Geoff Regan

[Privilege, December 13th, 2018]

I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on December 4, 2018, by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley concerning certain responses to Oral Questions.

I want to thank the member for having raised the question, as well as the Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader and the members for Portage—Lisgar and Timmins—James Bay for their observations.

The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley maintained that during question period on December 3 and 4, in response to questions about members of the Liberal caucus, the Prime Minister and the government House leader threatened opposition members with legal proceedings if they repeated their allegations outside of the House. He felt that this constituted intimidation that could prevent the opposition from holding the government to account and therefore a violation of his privileges.

For his part, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader reminded members that the privilege of free speech comes with a sense of responsibility for any remarks made. He argued that the question raised was simply a disagreement as to facts.

I wish to remind the House that members enjoy absolute immunity when speaking during our deliberations. Free speech, a cornerstone of the rights and parliamentary privileges accorded to members is, as explained in citation 75 of the sixth edition of Beauchesne at page 22, “...both the least questioned and the most fundamental right of the Member of Parliament on the floor of the House and in committee.”

But while it is essential to the functioning of our parliamentary business, the word “free” cannot be thought to be synonymous with “limitless”. Speaker Fraser stated on May 5, 1987, at page 5766 of the Debates:

Such a privilege confers grave responsibilities on those who are protected by it....All Hon. Members are conscious of the care they must exercise in availing themselves of their absolute privilege of freedom of speech. That is why there are long-standing practices and traditions observed in this House to counter the potential for abuse.

While the allegation in question should call for serious reflection, I do not have the power to comment on the scope of the answers given by the government nor to rule on the disagreement existing between the members as to the interpretation to be given to the facts. Speaker Jerome affirmed this on June 4, 1975, at page 6431 of Debates:

...a dispute as to facts, a dispute as to opinions and a dispute as to conclusions to be drawn from an allegation of fact is a matter of debate and not a question of privilege.

The third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at page 148, makes it clear that my role is rather limited to, and I quote:

...take into account the extent to which the matter complained of infringed upon any Member’s ability to perform his or her parliamentary functions...

In the present case, the member has not demonstrated to the Chair that he was prevented from speaking in parliamentary proceedings and therefore unable to perform his parliamentary duties. Accordingly, I cannot find that there is a prima facie breach of privilege.

That being said, everyone must consider the content of their remarks in the House. Members, of course, have broad freedom of speech, but we must never forget the potential effect of the words spoken during the vigorous debates that animate the House. Self-restraint and the utmost of respect are required in all circumstances.

I thank all hon. members for their attention.

[Closure of Centre Block, December 12th, 2018]

My dear colleagues, this week the House marks a milestone in its history. When it rises for the winter adjournment, it will do so for the last time in a decade, more or less, and preparations will begin to repair and restore this magnificent, but now fragile, building. For nearly 100 years, history has been made here.

Some members were first elected in 2015. However, the dean of the House, the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, who just spoke so eloquently, has been representing his constituents straight through since 1984, when some of you were not even born yet. I myself was but a lad at the time. I actually had hair.

Whether you are a member of the class of 2015 or you have been walking these halls for 20-odd years like me, it is difficult to say goodbye to this chamber and this building that welcomed, educated and inspired us.

When they take their place in the interim chamber, the newly renovated West Block, the 338 members of Parliament who form Canada's 42nd Parliament will of course continue to serve their constituents to the best of their ability. That will not change. However, I know that like me, they will leave this place with a heavy heart.

I know we are not the only ones who have lumps in our throats today. The procedural clerks, the constables, the interpreters, the pages, the broadcasting team up there, the journalists in their gallery behind me and all those who work here, have all been our comrades in arms and they too must now make their farewells to what the chief architect of this building, John Pearson, referred to as the Parliament Building.

Our parliamentary family is starting a new chapter in its history. However, first we must finish this one and say au revoir to a place that has been so important to us.

As we prepare to leave this beautiful chamber and return to our ridings and our families, I encourage all members, and those who support them in this place, to pause, look around and savour the wonder that is the Parliament Building. It has taken good care of us for more than 100 years. It is now time we return the favour.

[Privilege, December 11th, 2018]

Before we begin private members' hour, I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on November 26, 2018, by the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley regarding the attendance in the House of Commons of the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel.

I want to thank the member for having raised the matter in the House, as well as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader, and the members for Chilliwack—Hope, Yukon and Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel for their observations.

The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley explained that, since announcing his resignation as a member of Parliament in April of this year, the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel has failed to fulfill the requirements of Standing Order 15 by not attending sittings in the House. All the while, he continues to receive his salary and benefits. Although acknowledging that valid exceptions to that rule exist, he believed that this prolonged and unexplained absence offends the reputation and dignity of the House and, thus, constitutes a contempt.

For his part, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader argued that the question of privilege was not raised at the earliest opportunity, as is required, and that it is the Board of Internal Economy that has the necessary powers and authority to deal with this type of administrative matter.

The member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel provided an explanation about how he has in fact been fulfilling certain parliamentary duties during his absence. Furthermore, he claimed in this statement to the House that he has not been receiving his salary as a member of Parliament during this time.

In terms of the issue of “first opportunity”, the Chair is satisfied that, in this case, a certain latitude is required to bring this matter forward given its evolving nature.

At the core of this matter is the obligation for members of Parliament to fulfill their parliamentary duties in part by attending sittings in the House. This seemingly simple statement carries with it enormous responsibility, from which even larger expectations emanate.

The third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at page 218, states:

…the presence of Members in the Chamber is largely a function of politics, not procedure or law.

While it may be hard to deny this reality, procedure and law do play their part. In fact, as noted by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, Standing Order 15 states:

Every Member, being cognizant of the provisions of the Parliament of Canada Act, is bound to attend the sittings of the House, unless otherwise occupied with parliamentary activities and functions or on public or official business.

This rule and the law on which it is based are straightforward, and they are sustained by valid expectations. They also come with a certain degree of latitude and, in cases of non-compliance, a need for understanding as to why. The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley offered his interpretation of the current situation, one that, at least to some degree, was speculative. While it is true that the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel had not been present in the House for some months, the reasons for his absence remained unclear to the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

In the past, when the House has had cause to question the right of members to continue to sit in the House, it has been for very different reasons, including allegations of violations to the Canada Elections Act and even accusations of sedition.

The charge of contempt against the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel is that he continued to receive his salary during an extended absence that remained unexplained. Even without knowing with some degree of certainty the reasons for a member's absence, it would be difficult to conclude that an absence is, in and of itself, sufficient justification for a finding of contempt, especially when this must be weighed against the accepted understanding that there are indeed valid absences.

In fact, during interventions on this matter, the House was asked to remember that there can be legitimate circumstances that require our understanding, even compassion, during a member’s lengthy absence. We were also called to remember that there is a necessary fluidity in the way we fulfill our responsibilities as members of Parliament.

The member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel provided the House with his reasons for his absence. While the Chair finds that there is no prima facie question of privilege, it needs to be clear that any latitude exercised by members in meeting their obligations should not be taken blindly as an acceptable approach. It cannot be used to hide behind the technicalities of our rules. To allow this would be a disservice to our fellow citizens whom we represent, as well as to other parliamentarians.

Finally, there is an administrative aspect of this matter, as has been suggested by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, one over which the Board of Internal Economy has authority, as derived from the Parliament of Canada Act. More specifically, the Board of Internal Economy is mandated to act on all financial and administrative matters respecting the members of the House of Commons, including their sessional allowances. This then makes it the proper forum to discuss such questions and for any relevant determinations to be made. The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley remains free to bring important issues of this nature to the attention of the board, as required.

I thank all hon. members for their attention.

The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

[Privilege, December 11th, 2018]

I have notice of a question of privilege by the hon. member for Perth—Wellington.

Before I go to him, I want to remind members of the rules that apply. In House of Commons of Procedure and Practice, Third Edition, edited by Bosc and Gagnon, at pages 144 and 145, it states:

A Member wishing to raise a question of privilege which does not arise out of the proceedings during the course of a sitting must give notice before bringing the question to the attention of the House. The Member must provide a written statement to the Speaker at least one hour before raising the question of privilege in the House. If such notice is not given, the Speaker will not allow the Member to proceed. Speakers have also ruled that oral notice is neither necessary nor sufficient. Questions of privilege for which written notice has been given are raised at specific times, namely on the opening of the sitting, following Routine Proceedings but before Orders of the Day, and immediately after Question Period. They are occasionally raised during a debate.

The notice submitted to the Speaker should contain four elements:

1. It should indicate that the Member is writing to give notice of his or her intention to raise a question of privilege.

2. It should state that the matter is being raised at the earliest opportunity.

3. It should indicate the substance of the matter that the Member proposes to raise by way of a question of privilege.

4. It should include the text of the motion which the Member must be ready to propose to the House should the Speaker rule that the matter is a prima facie case of privilege.

By providing the Chair with a context for the question of privilege and a proposed remedy for the problem, the Member assists the Speaker in dealing with the issue in an informed and expeditious manner. The inclusion of the text of the proposed motion allows the Speaker the opportunity to suggest changes to avoid any procedural difficulties in the wording; otherwise, the Member might be prevented or delayed from moving the motion should the Speaker rule the matter a prima facie question of privilege.

In this case, I received notice but not any indication of the substance of the matter. It seems to me that members have started to forget what these rules provide. While I will allow the member to proceed in this case, I am indicating to members that in future I expect them, of course, to follow what the rules provide, as I have read this morning.

The hon. member for Perth—Wellington.

[Privilege, November 27th, 2018]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on October 30, 2018, by the member for Milton regarding the government's response to written Question No. 1316, tabled in the House on January 29, 2018.

I want to thank the member for Milton for having raised the question, as well as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House for his response.

The member for Milton explained that she had submitted a written question asking the Minister of Environment and Climate Change for the titles of the individuals who had approved a particular tweet from November 7, 2017. In response, she received what she described as a non-answer, as it lacked the specific information requested. She explained further that the information she was looking for was recently provided to the CBC by the government through an access to information request. This she characterized as a deliberate attempt by the government to deny information to her and the House, and thus, a contempt of the House.

In response, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader argued that it is not the role of the Speaker to judge the quality of answers provided to Order Paper questions and that the answer was in fact duly tabled as per the rules of the House. He was also of the view that, through the two different processes—that is, written questions and access to information requests—different questions were asked and, thus, different answers provided.

The right of members to obtain timely and accurate information from the government, through whatever means, is essential to the proper functioning of our parliamentary system.

My predecessor made this point clearly on May 26, 2015, when he said, at page 14137 of Debates, and I quote:

Members place great importance on obtaining full and accurate information through answers to their written questions, a procedure that exists in part to allow members to fulfill their obligations as parliamentarians.

Despite this, the fact remains that under current practices the Speaker’s authority is limited in this respect. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice mentions at page 529:

There are no provisions in the rules for the Speaker to review government responses to questions.

In a ruling dated February 8, 2005, which can be found at page 3234 of Debates, Speaker Milliken further explained:

Any dispute regarding the accuracy or appropriateness of this response is a matter of debate. It is not something upon which the Speaker is permitted to pass judgment.

While I cannot conclude that there is a prima facie question of privilege, all members must have easy access to precise, relevant and complete information. Commensurate with this obligation is the government's responsibility to provide that information to members in support of their work as parliamentarians.

I thank members for their attention.

[Privilege, November 20th, 2018]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on November 1, 2018, by the hon. member for Windsor West concerning the use of alcohol and other substances within the parliamentary precinct. I want to thank the member for Windsor West for having raised the matter.

In his intervention, the member alleged that there had been several incidents recently, related to the use of alcohol within the parliamentary precinct that were inconsistent with Ontario laws and with keeping Parliament a safe workplace. While acknowledging that some work has already been done, he asked that I, as Speaker, report back to the House on this issue, as well as those he raised with me previously about providing a more holistic and consistent approach to the use of alcohol on the Hill.

As indicated by the member for Windsor West, he asked me in January of this year to address the issue of alcohol on Parliament Hill at the Board of Internal Economy. In response, I referred the member to his House leader, who is a member of the board. He indicated that some progress was made using this approach.

Subsection 52.3 of the Parliament of Canada Act gives the board, not the Speaker, the legal authority to:

...act on all financial and administrative matters respecting

(a) the House of Commons, its premises and its staff; and

(b) the members of the House of Commons.

Accordingly, the right forum to raise such matters as raised by the member for Windsor West remains the Board of Internal Economy.

While the member rightfully noted that not all members have a House leader who can raise issues on their behalf at the board, Speaker Parent reminded us on April 23, 1998, at page 6037 of the Debates that, “As a general rule I as Speaker of the House represent the independent members on the Board of Internal Economy.”

Members from caucuses not represented on the board and independent members should feel free to approach me at any time on any matter. I am pleased to be their spokesperson if they wish to be heard on this or any other issue. I also encourage them to make their views known to other board members.

While I cannot conclude that there is a prima facie question of privilege in this case, this does not mean the subject is not serious. Indeed, it is incumbent upon all of us to ensure that Parliament is a healthy and safe workplace for everyone. The special nature of the work performed here should never be used as a shield from this obligation, this priority. I look forward to our continued work on appropriate measures that will allow those who work here today, and in the future, to do so with ease of mind and a full sense of security.

I thank hon. members for their attention.

[Points of Order, November 8th, 2018]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on November 1, by the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé concerning the response to the New Democratic Party Vice-Chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food during oral questions.

I would like to thank the member for Berthier—Maskinongé for having raised the matter, as well as the members for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, Perth—Wellington and Durham for their observations.

Essentially, the member is asking for clarification on the Speaker's role with respect to oral questions, given that the NDP vice-chair was not permitted to finish his reply about committee business.

As I reminded members when this point of order was first raised, questions about committees are quite restricted. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition, at pages 512 and 513, is clear in this respect, stating:

Questions seeking information about the schedule and agenda of committees may be directed to Chairs of committees. Questions to the Ministry or to a committee Chair concerning the proceedings or work of a committee, including its order of reference, may not be raised.

Speaker Lamoureux, in a ruling on May 20, 1970, which can be found at page 7126 of Debates, explained the only questions that are acceptable when directed to the chairman of a committee are questions that relate to procedural matters, whether a meeting is to be held, whether a committee will be convened, at what time a committee will be held and so on.

The answers to such questions about committees must fall within these same prescribed limits. As indicated at page 1041 of Bosc and Gagnon:

During Oral Questions in the House, a committee Chair may answer questions, provided they deal with the committee’s agenda or schedule and not with the substance of its work.

The Speaker has the authority to judge the admissibility of questions, including those put to a committee chair. Deputy Speaker Blaikie informed the House on April 3, 2008, at page 4406 of Debates, that:

...in future when considering the procedural acceptability of such questions, the Chair intends to demand strict adherence to the intended practice, namely, the scheduling and agenda of committee meetings.

However, it is not up to the Chair to judge the quality or content of answers, save for unparliamentary language. The constant challenge for the Chair is, on the one hand, to uphold the limits placed on questions asked about committees, and on the other hand, to refrain from judging the quality of the answers. Perhaps it is this that explains, at least in part, the approach of the Chair in according chairs and vice-chairs the benefit of the doubt. It is an approach the Chair will uphold going forward.

The rapid pace of question period, given the 35-second limit on both questions and answers, requires the Chair to make quick decisions, and it is always with the intent of respecting our rules and practices. It is in this context that I, as Speaker, look forward to working with all members to ensure that our practices are followed in any exchanges of information about committees.

I thank members for their attention.

[Point of Order, November 6th, 2018]

Turning now to the point of order, the hon. member asked me to divide the question on the bill pursuant to Standing Order 69.1 on omnibus bills. He argued that specific measures in the bill, namely clauses 461 and 462 dealing with protections for workers, and clauses 535 to 625, dealing with the head of compliance and enforcement, did not appear to arise out of measures announced in the budget. Therefore, in his view, these sections should be separated out for a distinct vote. He felt that there were likely other matters contained in the bill that were unrelated to the budget, but the short timeline had not permitted him the opportunity to make a thorough review.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader responded by saying that there was, indeed, a link between these measures and what was promised in the budget. In the case of the provisions relating to the head of compliance and enforcement, he indicated that the government had signalled its intention to amend and modernize the Canada Labour Code in last year’s budget and that these provisions were in response to that commitment.

Standing Order 69.1 allows the Speaker to divide the questions on the motions for second and third reading of a bill when there is no common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked. Paragraph (2) of that Standing Order provides an exemption for budget implementation bills, by which the question cannot be divided if the bill contains only provisions announced in the budget or referenced in the budget documents.

On November 8, 2017, in a ruling regarding Bill C-63 found at pages 15165 to 15167 of the Debates, I explained that:

I believe the purpose of the standing order is to allow such a division in relation to those matters which are unrelated to the budget, accepting that the purpose of the remainder of the bill is to implement the budget.

Therefore, the only question at issue is whether the provisions identified by the hon. member have any link to the budget presented in this place on February 27. If they do, then I would not separate them out for a distinct vote.

As I mentioned in the ruling last year, establishing such a link is not always obvious. The budget document is over 360 pages, accompanied by nearly 80 pages of supplemental tax information. Sometimes commitments are very specific and targeted, while other times the language may be vaguer. A generally stated policy intention may translate into a series of detailed and technical legislative amendments. Accordingly, a provision announced in a few sentences may require pages of legislative changes to implement. It is with this in mind that I have reviewed the provisions identified by the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

Clause 461 of the bill creates a new division VI.1 in the Canada Labour Code relating to temporary help agencies. The provisions seem to deal largely with matters relating to pay equity. Page 43 of the budget indicates that pay equity legislation will “include job types such as seasonal, temporary, part-time and full-time positions”. While this measure falls outside the pay equity act enacted by clause 416 and related measures in clauses 417 to 440, it seems reasonable to conclude that it is part of a series of provisions dealing with equal pay for equal work and fair treatment in the workplace, in line with the objective announced in the budget.

Clause 462 changes a heading in the Canada Labour Code relating to maternity leave and other types of leave. For many years, it was our practice that headings were not subject to amendment, as they were not considered to be part of a bill. However, in recent years, it has become more common to see clauses or amendments that change headings. In fact, this particular heading had previously been changed by Bill C-63.

The substance of the present change seems to be to group a list of different types of leave into a more concise heading. The parliamentary secretary noted that page 46 of the budget indicated that:

…the Government proposes to amend the Canada Labour Code to ensure that workers in federally regulated industries have the job protection they need while they are receiving EI parental benefits.

I am prepared to accept that the heading change flows, at least partially, out of this commitment.

Clauses 535 to 637 amend the Canada Labour Code to allow a minister to designate a head of compliance and enforcement and spell out this person’s powers and responsibilities. Some of these relate to harassment and violence in the workplace. Page 236 of the budget makes reference to “…protecting federally regulated employees from harassment and violence in the workplace” and at least some of these measures clearly align with that objective. However, the parliamentary secretary’s main argument for not separating out these provisions is that they fulfill a commitment made in budget 2017 to strengthen compliance and enforcement mechanisms in the Labour Code.

The parliamentary secretary’s contention is that the exemption in the Standing Order applies to a bill whose purpose is the implementation of “a budget”, inferring it need not be this year’s budget. I think this is a bit of a stretch.

The title of Bill C-86 references the “budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018”. Clearly, the main purpose of the bill is to implement this year’s budget, not last year’s. I do not believe the intention of the Standing Order was to also exempt provisions from previous budgets.

Had the commitments been repeated in this year’s budget, I may have been inclined to accept his arguments, but that does not appear to be the case. For that reason, I am prepared to allow a separate vote on the provisions contained in subdivision B of division 15 of part 4.

Accordingly, given that a reasoned amendment has been moved, there will be three votes at second reading for this bill. The first will deal with the reasoned amendment. If it is defeated, the second vote will deal with all provisions relating to the head of compliance and enforcement in the Canada Labour Code, which includes clauses 535 to 625 of the bill, while the third will deal with all remaining provisions of the bill.

I thank hon. members for their attention.

[Privilege, November 6th, 2018]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege as well as the point of order raised on October 31, 2018, by the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby regarding Bill C-86, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures.

I would like to thank the member for having raised the matter as well as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House for his observations.

In regard to his question of privilege, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby contended that the government's intent to allow a few days of debate on Bill C-86 would not allow for sufficient scrutiny of its clauses, given the length of the bill, at 850 pages. As parliamentarians have a fundamental right and responsibility to examine legislation, he concluded that a bill of this size is more than an omnibus bill and constitutes an obstruction to his ability to perform his parliamentary duties.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader assured the House that time will be available for the bill to be considered at each stage of the legislative process and, thus, the member’s privileges are not being breached.

Let me begin by saying that I appreciate the member for New Westminster—Burnaby’s concern with his ability to scrutinize a bill of this magnitude thoroughly and, in turn, debate with confidence. This is a massive bill, the largest budget implementation bill to date.

That said, the rules and practices of the House have yet to address the issue of limits on length of legislation. Even with the addition of Standing Order 69.1, which grants the Speaker some authority with respect to omnibus legislation, there is no mechanism for the Chair to deal with legislation based solely on its size. This is no less true when there is a supposition being made about the limited amount of time that will be allowed for debate on any given bill. Whether or not a reasonable amount of time has been allowed for debate is not a question that the Chair can answer, even now when members are being asked to digest a “gargantuan bill”, as the member for New Westminster—Burnaby called it.

As my predecessor said on June 12, 2014, at page 6717 of the Debates, “it is the House that retains that authority and therefore must continue to make that determination as to when and if a bill has received adequate consideration.” For these reasons, I cannot conclude that the objection raised constitutes a prima facie contempt of the House.

[Points of Order, November 6th, 2018]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised raised on October 31, 2018, by the hon. member for Perth—Wellington, concerning the meeting of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association held on October 30, 2018.

I would like to thank the member for Perth—Wellington for having raised this matter, as well as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the members for Chilliwack—Hope, Durham, Cape Breton—Canso, Kitchener—Conestoga, Langley—Aldergrove, Prince Albert, Calgary Nose Hill, Mégantic—L'Érable, Brandon—Souris, Etobicoke-Centre, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, Elmwood—Transcona and West Nova for their comments.

When raising the matter, the member for Perth—Wellington explained that during the meeting of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association held on October 30, a point of order was raised about the validity of the meeting. He added that the chair of the association, who is the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ruled that the meeting had not been properly constituted and therefore adjourned the meeting. The member for Perth—Wellington alleged that one of the vice-chairs, the member for Etobicoke Centre, reconvened the group and held an illegitimate meeting during which a motion was passed to remove the chair and elect the presiding vice-chair as the new chair.

With the website of the association having been updated in consequence, the member for Perth—Wellington asked that, pursuant to Standing Order 151, the Speaker order the Clerk of the House to undo the changes made to the parliamentary records on the association's website and to advise the NATO Parliamentary Assembly that the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill would remain the chair and the head of Canada's delegation at the 2018 session to be held in Halifax from November 16 to 19, 2018.

In addressing the matter again on November 5, he explained further in what ways he felt that the provisions of the association's constitution had been violated, including the lack of authority for vice-chairs to call meetings.

In his response, the member for Etobicoke Centre indicated that, as per our parliamentary customs and conventions, in his view, chairs of parliamentary associations are members of the governing party. Accordingly, he argued that, in deciding to become an opposition member, the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill should have resigned her position as chair of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association. In addition, he believed that her decision to rule the meeting out of order contravened rules and procedures and, as a result, the resumption of the meeting, as well as the procedures followed during the resumed meeting, were legitimate.

Essentially, what I am being asked to do by the member for Perth—Wellington is to assume an authority as Speaker to regulate a matter internal to a parliamentary association. The only way to answer that is to understand the role of the Speaker and its inherent limitations, as well as the relationship of parliamentary associations to the House.

Let me begin by saying that I take great pride in the role played by Parliament as an active participant on the international scene and as a leader in parliamentary democracy. This notable work by our parliamentarians is achieved through various avenues, including our well respected parliamentary associations and interparliamentary groups.

Complementary to that is the Speaker’s role in parliamentary democracy, with respect to which House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states at page 311:

…the Speaker is the representative or spokesperson for the House in its relations with authorities or persons outside Parliament.

Does this distinct role of the Speaker then intersect in such a way with Standing Order 151 as to grant the Speaker the authority being sought? That rule states:

The Clerk of the House is responsible for the safekeeping of all the papers and records of the House, and has the direction and control over all the officers and clerks employed in the offices, subject to such orders as the Clerk may, from time to time, receive from the Speaker or the House.

Specifically, does this translate, in this instance, to an authority over parliamentary association matters? Associations, unlike committees, are not “creatures” of the House. In fact, the Standing Orders fall just short of being silent about them, with only Standing Order 34(1) requiring them to report their activities to the House upon their return to Canada following a trip abroad.

Parliamentary committees, in contrast, are created by the House and empowered by its Standing Orders. Even then, as they are generally masters of their own proceedings, the Speaker does not normally reach into the business of committees unless and until a committee sees fit to report a matter to the House and there is a specific mechanism in the rules of the House for them to do just that. The fact that there is not a similar provision for parliamentary associations is telling. Some argued that being an honorary president of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association, confers on the Speaker of the House an authority over parliamentary associations which allow, even obligate, me to rule on this matter. But does it?

As members well know, the scope of the Speaker’s ability to enforce and interpret the rules and practices of the House is confined to those deliberations defined as parliamentary proceedings, that is, those that are found to be what is truly necessary to the role of members as legislators. Erskine May’s 24th edition at pages 235 and 236 states:

The primary meaning of proceedings, as a technical parliamentary term…is some formal action, usually a decision, taken by the House in its collective capacity.... An individual Member takes part in a proceeding usually by speech, but also by various recognized forms of formal action, such as voting, giving notice of a motion, or presenting a petition or report from a committee, most of such actions being time-saving substitutes for speaking.

The work of parliamentary associations, while important in many respects, falls outside this definition of a parliamentary proceeding. This imposes a distinct relationship between associations and the House, through the Speaker.

Speaker Parent pointed out in his April 23, 1998, ruling, found at page 6035 of the Debates, and I quote:

The creation of Canadian interparliamentary groups is governed by certain administrative bodies within the House of Commons and the Senate. ... Interparliamentary relations are carried on under the responsibility of Parliament. There are decision making processes governing their administration.

Specifically, these processes lie first and foremost with the Joint Interparliamentary Council, commonly referred to as JIC, as well as the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration and the House of Commons Board of Internal Economy. The latter two not only created the JIC in 1995 but continue to be the bodies through which the JIC derives its authority. In practical terms, the Joint Interparliamentary Council receives its funding from both Houses but is the governing body empowered to determine all budgetary and administrative matters relating to parliamentary associations.

The meetings and activities of associations are framed by constitutions containing rules specific to each association, ones that typically specify the mandate of the association, its composition and its rules of procedure, amongst others. In no way is the House, or am I as its Speaker and servant, involved in the establishment or adjudication of these rules, even if they mirror or are inspired by certain rules of the House. This independence of associations from the House is reflected in the fact that the rules and practices governing each association are decided by their members.

It is clear to the Chair that the disputed matters relating to the October 30 meeting of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association should be resolved in a forum other than the House. A general assembly of the association or, alternatively, a meeting of its executive committee, both that can be convened at the request of members, are such forums. Should these avenues fail to settle the matter, any recourse clearly falls under the purview of the Board of Internal Economy, and specifically the Joint Interparliamentary Council, the governing body which reports to the Board of Internal Economy.

Speaker Parent reminded members in the April 23, 1998, ruling referenced earlier, that the matter would be better raised in another forum. He said at page 6035 of the Debates:

My duty however is to confine myself to the jurisprudence which exists and governs the operation of privilege. Given the preoccupation over these matters, I would suggest that this particular issue must be handled through a different avenue, namely the Board of Internal Economy, which holds statutory responsibility for such matters.

It was made clear even then, that while interparliamentary relations are carried on under the responsibility of Parliament, certain decision-making bodies governing associations are in place, namely the Joint Interparliamentary Council and the Board of Internal Economy. That aside, it would be regrettable if this procedural and, some might say, political impasse was to injure in any way the ability of parliamentarians to pursue together their important role in promoting and defending the interests of our country abroad.

I thank all hon. members for their attention in this matter.