Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Nov. 21st, 2006

[Robert Marleau]

I think it would add meaningfulness to the consequence of being suspended. It's less than it was at one time, but there's still an incestuous relationship with the media. It used to be a good way to get the headline. But I think it would add some meaningfulness to the decision the chair has made on behalf of the House.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

I have another question, and you may not be in a position to answer this, but it was mentioned in passing by some of the members who were asking you questions. The Speaker can hear and see certain things that are happening, either during debate or during QP, but not necessarily everything that's happening in the House. Therefore, there can be certain types of conduct that happen during the proceedings of the House that the Speaker, himself or herself, is not an ocular or a hearing witness to.

If it's brought to the Speaker's attention, the Speaker then speaks to the MP who's been identified, and then it's primarily, according to the honesty and integrity of that MP--if in fact he or she committed what's being alleged--to own up to it and withdraw it, apologize for it, or whatever.

I've been a witness in the nine and a half years that I've been here. In most cases when there has been a complaint made about the conduct of a particular MP, that MP has actually risen and apologized or has withdrawn the comment. But I have witnessed, on at least one occasion, when everybody has also witnessed it, that the MP in question refused to admit to the alleged misconduct. And the Speaker was basically stymied, notwithstanding the fact that there were members of that individual's own party who were clearly witnesses to what happened. Not one of those MPs stood to say, “I heard it. I saw it.”

So it's not just from party to party; it is within the party itself. When we talk about parties having to show their support to the Speaker, we mean that individual members have to have sufficient integrity and strength of character to be able to stand and say, “No, I'm sorry, I heard it”, even if it's their own colleague.

Do you see any means with which the Speaker can deal with that? Or the Speaker is just in a position of saying, “Well, it's been denied. I didn't see it. I didn't hear it. Therefore, the matter is closed.”

[Robert Marleau]

There is a very long tradition in Commonwealth parliaments to accept an honourable member's word, however doubtful you might be, when he or she delivers it.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

I'm going to interrupt you for a second.

We have a specific case. There were sworn affidavits on the part of some, saying that they saw and heard the alleged misconduct, or unparliamentary conduct. The individual, whose conduct was the object of the complaint, denied having done it. What does the Speaker do then? He's got a series of MPs who have sworn under oath that they were witnesses and the one who's the object swearing that it didn't happen.

[Robert Marleau]

I don't know how you would write a standing order that would cover integrity and honesty, to be honest.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

That's my point exactly. We can't cover everything through Standing Orders.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, Madam Jennings. Your time is up.

The next questioner is Mr. Lukiwski, please.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, panel.

I think I'll start with Ms. Black. You seem lonely up there. You're not answering too many questions.

I would like a quick response from you and Ms. Champagne and Mr. Marleau, since you were all here in 1992, and then I have a specific question.

I'd like a brief comment on whether you believe the decorum in today's House is as raucous as it was in 1992. My understanding is that some of the incidents of racism and sexism, which you related in your opening remarks, precipitated the report that you filed. I wasn't here in 1992, so I'd like to get your opinions as to whether you think it's any better now than it was in 1992 or if it's about the same.

More specifically, I'd like to know, since it was an all-party committee that wrote this report and came to agreement, which was probably a monumental task at the time, why it wasn't implemented. If this was a report that all parties seemed to agree upon, and it's been kicking around for 14 years, why has it never been implemented?

Could I have your comments, please?

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

In comparison with the nineties, I don't think the decorum in the House now is worse; however, it's a lot louder now, I notice, than it was before. I don't think the individual comments and the kinds of remarks that are hurled about are worse, but it's a heck of a lot louder.

I've thought about that and wondered why it's so much louder now. Maybe it's because we're in a minority Parliament and the official opposition and the government are almost equally balanced. I don't know whether that's an answer or not, but it's definitely louder, and it's harder to hear different members when they're speaking, if you're not using your earpiece.

I don't think the way members refer to each other or the respect they show each other has gotten better, though.

I'm a parliamentarian, but I'm also a mother. I learned very early on when I was raising my children that there had to be consequences for bad behaviour. I think we know that throughout society. Teachers know it, and people who work with young people know it. In any facet of society, we know there have to be consequences for repeated bad behaviour.

I think that's what's lacking right now. In the court of public opinion, our Parliament does not have the respect it had many years ago, perhaps; I don't know. Maybe it never had it, but it seems to me I get more comments now, from people in my community and in the travelling I do, that they feel discouraged and disillusioned a bit about the kind of behaviour that goes on in Parliament. I really think we have a responsibility to deal with this, because it's dangerous for society in general and for the health of our own democracy.

[Andrée Champagne]

Maybe I will go to the second part of your question.

The report was consultatif. It was given to the Speaker, obviously, at the end of June; that was just before the summer recess. We came back, and I guess we were all hoping things would finally be a little better, as we were all talking about up-and-coming elections and hoping to look better for our electors-to-be.

I was defeated in 1993, along with—

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Almost everybody.

[Andrée Champagne]

—all but two of my party, so I don't know what happened then with the report. I was surprised to see it late last week.

[Robert Marleau]

My understanding is it went to the House leaders. The Speaker passed it on to the House leaders. Since the Speaker himself or herself cannot initiate amendments to Standing Orders, it became a leadership issue as to whether they wanted to follow up.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you.

Let me make a quick comment, and you can certainly respond if you wish.

One of the things I've heard time and again here, and that was certainly mentioned by Speaker Milliken when he appeared before us, and which I still think is probably the most effective way of discipline, is for the Speaker to consider an individual member to be invisible. We've talked about consequences and all of that, but I just don't know, for the life of me—and Marlene was mentioning it here, too—what could be done by way of putting into Standing Orders consequences that would cover all situations. It involves personal integrity and personal respect and all of that type of thing.

I'm really not sure there's ever going to be a set of rules, procedures, SOs, that would cover everything, but the current Standing Orders and the tools the Speakers have are, in my own opinion, sufficient if they're properly enforced.

My comment is just that I think causing a member to become invisible to the chair is probably the most effective way.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Okay, thank you. We just ran out of time there.

Madame Picard, please.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

My comments come in the wake of Ms. Black’s. I have been here for 13 years and I find that as time goes on, it is getting harder and harder for visitors to hear anything, especially during Question Period. Whether it is someone from our ridings, members of our families or friends, they describe it as a joke or a circus, and I could add several other negative terms. I find it a shame. We work very hard and this single one-hour representation discredits us and devalues our work. I am one of those who believe that things must change.

When the Speaker rises and says “Order”, the members are so used to hearing him that they no longer obey. They simply shrug off the Speaker. When I first got here, I was told that when the Speaker rose, everyone had to shut up and sit down. Now people stand up, they remain standing and they keep on shouting. I find that there is now some laxness in people’s behaviour. I have seen a Speaker who, after saying “Order” twice without managing to quiet the bedlam, remained standing until everyone sat down and calmed themselves.

When the Speaker is standing during Question Period, the clock is ticking and time is being lost. Can he really remain standing for 15 or 20 minutes, until calm returns? Does he really have that power?

[Robert Marleau]

Yes, I’d say that he does. In the past, there have been long interruptions. It has even happened that work was suspended for 20 minutes, until the House came to its senses, so to speak. The fact is that in a debate, after 3:30 p.m., it’s less serious. During Question Period, delays caused by the Speaker have consequences, and it’s often the third or fourth parties that pay the price. It should also be noted that it’s to the government’s advantage, because there is less time and therefore fewer questions.

In the early 1990s, Mr. Fraser would add five to seven minutes to Question Period because he found that ovations of the Prime Minister were excessive. I should add that the House leader at the time—I won’t name him because he’s still a good friend—would get away with murder when it came to questions of order and private interventions.

As for the control that a Speaker can exercise, that’s another story. I agree with you that it is too bad that all the attention is focused on that one hour. It tarnishes the debates and especially the work being done by members on committees. Be that as it may, it is difficult for the Speaker to remain standing for 15 minutes during Question Period.

[Andrée Champagne]

: House leaders say that one is too strict, another lets too many things go by, and so on. I sat in the Chair for almost seven years, and I can state that we can never please everyone.

“Damned if you do, damned if you don't”, just about sums up the situation. So you do the best you can, according to your conscience, and you hope that the House will give itself a stricter code of conduct or will come up with rules that the Speaker can more easily apply. That’s what I’ve come to think, looking back on it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Merci.

Monsieur Godin.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Madame Jennings says we will not be able to cover everybody, that the Speaker, who is at the end of the House, cannot hear what happens, so how can he cover it? Well, I think the incident she was talking about, though she didn't name it, was very close to the chair.

At the same time, though, if we had a rule that in cases where the Speaker heard...I think the person making the comments would not think, “Am I going to get caught by the Speaker or not?” He would know there would be consequences, and just because of the shame of it, it would be like not giving him any tools.

You’re right, there will be no way of covering them all. But the fact remains that before making a comment, the person must know that there is a possibility the Speaker will hear him, and there will be consequences. I believe the rules must be applied. After all, we are talking about the Speaker of the House of Commons here. If we take away his power to govern the House and demand respect, it won’t work. You were there in 1992 and things weren’t going well at that time. We now get the impression that the situation is even worse.

It’s not just issues of sexism and racism, but everything that happens in the House. Michel did a study that was released two or three weeks ago. It showed that since September, the party in power has stood up 63 times, the Liberal party 33 times, I believe, the Bloc Québécois 3 times and the NPD 4 times. There is a problem: we no longer have a Question Period.

It was also mentioned in the report that salaries could be cut. At the time, if my memory serves, there was the member’s salary as such and payment for House-related duties. A member who did not appear in the House was not paid. Now there is a fixed salary. In the past few years, salaries have changed.

[Andrée Champagne]

Salaries were definitely not as generous as they are today.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

But it must be admitted that the cost of living wasn’t as high.

[Andrée Champagne]

Perhaps. A member earned around $66,000 and had an additional budget for expenses, which is still the case today. I don’t believe salaries were split up in 1992. Everyone said that members earned a lot of money.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Marleau, you spoke of the possibility of a member who did not want to apologize being excluded from the House of Commons. That person could take the plane and return home. Having been excluded from the House, he could not take part in committee work. That may be an advantage for him, but the political party, the whip, would no longer have any representatives on committees. This would oblige him to tell the member to apologize. There are repercussions you may not be aware of.

[Robert Marleau]

: I've experienced this type of situation from both sides, I assure you. A member who was the main critic for a bill being studied by a committee was excluded from the House during the final hours before the vote on the bill in question. He could not be present, which seriously penalized his party.

Ms. Black says she finds it noisier now. I can tell you that in 1984, the evening when the amendment to the Constitution was adopted, it was very noisy. The Speaker was under assault and had to show extraordinary dignity to overcome this crisis.

On Black Friday, in 1958, when the Speaker reversed his ruling on the TransCanada pipeline, mayhem broke out in the House; fist fights broke out in the House. The next day the Speaker faced a motion of censure.

We can pick incidents from our history. This is a very intense place, and I'm not for a moment condoning the wrong or bad conduct of any member, but I think you also have to think of the context from the Speaker's perspective. When there's an issue before the House, how does he mood manage his way out of it without making it worse?