Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 21st, 2017

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

The sleeves are just as long.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

The sleeves are just as long.

But he was a very popular premier initially.

Of course, as with any government, after time you do find challenges, but he was very popular in 1995 and could not get his preferred candidate elected as Speaker on the secret ballot. After time, things changed. That Speaker resigned after allegations of sexual harassment, so we found the opportunity once again to have another election for a Speaker. It provided us the opportunity again to see a mid-term election of the Speaker, something we don't see, or haven't seen federally, but it provided a mid-term evaluation of an election under a secret ballot.

We were only a couple of years into the term, and the premier still decided that Margaret Marland was his preferred candidate. He privately and publicly let it be known. He advocated on her behalf. Other candidates were still left out of cabinet and were still interested in being the Speaker of the Ontario legislature. Among them were David Tilson, now a colleague of ours here in Ottawa, and Chris Stockwell. There were eight candidates: Derwyn Shea, PC, Gary Leadston, PC, Jack Carroll, PC, Floyd Laughren, NDP, and Gilles Morin, Liberal. It was a fairly large balance as well. Again, it was clear who the preference was.

As well, it took seven ballots to elect the new Speaker, showing a significant amount of diversity of views in that election. Interestingly, not only did the Ontario legislature not elect the premier's preferred choice, but they elected someone who was significantly at odds with the premier, a gentleman by the name of Chris Stockwell, who had a long and acrimonious relationship with Premier Harris. He was not appointed to cabinet in 1995, and he took it quite personally. He was quite despondent and was publicly known to criticize the premier on a number of fronts, most controversially on the subject of the Karla Homolka plea bargain deal, a terrible sex crime murder in Ontario where the two governments, the NDP and the Conservatives, accepted a plea bargain deal. He was very publicly critical of the premier. He criticized the premier publicly on his change to MPP pension plans. In fact, the media said that the only reason he ran was to publicly spite the premier.

Chris Stockwell was elected as the Speaker of the Ontario legislature. The MPP for Hamilton West at the time, a certain Mr. Christopherson, was caught in Hansard yelling out as a heckle—

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

You had to work that in there, didn't you?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I worked it in. He was apparently known to heckle in the Ontario legislature. I don't know if he does that here in the House. We don't sit close enough to each other.

He yelled out in the House,“I bet Mike wishes he put you in cabinet now.” That was immediately after the election. Certainly, given Speaker Stockwell's rulings throughout his time as Speaker, I suspect the premier wished he had put him in cabinet.

Again, this gentleman was exactly the last person the premier would have wanted as Speaker of the Ontario legislature. His own backbench elected, with the support certainly of the opposition MPPs, the one least likely to agree with the premier and to be acquiescent to those people. It didn't go unnoticed in the media. Tom Walkom from the Toronto Star paid close attention to this and wrote:

Tory backbenchers sent a message to Premier Mike Harris this week—a message that they can't be taken for granted. They did so in a painless way, one which will prevent Harris (who is unforgiving with those that cross him) from taking revenge.

Having this opportunity to have a secret ballot actually provides a degree of courage so that individual parliamentarians can vote their conscience without fear of reprisal. Even if MPs or MPPs are confident that party leadership will not go against them or harm them in future considerations, you can't always be entirely sure that's going to happen going forward.

I think Mike Harris learned his lesson after that. After the 1999 provincial election, there was once again an opportunity for Harris to name his cabinet, and he decided that it would be better to have Speaker Stockwell as a member of cabinet rather than as Speaker, so after 1999, there was another election for Speaker. This time there were only two candidates running: David Tilson, our colleague from Dufferin—Caledon in the federal legislature; and Gary Carr, who also served in this House, from 2004 to 2006, as a Liberal MP. He was a Conservative provincially and served briefly in the 2004 to 2006 Parliament before being defeated in 2006.

It was very much a vote between Mr. Tilson, who at the time was the caucus chair for the PC Party, versus Mr. Carr, who was seen as being more critical of the premier. The Toronto Star referred to him as Stockwell part two. He was described as a maverick who had voted against the government and had been outspoken in his criticism of the premier's office. At the time, Tilson was seen as the team player. He was seen to be supportive of the premier and had the opportunity to work closely with the government, with the different ministers, and was the preferred choice.

There were only Conservative candidates. The opposition New Democrats and Liberals certainly had a role to play, but again, the Conservatives had the majority. When the votes were counted once again, the premier's preferred choice was not chosen, and we saw Mr. Gary Carr become the Speaker and prove to be a bit of a thorn in the side of the Mike Harris Conservatives for the next four years.

I have five minutes. I will try to get through our stroll down political speakership lane before this evening's suspension.

Now we move from the 1999 election to 2003. The Conservatives were defeated. Premier Eves ran in that election and lost to Premier McGuinty. Mr. McGuinty was elected with a majority and made it very publicly known that his preferred Speaker was a long-time Liberal MPP, who I referenced in my last paper, Alvin Curling. Mr. Curling was certainly the sentimental favourite, so much so that no one else ran against him. There were suggestions that the premier's office, and those around them, were quietly making it known that other candidates shouldn't put their names forward. Nonetheless, it was an uncontested race for Speaker.

There was some concern that it could be a slow reversion to the former method of the premier indicating his or her choice and it going through on a wink and a nod. At the same time, this particular choice was respected by the Liberal caucus as a whole, so it does provide the opportunity, potentially, that it may have been let slide.

Curling retired early to seek a diplomatic posting, so there was an election. Once again a number of candidates put their names forward. This time, the premier's preferred choice was Mike Brown. He was elected and served for the remainder of that mandate.

What is interesting is that at the next provincial election, 2007, the Liberals were once again re-elected with a majority. Mike Brown was re-elected as an MPP and he put his name forward once again for the office of Speaker. At the same time the premier, as is the premier's discretion, shuffled his cabinet and left out Steve Peters. Steve Peters had served as minister of labour and as minister of agriculture prior to the 2007 election. He was booted from cabinet rather unceremoniously, which Mr. Peters was not very pleased with. Nonetheless, he decided to put his name forward for Speaker instead. In the past under the Mike Harris time frame we saw Peters as somewhat of a radical, somewhat of a maverick, who might be seen as more friendly to the opposition parties, so certainly, the opposition would have supported him.

Again, we see the backbench Liberals through the benefit of a secret ballot going forward and endorsing and voting for a candidate who was very much not the preferred choice of the premier, so much so that the backbench actually ousted a sitting Speaker, something that's not very commonly done. In fact, because of the size of the Liberal government at the time, about a third of the Liberal caucus actually had to break ranks in order to support Speaker Peters. It shows there was a significant degree of dissent there.

In fact, Mr. Speaker Peters actually gave credit to being booted from cabinet for his motivation to do so. In his farewell address to the legislature, he said he wanted to thank the premier for October 28, 2007, at 4:10 in the afternoon, to be exact. That was the day he was dropped from cabinet. He referred to his bitterness at the time and said that in the long run while he thought it was a failure to reappoint him, it presented him with an opportunity to be seized upon. Instead of sitting in the backbenches, he ran for Speaker. He may not have had an actual desire to serve as Speaker, but it was shown as a sign of dissent against the premier's office.

We've seen examples here, and I could mention other examples, but maybe I can do that another day. In each case we have an example of a standing order change that significantly affects how parliamentarians, how individuals conduct themselves and how they conduct themselves as a whole in the legislature. It provides an alternative venue for dissent and for grievances to be aired through the benefit of a secret ballot.

I'm going to leave it there, Mr. Chair. I thank you for your indulgence this evening. I appreciate it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you very much. It had some relevance, and was a very fascinating discussion on how the election of Speakers has changed over the years.

The green and white buses will be running for half an hour after the meeting. Get there early to get to the parking lot.

We had a motion tabled earlier by Filomena Tassi and we were waiting for the clerk's ruling. It was ruled in order. Tomorrow we'll meet in this room, 237-C, from nine until 11. The meeting will be televised.

After that, we will suspend until Tuesday at 9 a.m., and that meeting will be televised as far as I—

Yes, Mr. Richards.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

I know it's a long way away, or it seems a long way away now, and who knows what could happen in the interim, but you said Tuesday at 9 a.m. Your intention, I assume, would be to run similarly to what you've done this week if it happens to be necessary.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

At this moment, I can't say for sure, but that's what I'm thinking.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Okay, I understand.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I have nothing to think otherwise.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

It's just to get a sense of things.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I'm sure you'll come to a consensus before then.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

We all hope so.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

On division.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I see the clock is at midnight.

We'll suspend until 9 a.m.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Order. We're resuming the 55th meeting.

It's good to see everyone here this morning bright and early.

[An hon. member]

We just left.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Yes. I'm sure that if I asked for unanimous consent to keep on the same schedule after the filibuster is over, we'd get all our work done.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

You'd be known as Larry Bagnell, former chair of PROC.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We had a request for next Tuesday from the deputy speaker of the Austrian Parliament, who would like us to meet at 1:30, which is only half an hour before we break for QP. I propose that we do what we did this week and perhaps suspend half an hour early. We'll meet with him or her in this room—I don't even know if it's a him or a her—so that anyone who wants to be here informally can be here.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Chair, is that the speaker's request that we meet at 1:30? Half an hour is very tight. If we can make it an hour, that would be preferable, unless it's their scheduling concern.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

They asked for 1:30, but I agree with you, I'll suggest that they come at one o'clock. Oh wait, he's meeting with Mayor Watson at one. That's too bad.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Oh, so we can't meet. All right.

We could invite Mayor Watson.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We can tell them both to come. We'll do it all at once.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Okay. That explains it.