SoVote

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

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

May/27/24 5:46:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat disheartening how the Conservatives, in particular, along with the Bloc, have already predetermined that they want the Speaker, the individual, out of the chair. At the end of the day, the Liberal Party of Canada has taken full responsibility for the incident that we are actually talking about. The Liberal Party of Canada apologized to the Speaker and, through that, to Canadians. It has already been done. We are talking about punishing the Liberal Party of Canada by trying to censor the Speaker of Parliament. That is a bizarre and, in my opinion, bad thing to do.

102 words

Mr. René Villemure

May/27/24 5:47:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North. I love to hear him speak, by the way. I feel he needs to know that. The Conservative and Liberal members may have different motives in this case. In response to my colleague, yes, this latest oversight was the Liberal Party's fault, and it was acknowledged as such. Not every injury is fatal. There were two previous incidents. Then there are all the little, daily incidents that are not deadly sins but that still smack of partisanship. I like the member for Hull-Aylmer. I have worked with him a lot, but I just do not think he is the right person for the job. I would think he is unhappy in this job too, because it cannot be easy being challenged like this every day. Again, perhaps the solution is a serious dose of introspection coupled with a fairly firm invitation from our side to leave. I value the position enough to ask the Speaker to leave.

169 words

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

May/27/24 5:48:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank and congratulate my colleague from Trois-Rivières for his remarks. Of course, when it comes to ethics, among the 338 members of Parliament, he knows a lot more than many. As the member for Trois-Rivières said, the Speaker is not a colleague of members of the House of Commons. His role is above that. However, in the speech he gave when he became Speaker, the member for Hull—Aylmer focused a lot on the fact that we needed to elevate debates in the House and that we were here first and foremost for Canadians, which is true. As Speaker, however, is he here first and foremost for Canadians or is he also here, perhaps even first and foremost, to protect the right of all parliamentarians to express themselves properly? We should also keep in mind that all the incidents took place outside the House. I counted five. Three specific ones were very serious, but there have been at least five. What is, therefore, the Speaker's role in this place with respect to those he calls his colleagues?

191 words

Speech

Mr. René Villemure

May/27/24 5:49:47 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, things that happened outside the House nevertheless affected the Speaker's legitimacy to sit in the House. This is serious because, once again, the Chair is an important position that demands the most exemplary conduct. It is not a good look if the Speaker lacks legitimacy. We are not the only ones who asked the Speaker to resign. Quite a few members here have done so. I realize that it may not be the majority, but even one is too many. When one person believes that the Speaker lacks legitimacy, that sends a message. When there are 100, that sends another message, and so on. Even though the incidents occurred outside the House, I believe that the Speaker's legitimacy has been completely undermined. The conclusion is obvious.

130 words

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

May/27/24 5:50:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as a number of speakers before us have said, we could clearly be talking about something that has more of an effect on our constituents. It goes without saying that this matter, this episode, must not be very enthralling for the public. In fact, they must be about as interested in this as they are in Denis Coderre hiking the Camino de Santiago, which says a lot. That said, institutional mechanisms are still important. I think our colleague said that. If, in the very House itself, the Speaker no longer has the confidence of a large portion of this Parliament, it acts like a wrench thrown into an extremely precise spot in the works, causing them to break down. Partisanship aside, the office of Speaker has some very high-level requirements. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that a Speaker cannot sit in their caucus and they must even give up their party membership. The requirements are that strict. Why does my colleague think it is so difficult for some people to move from one role into another?

187 words

Mr. René Villemure

May/27/24 5:51:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is not easy being the Speaker. It is not easy to be impartial. It is not easy to strive for neutrality. It is a hard thing to do, and that is why the position has such high-level requirements. Although our constituents are not interested in day-to-day debate, I would say that this affects them a great deal because it affects the House, which is not working well. Therefore, as my colleague said, I believe that the Speaker was unable to show that he had what it takes.

94 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

May/27/24 5:52:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Because of the importance of this debate and the constitutional requirement related to members' participation, I would ask for a quorum call.

31 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/27/24 5:52:48 p.m.
Watch

I will ask the clerk to count the members present. And the count having been taken: The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot now has the floor.

31 words

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

May/27/24 5:53:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, to emphasize—

5 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/27/24 5:53:35 p.m.
Watch

The honourable parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

9 words

Secretary

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/27/24 5:53:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, recognizing the member opposite finally has Liberals and opposition members who can actually watch the member give his speech, I would encourage some of his Conservative colleagues to join in the—

39 words

Speech

The Deputy Speaker

May/27/24 5:53:49 p.m.
Watch

No, we cannot underline whether someone is here or is not. The quorum call is as much as we can do. The hon. member, being a learned member of here and the Manitoba legislature, should know full well he is not allowed to do that. The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

53 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

May/27/24 5:54:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech that my colleague for Trois-Rivières gave previously. Not to suggest the presence or absence of any members, I would hope that all members take this very seriously. What we are talking about here is at the very foundation of, and the need to be able to trust in, our democratic institutions. At committee the other day, I had the opportunity to talk a little bit about the importance of that process. When it comes to the ballot, the election and the necessity of making sure every Canadian has that opportunity during a general election to go into that voting booth and mark a ballot, it is essential that there be trust in every step of that process. However, some things have been called into question. There have been instances of election interference, including the Communist dictatorship in Beijing pressuring members of the Chinese diaspora in Canada to vote in a certain direction. It is essential to ensure that we do everything we can to protect our democracy, and likewise in this place. When the role of the Speaker was first contemplated in the 1300s in the United Kingdom, in the early years of the establishment of Westminster democracy, there was a deep understanding of the need for a moderating voice, so that there could be parley, so that we could have discussions and debate as opposed to simply fighting wars. The carpets are still green in the people's House of Commons. The Speaker plays an important role in that process, as it is his or her responsibility to facilitate that. I talk about trust when it comes to ballots in a general election and how essential it is for each and every Canadian to have that opportunity to cast a ballot. That is, by extension, passed on to this place. Each and every member of Parliament has to be able to trust the institution. Each one of us has to navigate the circumstances of politics and partisanship, while also ensuring that we serve every constituent. I have been vocal in support of the first-past-the-post system because of its simplicity and its legacy within the Westminster system. However, when constituents walk through my office door, I have never asked who they voted for. The expectation is that I will serve them and their needs and help them with casework. We may not always agree. In fact, there are many instances where I do not agree with individuals across my constituency, but never once would I put at risk that sacred obligation that I have to serve all of the people that I represent. When there was discussion surrounding the establishment of a more formal role of Speaker, there was the acknowledgement that there had to be that moderating presence within the House of Commons to ensure that debates could take place, and for a moderating presence that could be trusted by both those who had the ability to make a change and those who would make up what we now know as the opposition; so government and opposition. Although it was not quite as formalized in those early days, and quite often ended up being the presence that pushed against, not necessarily a government, in the sense of a political party having won an election, but rather the direction that the Crown was moving the country, there had to be that voice that could be trusted by all. However, there are instances throughout the history of the Westminster system where that has not always been the case, but we have been able to build upon that history to the point where it highlights how important the role that the occupant of that chair plays. It is not just in terms of the debate. That is a big part of it and that is what people see. For all of us in this place, that makes up a significant portion of the time Canadians get to know MPs, whether it be from question period, debates or the symbols that are associated with this. However, the foundation of it is trust. The privileges of members have been violated an unprecedented number of times. I have not yet had the opportunity to look into the specifics, but there have been many questions of privilege that have been raised in the current Parliament that call into question many things. I will get to the troubling correlation that I see with that and the leadership that is attempting to guide our country right now, but Conservatives see how the sacred trust of the individual who sits in the chair as Speaker has been called into question. It is not for dislike of the individual. Many of us will have fights about policy and differences of opinion. In fact, I get so frustrated when I quite often hear my Liberal and NDP colleagues say that they are doing what is best for Canada and anybody who opposes them is wrong or is un-Canadian or something to that effect. That is not only insulting to me as a parliamentarian and representative of the people of Battle River—Crowfoot, but speaks to how we have to ensure that we take so seriously the obligation that we have as members of Parliament. There has been a series of examples, and if this was the first instance, a beginner's mistake, I would understand that. I would hope that I and many others would take seriously the need to allow someone to grow in the role, but I am so concerned that this is a trend that seems to have continued over the course of the last number of months. Further to that point, these are the public instances where we are seeing a lack of impartiality. I have heard from constituents who have called that into question in other instances that have not necessarily made media attention. Part of the sacred trust that is required for the chair occupant is that every parliamentarian needs to be able to trust that it is not only the words that are said while the Speaker takes his place in the throne at the front of Parliament, but every decision that the Speaker makes in the undertaking of those duties and many of the questions associated with that. For example, there were questions asked by the Speaker's chief of staff to the clerk to clear this in advance. There were questions asked about whether this would be appropriate. There has been a host of other concerns raised in terms of whether that partisanship can happen. We have the erosion of the ability of MPs to trust that the decisions the Speaker is making are, in fact, impartial and ultimately serve the interests of the institutions, which is what best serves, full stop, the interests of parliamentarians and, ultimately, Canadians. I will conclude with this. One of the concerns that I certainly highlighted in the discussion after the previous Speaker's resignation, when there did not seem to be many Liberals running to the previous Speaker's defence, and who was taken to court by the Prime Minister, is that we see excuses being made. We see members quick to jump to their defence saying it is sorted, but it is not their fault. I would suggest that the Prime Minister and the leadership that he has presided over during the course of the last nine or so years has led to an erosion of trust in the very foundation of our democratic institutions. As a result, I would suggest that we have to all take it upon ourselves to so diligently rebuild that trust that has been broken. If we do not, my fear is that so many Canadians will stop seeing themselves represented by those who take their seats in this place, and that would be an absolute travesty. We need to take this issue seriously. We need to ensure that we restore trust and, ultimately, ensure that the Speaker is able to operate in an impartial manner.

1351 words

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

May/27/24 6:03:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like for people to do a comparison. Imagine the opposition House leader being the Speaker in Parliament and attending a Conservative fundraiser. What did the Conservative members back then say? There was not a word, zero. Looking at what was said, the Liberal Party of Canada admitted it made the mistake, not the Speaker, and fully apologized, and now the Conservatives are demanding that the Speaker be censured and kicked out of office. The question I have for Conservatives is why they are questioning this particular Speaker, but were not prepared to question the ethical misjudgments of their current House leader when he was Speaker. A lot of people are very suspicious as to why the Conservatives are really doing this.

125 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

May/27/24 6:04:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that more Liberals are not seized with this debate because I suspect their opinion is like that of the many within the benches of the opposition who have seen this troubling erosion of trust. The reason I can say that confidently is because I have been hearing increasingly from constituents of Liberal members who are saying that they have lost trust in the ability for the government to listen to its people. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Mr. Damien Kurek: Mr. Speaker, the member is heckling that she doubts it, but I believe there is even an email in my inbox from someone in the city of Waterloo. My question to all Liberal MPs is whether they care about power first or the institutions to which we should all serve? When it comes to the issue we are debating here today, as the old saying goes, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” We have seen this pattern repeated time and time again, and it is too bad that the Liberals seem so desperate to hang on to power that they refuse to acknowledge how their attempts are eroding trust in the very institutions we serve. They are ultimately eroding the trust of the Canadians we serve.

219 words

Hon. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC)

May/27/24 6:06:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague made a thoughtful speech. He referred to this tawdry situation as being unprecedented, and he is so right. It is unprecedented in Canadian history that a Speaker would face a prima facie case of privilege in the House not once, not twice, but three times in a short period of months. Given the fact that there have been so many Speakers in the past who, in many cases, have served for many years who have never had this kind of a case brought forward, is it not shocking that we find this to be the third time it has taken place with the current occupant of the chair? Is it not shocking that the Liberal government, the Liberal members of the House and their NDP coalition partners would not call the Speaker on this and finally agree to fire him?

144 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

May/27/24 6:07:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would look back at the beginning of this Parliament, and the previous Parliament, when the then Speaker was even taken to court by the Prime Minister and the government for upholding the needed impartiality of the Chair. These questions were not asked during the 42nd Parliament, although the Liberal Party was the third party at the time, way in the back corner, but its members did not have questions about impartiality during Stephen Harper's majority government. In the three minority parliaments prior to that, where there was a Liberal Speaker presiding over two Conservative minority parliaments and a Liberal minority parliament, they did not have these questions about the impartiality of the Speaker. I implore all of my colleagues, especially those from the Liberal benches, but specifically those from the New Democrat benches, for the sake of our institutions and for all Canadians, to let us make sure the chair occupant is able to conduct themselves in a way that is truly impartial.

167 words

Hon. Bardish Chagger

May/27/24 6:09:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I take very seriously the responsibilities bestowed upon me to represent the good people of the riding of Waterloo. The member who just spoke shared about an email he received from a constituent in the riding of Waterloo, and I would ask that he share with me those concerns because I represent the diversity of opinions—

64 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/27/24 6:09:26 p.m.
Watch

That is descending into debate. Continuing with debate, the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent has the floor.

18 words

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

May/27/24 6:09:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I will be splitting my time. It is heartbreaking for me to have to rise in the House today to speak to a very unfortunate subject. It is heartbreaking because there are so many subjects we should be talking about in the House right now. We should be talking about public finances, the housing crisis, the fact that Canadians cannot afford groceries. Canada is a G7 country where one-quarter of people have trouble feeding themselves. However, we are here this evening to talk about the Speaker of the House of Commons. Unfortunately, in the last eight months since the member for Hull—Aylmer became Speaker, he has not been up to the task. Frankly, it breaks my heart to say that because, if there is anyone among the 338 MPs that I like, it is the member for Hull—Aylmer. We were elected at the same time in 2015. Like it or not, MPs have a certain amount of fun with the people we are first elected with—in my case, it was my first time in the House of Commons. Every debate I have had with the member for Hull—Aylmer since 2015 has always been a passionate argument marked by great deal of mutual respect. Unfortunately, the facts show that, since he became Speaker, he is not where he should be. I clearly remember discussions I had with him about local concerns, as he is my member of Parliament when I am in Ottawa. I specifically spoke with him about the tramway project between Ottawa and Aylmer, as well as the sixth link. We talk a lot about the third link in Quebec City, but we also talk about the sixth link here, between Ottawa and Gatineau. The Speaker is a good person, but he is not in the right place. Everyone here remembers that he was elected following a particularly painful event, at a time when everyone felt the need for a strong authority figure. It would be an understatement to say that he has been anything but a strong authority figure over the last eight months. Once again, I take no pleasure in saying that. There have been five incidents, all of which, in my opinion, lend themselves to scrutiny and, above all, contribute to our current lack of confidence in the member for Hull—Aylmer. The first incident is the following. Shortly after being elected Speaker of the House of Commons, the member for Hull—Aylmer got on the phone and called a former Liberal member of Parliament to ask him to write something attacking the Conservative Party in his regular column in an English Canada paper. That is the first incident, because it is not up to the Speaker to influence partisan political debate, and especially not to call a journalist or columnist in order to influence his or her point of view. The former MP was Glen Pearson. Then, and this is the second incident, the member for Hull—Aylmer attended a Liberal Party of Quebec partisan event with MNA André Fortin, a guy I served with in the National Assembly of Quebec. He is a man of great character whom I respect and hold in high esteem and who had a perfect right to hold a partisan event, as anyone in a political party does. The member for Hull—Aylmer, Speaker of the House of Commons, attended that partisan event. That makes no sense. A Speaker of the House of Commons must remain absolutely neutral and not attend partisan events, whether at the municipal level, the provincial level, or any other level. Then a third, even more serious incident happened. The member for Hull—Aylmer produced a video here, in the office of the Speaker of the House of Commons, dressed in the Speaker's robes, to pay tribute to one of his Ontario Liberal Party friends. We see a lot of variation in his breach of the ethics involved in the Speaker's role. He asked a columnist to attack the Conservative Party. Then he went to a provincial Liberal Party event. Then he took part in paying tribute to a friend of the Ontario Liberal Party, and did so here, in the House, while wearing his Speaker's robes. He was found guilty and paid $1,500—really? In my opinion, it is not about money, but about honour. He failed at the task. That was the third point. The fourth incident was the following. He went to Washington to pay tribute to an old friend whom he had known through his activities as a young president of the federal Liberal Party. That was inappropriate. He could have picked up the phone to send his regards, to tell him that it was a pleasure to speak with him and wish him all the best in the future. On top of that, he went to Washington on the taxpayers' dime while the House was sitting. That was inappropriate. This did not happen in July or in early January, but while the House was sitting. We know that when the holidays come around, things are pretty busy here, but the Speaker went to an event in Washington. This was the fourth unfortunate incident. The fifth incident occurred recently, when his riding association sent an ultra-partisan invitation to federal Liberal Party supporters in Hull—Aylmer with his name on it. He was fiercely attacking the Leader of the Opposition and the Conservative Party's political ideas. That is a perfectly healthy thing to do in a political debate, but not for the Speaker of the House of Commons. The Speaker does not attack his opponents in the last election. Unfortunately, that is what he did. In a very short space of time, this Speaker, who should be above any reproach and partisanship, chose to dive head first into partisan politics. That has no place in this role. Three questions of privilege have been raised, but I feel there have been at least five incidents. I also have to add the fact that he ejected the leader of the official opposition after asking him to withdraw his words, which the opposition leader did by adding words he wanted to use to replace the words he had withdrawn. That was not enough for the Speaker. He kicked him out when, a few minutes earlier, in an attack on the Conservative Party, the Liberal leader had used a very harsh word against the opposition and the Speaker simply asked him to rephrase his attacks. The Speaker has a double standard. Today, we are grappling with very serious doubts about the Speaker's legitimacy. Unfortunately, all trust has been broken. As the Bloc Québécois members said so well earlier, more than 44% of members of the House of Commons have already publicly expressed opposition to keeping the member for Hull—Aylmer as Speaker of the House. That is almost 150 members. Unfortunately, trust is like brain cells. When they go, they are gone for good. Nothing is more important to parliamentary work than trust in the Speaker. It gives us no pleasure to conclude that the member for Hull—Aylmer is no longer worthy of the position of Speaker. He is an honest, interesting and highly partisan man, which in and of itself is not a flaw in politics. We are all partisan. We all got elected through a team, a leader, a party and a platform. That is the very basis of partisanship. We are here to speak on behalf of the people who voted for us and the people we represent, including the ones who did not vote for us. That is one thing. However, there is a difference between being ultra-partisan when we debate in public, and keeping only a glimmer of partisanship when taking on the role of Speaker. I will close my remarks with the following. I will never forget what one of my friends told me. He told me that we must always seek advice from our loved ones when we are in trouble and that when we respect someone, we should not tell them what they want to hear, but what they need to hear. I would tell the member for Hull—Aylmer to step down as Speaker of his own accord because, unfortunately, he no longer has the confidence of the House.

1422 words