Evidence of meeting #106 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was guests.
A video is available from Parliament.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Steven MacKinnon Liberal Gatineau, QC
Not this time, nor, to my knowledge, was it the case on other occasions. Once again, and I'm saying this with a certain level of detachment, because I was the chief government whip at the time.
1:05 p.m.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
That's exactly the context in which I'm looking for answers.
I have another question for you.
How would you account for the fact that several days went by between the Prime Minister's description of Mr. Rota's mistake as very serious and when the Speaker acknowledged his error and resigned on September 26? What happened in the interval?
1:05 p.m.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
When someone admits a mistake, action is taken immediately. In this instance, many factors were percolating in the media and elsewhere. Things happened.
Was there a time during which attempts were made to determine whose fault it was? What were the discussions about?
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Steven MacKinnon Liberal Gatineau, QC
I don't think it's up to me to judge the series of events that may have led the former Speaker to decide to resign. In any event, he reached the conclusion—I believe it was obvious—that he had lost the confidence of the House. Reaching that conclusion must have been a very painful exercise, so I think we can all have some sympathy for him for having had to go through the process.
1:10 p.m.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I would suggest that basically, what happened was that Mr. Rota went through the security process but ended up as the scapegoat. The Speaker is not in charge of protocol, diplomacy or institutional security. I therefore believe that what happened was very unfortunate. We need to understand what happened.
We also learned from the media that three days earlier, Mr. Hunka had also been invited by the Prime Minister. I would imagine that there is also protocol to follow in the Prime Minister's Office to ensure that open-source checks are done. I would also suspect that some lights are flashing and that people are saying it's important to be more careful given the context in which we're living.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Steven MacKinnon Liberal Gatineau, QC
I disagree with you on that point, Ms. Gaudreau. I also don't think that you would want the Prime Minister's Office to check on all your previous guests. The Speaker of the House has certain privileges, one of which is inviting a number of people to special events, as it should be. Doing open-source background checks—
1:10 p.m.
Bloc
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Steven MacKinnon Liberal Gatineau, QC
I disagree with the premise of your question. That's because you're not accepting mine, either.
1:10 p.m.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I just can't understand how this situation could come about.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Steven MacKinnon Liberal Gatineau, QC
I don't think there's a need for some form of thought police for guests of our democracy.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Steven MacKinnon Liberal Gatineau, QC
Yes, everything needs to be taken into consideration, but I think Mr. Rota said firmly and clearly that it was a decision he alone had made, and that he was responsible.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
1:10 p.m.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Minister.
A lot of conversations were happening in the earlier panel about the fact that the Speaker's list was entirely independent of the government's list of those invited and so on, and that those actions were independent.
One of the roles of the Speaker, of course, and the importance of that independence, is key: the jurisdiction of the House. Would you agree with that entirely?
1:10 p.m.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Okay.
In some of the documents our committee received related to the incident, there was correspondence between your office—the House leader's office—and the Speaker's office following the breaking news about the Hunka affair. It seems as though steps were taken by your office to oversee the Speaker's official response and speech.
Considering there is supposed to be a clear independence and a clean boundary, what guidance did your office give the Speaker in the build-up to his resignation and apology speech, and how does that work in terms of the independence you just spoke of?
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Steven MacKinnon Liberal Gatineau, QC
Was the verb you used “oversee”? If it was, that's not a word I would associate with this.
I think an inquiry was made by the government House leader's office to the Speaker's office to ensure they were aware of and seized with the breaking news that emerged over that weekend.
1:10 p.m.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Okay. However, again, in terms of the back-and-forth, there were communications between each office. You say it was solely over that concern. There was no guidance or oversight provided.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Steven MacKinnon Liberal Gatineau, QC
I think there was an urgency expressed and a verification made to ensure they were aware of this issue and taking action in response to it.
1:10 p.m.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Okay.
In those documents that I referred to, as soon as the news about the Hunka affair was revealed, political staff, in those communications, changed from writing emails and sending texts to making phone calls. That would show that there was a potential concern about what was being communicated. That also shows a concern to me in terms of the transparency of the situation for us to be able to do that work in this committee.
What do you think that says in terms of the commitment to those principles of transparency if everything all of a sudden just stopped and everything went to phone calls?
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
Steven MacKinnon Liberal Gatineau, QC
What I would say is that I don't think you should assume the worst. I think you should assume that a member of the government House leader's office was concerned about the news story that was emerging and about ensuring that the Speaker's office was going to react to that, and I think the public record speaks to what ensued. I don't think there is that much distance between ensuring that things were going to get done or reacted to that day and when the Speaker put out a statement, the first statement.
1:15 p.m.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
What we've seen from the official opposition, of course, is a belief that way more has happened, that there's way more at play here. Do you believe that ultimately that this lack of transparency fuels that fire?
