Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 28th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thanks very much, Mr. Janse.

Ms. Gaudreau, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Speaker of the House of Commons, thank you for being here.

This is an important topic we're discussing right now. I think you know me well, since we sat together for a long time on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

I've been here for almost five years. Not only have things not changed in terms of free debate in the House of Commons, but now the climate and the abuses are scaring me. I dare say that, as I have students visiting me almost every week. I have a visit coming up later, and I look forward to an information session with them because I am ashamed of our behaviour. If I were to ask you in secret if you are proud of who we are, I am sure that, like all of us, you would say, “not at all, but this is the game”.

How can we respect a relevant and interesting debate, and have the opposition do its job and wait for answers to questions? All of that is the very basis for abuses when it comes to harassment because it continues behind the scenes. We have seen how much control we have over our social networks. We are not there yet. The Sergeant-at-Arms said that there would be between 700 and 800 additional investigations regarding social networks. Are we going 700 to 800 times faster to find solutions? No, we want to keep the tradition.

It's over. Who will be our successors?

From now on, I would like to say that I am proud to be in the House of Commons, but at the end of the day, I could never tell the Bloc Québécois that. In addition, people's behaviour makes no sense. Now that I've said it, it has done me good. I can't wait until the end of the session to recharge my batteries and see where we'll be.

We will submit priorities, perhaps even have a committee and include the notion of member-to-member relationships. However, for the moment, what can we do as a preventive measure to avoid the abuses that are just beginning?

My question is for you, Mr. Speaker. What do you intend to do?

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

First of all, Ms. Gaudreau, thank you for your candour and for sharing your experience of the House of Commons with groups of school children who come to watch meetings.

Your question is of great concern to me, especially as Speaker of the House of Commons. You are not the only person who is asking yourself these kinds of questions; in my discussions with members from each of the political parties, everyone raises this issue.

It is up to us, as members of Parliament, to make choices, to have passionate and profound discussions, to demand accountability, especially from a government, to receive clear answers and to create an environment where it is really the ideas that are being attacked, not the individual. As a member of the Bloc Québécois, you know perfectly well that, here in Ottawa, ideas are what matters. It's up to all of us to elevate the debate.

There are some ways to do that. I think it helps when there is more interaction between members so that they are not formally locked into their role with each other. They could have meals together, travel together on a committee or a parliamentary association, and get to know each other better. It's not something specific that can be regulated, but it's so very important. It's the glue that holds the political system together.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you very much.

I can tell you that there is a power that each of us has, but there is also the power to proceed with deliberations. I'll give you a scoop: In the Bloc Québécois, listening, respect and freedom of expression are everywhere. We would never experience what we are experiencing right now in the House of Commons. I am no better than anyone else; I am the chair of our caucus.

So I challenge you to make a 180-degree turn that could also enable us to establish a code of conduct and regulations, which we can then choose to comply with or not. That's all.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much, Ms. Gaudreau.

Ms. Mathyssen, it's over to you for six minutes.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for appearing today.

I'll reference a point that Ms. Rempel Garner brought forward with the previous panel. It's important for us to not use this really important study to play partisan games.

I'm glad to see you here within your role as the Speaker of this institution and have you give us advice as you see things from your experience.

I want to get to some of the things that you said, because they concern me. There is this idea that we are all surrounded by those long-standing traditions, which you talked about, and the history. We have an incredible responsibility to uphold them to some degree, but also to represent the people who sent us here, of whom I am so incredibly proud all the time, and make the changes needed to help them make their lives better. Those changes and this institution then have to evolve with the society we represent.

As an institution that is patriarchal and colonial and that has seen some dark times, as our society has, how do we ensure that we are doing both? How do we find that balance?

This conversation about harassment hinges on that, I think. It is about respect. It is about understanding that we are all truly equal.

How do we balance that?

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

That's a very good question.

We have these important traditions, which long precede even the existence of Canada. They've withstood the test of time, but we always have to continually take a look at how we can modernize these institutions to make them more reflective of how Canadians live and work each day in their own workplaces.

We need to make sure that we always have that balance. It's just not easy. I don't have a quick answer, but I agree it would be very useful.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

For me, there's this clean delineation. Do we put forward some rules? Do we put our minds to putting forward written-down rules?

There was this idea that it seemed like we were getting to a point whereby this was almost about peer pressure. We had expectations of other members, and they didn't cross that line.

Is that where we are, in your opinion, within your role?

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

I think we can do both.

One aspect of it, of course, is that the committee can make recommendations to Parliament about changing the members' code of conduct and set out some guidelines. You don't want a tax code of, “You shall not do this or this in this kind of situation,” but maybe some aspirational aspects of what we would want members to live up to. Allow the Board of Internal Economy to then try to operationalize that, and allow for members to pursue that.

The other aspect of it is that there has to be some notion of peer pressure from member to member in terms of how we comport ourselves and how we expect others to comport themselves.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

I think we have an obligation to change this institution to be what it needs to be, what we want it to be. To simply elect all kinds of incredible people from diverse backgrounds and what have you, and to place them in the same old institution and then make them almost a victim of that and those long-standing, potential, dark histories is a problem.

Are there mechanisms? Could we consider what electoral reform would bring to that? Should we consider consensus building in more of an indigenous tradition of how this place operates? How difficult would that be?

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

That's a really big question, Ms. Mathyssen. I have five seconds. I would say really, really quickly....

Oh, I have a minute. Thank you.

I would say a couple of things.

First, let's not completely turn our backs. This institution has evolved. It has evolved significantly over the last 157 years. Does it always match the times in which we live? No. There is a lag. However, it has evolved, and I think it has evolved for reasons that you pointed out. We're electing more people of.... Electing more women, for example, has made a significant difference to what it is be to be a member of Parliament today for London—Fanshawe as opposed to your predecessor and how she might have felt back in the day. There has been change.

What we're trying to do here is take a look at whether we can go further. The challenge, and I think the real objective, for all of us here is this: Can you negotiate yourself into a new sweet spot? Can you propose something that respects the traditions but allows for this modernization that is so necessary? That's a challenge. I don't think there's going to be an easy solution here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker.

I'm used to you telling me that time is running out. It's nice to return the favour.

Mr. Jivani, it's over to you for five minutes.

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Speaker, your job is to oversee the parliamentary precinct, to be a referee in the House of Commons and to oversee the House of Commons harassment policy.

When performing these duties, would you agree that it's important to remain neutral?

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

Of course I would agree that it's important to remain impartial. I hope that all the decisions I have pronounced in this place would be judged by any fair-minded person as being decisions that could stand the test of time and that were impartial.

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Durham, ON]

As part of this, you no longer attend the weekly meetings with Liberal MPs, caucus meetings, for example.

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

Absolutely.

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Durham, ON]

With regard to the harassment policy, would you agree with me that it's important for the accuser and the accused to have confidence that they will be treated fairly according to the harassment policy, regardless of what party they are a member of?

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

I would hope they would feel that the process that was set up is one that allows them to feel free to express themselves and to raise the issue, and allows for it to be properly disputed.

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Today there is an ongoing debate about your partisan actions and whether you should remain as Speaker. There will be a vote later today on that. The story for the fundraising event and the highly partisan language used was that it went out in error and that it was a commonly used template.

Have you been given assurances by the Liberal Party that this is, in fact, the story and that this template was widely used by other MPs?

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

You will forgive me, Mr. Jivani, but this is a matter that is before the House. It wouldn't be appropriate for me to comment on it right now before the House pronounces on this.

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Okay.

If you haven't been given that assurance, or at least we can't confirm right now that you have been, do you think that MPs who want confidence and trust in the harassment policy should be concerned about the judgment of the Liberal Party in using the office of the Speaker for partisan purposes?

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

Again, Mr. Jivani, you're putting me in a very uncomfortable situation. I would love to be able to comment on this issue. It just wouldn't be appropriate for me to do so when this matter is before the House.

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Why don't we zoom out then? We can zoom out, to make you a little more comfortable, from what we're talking about in the House today.

Generally speaking, do you have a policy on how to avoid this sort of partisanship from bleeding into your activities as the Speaker of the House?

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

As was discussed before this committee and as was reported on before this committee back in December, and it was reported to the House at the end of January, there are a whole bunch of recommendations on that front and there are general guidelines that are provided for in the rules of procedure. I believe if you were to take a look at the committee report, you would discover that there was a conclusion that these guidelines were vague, at best.

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Durham, ON]

I would say it is unfortunate that when we're discussing an important policy like this one, the discussion is marred by your inability to address some of these concerns. I would just recall that following your address to the Ontario Liberal Party convention, which also raised concerns about partisanship, you said it was an error and apologized. Following the most recent partisan intervention, you said it was an error and it won't happen again. Before MPs vote tonight on whether you should remain Speaker, why should we believe you?