Debates of Dec. 4th, 2023

Alleged Breach of Speaker's Impartiality

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is all fascinating, but you did rule about staying focused. We do not need a history of people visiting the legislature. We need to know whether this was or was not a breach of the House.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I thank the hon. member for that intervention.

Knowing that there are a number of speakers on this question, I will ask the hon. member to shorten up the history lesson. I know he was a great Speaker of the House in Saskatchewan, but I would ask him to get to his point.

The member for Saskatoon—University.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will make my remarks as short as possible, but they are important, because they boil down to what the issue is here today.

When we explain what we do here and how Westminster democracy is supposed to work, we say it is through vigorous debate that we arrive at a conclusion and answer questions that face our country. How that debate is administered is through the impartial position of the Speaker. That is why Speakers have a distinctive look, a look that is different from that of other members. They have a uniform that identifies them as something different in this place. That is why pages have a uniform. That is why the officers at the table are wearing their robes, which signify how differently they need to act.

The Speakers need to be the impartial rulers of our proceedings. That is one of the reasons they wear robes, the uniform. When school groups come here, we explain that in the process of debate, when the Speaker rises everyone should zip it because of the respect we have for whoever is in that position.

After what we witnessed over the weekend, I do not know how we would explain to a school group on its next visit to this place how a Speaker can be impartial if they have taken part in a political partisan event. It is wrong. Everyone knows it is wrong.

We talked about how this individual was a page at one time. There is a parliamentary tradition of trying to encourage the pages to take a side or give an opinion. I have been elected for two terms provincially and two terms federally and have not been able to get one partisan answer from any clerk or any page in both the legislature and the House of Commons because they take this seriously. When they go through training, they know they are not to partake in partisan activities because of the importance of their roles. For our Speaker to have this lapse in judgment and throw away hundreds of years of tradition to take part in a political event blows my mind.

I will get into some new remarks on how I got to this location. As I was serving as the 25th Speaker of Saskatchewan, my country was hurting. Canada's direction was obviously taking us down a dark path. We could see this as early as 2018, and this is where—

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are hearing about the member's personal political journey, which is a filibuster. Could we just stay on point?

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the NDP does not like anything to get in the way of the Liberal agenda, but this is not a filibuster; we are discussing and debating the actions of the Speaker.

Nobody went home to their ridings Friday expecting this to happen. The Speaker chose to do this and has put the House in this situation. This is such a big deal that when the House does not have a Speaker, through a resignation or any other—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member for Kitchener Centre is rising on a point of order.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the remarks we just heard were the history of the member's time getting to this House of Commons, which has nothing to do with what is meant to be spoken about on the floor of the House. I share the concern of other members and would like to see how we can get to closure on this and continue the business of the House.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

We are really getting into the weeds, I believe. I want to make sure we get to the issue of the question of privilege before us.

Just to give the House a heads-up, there are a couple of other questions of privilege to be raised today, so I want to move through the next couple of stages to make sure I have the information available to render a decision.

The hon. House leader for the opposition.

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

Mr. Speaker, very briefly in response to the Green Party's latest intervention, we are talking about judgment. It is not that we are debating a specific line in the Standing Orders. It is incredibly important that we hear the context of other members' experiences from other parliaments, because it is in that context that we can determine as a House whether or not a grave error in judgment was made by the Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, maybe there are more I am not aware of, but my understanding is that we have three former Speakers in this chamber: the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, the member for Nipissing—Timiskaming and the member who is speaking.

I think it is important to hear from members with specific expertise on the role of the Speaker who have been Speakers. They understand the pressures on them far more than I do, as I have fortunately never had to take off my partisan colours for any reason.

I want to hear what the member's experience is and what he has to say.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is incredibly disappointing that other parties would suggest a Speaker's history, the understanding of the rules of this place and the essential elements that allow us to do our jobs—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Let us not get into that.

I need to remind members that the focus should be on demonstrating if there is sufficient evidence of a prima facie case and to stick to those particular points. If we have no further points to make in this particular case, we can move on to the next speaker.

I will ask the member for Saskatoon—University to finish up for us, because there are a couple other people interested in speaking to this as well.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this is the context my colleagues were talking about.

I was the 25th Speaker of the Saskatchewan legislature and I resigned. Why did I resign? It was to take part in a partisan event, a partisan meeting I could not attend because I was Speaker. That is the point. We should all be asking ourselves why the Speaker, knowing the rules, being the referee and being the subject expert on the rules, did not see the conflict in attending a partisan event.

I was relatively new, as I had only served one term before becoming Speaker. The tradition of this place is that we elect someone who has served many terms or has shown a great grasp of the procedures and traditions of this place so that we do not find ourselves in the situation we find ourselves in today.

December 4, 2023, is a date that will be repeated in this place. I feel that it is so important to have the respect of an impartial Speaker. All else does not matter in this place unless the Speaker is impartial.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I just want to again reference the statement the Speaker made today. He said, “I would like to reassure members that the principles of respect, impartiality and decorum are values I continue to prioritize for my tenure as Speaker.” Those are not things one just says; those are things one actually has to do.

I ask the Speaker to consider this: Should you not agree that this rises to the level of requiring a privilege motion, you will be saying that it is okay for Speakers to engage in these types of partisan activities. I do not want to see the special way the Speaker conducts himself or herself start to be eroded because of the actions that happened this weekend if the House does not take a decision on this.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I believe I have enough to bring this back. I know the hon. House leader of the NDP is reserving some time to come back, so I want to make sure I have the opportunity to hear from the hon. member.

I am going to urge the next two speakers to make sure they are trying to add to the point that this is a prima facie case and stick to the information, not to all the other points that members have been making.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do want to address this question of privilege and speak to the international role of the Speaker, which I do not think has been raised by other members.

The primary role of the Speaker, of course, is to preside over this chamber, and impartiality is crucial in his work in that regard. However, the Speaker also represents this chamber in various fora with respect to international work, with respect to Canadian diplomacy around the world.

The parliamentary website specifically identifies the role of the Speaker in terms of international work and diplomatic functions. Just this year, a previous Speaker made numerous international trips: at the end of June, a trip to Italy and the Holy See; in April, a trip to Denmark and Sweden; and in March, a trip to Argentina and Chile, for example.

The Speaker's impartiality is crucial for their role in international diplomacy and in their work around education and modelling democracy, in some cases, in countries where there are struggles with democracy, where institutions are more vulnerable to capture and to other kinds of pressures and problems.

The reality and the presentation of impartiality are critical for a Speaker's work, representing this chamber diplomatically, seeking to promote democracy. I hope that is taken into consideration as well, as the question of privilege is evaluated; that is the Speaker's role internally as well as the Speaker's role externally, speaking on behalf of members and on behalf of the House.

Frankly, it is a grave scandal that we would have a Speaker giving the appearance of active partisanship while in his or her position, because that member, subsequently, will be expected to travel to other countries, to speak about our institutions and, in fact, to make the case, in more troubled context, for the importance of impartial institutions, the importance of having independent election authorities, officers of Parliament, etcetera.

If the Speaker is compromised with respect to perception of his or her authentic impartiality, if compromised in that perception domestically, it becomes very challenging for that Speaker to fulfill his or her function internationally. It is a critical issue for Canadian democracy, for our own ability to represent our constituents in Canada, but it is also a pressing and important issue in the projection and promotion of our values around the world.

Again, I would just encourage you, Mr. Speaker, to take this element of the question into consideration as you prepare for your ruling.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, for clarification, I was rushed by the NDP-Liberal coalition cover-up guys on my last statement about—

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. What we are hearing is a serious question. The member is just throwing out partisan junk. He was not talking about the question at hand. As Speaker, you have an obligation to ensure that this is not descending into partisanship, but that we are actually dealing with something very serious, which is the contempt of the House potentially by the Speaker.

I would ask that this be kept on focus, rather than allowing the Conservatives to play games.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I am trying my best to stick to the facts so this can come forward.

Will the member for Saskatoon—University just give the clarification that he wants to give, please.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, when I resigned as Speaker, that was before taking part in a partisan meeting, not after. It was not that I got caught being on the video screen at a national event for a partisan party; it was to take part in a federal nomination to be here. I could not take part in that partisan activity with that hat on—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I thank the member for the clarification.

The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is troubling that we are forced to have this discussion in this place. I will reference another privilege discussion that I observed a number of years ago under a previous Speaker, under a previous government. The reason I reference it will become very apparent shortly.

It happened to be an NDP member at the time, who was on the opposition bench in the official opposition under former prime minister Stephen Harper and the then Conservative government. There was a discussion about the privileges of a member being violated because the security guards did not allow ease of access to the chamber in the old Centre Block, which, of course, is a little different circumstance than now. An extended discussion took place about the particular NDP member's ability to access the House of Commons and that in the likelihood that ability was hindered in any way, it would have been a violation of the member's privilege, a privilege that is guarded so dearly.

Most people watching would hear of the idea of a question of privilege and probably have many questions about what the big deal is. When it comes to the privileges we have in this place, they are so carefully guarded, because that is the mechanism for which we are able to represent the people who send us here to perform our sacred duties.

When it comes to the discussion that took place on that question of privilege on the few moments that an NDP member was unable to enter this place in a timely manner, which could have led to her not being able to perform her duties, there is a direct correlation to the discussion we are having here today because—

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

I rise on a point of order. I think you know what I am going to say, Mr. Speaker. You have already ruled on this. You have asked for this debate to end and for us to continue with the business of the House. Therefore, I would ask that happen now.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I will caution the hon. member to get to the point because there are a number of things I want to get moving on. We are already a little over an hour into this question of privilege. I want to give it its due time, but I also want to take it back and then render a decision in the House as soon as possible as Deputy Speaker.

The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, not very often will I defend the NDP whatsoever, but I find it interesting that the NDP would be opposed to an example that gets to the very heart of what we are discussing. In that case, it was the physical—