Debates of Dec. 15th, 2023

Indigenous Affairs

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I just mentioned about the unanimous consent motions. Obviously, there have not been consultations with the other parties, or the hon. member has already been told that she would not get unanimous consent. This needs to happen, and it has not happened.

The hon. member Cariboo—Prince George is rising on a point of order.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, congratulations.

I rise with respect to the newly elected premier from Northwest Territories, R.J. Simpson, who has asked for a carve-out from the government's penalizing—

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I just wanted to point out that I was in the committee meeting that the member opposite referred to when he stood. What he said was, in fact, factually incorrect—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

As a Speaker, I cannot really weigh in on what is happening at committee. This is a point of debate.

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable is rising on a point of order.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, as you know, immediately after question period, we can rise on a point of order on what was said during question period.

During question period, it was mentioned that Moisson Québec has seen a 27% increase in demand, which is truly shocking—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

That is a point of debate.

What is the point of order?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to seek leave to table the documents from Moisson Québec.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There is no unanimous consent.

The hon. member for Portage—Lisgar is rising on a point of order.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, congratulations on the birth of your recent grandchild. I would also like to wish my hon. colleague across the way, the House leader, a good next month as she heads into her birth. As somebody who is having a child in early January, with a very similar due date, I commend her for the work she is doing in the House at eight months pregnant.

I rise today on a fairly urgent matter, as it has come to light very recently that Canadian families will be paying $700 more on groceries next year. I would seek unanimous consent to table—

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Coming out of question period, 133 Ontario chiefs have taken the federal government to court over what they are calling a discriminatory carbon tax. I would like unanimous consent to table these documents.

[Some hon. members]

No.

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

Madam Speaker, it is the season of hope. Despite past experience, I am hopeful that there will be agreement to table the results of the vote—

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There is no agreement.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay also has a point of order. I hope this is a real point of order.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, absolutely, and I am sure there will be all-party unanimous support.

I thank you, Madam Speaker, for your excellent work this morning and for the people on the table. I certainly think we all support—

[Some hon. members]

No.

Message from the Senate

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that it has passed the following bill: Bill C-60, An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024.

Government Response to Petitions

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 11 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

Speaker of the House of Commons

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

moved:

That this House resolve that it no longer has confidence in its Speaker, and direct that: (a) the office be deemed vacant effective immediately before the hour of meeting on the second sitting day following the adoption of this resolution; and (b) as the first order of business, at that second sitting day, an election of the Speaker be held, pursuant to Standing Order 2(2)

Madam Speaker, this has been a difficult few weeks for the House and for the office of the Speaker. A lot has been said. We have had a debate on a privilege motion here in the House, and we have had extensive meetings at the procedure and House affairs committee to study the blatant displays of partisanship that the current Speaker has engaged in and the fact that all members of the House have—

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am tabling the government's responses to Questions Nos. 1957 to 1967.

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

Madam Speaker, we have discussed this matter at some length, both in a privilege motion here in the House and at extensive meetings at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Therefore, I will just do a very quick recap of how we came to be here.

The current Speaker comes into the chair after a history of hyperpartisanship, including roles at the executive level of the Liberal Party, as youth party president and as parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister. He was often engaged in partisan filibusters at committee, blocking investigations into corruption at the highest levels of the current government.

We all remember that he was one of the first to rise to speak when a member of the NDP was physically assaulted in this chamber by the Prime Minister. He actually accused that NDP MP of exaggerating her injuries, which is something that took all of us by surprise here in this House and was what I believe to be a very shameful display of defence of a Prime Minister who had clearly broken one of the most fundamental rules of decency, which is not to physically assault each other in this chamber.

After his election, members of the official opposition were willing to respect the decision of the House and to give him the benefit of the doubt. However, a few days ago we saw a video of the Speaker in his robes, which was filmed in his office, congratulating a sitting Liberal member of provincial parliament, praising that individual and participating in a Liberal election convention.

If that was not bad enough, just a few days ago, news came to light that the Speaker attended a Liberal cocktail militant, which I believe translates as a volunteer or an activist cocktail in English, a partisan networking or fundraising event. We have reports from people who were at that event, including the provincial member of Parliament, who indicated that funds were collected for the Liberal campaign war chest, which is a clear partisan activity.

It is for all those reasons that the official opposition believes the Speaker cannot continue in this role. Thus, he must do the right thing and put the integrity and impartiality of the House first and foremost.

That is what we are seeking to do with this motion. We believe it is best for the House and for the Speaker to resolve this very quickly. We believe the Speaker's chair should be vacated and that the current Speaker should step down. If he will not do that, as he has clearly indicated, this motion brings effect to that. It effectively orders the chair to be deemed vacant and a new election for Speaker to be held.

The reason this is important, why Canadians should care about this, is that there are different kinds of checks and balances on the Prime Minister's personal authority in our system. The checks include the Standing Orders of this House, the rules of precedence and the office of the Speaker working to ensure that, even though one particular political party may have a majority of the votes or an effective coalition government with another party, the other opposition parties still have a way to scrutinize; to delay in order to allow more debate, more transparency and accountability; and to propose alternatives. When the Speaker cannot acquit him or herself of the Speaker's responsibilities in an impartial way, that helps erode the check on the power the government has.

I will quickly roll through some of the reasons the Speaker's apology was not sufficient. He claimed that the video for the convention was all a miscommunication. We will park that for a moment.

Even if we were to not consider the Liberal convention he participated in, on the afternoon of December 1, he undertook an interview with Laura Stone of The Globe and Mail.

He paid tribute to outgoing Ontario Liberal Party interim leader John Fraser in glowing terms. He referred to Mr. Fraser's work on behalf of “our party.” He was calm, cool and collected; he took an interview request with a reporter from a national newspaper and offered opinions and comments on an active member of the provincial legislature.

He referred to that party as “our party”, clearly displaying partisan affiliation. We know that there is a discrepancy between the versions of events that the Speaker put forward and that came out of the Ontario Liberal Party, as to the nature of the event, and the apology is just not sufficient.

While the House was seized with this very issue, the Speaker went to Washington, D.C., during a sitting week. This, in and of itself, is a very unusual thing for a Speaker to do. He went on a preplanned trip that he had booked while he was still a parliamentary secretary. Rather than delay that event or have an official delegation from our Parliament, which is the normal practice for Speakers, to take delegations to other Parliaments and other Legislatures to build on that parliamentary diplomacy, he just transferred the trip from his members of Parliament budget to his Speaker budget and went ahead with the trip anyway. Again, on that trip, he relived his glory days as a young Liberal activist. While the House was sitting, members on all sides of the House had to watch the Speaker talking up the Liberal Party of Canada.

There is a reason Speakers avoid all partisan links when they take the Chair. It is to give comfort to members of Parliament from other parties by showing that they truly have put aside their partisan affiliation. The current Speaker has not been doing that from the time he took the Chair, and he continues to display grave errors of judgment.

We can be partisan. We are all elected to this place under a partisan banner. Many of us have long histories of activism in a movement. Even when we come here, some people choose to pour their efforts into the types of things, whether at committee or in the House, that absolutely defend their party and defend their team. There is nothing wrong with that, but those members of Parliament tend not to put themselves forward for Speaker, and, certainly, they tend not to be elected Speaker.

Here we have a current Speaker with that past, but he has not respected the impartiality of the Chair; instead, he has continued to put his partisan affiliation before the House on several occasions now. For those reasons, I am moving the motion today. I would really urge members of Parliament from all parties to reflect on this situation. I understand that there will be many Liberal members of Parliament who will have a knee-jerk reaction to defend their Liberal Speaker.

I know there has clearly been some kind of deal offered with the NDP, as we have seen so often before. They put aside the interests of the members of their party and activists within their movement who want real change; they trade that away, and it is hard to tell what they get back. I look forward to hopefully being able to play poker with the NDP House leader or even the Leader of the NDP one day, because I have a feeling it would be a pretty good round for me. It is unclear what New Democrats get out of all the water they carry for the Liberal government and all the defence they play for the government.

While Canadians are hurting and seeking real change, the NDP has decided to prop up the Liberal government in almost every way, almost every day. The current situation with the Speaker has clearly shown that they are not actually interested in and do not believe the things they say about the integrity of the office of the Speaker and the importance of Parliament. That is as phony as everything we hear from the Liberals.

I am asking them to park that for a moment and just think about the damage that can be done in a short period of time by a Speaker who does not respect impartiality and the important role that he plays in the House. For the good of the institution, I ask them to allow this motion to come to a vote and to vote in favour of it. Thus, the House could have a new election, a fresh start with a Speaker that could make the determination between the roles and responsibilities of a member of Parliament, once they put on the uniform and sit in that chair, and a hyperpartisan MP. The hyperpartisan MP has the right to do what they would like to always defend their party and attack their opponents, but they should do that from a position within the government benches.