SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 319 - May/28/24

May/28/24 5:31:18 p.m.
Watch

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.

142 words

Mrs. Marilène Gill (Manicouagan, BQ)

May/28/24 5:32:15 p.m.
Watch

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.

1317 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/28/24 5:41:54 p.m.
Watch

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

40 words

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

May/28/24 5:42:15 p.m.
Watch

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.

108 words

Censured

Mrs. Marilène Gill

May/28/24 5:43:09 p.m.
Watch

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.

100 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

May/28/24 5:43:59 p.m.
Watch

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?

156 words

Mrs. Marilène Gill

May/28/24 5:45:02 p.m.
Watch

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.

127 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

May/28/24 5:46:02 p.m.
Watch

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?

119 words

Mrs. Marilène Gill

May/28/24 5:47:03 p.m.
Watch

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.

159 words

Ms. Melissa Lantsman (Thornhill, CPC)

May/28/24 5:47:57 p.m.
Watch

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.

1386 words

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

May/28/24 5:58:02 p.m.
Watch

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?

151 words

Partisan

Ms. Melissa Lantsman

May/28/24 5:59:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would, frankly, be embarrassed if I were the deputy House leader of the government standing up in this place, defending the indefensible. He has members of the House speaking at length about all the Speaker's transgressions as an impartial referee of the House. He cannot do the job. That is what we are talking about today. Instead, the member is deflecting and diverting from the fact that, one, he cannot get his agenda through the House because he has decided to put the Speaker in the chair, and the Speaker has decided for himself, by his actions, that we would have this day today.

108 words

Mr. Mario Beaulieu (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ)

May/28/24 5:59:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the questions from earlier to the effect that the Bloc Québécois should not criticize the Speaker because he is a Quebecker. I believe that where the person lives should not even come into play. There was another incident with the president of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie. Some people were saying that the Bloc Québécois was attacking him because he is a Franco-Ontarian. I think we have to be impartial. Whether someone is from Quebec, Ontario or elsewhere, everyone is equal.

105 words

Ms. Melissa Lantsman

May/28/24 6:00:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think the identity politics in this place is a disease, and I do not care if the Speaker is from Quebec, Ontario, Saskatchewan or any of the great provinces in this country. We are talking about his inability to be impartial in that chair. That is what we are talking about today, and we are going to judge him accordingly.

63 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

May/28/24 6:00:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first off, of course, we already went through the procedure and House affairs committee, and the House took a vote. Since then, there has not been anything that justifies what the Conservatives are doing today and are doing this week. The Liberal Party of Canada made, in my judgment, a despicable mistake by posting something on its website that showed disrespect to the Speaker and disrespect to the House of Commons. The Liberals should have apologized immediately. It took them a few hours, but they finally did apologize. What we are seeing, though, is an attack against the Speaker in the same way that the Conservative Saskatchewan Party is attacking the independent Speaker of the Saskatchewan legislature as well. We have seen verbal intimidation. We have seen threats, and we have seen the use of a firearm. Not a single Conservative has condemned that. I would ask my colleague to condemn what has happened to the Speaker in the Saskatchewan legislature. Will she do it?

167 words

Ms. Melissa Lantsman

May/28/24 6:02:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I can understand why it is very difficult to keep track of all the scandals of the Speaker. I can completely understand that because every time I see him in the news, it is a different scandal. However, the one we are talking about today is the partisan posting of a fundraising event that the Speaker is part of and that he probably, might have, most likely approved, in terms of time. It is that member over there, who is screaming over me, who has become obsessed with the Saskatchewan legislature. I would say to that member to go and run in Saskatchewan if people are not going to elect him in his seat in B.C.

119 words

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

May/28/24 6:02:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill. I am quite looking forward to her intervention on this matter. It is actually quite incredible to me that we are in this place at this point. I have been listening to the debate today. I have been listening to the government side. I have been listening to what I now call the moderate wing of the Liberal government, which is the NDP, argue that this is somehow a character assassination. In fact, a member of the opposition, who functions in his role as an opposition member, legitimately fulfilled his constitutional obligation by rising in this place and presenting a question of privilege. This was in relation to an advertisement of a partisan event that the Speaker of the House was going to be participating in. The ad was itself a character assassination of the Leader of the Opposition. When a member brings a question of privilege to the House, it means they feel that their privileges, or the privileges of other members, have been violated. At that point, given all the interventions that occur, the Speaker makes a ruling. In this case, the Speaker was not able to make a ruling, because he was directly implicated in this question of privilege; therefore the Deputy Speaker made a ruling. In it, he said there may have been a violation of members' privileges. That is it. The independence of the speakership was actually effective at that point in determining that a proper question of privilege had, in fact, happened. As is the right of all members, the member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie moved a motion based on the Deputy Speaker's ruling, which is what we are now debating. It is not as though any opposition party, be it the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois or any other party, wrote this ruling. This was a ruling of the independent Deputy Speaker after the Speaker recused himself. That is what we are dealing with today. We are not dealing with a character assassination; to be frank, we are dealing with a question of character. That question of character relates to the Speaker's ability to act in an independent, non-partisan manner, to act as a referee with respect for all members and their privileges. That is, in fact, what we are dealing with today. In the short period since the Speaker was appointed as such by the House, we have not just dealt with this on one occasion; there have been two other occasions. I know that colleagues on our side have been talking about those instances. Of course, the most famous one happened in Ontario. It was shortly after the Speaker was appointed that he felt compelled, in his Speaker's robe and using the resources of the Speaker's position, to make a video for the Ontario Liberal Party convention. I recall when I first saw that video. It was a Saturday night. I was sitting there, as a former House leader, looking at this video and thinking, What in God's name is he doing? It was partisan. I recall sending a text to our current House leader, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, and I asked him if he had seen it. How could the Speaker have such bad judgment, poor judgment, that he would make such a video for the Ontario Liberal convention? Of course, that was the first time that the question of privilege came up. Then there was another incident, in Washington, D.C., where the Speaker travelled on Speaker business and ended up at a partisan event that was videotaped and broadcast on social media. There, he talked about his experiences as a Liberal Party member. Now, of course, there is the latest incident, talking about the Speaker appearing at a fundraiser. However, within the notice for the fundraiser, there was a partisan attack on the Leader of the Opposition. It calls into question not only the Speaker's ability to be non-partisan but also, in many ways, his judgment. That is the fundamental issue we are dealing with today. It did not just happen once or twice. It has happened three times at this point. I think the ability of the opposition to function in its constitutional obligation and not have confidence in the Speaker is the root of what this question is all about. When the Speaker was elected, he promised this chamber and its members that he would act in a non-partisan way, that he would not get in the way of debate and that he would be the referee, which is his role. However, time and time again, we have seen otherwise. This was not only the case in these three incidents but also in rulings and judgments, not the least of which was removing the Leader of the Opposition from the House during question period. That is something that I have not seen in the nine years I have been here. Many members whom I have spoken to, some with a long history in this place, and some with knowledge of history, had not seen anything like that occur before. I can say that I was here the day when that happened. I was watching the Speaker. We had started off on a Monday. It had been a pretty raucous question period. I know that the Speaker had, at his left hand, the notice of removal. Somebody was going to leave the chamber that day. I am convinced of that, and it happened. We actually had two members that left. One was the member for Lethbridge, and then that was quickly followed up by the Leader of the Opposition. The challenge right now is trust in the ability of the Speaker to conduct himself in this non-partisan way and with impartiality. That really is what this is all about. Again, this prima facie case of privilege that the member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie brought up is what we are dealing with today. It was not written or initiated by the opposition; it is something that was initiated by the Speaker of the House. I can say that I do a lot of events; we all do. There is a vetting process that goes on for any event that I attend by my staff to make sure that I am not using House of Commons resources and that those events that I am attending are, in fact, proper events. There is no convincing me that someone in the Speaker's office or the Speaker himself did not know what was on that invitation. Finally, I would like to finish off with what I perceive as a decline in our democracy. I see an erosion of respect for our institutions. The fact is that the Liberals and the NDP are standing up in this place and seemingly defending the actions of the Speaker, and they have been doing it since this debate started yesterday. This speaks to a lack of respect for this institution. If anyone had any honour or integrity at all, they could see the chaos this is creating. The fact is that their decisions and their lack of judgment, impartiality and non-partisanship is causing such disruption in this place. This speaks to a decline in our democracy and a lack of respect for our institutions. The first time the Speaker conducted himself in this way, when he made that video for the Ontario Liberal leadership convention, I said that he should have to resign. I believe that was the appropriate time for him to resign. Now we have two other instances where the Speaker has shown this lack of judgment and lack of impartiality. As far as I am concerned, there is no other option. Almost half of the House believes that the Speaker has acted in a way that is unbecoming in terms of his role as Speaker and that he does, in fact, need to resign. I appreciate what the Bloc tried to do before, which was to bring a unanimous consent motion to have a secret ballot when this vote occurs. I believe there are still people within the Liberal Party, and perhaps some within the NDP, who conduct themselves with honour. They see the actions of the Speaker and how that is causing a lack of respect for this place. If a secret ballot were held, I believe that some of those members, other than the ones who are going to stand up as they ask their questions, would actually want to see the Speaker removed, as the motion states.

1454 words

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

May/28/24 6:13:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the deputy leader just spoke and said this. It is not a direct quote, but it is pretty darn close, because I had to make notes as she was saying it. It will show tomorrow in Hansard. She said, in regard to this partisan posting, that her conclusions were, with respect to the Speaker, that he “probably, might have, most likely approved” of it. We have a third party that has said it was fully responsible and has actually apologized for it; then we have the deputy leader of the Conservative Party saying the Speaker most likely approved of it. That is what the Conservative Party is basing its evidence on when saying the Speaker has got to go. I think there is a lot more truth to what the member just finished saying. This is a personal thing. He said that the Speaker should have resigned long ago. Could he provide more clarification on his statement that he does not believe the Speaker should have been given one chance?

174 words

Mr. John Brassard

May/28/24 6:14:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in the first instance, shortly after he was pronounced Speaker, the Speaker engaged in a partisan message to a partisan party convention, the Liberal Party convention. He was in his robes, using Speaker resources. There have been people in this place who have resigned or have been forced to resign, and did the right thing by resigning, for much lesser grievances than that. Therefore, yes, I do believe that the Speaker should have resigned in the first instance. Now we have additional instances, two more, in fact, of partisan activity by the Speaker. That, to me, speaks more to his character, his lack of judgment and his inability to act in a non-partisan manner while sitting in the chair.

122 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

May/28/24 6:15:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this is a question and comment period, but I am going to make a comment because I am no longer sure what questions to ask in this circus atmosphere. It is degrading for the institution we represent. My colleague's leader would not have been ejected if he had made respectable comments in the House, comments worthy of the institution we represent. My Liberal colleagues are defending the indefensible. It is a lesson in politics 101. I do not even understand why we are here today. As my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue said, three strikes is the limit in baseball. Trying to be the adult in the room, the Bloc Québécois moved a motion. We made a democratic proposal that a secret ballot be held. It is a completely democratic process. I could hear people in the NDP shouting that they did not want that. Frankly, what is happening right now is degrading for the institution we represent. That is my comment.

171 words