Debates of Dec. 5th, 2023

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

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

He did not retract, though.

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

Madam Speaker, the exact same member is still heckling me.

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

The hon. member apologized, which, in my view, means that he retracts what he said, because he apologized for saying it.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

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

Madam Speaker, as I said, when a member stands up during questions during this debate and make claims that 150 members of his caucus already feel a certain way, it makes me wonder what the purpose is in even sending the matter to committee if the outcome has already been predetermined, at least by one particular group. However, it does not diminish the fact that the committee can still do very good work on the matter. I think the committee could actually use this as an opportunity not just to figure out the proper recourse in terms of what should be done now about what has occurred and what the proper remedy is, but also to set a precedent and certain rules, and to establish a best practice to ensure that something like this does not happen again.

I do not know the context for why the Speaker chose to do this, nor will I try to guess as to what it was, but I will say that the Speaker has stood and apologized; he has recognized that it was not the best course of action. He has nonetheless done that, which is I why I think it is extremely important that we accept it but still determine whether there are other courses of action that need to be taken.

There is also an amendment on the motion that came forward. It was odd, because the motion was moved, and then the second speaker from the same party put forward an amendment. I do not know why they did not just include it in the full motion. It was:

That the motion be amended by adding the following: “provided that the committee: (a) meets within 24 hours of receiving this referral order to study the matter; (b) prioritizes this matter over all other business; (c) has first priority in using the resources of the house for committee meetings, subject to special orders adopted on Monday, May 16, 2022, and Monday, December 4, 2023; and (d) is tasked with reporting to the house no later than Thursday, December 14, 2023.”

The original motion set the context for the work that needed to be done and for how important it was, and then it appears as though the amendment that came forward just moments later got very prescriptive in terms of how to deal with the issue. I would have thought that this would all have come together. It certainly does not appear to be an amendment that was proposed as a result of having listened to the debate. From how it was tabled, I perceive it to be something that was well planned in advanced. My sense is that it is probably to try to pressure political parties one way or the other with respect to potentially voting against one part but not the other. Maybe, tactically speaking, it is a good move. However, that certainly does not support the notion that has been widely spread around the House during discussion, which is that this should be a non-partisan issue. If my assumptions are correct, that would suggest that there is a partisan nature to the manner in which the amendment has been tabled, and obviously I would have a concern about that.

However, I do want to see the matter sent to committee. I think it is extremely important that we have a resolution, that we set some parameters for how Speakers are expected to engage in the future, and that we have something reported back to the House that we can then debate and determine how to move forward with.

I will return to what I said when I began, which was about the importance of the impartiality of the Speaker. As many members of the House know, with a good Speaker, yourself included, Madam Speaker, after a while, people do not look at them as being associated with a political party; they start to just respect the fact that the Speaker is non-partisan, However, we do come from a partisan nature; the vast majority of us who are elected to the House are elected under a political banner. Nonetheless, it is really important that once somebody is elected into that position, they ensure that they do it with utmost impartiality in order to avoid a situation that can be seen as their favouring one side or another.

I will be the first to admit that, during my time here, there have been times when I have agreed wholeheartedly with what Speakers have said, and that there have been times I have not agreed with them. During the time I have been here, all the Speakers who have sat in the chair have been of the political party I am associated with, and sometimes I do not agree with them and am frustrated by a particular ruling they make.

There is an appropriate way to handle this in terms of when the Speaker is doing their very important work of being impartial. They receive advice from the Clerk's table. I remember once asking Peter Milliken how he used to deal with situations where he would have to rule on something like that. He told me that he took the advice from the clerks around the table, and then at the end of the day it was his decision as to how he would proceed. Having that kind of authority is extremely important, and that is why we need to ensure that impartiality continues.

I will conclude by saying that I hope the matter goes to the procedure and House affairs committee as soon as possible so we can deal with it there and report back to the House.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate what the member has indicated in his support, in essence, for the motion. That is a positive thing.

When I spoke earlier, I talked about the amendment and said that I had reservations about putting in a time limit. I would not want members to think that I do not recognize the urgency of the matter. I look to my colleague to provide his thoughts on whether, at the end of the day, it would be nice to see PROC deal with the matter as quickly as possible and also to get a report back also as quickly as possible.

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

Madam Speaker, this is, to be honest, my concern over the matter. The amendment that the second Conservative speaker put forward basically dictates that the work be done by December 14, which is nine days from now. Any of us who have been on committees know the work that goes into finding witnesses, bringing them before committee, listening to the witnesses, making sure they are available to attend, and having the resources, although I do recognize they have indicated the resources are extremely important.

I guess that if one comes from a perspective of already knowing what one believes the outcome should be, then one may as well just ask the committee to report back tomorrow, because one already knows what the outcome will be. I genuinely feel as though we need to have the proper time to be able to do this. I do not think anybody who sits on a committee of Parliament would argue with the view that nine days just is not enough time to properly do due diligence. We will see how Parliament ends up ultimately deciding on whether we, as a collective, think that nine days is enough.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on the member's comments, and I made reference to this in questions and answers when I had the opportunity. PROC has demonstrated that it has wonderful membership, and to give a vote of confidence to the PROC committee is in essence what the motion itself does, to say very clearly that it is PROC that would come up with the remedy.

The biggest concern I had was from the member who moved the amendment, who said at the end of his speech that the only outcome should be asking for the Speaker's resignation because he had lost the trust of the members of the House. If members make that sort of comment here, it seems to me they are in essence making a decision potentially as a caucus. When it goes to the PROC committee, we do not want to see that sort of partisanship against PROC's doing what it needs to do, which is to make sure it is very thorough on its report. Could the member provide his thoughts on that?

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

Madam Speaker, my Conservative colleague who tabled the amendment that the parliamentary secretary references was heckling across the way, “I am open and transparent.” I am not going to disagree with him on that. He certainly is. He is very transparent. All I would ask is this: What is the point of the motion? Why is he even bothering sending this to committee if the objectives in this are very open and transparent, which is what he stated, that there is no possible outcome other than the one the member indicated?

This lends itself to the member from Burnaby, who talked about this, and basically anybody who has stood up to talk to this and talks about impartiality and letting the committee do its work. Yes, let the committee do its work. I know there are lots of prosecutors in this room. Have they ever had a judge who sits down and says that they already know the defendant is guilty, but to let them hear the case? Come on. That is what we are getting from the Conservatives. I hope we can genuinely see beyond that; I hope there is an opportunity here to really look into this at committee.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is important for all of us to remember that this current issue does arise in a context. The context is that we just had the rather disturbing occurrence of having seen a Speaker resign because of a serious lapse of judgment. I think it is fair to say that the confidence of the House and of the Canadian public was tested and shaken. Now we find ourselves with another issue of a Speaker whose judgment is being called into question.

My question to my hon. colleague is twofold. First, could he give us his thoughts on how the context of just having lost a Speaker might bear on how we proceed moving forward? Second, there is not only an issue of impartiality but also perhaps an issue of a misuse of House resources for partisan purposes. Does the member have any thoughts on this aspect?

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

Madam Speaker, I will address the second part first. What the member is raising is exactly why this needs to go to PROC, so the committee can look at that. If I try to prejudge that now and say what I think the outcome is, as a member of that committee, I am showing that I cannot be impartial when I sit and listen to the evidence that comes. Therefore, I look forward to doing that.

In terms of how this plays into what happened previously this fall with the Speaker, it is certainly unfortunate that we find ourselves in this position. However, the two issues can be treated in isolation. I do not think they are connected in any way other than the fact that it is the Speaker of the House of Commons who is the subject of both. Having said that, I certainly regret and find it troubling that we are here once again, but I do also respect the fact that the—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

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

Madam Speaker, I am getting heckled again. I respect that—

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

I interrupt the hon. member because it is true. The hon. member for Saskatoon—University, who is a former speaker himself, should know better than to keep interrupting members who are speaking.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

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

Madam Speaker, as political as I am, unlike that member and the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, who were previously speakers and had to execute this impartiality, I have never been put in that position. I find it very interesting how some of the most hyperpartisan people from the Conservatives also happen to be former speakers.

In any event, there is an opportunity here for the committee to do its work. I look forward to doing that work at the committee and reporting back to the House.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I certainly look forward to the procedure and House affairs committee's taking a serious look at this. I am interested to see what conclusions it will draw.

We would be remiss in this debate if we did not call to the House's attention that the person who raised this issue initially is a former speaker. The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle has defied a lot of standing conventions about what former speakers do. Typically, speakers do not run for the leadership of a political party. Typically, they are not the House leader. Making the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle the chief spokesperson for the Conservatives in this regard has done a disservice to the issue. I would be happier to see the Conservatives pick some other capable person from their caucus to be the lead person on this criticism, because it is actually not appropriate for a former speaker to play such actively partisan roles. I do not think it reflects well on the office.

When we talk about raising the spectre of partisanship around the Speaker's office, a poor way to make that point is to be a former speaker now acting in one of the chief partisan positions in the House for a caucus, such as House leader. Could the member offer some of his own reflections on the appropriateness of a former speaker being the lead attack dog on such an issue?

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

Madam Speaker, the member answered his own question.

I will say this: Before coming to the House, I was the mayor of Kingston, and I had the opportunity to come to Parliament, to the House of Commons, on a couple of occasions. I actually remember meeting the former speaker, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, and reflecting on how calm and non-partisan this particular individual was. Now, 10 years later, to be sitting here and for him to be one of the most partisan people in the House is truly eye-opening for me.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

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

He is absolutely right. Madam Speaker, I will be the first to say that I am nothing like Peter Milliken, who was from Kingston and the Islands. He was a non-partisan Speaker. He did his role very well. He was elected under a Conservative minority government to be—

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

We will leave it at that. The time is up.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

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

The question is as follows. May I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

No.

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

[Chair read text of motion to House]

If a member participating in person wishes that the amendment 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.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like a recorded division, please.

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

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, December 6, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.