SoVote

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

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

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

May/27/24 4:59:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, for those who are following the debate today, it is important to recognize that the first incident the member talked about received unanimous consent in the House. Not only did the government agree to it, but we also ensured that it would be given proper priority and resources so that the matter could be dealt with, because the Speaker made a mistake. Does the Bloc not realize that that was the Speaker's call and that the Speaker is the one who made the mistake? In this situation, it is not the Speaker; it is the Liberal Party of Canada. The Bloc members are trying to punish the Liberal Party of Canada by censuring the Speaker of the House. How do they justify that? I do not understand.

130 words

Bloc

Mr. Alain Therrien

May/27/24 5:00:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the video is no minor error. He is dressed in the Speaker's robes, he is talking to his buddy and he is being filmed in his office. While it may seem harmless, we can agree this was his first mistake. However, when he went to see MNA André Fortin, a member of the Liberal Party of Quebec, was he kidnapped in the night and taken to a back room for the photo? When he went to Washington for a partisan meeting, the same thing happened again. Did he get lost looking for his car keys and somehow end up there? Come on. For six days, no one knew what was going on. The Speaker and his team were in their office, counting their fingers and toes, oblivious that a text bashing the Conservative Party of Canada had been written for the Speaker's event. Did no one clue in? Mistakes can happen, but eventually it gets to be too much.

164 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/27/24 5:01:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that was not the question. We are talking about the incident that is before us today. The Liberal Party took responsibility, and the Bloc seemed to be content with blaming the Speaker for what the Liberal Party of Canada did and formally apologized for. Why would the Speaker be punished for something the Liberal Party of Canada has taken responsibility for? That is the question.

67 words

Mr. Alain Therrien

May/27/24 5:02:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I understand my colleague's question, but he is the one who did not understand my answer. I will explain again. The Speaker of the House must take care to remain neutral. It is part of his job. He must guard his neutrality jealously, because it is one of the two pillars of his position. He has to keep an eye on everything involving himself and his events. That is his job. No one should ever have reason to think that he is being partisan. He must be as pure as the driven snow. He organized an event to be held in June. The Liberal Party of Canada came streaming in and sent out a message to the public about a Speaker of the House event, while also bashing the Conservative Party. It took six days for the Speaker to clue in. How come our party and plenty of other parties clued in, but it took him six days? It is part of his job, after all. He has proven time and time again that he is not neutral and that he lacks judgment. I like him a lot, I think he is nice, but unfortunately, this afternoon, I must add that he is incompetent. What more will it take?

213 words

Mr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC)

May/27/24 5:03:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it gives us no pleasure to rise in this debate. We would rather be discussing the problems confronting Canadians. Unfortunately, the current Speaker's misconduct has led us here. I am going to answer the question put by the member for Winnipeg North directly. The Liberal Party says that it accepts responsibility for what happened, but it forgets one thing. In the Liberal Party's apology, it said that direct attacks on the Conservative Party are part of every invitation it sends out for its events. However, the only time that this specific wording was used was after the member for Hull—Aylmer had used it. Therefore, this happened after the explanation for the mistake was given. As the Bloc Québécois member so aptly said, for six days, the current Speaker lacked the dignity and respect to point out the mistake and correct it. I have a question for my colleague, who, like me, was once a member of the Quebec National Assembly. Does he think that the National Assembly would have tolerated a situation like this?

184 words

Mr. Alain Therrien

May/27/24 5:04:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague knows the answer. This behaviour is unacceptable. There is no doubt in my mind that if this person were in the Quebec National Assembly, they would have had to resign. There are others who have had to resign for lesser errors. However, I do not want to imply that the National Assembly is better than the House of Commons, and I say that with all due respect. What I am saying is that what happens in the National Assembly should also happen here. I still have confidence that the House will realize that this Speaker can no longer continue in his position and that the House of Commons deserves better.

114 words

Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.)

May/27/24 5:05:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I request that the ordinary hour of daily adjournment of the next sitting be 12 midnight, pursuant to order made on Wednesday, February 28.

26 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/27/24 5:05:15 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to order made Wednesday, February 28, the minister's request to extend the said sitting is deemed adopted.

19 words