- Member of Parliament
- Member of the Board of Internal Economy
House leader of the official opposition
- Conservative
- Regina—Qu'Appelle
- Saskatchewan
- Voting Attendance: 63%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $172,932.98
- Government Page
- May/23/24 5:16:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am rising to contribute to the point of order raised by the NDP House leader on April 30 and May 1, to which the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader made a significant addition on May 8.
At its heart, the point of order is, I believe, an effort to censor and silence the fallout from the controversial events that happened during question period on April 30, an event none of us will forget any time soon. The hon. member for Lethbridge was called to order about comments concerning the Chair. She withdrew those comments, yet was named by the Chair and kicked out for the day.
The member's withdrawal of her comments, which was recorded in the blues, never made it into the day's Debates. That is an important distinction, because the blues are the temporary recording and transcript of what happened in the House, but what actually gets published and permanently put up on the parliamentary website, and indeed printed, are the Debates. The withdrawal was in the blues but somehow never made it into the into the permanent record. The Chair is currently seized with a question of privilege concerning that alarming editing of our records to align with the Speaker's conduct.
Then, the Prime Minister referred to the Leader of the Opposition as having “spineless leadership”. Though the Speaker may have chided the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister was neither sanctioned nor disciplined. Immediately after, however, the Leader of the Opposition's next question also offered strong language, yet the Speaker applied a different standard to the Conservative Party's leader than he did to the Liberal Party's leader.
As a result, the Leader of the Opposition was also named and banished from the House for the day. Conservatives left the House for the balance of question period, as you might understand, after our leader had been, incredibly, ordered to stop questioning the Prime Minister about British Columbia's disastrous drug decriminalization experience and to leave the chamber. Nonetheless, I am not here to litigate that matter.
The main substance of the point of order now before the Chair lies in tweets many members of the Conservative caucus published in the minutes immediately following the shocking decision to name the Leader of the Opposition and expel him from the House in the middle of question period.
The NDP-Liberal coalition spokespersons on this matter have each suggested that various Conservative MPs must “withdraw their tweets”, which I assume means deleting the tweets, and apologize before returning to the House. In other words, they would prefer Conservatives just stay silent and not draw any public attention to how the House is operating during these days of an NDP-Liberal coalition government in Canada.
As I mentioned, those members raised this as a point of order. As you would know, points of order concern House proceedings and irregularity in procedures. It is also well established that statements made outside the House do not fall within the Speaker's purview to maintain order here, under points of order, within the chamber in ensuring that House proceedings run smoothly. I would refer the Chair to page 620 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, which says quite clearly, “The Speaker has no authority to rule on statements made outside the House by one Member against another.”
In fact, this point was made by the Assistant Deputy Speaker on April 30, when the NDP House leader first raised the point of order, saying, at page 22816 of the Debates, “The other [aspect] that was brought to the attention of the Speaker was the fact that statements are being made outside of the House by a member. The Speaker has no authority to rule on that, as the hon. member has indicated.”
Several of your predecessors have been invited to weigh in on statements made by members outside the walls of the chamber. In one of the earliest rulings concerning tweets, Speaker Milliken held, at page 1284 of the Debates for April 1, 2010:
It is clearly impossible for the Chair to police the use of personal digital devices by members, for example, by trying to distinguish whether certain texting has originated from the Chamber or not. Nor would the Chair want to change its longstanding practice of refraining from comment on statements made outside the House.
In any event, as you will recall, Conservative MPs exited the chamber after the Leader of the Opposition was named, so they had tweeted from outside the House. Moreover, since the leader and the hon. member for Lethbridge had been named, their subsequent tweets, which were among those of concern in the point of order, simply could not have been published from inside the chamber.
Turning back to the precedents on point, one of your more recent predecessors, Speaker Regan, said on November 20, 2017, at page 15303 of the Debates, “the Chair's role is very limited to the review of the statements made in a proceeding of Parliament. In other words, the Chair cannot comment on what transpires outside of the deliberations of the House or its committees.” Speaker Regan expanded upon this point in his October 30, 2018, ruling, at page 23033 of the Debates, stating, “As a result...the Speaker cannot be officially apprised of anything said to have transpired outside the walls of this place”.
Another of your predecessors explained the underlying principle for this approach on February 9, 2012, at page 5096 of the Debates:
We know that outside the chamber, when a member or anyone may say something that would offend or call into question someone's character, there are remedies that are not available inside the chamber. That is usually why the authority of the Speaker does not extend outside the chamber for things that are said.
In sum, Mr. Speaker, I would urge you to heed the well-trodden ground of your predecessors and find that the member's comments made outside the House, including tweets, simply do not come within your jurisdiction to maintain order within the chamber. A point of order raised on this very question simply is not under the Speaker's purview.
Before concluding, there is one final point I would like to add, because I know the Chair is seized with a couple of different aspects of the events of April 30. In a May 1 Canadian Press article on the opposition leader's naming, one might read this passage:
A spokesman for [the Speaker] said Wednesday that the Speaker didn't just single out [the leader of the opposition], noting he also asked [the Prime Minister] to reframe one of his questions after he called [the member for Carleton] a “spineless leader”.
“The prime minister reframed his answer,” Mathieu Gravel said.
Mathieu Gravel is the spokesman for the Speaker. That is a direct quote: “The Prime Minister reframed his answer”. The quote goes on:
“The Speaker offered [the Leader of the Opposition] four opportunities to withdraw his comment and reframe his question. [The Conservative Leader] did not avail himself of those opportunities.”
That is the Speaker's spokesman speaking on behalf of the Speaker publicly to the media on events that happened in the chamber.
Let me read Hansard from that day. There is the first interaction with the Speaker, saying, “I am going to ask two things. The first is that the hon. Leader of the Opposition withdraw that term, which is not considered parliamentary.” The opposition leader then said, “Mr. Speaker, I replace ‘wacko’ with ‘extremist’.”
The Speaker got up again and said, “I am going to ask the Leader of the Opposition once again to simply withdraw that comment, please.” The Leader of the Opposition said, “Mr. Speaker, I will replace it with ‘radical’.”
The Speaker then goes on to say, “I am going to ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition one last time to simply withdraw that comment, please.” Here is the key phrase that comes next; the Leader of the Opposition said, “Mr. Speaker, I simply withdraw it and replace it with the aforementioned adjective.”
Here we have the spokesman for the Speaker saying that the Prime Minister reframed his answer, as an excuse for why the Prime Minister did not face any sanction. The spokesman for the Speaker said that the Speaker offered four opportunities to withdraw his comments and reframe his question, and that the Leader of the Opposition did not avail himself of those opportunities.
As I just said, the Leader of the Opposition absolutely did withdraw it and reframe it, exactly as the Speaker's spokesman said publicly in the media but in a way to suggest that it did not happen. It actually happened, if we look at the video of that day's events and Hansard, which is printed.
If it is fair game for the Speaker, through his spokesman, to comment outside the chamber on House proceedings with what, I would submit, is an incorrect and inaccurate spin, then it can only be equally fair for other members to make their own comments outside the chamber about what happened during this unprecedented sequence of events. I trust that any ruling on this current point of order from the NDP-Liberal coalition would not result in double standards being created or extended.
1602 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 3:24:04 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am rising to add some comments to the point of order that you are currently considering, specifically in response to the question raised on April 18 by the deputy opposition whip. This was related to the use of a false and derogatory title in the House by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment.
On Monday afternoon, the NDP House leader rose and made a substantial intervention concerning references to the “NDP-Liberal government”. Given that he has essentially hijacked the point of order before you for his own political concerns, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to rise to offer some brief comments in response before you rule.
The point of order raised earlier this month urged you to apply your views about fake titles, as mentioned in your October 18, 2023, statement, which you often quote, Mr. Speaker. I will read the specific sentence from page 17585 of the Debates. It states, “This includes coming up with fake titles for members in order to mock them or making comments that question their courage, honesty or commitment to their country.” That is exactly what the parliamentary secretary had done when he used a false and derogatory title for the Leader of the Opposition, which the deputy opposition whip brought to your attention.
An example of another false title would be if I were to, for example, describe the member for New Westminster—Burnaby as the deputy government House leader. While my colleague certainly does yeoman's work carrying the government's legislative agenda here in the House, encouraging and supporting so many time allocation and closure motions that Stanley Knowles would roll over in his grave, he does not actually get paid for that work. Therefore, to describe an NDP member as the government House leader's deputy would, indeed, be incorrect.
The NDP House leader is, however, seeking to expand the scope of the Speaker's earlier ruling to suppress debate in the House on a matter of increasing political sensitivity to him and his party. In his argument, the NDP House leader cited the Deputy Speaker's ruling on March 29, 2022, at page 3689 of the Debates. This was delivered after the Liberal Party and New Democratic Party entered into their agreement for a parliamentary arrangement, the so-called supply and confidence agreement.
I will read other passages of that ruling, which my colleague appears to have overlooked. It stated, “Fundamentally, the agreement in question is a political one. It is not the Chair’s role to interpret or give meaning to such agreements between parties.... In the current case, it is not for the Chair to determine if this agreement between the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party is a coalition.” In other words, the characterization of the agreement is a matter of debate in terms of what it is, what it means and how government decisions are understood and held to account.
The facts are simply that, in the present Parliament, no single party holds a majority of seats in the House of Commons and our Westminster system of government requires the government to command the confidence of the House. Therefore, if one party does not have the votes to achieve that alone, the votes have to come from somewhere else. In the present Parliament, New Democrats and the Liberals have voted together approximately 92% of the time. If we remove Private Members' Business and opposition day motions from that mix, that percentage rises to something in excess of 97%.
If New Democrats are feeling the heat about their decision to prop up the tired, broken and broke government and are concerned about having to defend their choices on Canadian doorsteps soon, they could have simply shown us all the ultimate act of opposition and voted against the federal budget. Asking the Speaker to instead censor speech, which, as uncomfortable as it may be for the NDP, reminds Canadians of why the government remains in office every day longer that it does so, is simply not right. Fundamentally, the concerns of the NDP House leader are not a question of order. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit that it also goes beyond your remit of maintaining order and decorum in the chamber.
As you said in your October 18, 2023, statement, Mr. Speaker, “The House is a place where freedom of speech is primordial and where views are strongly held and vigorously defended.” Moreover, “the Chair must allow the widest range of individual expression possible”. Later you added, “Going forward, I will be fair and will ensure that all members, regardless of which side of the House they sit on, can freely speak their minds, vigorously hold the government to account, challenge each other’s ideas and thoroughly consider public business.” Conservatives are vigorously holding the government, and those who sustain it in office, to account.
The very essence of our responsibility as parliamentarians is to speak for our constituents and help them understand how and why decisions are made. Put simply, Mr. Speaker, you must deny the NDP House leader's request to censor political debate in the House of Commons.
876 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
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
