- Member of Parliament
- Member of the Board of Internal Economy
House leader of the official opposition
- Conservative
- Regina—Qu'Appelle
- Saskatchewan
- Voting Attendance: 64%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $172,932.98
- Government Page
- Oct/16/23 4:31:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I just want to add my voice in support of the comments made and the point raised by my colleague in the official opposition.
I will endeavour to not repeat what she has so eloquently put before the House, but I want to stress a couple of points. The first is that there is definitely precedence on things, such as legislation being leaked, constituting a breach of privilege. That has been well established. My colleague very skilfully underlined the fact that that was a new precedent at the time Speaker Milliken made his ruling.
This is an unprecedented situation, to find ourselves in this part of the life cycle of our Parliament, where the Speaker's position has now been filled by someone who was a parliamentary secretary right up until the moment of the Speaker election. It is new territory for parliamentarians.
The fact that the Speaker has had to rule on something that he himself was implicated in, in his previous position, is unprecedented. That is why our suggestion was that the proper way of recusing himself would be to put it to the House to decide.
It is important for parliamentarians to remember that the Speaker does not, formally, rule that a breach or a contempt has taken place. All the Speaker does is act as a filter, to say that a situation, on its face, or prima facie, rises to the level that we set aside all other business of the House to allow members themselves, and the House itself, to determine whether or not there is a breach or a contempt.
Our suggestion was that putting it to the House and removing the Speaker from that filtering position would not set a precedent in the case of the Order Paper question that prompted the original question. It would not bind future Speakers to rule that incomplete answers would necessarily, on their own, rise to that level. It would just say that, in this specific case, because of the Speaker's involvement in his prior role, the Speaker would remove himself from that filtering role.
The decision that was made today by the Speaker to recuse himself by way of allowing or empowering the Deputy Speaker to make the ruling was not something that the opposition had considered before the last break week. We had proposed an alternative. The Speaker had not yet ruled on that.
To find out by way of a public blog that that is the course of action that the Speaker is taking rises to the level of raising this question of privilege here today.
It also does not address the points that we made about the Speaker's conflict on the original point. It is true that the Speaker did underline for the House this morning that the Deputy Speaker is selected by the House. That is true. There is a motion that is put forward to the House and the House agrees with it, but that motion is proposed by the Speaker.
The Speaker is the one who consults with other party leaders and proposes that name to the House. The Deputy Speaker is not fully removed from, at the very least, that perception of a conflict of interest. Having been in the roles of both the Deputy Speaker and the Speaker, I can also speak to the dynamic way that the Deputy Speaker works with the Speaker. It is very clear that the Speaker is at the top of the list for chair occupants, and that deputies and assistant deputies are his or her subordinates.
That is why the statement by the Speaker this morning still does not address that aspect of the conflict. I would also pose the question to the Chair, because this decision was made on the Friday, not in the House but through what seems to be some kind of a political blogger, and that parliamentarians have not had the opportunity to raise this concern about even having the Deputy Speaker make this decision, we still believe that there is a point there that needs to be addressed.
I just want to stress that I believe the best way to move forward on this is to have the Speaker fully recuse himself by not delegating it to a Chair occupant, not delegating this question to his deputy, but by just stepping back and saying that he would let the House decide this one because he is not in a position to act as that filter.
I do not think it is too late. I understand the Speaker did make that statement this morning. I would urge him to look at the intervention by my colleague, my remarks and comments by the House leader for the New Democratic Party, and come back to the House with the tidiest solution that keeps the Speaker, as an individual and his entire office, out of the appearance, or even the suggestion, of a conflict of interest by putting it to the House to decide.
837 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/17/23 3:38:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to signal to you we would like to reserve the right to come back on this point after having time to analyze what the member just raised.
33 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/23 4:12:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am rising today on a question of privilege concerning the interpretation services provided to this morning's meeting of the official opposition caucus. To be clear, these were issues with the technical arrangements provided by the House of Commons administration, not the quality of the work provided by our great and hard-working interpreters.
Caucus meetings play a very special role in the work of members of Parliament here in Ottawa. It is where we gather to discuss the issues of the day that are dominating the national conversation as well as the business that needs to be addressed here in the House. These meetings are also where we learn about local and regional priorities in this vast and diverse country of ours.
Mr. Speaker, as a former chair of the national Liberal caucus yourself, I know I do not need to remind you of that. Our national caucuses engage in conversations about national issues in a truly national way, not least because they are conducted in our two official languages, English and French.
Indeed, subsection 4(2) of the Official Languages Act requires that:
Facilities shall be made available for the simultaneous interpretation of the debates and other proceedings of Parliament from one official language into the other.
Today, those facilities were not available to the Conservative caucus here on Parliament Hill. Technical concerns at caucus meetings have, in the past, given rise to prima facie cases of privilege.
On October 17, 1973, at page 6942 of the Debates, Speaker Lamoureux found a prima facie case of privilege concerning the discovery of a bugging device in the NDP caucus room.
More recently, on March 25, 2004, at page 1711 of the Debates, Speaker Milliken found a prima facie case of privilege when the confidential proceedings of the Liberal Party's Ontario regional caucus had been inadvertently disclosed through the House's audiovisual system, which was installed in the meeting room. The Chair observed the pivotal nature of proceedings to MPs' work, stating the following: “The concept of caucus confidentiality is central to the operations of the House and to the work of all hon. members.”
Subsequently, in its 22nd report, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs stated at paragraph 14:
To the extent that caucus confidentiality is breached by Members by disclosing what was said or went on to non-members of caucus, this is a matter to be dealt with by each party caucus. Any unauthorized recording of caucus meetings, however, is a matter for the House itself. Not only does this arguably impede Members in carrying out their parliamentary functions, but it also could constitute a contempt of the House of Commons.
Although both cases involved eavesdropping on confidential caucus meetings, I would respectfully submit that the rulings stand for two important propositions. First, caucus meetings form an essential component of an MP's parliamentary functions. When they are interfered with or impeded, this raises considerations of parliamentary privilege. Second, troubles arising from the technical facilities at caucus meetings become, in the words of the procedure and House affairs committee, a matter for the House itself.
On pages 111 and 112, House of Commons Procedure and Practice recalls for us:
A Member may also be obstructed or interfered with in the performance of his or her parliamentary functions by non-physical means. In ruling on such matters, the Speaker examines the effect the incident or event had on the Member’s ability to fulfill his or her parliamentary responsibilities. If, in the Speaker’s view, the Member was not obstructed in the performance of his or her parliamentary duties...then a [case] of privilege cannot be found.
It is impossible to codify all incidents which might be interpreted as matters of obstruction, interference, molestation or intimidation and, as such, constitute prima facie cases of privilege
The inability of the Conservative caucus to conduct its affairs in both official languages has seriously undermined our ability to do our work, discuss issues at hand and prepare ourselves for another week of resistance in the face of a government that, after eight years, has so cruelly abandoned Canadians.
Should you agree with me that there is indeed a prima facie case of privilege here, I will be prepared to move the appropriate motion.
723 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/22/22 11:24:45 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for raising this issue, which really affects us all. It was directed at him, and I certainly sympathize with how that must have felt, to see that member of the press gallery openly calling for him to be shot after he did not like the question that was asked.
I would like to point out that, as we move around the very building we are in right now, we can see that the House administration has put up signs in every hallway and near every entrance to stop harassment. They are signs with a big red stop sign that encourage all who work here, staff, MPs and visitors, to stop and call out incidents of sexual harassment, bullying and intimidation. I just wanted to flag that.
We have all been seized with this, as an institution, over the last few years, and members must, after every election, take training to make sure we are aware of the very highest standards of professionalism as to how we conduct ourselves individually, how we structure our offices and how we expect our staff to interact with each other. We gladly do that. In fact, members of Parliament from all parties got together to enhance the code of conduct for members and their staff.
As my hon. colleague pointed out, there is a direct relationship with the parliamentary press gallery. Its members' accreditations for security run through the House administration. I believe it is entirely reasonable for you and the Speaker's office to look into this matter to find a prima facie case of privilege. To not find a question of privilege, I believe, would seriously undermine the efforts that are constantly being made to make this building and this environment more safe and secure.
I sincerely hope that you, Madam Speaker, will find for my hon. colleague's question of privilege.
318 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
