Alain Therrien

[Privilege, May 27th, 2024]

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 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?

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, May 27th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, since 2017, Quebec has taken in over 50% of those seeking asylum in Canada, even though Quebec has 22% of the population. Let us also not forget that, for months, Canada's immigration minister denied something that was obvious. He denied that there was an imbalance. He even considered the concept of integration capacity suspect. When the immigration ministers met, he finally acknowledged that there were integration capacity issues. He saw the light. Only fools would say they get everything right.

Will the minister stop demonizing Quebec and trying to buy time, and will he finally ensure that asylum seekers are spread out among the provinces?

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, May 27th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, on May 10, the immigration minister met with his counterparts. They announced a working group to address the distribution of refugee claimants.

Last Thursday, Minister Fréchette wrote to the minister again. She is getting frustrated because there has been no movement since that announcement. I would remind the minister that he said that the status quo was no longer acceptable, yet, since then, it has been nothing but the status quo. Our public services are overwhelmed; meanwhile, there is a working group that is not working.

I know they have made an announcement, but is there actually a working group? When will it meet and when will we see results?

[Democratic Institutions, May 23rd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, they cannot help themselves. The reason the Hogue commission was put in place is that the Liberals were covering up foreign interference from day one. The Hogue commission was created to put an end to that. It was created to get to the bottom of things with the help of a neutral, non-partisan judge. The public does not need to read the confidential information, but the judge does. That is part of her mandate. If the commission does not have access to the information, then Quebeckers will lose confidence in this investigation.

Will the Liberals finally act responsibly and, more importantly, will they finally be transparent with the judge?

[Democratic Institutions, May 23rd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the Hogue commission has complained that the Liberals are still keeping foreign interference under wraps. The Prime Minister's Office is invoking cabinet confidence to redact documents and even prevent the judge from having access to them. We are not even talking about the documents that will be published; we are talking about the documents needed for the investigation by the judge, whose mandate is to protect this strategic information.

This calls into question the commission's effectiveness. The Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs promised that the judge would have access to all the documents.

Does he agree that enough is enough with the secrecy?

[Business of Supply, May 23rd, 2024]

Madam Speaker, we reject the amendment.

[Privilege, May 21st, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the question of privilege raised by the Conservative Party, I would like to present the Bloc’s position and thinking on the fact that the Speaker of the House released a partisan message. This is the third instance where there is clear evidence that the Speaker of the House lacked judgment and breached his duty of impartiality. Unfailing impartiality and sound judgement are the foundation of the office of the Speaker and are required of a Speaker, and yet this is the third time we face this kind of situation.

The Bloc Québécois made its position clear in December. It said that the events in which the Speaker had been involved at the time proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the Speaker did not have the skills required to continue in his role. What we are seeing today, unfortunately, is a repeat of what happened before. Therefore, it would seem that the Speaker, who issued his mea culpa at the time, simply does not understand the role he has to play. This is obvious, and it should come as no surprise that the Bloc Québécois is unfortunately maintaining its position and calling for the Speaker in question to step down.

As everyone can see, House debates are becoming increasingly acrimonious. That is why we need someone at the helm who can command respect and has the skills required to control the debate, which tends to get overly heated in this chamber. The responsibility of the Chair has become increasingly important in view of the climate that has taken hold in the House.

Obviously, we all know that the Speaker, who is the member for Hull-Aylmer, was well known for his partisanship at the committee level. That went without saying, and there was nothing wrong with that. He had a job to do, and his partisanship was not out of place in committee. However, there is no place for partisanship in the role of Speaker.

We simply raised the flag when we saw him assume the speakership for the first time. We wanted to let him know we would be watching him, and we hoped he would show impartiality. What we are seeing, unfortunately, is that he is the wrong person for the job.

I have nothing personal against the Speaker and neither does the Bloc Québécois. However, with all due respect to the Speaker, he does not belong in the chair, as evidenced by the fact that 150 members expressed their loss of confidence in the Speaker back in December, mere months after he was elected to the position. At the time, the NDP said that this must not happen again, but now it has.

That is very worrying. What really worries me is that the three events we all know about may be just the tip of the iceberg. That is the problem. We know that he showed obvious partisanship and lack of judgment on three occasions, but he may have done so more than three times. We do not know. That is what worries us. Whenever he rises in the House, we always have nagging doubts about the decisions he will make, his behaviour and what he does outside the House. What does he say when he speaks to people on behalf of the House of Commons? It is impossible not to think about that.

There are only two ways to put our minds at ease and ensure that, whenever the Speaker rises, he does so competently and with absolute respect for the House. Either the House implements a mechanism for him to leave the Chair, or the Speaker resigns, as a true statesman would. In all honesty and impartiality, that is the question I keep coming back to. I wonder what it will take for the NDP and the Liberals to say that enough is enough.

[Official Languages, May 9th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister went even further.

He said the reason the Bloc Québécois is not taking the member's comments lying down is that we, the Bloc Québécois, do not like francophones outside Quebec. According to him, if we do not just let other people insult us, that means we are attacking linguistic minorities. In other words, Quebeckers who refuse to be called extremists or worse are francophobes. People cannot go around saying such ridiculous things.

I have news for him. Quebeckers will not let anyone walk all over them. That member has no business representing us internationally. It is over.

Will the Prime Minister show him the door?

[Official Languages, May 9th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, let us come back to the Liberal member's serious insults about defending French.

This morning we heard his forced apology to the two witnesses he intimidated. It is too little, too late. Now that we know exactly what he thinks about Quebeckers who are concerned about the decline of French, he no longer has any business chairing the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie. He has no business travelling abroad like a prince to speak on behalf of Quebeckers.

Will the Prime Minister do the only thing he can and ask the member to step down? Quebeckers no longer trust him.

[CBC/Radio-Canada, May 6th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, there is the official narrative and then there is anonymous information. What we learned from La Presse is that nothing is off the table in this supposed effort to bring the two entities closer together, not even programming, and that there is indeed talk of a management merger. That means a single management team for the French and English networks.

When we mix French and English in Canada, English always ends up taking precedence, while French takes a back seat.

Will the Prime Minister put a stop to this very dangerous idea of bringing the CBC and Radio-Canada closer together?