- Member of Parliament
- Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
- Liberal
- Winnipeg North
- Manitoba
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $110,821.77
- Government Page
- May/8/24 5:09:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am rising to add to the intervention made by the member for the New Westminster—Burnaby on Wednesday, May 1, in relation to respect for the authority of the Chair.
Page 311 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, in relation to functions performed by the Speaker with respect to enforcing the rules that guide the work of this place, states, “the Speaker presides over debate in the House and is responsible for enforcing and interpreting all rules and practices and for the preservation of order and decorum in the proceedings of the House.”
The Speaker has the ultimate authority regarding the interpretation and application of the rules of the House and its Standing Orders. The Speaker is the final authority on these matters. Since 1965, Speakers' rulings have been closed to appeals. They are final.
Page 319 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, in relation to the rulings by the Speaker, states, “Once the Speaker has ruled, the matter is no longer open to debate or discussion.” This applies not only to procedural matters, but also to questions for the maintenance of order and decorum. Our procedural authorities are definitive on this particular point.
Page 319 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, in relation to addressing the maintenance of order and decorum, also states:
The Speaker can call to order any Member whose conduct is disruptive to the order of the House. For example, if it is a question of unparliamentary language, the Speaker usually asks the Member to rephrase or withdraw the word or expression.
If the Speaker has found it necessary to intervene in order to call a Member to order, he or she may then choose to recognize another Member, thus declining to give the floor back to the offending Member.... The most severe sanction available to the Speaker for maintaining order in the House is “naming”, a disciplinary measure reserved for Members who persistently disregard the authority of the Chair.
It is both unusual and unfortunate that the Speaker has had to invoke this sanction. We need to be mindful that these extreme situations do not become normalized in our proceedings.
Finally, I would like to address the allegations of bias on the part of the Speaker that have been raised by some members in the House and outside the House.
Page 323 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, on the impartiality of the Chair, states:
Reflections on the character or actions of the Speaker (an allegation of bias, for example) could be taken by the House as breaches of privilege and punished accordingly.
On two occasions, newspaper editorials were found to contain libellous reflections on the Speaker and were declared by the House in one instance to be a contempt of its privileges and in the other a gross breach of its privileges.
In 1981, a Minister complained that remarks directed to Speaker Sauvé by the Leader of the Opposition constituted an attack on the former’s authority and impartiality. The following day, the Minister rose on a question of privilege calling for the matter to be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. However, the Leader of the Opposition withdrew his remarks and the matter was taken no further.
Despite this clear precedent, we have seen many recent examples of Conservative MPs engaging in exactly this conduct, including numerous tweets that can be found on X from April 30. In one day alone, the Leader of the Opposition referred to the “Liberal Speaker”; the member for Edmonton Manning also referred to the “Liberal Speaker” and stated, “The speaker is doing [the Prime Minister's] bidding”, and so on; the member for Edmonton West referred to “The shamelessly partisan Liberal Speaker”; and the member for Kelowna—Lake Country referred to the “Liberal Speaker” and repeated this in a video that she also posted on X.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: This is not necessarily something that should have clapping from across the way.
Mr. Speaker, also on April 30, the member for Sturgeon River—Parkland tweeted, “The partisan Liberal Speaker”. The member for King—Vaughan also referred to the “Liberal speaker”. The member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes referred to, again, the so-called Liberal Speaker in a video on X and said that the government is “being protected by a Speaker who is obviously biased to ensure that they have the protection from accountability and questions”. Finally, on the same day, the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South referred to “the Liberal Chair”.
Furthermore, on May 1, the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry stated in a tweet how partisan the Liberal Speaker had been the day before, while the member for Lethbridge, in a May 2 post on X, referred to the “Speaker's partisan decision”.
Members need to be mindful that the actions of the Speaker must not be criticized in a frivolous manner. It undermines not only the authority of the Chair but also the authority of the chamber. Page 323 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states, “The actions of the Speaker may not be criticized in debate or by any means except by way of a substantive motion.”
On December 15, 2023, the House leader of the official opposition moved a substantive motion regarding the conduct of the Speaker. The motion did not find consensus, and as such, the matter is closed, but despite this, Conservatives continue to ignore the rules, ignore the precedent, and openly criticize the Speaker, which is very serious.
The Leader of the Opposition wants to declare himself to be above the law by vowing to take away the rights of Canadians through the abuse of the notwithstanding clause. He also wants to destroy any institution that gets in his way, which includes the House of Commons. While the official opposition wants to destroy our institutions, we will continue to stand up for them.
I urge the Speaker to reflect on the behaviour of members of the official opposition. One need only reflect on the Conservatives' reactions as I was reading this important address on the issue.
1076 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the legislation would modernize the act. There has been so much change over the last 12 to 14 years that it dictates the government needs to do something, recognizing technological advances to AI and the importance of international interference.
What surprises me is that the Conservatives seem to be buckling down on the whole idea of not allowing the minister to have the authority. I am wondering if they would apply that principle to other areas of responsibility. What specifically is it? A consultation does take place with what I believe are other public safety ministers, though I am not 100% sure of that, but why is it the Conservatives do not want to see robust legislation that would enable a minister to take the action necessary in order to protect Canadian interests?
135 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to follow up on that question. When the minister is called upon to instruct a provider to take a specific action, that would often be required because something has happened in the environment. If the minister does not have that authority, then the opposition might be somewhat critical of the minister not taking action.
I wonder if the member feels that it is necessary in the legislation, or does he believe we should have it, but we need to amend it in some fashion to ensure it is not abused. Is that what I am hearing from the member?
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as I indicated to the previous speaker, on the idea of unanimous consent motions, I concur with many of the member's thoughts.
Does the member concur, failing an agreement among the House leaders, that the Speaker does have the authority and control, based on what they observe, if a motion does not seem to have unanimous consent and there were no consultations, to rule it out three words into it?
73 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member makes reference to unanimous consent motions, and for the most part I agree with what he is saying. However, does he believe that the Speaker has some authority to use discretion, as we have been witnessing over the last little while, to clamp down on UC motions? There should be an expectation of discussions and approvals prior to a member's standing up and introducing one. What are the member's thoughts on that?
78 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 10:02:45 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there are numerous precedents on the matter of consultation. The Chair has ruled on many occasions that the Speaker has no discretionary authority to refuse a motion if all the procedural requirements have been met. As indicated on page 676 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, “the Chair has no authority to determine whether or not consultation took place nor what constitutes consultation among the representatives of the parties.”
Furthermore, Deputy Speaker Comartin, on March 6, 2014, indicated:
The nature of the consultation, the quality of the consultation, and the quantity of the consultation is not something that the Chair will involve himself in. That has been the tradition of this House for many years. What the Chair would have to do, in effect, is conduct an extensive investigative inquiry into the nature of the consultation. That is not our role, nor do the rules require it. Therefore, I am rejecting the request for the point of order.
Finally, if I may, I will quote Speaker Fraser, who stated on June 6, 1988:
...I do not think the Speaker has the authority, in view of the Speaker's responsibility to rule on procedural matters, to inquire as to what consultation did or did not take place.
There might be some occasion when the question of whether or not consultation had taken place on some matter comes before this Chamber. I am not in anyway suggesting what I have heard today either amounts to sufficient consultation or no consultation or any kind of consultation at all. I am just pointing out that, as I read the rule, it is not for me to get into that. I would not want any comments I made today in any way to take away from the ability of the Hon. Member for Windsor West to argue whether a certain set of conversations did or did not amount to consultation at some future time if the Hon. Member wanted to raise the matter again under this Standing Order or any other.
I am saying that I think I am bound by the rule as it is and that I cannot investigate whether consultation took place because, frankly, the Standing Order is silent as to my authority to do that.
381 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
