Debates of Dec. 15th, 2023

Speaker of the House of Commons

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle's intervention today and his insight into this matter; and asking us to genuinely consider this. I would like to learn a bit from the member. He has had that opportunity to be both Speaker and non-Speaker and he understands, probably better than most, the relationship and the dynamic between the two.

I know that yesterday the member tweeted out an explanation as to why it was okay for him to attend a political campaign fundraiser in his own riding and suggested that it is okay to do it in one's own riding but not outside one's own riding. I am wondering if the member can just expand a bit on that and inform us why it would be okay in their own riding if they are the Speaker, but not another riding outside their riding.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, that is a great question. I appreciate the friendly question from the member from Kingston because there is a very important difference and it really does change the nature of it.

Speakers have always had to run under party banners. Until the day comes when parties have a convention or agreement that we will not run candidates against the Speaker, the Speaker has to go into an election and has to have signs and pamphlets and organize volunteer meetings. There has never been an expectation that a Speaker would cease partisan activities in that nature for their own re-election. Previous Speakers have done that for decades. In fact, the previous Speaker, the member for Nipissing—Timiskaming, made a government announcement in his riding for government funding. Nobody objected to that because it was clear that he was communicating to his own constituents. He was talking about the work that he does as a member of Parliament and informing his constituents as to a government decision in his riding. We were aware that the former Speaker had made that announcement, but that did not offend members of Parliament because it was in his own riding. The same is true for partisan fundraising activity.

The Speaker going to another riding's EDA and raising money for a political party is an offence to the other parties who will one day run candidates in that riding.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member and I agree on some things and we disagree on others; we certainly agreed in referring this to the procedure and House affairs committee. The procedure and House affairs committee made a decision and brought it back to the House. Now it seems that Conservatives are saying they wanted the procedure and House affairs committee to examine this, but now they are just going to disregard the findings of that committee. I find that unfortunate. I also found the member's comments unnecessarily partisan, and this is unfortunate in this kind of debate.

The reality is that this motion falls to the bottom of the government Order Paper in an hour, so we have an hour of discussion and then it is right down to the bottom; in terms of priority, number 80 or 90. Certainly we have anti-scab legislation and we have a whole variety of important legislation to consider, so the member is aware of that. Given that we are going to have this debate for an hour and then it falls to the bottom of the government Order Paper, I want to cite to the member, saying that commenting “...on the character or actions of the Speaker—an allegation of bias, for example—could be taken by the House as breeches of privilege and punished accordingly.” That was the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle as Speaker.

Once we finish this debate, and it is appropriate to raise concerns that the Conservatives may have, will they undertake to abide by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle's own very clear direction to this House as Speaker and stop with the criticism of the Speaker, because that would be inappropriate, according to the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle?

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would say that it is not clear. We do not accept that this will just drop, to become a government order. That is going to be a determination for the Chair, and I will have more to say with respect to that in a few moments.

As to why we are moving this motion after PROC studied the case, it is quite simple and I am surprised that the member does not understand this aspect of it. The procedure and House affairs committee was to study the circumstances and recommend remedies. The House itself took a finding that the Speaker had undermined the impartiality of the Chair.

The difference between procedure and House affairs' recommending a remedy and everybody in this House's having a vote on it is this. Every member of Parliament gets a vote when a Speaker is elected. Only members of the procedure and House affairs committee had a say in that committee report. We believe that now that the study is done, all members of Parliament should have a vote on whether the Speaker should stay in the Chair. That is the reason we moved this motion. As to what happens next, of course Conservatives will always follow the rules of decorum and order in this House.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle's interventions because this is an area he knows well, having served both as the House leader for the opposition and as a Speaker.

When I heard of these unfortunate instances with respect to the fundraising and appearances at a provincial Liberal convention, I phoned someone who used to work for a Speaker at the provincial level to ask if he had any prior experience with this kind of thing. Essentially, he said that the one case he was reminded of was when he served for a Speaker who wanted to attend a dinner event alone for his or her party and asked the opposition to make sure that everyone was comfortable with that, what would be a partisan event even as an individual MLA.

I would ask the member if he knows of any parallels for that at the federal level.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, that goes to show how Speakers should approach these types of questions. If there is any doubt, if there is any semblance of a partisan link, they should think about that and take steps to make sure that it does not look like they are favouring one political party. The example he used of a Speaker consulting with the members of other parties to find out how they might react is one way to do that and safeguard the impartiality of the Chair.

I know my predecessor Speaker Milliken would only go to his own Liberal Christmas party if he could also go to the Christmas parties of the other recognized parties so that there was no sense that he was favouring his side or engaging in what is often a partisan event. We get together, bring in volunteers, activists and fundraisers from around the country to come and celebrate the holidays with us, which is the type of thing that Speakers would not normally do.

In my home riding, when I got invitations from my provincial counterparts, it was the easiest thing in the world to just say no. When my provincial counterparts asked if I would come to their dinner or annual general meeting, I would tell them that I would love to support them, but because I was a Speaker I could be seen in public like that. I got to say no to a lot of events over four years. It was relatively simple.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's comments, because a reputation manager would tell us that there can be a crack in the foundation and we can fix that crack, but we are always going to look to where the crack was.

The question is especially for members of the opposition. Given the Speaker's background and affiliations, what will they be looking for? If the Speaker endures and continues on in the role, what signals will you be looking for that establish either a non-biased, non-partisan view or the contrary?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the member that he needs to address questions and comments through the Chair and not directly to the members.

The hon. official opposition House leader.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, we have made our position very clear. With the blatant displays of partisanship that we have seen over the last few weeks, it would be best for the House if the current Speaker went back to the government benches and to the partisan roles he has clearly had in the past that have clouded his judgment going forward.

I do not want to prejudge what will happen with this situation. Many members of Parliament have not expressed an opinion on this. I am not sure what the outcome of this vote will be when it finally comes to a vote, but it is our belief that, for the good of the institution, the Speaker himself and the office that he holds, he step down and ask someone else to take the position who would have the better idea of staying away from partisan activities.

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to this motion. I thought this issue would have been put to rest given the fact that we have spent a considerable amount of time on it. Nonetheless, Conservatives have chosen to once again bring it before the House and I find that to be very unfortunate and I will tell members why.

For starters, Conservatives were never interested in asking the Speaker to resign until they saw it as a political opportunity. We know that because when the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle first came into this House about two weeks ago to rise on a question of privilege regarding the matter, he did not in his entire question of privilege ask for the Speaker to resign, not once.

As a matter of fact, it was not until the next party member spoke, a member of the Bloc, and called on the Speaker to resign that suddenly the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle came flying back into the room asking the same demand of the Speaker, to resign—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We have a point of order.

The hon. official opposition House leader.

Request to Designate Motion as Privilege Motion

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, I meant to do this at the end of my remarks, but because the House leader for the—

[An hon. member]

No.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

It is not a unanimous consent motion. It is a substantive argument on a point of order about how the House will treat this. It is not terribly lengthy.

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order concerning the management of the debate on this motion of non-confidence in the Speaker. It is my view that this motion should be treated as a privilege motion, thereby taking priority over the orders of the day. Such motions are rare in the Canadian House of Commons, but we do have some precedence to guide us.

On May 28, 1956, Mr. Speaker Beaudoin in a ruling found at page 647 of the Journals said, with respect to motions of censure against Chair occupants, “We are talking about a very serious type of motion which is a preferred one, one which is of a privileged character, and that is to challenge the conduct of an officer of this House.”

The following week on June 4, 1956, the leader of the opposition, George Drew, moved a censure motion concerning Mr. Speaker Beaudoin. The prime minister, Louis St-Laurent, moved a motion to adjourn the debate, which was carried. The next day, the House simply resumed debate on the censure motion, as is what naturally occurs with an adjourned privilege debate, a debate which continued day to day until the House voted on June 8, 1956.

In a subsequent case on March 18, 1964, the Ralliement Créditiste brought a motion of censure against Deputy Speaker Lucien Lamoureux, which the House debated that day and simply resumed the next day until the House voted. Again, that is behaviour consistent with the management of a privilege motion.

Much more recently on March 15, 2000, Deputy Speaker Peter Milliken said at page 4706 of the Debates, in respect of a motion on notice concerning confidence in Mr. Speaker Parent, “Until we get to motions, however, this is only a notice of motion and the motion is not before the House. If it is put before the House, it will no doubt be a motion of great importance, with a certain priority over other matters we may discuss.”

In that 2000 example, a review of the Debates for both March 15 and 16, 2000, and specifically concerning points of order related to government motions to proceed to the orders of the day, will reveal that all the parties appear to be operating under the presumption that such a no-confidence motion would be treated as a privilege motion.

For example, on March 16, 2000, a Thursday, government House leader Don Boudria spoke about his concerns about ensuring the opposition day scheduled for that sitting proceeded. To be clear, he was concerned about the day happening at all, not that it would be an abbreviated day starting after question period following the usual interruption of Routine Proceedings at 2 p.m.

For his part, the NDP House leader, Bill Blaikie, offered this contribution:

Rather than creating the impression that there is any anxiety about that debate, it would be better in terms of precedent, procedure, the relationship between the Chair and the House, the prerogatives of the House itself and finally the perception of the Chair itself, to deal with this at the earliest possible moment pursuant to the procedures that we have established for this, that is to allow us to go through Routine Proceedings. It will be inconvenient for all concerned, but democracy is sometimes inconvenient, as we found out to our sleep deprivation in the last few days.

As I said, we have few precedents to guide us. Standing Order 1, however, does oblige us to look elsewhere for guidance in such circumstances. The United Kingdom's Erskine May, at page 348 of the 18th edition, offers this insight: “The priority of a notice of motion, or order of the day relating to a matter of privilege, is not prejudiced by the fact that the day on which it is to be raised is a day on which, under an order of the House, government business has precedence.”

Under our own Standing Orders, Government Orders, of course, has precedence at certain times of every single sitting day, and, as we know, privilege debates do take priority pursuant to Standing Order 48.

In the Australian Senate, an elected body, a motion of this nature would have priority according to Odgers' Australian Senate Practice, 14th Edition, at page 636, “While there are no special provisions in the Senate standing orders concerning censure motions, it is the usual practice for such motions to be accorded immediate precedence or for the debate to be adjourned to a later hour the same day.”

That situation, where the Standing Orders make no special provision about motions to censure the Speaker, is analogous to our own House.

Finally, I would refer the Chair to the words of Josef Redlich and his famous treatise, The Procedure of the House of Commons, at page 146 of volume 2, about just what a rare event this type of motion is. It states:

The rules prescribe that due notice of motion must be given that on some future day a vote of censure upon the Speaker will be moved. It need hardly be said that such an event is abnormal and happens but rarely, and that such a motion would only be acceded to by the House if the circumstances fully justified it.

Something of this rarity, indeed something of this gravity, really ought to be a matter handled with priority, just as any privilege motion, because indeed it is. Therefore, I would respectfully submit that the debate of a non-confidence motion, if it does not come to a vote today, must continue until the ordinary hour of adjournment, unless, of course, members are ready to proceed to the vote.

I implore members to err on the side of safety. Let us allow the debate to collapse today and have it come to a vote, and then the House can move on with a decision that all members of Parliament have had a say in.

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

Madam Speaker, I think it is important to point out that what the opposition House leader is trying to do is anticipate the outcome of the order that the House gave to PROC. Unfortunately, we have not even had the opportunity to review that yet. This motion, in my opinion, should not fall under the same rules as a privilege motion based on that. We need to let the Chair properly rule, and I do not think you have the ability to do that in such a short time.

I would encourage you to proceed and treat this as we would a regular motion.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, this has to be treated as a regular motion. As I mentioned earlier, it would then fall to the bottom of the priority list in Government Orders. Why? It is because the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle chose this route. The question of privilege was raised in the House and it did have priority. The choice the Conservatives made was to raise it as a question of privilege and a referral to PROC. We prioritized that whole debate. We went all day on that debate because that is the direction the Conservatives proposed. I certainly agreed with it. All members ultimately agreed with it.

We referred that question of privilege to the procedure and House affairs committee, which was then given priority for resources so it could report back to the House. The fact is that the House ordered the procedure and House affairs committee to report back and the committee has reported back to the House. Ultimately, the House can now make a decision based on a concurrence motion around the PROC report. This means that, because the Conservatives set in stone that route, the House has to follow that process.

Now the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle is saying that we should throw all that out the window and that he is choosing another route. Procedurally, he knows he is wrong. Procedurally, he knows that if he believes he made an error in the original question of privilege, that is irrelevant at this point because the House has already pronounced on it and referred it to PROC, and PROC has referred it back to the House within the deadline.

The reality is, as the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle is well aware, that as a result of his actions and what he proposed, we now have the opportunity as a House to consider the concurrence motion on the procedure and House affairs report that was mandated by this House. That certainly can be looked at in February, if a party chooses to move a concurrence motion on that committee report. He now says there is another priority, another question of privilege, but I am sorry; it is fair to say that would be indulging the House in repetition.

If the Conservatives do not like the report, that is certainly something they can comment on when the concurrence debate is triggered from the procedure and House affairs committee report. However, to say that we are going to set up a completely different approach is inappropriate, as I think Madam Speaker would agree, because the House has already voted on the question of privilege brought up by the Conservatives and has already directed the procedure and House affairs committee, and the committee has already reported back. The die is already cast.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois supports what the House leader of the official opposition, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle , said about making this motion a priority, a parliamentary privilege motion. I would also like to add that new incidents have come to light in the media since we debated the question of parliamentary privilege to refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

In our opinion, that is enough to justify not limiting ourselves to the work that was done on the question of privilege the first time. We need to maintain the question of privilege, especially since this is such an important and, I would also say, sensitive subject. It is about the House's confidence in the person who is supposed to lead our debates. Right now, rather than being the one who maintains decorum in the House and ensures that the debates run smoothly, he is the main cause of distraction.

If only for these reasons, I support the arguments of the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle regarding the importance of making this motion a question of parliamentary privilege.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, I certainly agree with the comments of the Bloc member of Parliament who just had the floor. Absolutely new information came to light, both at the procedure and House affairs committee and even on the day the report was tabled in the House. After all the work was done, after the report was written and tabled, new information came to light.

If one were to listen to the arguments of the NDP House leader, which were devoid of any reference to previous practice, one would have to come to the conclusion that once the procedure and House affairs committee was seized with this, there could be no other motion moved regarding the Speaker. The fact of the matter is that this motion is in order; otherwise I would not have been able to move it today. This is a motion to censure the Speaker. Therefore, it rises to the level of a privilege motion according to the precedents that I just listed.

What happened before at PROC does not affect the admissibility of this motion. It does not make this motion out of order. If it is in order and is a motion to censure the Speaker, which it is, then it rises to the level of a privilege motion. The NDP House leader might not like that and might wish that it happened all at once or in a different way, but that does not touch at all upon the admissibility of this motion or the nature of it.

For those reasons, I urge the Deputy Speaker, who may ultimately do the ruling, to treat this as a privilege motion. If members prevent it from coming to a vote today by dragging out the debate, we can revisit it on the next sitting day. That is what we are asking for.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to thank all members for contributing to the debate on this motion. I certainly will take all of this under advisement. I plan to be back to the House shortly after my deliberation.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Speaker of the House of Commons

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

Madam Speaker, I will get back to where I was.

I could not think of a worse front person for this attack than the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. I will point out over the next 10 minutes or so that not only has this individual continually shown a lack of regard and respect for the rules of this place and Elections Canada, and just about everywhere he crosses someone's path, but he is extremely hypocritical and has committed the exact same offence that he is now, with the new information that he has provided, accusing the Speaker of committing.

I think it is important that we reflect on this a bit. Let us go over some of the things the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle has been involved in.

In 2012, the Speaker's riding shifted cash to a Tory campaign in the robocall probe, and it is worse than that. In the lead-up to that election, the member would have been Deputy Speaker, and as a Globe and Mail article notes:

Elections Canada records suggest this was the only Conservative riding association outside Guelph to transfer cash to Mr. Burke's campaign during the writ period.

[The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle] has served as Conservative MP for the Saskatchewan riding...since 2004. It was only after the 2011 ballot that he was elected Speaker of the House of Commons....

That is fair enough, but during this time, after he became Speaker, he presided repeatedly over “sharp exchanges in Question Period debates that have been dominated by the robo-calls affair.”

Let us think about this for a second. The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, who was in the only riding association outside of Guelph that put money into Guelph for the robocall scandal that we all know so well, became the Speaker and got to preside over debates. However, trust me, that is just the tip of the iceberg.

It was also revealed, in 2020, that the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle hired his sister while he was serving as Speaker. I could go on with the details of that, but we all know the story. The member for—

[The Acting Speaker, Bloc, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan on a point of order.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the allegation the member just made regarding the member's sister is completely and verifiably false. The member is misleading the House and should be called out accordingly. That was verifiably made up.

[The Acting Speaker, Bloc, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

I must interrupt the hon. member because that is a point of debate.

The hon. deputy leader of the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, it was his sister-in-law. My apologies for that.

I will just jump right to the really good stuff. As we discovered recently, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle is known to have held, on Monday, June 29, 2015, while he was the Speaker, the Regina—Qu'Appelle Conservative Association's ninth annual skeet shoot and dinner. It was a fundraising event for his Conservative riding association in order to raise funds for the next election. He was the Speaker at the time.

What members are going to hear from the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle is that—