Debates of May 28th, 2024

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #775

Privilege

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

I declare the motion carried.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

It is my understanding that everyone is to wear the headset approved by the House of Commons when rising during the vote. The member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook was not wearing his headset when he wanted to check that his vote had been recorded.

I just wanted to remind all our colleagues of that.

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

It is true that members have been sloppy about following that rule during votes. Please follow the rule next time.

The hon. member for Manicouagan on another point of order.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, can you please tell me if a member's vote counts when they do not have their headset on. It is also for the interpreters' sake that I wanted to bring this up.

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

The vote counts even if the member does not have a headset on. We allow that during a vote.

The House resumed from May 27 consideration of the motion.

Resuming debate on the privilege motion

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in this place to address a question of privilege that has been raised with regard to the Speaker's public display of partisanship.

Of course, we know that the Speaker of this place occupies a position of trust. We know that within that position of trust, he is supposed to function in an impartial manner. He is supposed to apply the rules in this place equally to all members of all parties. When he functions in a partisan capacity, however, he then betrays the trust those who occupy a seat within the House of Commons. He goes beyond the scope of his role and actually uses it then for the benefit of his political party, in this case the Liberal Party of Canada.

The events that I am talking about are several in nature, but the latest one was “A Summer Evening with the Honourable [Speaker]”, said the announcement. This was a fundraiser that was hosted just across the river in Quebec, or deemed to be hosted just across the river in Quebec, and this invitation was sent out, drawing attention to the Speaker as the keynote. However, this is not the first time. This is the latest event that brings us to the House, calling for the Speaker's resignation or calling for a vote to remove him.

Before this, there was a cocktail fundraiser dinner that was hosted just a couple of months ago where, again, he was used as the keynote of this address or this function, and, of course, as Speaker, he was promoted, again in a partisan fashion, and used as an individual who could help elicit funds for the Liberal Party of Canada, and that is not all. There is a third one that I would like to draw the House's attention to, which is that the Speaker actually, in his full outfit, jet setted to Washington and addressed the audience that he was given there. He talked about his time as a young Liberal, and in a very partisan fashion, in his address to the audience that was in front of him. That is his third strike.

However, there are two more that I would like to draw the House's attention to, for a total of five within just the last few months of him being Speaker.

In this place, there was an interaction that took place between the Prime Minister and the leader of the official opposition. The Prime Minister exchanged words, or used words to accuse the official opposition of being a “spineless” leader. In retort, the Leader of the Opposition responded with words that were similar. The Speaker of the House said nothing to the Prime Minister, but then went on to kick out the member of the official opposition, again pointing to a partisan decision.

There is a fifth incident that I would like to draw attention to; that is that I myself was removed from this place. I was removed from this place because I used these words toward the Speaker. I said that he was, “acting in a disgraceful manner.” I was asked by the Speaker of the House to withdraw my words, which I rose from my seat and I said, “I withdraw”. However, the Speaker went on to kick me out of the House, not just for a little while but actually for the remainder of the day, therefore robbing the constituents of Lethbridge from having a vote in this place.

It is the practice of the House, and it is in fact according to the Standing Orders, that should a member stand in her place and withdraw those words, she should be allowed to stay. However, the Speaker, functioning in a partisan capacity, removed me. If those blues are looked at, it is very clear that I said, “I withdraw”. It is in the official record of the House. If the audio is listened to, Madam Speaker, you can hear me say those words “I withdraw”. It is clear within the audio record of the House. However, when it came to the Hansard, which is signed off by the Speaker's office, those words, “I withdraw”, were conveniently removed.

Therefore, there is already another question of privilege before this place, which is to say, why were those words removed? Why did the Speaker's office sign off on official Hansard records that removed my withdrawal?

In this place, the Speaker must function in a trusted capacity. He must respect the members of this place. He must never be partisan in nature, nor should records ever be officially changed based on what is convenient for him.

Based on his conduct over these five incidents, we are asking for his resignation and if not, then we would like to remove him through a vote.

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

Madam Speaker, let there be no doubt that the Conservative Party is just playing a game here. This is the Conservative-right MAGA-attacks on the institution itself.

Let us be very clear that the Conservatives do have a double standard. When the Conservative House leader was the Speaker and had a fundraiser, there was no problem. Not one Conservative stood up. However, the issue that we have had before us in the last 24 hours has nothing to do with the Speaker. It was the Liberal Party of Canada that formally apologized for doing and publishing what it did. Therefore, the Conservatives are attempting to punish the wrong entity.

The question for the member and the Conservative caucus today is this. How can they continue to make a mockery of what the reality is, which is that the Speaker, in this situation, did absolutely nothing wrong?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member addressed exactly the problem with this place. It is the fact that Liberal members do not see anything wrong with the Speaker functioning in a partisan capacity five times in the last few months. One might be forgivable, two possibly, but not five times.

For the hon. member to say that standing up for democracy and wanting to protect the institution of Parliament is “desperate”, to use his word, makes me question his commitment to democracy and the very foundations of Canada and what our forefathers fought for.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I essentially agree with my colleague. I do not think that we need to provide further evidence that the Speaker has shown poor judgment multiple times in the past few months and is no longer worthy of his current office.

More generally, however, I wonder what an observer watching our debates in the House over the past few months would think about the increase in gag orders and the lack of debate on substantive issues. Our job is to help Canadians right now. I am not sure that we are doing our job properly, considering the government's many gag orders and the Conservatives' systematic filibustering. Once, we voted for 36 hours straight and, another time, for several hours. On one occasion, we voted in the House to pick which Conservative MP was going to speak instead of another. These kinds of things make absolutely no sense. This country has serious problems right now and we are not fixing them.

Does my colleague think that the average citizen watching our debates over the past few months still has confidence in Canadian democracy?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, the bigger question here is how Canadians can maintain confidence when half of that is true and half of that is not. There was a mix of truth and mistruth in that statement.

In this place, we have a responsibility to hold the government accountable. That is our job as the official opposition. For us to move a question of privilege with regard to the Speaker of this place functioning in a highly partisan manner five times in the last few months is absolutely not just our prerogative as the official opposition, it is our duty to the Canadian people. I will make no apologies for that.

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

Madam Speaker, it is prudent that we hold each other to account in the House. Right now, we are seeing the Conservatives use every tool and tactic to delay getting pharmacare passed so people can get life-saving medication covered.

Let us talk about what is going on in my colleague's riding of Lethbridge. It has an overdose toxic drug death rate that is triple that of British Columbia, one of the highest in the country. Instead of talking about about policies that would help save lives, like recommended by the deputy commissioner of the RCMP who said that we need more safe consumption sites, not less, the law-and-order party refuses to listen to the police.

Will my colleague meet with the RCMP? Will she try to open a safe consumption site when—

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

The hon. member knows that we try to keep questions relevant to the speeches made by members.

The hon. member for Lethbridge.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would call relevance on that question. I think you, Madam Speaker, probably should have called that for me, but I will do the job.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, the member for Lethbridge made a very compelling presentation, but she missed the original sin, and that is that there is a sixth incident, which is the very first incident, the one in which the Speaker, in his robes in his office, not far from this chamber, recorded a video to be played at the Liberal convention. While that privilege motion was being debated in the House, only a few days later he attended the function in Washington to which the member referred.

How many apologies and mistakes does the member think are acceptable in partisanship of the Speaker? Is it 10, 20 or one?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, according to the Standing Orders outlined by Bosc and Gagnon, on page 323, it says:

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.

Any act of partisanship is far too many, and he has done five.

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

Madam Speaker, it is with a bit of concern that I rise to my feet today to talk, on behalf of the members of Regina—Lewvan, about the Speaker and his partisanship over the last few months he has been Speaker.

The Speaker's indiscretions actually started much before that. Once there is a pattern of behaviour, it is not an accident, and one can only apologize so many times. This can even go back to some of the Speaker's actions when he was the parliamentary secretary for the Prime Minister.

I am also happy to stand on my feet today to say I will be sharing my time with the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.

To get back to the serious point at hand, we have stood in this chamber and given many speeches over the past three or four years, some that were very much unprecedented, but they all circled around one thing, which is the lack of respect for democracy the NDP-Liberal government has. I remember standing in this place during the “freedom convoy”, when the Emergencies Act was enacted, which was ruled unconstitutional. The NDP-Liberal government had zero respect for the rights of Canadians then, and now has zero respect for the institution we stand in.

The Speaker has shown time and again that he lacks the judgment to have the honourable role of being Speaker. His judgment comes from his overt partisanship. We have seen it before. After the 2015 election, we saw the Prime Minister have a tantrum because a vote was not happening. This is the amazing part. The New Democrats are holding the Speaker up when he was the apologist for the Prime Minister, as he went to the mic and defended the Prime Minister after he elbowed a female NDP member because the vote was not happening soon enough. That is unbelievable. Now they are going to be complicit in the vote trying to hold up the Speaker and to allow him to maintain his role.

We know that many times the Speaker has spoken for the Prime Minister after the countless things the Prime Minister has done that were unethical. When he wore blackface, the Speaker stood up for him as the then parliamentary secretary. His partisanship is well documented going back to when he was with the Liberal Party of Canada.

I am not saying it is not okay to be partisan, but if people know deep down that they are that partisan and they put the Liberal Party above all else, they should not apply for the role of Speaker of the House of Commons, because we know that that role is to maintain decorum and to treat every MP in this House fairly and without prejudice. That is where he has come up so very short.

The member for Lethbridge has a very well-documented case of when she was treated so unfairly. She stood up and apologized on record and on video. We could hear her withdraw her remarks. She stood up and apologized for the remarks, and the Speaker still kicked her out. Do members think that is non-partisan? Do members think that is fair? The question I would ask every member in this House is this: Would he have done that if it was a Liberal or one of his junior partners, an NDP MP? The answer is no, he would not. He kicked out the official Leader of the Opposition, and I believe this is the first time that has happened in this chamber, for making very similar remarks to those of the Prime Minister. Do members think that is non-partisan? No, it is not.

This is not a one-time offence. The member for Winnipeg North, who has been stood up as the apologist for the Speaker, has time and again said that it was just one time and that it was the Liberal Party's fault, but let us look at “elbowgate”, blackface, or wearing full Speaker garb, making a video in the Speaker's office and then sending it to the Ontario Liberal Party convention to congratulate an outgoing leader.

There is the cocktail fundraiser in Washington. This does not happen very often, but the current Speaker left during session to go on a cocktail tour in Washington. He abdicated his role here to talk about how great it is to be a Liberal and how Liberals are the answer to the world's problems. How does he think it is appropriate to go on a speaking tour for the Liberal Party of Canada when session is sitting? I do not recall many other Speakers taking a holiday when they are supposed to be doing their job here. Once again, it shows a lack of judgment.

Finally, there is the party fundraiser with the fellow MP, which the apologist from Winnipeg North says is the Liberal Party's fault. The Liberal Party itself often shows a lack of judgment, but this Speaker is running a close second with how many times he has shown a lack of judgment when it comes to his role as Speaker of the House of Commons.

What I find completely amazing, and I started my speech with this, is that the NDP members are going to prop up this Speaker after the elbowing incident. He was the one who justified the elbowing of a female NDP MP, and they are going to vote to keep this Speaker in the position he is in. Time and time again, this Speaker has shown a lack of judgment.

I have not even come to one of the things I find most interesting, which is one of the reasons I could not have voted for him as Speaker. He had his own ethics violation before he even took the chair as Speaker. He is the only Speaker in the history of Canada to have an ethics violation and then take on the role of Speaker. The lack of judgment from this individual can be chronicled from tip to tail of his career, and it is high time we take the right and reasonable course and vote this Speaker out, because he has dishonoured the Chair and put the very foundation of our democracy in jeopardy.

I do get emails on this. A few people, mostly friends and family, watch question period. They have asked me how the Speaker thinks the House has any faith left in him, any confidence. The simple answer is that the House does not.

The Liberal-NDP coalition continues to say it is the Conservatives who are having decorum issues. The Speaker has brought this on. He has continuously flouted the rules and not applied the rules properly. The member for Winnipeg North laughs. The Speaker, when he was first elected Speaker, said that the Speaker should be the referee and not a player in the game. He also went on to say that no one goes to a game to watch the referee.

The Speaker has made more headlines in the news than any Speaker I can remember, so he has really made this about himself. This is all about the Speaker and his wanting to make headlines, and actually continue to do the PMO's bidding. I have been in this chamber and in the legislative chamber and have seen many Speakers. This is similar to the member for Winnipeg North, as we both served in the legislature and both served in the House of Commons. I have seen lots of Speakers in my time, and the interesting thing is that, by far, I have seen the most degradation of decorum in this House.

One thing I have learned in my life, and it is something that holds true, is that attitude reflects leadership. The Speaker is the leader of the House, and that is why some people have taken to the attitude they have, because the Speaker has no business in that chair. He has dishonoured that chair, and for that reason, it makes it an absolute mockery that the NDP members are going to prop up this Speaker as the junior coalition partner and are going to stand and defend a Speaker who defended the Prime Minister elbowing one of their female members. That is the respect the NDP now has for this place, in the House of Commons, and it is troubling.

We have seen continuous decline in this democracy, as well as in Canadians' faith after what has gone on here, and it all can be thrown at the foot of this current Speaker. I know for sure the Conservatives have lost confidence, the Bloc has lost confidence and some of the Liberals have lost confidence. They may not say it, but behind closed doors they do. It is actually unbelievable that they will continue to try to fight for this Speaker when he has dishonoured the job. It is time for him to go. He should resign before we have the vote.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member a very specific question. I would really like the member to listen to my question and directly answer it without rhetoric. If he is saying we should avoid the rhetoric and everything, then he should answer my question very directly and not skate past it.

My question to him is this: Why would it be okay for the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, when he was Speaker, to not only attend fundraisers in his riding, but to go outside of his riding to the member for Regina—Wascana's riding? There is well-documented evidence on this. It is out there. We know he did that when he was Speaker.

Why was it okay for the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle to act in a partisan manner when he was Speaker, but now suddenly it is not okay for the current Speaker? Can he please answer that question directly without skating around or using rhetoric?

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

Madam Speaker, that is a very easy question to answer. The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle was not the keynote speaker of the fundraiser. It was not during session. The Conservative Party of Canada did not put out a note that said he would be the one speaking.

I think that the member is, once again, mischaracterizing what happened. Seven times the Speaker has used poor judgment. Does the member truly believe Canadians have faith that this Speaker should continue in the Chair? If he does, I would love to see him go to his constituents and tell them that he voted in favour of the Speaker because he has done a really good job.

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

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I voted in favour of the Speaker, and I think he is doing a great job.

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

That is not a point of order. That is a point of debate, as the hon. member well knows.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, since we are on the subject of ethics, I would like to ask a question that is not entirely related to the debate we are having today but is nevertheless important.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the Speaker's decision to eject the Leader of the Opposition for calling the Prime Minister wacko and extremist. Did he agree that the Speaker should have ejected his leader?

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

The hon. member for Regina—Lewvan is asking that the hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert repeat his question.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will start again. It is a fundamental question of ethics, and I think it is important.

Debates here are always a bit nonsensical. However, I still think we need to follow certain rules. For example, we are not allowed to use certain expressions in this chamber. The Leader of the Opposition used language here one day that is not allowed in the House. He was ejected after repeating that he would not apologize for his choice of words.

As a parliamentarian, an elected member of Parliament, did my colleague really think his leader should have been ejected for calling the Prime Minister wacko and extremist?