- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Lethbridge
- Alberta
- Voting Attendance: 65%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $131,565.29
- Government Page
- May/28/24 11:37:39 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, according to the Standing Orders outlined by Bosc and Gagnon, on page 323, 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.
Any act of partisanship is far too many, and he has done five.
74 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/28/24 11:27:42 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in this place to address a question of privilege that has been raised with regard to the Speaker's public display of partisanship.
Of course, we know that the Speaker of this place occupies a position of trust. We know that within that position of trust, he is supposed to function in an impartial manner. He is supposed to apply the rules in this place equally to all members of all parties. When he functions in a partisan capacity, however, he then betrays the trust those who occupy a seat within the House of Commons. He goes beyond the scope of his role and actually uses it then for the benefit of his political party, in this case the Liberal Party of Canada.
The events that I am talking about are several in nature, but the latest one was “A Summer Evening with the Honourable [Speaker]”, said the announcement. This was a fundraiser that was hosted just across the river in Quebec, or deemed to be hosted just across the river in Quebec, and this invitation was sent out, drawing attention to the Speaker as the keynote. However, this is not the first time. This is the latest event that brings us to the House, calling for the Speaker's resignation or calling for a vote to remove him.
Before this, there was a cocktail fundraiser dinner that was hosted just a couple of months ago where, again, he was used as the keynote of this address or this function, and, of course, as Speaker, he was promoted, again in a partisan fashion, and used as an individual who could help elicit funds for the Liberal Party of Canada, and that is not all. There is a third one that I would like to draw the House's attention to, which is that the Speaker actually, in his full outfit, jet setted to Washington and addressed the audience that he was given there. He talked about his time as a young Liberal, and in a very partisan fashion, in his address to the audience that was in front of him. That is his third strike.
However, there are two more that I would like to draw the House's attention to, for a total of five within just the last few months of him being Speaker.
In this place, there was an interaction that took place between the Prime Minister and the leader of the official opposition. The Prime Minister exchanged words, or used words to accuse the official opposition of being a “spineless” leader. In retort, the Leader of the Opposition responded with words that were similar. The Speaker of the House said nothing to the Prime Minister, but then went on to kick out the member of the official opposition, again pointing to a partisan decision.
There is a fifth incident that I would like to draw attention to; that is that I myself was removed from this place. I was removed from this place because I used these words toward the Speaker. I said that he was, “acting in a disgraceful manner.” I was asked by the Speaker of the House to withdraw my words, which I rose from my seat and I said, “I withdraw”. However, the Speaker went on to kick me out of the House, not just for a little while but actually for the remainder of the day, therefore robbing the constituents of Lethbridge from having a vote in this place.
It is the practice of the House, and it is in fact according to the Standing Orders, that should a member stand in her place and withdraw those words, she should be allowed to stay. However, the Speaker, functioning in a partisan capacity, removed me. If those blues are looked at, it is very clear that I said, “I withdraw”. It is in the official record of the House. If the audio is listened to, Madam Speaker, you can hear me say those words “I withdraw”. It is clear within the audio record of the House. However, when it came to the Hansard, which is signed off by the Speaker's office, those words, “I withdraw”, were conveniently removed.
Therefore, there is already another question of privilege before this place, which is to say, why were those words removed? Why did the Speaker's office sign off on official Hansard records that removed my withdrawal?
In this place, the Speaker must function in a trusted capacity. He must respect the members of this place. He must never be partisan in nature, nor should records ever be officially changed based on what is convenient for him.
Based on his conduct over these five incidents, we are asking for his resignation and if not, then we would like to remove him through a vote.
819 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 6:24:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is with some sobriety that I stand and address the House today. I am rising on a question of privilege that has been raised with regard to the conduct of the main Speaker of this place.
We have yet another display of public partisanship that has been put out there for folks across the country to witness, which is that the Speaker of this place is actually featured as the main guest at a Liberal fundraiser.
We know that the individual who occupies the chair has been given a trusted position. He has been elected by those in this place to make sure that the rules here are adhered to in a non-partisan and an equally applied fashion. This individual has been put in that spot, yes, through an election in this place; however, just as importantly, there is a historical precedent that also needs to be taken into account.
Based on that historical precedent and based on what we call the green book in this place, which are the Standing Orders that govern it, the Speaker is called upon not only to function in an impartial manner and but also to avoid any instance of even appearing not to be impartial.
The fact that the Speaker was stated to be the focus of this fundraising event, making him the main draw of fundraising dollars for the Liberal Party of Canada, is actually incomprehensible to some extent. However, it is the Liberal government in power, and this is certainly not the first breach. It is disheartening, for sure, but it is also altogether disgusting, actually, to see this individual function in that capacity, when he has been given such trust by this place.
In Canada, we believe that no one is above the law. Likewise, in the House, no one should be treated as though they are above the rules and practices of this place, especially the Speaker. The Speaker is the individual who applies the rules of the House. Therefore, the Speaker should be modelling those rules for other individuals who occupy a seat in this place. When he fails to do so and, instead, actually exploits his position, it is called an abuse of power. We have to call him to account on that.
As Conservatives, we are standing today, and I know that we have the support of the Bloc and, I am hoping, the NDP, to hold the Speaker to account with regard to his actions and call him to a higher standard.
Members will recall that this is actually not the first time we have had to do this; there have been a number of other times. Let us explore the most recent one, shall we?
We know that the Liberal Party of Canada was advertising something they called “A Summer Evening with the Honourable [Speaker].” The promotional material for this event used very partisan and even inflammatory language toward the Leader of the Opposition. I will read it into the House record, so we all know what I am talking about. The invitation said: “Join us for an event in your community - you don't want to miss it!
“It's an exciting opportunity to join fellow Liberals and talk about the ways we can continue to build a better future for all Canadians - because a better future starts with you.
“While [the Leader of the Opposition] and the Conservatives propose reckless policies that would risk our health, safety, and pocketbooks our Liberal team is focused on making life more affordable for Canadians and moving forward with our bold plan to grow an economy that works for everyone, protect our environment, keep our communities safe, and so much more.
“Especially in a minority Parliament, we can never take our progress for granted. Together, with your hope and hard work, we can keep Canada moving forward.”
This was a direct attack on the Leader of the Opposition and a celebration of the Liberal Party of Canada. Could it be more partisan?
It was the Speaker of this place who was put as the lead, in terms of the promotional material that was put out there. This is an individual who has been trusted to guide this place and to make sure that we are adhering to the rules; however, he himself cannot do so. Again, I will highlight the fact that this is not the first time.
Interestingly, since Conservatives raised this concern, the invitation has been taken down. It can no longer be found, because the Liberals must conduct themselves in the way they always do. That is, they deny it until they can no longer do so. They then try to cover it up and pretend it did not happen.
However, it did happen, and it is not the first time. Another time, just a couple of months ago, the Speaker was at another fundraising event. It was a cocktail fundraiser. It was a dinner that time—
836 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, to enter the mind of the Liberal government is something beyond my ability. Certainly, I wish I could, at times, although I suppose that would be a scary place. I am not really a fan of horror movies. Nevertheless, the question is a thoughtful one, so I will give it a thoughtful answer.
The Senate brought forward some really great amendments on Bill C-11, and I wish to comment on two of those in particular.
The Senate removed clause 7, which gives cabinet the ability to direct the CRTC. This allows for partisanship to enter the bill. That is a scary thought for any government. It does not matter who is in power, whether the Liberals, the NDP or the Conservatives.
There should never be partisanship introduced into a bill like this. However, clause 7 allows for that. The Senate tried to remove it; the government put it back in. That should be very telling to Canadians as to what its intent is.
Second, the Senate took clause 4 and changed it in order to protect user-generated or ordinary content that people would put online. The Senate removed that and protected users.
The government made sure that it changed that and gave itself the power to regulate individual user-generated content. Again, I think that is very telling in terms of what the government intends to do with this bill.
I cannot suppose why it would make those decisions except that it wants to hold the power; direct what Canadians can see, hear and post online; and make sure that it maintains its thumb on the Internet, and in doing so, censors what Canadians can access.
280 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
