Debates of Jan. 29th, 2024

Procedure and House Affairs

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know what they are. “Axe the tax” is one of them. I do not really want to get into them. Housing was the second one. They then had the deal with the government cuts. That is the hidden Tory agenda. They then want to deal with the crime issue, even though they filibustered the bail reform legislation.

We had the very first debate, and then we had the second debate on the fall economic statement. Then, during members' statements, we had another member of the Conservative Party stand up and say that they have four priorities they want to debate today. If one listened to question period, I think at least three of those priorities were, in fact, raised.

The government says, “Let us talk about those priorities.” I love to contrast Conservative policy with the government's or the Liberal Party's policy. I love the contrast. I welcome it. In fact, I was looking forward to debating that today. Much like previous concurrence reports, by introducing the concurrence report, it is preventing that debate.

We have already had the debate about the Speaker. We have spent hours debating that issue. It has gone to committee, and now the committee has provided a report.

Why would we want to talk about the Speaker again? I do not believe it has the priority that members opposite think it has. Canadians are more concerned about issues like inflation, interest rates, jobs, investments and health care. Those are the types of things Canadians from coast to coast to coast are concerned about, not the regurgitation of another report that was already passed in the House by a majority of the members.

Now there is a sense of frustration. As opposed to preventing the debate on those types of important issues, the Bloc has opposition day motions and could have incorporated this into an opposition day motion if it so chose. If the Bloc really felt that this was a road it wanted to take Canadians down, that would be an excellent opportunity. I listened earlier, because I am the one who asked questions of the Bloc members. This morning, they, too, started their debate on the fall economic statement. I listened. I disagreed with a lot of what they said, but there was some merit in some areas where comment was provided.

I honestly thought we would have that continuation of what is so important in every region of our country, and that is the concern about the realities of what is taking place in our communities. I do not believe I am alone. I think a majority of members would agree that we need to talk about issues that are relevant to what our constituents want us to reflect on.

I looked at the report. It is very short. There are three recommendations. Let me read the recommendation that surprised me. I would have thought it would have already been in place.

Recommendation 2

That the House Administration be tasked with preparing, as part of the briefing binder, guidelines for any future Speaker of the House that presents clear boundaries for impartiality and non-partisanship.

To be honest, I thought there would have been something of that nature, and I suspect there is maybe more of an informal one, but I do not know. I think that is a wonderful recommendation. As the member for Kingston and the Islands has pointed out on many occasions, it is not like what happened here with our current Speaker has never happened before. It has happened before.

I question the motivation as to why the Conservatives and the Bloc want to persist with this issue. I believe it has more to do with the Conservative agenda. I often talk about the idea of that MAGA right and how things from the south creep up north. The Leader of the Opposition's office seems to be opening the door wide to it. They want to try to say that Parliament is dysfunctional.

Today, they are trying to amplify the Speaker's chair as if there is something wrong with the institution. There is nothing wrong with the institution. The Speaker made a mistake like other Speakers in the past have made mistakes. That happens.

This time when it happened, there was not only a great deal of debate before we adjourned but also a recommendation. That recommendation was to bring it to PROC for a report, and that is what they want to debate now, even though they had hours of discussions and debates prior to going into PROC, whether it was formal or informal, or while at PROC.

There has been a thorough vetting in terms of what has taken place, and members have been able to express their concerns. I, too, believe in the impartiality of a Speaker. I understand the importance of it. I have highlighted that fact in my political career, and most of it has been while in opposition. I have gone through Progressive Conservative Speakers, New Democratic Speakers and Liberal Speakers, and I can tell members I do not think any of them are absolutely perfect.

I can say that, with the discussions we have heard both here and second-hand and with what has taken place in the procedure and House affairs committee, the conclusion I would draw is that enough is enough. At the end of the day, I do not believe for a moment that this is the type of issue Canadians, in all regions of our country, want us to debate.

It is much like when we talk about the Conservatives wanting to show, as much as possible, that the institution is broken. That is one reason, I would argue, they bring in the concurrence reports or they, at weird times, will try to adjourn debate or adjourn the day's proceedings. There are many different filibusters we see put into place by the Conservatives. There is legislation that is unanimously supported in the House, yet they will still filibuster.

There are all sorts of tactics. I am used to the tactics. I spent many years in opposition. There is a good reason we have those types of levers. The way the Conservative Party is using it, in co-operation at times with others, like the Bloc today, is to disrupt the government's legislative agenda. Who really pays the price? It may be individual members because there is a legislative agenda, and we have to try to get that legislative agenda through. If there is a finite number of hours, that means the more they filibuster, the less time there will be for debate on government legislation.

I was in opposition in a third party. The wonderful thing about Hansard is we would be able to find this. I remember saying that time allocation is a necessary tool, at times, to be able to use in order for government to get its agenda through the House, even if there is a majority government. There is a legislative agenda, a budget that has to pass, and that time is very precious. I look at what we have witnessed, which is a lot of politics. Let me give an example of that.

There were some interesting quotes. When the issue first came up, the member for Mégantic—L'Érable stood up and provided some comments. This was actually before it went to PROC. He said, “The solution for the Speaker is none other than to ask for his resignation, because he has lost the confidence of the House.” This is something that he said in Hansard before it even went to PROC. PROC was responsible for studying it.

The House referred the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with instructions that it recommend an appropriate remedy. That was the essence of the motion, which was actually brought forward by Conservatives.

The member for Red Deer—Lacombe stated:

Of course I will listen objectively to all the witnesses who will come to the committee.... I am looking forward to hearing from...the Speaker, who I hope will come to the procedure and House affairs committee....

I alone am not judge and jury on the procedure and House affairs committee. I am just one member. I will have my questions, and I expect that I will get fulsome answers from all [who come].

The member for Red Deer—Lacombe supported the Speaker's resignation even before it went to the PROC committee.

At the end of the day, when we look at some of these quotes, there is an actual report that has come up with those three recommendations, which I will go through very quickly, but there were also dissenting reports. Is there any surprise about that? I was not surprised, because we knew about this even prior.

The official opposition's dissenting report states:

The office of Speaker of the House of Commons is one of the oldest in our constitutional form of government, dating back seven centuries.

It goes on:

The current Speaker of our House...shattered that ancient tradition—three times in a week—earlier this month.

In doing so, he failed to meet his duty of care to the House, thereby squandering the good-will and trust of the Official Opposition. Compounding that, the evidence before the Committee undermined the Speaker’s version of events.

The Conservative Party, in a dissenting report, is suggesting that the Speaker resign. It is the same thing with respect to the dissenting opinion from the Bloc.

However, we have the three recommendations that ultimately have the support of the majority.

Recommendation 1 states:

That the Speaker undertake the appropriate steps to reimburse a suitable amount for the use of parliamentary resources that were not related to the performance of parliamentary functions.

I already made reference to recommendation 2, to ensure that there are guidelines.

Recommendation 3 states:

That the Speaker issue another apology clearly stating that filming the video both in his office, and in his robes was inappropriate, his remorse for the situation, and a clear outline of what he and his office will do to ensure this does not happen again; and that the principle of respect, impartiality, and decorum are values he will continue to prioritize as Speaker.

As has been clearly enunciated over many hours of debate and discussion, both formally and informally, the Speakers from the past have also made mistakes. I think these recommendations are fair; we support them. We have seen the Speaker give a formal apology at the PROC committee itself, and he may have done so twice in the House. I suspect, and I am purely speculating, that he might have even said it informally to others. I say that because I believe he is very remorseful and that this is not going to happen again.

We can take a lot from the main report from PROC and feel good about what it has done. However, I believe that the need to have the issue go back to PROC or to carry on the debate indefinitely in one form or another is doing a disservice to Canadians. At the end of the day, there are far more issues in reality that Canadians are facing every day that we should be dealing with.

Today, we are supposed to be debating the fall economic statement, which is a wonderful opportunity for members to be able to express what their constituents are saying about what is taking place here in Ottawa.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always so interesting to listen to my colleague. I would just like to reassure him that I do not really like being compared to my Conservative colleagues. The Bloc's approach is not partisan. Our goal is not to cause chaos in the House. On the contrary, this is about upholding a principle. We are advocating for a rigorous approach.

I was there for the study of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs report. I participated in all the committee meetings, and I treated the Speaker, the member for Hull—Aylmer, with respect. At no time was I disrespectful toward him. However, the facts are in. I wonder if my colleague opposite can honestly tell me why the member for Hull—Aylmer, the current Speaker, did not say on December 11 that he had also made a mistake by attending a cocktail fundraiser for André Fortin, a Liberal MNA in Quebec. Given his experience, can he tell me if he understands why the Speaker did not admit to this mistake himself?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, here is the Bloc's recommendation in its minority report:

A) That the Speaker resign from his office as Speaker as he no longer has the confidence of a substantial number of Members....

I challenge the member, or any member of the Bloc, to stand in their place and give a clear indication that no other prior Speaker had things of a similar nature happen when they were Speaker and explain why the principle of yelling and demanding a resignation was not put forward by them. The member for Kingston and the Islands specifically referred to how the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, as a Speaker, participated in a major fundraiser. There is even more to that.

At the end of the day, no one is saying that what happened is something we should support. We have all been very clear that it was inappropriate. The Speaker recognized this, demonstrated remorse and apologized. I can honestly say that, in my number of years as a parliamentarian, I have not yet seen a perfect Speaker. The present company in the chair is a possible exception.

No one is perfect. A remorseful Speaker went to the committee, and there are recommendations. In particular, I think recommendation 2, which is the one I really like, draws and should draw the matter to a close.

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

Mr. Speaker, one thing I find curious every time the member gets up to speak to this is this almost contemptuous nature with which he speaks about members for bringing these issues up. The Bloc Québécois has a right and an obligation to be an opposition party, which it is doing. We are dealing with a concurrence report from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs that not just investigates what happened with the Speaker but also gives an opportunity for the House to deal with this. We also understand that there is other business of the House that can occur, but in this case, through the whip, the Bloc Québécois wanted to bring this to the House to have this debate, to talk about it more and to find concurrence of the House.

The hon. member can vote either for or against the concurrence report, but the Bloc has the right to use those tools, as every opposition member does, in a way that holds the government to account and, in this case, to find concurrence on a report that came out of committee. Why does he hold so much contempt for this? In fact, I would argue that, when he was in opposition, these very same issues would come up. They would also do concurrence reports on this, so why the difference now compared to when he was in opposition and this contemptuous nature with which he continues to hold this institution and our ability to hold the government to account?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was not born yesterday. I have been a parliamentarian for many years. What the member for Barrie—Innisfil just said is a bunch of crap, quite frankly. When he uses the word “contempt”, maybe the member should be—

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

Order. There is a line drawn on the words that we are allowed to use in this chamber. The member has been a parliamentarian since 1988, which is, by the way, the year I graduated from high school. Maybe the hon. member could back up and retract that word.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that word completely and without hesitation, but it is an acronym that was used for the Reform-Conservative union.

At the end of the day, the member is not fooling anyone, no matter how genuine or sincere he tries to come across as. The member knows full well that there is a finite amount of time for government legislation. The member can say that, if Conservatives want to stop debate on government agenda items every day with concurrence motions on reports, they should be able to do that. Yes, they can do that. There is no doubt about that. However, we should remember how upset members of the Conservative Party got when there was a concurrence motion on a report on one of their opposition days. They were crying. They went berserk. They could not believe there was going to be debate on concurrence in a committee report on an opposition day, because those days are really sacred. As for the government, no. To the Conservatives, government only counts if, by chance, they are on this side of the House, maybe 10 or 15 years from now.

[An hon. member]

Twenty.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Yes, maybe 20.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, I am familiar with the rules, as I am sure the member opposite is. This is an obstruction tactic that the Conservatives use time and time again.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising for the first time since the former leader of the NDP, Ed Broadbent, passed. I want to send my condolences to his family and everybody across Canada who loved Ed, especially those in Oshawa and Ottawa.

The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has been seized with this serious issue. We know this mistake was not just made by the current Speaker. When the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle was Speaker, he made the same error. In fact, he made that error as an MP as well. This is an ongoing occurrence, and we need it to stop.

I was glad to hear my colleague talk about supporting recommendation 2, but what about recommendation 1 and recommendation 3? They are in this report. There are only three recommendations. This is not complicated. New Democrats are looking to work together in this House to ensure that this does not happen.

Recommendation 1 asks:

That the Speaker undertake the appropriate steps to reimburse a suitable amount for the use of parliamentary resources that were not related to the performance of parliamentary functions.

Recommendation 3 is:

That the Speaker issue another apology clearly stating that filming the video both in his office, and in his robes was inappropriate, [showing] his remorse for the situation....

This is not a lot to ask. It makes sense. We should come together on this. Hopefully, the Liberal government can listen to the rest of the parties in this House and support this report.

Will my colleague support those other recommendations?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, just to be perfectly clear, the Liberal Party supports all three recommendations. With recommendation 2, I was highlighting that I was a bit surprised when I first read it. I honestly would have thought there would be some formal binder or proceeding where whomever is elected as Speaker of the House would be told to listen for a while, go through it in great detail and put some checks in place, because there is a huge expectation.

I have a huge expectation of the Speaker's office, as I am sure all of us do. It is an important issue; there is no doubt about that. However, the issue has been thoroughly debated both here and in committee and, to the very best of my knowledge, with the consultation and work that I do with my constituents, it is time that we leave this issue and start talking about the real issues that are affecting Canadians every day.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, everybody, including the Speaker or the member, is a human being and we all make mistakes, many times unintentional mistakes. I think we should consider those things and move on.

The hon. member has been a parliamentarian for the last 30 years, since 1988, when I finished my MBA and started my career. Now I am close to retirement. With his long experience, I want him to comment on whether the tone of debate with which members interact in this House has changed. Is there any way we can bring back more decorum in this place?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, never before have I seen an official opposition party go as far or be as extreme as I am witnessing now. I do believe that plays somewhat of a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons. This is what I have witnessed, particularly over the last two years.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with some sadness and in unfortunate circumstances that I rise to debate the concurrence motion brought forward by our colleagues in the Bloc Québécois. It is disappointing because I wish we did not have to be in a situation where we have to debate the conduct and actions of the Speaker of this House. Indeed, in a perfect world we would be here talking about axing the carbon tax, building more homes, fixing the budget and stopping crime. However, unfortunately here we are debating this issue due to not only a single lapse in judgment but what appears to be a series of lapses in judgment by the Speaker of this House of Commons.

I, like many Canadians, did not expect this to happen. Indeed, I am sure many of us were surprised when this story first broke. I was just wrapping up a community event and received a text from a provincial counterpart informing me that they had just seen the Speaker of the House of Commons at the Ontario Liberal Party convention. I thought he was joking, especially since he said the Speaker was in his robes. I thought surely to goodness the Speaker of the House of Commons would not be at the Ontario Liberal Party convention wearing his robes. However, he sent me a picture of the large screen at the Ontario Liberal Party convention, and it was a picture of the Speaker in his robes in the Speaker's chambers here on Parliament Hill. I was, quite frankly, shocked.

I hold the institution of Parliament in high regard and with it the office of the Speaker. While I may disagree with some of the opinions and judgments that a Speaker may offer, I have the greatest of respect for the office and the institution of Speaker. Indeed, if we were to review what was then called the British North America Act, the Constitution Act, 1867, we would see that the office of the Speaker is mentioned no fewer than four times, showing the high regard with which Canadians and the founders of this country held the office of the Speaker. Consider also that the office of the Prime Minister was not even mentioned in that original 1867 document.

If we review the great history of the office of Speaker, going back quite literally centuries, we are reminded of the central role that the Speaker of the House of Commons plays in defending the rights and the privileges of parliamentarians. I need not remind members of the famous quotation from Speaker William Lenthall, who, in direct response to King Charles I in 1642, said, “May it please Your Majesty, I have neither eyes to see, nor tongue to speak in this place, but as the House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here”.

The servant of this House is the Speaker. We as parliamentarians elect Speakers with the understanding that they will be impartial and will serve members to the best of their ability in a manner of non-partisanship. Indeed, if we refer to the authorities of this place, this concept is fundamental to the impartiality of the Speaker of this House.

I draw members' attention to citation 168 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, 6th edition. It states:

The chief characteristics attached to the office of Speaker in the House of Commons are authority and impartiality.... The actions of the Speaker cannot be criticized incidentally in debate or upon any form of proceeding except by way of a substantive motion.

Confidence in the impartiality of the Speaker is an indispensable condition of the successful working of procedure, and many conventions exist which have as their object, not only to ensure the impartiality of the Speaker but also, to ensure that there is a general recognition of the Speaker’s impartiality.

The Speaker takes no part in debate in the House, and votes only when the Voices are equal, and then only in accordance with rules which preclude an expression of opinion upon the merits of a question.

It goes on to say, “In order to ensure complete impartiality the Speaker has usually relinquished all affiliation with any parliamentary party. The Speaker does not attend any party caucus nor take part in any outside partisan political activity.”

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to this citation from Beauchesne’s because the rulings of the Speaker are not subject to appeal. What is more, we cannot criticize the judgments of the Speaker because we, as partisan members of this House, accept that we have chosen a Speaker who ought to be acting in accordance with an impartial and non-partisan approach. When we lose the ability to trust the impartiality and the non-partisanship of the Speaker, every judgment and ruling of the Speaker has the potential to be seen in a negative context.

The rules of electing our Speaker have evolved over time, to the point that we now elect our Speaker by secret ballot rather than by a motion of the Prime Minister. I am reminded of the first time this occurred, with the election of Speaker John Fraser. At the time, the then leader of the Liberal Party, the former prime minister, the Right Hon. John Turner, in congratulating the Speaker, said:

You know what we demand of you, Mr. Speaker. Perfection! We want fairness, independence, decisiveness, patience, common sense, good humour, upholding the traditions of the House, knowledge of the rules and an intuition for the changing mood and tone of the House as we move through our days.

Former prime minister John Turner recognized the role that an elected impartial Speaker would have in this place. As I said, the authorities of this place recognize that as well. As Bosc and Gagnon wrote:

The duties of the Speaker of the House of Commons require the balancing of the rights and interests of the majority and minority in the House to ensure that public business is...protected against the use of arbitrary authority.... The Speaker is the servant, not of any part of the House or any majority in the House, but of the entire institution and the best interests of the House as distilled over many generations in its practices.

That begs the question of how the Speaker of this House can continue to serve all parliamentarians when the two largest opposition parties have expressed their non-confidence in him.

I want to focus on what brought us to this place, the series of events and activities that led us here.

I want to quote from the remarks made by the Speaker to the Ontario Liberal convention and want to again reinforce the point that the Speaker delivered these remarks in his robes in the Speaker's office with a chyron stating that it was a message from the Speaker of the House of Commons. The Speaker said, “And boy, did we have fun. We had a lot of fun together through the Ottawa South Liberal association, through Liberal Party politics, by helping Dalton McGuinty get elected.” It is bad enough that the Speaker would make such comments, again in his Speaker's robes, but he went even further to reflect on the fact that he was the Speaker of the House of Commons, saying, “when I think of the opportunities that I have now as being Speaker of the House of Commons, it's because of people like John”. He actually reflected on that fact. The Liberal Party has tried to explain this away as a singular mistake, a one-off, but the fact of the matter is that it is not a one-off.

The Speaker can claim that he was confused or did not fully understand what the video was being made for, but that does not negate the fact that he gave a public interview in which he, again, expressed partisan leanings. It was in a Globe and Mail article on December 1, 2023, which he freely undertook with a journalist. It was not as though he was scrummed on the way into question period, as many of us often are. He sat down for an interview and talked about the work of the Liberal leader, Mr. Fraser, on behalf of “our party”, on behalf of the Liberal Party. Within a period of about 48 hours, there were two specific examples of partisanship from an entity that ought to be non-partisan.

What happened immediately after this came to light? After having clearly been called to account for partisan activity, the Speaker jetted off to Washington, D.C. He jetted off to relive his glory days as president of the Ontario Young Liberals. At an event in Washington, D.C., where he quickly threw in some official activities to carry on with his visit to reflect on an old, dear friend, he talked about his activities and his glory days with the Young Liberals of Canada. We are now at number three.

Then afterwards, once the report was finalized and tabled in the House of Commons, we found two more examples of partisanship by the Speaker. We found out that he attended a Quebec Liberal event, which was organized for supporters and where donations were solicited, at a riding in Pontiac. Then we found out that he had actually called up a former Liberal Party MP and encouraged him to write an article defending him and criticizing the opposition Conservatives. This is a pattern of activities that we have seen coming from a position that ought to be non-partisan.

Like many colleagues in this place, when the Speaker was first elected, we had some concerns. We were willing to give the benefit of doubt, as we ought to give to a new Speaker, but we had concerns going in. This is a Speaker who was elected just days after having served as the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister. This is a Speaker who, in the procedure and House affairs committee, of which I was a member when he was a member, would filibuster for lengthy amounts of time to try to protect the Prime Minister's chief of staff from testifying at committee. This is an individual who served as a senior adviser to Liberal cabinet ministers, a national director of the Liberal Party of Canada and as president of the Young Liberals of Canada. He has a long history of partisanship, which many in this House have. Many of us have histories of partisanship. That is why we get elected. That is why we run under the banner of certain parties.

However, in recent times, it has been clear that those who seek the office of Speaker try to find a way to step back from partisanship. Indeed, the preceding Speaker had served as the Assistant Deputy Speaker for four years, prior to becoming the Speaker in 2019. The Speaker before that had served as both Deputy Speaker and Assistant Deputy Speaker. Of course, the former member for Kingston and the Islands, known to be an expert, served for a long period of time prior to becoming the Speaker of the House of Commons. The fact is that Speakers try to go beyond what is minimally necessary to ensure that their partisanship is not an issue.

This has been quoted a few times in this place, and it is about past precedents and where things have occurred in the past. Indeed, I will quote from the Hansard of March 8, 1993, found at page 16,578 of Debates, when the then member Mr. David Dingwall, the House leader of the official opposition, said:

How can an officer of the House appear to be impartial or claim to be impartial when she undertakes so active a role in the partisan activities of her own political party? How can members of the House who belong to other parties put their trust in the impartiality of the Chair under such circumstances, especially in the heat of the most partisan part of the parliamentary day, Question Period?

I agree. I do not agree on much with Mr. Dingwall, but I agree with his comments in that context.

Now, the Speaker made it very clear in that particular case. Speaker Fraser ruled that there was not a prima facie question of privilege on that specific issue because they were dealing with the Deputy Speaker, but he made it clear that Speakers themselves were held to a higher standard. In his ruling he said, “I have some difficulty in agreeing with the hon. member for Cape Breton—East Richmond that the Deputy Speaker is cloaked with the same exigencies that are expected of the Speaker himself or herself”. The Speaker himself or herself is expected to be beyond the pale, beyond any threat of partisanship when they are coming to this place.

I would like to refer the House back to the original motion that referred this to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs because what is often overlooked is that the House had collectively condemned the actions of the Speaker already. The motion, which was passed unanimously reads: “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”. The House, collectively and unanimously, has already declared that there has been a breach of the trust of the House.

The committee came back with what amounts to, I would suggest, a slap on the wrist for such a flagrant violation of the impartiality of this office. I would draw the House's attention to the dissenting report of our Conservative opposition, which laid out some of the major concerns we have with the Speaker's actions.

First of all, I would point out the fact that the Speaker claimed that he did not realize this was going to be played in such a public setting, implying that perhaps it would be okay to display partisanship if there were fewer people watching it, that somehow, if it were a private gathering, it would be okay to be partisan while wearing Speaker's robes and being titled as the Speaker of the House of Commons.

However, it goes beyond that. The testimony that was delivered at committee by none other than John Fraser himself indicated that it was never under discussion and that it was always meant to be shown at a public gathering of the Ontario Liberal Party. It was never even meant to be a private gathering. It was always meant to be something that would be publicly shown and livestreamed for Canadians to see. Unfortunately, it reflected that very negative concept that occurred in seeing a Speaker in his robes, in his tricorne hat, delivering a partisan message highlighting the fun that the Speaker had with the Ontario Liberal Party. It is exceptionally unfortunate and exceptionally disappointing. I have a strong degree of respect for the institutions of the House, and it is unfortunate that it has come to this.

While I am on my feet, I would move an amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “the 55th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented on Thursday, December 14, 2023, be not now concurred in, but that it be referred back to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with instruction that it amend the same so as to recommend that the Speaker tender his resignation in light of additional examples subsequently coming to light of his partisanship and poor judgment, including asking a former Liberal Member of Parliament to write an opinion column condemning the Official Opposition as well as attending a Quebec Liberal riding association's cocktail reception for partisan supporters where donations were solicited.”

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will take the amendment under advisement and will come back with a decision as to whether the amendment is admissible as soon as possible.

We will continue with questions and comments. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

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

Madam Speaker, in the midst of this ordeal that occurred late last fall, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle tweeted this in reference to this issue: “It’s...totally unacceptable.

“When I was Speaker the only fundraiser I attended was for my own riding. This is something all Speakers are allowed to do because they must run under a party banner, and other parties run candidates against them.”

We now know that this was categorically false because, prior to that, and I know the member for Barrie—Innisfil is finding this surprising too, and he should, we have a photo of the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, who was the Speaker at the time, along with the member for Regina—Wascana and the member for Carleton, posing at that fundraiser he attended. We know that he was not telling the truth in that tweet.

I am wondering if the member can comment on whether we should also be opening up an investigation into not only the untruthfulness of the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle but also the fact that he did something that he categorically claims to be unacceptable.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the investigator from Kingston and the Islands for his crack investigatory work on this matter.

I would throw it right back at him. Does he have a picture of a Speaker in his robes, in his tricorne hat, as this Speaker was doing? Was it when the House was sitting? Was it when the House of Commons was in session, or had it been at the point that Parliament had no longer been sitting, in the lead-up to a general election, as was the case?

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is very clear that this is a pattern of abuse by this Speaker, by this Liberal-appointed Speaker, in his robes and in his tricorne hat.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would advise the hon. deputy House leader that he had an opportunity to ask a question and that, if he has anything else to add, he should wait until it is time for other questions and comments.

The hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. I have a simple question for him.

We know that members on the other side of the House are practically spreading disinformation by saying that the report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs addressed all of the Speaker's missteps. That is false.

After the study, a new event emerged. What we are asking is that the new event be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and that the committee examine it. This is not about making comparisons and determining whether the Conservatives or the Liberals are more at fault. That is not the point. The fact is that the Speaker made another mistake after the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs had finished its work and issued its conclusions and recommendations.

We want to know why the Speaker did not disclose during his appearance on December 11 that he had participated in a partisan event in November 2023. Does my colleague agree that this matter should be dealt with at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. Bloc Québécois whip for that great question.

I agree that we need to know why the Speaker did not provide all the information to the committee. Why did he not say that he had attended a partisan event in Pontiac hosted by the Liberal Party of Quebec, with Liberal supporters from Quebec, and that donations were solicited by people at the event? That is a big question.

We even have information showing that he asked a former MP to write an article condemning the opposition parties here in the House of Commons.

These facts are new to the committee. They were not brought up during the committee meeting, and we need to ask the Speaker of the House these questions.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have always enjoyed working with the member. We used to sit together in PROC, and I appreciate a lot of the information he shared with us today. I would say that I am concerned that this is becoming very much focused on one Speaker instead of looking at the office of the Speaker. What we have seen very clearly here, and I do not have a lot of time for this context and that context, is that the point is that when we have a Speaker, they should be above that, because we need to trust them in this place to be the voice of the House and to help deal with some of the fun issues we seem to have in this place.

I am wondering if the member agrees that perhaps PROC does need to do a study that is not related to this study but to the role of the Speaker and how we can broaden the scope, so that when these types of things happen there is not a lack of clarity on what to do, but there are actual rules. We cannot continue to have these things happen, not just from one Speaker but from multiple Speakers, and we know the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle participated in a fundraising event that was outside of his riding, and that is the point.

Let us get clarity so that Speakers, moving forward, know their role.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member for North Island—Powell River made the comment that the Speaker should be above partisanship, and I would hope that all of us in the House can agree that whoever is the Speaker of the House of Commons has to not only be above partisanship, but also be seen to be above partisanship. I think the unfortunate case we have seen here is a series of infractions by one Speaker, the current Speaker, that have led us down this path, and we have to deal with this issue, first and foremost.

Before we go to a broader study of the role of the Speaker and the office of Speaker, we have to first agree with the exigencies of the current situation, in which we have a seen a Speaker, on multiple occasions, undertake actions that have seemed to be partisan and outside the scope of what the impartiality of a Speaker ought to be. First and foremost, we need PROC to deal with the current Speaker before any further studies are undertaken on the more broad question of the office of the Speaker of the House of Commons.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, and I would also like him to comment on the fact that the current Speaker has also shown a lack of judgment on numerous other occasions. Is the current Speaker the only Speaker to also have an ethics violation found against him in his role as well? Does that also speak to some of the possible lack of foresight he has had as the Speaker?