Debates of May 28th, 2024

(The House divided on clauses 320 to 322, which were agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #784

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023

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

I declare clauses 320 to 322 carried.

The next question is on clauses 323 to 341 of the bill.

If a member participating in person wishes that these clauses be carried or carried on division, or if a member from a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

(The House divided on clauses 323 to 341, which were agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #785

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

I declare clauses 323 to 341 carried.

The House has agreed to the entirety of Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023, and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, at third reading stage.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Request for Office of Speaker to be Vacated

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

Mr. Speaker, before question period, I was just getting into the relationship between the Speaker of the House and the Prime Minister. It is worth noting that in 2023, the Speaker was the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister. As I was saying, the Prime Minister himself has three ethics reports written in his own name. I was alluding to, and I asked a question of one of the Bloc members earlier concerning it, the fact that it sure seems like there is a contest or a competition between the Prime Minister and the Speaker to see how many ethics violations or breaches of trust they can have and get away with it. The NDP continues to prop them up, despite these things piling up.

Let us take a look. Since 2015, there have been no fewer than 10 Liberal ministers and parliamentary secretaries who have been found guilty of violating and breaking ethics laws of this institution. On top of that, there was a PMO staffer. There are also multiple members of the existing cabinet who are still sitting who have ethics violations. One of them happens to be the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs. One happens to be the international trade minister, and one happens to be the minister of sport. Therefore, there seems to be a chronic problem within cabinet, which is what the Ethics Commissioner said of Joe Peschisolido, former Liberal member for Steveston—Richmond East, that there was a chronic issue.

In 2023, when the Ethics Commissioner specifically wrote about the member for Hull—Aylmer, CBC published an interesting article. In it, the Ethics Commissioner said: “After years of serving in senior government positions, [the member] should have been aware of the rules or should have sought advice. I am quite concerned that someone with the breadth of experience of [the member] would fail to recognize the possibility of a contravention”.

The Ethics Commissioner also said:

As a parliamentary secretary since 2015 and having served for several years on both the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics and the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, [he] should be well versed on the functioning of both regimes and the importance of consulting the Office. I am quite concerned that someone with the breadth of experience...would fail to recognize the possibility of a contravention.

Those are pretty damning words from the Ethics Commissioner.

What did the member for Hull—Aylmer, now the Speaker of the House, have to say at the time? He said, “I will redouble my efforts to be more diligent in the future to ensure my obligations under the act are fully met.” He has really doubled down, has he not? In fact he has tripled down, with three more violations. They are not so much ethics violations per se, but they are serious lapses in ethics by the Speaker. There is the video, a partisan video for a Liberal fundraiser, which we have talked about in the House already, in which he was wearing his Speaker's gowns in the Speaker's office, giving a speech and a video remark.

Then he went to Washington, not just as the member of Parliament for Hull—Aylmer, but as the Speaker of the House, to talk to young Liberals in Washington. That is another one, number two. What should be strike number three and out is the new one that we are debating again here today, where the Liberal Party of Canada had on its website an invitation to have a fine evening with the Speaker of the House of Commons, and it used his name, which I cannot do.

If the Conservative Party of Canada is going to use my name on a fundraiser, it is going to ask me about it. It is going to coordinate with me about it. It is going to check with my schedule to see whether it works for me to be able to come and do the event. Of course I will have to say, “Yes, I can,” or “No, I cannot.” The fact that it got this far tells us that the Speaker said “Yes, absolutely, let us do it.” That alone should have been the first thing that came to his mind.

I want to finish quickly with one more baseball reference. Angel Hernandez was an umpire in major league baseball; he had been for over 30 years and is widely regarded as one of the worst umpires in major league history. He has finally retired. It is time that the Speaker of the House of Commons follows the example of Angel Hernandez and resigns.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is really quite unfortunate that the Conservatives have chosen this particular issue to incorporate as part of their theme, whether through character assassination or filibustering, trying to portray the false image that Parliament in Ottawa is dysfunctional.

My question to the member is this: Why does he believe that he should be attempting to censure the Speaker when it was the Liberal Party of Canada that has taken full responsibility for the issue in question? That means the Liberal Party should be punished, as opposed to the Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, maybe they should both be punished because, as I said in my speech, the only way the Speaker's name can actually end up on an invitation with a specific date, time and location is if he approved it. That is the only way that that could happen.

It has been a complete nightmare and disaster ever since he took the chair. Three lapses, three partisan, very deliberate incidents, have happened under his watch. The only character assassination that has gone on has been the assassination of the character of the House, the chamber that the Speaker is supposed to preside over. He has been an absolute failure. He should do the honourable thing and resign.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the speech by my colleague from Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

In fact, I want to tell him how disappointed I am. I could see where he was heading. He started off with a metaphor when he said that, after three violations, it is time to resign. I was hoping he would use a baseball metaphor because I am a baseball fan. He ended his speech by talking about baseball and mentioning the career of a star umpire, and that got me excited. Unfortunately, he did not use the requisite metaphor for the occasion.

I am going to show him how disappointed I was and do it with a question. What happens after three strikes? I would like him to tell us.

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

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, strike three and someone is out. That is what needs to happen. I hope that all parties will vote to remove the Speaker. It needs to happen. As I said before question period, it seems like “Oh, we'll give him another pitch, let him have strike four. Oh, maybe we'll let him have strike five.” No, strike three, he is out. It is time for him to resign, or let us vote him out.

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

Mr. Speaker, this kind of juvenile torch-and-pitchfork attempt to undermine the office of Speaker and to undermine Parliament is something I find very disturbing.

We have seen, just recently, the same thing happening with the conservative Saskatchewan Party. The independent Speaker of the Saskatchewan Legislature has said that he was both verbally and physically intimated by the conservative Saskatchewan Party House leader, who is a former member of the Conservative caucus, Jeremy Harrison. The Speaker of the legislature said, “[The desire of this man] to get permission to carry a handgun in the legislative assembly is particularly disturbing,” and “My concerns over his mental stability and his obsession with guns [have been] confirmed”.

This is from the independent Speaker of the Saskatchewan Legislature. Not a single member of federal Parliament from Saskatchewan from the Conservative caucus has spoken up to denounce the intimidation, to denounce the threats. I would like a member of the Saskatchewan Conservative caucus to stand up and apologize and denounce the actions that have taken place in the conservative Saskatchewan Party in the Saskatchewan Legislature.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the member thinks we are standing. We are standing in Ottawa in the federal Parliament, not in the Saskatchewan legislature. I have two points on that.

First, this fall there is going to be an election in Saskatchewan at the provincial level. Maybe the member should put his name on the ballot if he is so concerned about what is happening in Saskatchewan, and see how the people of Saskatchewan like him.

Second, the member used a very important term: “independent”. The Speaker of the Saskatchewan legislature actually operated independently. The Speaker of the chamber, who is from the Liberal caucus and was propped up three times by the member right there, continues to violate the chamber as a partisan hack. The Speaker needs to resign. Shame on the member for supporting him.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Thornhill.

To begin, I would like to convey to the House my respect for my colleague, the member for Hull—Aylmer, who is an affable, warm and cordial person and who also happens to be the Speaker of the House right now. I wanted to make the distinction because it is not the individual, the MP himself, who is being called into question, but rather the embodiment of his role as Speaker. Beyond that, as many have said yesterday and today, it is the very functioning of the House of Commons that is being called into question.

I am taking the time to reiterate this distinction, which makes perfect sense but seems to be misunderstood by government members. I listened to the debates yesterday and I am listening carefully today. It has to be said that if someone does not understand this distinction, it is difficult for them to take part in this debate, because it is the very basis on which it rests. In the same vein, since we have to make this distinction between the role of Speaker and that of member of Parliament, I would say that we must also manage, as members of the House of Commons, to distinguish between the roles we take on.

I would invite the members of the governing Liberal Party to reflect on the fact that they are not here to protect one of their own, but to protect democracy and the institution that is the House of Commons. I think we need to be mindful of the motion we are considering today, because it arises from a question of privilege. This implies that the Speaker ruled in favour of the member who raised this question of privilege. I would like to quote from the Speaker's ruling on the question of privilege because I think it is useful.

In ruling on this matter, I would like to clarify that I am not passing judgment on the alleged facts but rather on the priority these allegations should be given. While a motion could indeed be moved during routine proceedings, such motions are subject to interruptions in proceedings that could delay a decision on them indefinitely. As for opposition motions, they depend on the allotment of a supply day.

Quite clearly, it is in the interest of the whole House to resolve this particular matter quickly and with all due seriousness. As a result, I find that a prima facie question of privilege exists in this case.

The Chair clearly places a great deal of importance on this question. Since yesterday, members interested in discussing it have been accused of obstructing the business of this House, which I believe to be untrue, as the Chair's ruling shows. This debate is much needed. We are asking for a solution and for the issue to be addressed in a timely manner. When such a motion of privilege is moved, it has to take priority. I am repeating myself, but giving priority to this motion underscores the importance of the debate currently taking place in the House.

Although I said that we must, first of all, keep the motion in mind, members must also accept that we are not engaging in obstruction. Rather, we are trying to resolve an outstanding issue that is currently creating a vacuum. The question is to determine whether we still have confidence in the Speaker or not.

I spoke about the Liberal members, but I invite all members of the House to do the same thing, to adhere to the same principles the Speaker must adhere to, namely impartiality and discernment. It is worthwhile to note that the root of the word “impartiality” is “party”, so there is that notion of neutrality.

Once again, this is not a question of political stripe. We are talking about the very role of Speaker, which should be above all partisan considerations.

I would like to take a moment to remind the House of the highlights of the story that led to this debate that has been going on since December 2023, since the Speaker of the House participated in an event organized by the Liberal Party of Ontario. The Speaker demonstrated then that he was unable to act with the neutrality I spoke of or show good judgment. I will identify four elements. He gave a speech in the Speaker of the House's robes, gave his title as Speaker of the House, and produced a video in the Speaker of the House's office and, by extension, using the House's resources.

I am limiting myself to this portion of the story, although there are many more, since I believe that the member for Hull—Aylmer, either on this one occasion or on many others, patently demonstrated by his actions that he did not understand the obligations associated with the position of Speaker of the House. Worse yet, once he was criticized for his actions, he failed to admit that they were unacceptable. He regretted none of his actions, although they were cut and dried and, as was stated in committee, could not be interpreted any other way.

However, he did regret the video that was publicly broadcast. It is the fact that it was publicly broadcast that he regretted. He does not acknowledge his mistake, but regrets how it was interpreted. It remains a mistake, regardless of how it was subsequently interpreted. Moreover, he does not acknowledge any partisanship in his actions. He also fails to mention other, similar partisan actions he took while he was speaker. His refusal to admit his mistake supports the idea I shared earlier, that the Speaker does not understand the obligations associated with his position. Worse still, it shows his inability, whether voluntary or involuntary, to make amends. There is no change possible because he does not understand, and he refuses to apologize, understand or change his behaviour.

This incident, isolated from the ones that would follow, such as the speech in Washington, already attests to a lack of impartiality and judgment. We are now in May, but as early as last December, the Speaker demonstrated his inability to perform his duties. As we know, the legitimacy of his role is built on trust. That trust has eroded over the past few months and, as my colleague from Trois-Rivières was saying yesterday, the lack of trust turns into mistrust, and mistrust turns into defiance. Over half of the House is calling on the Speaker to step down.

When the Speaker fails to perform his duties and refuses to learn from it, when he loses the trust of the House and refuses to earn it back, when he knowingly harms the work of this institution, the House of Commons, in other words, Quebeckers and Canadians, we reach a point where the Speaker could regain the esteem and respect of the entire House by doing the only honourable thing that a Speaker who is not discharging his duties can do, and that is to leave.

Madam Speaker, before we move on to questions and comments, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion: That, given that the House is currently debating a non-confidence motion in the Speaker of the House on which the House will have to vote, that the Speaker is usually elected through a secret ballot, and that the secret ballot prevents any attempt to influence the vote and ensures that the result represents the real will of the members of our assembly, the House defer the vote planned for today until Monday, June 3, 2024, at 3 p.m. and that the vote be conducted by secret ballot in the House.

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

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

No.

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

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that members of the Bloc have bought in, hook, line and sinker, to the Conservatives' con job in regard to what they are doing today. Here we have a Liberal Party post that appears in a social network, and we have the Conservatives and the Bloc teaming up in an unholy alliance to assassinate the character of the Speaker of the House of Commons. I find that quite shameful.

Why does the member believe that the Speaker should be censured for something he was not part of? The arguments that have been presented for the last two days seem unfair and fundamentally flawed.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North is making it clear that he could never be the Speaker of the House of Commons because he does not understand the impartiality and discernment needed for the job. That is what he just said: He does not understand and it seems unfair to him.

We need to look beyond perceptions and really acknowledge what the role of Speaker involves. The person who occupies the chair must be able to rally all members so that we can do the work that Quebeckers and Canadians are asking us to do as quickly as possible.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. It was interesting. I think that everyone here is committed to respect for the institution and the impartiality of the Speaker of the House. The current Speaker comes from Quebec, which is rare. I think that is important to note.

There is a bit of information that was shared: Acting in good faith, the Speaker checked with the Clerk of the House and took every step to guard against any appearance of partisanship. It was the Liberal Party that made the mistake in the end. It was neither the Speaker nor the Speaker's office. That is an important nuance.

Past Speakers have made mistakes, sometimes worse ones. Speakers like Milliken or a current Conservative member made mistakes, and they were never systematically asked to step down. Now we have a Quebecker in the chair.

Does my colleague not think that this is an anti-Quebec attack?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, we need to rise above the fray, because it does not matter where the Speaker is from. What matters to me is that the Speaker has the skills to do his job and that he earns the trust of the entire House.

As for the anti-Quebec conspiracy, that is not what this is. Other parties are stuck on this because we are the Bloc Québécois. The fact remains that we need to settle this issue. It is not about partisanship, hence the idea of, as I said, rising above the fray.

We want this to work. This needs to work for everyone. I would ask everyone to do the same thing I am trying to do.

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

Madam Speaker, we have seen much more serious transgressions. Since I have been in the House, there have been Speakers from Ontario, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia. Each time, the Bloc Québécois always supported the Speaker, even when the Speaker made a mistake.

For the first time, we have a federalist Speaker from Quebec. Now the Bloc Québécois has changed its ways, after supporting all the previous Speakers. A Quebec MP has become Speaker, but the Bloc Québécois attacked him constantly today. That worries me.

My question to my colleague is this: Why is the Bloc Québécois attacking a Speaker who comes from Quebec?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are not attacking him. This term is being used by the member because he does not wish to rise above the fray.

Once again, I may be a Bloc Québécois member, but I do not care which province or territory members who aspire to become Speaker come from. We have to rise above the fray.

To answer my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, as a Bloc Québécois MP, I make sure that I am the last person to see any communications posted about me on my Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn or other accounts.

As elected officials, we must not shirk responsibility by saying that something is not our fault and blaming the party, which in this case was the Liberal Party of Canada. The Speaker must have approved the post. If he did not, he was failing to do his job as an MP and a partisan.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by saying that trust is a really difficult thing to earn, a really easy thing to lose and an incredibly difficult thing to re-establish. What we have heard in the House today, time and time again, from members of the Liberal Party and from those who support them at every opportunity, the NDP members, is that for some reason, this is a waste of time. We have heard that this is a waste of House time or that this is an attack on the institution.

In fact, it is exactly the opposite of that. It is a question of a Speaker that has brought us here, who has acted in a partisan way, not just once or twice, but three times. We are here to discuss the partisan actions of a partisan Liberal Speaker serving his partisan Liberal boss, aided and abetted by his partisan coalition members in the NDP, occupying a job and a role in this place that is distinctly supposed to be non-partisan. Since becoming Speaker of the House six months ago, he has betrayed the trust not only of the House but also of the members of the House. The impartiality of the position does not exist in his world.

I have not been here very long, but I do not remember, and I do not even remember reading in history about, a Speaker who has been so embroiled in scandal after scandal and who has been chased down the street outside of this place to answer questions about his conduct. It has only been six months. If one types in “Speaker scandal”, I think the name of that chair occupant would come up as the first search term on Google. That is where we are.

Let us go back. First, the Speaker recorded a video. This is the first of the three that I will talk about, and I will probably talk about some more because it is not even three; it is more than that. First, he recorded a video that he played at a Liberal partisan convention, while appearing in Speaker's robes in his office and while using Speaker and House resources to do that. He praised an outgoing Ontario Liberal leader between segments of two former leaders at a Liberal convention. I think anybody would believe that was a partisan activity.

Then, the Speaker travelled to Washington on the taxpayers' dime, on the dime of the resources of his office, of the House, and he used his perch as Speaker to muse fondly about his years as a young Liberal. This is also, objectively, a partisan thing to do in a non-partisan job that is meant to be the referee of this place and to have the trust of the members to know he will act in a manner that will treat every single member of the House equally.

Those are two instances. Talk about tone deaf. Finally, it is the latest offence, the one that has brought us here today, of the Speaker posting a blatantly partisan fundraising message on a website, personally attacking the Leader of the Opposition, the same Leader of the Opposition who, just weeks ago, he threw out of this place for doing the exact same thing the Prime Minister did moments before and moments after. This is, of course, after he threw out another member of the Conservative caucus for asking her to withdraw a statement, which she did. It is in the blues. We are probably going to have another day when we talk about the Speaker's frank inability to be impartial in his chair. We will get to that.

In that same week, the Speaker posted an ad, and it is strange to me. I have not been an MP for very long, and I keep a fairly busy schedule. The way it works in my office is that I have a great staff, and they send me a note and ask me, “Can you do at this time? Can you be here?” I say yes or no to all of these things. In some cases, my office says yes or no to these things, knowing full well that I would want to do something and that it would fit into my schedule.

Therefore, it is very difficult to believe that an ad for “A Summer Evening with the Honourable [Speaker]” mentioned, who occupies the chair, with event details, such as a time, a date and a place, would not be vetted by anyone. That does not really happen. In fact, when someone appears at events, particularly at events where they sell tickets to listen to a person, in this case, delivering really partisan messages about the guy whom he just kicked out of the House for doing the same thing as the guy who put him in that chair, it would be hard to believe that nobody in his office, nobody in his orbit or he himself would not have known that he would be appearing at a certain place, at a certain time, at this event where tickets are being sold to hear him speak.

All of that is to say that one time is a mistake and two times could be a coincidence, but three times is a pattern. It is a pattern by somebody who has a deep history in the most partisan politics. We will hear from the Liberals that this is somehow an attack on the character of the Speaker, but this is exactly the opposite of that. This is talking about the role he has taken on as an impartial referee of this place, one that should treat members, as I said, equally. This is, of course, after a history of being the first Speaker with an ethics violation, so that is a historic first.

I was not here at the time, but it does not take very much to go online to see how he reacted to an incident that happened in this place, when the Prime Minister elbowed an MP in the chest. He was the first one on his feet to defend that action and to say that the MP's story or version of events was experienced differently or was an overreaction. In fact, when he was asked that today, at the very time this was being talked about in the House by my colleague and friend from Calgary Nose Hill, he actually denied rising to his feet, defending the Prime Minister and putting forward an alternative version of events, talking about an exaggeration. He said at committee today that he did not say that.

That brings me to the NDP. To see a party, which once stood for values and for the working class and which once was in opposition in the House, defend the Prime Minister at every opportunity, rather than somebody in its own caucus, is the definition of “weakness”. It is one of its own members who was elbowed by the Prime Minister. There are videos of it. This is not something that Conservatives are embellishing in the House. We can see it on a screen. New Democrats are defending the guy who got up on his feet to tell people that there was a different version of events or that the member was exaggerating.

What is worse is that it is the Speaker who adjudicates the harassment policy in the House. How on earth would any member of the House feel comfortable or feel that they could get a fair trial with somebody who was on his feet, defending the Prime Minister before even seeing the tape, telling the member that she experienced it differently, that it was an exaggeration or that she somehow dove as if it was for the World Cup. I do not know what terminology was used; it was blatantly weird. It was bizarre. Someone called it wacko.

This is what we are here to talk about today. We are talking about a man who occupies an office and who should be impartial. He has not done so. If he had even a modicum of integrity in this place, he would resign before I encourage members to vote him out.

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

Madam Speaker, just to quote the member across the way, she gets upset and says that the latest offence that brought us here today is the posting of a “blatantly” partisan fundraising message on a website. What the member is talking about is what the Liberal Party of Canada actually posted, not, and I underline the word “not”, the Speaker. However, the Conservative Party members do not want to have justice; what they want is character assassination. The Conservatives know full well that it was the Liberal Party that did it, but they want to censure the Speaker. The member even said in her opening remarks that the reason we are here today is because of that posting. Does the member not see a problem with her assertion? She is trying to punish the Speaker for something he did not do. How does the member justify that?