Evidence of meeting #24 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was breach.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:20 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Chair, I haven't yet heard you say that you've received the referral from the House, but I'm assuming that has happened and that we have the referral. My suggestion would be that we move to that right away and begin to deal with it.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
12:20 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I can if you wish.
The most important thing I have to say is really not even my words. I think we all understand the seriousness, and I think that was reflected in the Prime Minister's third apology.
To get things started, I'd like to read a statement from Madame Brosseau and then I will have it circulated. I'd like to read it first so that it's very clear this is her statement, which I'm reading on her behalf. It's pretty self-explanatory. I'll have a few comments after that, and then let's see where we go from there.
I am quoting a statement from Ruth-Ellen Brosseau, the MP for Berthier—Maskinongé, and it reads as follows:
The matter that is before PROC today is focused on a breach of the rights that are afforded to Members of Parliament. If anything impedes a Parliamentarian from carrying out the role their constituents elected them to undertake, it constitutes a serious matter.
In this case it was the Prime Minister himself that caused this breach when his inappropriate physical intervention with Conservative Whip Gordon Brown on the floor of the House of Commons resulted in physical contact that caused me to miss a vote.
The details of the unprecedented physical interaction between the Prime Minister and members of the opposition are well documented, and such an incident would not be acceptable in any workplace. It left many Members stunned and raised important questions about the conduct of the Prime Minister in a House that was already confronted with unprecedented government measures to limit debate.
I am pleased that PROC is moving forward to deal with the referral of the incident today. I believe that this, coupled with the Prime Ministers' admission that his conduct was unacceptable, provide closure to this issue. I accept his apology and look forward to returning my focus to representing the people of Berthier—Maskinongé.
It is my sincere hope that all Members will work to ensure that we never see this conduct repeated, and also that we take this opportunity to recommit to improving the tone of debate in Parliament.
I have one other thing to say, and then I'll just open the floor.
Madame Brosseau is not able to be with us today. She is actually in China on parliamentary trade matters on behalf of Parliament.
Obviously, Chair, I'll just say that the motion itself makes direct reference to Madame Brosseau, and certainly our caucus is taking its lead from the member for Berthier—Maskinongé. It is her wish and her belief that all of the attention and the fact that we're focused on this here now...as well as the fact that, although it required three attempts, nonetheless, a comprehensive apology was given.
On a personal note, I just want to note the question from Madame Petitpas Taylor. Following the Prime Minister's comment, she got up and asked him whether, given what was going on in the House, there was anything mitigating that had happened, that would affect and mitigate his culpability, his responsibility. I think that was the essence of the question.
To his credit, the answer came back unequivocally that, no, the Prime Minister acknowledged that his actions stood alone, were unacceptable, and required a full apology.
He made that apology, and I'm here to advise colleagues that my colleague, Ruth Ellen Brosseau, considers that apology and this hearing today to be sufficient to close the matter and move forward, with the caveat that, hopefully, we won't see a repeat by anyone.
I think maybe that's a good place for me to end, Chair, and obviously I reserve my right to speak again toward the end if necessary.
Thank you.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Arnold Chan Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
First of all I want to thank you, Mr. Christopherson, on behalf of not only myself but of all the members of the government for reading Madam Brosseau's statement into the record today. We know that what transpired on May 18 was not a good day for Parliament, for all of us. For example, I look at our conduct yesterday. We know that we behaved much better yesterday, let's put it that way, and I hope that this becomes the standard of practice for all of us in the House of Commons.
I understand we all have very strong personalities and we get into heated debates. Things that led up to the circumstances on May 18 caused tempers for many of the members to rise for various reasons. It is what it is. We all know what transpired that day. I take the fact that starting from the Prime Minister all the way down to all of the members involved, we want to move on and that we need to conduct ourselves in a much more respectful manner. I hope it's a learning moment for all of us.
We're sure to get into instances again in the future, to be blunt, where we will feel strongly about particular issues, but at the end of the day I hope that we're all respectful enough to one another that we can have differences of opinion, that this is the forum in which we express those differences of opinion. When we cast our ballot, which is the ultimate expression of our democratic values in Parliament, we should try to avoid the circumstances that arose that particular day. I'm grateful for the statement from Madam Brosseau. I hope I speak for my colleagues that if this is the way in which those who were most affected by the actions of the Prime Minister, to whom you know he unreservedly apologized...then we accept that and thank you for it.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
I have a question to Mr. Christopherson and then, depending on his response, I have a second question to him.
Madam Brosseau's statement is not as clear as I think she may have intended it to be on the question that I'm going to ask you right now. Is it her preference that this committee desist as of today from pursuing this matter and that this be our final meeting on the issue? I'm not clear whether that is the case, so we should ask that.
12:30 p.m.
NDP
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
12:30 p.m.
NDP
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
In that case, might I suggest that today we learned from Mr. Bosc—others may have known this but I did not—that as a committee we make a decision as to whether or not we continue to pursue matters of privilege. I think the appropriate way of making a decision to not pursue a matter of privilege should always be to not simply let it drop but to actually formally bring it to conclusion by means of a motion. The motion could simply be that the issue of privilege presently before us, beyond which issue it is—
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Or something to that effect. I'll leave it to you to do it. The point is to say that it ends here. We do it by means of a motion and the majority agrees and it makes it very clear.
Would you be willing to move a motion to that effect?
12:30 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I would. I think what you're suggesting, and I'm probably on the same wavelength, is that the idea of letting it just drop and that's how it ends is not healthy, that it would be better if we issue a report and in that report we can say whatever we decide. If it's consistent with what Ruth Ellen is asking for, then it would recognize her statement. We could probably include it in the report. Then following that, if there is a motion, if there is the opportunity, send a report to the House. It has some merit.
What's the alternative? Could we still move a motion and not go to the House?
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Arnold Chan Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
We could report back. We don't have to, but we could choose to report back.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
I think Mr. Reid's suggestion is more in line with the spirit of what you would like because if you do a report any member of the House can call a three-hour debate on it and someone drags it all out.
12:30 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I'm just seeing it. I wish I had that before. We'll talk about advice and timing after this meeting, but I'm just going to bite the bullet and acknowledge that we prefer not to do a report too.
12:30 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I may need some guidance in terms of an appropriate type of motion, but let me try. It is: that the committee considers the matter of the privilege referral from the House on—and fill in the date—to have been resolved and that it is the opinion of the committee that no further action is required.
12:35 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
That's something I'm hoping to change, but that's off the top of my head, Chair.
Then we could just end it with a motion and call it a day.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Arnold Chan Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
I'm substantively in agreement. I just want to suggest maybe a slight modification to allow the opportunity for Ruth Ellen's statement to get on the record, as well as just to simply acknowledge the apology of the Prime Minister and that it has been accepted by Ruth Ellen and now we consider the matter to be closed. Something like that.