the House as someone who is not at all partisan. He is someone who, during a debate, completely steers clear of partisanship. He is beyond partisanship. He relies on facts and does not want to score political points other than in the interest of his own party; that is well known.
Imagine if the situation were reversed, that the Liberal Party was hypothetically in the opposition and the Conservative Party was in power; then imagine that the Speaker from the Conservative Party had made a video, for example, at a provincial Conservative Party convention.
I know that the member for Kingston and the Islands is not a partisan guy and that he relies on facts, so I would like to know how he would have reacted to this hypothetical situation.
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/6/23 6:18:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this is an extraordinary circumstance, certainly. We find ourselves in a position where we all agree, at the very least, that this should go to the committee at which a recommendation would be put forward regarding the future for our Speaker. Part of that process should also take into account what was mentioned earlier, which was the use of House resources in direct relation to what had taken place in the Speaker's office. It is no secret that we commit ourselves, as members of Parliament, to ensuring that when it comes to taxpayer money, we respect that and we do not abuse that for a partisan purpose. That is clear for all members of this House. It has been so clear for us, as a matter of fact, for so long that we do not engage in that kind of activity.
The fact that the Speaker of the House of Commons was able to use resources by which it was then broadcast to the Ontario Liberal convention is a real concern. I just want to know how the member would advise those members at PROC to conduct themselves in relation to what is a pretty serious issue and one that hopefully does not fall victim to partisanship.
210 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/6/23 6:20:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it gives me no pleasure to rise this evening to speak to the motion in respect to the prima facie finding of a question of privilege in relation to the conduct of the Speaker of the House and to refer the matter immediately to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
The role of the Speaker is to be impartial and to demonstrate non-partisanship. There are many reasons why a Speaker must be impartial and non-partisan. The Speaker carries enormous powers over the House and the members who serve in the House. It is the Speaker who has the authority to make rulings that directly impact the rights and privileges of the members of the House. It is the Speaker who has the sole power to make decisions as significant to hon. members as expelling a member from the House. It is the Speaker who is the chair of the Board of Internal Economy, which oversees the very large budget of Parliament and decides how the resources of the House of Commons may be used by the members of the House. The Speaker is like a referee or a judge. He or she makes decisions, makes calls. When the Speaker makes a ruling, there is no appeal. The ruling is final and must be respected by members.
I will be splitting my time with the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston.
House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 323, explains, “In order to protect the impartiality of the office, the Speaker abstains from all partisan political activity”. The Speaker, unfortunately, has failed to abide by the standard that is expected of him as Speaker. He did so last weekend when he was quoted in the Globe and Mail praising the outgoing leader of the Ontario Liberal Party, the sitting Liberal MPP for Ottawa South, in which he made such partisan comments as referring to the Liberal Party of Ontario as “our party”. I would submit that that demonstrated a lack of judgment on the part of the Speaker, but the real reason we are here on this prima facie finding of a question of privilege is what the Speaker did after that.
A video message of the Speaker was played at the ultra-partisan venue, being the Ontario Liberal leadership convention, in which he paid tribute to Mr. Fraser. He said such partisan things as “We had a lot of fun together through The Ottawa South Liberal Association, through Liberal Party politics, by helping Dalton McGuinty get elected.” Even worse is that the Speaker's video message was introduced to party delegates as a message from the Speaker of the House of Commons, as if he were speaking for the House. He shot the video on the parliamentary precinct in the Speaker's office and wore the Speaker's robes. This is more than a lack of judgment on the part of the Speaker. It is a fundamental breach of trust to the House and all hon. members of the House.
The Speaker has said that this is an issue of perception. I cannot think of anything more important than perception for the Speaker, who must not only be impartial but also be seen to be impartial. On that basis, the Speaker completely failed in his obligations to members of the House.
I have to say that this is the same Speaker who, when he was running for the office of Speaker only weeks ago, spoke at great length about decorum and respect and how words matter. He even made a pronouncement for the House, in an unprecedented fashion before question period, for all intents and purposes lecturing members about decorum and respect in this place. Only weeks later, we see the Speaker has shown a lack of respect to the hon. members in this place and to the high office in which he serves.
The Speaker, in dismissing this as a matter of perception, has offered no meaningful apology. It does not even appear that he takes the matter seriously. One would think he would demonstrate some level of humility in the face of an unprecedented situation. Never before in the history of our Westminster parliamentary system has a Speaker conducted him or herself in quite this way. We really are in uncharted territory.
Instead of attending to the responsibilities he has to preside over the House, the Speaker, at taxpayers' expense, decided to go on a junket to Washington, D.C., where he is hanging out with a whole lot of elites. He did so during a sitting week. Not only that, but he spoke at an event, in which he recollected his days as president of the Young Liberals. This is another partisan statement on the part of the Speaker using, by the way, the Speaker's office budget. Once again, this demonstrates a complete lack of judgment on the part of the Speaker, as well as his failure to understand his responsibilities not only to be impartial but also to be seen as impartial.
We now find ourselves in the untenable situation where the House leaders of His Majesty's loyal opposition and the third party have called on the Speaker to resign. Those House leaders represent 150 members, or nearly half the members in the House. In the face of that and the need for the Speaker to retain the confidence and trust of all hon. members in all corners of the House, he should reflect very hard on whether he can continue in his role.
936 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/6/23 6:47:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I always appreciate hearing the hon. member's reflections on parliamentary process and procedure.
We were talking earlier about the difference in culture around the U.K. speakership, but it does seem to me that if one were to lay down a list of former speakers and former political party leaders, one would have little, if any, overlap at all. In fact, I think one would only find one person who appears on both lists, and that is the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.
Of course, when we were debating Motion No. 79 in this place, which was a motion that I brought about prorogation and the confidence convention, I did hear from some Conservative members who wanted to remind me of the important tradition of establishing conventions through practice and not writing them down.
I think there was a convention around the speakership in not engaging in partisan roles post-speakership, certainly at the federal level in Canada, prior to the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle blazing his own trail in that regard.
I wonder, as we are talking about this issue of partisanship in the Speaker's role, if he thinks it might be appropriate for the procedure and House affairs committee, in its investigation of this incident, to turn its mind a little bit toward that topic, being encompassed by the question of partisanship and the Speaker's office. Perhaps the committee could provide some reflections on that to the House in the course of their deliberation.
254 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and talk about the issues of the day. I must say, I appreciate a number of the comments that were just made, especially one that was brought over to me. One of my colleagues on this side suggested that the previous speaker should be seriously considered for placement on PROC. I think the system might be a bit better if, in fact, that were to take place. However, I recognize that a recommendation from me to the leader of the Conservative Party to do that probably would not get him very far.
Having said that, I often hear a great deal about the institution, the Speaker and the important role the Speaker's office plays. People want to talk about that. We even had some very detailed explanations of what the Speaker does inside the House. I concur with many of those comments, such as how important it is to have a Speaker and recognize the role the Speaker plays.
Not that long ago, we did not elect Speakers; rather, they were political appointments. In the Province of Manitoba, when I was first elected, the Speakers were appointed; when I left, they were elected. I went through that transition. First and foremost, there was a great sense of pride as parliamentarians around the horseshoe inside the Manitoba legislature elected our first Speaker; for the first time, Manitoba felt that was the best way to ensure that the Speaker understood, in a very real and tangible way, that he or she represented, in that case, the interests of all MLAs on all sides of the House. We saw that as a very important step forward in Manitoba.
We did not come up with the idea. We knew Ottawa was electing a Speaker, so we took the idea and brought it into the Manitoba chamber. I sat on the Legislative Assembly Management Commission, what we call here the Board of Internal Economy, which is an important committee that the Speaker actually sits on. I recognized the role the Speaker played with respect to that committee, just as I recognize the important role, as others have emphasized, that the Speaker plays inside this chamber.
The Speaker has significant power. We saw that today when one member of the House made an unparliamentary allegation and would not withdraw it. As a direct result, the Speaker asked the member to leave the chamber, and he was unable to participate today. Because of the decision of the Chair occupant, he could not even participate in the votes. That is why, when I talked about this yesterday, first and foremost, I talked as a parliamentarian. I highlighted my experience in Manitoba, because I truly believe, given the very nature of the institution and the office, and the importance of the Speaker's chair, that we need to put partisan politics to the side.
When a member of the opposition stands up on a point of order, I often respond to it for the Speaker to take into consideration. When the leader of the official opposition came forward the other day and expressed his concerns about the Speaker in the form of a point of order, I was quiet. I listened.
We then had the Deputy Speaker, because the Speaker recused himself of the issue, canvass other members and, after canvassing, ultimately made the decision, which flowed to the Conservative Party of Canada coming up with a solution: What does the House of Commons collectively, members of Parliament on both sides of the House, have to say about the issue? This is actually what we are debating today. We are debating that the Conservative Party believes it was in the best interest of all to have this matter go to the procedure and House affairs committee, PROC, and have PROC come up with a remedy. In fact, the essence of the motion reads that the House “refers the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with instruction that it recommend an appropriate remedy.”
When I heard the motion, I did not hear one Liberal oppose it. I did not hear anyone inside the chamber oppose what was being recommended by the Conservative Party at the time. In fact, I thought that was a reasonable ask. After the opposition House leader finished his speech and after a second speech, I then stood up and made it very clear that I support the motion and, I believe, members in the entire chamber support the motion. However, we then had the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, who followed the House leader of the official opposition, say, “The solution for the Speaker is none other than to ask for his resignation, because he has lost the confidence of the House.”
I do not understand how we could have the opposition House leader move a motion saying that we should use PROC in order to come up with a remedy, but then, just minutes later, is immediately followed by the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, who I believe is the deputy House leader for the Conservative Party but I could be wrong on that, come out saying that the Speaker should resign. The best I could tell from sitting on this side, virtually right across from the member, is that the Conservatives felt they were being outmanoeuvred by another political entity inside the House. That may be why the member said what he did. However, the bottom line is that is what the member said.
The member went on to say, “That is why Canadians need to pay close attention to what is happening right now and to the recommendations that will be made by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.” After making his previous statement, he seems to be under the impression that everyone should support the motion itself, and that it is okay to go to the committee even if a member had already made up his mind. I did not understand that, but then it was reinforced earlier this afternoon by the member for Red Deer—Lacombe.
The member for Red Deer—Lacombe is a member of the procedure and House affairs committee. The remedy that is being recommended is that the matter go to PROC. I want to mention what the Conservative member sitting on the committee had to say.
During his speech, he reinforced that he believes the Speaker should resign. My colleague asked him why he would say such a thing when he is on the PROC committee and if that would put him in an awkward position. He responded, “Of course I will listen objectively to all the witnesses who will come to the committee.” How can he possibly be objective? He even said he is hoping the Speaker will go to the committee.
The member, along with the Conservative Party collectively, has already said he wants the Speaker to resign, that he hopes the Speaker will go to PROC and that he is going to be objective. He wants the Speaker to go to the committee so he can ask him some questions and be objective. Who is he trying to kid? The Conservatives have already made a determination. They already know what they want. They have a set agenda.
The longer the debate goes on, the more I witness the Conservatives trying to discredit the Speaker and the Speaker's office. They talk here about how important the Speaker's office is, but I would suggest that their actions are speaking louder than their words. As one member said on a political panel I was on just outside this chamber, when referring to the process and the issue with the Speaker, it is a farce. That is what the Conservatives are attempting to turn it into, making it look as if the chamber is dysfunctional. This is not the first time they are doing this.
I would argue they are using the Speaker's chair as part of their master plan to be a destructive force in the chamber. They do not care about being fair. They have demonstrated that very clearly. They want to demonstrate to the far right that the Speaker's office, the Speaker's chair and the institution or Parliament itself are dysfunctional.
On the sustainable jobs act, Bill C-50, do members know how many amendments the Conservatives have put forward? There are 19,938 amendments, just on one piece of legislation. Many times I stand in the chamber to talk about how the Conservative Party is a destructive force in the chamber in the way they prevent things from taking place. They constantly give Canadians the impression that everything is broken in Canada, including the House of Commons itself.
They will stand in their places, much like they are doing with the motion we have today, to say it is the government's responsibility to get legislation passed and it is the government that sets the agenda, but it is the Conservatives who consistently mess it up. They do it by using concurrence motions for reports, adjourning debates or moving motions that cause the bells to ring. They have 19,938 amendments on one piece of legislation. They are trying to convince the MAGA right that, at the end of the day, this is all broken and dysfunctional. That is what the real objective is.
I made the assumption that when the opposition House leader stood in his place and moved the motion, he was being genuine. I honestly thought that when he was looking at what had taken place, he was being genuine. However, the more I hear Conservatives speak on the issue, the more I come to the conclusion that this is just another partisan act we are seeing from the Conservative Party of Canada.
To demonstrate that, I suggest that in PROC, we will see a Conservative Party that will do whatever it can to emphasize that the Speaker has to resign. The Conservatives have already been told what they have to do. I hope I am wrong. If I am, I will apologize to the House. I do not believe I am going to be apologizing.
I believe the Conservative Party already has an agenda, and that agenda is just an extension of the behaviour we witness time and time again on the floor of the House of Commons on government legislation that has been very important to Canadians. It has the backs of Canadians and is developing an economy that will be there for every Canadian in every region of our country. Whenever it comes time to vote or debate, we see Conservative games on the floor of the House, whether it is the filibuster of debates, the many different dilatory motions they move or the many different actions they take. That is why I say that actions speak louder than words. If the Conservatives were serious about this issue and about saying that it should be apolitical and non-partisan, they would not be giving the types of speeches they are giving now and I would not be giving the type of speech I am giving.
This motion should be passed, even though the Conservative Party has already taken a position. We know that and understand that. I am somewhat grateful that I am not on the PROC standing committee. Hopefully, a majority of the members on the committee will at least be fair in their assessment of what has taken place before they pass judgment.
I can guarantee that if the Conservatives do not see the resignation aspect, we will see a minority report coming from the Conservative Party. Then, of course, I would not be surprised if we see a concurrence motion on the report. They will do anything to prevent government legislation from passing, no matter what the legislation is, including the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. That is the Conservative agenda. The far right has taken over the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada today. It is unfortunate.
I would like to think there are some things inside this chamber for which partisanship can be put to the side. I would suggest that members recognize the issue at hand, read the motion and allow PROC to do what it needs to do: meet with people, talk to witnesses and come up with a remedy that is fair to all.
I always see my waterglass half full. I am going to continue to be a bit of an optimist. Maybe we will see something miraculous coming from the Conservative Party at PROC. I will keep my fingers crossed.
2132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
