Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Dec. 11th, 2023

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Could you give me a three-minute warning then?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Yes. Do you want me to?

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Is that okay?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Anything you'd like. We welcome you here any time, Mr. Scheer.

This is going to start your time, because I want to maximize our time. Excellent.

That's six minutes to you, and I'll tell you at three minutes, Mr. Scheer.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think it's really important for Canadians to understand why this is such a big deal. You have come from a very partisan past, what some might describe as a hyperpartisan role, given the fact that you have served in executive-level positions. I think you said that nationally you were director of the Liberal Party and president of the youth wing. You were parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister right up until the beginning of this fall session. Those are roles in which you were very close with the government and very close with the Prime Minister himself.

When you ran for Speaker or once you won and transitioned into being Speaker, members of Parliament had to kind of park that history of yours and trust that you were going to be non-partisan and objective.

The fundamental rule of being Speaker is also one of the easier rules to follow, and that is that you don't do partisan things. You don't participate in partisan events. You don't say things publicly or certainly while wearing the Speaker's robes in the Speaker's office that would have any connection to partisan activities or partisanship or indicating partisan favour.

You did an interview with The Globe and Mail in which you praised a sitting Liberal politician. He's currently an MPP, and he's given every indication that he's going to run again as a Liberal in Ontario, so it's not as though it was a retirement party or that he was going off to do something else. He's going to continue being an active partisan player in Ontario politics. You referred to the Ontario party as “our party”.

All of this has come to light. In addition to this, we understand that your chief of staff—and I understand your hesitance to name certain people at committee, but he is listed on a public website, the government employee directory service—Tommy Desfossés, was very close with the current Prime Minister, Prime Minister Trudeau. He was his executive assistant at one point, and now he's your chief of staff. You have had a hyperpartisan role in your very recent past and you hired someone very quickly out of the PMO who has very close personal relationship with the Prime Minister, and now this has come to light.

You talked about the arbitrator and you didn't quite address the nature of my question. If you were a hockey player and you were about to play a game and you just saw the referee in his uniform giving a pep talk to the locker room of the opposing team, it wouldn't matter what the context was—would it? You wouldn't want that official refereeing your game. If you were involved in some kind of dispute that needed an arbitrator and you saw that judge in his robes at an event with opposing counsel, no matter what the context was, you couldn't unsee that.

You've now acknowledged that it was a grave error in judgment. As many colleagues have mentioned, you are trusted to make on-the-spot decisions without time to run things through filters or decision-making trees, and we have to trust that those decisions are coming from a non-partisan and objective place. I would suggest that the fact that you didn't see that shows that you're still too close to the partisanship of it. You're too close with these partisan players if you don't see how, for members of other parties, that would be a problem.

Again, I ask you this: Would you want to hear your case adjudicated or would you want to play in a sports game, having seen the referee or having seen the judge or arbitrator involved in that type of display with an adversary or an opponent? Having seen that would you trust that process?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Madam Chair, through you, I think it's very important and I thank the honourable member for his intervention—a person who has sat in this role before.

To go back to the ref analogy, quite frankly, it was a different league in which we were involved. However, I also recognize that the member is right. Talking about my past, although in that reference to the notion of “our party”, that was when I was a resident of Ontario, back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, up until 1994. It was that time that it was referring to. I do not like talking. I don't want to talk about my past here, because, every time I do, I know that it sounds like I'm being partisan. It is a matter of record that, at that time, we were both members of the same party. It is a fact that I don't want to.... I'm not validating that today. I just want to make sure about that.

The second thing is that you raised the issue of my chief of staff. As you know, having been Speaker, you're administrating a large organization. My chief of staff left Parliament Hill in early 2018. It's been almost six years that he's been occupying a senior management role in the private sector. He's someone who can help manage this and, more importantly, someone who also has political experience. He understands what it is to be a third political party, and to be in official opposition and in government. He's someone who has an ability to hear and respond to the needs brought up by all folks. That's the reason why this person was hired. He's calm and collected, and he has a great reputation on the Hill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

I want to put on the record that I apologize. After you asked me to give you a three-minute warning, I was so invigorated by the exchange that I lost track of time. I also went to go get bacon. I apologize for not having my priorities in order.

Mr. Calkins, we'll make sure you have time in the next round.

Mr. Duguid, it's six minutes to you.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

I have a point of order.

Was that the entire six minutes?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

We had to sit through it. We can confirm that it was.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Let's stay focused.

Mr. Duguid, you have six minutes.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank the Speaker for his forthrightness today, for admitting his mistake, for apologizing—I certainly accept his apology—and for referencing how this is a position he was thrust into quite recently. There's a learning curve and mistakes are made.

Earlier, I referenced, Madam Chair, as you will recall, an error committed by the previous Speaker's office. His communications officer commented on what was clearly a political matter—a riding association matter. It's a little much for Mr. Scheer to get on his high horse today. We'll get some information back, which the Clerk has promised us, and we'll be able to weigh in on that.

I'm interested in the future. We've heard a lot today about codifying, protocols and clarity, and we've heard about a Nova Scotia study. We've heard about best practices around the world.

I'm wondering, Mr. Speaker, if you could comment on the thoroughness with which you were going to approach that issue, so the guidance you received can guide not only you but also, potentially, other Speakers throughout the federation.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Through you, Madam Chair, I would like to thank the member for the question.

I think there's a lot of work which a committee can do on this, if it were to turn its mind to this issue, in terms of comparing how our system stacks up to various other Westminster parliamentary systems.

In the U.K., for example, the Speaker, once elected as Speaker, of course, completely resigns all partisan affiliations and runs again as an independent. There is a tradition in the U.K. that the opposing parties agree not to run against that white flag candidate, that neutral candidate, as Speaker.

In Ghana, for example, when a Speaker is elected from members of Parliament, the Speaker not only resigns party affiliations but actually resigns her or his seat in the legislature and becomes just an officer of Parliament who is not an active politician.

We have an interesting system here. We request for our Speakers to be impartial. That is entirely correct. Speakers then also have to run again. They don't run as independents. They run as a member of their party—at least that's been the Canadian tradition. In doing so, they have to do fundraising. There are a number of things—advantages—which accrue to being a member of a party, as opposed to being an independent member.

That is a very interesting perspective that you're raising.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Madam Chair, in the few minutes I have left, there was a personal incident that our Speaker was a part of.

I don't know whether you remember this, Mr. Speaker. There was a group of women leaders from Winnipeg who were standing outside the chamber and you came in. This was the very day that you were elected as our Speaker. There were two Black women in that group and they were beaming. They were interested in leadership, with perhaps a future call to politics.

You admitted that you may have let some of the wider Black community down. You acknowledged that as the first Black Speaker in our history as a country, you have a special responsibility. You are a symbol to many in the community out there. Could I get just a few reflections from you as I wind down my time?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Through you, Madam Chair, this is a source of pride for me. It's also a burden. Being the first, you're held to a higher standard. You want to make sure that you lead the way so that you won't be the last.

I'm certain not to be the last. This is a very generous country and this country has given me so many opportunities, as the son of immigrants, in being here. It's given an opportunity to so many Canadians to be welcomed and to be able to run for Parliament, for all political formations. It's remarkable.

I also have to say it has been a particular source of pride. I've received a lot of correspondence. I talked to you about Lionel. He was not the first person to stop me in the street—somebody who doesn't know me, who has never met me before, but recognizes the face. It has been a significant achievement for the community.

I made a mistake. I apologized for this mistake. I'm putting in place protocols to make sure this never happens again, and I hope to be able to continue to be a symbol for Canada's generosity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Ms. DeBellefeuille, the floor is yours for six minutes.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Fergus, if we summarized things briefly so we can understand the situation clearly, we could say that you misused House resources. You recorded a video with House of Commons resources. You recorded the video in the Speaker's robes. You described yourself as the Speaker when you made the video. You left on a mission to Washington while there was a crisis of confidence in connection with leadership in your office. You did not consult anyone. When you got to Washington, you referred in your speech to your partisan past. You did not consult your chief of staff or the Clerk of the House.

You said earlier that you had apologized. I am going to quote what you said on December 4: “I regret that this video was used in a different way than intended.” On the same day, you told the Canadian Press: “I recognize how this may have been interpreted.” In all sincerity, those are not, in my opinion, genuine apologies like you gave this morning when you recognized the significance of your error of judgment.

In fact, what we understand, Mr. Fergus, is that these were errors of judgment made one after the other. You will understand that it has affected our confidence to such an extent that half of the members of Parliament have called on you to resign your office. I do not know the committee's conclusions in advance. However, I can tell you that I wonder how you are going to regain the confidence of half of the members after doing what you did.

I used to be a social worker, and I understand that we learn from our mistakes. However, there is no protocol, no manual, no pedagogical tool that prevents people from making errors of judgment. The Speaker of the House, it may be dull, but he has to be above it all. He cannot make mistakes, as Mr. Rota also learned the hard way. He made a serious mistake and he had to leave.

Today, we are here before you. I want to tell you this: Mr. Speaker, I think that in the name of democracy—because you are a major democrat, you respect democracy and you respect Quebec—you have to keep in mind that it may be preferable for you to resign your office of your own free will, out of respect. What you did was a mistake, but it was not a small mistake. It was a serious mistake.

I don't know how you think you are going to be able to regain the confidence you have lost. What I can tell you is that we in the Bloc Québécois, with what has happened and with your staff, we cannot continue to have confidence in you. How do you think you can deal with the situation in a minority government and the atmosphere we find ourselves in now, and having lost the confidence of half of the members in the House?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

It will take a lot of work. It will be a long process. We know that it takes time to regain people's confidence, but it takes only a second to lose it. Regaining people's confidence will be a long process.

If the House of Commons gives me the chance, I intend to continuing doing that work, to regain that confidence.

The House of Commons has created a process. Part of that process will happen here at the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Then you will compose your recommendation. The recommendation will go to the House of Commons. The House will make a decision, and I will abide by the decision of the House. If the House gives me a chance to continue, Ms. DeBellefeuille, I will do everything I can to regain the confidence of MPs like you.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Fergus, you are aware of the fact that you are the one who has created a precedent. We asked Mr. Janse whether there were precedents, but he did not find any.

By wanting to continue as Speaker of the House of Commons, if the recommendations support that, you are therefore aware that with this event, this serious error of judgment, the precedent that will guide future advice and future clerks' manuals for the use of future Speakers is being created.

As I see it, by agreeing to continue your work and not taking into account the significance of what has happened, you are agreeing that a precedent be created that lowers the bar for the rigour, impartiality and judgment that are required. It must be understood that this will lower the bar for what guides your clerks from now on.

How do you see this situation? Do you agree with what I am saying?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I recognize that you believe this is the case and I recognize that my mistake puts you in a difficult situation. However, I am taking steps to make sure that this kind of mistake does not happen in future. I am deeply sorry that we have got to this point, but I am going to do whatever I can to regain your confidence.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Mr. Julian, the floor is yours for six minutes.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Fergus, if I understand correctly, whatever recommendations are made by this committee, which might range from imposing sanctions or penalties to submitting your resignation, you are prepared to accept them if the House of Commons supports them.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Absolutely, Mr. Julian. I will respect the process that has been created by the House. I am its servant. If I cannot regain the confidence of the members, if they believe I cannot carry out my responsibilities as Speaker after learning of the mistake I made, with a deep and sincere desire to remedy it and work hard to regain the confidence of the House of Commons, and it decides that I am not up to the job and the mistake is not rectifiable, I will leave, absolutely.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

I wanted to follow up on two things that I'm still trying to understand.

First, you testified that on Saturday night you learned of the video in the same way all Canadians did. I want to know the actions you took immediately following that. Did you feel betrayed? Did you contact Mr. Fraser? What did you do in terms of the Liberal convention, and what did you do in terms of your own team, your chief of staff? The clerks have testified. Mr. Janse testified that you were in contact over that weekend around the apologies, so I need to know what actions you took.

Secondly, I wanted to ask you about the Washington trip. We went through this crisis. It was convulsive around the speakership in October. It was profoundly difficult for our Parliament, and I think for Canadians. We're in what can be legitimately described as a crisis. Two parties that day—the Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party—called for your resignation. Did you contemplate cancelling your trip?

It seems to me in a minority Parliament that kind of situation merits that the Speaker be here in the House of Commons at the very least, having discussions with members of Parliament.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you very much.

Through you, Madam Chair, on the two questions, regarding my reaction on the Saturday night when that video came out, I was obviously sickened. The immediate calls were, “How did this happen?” This was not supposed to be a video that was to go to anything besides a private gathering.

There was that aspect of it and trying to—