SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 318 - May/27/24

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

May/27/24 4:13:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment, rather than a question, for my colleague. The current Speaker was elected on September 27, 2023, just eight months ago. The government is well aware that the Bloc Québécois called for the Speaker to step down after a second incident. Now, there have been three incidents. I have a question for my colleague. If the motion is not adopted, what should we expect? Right now, the term that is being used and that we, the members of the Bloc Québécois, really like is “distraction”. The Speaker is a distraction that Parliament cannot afford. The Speaker is supposed to be the picture of impartiality in the House, so we are asking, for a second time, for the Speaker to step down. That is a comment, not a question, but I would be pleased to hear what my colleague has to say, if he cares to respond.

161 words

Incident

Mr. Chris Warkentin

May/27/24 4:14:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is absolutely clear that nearly half of the members of the House have already called for the Speaker to step down. Last time, following the video and all of the evidence that was provided to the NDP, the New Democrats said, yes, what the Speaker did was wrong, and, based on the information, they believed that the Speaker just did not know what his role should be. However, they did say that if it happened again, they would also have to vote to have the Speaker removed. We know what the Liberals are going to do because the Liberals believe that the current Speaker serves their purposes very well. The question is this: What will the NDP do? If its members vote with the Bloc and the Conservative Party, the Speaker will be removed. Therefore, will the NDP be true to its word or will it find another reason to yet again support the corrupt Liberal government?

160 words

Democrats

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC)

May/27/24 4:15:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the role of Speaker and the neutrality of that role are fundamental to Canadian democracy. The people whom we all represent believe that this place can make laws and decide things like spending a budget fairly. We are now in a situation where the Speaker has lost the confidence of the House. To me, it appears as though the NDP and the Liberals are making a decision on whether or not he should go based on their supply and confidence agreement rather than on maintaining the dignity of the Chair. What happened in the last instance is that a partisan event was advertised on the Liberal website. This is the third time. In sports, it is three strikes and a person is out. Can my colleague reiterate why it is so important, given everything that has been said here today, that the Speaker resign so the appearance of democracy can once again be restored for the Canadian public?

160 words

Mr. Chris Warkentin

May/27/24 4:16:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think the question is a very important one. I do not stand here as myself; I stand here as the voice of those who sent me here, as does every member of the chamber. What an idea it is that the Speaker would in fact be engaging in partisan preferences in the House and not enforcing the rules as they are set out to ensure fair play, not ensuring that all members are treated equally and not ensuring that the procedures are conducted in such a way that we can be sure as to what the voices of Canadians are and what the outcomes are in terms of both. The Speaker oversees all kinds of things, including votes in the House of Commons. He oversees the language that is used in the House of Commons. The Speaker oversees all kinds of administration that goes on outside the chamber in terms of the resources that are allocated to different members of Parliament as well. The Speaker plays such a central role in defending our democratic institution. If the Speaker is deemed to be partisan in his role, how can Canadians have any faith in this institution anymore? We are their voices, and if we do not believe that the Speaker is conducting himself in a fair manner, how can Canadians? The Speaker has to go.

227 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/27/24 4:18:08 p.m.
Watch

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove, Mental Health and Addictions; the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Public Services and Procurement; the hon. member for York—Simcoe, Carbon Pricing.

62 words

Adjournment

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/27/24 4:18:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the comments that I have heard, both just in the last 25 minutes or so and previously, concern me a great deal. They concern me, first and foremost, as a parliamentarian. I have been involved at the provincial and federal levels of politics for over 30 years now, and I have had the opportunity to work with Speakers of all political stripes: New Democrats; Progressive Conservatives; Conservatives, here; and Liberals, here in Ottawa. They play a very important role in our whole institution of Parliament, for which I have grown, from the days in which I served in the military, to have a great deal of respect. Our institutions mean a great deal, and we do need to be respectful of them and never take them for granted. There are going to be times that we will disagree with something that a Speaker might be saying. I know when I was in opposition in the third party in the far corner over there, I received treatment from the current opposition House leader when he was the Speaker that I did not appreciate. I think, for example, of concurrence motions, where a concurrence motion would be moved, and then I would attempt to stand up and speak, and be instantly shut down, even though today on concurrence motions, members are given all sorts of latitude and provided opportunity to speak. I can recall a number of incidents from the Manitoba legislature when I would have real issues, even at times when there was an uproar a Speaker walked out of the chamber, and we continued to have debates, but I have always respected the Chair, even when I was asked to leave the chamber on one occasion. I respect the institution,. We have witnessed over the last number of years that has not been the case coming from the Conservative Party. There is a lack of respect for the institution, and that also includes the Speaker and the chair that the Speaker holds. The member spent so much of his time talking about the person, and justifiably so, given the very nature of the ruling that has been made, but the biggest problem I have with the comment is that he is talking about how, at the end of the day, they did not support this Speaker. The Conservative Party never supported this Speaker. What was their argument? It was not because of anything that happened from the moment that he was elected as Speaker to today, but because they did not vote for the Speaker. They did not vote for him, because they did not like the Speaker. I made reference to that in my question. At the end of the day, the response was very clear: “We don't like the Speaker. We didn't vote for the Speaker, and nothing has changed.” There is no such thing as a perfect human being. Mistakes do happen, and we saw that mistake that had taken place with this particular Speaker. An apology followed, even before, from what I understand, a motion being brought to the chamber. We had a debate at that time, with regard to the Speaker, which ultimately went to the PROC committee. Then the PROC committee came back with a ruling. The Speaker, again, apologized for what had taken place and the disruption. That is what the opposition whip was talking about in criticizing the Speaker today. What is the offence that has led to the motion and the ruling that we have before us? The offence is for something that appeared to be inappropriately advertising, or whatever, communicating an event. The Liberal Party of Canada has taken full responsibility for that posting and apologized to the Speaker. The Conservative Party is so upset about that incident that it is introducing another motion of non-confidence in the Speaker, a Speaker who Conservative members voted against when he first put his name forward. They have been very clear about that. The incident was based on something the Speaker had nothing to do with and a formal apology was provided. To me what that speaks to the Conservatives' focus. Their focus seems to be more about telling Canadians that the institution here in Ottawa is broken. We can see that by their behaviour time and time again. Conservatives are trying to say that we cannot pass legislation, for example. They are trying to say that everything is a problem inside the chamber when, in essence, the problem is not the government. The problem is that the Conservatives, in opposition, are doing whatever they can to destabilize things or make an argument about the institution being broken when it is not broken. They know that, but it does not prevent them. Despite their heckling across the way, they cannot legitimately say that this institution is broken because it is not broken. That does not prevent the Conservatives from going out and about spreading misinformation. Now they are trying to say it is the institution of the Speaker's chair. The Speaker did nothing. The Liberal Party apologized for posting something that should never have been posted and made that a formal apology to the Speaker of the House of Commons. However, the Conservatives are trying to blame the Speaker. There is something wrong with that picture, but the Conservatives genuinely do not care. At least, those in the House leadership genuinely do not care. Imagine if someone in the Conservative back room posted something on one of the Conservative MPs and then we started to challenge that individual MP for what was posted, and that MP stood up to say, “Oh, well, it's my fault so I will apologize, even though the Conservative Party of Canada apologized for doing something.” This makes no sense unless it is a personal, vindictive attempt at character assassination from the Conservative Party and the leadership. There is an argument to be made for that. That is why I posed the question about why they did not even vote. The opposition whip admitted that the Conservative Party had no intention of voting for the current Speaker. Why does that matter? The way I see it is that the Conservative Party was shell-shocked when the announcement was made and based its argument on how political the Speaker was before he was elected to the position. They said he was a parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister and he worked for the Liberal Party of Canada and that is the reason he should be disqualified to be Speaker. That is the reason they did not vote for him. Those were the red-flag warnings that they espoused as to why he would never be a good Speaker, saying he was too partisan. That is absolutely ridiculous, especially coming from the Conservative Party. Let us think about it. The Conservatives have a gentleman who is the House leader for the Conservative Party. He was first elected in 2004. That is the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. Let us imagine this. He became the Speaker of the House in 2011. I will bet a McDonald's Happy Meal that at the end of the day I could pull out many quotes from Hansard where we would see the Speaker at the time, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, being very critical of the current government. I can guarantee that. I can guarantee that the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle actually was a very partisan individual prior to becoming the Speaker of the House of Commons. What happened after the member's little stint as the Speaker? After being the Speaker for a number of years, he realized that he might not win by running for the Speaker again, so he ran for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada. Therefore, oh my goodness, it is okay for a Conservative Speaker to be politically engaged, but it is not okay if we elect a Liberal member of Parliament who was politically engaged before he was a Speaker. That seems to be a double standard. Why is there the double standard? Why is it okay for a Conservative to be politically engaged, active, run for Speaker and be Speaker, but not okay for an active Liberal to become the Speaker? Let the Conservatives explain that one to me. Let them explain why the Conservative Party, as a collective whole, decided to vote against the current Speaker. After the Conservatives have tried to justify that one, they can explain this to me. When the Speaker used bad judgment in terms of a video, upon realizing his mistake where what he thought was a video that was going to be shared internally ended up being shared in a public fashion, it did not take Conservatives, New Democrats, Greens or even Liberals for him to recognize that it was inappropriate. He came forward and apologized, but still, we had the privilege issue. The matter came before the House and understandably so. It actually went to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The procedure and House affairs committee dealt with the issue and came up with a series of recommendations. Let me read what those recommendations were: 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. That was done. Recommendation 2 states: 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. Recommendation 2 was something that was important to see happen. One would think that this would happen when we get a new Speaker in place and, as a result of the issue going to PROC, we learned something. It is going to happen, which is a good thing. Recommendation 3 states: That the Speaker issue another apology— I underline the word “another”, because he did apologize already. —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. The member says that he did not. That is part of the problem, if one listens to nothing but the Conservative spin coming from the bench, from behind the curtains. The Speaker did apologize. I heard the apology, as many others heard the apologies. I saw the remorse that was there. I believe it was genuine, from the heart, not only the second time but also the first time that he apologized. Excuse me but, as I said, humans are not perfect. A mistake was made and was recognized, and an apology was given. He did that. As one says: How many mistakes? This incident we are talking about right now was a party mistake. It is a party that made the posting. Do a Google search on it, if one likes. I believe that the Conservative Party is being misguided. One of the questions that was put to the introducer of the motion itself was about how he “manages proceedings in the House”. I believe that is the quote. I was writing it down and was listening to some of the comments. I have been on the opposition side for far more years than I have been on the government side. I can tell members that sitting in that chair can be a challenge at times. I know that. I see that. I have also witnessed that the Speaker who is being referenced today is nowhere near how the Conservatives try to portray him. When they say “partial”, listen to the question periods. They get all upset, and they start yelling from the benches and all that kind of stuff. If the Speaker tries to calm them down, then, they will be yelling all sorts of things, even directed at the Speaker. We see challenges inside the chamber and outside the chamber, harassing and challenging the Speaker. I have never seen that sort of a challenge taking place, whether it is here in Ottawa or inside the Manitoba legislature, to the degree that I have seen this particular Speaker be abused verbally inside the House and outside the House, without justification whatsoever. There is a lack of respect toward the Speaker's chair, let alone toward the individual, that I have witnessed. Does one think that one feels that the rulings of the Speaker are always on our side? More often than not, I always think the Speaker favours the opposition side because I see the uproar and the loudness of the opposition as they try to interfere with ministers asking questions, and then, all of a sudden, we will heckle once or twice, and we are told to shush, from the Speaker's chair. We would say to listen to the other side. I believe this is something very personal for the Conservative Party. They did not support the Speaker when he was first elected. We know that. They do not support him today. They do not support anything that looks good here in the institution of Parliament. We see the behaviour that tries to demonstrate, as much as possible, that this Parliament, as an institution, is broken, when in fact it is not. I believe the Conservatives are dead wrong in the assertions they're making today.

2285 words

Partisanship

Mr. Alex Ruff (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC)

May/27/24 4:38:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have two quick questions for the parliamentary secretary. First, if the Speaker does not do the honourable thing and resign, is the member going to vote to have the Speaker step down? If his answer is no, then I want to know how many strikes, mistakes or errors of judgment he expects the Speaker to be tied to before he would ask him to step down. As for my second question, the parliamentary secretary has alluded to the fact that he somehow knows how I or all Conservatives voted when we elected the Speaker in the first place. I am wondering how he has access to secret ballots.

111 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/27/24 4:39:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I guess I take the word of the committee member who introduced a motion that said we, with “we” being the Conservative Party, voted against the current Speaker. Maybe the member should tell his House leader or opposition whip that they should not be taking his vote for granted because that is what was definitely implied. It was not the Speaker's direct responsibility for the posting that has ultimately brought forward this motion. It was the Liberal Party of Canada's administrative wing, which recognized its mistake and apologized to the Speaker. It is in the news; it was in the news, and even though it is not the Speaker's fault, it does not matter from the Conservative Party's position. It is like punishing someone for something they did not do, and that is what the Conservative Party is doing today.

148 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

May/27/24 4:40:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague put a lot of blame on the Conservatives. He told us that there was a year where the Conservative Speaker was also partisan. That may be true. Perhaps there is a double standard here. However, that in itself is not an argument to defend anything unacceptable that is currently happening. I would like to ask my Conservative colleague the same question. How many mistakes, how many lapses and how many partisan actions will it take before my colleague opposite finds the Speaker's behaviour to be unacceptable?

94 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/27/24 4:41:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I understand the Bloc is going to be speaking next, so maybe it could provide very clear evidence or make a very clear comment on the Liberal Party of Canada taking full responsibility for the posting, apologizing to the Speaker and, ultimately, to all Canadians. It was publicized. The Speaker was given a formal apology because he had nothing to do with what we are talking about. It was the Liberal Party of Canada, and it has apologized for it. Why would the Bloc then blame someone for doing something that he did not do? That is a legitimate question, and I hope we get a very clear answer on that.

113 words

Mr. Rick Perkins (South Shore—St. Margarets, CPC)

May/27/24 4:42:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is amazing how the member for Winnipeg North is so partisan that he defends a partisan Speaker with such veracity. I will ask a similar question to the one just asked by my friend from the Bloc about this. There really are only two opposition parties because the third one is in a coalition with the government. Last December, basically, the Bloc expressed no confidence in the Speaker because of the partisan nature of what he did with the video. He did it a week later in Washington; the list grows. Apparently being a Liberal, generally, as we know from the Prime Minister, who sets the standard, saying “I am sorry” countless times makes up for all of one's mistakes, whether one breaches the Conflict of Interest Act or anything else, and there are no consequences. What is the consequence to the Speaker, consistently, at least once a month now, it appears, for making partisan statements and for being part of partisan organizations, many of them about himself and some on behalf of others? What is that number? Is it 10, 20 or 30 apologies before the Liberals recognize that the neutrality of the Speaker has been destroyed by the Speaker?

207 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/27/24 4:43:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Conservative caucus collectively needs to have a huddle on this. I do not think they have actually read any of the media stories. What took place is an incident, and the Liberal Party of Canada has taken full responsibility for that incident and has formally apologized to the Speaker, and through that, to all Canadians. It was not the Speaker, so it's almost like saying that we are going to punish little Johnny for stealing a chocolate bar, when it was not Johnny who stole the chocolate bar. Why does the Conservative Party want to punish the Speaker if it was not the Speaker's responsibility for the incident that is being called into question?

119 words

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

May/27/24 4:44:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this business about chocolate bars borders on demagoguery. Can we get serious? The member for Winnipeg North mentioned several times in his speech earlier that opposition members do not like the Speaker. It is not a question of liking or not liking him. We actually have a great deal of respect for the member for Hull—Aylmer. That is not the issue. The issue is confidence. It is not a matter of not liking him; it is a matter of having confidence in this fundamental institution upon which all the rest of the debates are based. In fact, we have an excellent example this evening: All of the government's work is once again being held up because there is a problem of confidence in the Speaker. Is the member capable of differentiating between the two?

139 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/27/24 4:45:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, let us simplify it even more. We are debating the proposed motion because of a posting, and that posting was issued through the Liberal Party of Canada. The Liberal Party has apologized to the Speaker and, through the Speaker, to Canadians. The Liberal Party is the one to blame. Why should the Speaker have to pay the price not for his mistake, but for the Liberal Party's mistake? I really hope the Bloc members will explain that as clearly as I have explained why we have the motion before us right now.

95 words

Blame

Mr. Alex Ruff (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC)

May/27/24 4:46:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to give the parliamentary secretary another chance to answer my question. I asked him this: If the Speaker does not resign, when this comes to a vote, how is he going to vote? Is he going to vote for the Speaker to stay in the chair or not? If he is going to vote to keep the Speaker in the chair, how many more mistakes does he think the Speaker should be allowed? Is it one, two or 10 more? I just want to know the number. If the Speaker makes a mistake, how many more strikes does the member think the Speaker should get?

109 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/27/24 4:47:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, based on the facts before the House, I would suggest that every member should accept the fact that the Liberal Party of Canada has taken full responsibility for this, and my vote will not be to punish someone who has not had anything to do with that particular posting. I think that is the responsible and respectful thing to do, given the fact that the Liberal Party of Canada has taken the responsibility for it.

77 words

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

May/27/24 4:47:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we are currently facing a crisis. I get that my colleague has no solution to the crisis except to vote against the motion under consideration, which is fine. I just find it funny how many gaffes a Speaker is allowed to commit. There is also the gravity of those gaffes to consider. Although it is all well and good to see the third gaffe as relatively minor, I would say this to my colleague: We are in a crisis, not only because the Speaker has made serious errors in view of his status, role and office, but we have been in a crisis for several months. Respect no longer exists in the House. For me, this is one more factor that reinforces and lends credence to the motion calling on the Speaker to resign. Does my colleague agree that the House is not functioning normally in terms of respect, order and language?

154 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/27/24 4:48:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I believe that the charge being led by the Conservative Party of Canada is very much politically motivated. At the end of the day, I would like to see members provide clarity on the issue of why the Speaker should be held responsible for something the Liberal Party of Canada has very clearly indicated it was responsible for and for which it has formally apologized. That is what I believe—

73 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/27/24 4:49:18 p.m.
Watch

We will have to leave it at that. Resuming debate, the hon. member for La Prairie.

16 words

Prairie

Mr. Alain Therrien (La Prairie, BQ)

May/27/24 4:49:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will begin by advising you that I will be sharing my time with my friend, the member for Salaberry—Suroît. We have already been over this. We have discussed the situation with this Speaker again and again. For people who like stories and novels, let us just say they will be spoiled by the saga of this Speaker, who has made gaffe after gaffe and has always relied on the excuse that it was not his fault, it was just a rookie mistake. The bottom line is that two things are clear. First, this is the worst Speaker in the history of this Parliament. Second, this is a Speaker who lost the confidence of 150 parliamentarians, which is no mean feat. These 150 parliamentarians, who make up 44.38% of the members, said that he no longer enjoyed their confidence, that they were done with him. On top of that, there are two parties keeping him in his post, namely the NDP and the Liberal Party. I can guarantee that if these two parties allowed a free vote in the House, it would mark the end of this Speaker's tenure. I am 100% certain. What do we do here? We debate, we work and we try to improve the lot of our communities, of the people we represent. Now we have a Speaker drawing attention to himself again. We are delaying government business to talk about a Speaker who keeps stumbling. That is the reality. That is like going to a hockey game and spending the whole time watching the referee, who is not calling the plays right. Eventually, something has got to give. I remember when the Speaker appeared before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to explain. Of course, he repeatedly said that it was not his fault. However, one thing struck me: He said that there is no instruction manual for being the perfect Speaker. I understand that, but every Speaker before him has done better than he has. Even if there is no perfect Speaker instruction manual, there is a way to get the job done. We are not asking him to move mountains. He should be able to do the job, but it seems he is the only one who has not been able to, so we have to wonder. There are certain things I will never forget. When we say that 150 members have lost confidence in the House, we have to ask ourselves what the word “confidence” means. Does it simply amount to saying that we are no longer encouraging him? No, it is not only that we no longer think he is a good Speaker. It is that each time he makes a decision, we will have doubts as parliamentarians. When the Speaker told the leader of the official opposition to leave the House, did he do that because there was a hint of Liberal red peeking out from under his robes? I will not say that I myself wondered, but some people may have. Did that have something to do with it, or did he truly make the right decision? The mere fact that we have doubts about him means that he cannot do his work properly. It is over. When the problems with the former Speaker and the unfortunate visit by the former Nazi occurred, the NDP leader said one thing that struck me. In fact, I commended him on his remarks. He told the Speaker, who was in the chair, that members could no longer have confidence in him or know whether he had or had not made the right decision. I thought that was good, because that is what it means to have confidence in a Speaker who represents institutions. I do not know what his position on today's motion will be, but I hope that the flash of insight he had a few months ago will strike him again today in relation to this Speaker, whose position is once again in jeopardy. He has made one blunder after another. I recall hearing my whip say at the outset that certain members were recognized for their vision and their intelligence in debates. Our whip has that intelligence. She told the Speaker he had been very partisan in his former life. It is as though the member for Winnipeg North decided to become Speaker. I would be a little frightened of that prospect. I would wonder whether it was serious or some kind of joke. It is not that he is not a great guy. He is a great guy, but he is a bit partisan. We are talking about him right now and he does not know it. He is a bit partisan. It would be funny if he ran. We might question the result. It would be like asking Colonel Sanders to guard the henhouse. In any case, it would be a bit scary. That being said, he has come in too late, which is too bad. We would say to the member for Winnipeg North that we believe him, that we trust him, but that we are keeping an eye on him. That is what the whip said. I remember it like it was yesterday. We like him as an individual. I think he is nice and I like him a lot. When I worked with him in committee, he was very good. He was partisan and he was very good. I just think this was a case of bad casting. I am not a bad hockey player, but I would not be any good as a contortionist for Cirque du Soleil. No one is good at everything. These are jokes, but that is what it comes down to. He made the video wearing his Speaker's robes and recorded it in his office. He made a video to pay tribute to a former conservative leader of the Ontario Liberal Party, which is really closely tied to the Liberal Party of Canada. That is okay. That is fine. The Speaker was caught and he said he did not know the video would be used for that. Still, when someone makes a video like that, they should realize that it could lead to trouble. I do not know. Let us just say that it was not a good start. When this matter was discussed at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, he was not there. He was not there until he testified, because he was in Washington attending a partisan event. Here we have two for the price of one. He does a partisan event in his office, wearing his robes, with the caption “House Speaker”. Then, when the matter is being discussed, he goes to Washington because there was a partisan meeting and event. That is two. Then he said that there is no guide on how to be the perfect Speaker. I understand that people make mistakes, but there is a limit. There are two qualities that a person must have to be a good Speaker: impartiality and judgment. He messed up on both of those things right from the start, which is no small feat. At just one event, he messed up on the two things that are essential for the job. Then, as I said, there was the trip to Washington. After that, he participated in a partisan event hosted by André Fortin of the Quebec Liberal Party. He was there. He was in attendance. Now, we are talking about the invitation to his spring event. The Speaker of the House is a member of the Liberal Party, and Liberals stick together. The Speaker said that it was the Liberal Party that sent out the invitations that took aim at the Leader of the Opposition. He apologized. Once again, he apologized. It was not his fault. It is never his fault. I do not know when that happened, but we saw it on Wednesday of the previous week. He saw it on Tuesday of the following week, six days later. He is not nervous. It took six days for him to catch on, when this is a huge deal and he was under scrutiny. Not only did he fail to exercise judgment and demonstrate impartiality, but he and his team were also somewhat incompetent. I will close by saying that, if he respects the democratic institutions that he represents, then he has no choice but to step down from his role as Speaker himself. Does he respect those institutions?

1433 words