SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

Kevin Lamoureux

  • Member of Parliament
  • Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
  • Liberal
  • Winnipeg North
  • Manitoba
  • Voting Attendance: 68%
  • Expenses Last Quarter: $110,821.77

  • Government Page
  • May/8/24 11:28:46 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would really encourage those who might be following the debate to read what the Speaker's ruling stated. It is very clear that, over the last number of years, we have seen the Prime Minister deal with the serious issue of international foreign interference, whether it is in legislation surrounding elections in Manitoba years ago, the directive the member just referred to, the legislation with regard to the registry or something more. Let us contrast that with the previous prime minister. Foreign interference not only happens around the world and by more countries than just China, but it has been happening since 2011-12, when Stephen Harper did absolutely nothing, nada. However, the member has the tenacity to say that the Prime Minister has not done anything. That is a joke.
134 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/8/24 5:09:43 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am rising to add to the intervention made by the member for the New Westminster—Burnaby on Wednesday, May 1, in relation to respect for the authority of the Chair. Page 311 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, in relation to functions performed by the Speaker with respect to enforcing the rules that guide the work of this place, states, “the Speaker presides over debate in the House and is responsible for enforcing and interpreting all rules and practices and for the preservation of order and decorum in the proceedings of the House.” The Speaker has the ultimate authority regarding the interpretation and application of the rules of the House and its Standing Orders. The Speaker is the final authority on these matters. Since 1965, Speakers' rulings have been closed to appeals. They are final. Page 319 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, in relation to the rulings by the Speaker, states, “Once the Speaker has ruled, the matter is no longer open to debate or discussion.” This applies not only to procedural matters, but also to questions for the maintenance of order and decorum. Our procedural authorities are definitive on this particular point. Page 319 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, in relation to addressing the maintenance of order and decorum, also states: The Speaker can call to order any Member whose conduct is disruptive to the order of the House. For example, if it is a question of unparliamentary language, the Speaker usually asks the Member to rephrase or withdraw the word or expression. If the Speaker has found it necessary to intervene in order to call a Member to order, he or she may then choose to recognize another Member, thus declining to give the floor back to the offending Member.... The most severe sanction available to the Speaker for maintaining order in the House is “naming”, a disciplinary measure reserved for Members who persistently disregard the authority of the Chair. It is both unusual and unfortunate that the Speaker has had to invoke this sanction. We need to be mindful that these extreme situations do not become normalized in our proceedings. Finally, I would like to address the allegations of bias on the part of the Speaker that have been raised by some members in the House and outside the House. Page 323 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, on the impartiality of the Chair, states: Reflections on the character or actions of the Speaker (an allegation of bias, for example) could be taken by the House as breaches of privilege and punished accordingly. On two occasions, newspaper editorials were found to contain libellous reflections on the Speaker and were declared by the House in one instance to be a contempt of its privileges and in the other a gross breach of its privileges. In 1981, a Minister complained that remarks directed to Speaker Sauvé by the Leader of the Opposition constituted an attack on the former’s authority and impartiality. The following day, the Minister rose on a question of privilege calling for the matter to be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. However, the Leader of the Opposition withdrew his remarks and the matter was taken no further. Despite this clear precedent, we have seen many recent examples of Conservative MPs engaging in exactly this conduct, including numerous tweets that can be found on X from April 30. In one day alone, the Leader of the Opposition referred to the “Liberal Speaker”; the member for Edmonton Manning also referred to the “Liberal Speaker” and stated, “The speaker is doing [the Prime Minister's] bidding”, and so on; the member for Edmonton West referred to “The shamelessly partisan Liberal Speaker”; and the member for Kelowna—Lake Country referred to the “Liberal Speaker” and repeated this in a video that she also posted on X. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: This is not necessarily something that should have clapping from across the way. Mr. Speaker, also on April 30, the member for Sturgeon River—Parkland tweeted, “The partisan Liberal Speaker”. The member for King—Vaughan also referred to the “Liberal speaker”. The member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes referred to, again, the so-called Liberal Speaker in a video on X and said that the government is “being protected by a Speaker who is obviously biased to ensure that they have the protection from accountability and questions”. Finally, on the same day, the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South referred to “the Liberal Chair”. Furthermore, on May 1, the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry stated in a tweet how partisan the Liberal Speaker had been the day before, while the member for Lethbridge, in a May 2 post on X, referred to the “Speaker's partisan decision”. Members need to be mindful that the actions of the Speaker must not be criticized in a frivolous manner. It undermines not only the authority of the Chair but also the authority of the chamber. Page 323 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states, “The actions of the Speaker may not be criticized in debate or by any means except by way of a substantive motion.” On December 15, 2023, the House leader of the official opposition moved a substantive motion regarding the conduct of the Speaker. The motion did not find consensus, and as such, the matter is closed, but despite this, Conservatives continue to ignore the rules, ignore the precedent, and openly criticize the Speaker, which is very serious. The Leader of the Opposition wants to declare himself to be above the law by vowing to take away the rights of Canadians through the abuse of the notwithstanding clause. He also wants to destroy any institution that gets in his way, which includes the House of Commons. While the official opposition wants to destroy our institutions, we will continue to stand up for them. I urge the Speaker to reflect on the behaviour of members of the official opposition. One need only reflect on the Conservatives' reactions as I was reading this important address on the issue.
1076 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Apr/18/24 11:43:04 a.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, going back to my original point of order, on which there was no ruling made, at that time I raised the issue that the leader of the Conservative Party had intentionally misled the House. That is what I am asking for a ruling on. I was—
49 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Dec/14/23 1:41:53 p.m.
  • Watch
Number one, Madam Speaker, that is not a point of order. No such question was put to the House. I would suggest the ruling on the member's point of order is that it is not a point of order.
40 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Dec/12/23 12:35:23 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order, only because I do think it is important we get some sort of a ruling sooner as opposed to later. The member has now, on a couple of occasions, been reflecting on votes, whether they were in committee or here, which is a concern all members should be having.
58 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/6/23 3:47:39 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, like you, I have been very patient, listening to commentaries. You, a while back, very clearly established that you had already received enough information to make some sort of a ruling, pending a review of the situation. Members continued to stand up, which is a challenge of the ruling you have made as Speaker. I would suggest that people just tone it down and allow the Speaker to do his job.
73 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/2/23 10:30:07 a.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, it is very clear, but to make it as crystal clear as possible for the member and members listening, the Speaker has made it clear that a ruling was made on this bill. It has gone through the process properly, and it is in order. The members opposite are using points of order in order for us to prevent—
62 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/2/23 10:18:46 a.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, there is well-established process that needs to be followed in order to be able to do what it is that the Conservative opposition party is attempting to do. The Conservatives have known, and we, as a government, have followed due process. We can go back to Wednesday and to the Thursday question. All of this has been before the House. What is not appropriate is for opposition members to anticipate the type of ruling that you could make, Madam Speaker, and addressing it at this point in in time. The opportunity was there. Maybe the Conservatives did not do their homework, or whatever it is, but that does not justify their breaking the process that has long been a procedure of the House, not only for the current government but also for the governments before it.
139 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Jun/2/23 10:07:18 a.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. What the member is referring to is outside of normal process. The member should have corresponded with the Speaker's office to express his concern, as opposed to trying to anticipate what a Speaker's ruling might be. The Speaker, from what I understand, is very close to making a ruling. To interject at this point in time is highly inappropriate. The member should have been in correspondence with the Speaker's office prior to doing what he is doing currently. I would suggest to the member that he wait until there is a Speaker's ruling before he tries to anticipate what the Speaker is going to say.
118 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/31/23 4:45:09 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, again, because I know there are certain members who are listening this time around, I will just repeat what I had indicated earlier. We saw the Speaker make a ruling, inadvertently, by allowing a member to stand for the introduction of a vote on a bill not wearing a tie and then, in your ruling, you used discretion in this situation. My understanding was that it was just so that we can get through the rubric. It is a one-time issue where we saw something earlier in a vote, and it is not something that is going to be accepted going forward because you are giving a detailed explanation. That was my understanding, so I would suggest that we just continue to get through the rubric. Members on all sides of the House have taken note of what you have said, and I am sure that the respective whips will make sure that it is reinforced in caucuses.
161 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to an amendment made in committee on Bill C-281, standing in the name of the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South. Without commenting on the merits of the amendment in question, I submit that it proposes a new concept that exceeds the scope of the bill as adopted at second reading. Specifically, the amendment to clause 2 of the bill would add a new obligation to the minister to “develop and maintain a government-wide international human rights strategy.” When the amendment was proposed, the chair of the committee ruled it as inadmissible. However, a majority of the members on the committee voted to overturn the ruling of the chair and then proceeded to adopt the amendment, which is now found in the bill as reprinted by the House on May 4. I submit that the ruling of the chair of the foreign affairs committee was correct and that our procedures must be respected. As a result, the proper course of action to address this matter is to order a reprint of the bill without the offending amendment.
192 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/8/23 4:22:38 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member knows full well that the Speaker in the chair at the time indicated that she would look into this and report back to the House. To continue with misinformation on such a sensitive issue does a disservice. The member should be waiting until the Speaker comes back with his ruling on the very issue the member raises.
61 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/2/23 10:17:51 a.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, there is a tradition of the House, whether here in Canada or in the United Kingdom, which is that we respect the Speaker. I was patient as the leader of the official opposition stood in his place as you read the motion. When you made your ruling, the leader of Canada's Conservative Party yelled across— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
64 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Mar/31/23 12:16:40 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, prior to the interaction that took place, you were making a ruling on another point of order. I think it is best that you conclude the first point of order. I know there are one or two members who might want to address the second point of order raised, but maybe we can put to rest the first point of order and then go on to the second one.
71 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border