Debates of Dec. 5th, 2023

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

I would ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to be prudent with his choice of words considering the situation we are addressing and please show moderation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, without any hesitation, I retract that comment and apologize.

The point is that at the end of the day, if we really and truly want to be apolitical on this, the words we speak inside the House and what takes place at PROC should clearly demonstrate that. That is what I am asking for. We need to be consistent, and I hope that is what we will see.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know it is not proper parliamentary procedure to bring attention to the presence or absence of a member of the chamber. However, I do not know whether I can do that to myself. I will admit that I was not in the chamber when the amendment was brought forward, so my question to the member across the way is this. The amendment deals with deferring to the PROC committee and returning a decision by December 14. Does the amendment talk about a resignation?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member is right. The essence of the motion is this, and let us be very clear on it: “the House refers the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with instruction that it recommend an appropriate remedy.”

The argument I was putting forward is that if members really and truly believe this should be apolitical, that we should treat the Speaker with the utmost respect, putting partisan politics to the side, then as a collective caucus, members should not be calling for the resignation of the Speaker of the House of Commons. It is an absolute opposite. Members cannot have it both ways.

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

Madam Speaker, what I am hearing the parliamentary secretary say is that he supports what is being proposed. He supports PROC studying this issue and making a recommendation. However, he believes that rather than trying to dictate the answer from the House, as the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle did in his intervention, we should let the committee do its work and provide the recommendation.

This is why I am led to believe that this is nothing more than a hyperpartisan game, another one put on by the Conservatives, because of the manner in which they are treating this issue. They claim to take it so seriously but, on the other hand, treat it with such disregard and say there is only one possible outcome.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, that is why I started my comments talking about my history and the respect that I have for the institution. At the end of the day, given the importance of the role played by the Speaker, the Liberal caucus supports this going to PROC, but it is critically important that everyone recognize that the partisanship needs to be put to the side. The most appropriate action would be for opposition members, if they are going to continue to talk about it, to concur with that thought. Let us not draw conclusions.

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

Madam Speaker, I think the partisan jabs by the Conservatives and the Liberals are extremely inappropriate in such an important debate. This is an important debate that affects the very foundation of our Parliament. In my opinion, those jabs are inappropriate.

I rose in the House not that long ago, in October, to talk about the controversy surrounding the former speaker. At that time, I said, “Every day members of Parliament entrust the Speaker to guide this Parliament through challenging circumstances.” At that time, I said that the Speaker had done an admirable job through COVID-19, the occupation of downtown Ottawa in the winter of 2022 and the putting in place of a hybrid Parliament.

I also said this: “House of Commons Procedure and Practice indicates that the Speaker's role is not just administrative and procedural, but also ceremonial and diplomatic....[T]he Speaker often acts as a representative of the House of Commons.” That is when I said that the NDP caucus thinks it is important to look at the precedents and the values of the House, and that I regretfully had to ask the former speaker to resign.

That day, our party was the only one to stand up in the House and demand the Speaker's resignation. We did this because of our values and House procedures, and with deep regret. This is not something that should be done out of partisanship. It is not something that should be done in a hurry. We need to consider all the values of the House, which all Canadians truly hold dear. We need to determine what the next steps are for Parliament.

Given the precedent set in October, the NDP approaches this issue with the same thoroughness of thought. We are looking at the procedures and principles of Parliament and for the best way to advance to ensure that this Parliament is something of which all Canadians can be proud. When I rose yesterday, I said very clearly that we were dismayed to see the Speaker in that video tribute to the outgoing interim provincial Liberal leader, even more so because the video was shot from the Speaker's chamber, in the traditional Speaker's robes.

I also said that the House of Commons Procedure and Practice states the following: “In order to protect the impartiality of the office, the Speaker abstains from all partisan political activity”.

I went on to say: “This morning's apology by the Speaker partly explains why this unfortunate situation occurred. Although we understand that the video was intended for an intimate gathering for a personal friend, it was the duty of the Speaker and his office to ensure that the message was not used in a partisan context.”

Of course, we agreed that the Speaker should recuse himself from discussions on the matter. We felt that was important.

Yesterday I rose on behalf of the NDP caucus to say that we believe the proper way to deal with this would be to refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. It would then be able to study the matter and recommend any appropriate remedies to ensure this never happens again. That is something that all members of Parliament should agree upon, that we need to ensure this never happens again. Particularly because of the parliamentary crisis, which I think is fair to call it, in the month of October, we need to have the assurance at all times that there is strict impartiality coming from the Speaker's chair.

We understand the Speaker's explanation and his apology, but New Democrats believe it needs to be referred to the procedure and House affairs committee. We believe that this question needs to be fully studied and brought back to the House in a timely way so members of Parliament can deliberate on the decisions made by the procedure and House affairs committee. That is the committee charged with this type of situation.

The Speaker's ruling earlier today set the very clear direction that this needs to go the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for timely study and for remedies to be brought back to the House. This is the approach that we believe is important and something we have been unwavering on.

I do need to raise a point of consideration. I note that yesterday the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, who I have a lot of respect for, provided a very extensive reasoning for his question of privilege, which included referring this matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I thought the research that was done was thorough and effective, and I agreed with his question of privilege. That is why I noted it when I spoke after question period, not being able to speak before question period because I was at the public safety committee.

As everyone knows, New Democrats in the House all have double and triple functions. None of us has a single job. We all have two, three or four jobs, so I could not be at two places at once, which is why I spoke after question period.

I should mention as well that, because the NDP has 25 members, it receives smaller resources through the House leader's office than any other party. I want to say very clearly that with the very small team we have, Blake Evans and Alexandrine Latendresse do a fabulous job in the House leader's office. My office has two team members, yet we provided to the House after question period a very lengthy and well-thought-out argument that was based on what was said by the official opposition, which has far more resources and an office that is much larger. We came to the same conclusion, which I think shows that, even with fewer resources, there can be an equally effective team.

I was surprised that, after I cited the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, he seemed to put aside the very learned and deep analysis that he had given to refer this to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and took quite a different stand. I am a little perplexed that he would do that after providing, in the morning, something that all members of Parliament would agree should go to the committee. I thank my team, the mighty twosome in the House leader's office, for their terrific work.

The reality is that New Democrats are unwavering. We are not changing our position through the course of the day. We are not saying something different today than we did yesterday. We believe this needs to go the procedure and House affairs committee. We believe that remedies need to be provided by the committee and brought back to the House. We have not changed on this. We believe this is a serious issue. We need to ensure this never happens again. That is why the NDP is unwavering in its support of the motion. In fact, had it not been proposed by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, we would have moved that motion taking another route.

It appears that the government did not initially see that this is a serious issue, but it has now agreed that it is serious. I understand that we have some consensus that this is to be referred to the procedure and House affairs committee. I welcome that because, on an issue like this, I think it is important that we have all-party agreement to refer it to the procedure and House affairs committee, which is the venue that this should be directed to, to allow it to do that timely work and then have the House consider the results of that work.

I am hoping that the debate will continue at the procedure and House affairs committee if we do have that agreement. That is where this should go. On behalf of the NDP caucus, we would say that this is a serious matter that needs to be dealt with in a thoughtful manner. That is why we are supporting the motion.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I can tell by the sombreness of the hon. member's tone that he is taking this issue as seriously as it needs to be taken.

When, or if, this goes to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, the matter would need to be dealt with in an expedited manner. It would need to be dealt with within the next week, in my opinion and in the opinion of many members of the House, for PROC to make a recommendation to the House for some sort of outcome on what the Speaker has done. It speaks directly to not only the confidence in this institution but also the confidence of all members in the Speaker's ability to make decisions free of any partisanship.

Can we expect this to be done quickly at PROC to ensure that the confidence of the House is maintained, as well as, certainly, the confidence in the Speaker's ability to make non-partisan decisions?

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is the former official opposition House leader, so he understands the rules and the importance and gravity of this situation. I believe the hon. member was asking a rhetorical question. He understands, as I do, that this would have to take precedence for the procedure and House affairs committee, if it were to become a House order, which it would at the adoption of this motion. It would then become the top priority for the procedure and House affairs committee.

I have confidence that the procedure and House affairs committee will treat it with the timeliness that is required and ensure that this is the top priority of that committee moving forward. The rules of the House, as we well know, indicate that as well. The committee simply cannot continue doing other work. This would be an order of the House, so the procedure and House affairs committee would have to put it top of mind.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the New Democratic House leader. I know he has been, in many ways, a parliamentarian first and foremost in many different respects.

When we take a look at the matter at hand, there is the idea that we need to ensure, as much as possible, that we take the political partisanship out of the debate, and I think that is achievable, to enable the procedure and House affairs committee to ultimately make that determination.

It is so important, given the very nature of the institution. If we, as parliamentarians, are making that our first priority, we will get the most positive result for the institution, but only if we take the partisanship out of the process. I am wondering if he could provide his thoughts on the institution and how important it is that we do make it apolitical.

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

Madam Speaker, I know I can be partisan often. I know the member can be partisan often. I think we both, with his long experience and myself having been in this rodeo a few times as well, know that there are times when it is appropriate to be partisan and times when it is clearly not. This is one of those times when it is clearly not appropriate to be partisan in any way.

We are dealing with an institution that has led our Parliament for more than a century and a half. It is vitally important that we preserve the institution, that we ensure that best practices are part of the institution, and that the procedure and House affairs committee, if we adopt this motion, which seems almost certain, will be charged with finding those remedies to ensure that this type of situation does not occur again moving forward. I think all members of Parliament will approach this in a thoughtful way, in a non-partisan way, in a way that gives credit and merit to our Parliament. We are the reflection of Canadians and Canadian democracy and we need to act in that way.

There are times when it is appropriate to be partisan. This is not one of those times. We must ensure that we are doing something that is to the benefit of Canadian democracy and Canada's Parliament.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to start by thanking the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, the House leader for the NDP, for the measured tone he is taking in this conversation, both in his comments this afternoon and yesterday, and for the substance as well. I think the approach he has taken has heightened our democracy.

I would like to follow up on the comments we heard with respect to how the procedure and House affairs committee would deal with this. Of course, we have seen in the last year that the committee has been a particularly partisan one, where we have seen some measure of theatrics at times.

I would like to know if he could give advice to the MPs on that committee and/or to the House on how we might see PROC move ahead with this in a way that reflects the answer he just gave to the member for Winnipeg North.

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

Madam Speaker, the member is a relatively new member of Parliament, but he certainly understands the importance of us removing our partisan hats at key moments in our nation's history. This is one of those times.

When we went through the convulsions of what was an unprecedented situation in October, where I felt very strongly it was appropriate, as did the NDP caucus, to ask for that Speaker's resignation, I have not done that this time because I feel the circumstances are different. I also think we have to take a measured, thoughtful approach on this issue. That is why the procedure and House affairs committee, I believe and certainly hope, and I know the member does as well, will step up and understand the importance of the situation and, in a non-partisan way, offer those remedies that can be brought back to the House in a timely way.

These are things of vital importance. I know there have been times in this nation's history when all members of Parliament have stood together. One just has to think of the COVID–19 pandemic where members will recall that decisions had to be made by unanimous consent. We took those decisions together to provide supports for Canadians right across the country. To the credit of every member of Parliament, we all stood together to ensure that Canadians had the wherewithal to weather the pandemic.

This is another example of that kind of situation where MPs have to stand together. I think the members of PROC will understand that and work together to provide those remedies.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I think of the procedure and House affairs committee and the opportunity that will be there for the committee. I think about the potential witnesses. Canada is part of the Commonwealth, and in the Commonwealth, there are experiences that can be drawn upon that would help the procedure and House affairs committee come up with a remedy to the situation.

I just want to get my colleague's thoughts regarding the importance of PROC being able to entertain, at the very least, the possibility of having some important witnesses, potentially even some of our friends in the Commonwealth, who would be able to contribute, who may have some real, tangible experiences on the issue. They could reflect on what has taken place in Canada in the last 40 to 50 years.

PROC does provide that opportunity and it will have the time to look over things and ultimately come up with a better remedy because of the research capabilities of a standing committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I always appreciate the questions from my colleague from Winnipeg North.

The reality is that the procedure and House affairs committee will make those decisions. However, I do feel it is important that there be a timely resolution on this for obvious reasons. This is a priority, and it has to be a priority given that it is a House supporter for procedure and House affairs. At the same time, it is important that those remedies be provided in a timely way.

I think all of us would allow the procedure and House affairs committee members to decide how to balance out the timeliness with getting witnesses as well as to help provide the supports for developing the remedies. That is a balance they will have to achieve, and I wish them the best of luck in doing that.

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

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, Correctional Service of Canada; the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York, Health; and the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, carbon pricing.

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

Madam Speaker, I am rising to speak to this important motion that has been put forward by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. It reads:

That the Speaker's public participation at an Ontario Liberal Party convention, as Speaker of the House of Commons, constitutes a breach of the tradition and expectation of impartiality required for that high office, constituting a serious error of judgment which undermines the trust required to discharge his duties and responsibilities and, therefore, the House refers the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with instruction that it recommend an appropriate remedy.

I think that this is a good course of action that came out as a result of a ruling earlier today that this is typically the proper course of action in order to deal with this. I echo some of the comments that I have heard through the House in this debate, specifically as they relate to trying to reduce the partisan nature around this particular issue.

As others have indicated, the Speaker's chair is extremely important in our democratic institution, in the Westminster parliamentary system specifically, which we utilize here. Despite the fact that a Speaker is elected by his or her peers in this place, the Speaker might come from a particular political party and obviously does, although not always. We usually run under a political banner. Once we get to this place and actually elect a Speaker to sit in that chair, the Speaker does need to ensure that they are completely impartial in terms of how they are running the House. Of course that should extend to what the Speaker does outside of the House as well, because having the perception of impartiality is just as important as having actual impartiality as it relates to the role of the Speaker.

I come from the same riding as former Speaker Milliken, who is the longest-serving Speaker of the House. I must admit when I first heard what had occurred, he was the first person I thought to contact to get his opinion on this. I have not had an opportunity to do that yet, but I think calling on former Speakers and former people who have worked in the clerk's office to seek guidance on this is extremely important.

That is why I think it is important that we do get this issue before the procedure and House affairs committee so that we can do that study. I know there have already been calls in this House that are a predetermined outcome as to how people see the result will come back from committee. I prefer to err on the side of allowing the committee to do its work, to properly investigate this and to call people like former Speaker Milliken and other people who perhaps worked in the Speaker's office to provide important insight into the role of the Speaker, how they should be perceived inside the House, outside of the House and how important that role is.

Being a member of the procedure and House affairs committee, under the assumption that this motion will pass and be sent to committee, I look forward to the opportunity to do that, to properly do that research, to look into it and do it, as the member for New Westminster—Burnaby said moments ago, as quickly as possible given the serious nature of this and the fact that it is something that we are tasked with dealing with immediately.

What that outcome will be and how the committee ends up reporting back, I think, will be based on the deliberations that occur in the committee based on the content of the information that is received and how we assess the content based on other examples of what has occurred. Then the committee can make a recommendation back to the House in terms of what it sees the appropriate course of action would be.

For members to get up in the House, including the one who just heckled me moments ago, to say that there is no other option and that 150 or so members feel a certain way right now, then my question for that member would be what the point is in even sending this to the committee.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, no one was heckling the member. He constantly does this for attention.

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

I heard it and I did not interrupt it.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

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

It was Corey.

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

We do not refer to colleagues by name in the chamber. Could the hon. member retract, please?

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

Madam Speaker, thank you for validating my claim, because it did occur.

The reality is that—

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

I asked the hon. member to retract the mentioning of the name of the person, please.

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

Madam Speaker, another member asked who it was, and I said the person's name. I should not have done that and I apologize.

Back to the substance, what I was trying to say was that—