Debates of Dec. 6th, 2023

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, I believe that the rules of this place are that members should not impugn anything upon other members as to their thoughts. He is welcome to have his own opinions on the matters at hand, but when he is actually characterizing other members and impugning what their thoughts, ideas and reputations are, I believe that is—

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

I think he is referring to the hon. member's previous speech, but I will try to be more attentive to potential inferences.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

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

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives are very sensitive. It is becoming a common theme. Every time I get up to speak, different Conservative members come out here, most likely at the direction of somebody sitting behind a desk in the lobby who is telling them to come out here and raise these pointless, ridiculous points of order.

I will let the member know that I actually take great pride in knowing that what I say obviously impacts him enough to have to run back into the room to call points of order on what I am saying. What I am saying is true. The member for Red Deer—Lacombe stood in this House for 10 minutes and went on about how he supports this motion and that he needs to see the work happen at PROC, even though he already knows what the outcome is.

What I was saying a few moments ago is that my NDP colleague said that he does not see a problem with somebody having a position on something and then still undertaking the work. The difference here is that it was the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, a Conservative member, who put forward this motion.

I will go through what happened, so that Canadians really, fully understand what is going on here. This shows a bit of the partisanship and the game-playing.

The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle came in a couple of days ago, stood in front of this House and put out a lengthy point of order on the issue. I think it was a valid point of order. Perhaps I do not agree with every detail of what he said, but I think he brought forward a valid point of order that the House needed to reflect on. He left. The point of order was over.

Then the Bloc Québécois stood up and called on the Speaker to resign. Then, as if he just could not possibly be outdone by the Bloc Québécois, the Conservative House leader, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, ran back in here on another point of order and said that he thinks the Speaker should resign, too.

That is what is going on here. This is an issue of one opposition party not wanting to be outdone by the other opposition party. Here we have this motion that has been put in front of us by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. The motion at this point is pointless from his perspective, because he already knows the outcome of what he wants from this. He has already predetermined what he believes the outcome should be, and that is that the Speaker should resign.

For me, being a member of the committee, I have problems with being able to walk into that room to sit at the table with my colleagues, like the member for Red Deer—Lacombe, and genuinely talk about who the witnesses would be. Perhaps one would be Peter Milliken, a great former speaker of this House, the longest serving speaker of this House, who is from Kingston and the Islands—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

I would remind hon. members that this is not a conversation, and the hon. member has the floor and is making a speech. This is not a conversation.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague from north of the 401 has properly pointed out that Mr. Milliken no longer resides in Kingston and the Islands. He now resides in Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston. However, Mr. Milliken was one of the people who felt so under-represented by their MP they demanded that with the new redistribution they once again be included in Kingston and the Islands. We are very excited to see that the commission made that recommendation.

My point is, how am I supposed to go into that room with the member for Red Deer—Lacombe and other Conservative members? They have stated in here that they will be objective, that they are going to look at all the evidence, work on getting witnesses together, bring them in and listen to the evidence, and then they will make a recommendation, but they have already stood in this House and said that they think the only outcome is for the Speaker to resign.

It is absolute hypocrisy. It is just like a defendant going before a judge, and the judge says, “Listen, I know you're guilty, but I want to hear from the prosecution and defence. Put your case forward so I can make a judgment.” That is basically what Conservatives are doing.

If Conservatives want to at least have the appearance of being objective, they should have just said that they support this, that it is the right motion and we should do this. Then they could have let it go to committee and then started putting their hyper-partisanship into it. However, they could not resist for even just a few moments to allow a little self-reflection and say that maybe it is not a good idea to be so partisan right now, that maybe they should at least wait until the committee hears something to suggest, and then they could pick a piece of evidence that would support their predetermined notion.

However, the member for Red Deer—Lacombe could not even do that. He had to get up right away and say that he knows the outcome of this, that the man has to resign, end of story.

I will support this motion. I will vote in favour of this. I will go to the committee. I will listen to the evidence. I will contribute in any way I can. Then, with the committee's work, I look forward to producing a recommendation or recommendations that we can deliver back to this House for the House to act on.

I believe that is why committees are formed. I believe that is what our role is. I look forward to my participation and being able to do that.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Madam Speaker, of course, I would never suggest that my hon. colleague was deliberately misleading the House. I am sure it was an unintentional error with regard to the riding in which our esteemed former speaker, Peter Milliken, resides.

I will just make an observation about having views on a subject and then sending them off to a committee such as procedure and House affairs to have them studied. Of course, we all come here with views. It would be very strange if we did not have some kind of view formed. For some people, it is more than tentative; for others, it might only be tentative. The point is this: If we are serious about being members of Parliament with open minds, then we must be serious about the idea that, when we send it to a place such as procedure and House affairs, our minds might be changed.

The member knows full well that there was a previous matter that went before procedure and House affairs relating to an Ethics Commissioner's report, in which everybody voted on partisan lines, but I did not, based upon a PROC proposal. One can break party lines. One can work against simply following party lines on a matter that is of importance to the whole House. I have done it myself; he knows that. The possibility exists, and that is a really good reason for sending this to procedure and House affairs. Does he not agree?

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

Madam Speaker, I actually do not disagree with a lot of what the member said, and in particular, when he talked about the fact that people can have opinions and still be influenced. That is absolutely correct.

The error here was in the member for Red Deer—Lacombe stating that publicly. The perception now is that the member cannot be objective. Whether or not he has an ability to do that, he has made it very clear what he thinks the outcome should be. It would have been in his best interest and in the best interest of all Conservative members, especially those who sit on the procedure and House affairs committee, to have restrained themselves from putting forward what they believe the outcome should be.

Do I agree with him that it is possible for people to be influenced? Of course I do. Everybody is human. In my case with the judge, a judge is human. A judge might have a thought in their mind about what they think about a case when walking into it, but the offensive part is when the judge would sit there and say that he already knows the person is guilty but to let him hear the facts so he can make a decision. It does not show any semblance of trying to be impartial, and that is what one has to at least try to demonstrate one is doing, which the member for Red Deer—Lacombe failed miserably on.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think that the member for Kingston and the Islands is known in the House as someone who is not at all partisan. He is someone who, during a debate, completely steers clear of partisanship. He is beyond partisanship. He relies on facts and does not want to score political points other than in the interest of his own party; that is well known.

Imagine if the situation were reversed, that the Liberal Party was hypothetically in the opposition and the Conservative Party was in power; then imagine that the Speaker from the Conservative Party had made a video, for example, at a provincial Conservative Party convention.

I know that the member for Kingston and the Islands is not a partisan guy and that he relies on facts, so I would like to know how he would have reacted to this hypothetical situation.

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

Madam Speaker, I do not disagree. I learned early in my political career never to try to answer hypothetical questions, but the member raises a good point. I actually do not have an issue with Conservatives who have already made up their mind. What I have a problem with is that Conservatives have already made up their minds but are simultaneously tabling a motion sending this to a committee, so it can presumably do the work in an objective fashion.

Why would they bother tabling this motion if they already know what they believe the outcome should be? That is my point. I do not disagree that there are people out there who might already have their position on this, which is fair and fine. I have a problem with members of the committee who stand here, say what their position is and then go to the committee room and try to be objective on the matter.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to rise here to represent the people of Waterloo. Not everyone knows this, but the history of the francophone community in our region is very important to the people who live in Waterloo.

I am also the chair of the procedure and House affairs committee, and I have a lot of regard and respect for this debate. I welcome the debate at PROC. I do not make any decisions, because I chair the committee; members will determine the outcomes. However, within the parameters of this motion is reporting back to the House of Commons by Thursday. As the chair, I am uncomfortable with this issue: Do we have the resources to ensure that we are reporting back in both official languages? This motion and this issue are of utmost importance to all members in this House, and I am really hoping that all parties will agree to find a way forward, where we work as much as we can to ensure that not only do we respond as a committee but also that we respond to the House in both official languages.

I am not sure what other members think, but as a person who represents a community where people often do not feel that they are represented for their two official languages, and as someone who supports and will always fight for Canada's two official languages, I just want to bring to members' attention as chair that I know that our interpreters are working around the clock. Members should understand that reporting back to the House has to happen in both official languages. Are members are willing to ensure that we do the work, so that they have the time to do their work with regard to the official languages of our country?

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

Madam Speaker, one thing that committees struggle with quite a bit is having those resources. I recognize the fact that the amendment to the motion instructs the House to put all the resources necessary towards the committee, and I hope that is enough; it is a short timeline. The chair of the committee would know how difficult it is, sometimes, to get witnesses to come when they are given a two weeks' notice. Now we are talking about a day or two in order to do all this properly. However, I do have great faith in the people who work here, our interpretive services and the people who translate the documents for us. A lot of people work behind the scenes, and they do this incredible work so that our country can continue to operate in two official languages, as it is supposed to do.

Another thing I will promise the chair is that I will not ask a witness to answer in any particular language. I will allow them to answer in the language they choose.

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

Madam Speaker, it is important that, when we have this discussion for the next hour or so, people who are following the debate appreciate what the motion is actually calling for. I appreciate the fact that the member is pointing out what I have typically said is a bit of hypocrisy, where the motion is asking PROC to provide the remedy, but there is also the positioning of the Conservative Party. Could the member provide his thoughts on that issue again?

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

Madam Speaker, I think it is very important that Canadians know exactly what we are voting on.

We are voting on a motion that is asking the procedure and House affairs committee, which deals with issues relating to the House, to members and to the working of our Parliament for that matter, to look into this. As part of that, we will listen to evidence, hear from experts and, hopefully, hear from some former speakers, as I suggested earlier. Then we will be able to find out how we can properly deal with this particular situation.

I will be the first to admit that, when I heard about this situation, I thought, “Oh, that does not seem right.” I wanted to get the context to understand how this actually came to be. However, let us deal with what our recommendations are for this Speaker; more importantly, let us try to set some parameters and put rules in place that dictate what the expectations would be moving forward.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, this is an extraordinary circumstance, certainly. We find ourselves in a position where we all agree, at the very least, that this should go to the committee at which a recommendation would be put forward regarding the future for our Speaker. Part of that process should also take into account what was mentioned earlier, which was the use of House resources in direct relation to what had taken place in the Speaker's office. It is no secret that we commit ourselves, as members of Parliament, to ensuring that when it comes to taxpayer money, we respect that and we do not abuse that for a partisan purpose. That is clear for all members of this House. It has been so clear for us, as a matter of fact, for so long that we do not engage in that kind of activity.

The fact that the Speaker of the House of Commons was able to use resources by which it was then broadcast to the Ontario Liberal convention is a real concern. I just want to know how the member would advise those members at PROC to conduct themselves in relation to what is a pretty serious issue and one that hopefully does not fall victim to partisanship.

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

Madam Speaker, my first question at the procedure and House affairs committee would be to understand the context in which the video was made. Did the Speaker know when he was making that video and sitting in that room that it was going to be broadcast to thousands of people on a big screen, or did he think it was going directly to the individual who was the recipient? I do not know. It is not that it particularly makes one situation better or worse, but did he know that it was going to be used in the context in which it was used? I actually really do not know the answer to that question and I would like to know the answer.

Second, I would like to know what exactly the rules are that we currently have in place, but also how those have been followed in the past. For example, in the four years that the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle was the speaker, were there instances? We know that the Leader of the Opposition showed up to a Government of Canada event wearing a Conservative jacket, and we know that was not right. It is important to understand the context to get to the bottom of this and then pass judgment.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, it gives me no pleasure to rise this evening to speak to the motion in respect to the prima facie finding of a question of privilege in relation to the conduct of the Speaker of the House and to refer the matter immediately to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

The role of the Speaker is to be impartial and to demonstrate non-partisanship. There are many reasons why a Speaker must be impartial and non-partisan. The Speaker carries enormous powers over the House and the members who serve in the House. It is the Speaker who has the authority to make rulings that directly impact the rights and privileges of the members of the House. It is the Speaker who has the sole power to make decisions as significant to hon. members as expelling a member from the House. It is the Speaker who is the chair of the Board of Internal Economy, which oversees the very large budget of Parliament and decides how the resources of the House of Commons may be used by the members of the House. The Speaker is like a referee or a judge. He or she makes decisions, makes calls. When the Speaker makes a ruling, there is no appeal. The ruling is final and must be respected by members.

I will be splitting my time with the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 323, explains, “In order to protect the impartiality of the office, the Speaker abstains from all partisan political activity”. The Speaker, unfortunately, has failed to abide by the standard that is expected of him as Speaker. He did so last weekend when he was quoted in the Globe and Mail praising the outgoing leader of the Ontario Liberal Party, the sitting Liberal MPP for Ottawa South, in which he made such partisan comments as referring to the Liberal Party of Ontario as “our party”. I would submit that that demonstrated a lack of judgment on the part of the Speaker, but the real reason we are here on this prima facie finding of a question of privilege is what the Speaker did after that.

A video message of the Speaker was played at the ultra-partisan venue, being the Ontario Liberal leadership convention, in which he paid tribute to Mr. Fraser. He said such partisan things as “We had a lot of fun together through The Ottawa South Liberal Association, through Liberal Party politics, by helping Dalton McGuinty get elected.” Even worse is that the Speaker's video message was introduced to party delegates as a message from the Speaker of the House of Commons, as if he were speaking for the House. He shot the video on the parliamentary precinct in the Speaker's office and wore the Speaker's robes. This is more than a lack of judgment on the part of the Speaker. It is a fundamental breach of trust to the House and all hon. members of the House.

The Speaker has said that this is an issue of perception. I cannot think of anything more important than perception for the Speaker, who must not only be impartial but also be seen to be impartial. On that basis, the Speaker completely failed in his obligations to members of the House.

I have to say that this is the same Speaker who, when he was running for the office of Speaker only weeks ago, spoke at great length about decorum and respect and how words matter. He even made a pronouncement for the House, in an unprecedented fashion before question period, for all intents and purposes lecturing members about decorum and respect in this place. Only weeks later, we see the Speaker has shown a lack of respect to the hon. members in this place and to the high office in which he serves.

The Speaker, in dismissing this as a matter of perception, has offered no meaningful apology. It does not even appear that he takes the matter seriously. One would think he would demonstrate some level of humility in the face of an unprecedented situation. Never before in the history of our Westminster parliamentary system has a Speaker conducted him or herself in quite this way. We really are in uncharted territory.

Instead of attending to the responsibilities he has to preside over the House, the Speaker, at taxpayers' expense, decided to go on a junket to Washington, D.C., where he is hanging out with a whole lot of elites. He did so during a sitting week. Not only that, but he spoke at an event, in which he recollected his days as president of the Young Liberals. This is another partisan statement on the part of the Speaker using, by the way, the Speaker's office budget. Once again, this demonstrates a complete lack of judgment on the part of the Speaker, as well as his failure to understand his responsibilities not only to be impartial but also to be seen as impartial.

We now find ourselves in the untenable situation where the House leaders of His Majesty's loyal opposition and the third party have called on the Speaker to resign. Those House leaders represent 150 members, or nearly half the members in the House. In the face of that and the need for the Speaker to retain the confidence and trust of all hon. members in all corners of the House, he should reflect very hard on whether he can continue in his role.

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

Madam Speaker, there is a legitimate argument to be made when the official opposition, on the one hand, tries to give the impression of the importance of the institution and the Speaker's role in Ottawa, and on the other, says the remedy is to go to PROC and allow its members to come up with a remedy to the situation. It is as if the Conservatives are pretending to be apolitical and have confidence in the PROC committee, yet their membership, the Conservative Party, is calling for the resignation of the Speaker. To make matters even worse, at least one member is now on public record indicating that he believes the Speaker should resign. Does the member not see any problems with that?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would note that the government House leader has expressed full confidence in the Speaker. The deputy government House leader, the member for Kingston and the Islands, sits as a member of the procedure and House affairs committee. As a loyal deputy of the government House leader, is he going to follow her direction? Is he going to be impartial? I would question that.

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

I would just remind members that we do not try to infer positions of other members.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to remind us how the former leader of the Conservative Party, who was Speaker of the House, broke with a long tradition of impartiality and neutrality. We all agree that the current Speaker made a monumental mistake, had a lapse of judgment and made a gaffe.

However, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle broke the standing tradition that once someone has been Speaker of the House, they do not return to partisan activities. Nevertheless, he later became leader of the Conservative Party.

Does he not see that as a contradiction in his own speech?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have to say I do not know exactly what tradition the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie is referring to.

I can think of many examples of former speakers who have served many years, even decades, in this House, playing partisan roles, including the speaker who was born in my community, St. Albert, the Hon. Marcel Lambert. He was speaker of the House in 1962 and continued in this House until 1984.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Madam Speaker, it seems to me that what is being referred to, and I am looking for my colleague's input on this, by both the member for Elmwood—Transcona and, most recently, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, is a convention which does exist in the United Kingdom.

In the U.K., when one is elected Speaker, the expectation is that they shed their partisan identity. They can choose to run again as an independent, if the parties choose not to run candidates against them, and they fill out the rest of their career. This is the capstone of their career, and they leave the House of Commons as Speaker. Upon their leaving the House of Commons, they go to the House of Lords in retirement and serve there on the crossbench. That is the expectation. It has been explored in a committee. This convention was built out in a committee, which is their parallel to the procedure and House affairs committee.

It is an interesting convention, and one that may have many merits. I actually discussed the idea of adopting this in Canada with the previous speaker when he was running for Speaker following the last election.

However, it does not exist right now, because we have not discussed it, at least in my opinion. I wonder if the member for St. Albert—Edmonton agrees with my assessment of things.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, my learned colleague is quite right in citing what has been a long-standing convention in the U.K. Parliament, but one that does not exist in Canada and has never existed. Whether it is something that should be adopted going forward, that is a matter for further study and consideration.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Madam Speaker, never has the Kingston part of my riding name been more important than today, as my colleague from Kingston and the Islands and I wrestle over whose riding is home to the illustrious former Speaker of the House Peter Milliken. He is a man who served with great distinction for many years and who will make, if this goes to the procedure and House affairs committee, an excellent witness providing some information as to how we have done things in the past and how Speakers have behaved in the past.

There are many, many parallels to draw upon here. There have been many Speakers in this House and in all of our 10 provincial assemblies over a period of well over a century. There are parallels not only in the Parliament in the United Kingdom but also at the House of Representatives in Australia, in the one in New Zealand, in the various Australian states, in the world's largest democracy in India and in a number of African and Caribbean countries. The parallels here are enormous.

The precedents are significant. If the behaviour of the Speaker is such that it would warrant our judgment that he has been acting inappropriately, or acting outside of what is the normal expectation of the Office of the Speaker, there is no better place to determine that than the procedure and House affairs committee. If the reverse turns out to be true, then there is no better place to establish that than the procedure and House affairs committee as well.

I want to deal with a few of the things that the procedure and House affairs committee ought to consider in its deliberations on this subject. The committee will have limited time, so it will have to structure its sittings with some care. I say all of this as someone who served on the procedure and House affairs committee for 15 years. Although I am no longer on that committee, I believe that still stands as not merely a record for serving on that committee, but for the length of service on any House of Commons committee for any member of Parliament in the course of the 21st century. There is no question that the procedure and House affairs committee is the right place to go. It looks at technical issues.

We think of the procedure and House affairs committee as dealing with, for example, proposed changes to the Standing Orders. That is the right place to consider those changes. It is also the right place to consider and discuss conventions. We sometimes think that conventions or unwritten rules are literally unwritten, that they exist only in the ether, and we have a common understanding that is inchoate and for which there is no language. That is not actually what conventions in the Westminster tradition look like, whether they are the constitutional conventions of the British constitution, which have a reflection in some unwritten parts of our own Constitution. There is the convention, for example, that there is a prime minister, who serves as the voice of the House of Commons to the sovereign, and that cabinet speaks with a single voice. These are conventions, and they are embodied in a few very important words in the preamble of the Constitution Act, 1867, which says “the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick” being desirous of “a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom”. All that is contained in that wording. If we dig into that word, we find that that “convention” has built out considerably from there and there is a considerable amount of written material that was around at that time that explained exactly what the fathers of Confederation had in mind when they wrote that wording.

I say all of this by way of saying that conventions are the product of usage, but they are also the product of discussion and deliberation and are to be found in places such as committee reports. Therefore, we have an opportunity to deal with some of the issues that are being discussed here. Is it the case, on a go-forward basis for example, that we ought to be looking at some aspects of the U.K.'s practice, in which the Speaker is expected to take a certain course of action upon retiring from the role of Speaker? Where is that not appropriate? In the past, we have not had such a limitation, and the result has been that Speakers have become Governor General and they have become ambassadors. The potential exists, in theory if not in practice, that it can influence how Speakers behave.

It was with exactly this kind of consideration in mind that the Fathers of Confederation, when dealing with the issue of senators, who, they felt, might be subject to similar pressures, had to —