Debates of Dec. 6th, 2023

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

This is social media information, so I am going to need to review the issue the hon. member is bringing before the House and come back to the House if need be.

On a point of order, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, did I hear correctly that you are going to be coming back to the House with something on that? If so, I would like to contribute.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I mentioned at the beginning that it was a tweet and not something that happened in the House. I have just clarified that it is not the responsibility of the House to look at social media to decide whether or not something has been done. Therefore, I will not, after all, be reviewing a social media post. I can only review Hansard and what has been said in the House.

Motions for Papers

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I would ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers also be allowed to stand at this time, please.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from December 5 consideration of the motion, as amended.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Calgary Rocky Ridge.

We are continuing in the debate. We just had a vote in this place, in which we amended the motion. I am a member of the procedure and House affairs committee, which, if this motion is passed, will be dealing with the question at hand. The amendment that my colleagues have just made says that the procedure and House affairs committee would deal with the matter within the first 24 hours of the passage of the motion I am currently rising to debate, and report back to the House by December 14. That would be next week, before the House adjourns and rises for the Christmas break.

I frankly cannot believe that I am witnessing what I am witnessing, as a member of the chamber for what will be 18 years in January. It is a rare thing indeed to have a member of Parliament get elected as Speaker and then have to resign in the middle of a parliamentary term. Normally, the member of Parliament who is elected to be Speaker jokingly resists being cast into the Speaker's chair, because, supposedly, nobody wants the job. However, it is actually an important job and an important role to serve as the independent arbiter of all of the rules by which we conduct the debates and the business of the nation.

A Speaker's resigning is something I have not seen in the last 18 years. As a matter of fact, we would have to go back a long time in our history to recall a previous Speaker's resignation due to issues in this place. Now, just two months after we have replaced one Speaker in an unprecedented situation, the House is seized with a privilege question about whether the replacement of the resigned Speaker, a new Speaker, ought, himself, to resign.

I am a Conservative member of Parliament, and my party has been very clear about whether or not we think that what the Speaker has done should constitute grounds for the individual's resigning. We are not the only political party; our Bloc Québécois colleagues in this place have also indicated that they have lost confidence in the current Speaker.

I guess we will wait and see whether the motion passes the chamber. Given the fact that it was unanimous to amend the motion, as all MPs in this place just moments ago voted in favour of an amendment, one can only presume that the question would be referred to committee and the matter would probably be dealt with in the 24 hours after the vote. Likely, if it does not happen today, it would happen tomorrow, which means that the procedure and House affairs committee would be seized with this matter as early as tomorrow, or, at the very latest, Friday of this week, and report it back to this place next Thursday at the latest.

The procedure and House affairs committee is seized with a number of issues. We are dealing with a question of privilege regarding our colleague, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, in relation to foreign interference in his duties as a member of Parliament. The procedure and House affairs committee is also still seized with the general question of foreign interference in our elections. In addition, the procedure and House affairs committee has yet to begin its study on the matter of the previous Speaker's issue of having invited a former Nazi into this place during the visit of Ukrainian President Zelenskyy. Now, it seems that the very busy procedure and House affairs committee would have to study the question at hand as a matter of precedence either today or tomorrow, should the motion continue to get support and pass.

Here is why the procedure and House affairs committee is seized with all of these issues: Trust has been broken. At the end of the day, this is all about trust. It is about trusting that the government has the best intentions and the ability to manage not only the institutions of government but also the institution of Parliament.

I would submit to my colleagues here in this place that we need to get to the bottom of this in a timely fashion, because it is another stain, I would call it, but perhaps that might be too strong a word. It is a stain on the reputation and credibility of this place.

I should note that if we were to count the number of members of Parliament in this place who serve in the Bloc Québécois caucus and in the Conservative caucus, they constitute almost half of the MPs in this place. I do not know how everybody voted. Sometimes the person who is the Speaker is somebody I voted for, and sometimes the person who is the Speaker is not somebody I voted for. That is okay because up until now, I have been able to get by in this place knowing, with some confidence and semblance of trust, that the referee who was elected, whether I voted for them or not, was actually able to carry out the duties of Speaker in a way that at least appeared non-partisan.

However, here we are. The Speaker has used the privileges of his office, put on his robes and recorded a video acknowledging that he is the Speaker of the House of Commons, for an address to an Ontario Liberal Party partisan event. That is beyond inappropriate.

Anybody who has just undertaken the responsibility of Speaker would, I assume, have been given briefings. They ought to have known the roles and responsibilities of being the Speaker before they put up their hand, or in this case, not removed their name from the list, allowing their name to stand for Speaker.

It is this overt partisanship after having been elected Speaker that has put us in this scenario today. It is a question of trust. If my privileges or those of any other member of the House are in some way impacted, we would expect that the Speaker would be able to carry out a non-partisan view of the rules and protect not only the integrity of this institution but also the integrity, the rights and the privileges of every member of Parliament. This is fundamental to the ability of our democracy and our democratic chamber to proceed with confidence, the confidence not only of the House but also of all Canadians.

I will just remind my colleagues in this place that this is not the first time that the individual who is currently the Speaker has gotten himself in trouble for being partisan. I remember quite clearly that the member wrote letters, in his capacity as a former parliamentary secretary, that breached some of the ethical provisions we have in this place. I also remember the individual's vehemently defending the Prime Minister when it came to the “elbowgate” matter with former MP Ruth Ellen Brosseau, and then his actually calling into question the integrity of Ms. Brosseau; if I remember correctly, he actually said that the incident was being exaggerated by her.

One can only draw some conclusions that the individual has shown his true colours and cannot help but be partisan in a role that is specifically designed to be non-partisan. That is why I would implore my colleagues in this place to vote for the motion and refer the issue to the procedure and House affairs committee so we can deal with the matter forthwith.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member has already made up his mind. He sits on the procedure and House affairs committee, like I do. I am going to vote in favour of the motion to send it to committee for committee to do the work. However, if he has already made up his mind, what is the point of even supporting the motion? He already knows what the outcome is going to be at committee. He is not going into it from an objective point of view of listening to all of the information and then making a decision. He is, effectively, a judge in this case. As a judge, he is coming before the defendant and saying that he already knows they are guilty but that he wants to hear what they think so he can make a decision. It is absolutely ludicrous.

Why even bother voting for the motion if he already knows the outcome he plans to execute when he is at committee?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, far be it from me to know the inner workings of the mind of the member for Kingston and the Islands, even though he purports to know what is in the hearts and minds of everybody else in this chamber.

Of course I will listen objectively to all the witnesses who will come to the committee. I have been here longer than the member for Kingston and the Islands and everybody who seems to be supporting him. I have seen this show before, and I will say to any colleague willing to listen to what I have to say that I am looking forward to hearing from not only the Speaker, who I hope will come to the procedure and House affairs committee, but also all the other witnesses who would know what the conduct ought to be in the role of Speaker. I will make a determination at that particular point in time.

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 the witnesses who appear, including the Speaker.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague concerning the party's position. The first position was not as clear as the one we have today. In other words, they were not originally calling for the Speaker to resign, and then they were. Now, they are asking for this matter to be studied in committee.

Can my colleague quickly summarize the Conservative Party's position on the subject?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, the procedure to deal with this is the procedure when there is a prima facie case. We brought the issue up in the chamber, the Speaker had to make a ruling and we waited for the ruling. The Speaker found a prima facie case, which then invoked the moving of a motion. The Conservative House leader moved that motion, which is what we are debating right now. I am not sure what the member does not understand about the process. We are following the process as it is laid out, and we will see what happens should this motion get passed on to the procedure and House affairs committee.

I would like to thank her party, which has been clear in what it stands for. We in the Conservative Party want a fair and objective Speaker. We believe in this country, in this institution and that the person sitting in the Speaker's chair—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

In the interest of giving the same time for questions as answers, I have to give someone else a question.

The hon. member for Kitchener Centre.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am encouraged to hear the point of view of the member for Red Deer—Lacombe with respect to this going to PROC. My question for him is to understand better his perspective as someone who has been here longer than I have.

My aspiration is for the process to be less partisan and more focused on the best interests of Parliament, separate from any political party. I wonder if the member could comment on whether he shares that aspiration and, if he does, whether he has any advice on how the members of PROC could proceed in a way to follow that approach.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, the members of the procedure and House affairs committee, in the limited time I have been there, debate issues robustly. We all have our own thoughts and ideas and generally get good work done, so I am confident that the procedure and House affairs committee will work constructively toward a resolution on the matter at hand should it get referred.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I want people to reflect on hypocrisy. The essence of the motion is, “the House refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with instruction that it recommend an appropriate remedy.” The Conservative Party moved this motion. The Conservatives are saying they want PROC to come up with the remedy. Conservative after Conservative has already passed judgment. They are already calling for the Speaker to resign. In the hallway, one member said it is a farce and the Speaker has to resign.

Is there any credibility at all in believing members of the Conservative Party can be objective when this matter goes before PROC? I suspect not. Does the member believe there is a credible Conservative on the other side who can sit in the PROC committee and be impartial?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Of course I do, Madam Speaker. The member may heckle me if he wishes, but perhaps he could have listened more carefully to my speech, wherein I addressed the motion and the desirability of sending it to PROC where the process can unfold. If he had listened carefully to my speech, he would have known that I made no reference to remedy.

We are debating the motion right now, but, indeed, calls for the Speaker's resignation have been made by the Conservative House leader and the Bloc House leader. This motion did not come out of the sky. This motion is the result of conduct, and we have to understand there is a reason we are even having this debate. There is a crisis of confidence, and it must be addressed through the proper remedies, including the referral to PROC, which I hope the member will vote for.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

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.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is a bit of an unusual twist by the member, but I do not see any problem with the way the opposition House leader has conducted himself in this matter. When he was Speaker, it was before my time, but I understand he did an admirable job and certainly did not appear in Speaker's robes at conventions or did any other conduct that triggered a crisis like the current crisis. He has been a valuable resource to the debate, and he certainly has valuable experience from having been a chair occupant.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, everyone is obviously wondering whether this is a good situation for the Speaker. I would like to mention two values that a Speaker would be wise to demonstrate while in office.

There is impartiality, certainly. There is also judgment, because that is what the Speaker has to demonstrate in everyday life, on the throne obviously, but also in everything a Speaker has to embody.

In this case, can we say that the Speaker's participation in a provincial party convention reflected these two values? I would like to hear my colleague's opinion on that.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I just want to make sure we do not refer to this chair as a throne. It is a chair, but certainly not a throne.

The hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, the conduct had neither the appearance of impartiality nor good judgment.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to this amended motion, a motion that I voted in favour of amending earlier today. Now we are speaking to the main motion, which I also plan to vote in favour of. For full disclosure, I will say that I am also a member of the procedure and House affairs committee. I spoke to this yesterday, and I discussed during my time speaking yesterday how I do feel there is a particular need for the committee to undertake this work, so I am supportive of this.

I was very careful in my words yesterday, as I will be today, not to cast judgment on the issue. It would be almost a conflict of interest for me to try to pass some form of judgment on this matter and then go before committee and sit there and try to pretend that I am being completely objective to what is going on. That is where I see problems arising in comments that we are hearing from the other side of the House.

The member for Calgary Rocky Ridge may not specifically have said that he thinks the Speaker should resign, and he might not be specifically calling out what he sees as the justified action. I give him credit for that in the sense that perhaps he is trying to be more objective in terms of assessing the matter and letting the committee do its work. However, he should take great offence to the fact that the member for Red Deer—Lacombe, who is a sitting member of that committee, stood in this House and went on for 10 minutes about how he has already come to a conclusion in terms of what the results of all this should be.

We have the member for Red Deer—Lacombe, who, full on, has already said that the Speaker is guilty, that the Speaker should resign, and that is his position, but said to bring it to committee and he would be as objective as he possibly can and he would sit down and listen to all the evidence and try to be persuaded one way or the other. The gentleman has already made up his mind.

I heard my colleague from the NDP moments ago say that he did not see a problem with a party taking a position—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I have to interrupt the hon. member.

The hon. member for Red Deer—Lacombe is rising on a point of order.