Official Languages Committee on May 9th, 2024

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Chair, I apologize—

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Samson, I'll let you have the floor for a few more moments. However, you need to get back to the point.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

I'm getting there, Mr. Chair.

It took a while because I felt bad about making those comments. That said, I'm calming down and my voice is slowly coming back.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I'm listening, Mr. Généreux.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

I, too, have been a member of this committee for a number of years. Fortunately, everyone here generally gets along well. Our committee admittedly isn't very partisan, and we enjoy working together. However, we're getting seriously carried away here. We're discussing some key amendments and subamendments. The situation that arose is no laughing matter. Far from it.

I seriously think that we should get down to business, to make sure that we finish everything for this amendment and motion. We can then move on to another appeal. Everyone here is saying that we're wasting time, especially time scheduled for the minister. However, other witnesses are still here. If we really believe that this study matters, we need to stop wasting time and get on with it.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Généreux.

Mr. Samson, had you finished speaking about Mr. Généreux's amendment?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Absolutely not, Mr. Chair.

My colleague said that the committee wasn't partisan. However, this motion is exactly that.

I don't know what else we can expect. When you say something that perhaps falls short of expectations, you must apologize. That's exactly what Mr. Drouin did this morning. You gave him the floor at the start of the meeting, Mr. Chair, and he apologized.

The proposed motion asks Mr. Drouin to apologize. Should he go to mass and confess? He has officially apologized to the committee. Furthermore, he retracted his comments on the day of the incident.

Mr. Chair, you ruled the motion out of order.

I'll say it again. We may say things that fall short of expectations. If so, we must retract our comments. This was done here.

We're all emotional. I've been a member of Parliament for nine years. I've heard all kinds of comments and seen all kinds of gestures that people should have apologized for, but didn't.

Why move a motion asking a member to apologize when he has already done so?

Often people should apologize, but don't. Let me give you an example. Last week, when about 150 young people were in the House of Commons, the Leader of the Opposition made some unacceptable comments. I didn't say his comments were unacceptable. The Speaker of the House of Commons said so. The member in question didn't need to leave the House because of what he said, but—

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

—because he didn't accept responsibility for his comments.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Hold on, Mr. Samson.

Mr. Godin, you have the floor.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Chair, I think that my colleague is getting off topic. We see one thing in the House of Commons and another in a committee. I'd like my colleague to get back to the substance of the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Godin, I understand what you're saying. However, we've already been through this in another study.

Mr. Samson just referred to the apology already made. I'll let him continue. It's my duty to do so, as you know.

Mr. Samson, you have the floor.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

We're members of Parliament. We're elected to represent our constituents. Whether I'm sitting on a committee or in the House of Commons, for me, the responsibilities are the same. I play by the rules in both places.

People are saying that the Speaker of the House took away the right of the Leader of the Opposition to remain in the House. It wasn't because he used a certain word. That isn't why his right was taken away. His right was taken away because he refused to apologize to the Speaker. The same thing is happening here. However, in this case, Mr. Drouin was much wiser, so to speak. He took matters into his own hands and formally apologized. In the other case, the member of Parliament was expelled. Contrary to what people say, it wasn't because of the word “wacko”. It wasn't because of that word. Canadians know that. This is serious.

As the Leader of the Opposition who aspires to become prime minister of Canada, he had to take responsibility when the Speaker of the House made it clear that his language wasn't acceptable in the House. The Speaker is the arbiter. That's democracy. We trust the Speaker of the House of Commons. We ask the Speaker to ensure that democracy is respected. We ask the Speaker to ensure that people follow the guidelines and procedures in the House of Commons.

I know that my mother and father wouldn't be happy with me if the arbiter responsible for ensuring democracy in the Canadian institution said that I used unacceptable language. We elected this arbiter democratically. All 338 members of Parliament voted or had the right to vote.

This person has responsibilities. The Speaker doesn't make a decision simply because he finds comments unacceptable and wants to make a decision. He must ensure that the rules of the game are followed. He asked the member for Carleton to apologize. Understandably, when someone reacts emotionally, they can make a mistake. I could make this type of mistake. The Leader of the Opposition may make a mistake. It's understandable. However, he must apologize. The arbiter of democracy simply made that request, nothing more complicated.

It pains me that the person who aspires to become prime minister refuses to apologize for making comments that the judge of democracy finds unacceptable. That alone is serious. It's hard to look at yourself in the mirror after having done this.

I know that most of us were in the House. I don't know whether you remember, Mr. Chair, but I believe that about 200 people were in the House.

That's one thing.

We also know that Canadians watch the House proceedings on television. My parents tuned in every day. They hoped to see me in the House, but I didn't make it there in time.

Let me get back to the number of people that I referred to earlier. The audience consisted of 150 to 200 young people between the ages of 15 and 25, all of whom witnessed the situation. What are they now saying about the elected officials?

I can imagine the discussion that these young people may have had with their parents at the dinner table, where education often begins. They undoubtedly told their parents how proud they were to have visited the Parliament of Canada, where they were told that laws are passed to ensure that Canada continues to prosper, for example. They then said that they heard a member of Parliament use unacceptable language to describe a person and that they found it surprising to hear this type of language used in such a place.

I can imagine the rest of their conversation at the table, with the parents then asking the young person if anyone had spoken up to say that this type of language was unacceptable. I can also imagine the young person then responding that the Speaker of the House of Commons said that the language was unacceptable and asked the person to apologize, which the person didn't do. Not only did the member of Parliament not apologize, but he continued to speak as the leader of the official opposition, the person who aspires to become prime minister.

I think that this situation is even more sensitive than the situation brought on by our colleague.

I tried to imagine the conversation between the parent and the young person after the young person explained that the language used wasn't—

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

One moment, Ms. Kusie. I'll listen to you right after I pass on the clerk's instructions to the committee members.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

All right.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

She tells me the room is booked at 11 o'clock.

Would you be available to attend if we extended the meeting past 10:15?

If so, we would have to give instructions to the entire team assisting us, especially the technical team.

Are there any issues?

We need the committee's unanimous consent if we want to continue the meeting.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

I can't stay past 10:15 because I have other obligations. I'm sorry. I'd really like to be able to do it. I'd even take the entire day if I could, but I can't.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

The discussion stops there in that case since people aren't available.

Go ahead, Ms. Kusie.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I really like Mr. Samson. We've had some really good times together, including eating scallops and spending time on a boat.

However, I have to tell him that it's important not to stray from the matter at hand. That's unfortunately what he did earlier when he diverted the discussion onto another topic.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you very much, Ms. Kusie. I really appreciate what you're saying, but, to sum up the situation, in his last intervention, Mr. Samson drew a parallel between Mr. Drouin, who has apologized on his own, and another member of the House, who will remain unnamed, who apparently hasn't yet. I'm not quite sure but I can't say this isn't related to Mr. Généreux's amendment.

Mr. Beaulieu, you also had your hand raised for a point of order.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

I'm opposed to extending the debate because what we have here is systematic obstruction, which shows that some members aren't being serious about Mr. Drouin's conduct and everything that followed it. Francophones outside Quebec are being used as an instrument to cause division, as is usually done in attempts to justify federal anglicization measures or to downplay the defence of French. I'm opposed to extending debate.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

We decided earlier that the meeting will not be extended beyond 10:15 p.m.

Do you have a point of order, Mr. Godin? Go ahead.