Debates of May 28th, 2024

Resuming debate on the privilege motion

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

Madam Speaker, no.

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

Madam Speaker, the constant attacks by the Conservatives against the independent Speaker of the House of Commons are mirrored by the constant attacks by Conservatives in the Saskatchewan legislature. I want to read a text and ask my colleague from Saskatchewan to unequivocally apologize to Canadians.

Jeremy Harrison, a former member of the Conservative caucus, who is now the House leader for the Conservative Saskatchewan Party, did this to the independent Speaker of the Saskatchewan legislature. This is what that Speaker said about Jeremy Harrison, just a few days ago:

more disturbing is his obsession with guns and his use of intimidation both verbally and physically. His desire to get permission to carry a handgun in the legislative assembly is particularly disturbing

He would start yelling—

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

I have to remind the hon. member that we have a very short time for questions and comments. I have to give the hon. member an opportunity to answer before the time expires.

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

Madam Speaker, does the member unequivocally apologize and condemn the actions of the Conservative Saskatchewan Party against the independent Speaker of the Saskatchewan legislature?

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

Madam Speaker, that is a ridiculous question. Why would I apologize for someone else's behaviour? Randy Weekes is a friend of mine. I was a colleague of his. He served honourably for 25 years. He made those comments.

I think any intimidation and harassment should be called out, like the House leader of the NDP, who tried to intimidate and harass a staffer because she made a mistake. He continued to berate that staffer and would not let her fix the mistake when we had agreement from all our caucuses. He is one of the biggest bullies in this chamber, so he should reflect on that himself.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member has enough experience to know that the kinds of petty insults he used need to be withdrawn, and he needs to apologize.

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

This is debate, but it is also true that there were some insults exchanged here, and calling someone a bully is not parliamentary.

I would invite the hon. member to withdraw the comment.

The hon. member for Regina—Lewvan.

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

Madam Speaker, I withdraw the bully comment, but I still think the member should do some self-reflection.

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I usually say I am honoured to be able to rise in this place and participate in debate, but I am discouraged and disappointed with the rhetoric and the deflection coming from members of the Liberal caucus, as well as from the NDP, their coalition cover-up partners, on this debate. We are dealing with a prima facie case of the violation of privilege in the House.

I have been here for almost 20 years. I love this institution. I am incredibly honoured and still overwhelmed that the constituents of Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman have sent me here on seven different occasions. We see the government trying to deflect and protect the Speaker, who has now been found in a prima facie case of privilege on multiple occasions, and defend that behaviour. To me, that is disappointing to say the least. I am disgusted by it.

I am such a parliamentary nerd. I read the House of Commons Procedure and Practice. We are on the third edition. I started off reading when it was O'Brien and Bosc, and now I am reading Bosc and Gagnon. I make sure that I read through the book at least once every session. At the beginning of every parliamentary sitting, in the fall, I reread chapter 20 in particular, but always chapter 3 as well because of committee operations and the work that we do. I am a vice-chair and I have to sit in committees.

In chapter 3, which is on parliamentary privileges and immunity, the very first page says, “The rights accorded to the House and its Members to allow them to perform their parliamentary functions unimpeded are referred to as privileges or immunities.” The Deputy Speaker found in the case of the Speaker that he has violated members' privileges, a prima facie case that he violated our privileges. What did he violate? His impartiality.

In chapter 7 titled, “The Speaker and Other Presiding Officers of the House”, under “Impartiality of the Chair”, on page 323, it states, “When in the Chair, the Speaker embodies the power and authority of the office, strengthened by rule and precedent. He or she must at all times show, and be seen to show, the impartiality required to sustain the trust and goodwill of the House.” That is why the Speaker is now in trouble, because he has not been able to maintain that impartiality.

In fact, we have seen, on multiple occasions, we are talking six or seven times now, that the Speaker has been called out, caught and charged for not acting impartial. When it comes down to it, the Speaker is the guardian of the rights and privileges of all of us as members of the House of Commons, so that we can enjoy our free speech and other privileges that we have.

On page 317, it says, “It is the responsibility of the Speaker to act as the guardian of the rights and privileges of Members and of the House as an institution.” It goes on to say the following:

Freedom of speech may be the most important of the privileges accorded to Members of Parliament; it has been described as...a fundamental right without which they would be hampered in the performance of their duties. It permits them to speak in the House without inhibition, to refer to any matter or express any opinion as they see fit, to say what they feel needs to be said in the furtherance of the national interest and the aspirations of their constituents.

When we talk about impartiality and when we talk about preserving our freedom of speech, we have the case we are dealing with right now. The Speaker held a fundraiser. It is not that he held a fundraiser that was in error because all of us, as parliamentarians, have to raise money to be able to fight elections. The Speaker has that right. The previous Speaker that the Liberals always refer to, the House leader of the Conservative Party, had that right as well.

However, what was wrong in this case is that the Speaker's electoral district association advertised this as a meeting with the Speaker and used inflammatory, partisan language against the leader of the official opposition. It said that Conservatives would propose reckless policy, and would risk our health, safety and pocketbooks.

That is where the prima facie case of privilege was violated, because they used inflammatory language. Again, that undermines the Speaker in his ability to maintain impartiality. We know also that he, in the issue of freedom of speech, not that long ago, threw out, first, the member for Lethbridge, who used unparliamentary language but withdrew that comment. It was in the blues. They may want to talk about it but it was in the blues and then it was edited out. We still need to get that ruling on who made that edit.

The second thing is that, following that, he then threw out the leader of the official opposition, the leader of the Conservative Party, the member of Parliament for Carleton, because of inflammatory language, but did not apply that fairly, because even though the word “wacko” was used to describe the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister also, before that, had used inflammatory language, calling the leader “spineless”. There was no action, no withdrawal, no apology sought, no ejection from the chamber by the Speaker, again undermining and proving that our Speaker is not impartial.

On those occasions, we talk about freedom of speech but we also have to talk about the maintenance of being non-partisan, of being impartial. It says, again, in chapter 7, under the roles of the Speaker, on page 324, that “in order to protect the impartiality of the office, the Speaker abstains from all partisan political activity”. This includes not going to caucus meetings, never mind attending Liberal fundraisers. The first time the Speaker got caught, he attended a fundraising dinner for a neighbouring Liberal. That is not allowed. He can attend his own, but he is not allowed to attend other Liberal fundraisers. He then, by video, addressed, in his robes, in full Speaker garb, the Ontario Liberal Party leadership convention.

I filed a complaint with the procedure and House affairs committee, of misuse of government resources, of House resources, to further partisan activities, of which the Speaker was found guilty, and ordered to pay a fine. Again, here we go. He is supposed to be impartial. He was not.

We also know that the Speaker went down to Washington on the taxpayer dime and gave a speech about being a young Liberal down in D.C.. The Speaker continues to do partisan activities, behaves from a partisan position when occupying the Chair, and undermines the individual rights, freedoms and immunities that all of us are supposed to enjoy. Instead of being the guardian of our rights, he has ejected Conservative members. He has given a pass to the Prime Minister. His overall, and I do not know what the appropriate term here would be, as I do not want to be unparliamentary, ongoing loyalty to the Liberal Party and not to this chamber is what has caused the situation we find ourselves in.

Any other members in this House, from the Liberals or their coalition cover-up partners in the NDP, who stand here and say that this Speaker is impartial are sadly mistaken. I am so disappointed in the NDP. It has always stood on the grounds that they protect this institution. It is actually helping to undermine our democratic principles, the respect and honour that this chamber is supposed to hold, by continuing to support the Liberals in their ongoing reckless spending, as well as protect the Speaker, who is not up to the job.

The House is seized with a question. The government has moved the motion to limit debate. The House, under the rules, is supposed to be seized with a question of privilege and rise here and discuss this and debate it and try to convince one another that we are right or wrong. It is unfortunate that the NDP and the Liberals are working together to protect the Speaker and his unparliamentary behaviour.

I beg the Speaker: will he do the right thing and resign?

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

Madam Speaker, for those who listened in yesterday or are tuning in today, let there be no doubt that this is nothing more than a Conservative Reform Party tactic. That is all it is.

The issue that is before us is being used to try to say something that is not true. Instead of having a debate on issues that Canadians are having to face day in and day out, the Conservatives choose to play a destructive force here on the floor of the House of Commons. We will continue to be focused on the needs of Canadians, as the Conservatives continue to play this destructive force.

When will the Conservatives get away from playing their destructive games and start focusing on what is in the best interest of Canadians and supporting the initiatives that are coming through in legislation and in budgetary measures?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North is again up here deflecting and misleading Canadians, especially his own constituents, on the seriousness of the issue that we are grasped with.

He is contemptuous in his comments, saying that there is nothing to see here, that it is all make-believe and it is all fake, which we have heard from the other side and the Liberals throughout the day.

We are seized with a ruling by the Deputy Speaker that someone in this place violated our privilege, and that takes precedence over anything else that we are debating in this House. For the member to say, “Ha, look the other way, nothing to see here, folks” is wrong and misleading. He should be more honest when he is dealing with his own constituents, never mind the rest of Canada.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am sorry the member is disappointed with me and my party, but that is okay. We can have that disagreement.

However, it is important to note while that the Speaker may not have done himself any favours, at the same time, he has been consistent with the practices done before.

I remember, the Conservatives mailed into my riding. They used to use their mailing privileges called “franking”. Monte Solberg mailed into my riding, saying I was not supporting the RCMP on the day they were burying three RCMP officers in Edmonton. That led to a point of privilege that actually passed and is in the system right now. It stopped the mailings that the Conservatives were doing. I was supposed to get reparations for that, but that never took place because there was no agreement about what those reparations would be. However, we won.

How can we trust the Conservatives' sincerity in this debate when their practices are not consistent with that?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, if we want to talk about sincerity of actions, the NDP actually promised, after the last prima facie case against the Speaker's malfeasance, to ensure that they would never support the Speaker again, after his violations of participating in the Ontario Liberal leadership convention.

Yet, here we are. The New Democrats said one thing, that they would never support the Speaker again as he continues to violate our privileges in this House, and they are supporting the Liberals and the Speaker in helping cover up this egregious violation of rights and privileges here in the House of Commons.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I think that the Speaker learned from the best, because he was the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister.

As we know, the Prime Minister has three ethics violation reports in his own name. Perhaps the Speaker learned this particular type of behaviour from the Prime Minister. I am wondering what my colleague has to say about that.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague from Saskatchewan that the Prime Minister himself, as Prime Minister, as well as before, when he was in the third party, had numerous violations and was called to account for the use of unparliamentary language, for breaching privilege in this House, for elbowing a female NDP member of Parliament and for trying to push a vote more quickly than what should have been taking place.

Instead of respecting this place, the Prime Minister has always shown contempt, and that is being emulated by our Speaker in the House of Commons, and it has to end now.

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

Madam Speaker, here we are again dealing with, for the second time in less than six months, a prima facie question of privilege from a ruling of the Deputy Speaker, arising from the partisan conduct of the Speaker of the House. This is truly unprecedented. When I spoke in December 2023 to the initial prima facie question of privilege, I never would have imagined that, in just a matter of months, I would be on my feet again with the Speaker's having engaged in a very similar transgression of engaging in partisan activities.

It is of fundamental importance that, in discharging the duties and responsibilities of Speaker, the Speaker not only be impartial but also be seen to be impartial. If follows, therefore, that the Speaker must refrain from partisan activities and engaging in partisan commentary both in the chamber and outside the chamber. As the leading procedural authority for this place, Bosc and Gagnon states, at pages 323 and 324, on this matter:

When in the Chair, the Speaker embodies the power and authority of the office, strengthened by rule and precedent. He or she must at all times show, and be seen to show, the impartiality required to sustain the trust and goodwill of the House....

In order to protect the impartiality of the office, the Speaker abstains from all partisan political activity....

Aside from the excerpt, I wish to elaborate on why a Speaker must be non-partisan, be seen to be non-partisan and avoid partisan activities. That is because the Speaker is, first and foremost, the Speaker of the House of Commons. He or she is the Speaker of the entire House and for all honourable members of the House, entrusted with significant powers and authority to rule not only on matters of procedure but also on matters that go to the heart of the rights and privileges of each hon. member of the august chamber.

The Speaker is like a referee or a judge. The Speaker's rulings are final. There is no appeal. As such, in order for Speakers to fulfill their responsibilities, they must retain the respect and confidence of members. In order to do so, the Speaker must rise above day-to-day partisanship.

I will add a few caveats to that. Each Speaker, generally, has arrived in this place after running for a political party. However, when they become the Speaker, they are expected to not engage in partisan activity, notwithstanding the fact that they would have had a partisan background; other than that, they continue to serve as a Liberal or Conservative MP, but not in sit in the Conservative or Liberal caucus or any political party's caucus. There is some limited flexibility for a Speaker, if they are running for re-election at election time, to run under their party's banner.

However, even in the context of an election, the Speaker, as has been the practice, has generally refrained from making overtly partisan statements or taking partisan positions, and has generally focused, in the context of a campaign, on local issues and the Speaker's representation as an individual member of Parliament.

With that context about why it is necessary for the Speaker to be non-partisan and to acknowledge the limited caveats to that which exist, as has been the practice, the current Speaker has repeatedly failed to fulfill the standard that is expected of the Speaker to refrain from partisanship and partisan activities. This is not a case of one lapse in judgment, a one-off, but rather is part of a pattern. Indeed, there have been at least six incidents in which the Speaker has engaged in partisan activities or made partisan comments in the eight short months that he has been Speaker, including three times between December 1 and December 5, 2023.

The first incident occurred on December 1, 2023, when the Speaker voluntarily set up an interview with Laura Stone of the Globe and Mail on the topic of the Ontario Liberal leader, John Fraser's, retiring, in which the Speaker heaped praise on the Ontario Liberal leader, a partisan figure, and referred to the Liberal Party of Ontario as “our party”. At the very least, it demonstrated a total lack of judgment on the part of the Speaker to set up an interview with a national newspaper reporter to engage in what amounted to partisan commentary praising a partisan political figure in Ontario.

One could say that maybe that was just a one-off, an error in judgment, but it did not end there. The very next day, a video was played of the Speaker, at the ultrapartisan venue of the Ontario Liberal Party leadership convention, providing a partisan message to a partisan political figure, namely the same outgoing Ontario Liberal Party leader, John Fraser. The Speaker in his message spoke about his own years of activism in the Liberal Party and how he worked hand in hand with John Fraser to help get Dalton McGuinty elected.

To make matters worse, the Speaker shot the video from the Speaker's office in the House of Commons, used parliamentary resources to convey a partisan message to be played at a partisan political convention and wore the non-partisan robes of the Speaker, to add insult to injury. As problematic as that was, the message on the video was a message from the Speaker of the House of Commons, played at the Ontario Liberal Convention. When it was reported and when people saw the video, there was general shock that the Speaker had done something that clearly had crossed a line.

However, the Speaker did not have the humility even to acknowledge that he had made a mistake. He dismissed his transgression as merely one of perception. When he came before the procedure and House affairs committee, he did not accept any real responsibility, just like his friend the Prime Minister. He said that it was a big misunderstanding and that the video was intended for a smaller private gathering. I do not suppose it makes it much better that the Speaker would use House of Commons resources conveying a partisan message to be played at a smaller partisan venue of Ontario Liberals, but that is the Speaker's logic. I would say it is illogic.

The Speaker's explanation, by the way, did not add up. The explanation was outright contradicted by other witnesses who came to committee and said that the request had been made from Mr. Fraser's wife to the Speaker's chief of staff, that the video had always been intended to be played at the Ontario Liberal convention and that there was no private, intimate event that occurred or that was ever planned. However, I digress.

As the Speaker was being called out for his partisan activities of shooting a partisan video played at a partisan convention, requiring the House to be seized of a matter of the first prima facie question of privilege, the Speaker, to demonstrate his contempt, while the House was sitting and while it was seized with the matter, took off to Washington, D.C. at taxpayers' expense to hobnob with a bunch of liberal D.C. elites, where the Speaker yet again engaged in partisanship. This was while he was under fire for two partisan transgressions. It is unbelievable.

The Speaker attended a reception for Claus Gramckow, who was retiring from the Friedrich Naumann Foundation, a foundation closely connected with the Liberal Party of Canada's sister party in Germany. During the reception, the Speaker talked about his days as a Liberal youth president. The Speaker was essentially thumbing his nose at the House and demonstrating that in his mind the rules and the standards that apply to the Speaker of the House do not apply to him.

It should be noted that the Speaker did not get off scot-free for his transgression. The procedure and House affairs committee, in a report that was adopted by the House, ordered that the Speaker reimburse the House of Commons for any costs associated with the production of the video using House of Commons resources, as well as provide an apology to the House, which the Speaker initially refused to provide.

One would think that, after that, the Speaker might have learned his lesson, but it seems he did not, because we found out shortly afterwards that the Speaker had been engaging in other partisan activities. For example, the Speaker attended a Quebec Liberal Party political reception for the Quebec Liberal MNA for Gatineau. It was then reported in the National Post that within weeks of being elected as Speaker of the House, the Speaker contacted a former Liberal MP to write an op–ed praising him and attacking the official opposition.

The Speaker took it upon himself to orchestrate an op-ed attacking the Leader of the Opposition, using a friend to do so because he knew that he could not do so publicly. That is conduct completely unbecoming of a Speaker. It was calculated partisanship by the Speaker, and he hoped that he could do it in a hidden way using his friend, a former Liberal MP. However, he was caught as a result of a report in the National Post.

Now we have the latest transgression by the Speaker, which is that the Speaker's Liberal riding association of Hull—Aylmer organized an event, “A Summer Evening with the [Speaker]”. On its face, if it was simply an event hosted by his riding association and was simply billed as a summer evening with the hon. member, that would not be an issue. It has been the practice for Speakers to attend events in their riding, including events of their local association, and to do so in a way that is not overly partisan. However, that is not what happened in this case.

In fact, what was posted to promote the event was an ultrapartisan message. I think it is important to read that message, which was posted on the Liberal Party website for “A Summer Evening with the [Speaker].” It was an “opportunity to join fellow Liberals and talk about the ways we can continue to build a better future for all Canadians.” On top of that, it says, “While [the Leader of the Opposition] and the Conservatives propose reckless policies that would risk our health, safety, and pocketbooks, our Liberal team is focused on making life more affordable for Canadians”. It went on.

That is an overtly partisan message, and it is not one, two or three, but six times that the Speaker has crossed the line. It really comes down to this: How many times does this have to happen? It has happened six times in eight months. Enough is enough.

The Speaker has repeatedly fallen below the standard expected of a Speaker, a standard that has been adhered to by his predecessors. I say respectfully that if he truly had an appreciation and respect for the high office that he serves and the authority that it carries over the House, he would do the honourable thing and resign as Speaker of the House. However, seeing as he has not seen fit to do that, it leaves us no other choice, as put forward in this motion, but to vote non-confidence in the Speaker. He has lost the confidence of the official opposition and the Bloc Québécois and has demonstrated a repeated pattern of partisanship.

I urge the passage of this motion, but I hope that it does not come to that. I hope the Speaker finally does the right thing and resigns.

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

Madam Speaker, I do not think the Speaker ever had the confidence of the member, the Conservatives or the Bloc Québécois, but that is not the issue at hand.

The member spoke at great length about different activities the Speaker does in his riding. I would really appreciate it if the member answered my question directly. He has an ability to listen clearly to what I am saying. I would like him to answer my question and address it without skating off somewhere else.

The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, when he was the Speaker of the House of Commons, not only went to fundraisers in his ridings, but went to a fundraiser in the member for Regina—Wascana's riding, who is next door to him. I am looking at a Facebook post where the member for Regina—Wascana thanks the hon. member for attending that event.

Can the member please tell me why this is so outrageous now, but it was not when the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle did it?

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

Madam Speaker, I believe the fundraiser the member for Kingston and the Islands is referring to was one the former Speaker attended but did not promote on social media and did not make remarks about. I do not even believe he was introduced, so it is a very different set of circumstances.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek the unanimous consent of the House to table this post, because the member is incorrect in what he is saying, and it will clarify things for him if he accepts it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

First of all, I want to remind members not to point to items they have in their hands.

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member knows that he is not to show any document in the House and that it is a prop. There are a variety of members who—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. The problem we have is that several members from different sides continue to not abide by the direction of the Chair. I ask all members to please abide by that, including the hon. member who just spoke. The House could run a lot more smoothly if individuals were to respect the decisions being made and respect each other in the House.

The hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton has the floor.