Evidence of meeting #115 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was commons.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I would clearly want to make sure that the process was entirely fair and that your story and your concerns would be raised and pursued to the fullest possible extent.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
—three clear instances of being partisan while in the chair? Forget the fact that you were the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary.
I'm saying this with deep severity. You have lost my confidence because of this issue. You are in charge of the harassment policy, something that is very serious because it governs the workplace safety of everybody here.
I want to end with this. I don't understand why the NDP, given that this happened with one of their colleagues, is still propping you up. I don't get that.
How could you, in that moment, in showing a judgment of supposed fairness, arrive at this woman's having experienced it differently than the Prime Minister? What basis did you use to make that comment in 2016?
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I can tell you that I never questioned Ruth Ellen Brosseau's accounting of the situation.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
You did. You said, “I believe him”, not “I believe her”, and that is what is wrong with every workplace around the world, yet you demonstrated that in that moment. It's deeply disappointing.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Ms. Rempel Garner, I'm sorry to interrupt, but we have about 10 seconds left.
Mr. Speaker, do you want to respond to that?
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Very quickly, once again, I never doubted her accounting, and my characterization of it at the time was due to how other members—
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Ms. Rempel Garner, either we have to let the clock run or we have to afford the Speaker the opportunity to respond.
Mr. Speaker, do you want to take the last few seconds, or do you feel satisfied with the response?
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I would like to say again, just to make sure that the record stands, that my description of that event was an accounting of what other people had described and not how she had put it.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Through you, I'd like to thank the Speaker for being here today.
In the previous panel, we had some excellent testimony with respect to the harassment policy that currently does not apply to harassment between two members of Parliament.
We talked a bit about the difference between having healthy debate in the chamber, bringing forward questions on policy, bringing forward recommendations to improve legislation and sometimes a lack of civility in the House and how that can be used outside of the House.
As you know, in 1977, cameras were allowed into the chamber to allow Canadians to participate in debate and learn more about our democracy, which is incredibly important. I also know that often, when I'm in the chamber, it seems like it's theatre. I remember when I first got here, someone said that to me. Question period is the theatre. It's for the clips that are then put on social media.
You mentioned that any comments made outside of the chamber are not within the purview of the Speaker, but if members of Parliament are taking clips from inside the chamber and putting them on their social media which then generates sometimes unhealthy comments, what would you recommend? Is there anything this committee could recommend to improve civility in the House, understanding that the words we use matter, that there are ramifications sometimes for the words that we use and that some people out there are using that as a way to intimidate members of Parliament? Could you elaborate a bit on that?
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Through you, Mr. Chair, thank you for the question.
It's really important, once again, to note that the Speaker, according to the rules and the long-time tradition of this place, does not have a purview over what happens outside of the House, outside of committees.
However, members—and this is the reason I'm presuming that the committee had been struck to take a look at this issue—are free to propose solutions and could perhaps direct members themselves into determining what would be considered behaviour that's unbecoming and could direct the Speaker to observe that, but it has been a tradition that the Speaker doesn't go there for many reasons.
Whatever this committee comes up with would have to be tempered with the long-standing traditions of this House to allow for, as much as possible, a full and free ability to speak to issues. That is fundamental to the roles that we play as members of Parliament, one that should always be looked at and should be minimized with the greatest of care.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
Thank you.
In terms of decorum in the House, we do have certain Standing Orders that members need to abide by—we can't question the integrity of a member; all members are honourable and so on—but we've noticed that it's getting harder and harder in the chamber for members to respect that. I guess we're in what we call the silly season, where tempers get a little flared in the House and so on.
Do you think we should be making some recommendations in the Standing Orders? For instance, you mentioned that we have the code of conduct for sexual harassment as an appendix to the Standing Orders? We also have the Conflict of Interest Code as an appendix to the Standing Orders, but we do not have harassment between members in the current Standing Orders. We have free from molestation as a standing order, free from questioning the integrity, but we do not have harassment.
Should we be amending the Standing Orders to include harassment amongst members?
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
That's going to be up to members. I'm assuming that this committee is going to be doing that and proposing a report to all members in the House. It will be up to you to determine if you want to go beyond the sexual harassment rules that we set out and to consider harassment generally, and to do so, of course, tempered by the importance of allowing members to have as full a range as possible of free speech.
Decorum and civility are really important. I think it is possible for us to have pointed and passionate debates, but to do so within the confines that are respectful of the traditions of this place. In fact, what those traditions end up being are traditions that I think any constitutional democracy would consider appropriate, so I think it allows us to continue in that best manner.
I'm really interested in what work this committee will do and in the people and the witnesses you will speak to and the recommendations you will have.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
We can make recommendations, but I believe it's the Board of Internal Economy that would institute any recommendations. I understand the Speaker is on the Board of Internal Economy and chairs it. Normally we table a committee report in the House and ask the government to respond, but because the government is not responsible for this, how would you suggest that we word any recommendations in our report to the House to make sure that we can get the adequate response?
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Very simply, you would make recommendations for the code of conduct of members, and then, if adopted by the House or concurred in by the House, the board will act accordingly.
12:35 p.m.
Clerk of the House of Commons
It's just a quick clarification.
Again, there are two things. There is the policy that falls under the jurisdiction of the board, and then there is the code, which falls under the jurisdiction of PROC and is then recommended to the House.
If the idea is to change the code, that would fall within the jurisdiction of this committee. It could report it to the House and if the House adopts it, then the appendix to the Standing Orders would thereby be changed. If it's changes to the policy, the process would be for this committee to write a letter with suggestions or recommendations to the board.