44th Parl. 1st Sess.
January 29, 2024 11:00AM
- Jan/29/24 4:38:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, knowing how important that particular question was to my colleague across the way, if he wants to walk over, he can look at the numbers I read off. I suspect it was there, as the clerk at the table is very efficient and has already indicated it is there.
A number of thoughts come to my mind in regard to what we are debating. Members would be very familiar with my standing up to express concerns whenever there is a concurrence report that is brought to the floor of the House of Commons. I do that because I recognize the finite amount of time that the House is in fact operational or open where we are actually able to deal with Private Members' Business, opposition days, government business and so forth.
Over the last number of months, we have seen a great deal of effort to prevent government agenda items from being debated. I am going to speak specifically to this concurrence report but before I do, I want to highlight that we are going to be sitting later tonight. The reason we are going to be sitting later tonight is that we have the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Finance that we have to deal with. We also have to deal with the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
These are all concurrence reports. Opposition members also have other mechanisms or tools, and this is where it becomes a little more relevant, even for the motion that has been put forward today by the Bloc.
We all have a very good sense of our feelings with respect to the report, which I support, and I believe the majority of the House will be supporting the report. We know that because it passed through a standing committee with a majority vote. There were two opposition reports attached that are dissenting reports.
My concern is that, in this case it is the Bloc, but most often it is the Conservatives, when they bring up these concurrence reports, they are actually preventing substantive debate on a wide spectrum of different issues.
For example, today, we were supposed to be debating the fall economic statement and the legislation.
It was interesting. The very first debate that we had was a private member's hour, and it was dealing with the farm carbon pricing. The member stood up, and the first thing he said was that they have four priorities, as the Conservative Party. It was interesting when, an hour later, the leader of the Conservative Party stood in this place and, in essence, said the same thing, that they have four priorities. He listed the four priorities of the Conservative Party.
Mr. John Nater: Name them.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I know what they are. “Axe the tax” is one of them. I do not really want to get into them. Housing was the second one. They then had the deal with the government cuts. That is the hidden Tory agenda. They then want to deal with the crime issue, even though they filibustered the bail reform legislation.
We had the very first debate, and then we had the second debate on the fall economic statement. Then, during members' statements, we had another member of the Conservative Party stand up and say that they have four priorities they want to debate today. If one listened to question period, I think at least three of those priorities were, in fact, raised.
The government says, “Let us talk about those priorities.” I love to contrast Conservative policy with the government's or the Liberal Party's policy. I love the contrast. I welcome it. In fact, I was looking forward to debating that today. Much like previous concurrence reports, by introducing the concurrence report, it is preventing that debate.
We have already had the debate about the Speaker. We have spent hours debating that issue. It has gone to committee, and now the committee has provided a report.
Why would we want to talk about the Speaker again? I do not believe it has the priority that members opposite think it has. Canadians are more concerned about issues like inflation, interest rates, jobs, investments and health care. Those are the types of things Canadians from coast to coast to coast are concerned about, not the regurgitation of another report that was already passed in the House by a majority of the members.
Now there is a sense of frustration. As opposed to preventing the debate on those types of important issues, the Bloc has opposition day motions and could have incorporated this into an opposition day motion if it so chose. If the Bloc really felt that this was a road it wanted to take Canadians down, that would be an excellent opportunity. I listened earlier, because I am the one who asked questions of the Bloc members. This morning, they, too, started their debate on the fall economic statement. I listened. I disagreed with a lot of what they said, but there was some merit in some areas where comment was provided.
I honestly thought we would have that continuation of what is so important in every region of our country, and that is the concern about the realities of what is taking place in our communities. I do not believe I am alone. I think a majority of members would agree that we need to talk about issues that are relevant to what our constituents want us to reflect on.
I looked at the report. It is very short. There are three recommendations. Let me read the recommendation that surprised me. I would have thought it would have already been in place.
Recommendation 2
That the House Administration be tasked with preparing, as part of the briefing binder, guidelines for any future Speaker of the House that presents clear boundaries for impartiality and non-partisanship.
To be honest, I thought there would have been something of that nature, and I suspect there is maybe more of an informal one, but I do not know. I think that is a wonderful recommendation. As the member for Kingston and the Islands has pointed out on many occasions, it is not like what happened here with our current Speaker has never happened before. It has happened before.
I question the motivation as to why the Conservatives and the Bloc want to persist with this issue. I believe it has more to do with the Conservative agenda. I often talk about the idea of that MAGA right and how things from the south creep up north. The Leader of the Opposition's office seems to be opening the door wide to it. They want to try to say that Parliament is dysfunctional.
Today, they are trying to amplify the Speaker's chair as if there is something wrong with the institution. There is nothing wrong with the institution. The Speaker made a mistake like other Speakers in the past have made mistakes. That happens.
This time when it happened, there was not only a great deal of debate before we adjourned but also a recommendation. That recommendation was to bring it to PROC for a report, and that is what they want to debate now, even though they had hours of discussions and debates prior to going into PROC, whether it was formal or informal, or while at PROC.
There has been a thorough vetting in terms of what has taken place, and members have been able to express their concerns. I, too, believe in the impartiality of a Speaker. I understand the importance of it. I have highlighted that fact in my political career, and most of it has been while in opposition. I have gone through Progressive Conservative Speakers, New Democratic Speakers and Liberal Speakers, and I can tell members I do not think any of them are absolutely perfect.
I can say that, with the discussions we have heard both here and second-hand and with what has taken place in the procedure and House affairs committee, the conclusion I would draw is that enough is enough. At the end of the day, I do not believe for a moment that this is the type of issue Canadians, in all regions of our country, want us to debate.
It is much like when we talk about the Conservatives wanting to show, as much as possible, that the institution is broken. That is one reason, I would argue, they bring in the concurrence reports or they, at weird times, will try to adjourn debate or adjourn the day's proceedings. There are many different filibusters we see put into place by the Conservatives. There is legislation that is unanimously supported in the House, yet they will still filibuster.
There are all sorts of tactics. I am used to the tactics. I spent many years in opposition. There is a good reason we have those types of levers. The way the Conservative Party is using it, in co-operation at times with others, like the Bloc today, is to disrupt the government's legislative agenda. Who really pays the price? It may be individual members because there is a legislative agenda, and we have to try to get that legislative agenda through. If there is a finite number of hours, that means the more they filibuster, the less time there will be for debate on government legislation.
I was in opposition in a third party. The wonderful thing about Hansard is we would be able to find this. I remember saying that time allocation is a necessary tool, at times, to be able to use in order for government to get its agenda through the House, even if there is a majority government. There is a legislative agenda, a budget that has to pass, and that time is very precious. I look at what we have witnessed, which is a lot of politics. Let me give an example of that.
There were some interesting quotes. When the issue first came up, the member for Mégantic—L'Érable stood up and provided some comments. This was actually before it went to PROC. He said, “The solution for the Speaker is none other than to ask for his resignation, because he has lost the confidence of the House.” This is something that he said in Hansard before it even went to PROC. PROC was responsible for studying it.
The House referred the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with instructions that it recommend an appropriate remedy. That was the essence of the motion, which was actually brought forward by Conservatives.
The member for Red Deer—Lacombe stated:
Of course I will listen objectively to all the witnesses who will come to the committee.... I am looking forward to hearing from...the Speaker, who I hope will come to the procedure and House affairs committee....
I alone am not judge and jury on the procedure and House affairs committee. I am just one member. I will have my questions, and I expect that I will get fulsome answers from all [who come].
The member for Red Deer—Lacombe supported the Speaker's resignation even before it went to the PROC committee.
At the end of the day, when we look at some of these quotes, there is an actual report that has come up with those three recommendations, which I will go through very quickly, but there were also dissenting reports. Is there any surprise about that? I was not surprised, because we knew about this even prior.
The official opposition's dissenting report states:
The office of Speaker of the House of Commons is one of the oldest in our constitutional form of government, dating back seven centuries.
It goes on:
The current Speaker of our House...shattered that ancient tradition—three times in a week—earlier this month.
In doing so, he failed to meet his duty of care to the House, thereby squandering the good-will and trust of the Official Opposition. Compounding that, the evidence before the Committee undermined the Speaker’s version of events.
The Conservative Party, in a dissenting report, is suggesting that the Speaker resign. It is the same thing with respect to the dissenting opinion from the Bloc.
However, we have the three recommendations that ultimately have the support of the majority.
Recommendation 1 states:
That the Speaker undertake the appropriate steps to reimburse a suitable amount for the use of parliamentary resources that were not related to the performance of parliamentary functions.
I already made reference to recommendation 2, to ensure that there are guidelines.
Recommendation 3 states:
That the Speaker issue another apology clearly stating that filming the video both in his office, and in his robes was inappropriate, his remorse for the situation, and a clear outline of what he and his office will do to ensure this does not happen again; and that the principle of respect, impartiality, and decorum are values he will continue to prioritize as Speaker.
As has been clearly enunciated over many hours of debate and discussion, both formally and informally, the Speakers from the past have also made mistakes. I think these recommendations are fair; we support them. We have seen the Speaker give a formal apology at the PROC committee itself, and he may have done so twice in the House. I suspect, and I am purely speculating, that he might have even said it informally to others. I say that because I believe he is very remorseful and that this is not going to happen again.
We can take a lot from the main report from PROC and feel good about what it has done. However, I believe that the need to have the issue go back to PROC or to carry on the debate indefinitely in one form or another is doing a disservice to Canadians. At the end of the day, there are far more issues in reality that Canadians are facing every day that we should be dealing with.
Today, we are supposed to be debating the fall economic statement, which is a wonderful opportunity for members to be able to express what their constituents are saying about what is taking place here in Ottawa.
2405 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/29/24 5:10:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is with some sadness and in unfortunate circumstances that I rise to debate the concurrence motion brought forward by our colleagues in the Bloc Québécois. It is disappointing because I wish we did not have to be in a situation where we have to debate the conduct and actions of the Speaker of this House. Indeed, in a perfect world we would be here talking about axing the carbon tax, building more homes, fixing the budget and stopping crime. However, unfortunately here we are debating this issue due to not only a single lapse in judgment but what appears to be a series of lapses in judgment by the Speaker of this House of Commons.
I, like many Canadians, did not expect this to happen. Indeed, I am sure many of us were surprised when this story first broke. I was just wrapping up a community event and received a text from a provincial counterpart informing me that they had just seen the Speaker of the House of Commons at the Ontario Liberal Party convention. I thought he was joking, especially since he said the Speaker was in his robes. I thought surely to goodness the Speaker of the House of Commons would not be at the Ontario Liberal Party convention wearing his robes. However, he sent me a picture of the large screen at the Ontario Liberal Party convention, and it was a picture of the Speaker in his robes in the Speaker's chambers here on Parliament Hill. I was, quite frankly, shocked.
I hold the institution of Parliament in high regard and with it the office of the Speaker. While I may disagree with some of the opinions and judgments that a Speaker may offer, I have the greatest of respect for the office and the institution of Speaker. Indeed, if we were to review what was then called the British North America Act, the Constitution Act, 1867, we would see that the office of the Speaker is mentioned no fewer than four times, showing the high regard with which Canadians and the founders of this country held the office of the Speaker. Consider also that the office of the Prime Minister was not even mentioned in that original 1867 document.
If we review the great history of the office of Speaker, going back quite literally centuries, we are reminded of the central role that the Speaker of the House of Commons plays in defending the rights and the privileges of parliamentarians. I need not remind members of the famous quotation from Speaker William Lenthall, who, in direct response to King Charles I in 1642, said, “May it please Your Majesty, I have neither eyes to see, nor tongue to speak in this place, but as the House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here”.
The servant of this House is the Speaker. We as parliamentarians elect Speakers with the understanding that they will be impartial and will serve members to the best of their ability in a manner of non-partisanship. Indeed, if we refer to the authorities of this place, this concept is fundamental to the impartiality of the Speaker of this House.
I draw members' attention to citation 168 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, 6th edition. It states:
The chief characteristics attached to the office of Speaker in the House of Commons are authority and impartiality.... The actions of the Speaker cannot be criticized incidentally in debate or upon any form of proceeding except by way of a substantive motion.
Confidence in the impartiality of the Speaker is an indispensable condition of the successful working of procedure, and many conventions exist which have as their object, not only to ensure the impartiality of the Speaker but also, to ensure that there is a general recognition of the Speaker’s impartiality.
The Speaker takes no part in debate in the House, and votes only when the Voices are equal, and then only in accordance with rules which preclude an expression of opinion upon the merits of a question.
It goes on to say, “In order to ensure complete impartiality the Speaker has usually relinquished all affiliation with any parliamentary party. The Speaker does not attend any party caucus nor take part in any outside partisan political activity.”
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to this citation from Beauchesne’s because the rulings of the Speaker are not subject to appeal. What is more, we cannot criticize the judgments of the Speaker because we, as partisan members of this House, accept that we have chosen a Speaker who ought to be acting in accordance with an impartial and non-partisan approach. When we lose the ability to trust the impartiality and the non-partisanship of the Speaker, every judgment and ruling of the Speaker has the potential to be seen in a negative context.
The rules of electing our Speaker have evolved over time, to the point that we now elect our Speaker by secret ballot rather than by a motion of the Prime Minister. I am reminded of the first time this occurred, with the election of Speaker John Fraser. At the time, the then leader of the Liberal Party, the former prime minister, the Right Hon. John Turner, in congratulating the Speaker, said:
You know what we demand of you, Mr. Speaker. Perfection! We want fairness, independence, decisiveness, patience, common sense, good humour, upholding the traditions of the House, knowledge of the rules and an intuition for the changing mood and tone of the House as we move through our days.
Former prime minister John Turner recognized the role that an elected impartial Speaker would have in this place. As I said, the authorities of this place recognize that as well. As Bosc and Gagnon wrote:
The duties of the Speaker of the House of Commons require the balancing of the rights and interests of the majority and minority in the House to ensure that public business is...protected against the use of arbitrary authority.... The Speaker is the servant, not of any part of the House or any majority in the House, but of the entire institution and the best interests of the House as distilled over many generations in its practices.
That begs the question of how the Speaker of this House can continue to serve all parliamentarians when the two largest opposition parties have expressed their non-confidence in him.
I want to focus on what brought us to this place, the series of events and activities that led us here.
I want to quote from the remarks made by the Speaker to the Ontario Liberal convention and want to again reinforce the point that the Speaker delivered these remarks in his robes in the Speaker's office with a chyron stating that it was a message from the Speaker of the House of Commons. The Speaker said, “And boy, did we have fun. We had a lot of fun together through the Ottawa South Liberal association, through Liberal Party politics, by helping Dalton McGuinty get elected.” It is bad enough that the Speaker would make such comments, again in his Speaker's robes, but he went even further to reflect on the fact that he was the Speaker of the House of Commons, saying, “when I think of the opportunities that I have now as being Speaker of the House of Commons, it's because of people like John”. He actually reflected on that fact. The Liberal Party has tried to explain this away as a singular mistake, a one-off, but the fact of the matter is that it is not a one-off.
The Speaker can claim that he was confused or did not fully understand what the video was being made for, but that does not negate the fact that he gave a public interview in which he, again, expressed partisan leanings. It was in a Globe and Mail article on December 1, 2023, which he freely undertook with a journalist. It was not as though he was scrummed on the way into question period, as many of us often are. He sat down for an interview and talked about the work of the Liberal leader, Mr. Fraser, on behalf of “our party”, on behalf of the Liberal Party. Within a period of about 48 hours, there were two specific examples of partisanship from an entity that ought to be non-partisan.
What happened immediately after this came to light? After having clearly been called to account for partisan activity, the Speaker jetted off to Washington, D.C. He jetted off to relive his glory days as president of the Ontario Young Liberals. At an event in Washington, D.C., where he quickly threw in some official activities to carry on with his visit to reflect on an old, dear friend, he talked about his activities and his glory days with the Young Liberals of Canada. We are now at number three.
Then afterwards, once the report was finalized and tabled in the House of Commons, we found two more examples of partisanship by the Speaker. We found out that he attended a Quebec Liberal event, which was organized for supporters and where donations were solicited, at a riding in Pontiac. Then we found out that he had actually called up a former Liberal Party MP and encouraged him to write an article defending him and criticizing the opposition Conservatives. This is a pattern of activities that we have seen coming from a position that ought to be non-partisan.
Like many colleagues in this place, when the Speaker was first elected, we had some concerns. We were willing to give the benefit of doubt, as we ought to give to a new Speaker, but we had concerns going in. This is a Speaker who was elected just days after having served as the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister. This is a Speaker who, in the procedure and House affairs committee, of which I was a member when he was a member, would filibuster for lengthy amounts of time to try to protect the Prime Minister's chief of staff from testifying at committee. This is an individual who served as a senior adviser to Liberal cabinet ministers, a national director of the Liberal Party of Canada and as president of the Young Liberals of Canada. He has a long history of partisanship, which many in this House have. Many of us have histories of partisanship. That is why we get elected. That is why we run under the banner of certain parties.
However, in recent times, it has been clear that those who seek the office of Speaker try to find a way to step back from partisanship. Indeed, the preceding Speaker had served as the Assistant Deputy Speaker for four years, prior to becoming the Speaker in 2019. The Speaker before that had served as both Deputy Speaker and Assistant Deputy Speaker. Of course, the former member for Kingston and the Islands, known to be an expert, served for a long period of time prior to becoming the Speaker of the House of Commons. The fact is that Speakers try to go beyond what is minimally necessary to ensure that their partisanship is not an issue.
This has been quoted a few times in this place, and it is about past precedents and where things have occurred in the past. Indeed, I will quote from the Hansard of March 8, 1993, found at page 16,578 of Debates, when the then member Mr. David Dingwall, the House leader of the official opposition, said:
How can an officer of the House appear to be impartial or claim to be impartial when she undertakes so active a role in the partisan activities of her own political party? How can members of the House who belong to other parties put their trust in the impartiality of the Chair under such circumstances, especially in the heat of the most partisan part of the parliamentary day, Question Period?
I agree. I do not agree on much with Mr. Dingwall, but I agree with his comments in that context.
Now, the Speaker made it very clear in that particular case. Speaker Fraser ruled that there was not a prima facie question of privilege on that specific issue because they were dealing with the Deputy Speaker, but he made it clear that Speakers themselves were held to a higher standard. In his ruling he said, “I have some difficulty in agreeing with the hon. member for Cape Breton—East Richmond that the Deputy Speaker is cloaked with the same exigencies that are expected of the Speaker himself or herself”. The Speaker himself or herself is expected to be beyond the pale, beyond any threat of partisanship when they are coming to this place.
I would like to refer the House back to the original motion that referred this to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs because what is often overlooked is that the House had collectively condemned the actions of the Speaker already. The motion, which was passed unanimously reads: “a breach of the tradition and expectation of impartiality required for that high office, constituting a serious error of judgment which undermines the trust required to discharge his duties and responsibilities”. The House, collectively and unanimously, has already declared that there has been a breach of the trust of the House.
The committee came back with what amounts to, I would suggest, a slap on the wrist for such a flagrant violation of the impartiality of this office. I would draw the House's attention to the dissenting report of our Conservative opposition, which laid out some of the major concerns we have with the Speaker's actions.
First of all, I would point out the fact that the Speaker claimed that he did not realize this was going to be played in such a public setting, implying that perhaps it would be okay to display partisanship if there were fewer people watching it, that somehow, if it were a private gathering, it would be okay to be partisan while wearing Speaker's robes and being titled as the Speaker of the House of Commons.
However, it goes beyond that. The testimony that was delivered at committee by none other than John Fraser himself indicated that it was never under discussion and that it was always meant to be shown at a public gathering of the Ontario Liberal Party. It was never even meant to be a private gathering. It was always meant to be something that would be publicly shown and livestreamed for Canadians to see. Unfortunately, it reflected that very negative concept that occurred in seeing a Speaker in his robes, in his tricorne hat, delivering a partisan message highlighting the fun that the Speaker had with the Ontario Liberal Party. It is exceptionally unfortunate and exceptionally disappointing. I have a strong degree of respect for the institutions of the House, and it is unfortunate that it has come to this.
While I am on my feet, I would move an amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil. I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “the 55th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented on Thursday, December 14, 2023, be not now concurred in, but that it be referred back to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with instruction that it amend the same so as to recommend that the Speaker tender his resignation in light of additional examples subsequently coming to light of his partisanship and poor judgment, including asking a former Liberal Member of Parliament to write an opinion column condemning the Official Opposition as well as attending a Quebec Liberal riding association's cocktail reception for partisan supporters where donations were solicited.”
2694 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/29/24 6:31:20 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do not know if the member from the Bloc knows what we are debating right now. What he just said that the NDP are asking for is in the concurrence motion. We are going to vote in favour of it. I voted in favour of it at PROC. I am fully aware of the concurrence motion. To set standards for the Speaker is exactly what is in there.
The member suggests that the Bloc members came here with good intentions, and in a nice, calm way their whip said what they really think should be done. That would hold a lot more water if they had not been hell-bent on demanding the resignation of the Speaker. From the first opportunity they sniffed a little blood, they started circling around like a group of sharks looking to pounce on the Speaker. That is all that happened. The member knows it.
153 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/29/24 6:36:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, could the member comment on the fact that we are having a concurrence motion?
We had this debate for hours in December. It went to committee and was studied. We got the recommendations. A majority supported the recommendations. Today, I look to my constituents and think about what they want us to talk about in the House, which is the reality of what is happening in our communities across this land. There are issues such as inflation, affordability, the need for investments and the types of things government is doing to support Canadians. That is actually what we were supposed to be debating today: the fall economic statement.
Could the member provide his thoughts on that?
118 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
