House of Commons Hansard #269 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was point.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, in real time, on the floor of the House, there has just been consultations among parties, so if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent that, at the ordinary—
The Acting Speaker Bloc Gabriel Ste-Marie
I must interrupt the hon. member. I am already hearing “no”s.
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Saint‑Jean.
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Speaker, I cannot say I welcome the opportunity to take part in this discussion today. In light of what we have just heard, it is clear that this debate is unfortunately extremely important.
We suspected that we might end up debating the issue of confidence in the Speaker of the House on a question of impartiality. I will bring everyone back to when he was elected and quote our House leader, the member for La Prairie. The Speaker was known to be courteous, yes, but also unfortunately very partisan. I want to reiterate that we have nothing against him personally. He is a great guy, but we already knew he had a very partisan way of doing things. That is why, when recognizing his new position after he was elected, we still felt it appropriate to issue a bit of a warning. The member for La Prairie said the following:
All of the Speakers who came before you were faced with the challenge of moving from a sometimes very partisan role to one where they had to set aside partisanship and become impartial. I am sure that you will be able to fulfill this role and that you will maintain the impartiality required for our Parliament to do noble work for our fellow citizens. They expect nothing less from us.
We were cautiously hopeful that the new Speaker would fulfill that role with the utmost impartiality. As I mentioned, that should have served as a warning of sorts. Unfortunately, we were disappointed.
We then came to learn that it was not just one isolated incident that was calling into question the House's confidence in the Speaker, but a whole litany of events. Another small point that I would like to make is that the Speaker's role involves leading the prayer in the House at the beginning of each sitting. At that time, he asks God to strengthen us in our awareness of our duties and responsibilities and to grant us wisdom, knowledge and understanding to make good laws and wise decisions. This just seems like one more reason to do away with the prayer in the House. Unfortunately, it did not work and the Speaker's wish did not come true.
As I mentioned, when it comes to the reasons we unfortunately have to question whether the Speaker can remain in his position, because he no longer has the confidence of the House, there are many incidents that have come to light in the news recently. Unfortunately, he has made quite a number of bad decisions.
Members will recall that the first event was the incident in which the Speaker, in his Speaker's robes—and right in his office, at that—recorded a video for a Liberal party member. Beyond the fact that the video was recorded at all, we must also remember the first apology offered by the Speaker before he finally, under pressure, offered one that was perhaps considered more appropriate to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The Speaker said that this video should never have been shown openly. It should never have been made available to the public. What we can we deduce from that analysis is that it would have been okay had he not been caught. That alone allows us to question the judgment of the Speaker of the House in regard to his ability to perform his duties properly, with all the impartiality and neutrality that the position commands.
Then, as I mentioned, various mistakes ensued. Leaving the House of Commons during a parliamentary week to go to Washington right in the middle of all the turmoil was a highly questionable decision, to say the least. This was the second example of his lack of judgment.
Since the committee issued its report and since we decided to make this a question of parliamentary privilege, other incidents have come to light in the news. One example, which was mentioned earlier, is how the Speaker attended an activist cocktail event in the riding of Pontiac with provincial Liberals.
We expect a Speaker to be as neutral and as rigorous as possible. In fact, we expect the same from all MPs, not just those who sit in the chair. We have an obligation not to use House resources for hyper-partisan or fundraising purposes. We already have that obligation, but someone who is taking on these new responsibilities should be even more aware of and sensitive to that.
At the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, the clerks told us that they were not even consulted. That was another case of poor judgment on the Speaker's part. It should have been the first step he took. The Speaker tried to blame some of his mistakes on the fact that he was still learning the ropes, that he was new to his duties. In fact, this is all the more reason why he should have turned to people with a lot more experience and simply asked them if he should be doing what he did.
Unfortunately, the Speaker was unable to break free from his partisan ways, even though the Speaker's position demands it. A Speaker must not be partisan, even if it breaks his or her heart, because when all is said and done, we are all activists for our respective political organizations. The Speaker's role demands that partisanship be set aside, however unnatural it feels, in order to properly carry out the duties of the office. This is where things went off the rails. The Speaker missed a good opportunity to ask someone if he should be doing what he did. We understand from the testimony of the House clerks in committee that they would have advised the Speaker not to take part in these gatherings.
Then something else came out in the media. We learned that the Speaker of the House asked a former Liberal MP to write an editorial for the media. He asked him not only to support the actions of the Speaker in the House in his editorial, but also to attack the Conservatives while he was at it. In other words, someone else was asked to take partisan action.
This raises a question. How many more situations like this are we going to see? How many other roundabout ways will the Speaker play partisan politics? The mere fact that we are asking the question is enough to remind us of the importance of being able to trust the Speaker of the House. It is often said that trust is like a mirror. Once it is broken, it cannot be fixed. There was—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
I am sorry, but I have to interrupt the member for a moment.
Request to Designate Motion as Privilege Motion—Speaker's RulingPoints of OrderRoutine Proceedings
NDP
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the opposition House leader earlier today concerning the treatment of the motion standing in his name and whether it should be given priority over the orders of the day. The hon. member contended that, given the seriousness of the subject matter, the motion should be given precedence over other business until it is decided. In other words, we should treat it as if the House were debating a motion in response to a prima facie question of privilege.
I wish to point out that there is a process for raising questions of privilege and proposing motions flowing from these once the Chair has determined that they should have priority in debate. The motion currently before the House did not follow that process. Instead, it was moved under the motions rubric under Routine Proceedings after having been placed on notice, as is appropriate for motions concerning the conduct of chair occupants. The Deputy Speaker noted as much in his ruling on December 5 at page 19,501 of Debates.
House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, 2017, at pages 467 to 469, provides a list of examples of motions that can be moved under the rubric of motions during Routine Proceedings. That list includes motions to censure Chair occupants, the motion currently before the House.
Further, on page 469, it reads, “When debate on any motion considered during Routine Proceedings is adjourned or interrupted...the order for resumption of the debate is transferred to the Order Paper under Government Orders”. The only exception is motions to concur in a report of a committee governed by Standing Order 66.
While I recognize that this is a serious matter of concern to all members of the House, since it is clear that this motion was properly moved under Routine Proceedings, I cannot find any authority that would allow the Chair to direct that it be treated differently than any other such motion.
Accordingly, if the debate is interrupted or adjourned, the motion will be transferred to Government Orders on the Order Paper. I thank members for their attention.
Request to Designate Motion as Privilege Motion—Speaker's RulingPoints of OrderRoutine Proceedings
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I appreciate your rendering your decision. Just to be clear, this would fall to the bottom of the government Order Paper once we adjourn debate on the motion.
Request to Designate Motion as Privilege Motion—Speaker's RulingPoints of OrderRoutine Proceedings
NDP
NDP
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Rideau Hall
Ottawa
December 14, 2023
Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to inform you that The Right Honourable Richard Wagner, Deputy of Her Excellency the Governor General of Canada, will proceed to the Senate Chamber on the 15th day of December 2023, at 3:30 p.m., to grant Royal Assent to certain bills of law.
Yours sincerely,
Maia Welbourne
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Madam Speaker, after taking into account the Speaker's ruling, I still hope that the government will want to quickly bring the matter to a vote or that, at least, in the meantime, the Speaker of the House might decide to step down himself, so that the work of the House can continue without this frankly unnecessary distraction.
I see that I do not have much time left, so I just want to quickly say in closing that I have to wonder whether the recommendations that the Speaker himself has decided to put in place, by which I mean the development of a best practices guide for future Speakers, will really be useful in the future. Even if there had been a guide, the issue here is that decisions were made that should have never been made, simply because it is so important for the Speaker to be neutral and impartial. This is the political equivalent of “Warning: Contents may be hot after heating”.
The Speaker never should have made the decisions that he did. At the very least, he should have sought advice from the many members of his support staff before deciding for himself to do something that might not appear to be neutral and impartial. In order for the House to function properly and for us to have healthy debate in the House, the Speaker must be neutral and impartial.
Unfortunately, in this context, unless the Speaker decides to step down himself, my Bloc Québécois colleagues and I must support the motion moved by the Conservatives today.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
The hon. member for Saint‑Jean will have 10 minutes for questions and comments the next time this motion comes before the House.
The hon. member for Rimouski‑Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques is rising on a point of order.
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Madam Speaker, I seek unanimous consent of the House to table petition e‑4604.
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House to table petition e‑4604. This petition is the culmination of several months of work and collaboration with students, academia and the research community of Quebec and Canada. It seeks to correct a serious, glaring injustice.
Our new generation of scientists have not had a raise since 2003. For 20 years the federal government's graduate scholarships have not gone up one penny. In the meantime, minimum wage has more than doubled in Quebec and the cost of living has gone up 55%. The result is simple: We are condemning our master's and doctoral students to a precarious and vulnerable life.
This petition did not come out of nowhere. It is the fourth on the topic to be tabled in the House of Commons. My colleagues from the New Democratic Party, the Conservative Party, and even the Liberal Party endorsed identical texts. There seems to be a consensus.
This very week, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Science and Research published a report on the same subject. This report came after a study I initiated, which heard from 38 witnesses and received 39 briefs.
The overview is comprehensive and the finding is unanimous: The federal government must invest in our next generation of student scientists and increase the amount, number and duration of these graduate scholarships. The Quebec government did so earlier this year by increasing its own scholarships.
I hope that as a result of petition e‑4604, the Liberal government will finally understand that it needs to meet the expectations and needs of our students and researchers.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
The hon. member may present only the content of the petition. He cannot present his point of view on the petition to the House. I just want to make this point, because a member was about to raise a point of order on this subject.
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C‑321, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (assaults against health care professionals and first responders), as reported (with amendments) from the committee.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
There being no amendment motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
moved that Bill C‑321, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (assaults against health care professionals and first responders), be concurred in at report stage.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
The question is on the motion.
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
Pursuant to Standing Order 88, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, January 31, 2024, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think that all members support the initiative that has been put forward by my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George. He was prepared to speak to something today that I thought we had all agreed on. I am sure that was not intentional, but it seems that effectively we have had—
