Evidence of meeting #98 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 fergus.
A video is available from Parliament.
Acting Clerk of the House of Commons
No, there wouldn't have been a specific briefing on just that subject. It would have been—
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
However, it would have included that subject. Is that right?
Acting Clerk of the House of Commons
I'm sure we would have touched on it, but, again, probably not in as much detail as we will be doing going forward.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Okay.
With regard to Mr. Fergus's trip to Washington, D.C., last week, was that trip booked through the international and interparliamentary affairs unit?
Acting Clerk of the House of Commons
It's been in the works for some time, but I don't know exactly when—
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Is “some time” a few weeks since he was elected Speaker, or was it before he was elected Speaker?
Conservative
Acting Clerk of the House of Commons
No, I'm sorry. It was not before, because it was a Speaker-led trip, so it would have been after he became Speaker.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
Excellent. Thank you.
I will just ask that the exchange back and forth—one person speaking at a time—maintain its course throughout the whole meeting. I would like to not have to interrupt. I think that was a great exchange.
Mr. Janse, I know you're not usually the person speaking or receiving attention, but just make sure that your volume is high enough for everyone in the room to hear, including the interpreters, without popping their ears. That would be appreciated.
We have Mrs. Romanado. We have one person speaking at a time through the chair.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
It really is a pleasure to be here early on this Monday morning.
Thank you so much, gentlemen, for joining us today. I have a couple of questions.
In your remarks, Mr. Janse, you mentioned the 2016 study from P.E.I., and that coming out of that study, there was a code of conduct established for Speakers. You mentioned that when a new Speaker is elected, they are provided some briefings, whether it be a written or verbal briefing, and you mentioned also that perhaps those could be strengthened.
We're also looking at how we can make sure that, in terms of remedying this situation going forward, any Speaker who occupies the chair is fully briefed, understands clearly what the expectations are, and so on and so forth.
Would it be possible for you to perhaps submit with this committee that actual document with respect to the study from P.E.I.?
Acting Clerk of the House of Commons
We certainly could. Maybe I can offer a small precision.
The P.E.I. report, as you'll see when you receive it, didn't include a code of conduct. It included a recommendation that basically indicated that Speakers should “abstain from all partisan political activity, (including attendance at party caucus meetings), for a period of 60 days prior to the commencement of sessions...and for a period of 30 days after the conclusion of sessions”.
It was when we looked at other jurisdictions that we noticed that the Yukon Legislative Assembly has a procedural handbook for their Speakers, which has a few sections on impartiality. We could perhaps share that section of that handbook as well.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
I think that would be very helpful. Thank you.
Gentlemen, I'd like to put this in context. There's been a lot information flowing around this situation. We're looking forward to hearing from Speaker Fergus himself later today.
The Speaker did not attend a partisan event. The Speaker made a video, wearing the robes, in his chamber, which is inappropriate. The Speaker did not know—and we're going to clarify that—that it would be used or shown at a political event.
Lots of people have come to me and said that the Speaker attended a convention. The Speaker did not attend a convention. The Speaker made a video. Is it inappropriate? Yes. Was it a misuse of parliamentary resources? Probably.
We'll get more into that. I want to put it into context, because we have, before this committee, another question of privilege that we have not been able to complete, because of delay tactics, which involved a member's privilege—threats to a member's family in terms of foreign interference.
I want to make sure that people who are watching understand that what we're talking about is a video that was made, probably with an inappropriate use of parliamentary resources. What we're trying to do is understand what happened and prevent it from happening again. That is the goal of this morning's meeting.
Can I ask your opinion on the fact that normally such a procedure would be a substantive motion of contempt versus a question of privilege raised in the House? We have two other cases where that would be the precedent, yet the Deputy Speaker ruled that he would allow it.
Is this not opening up a new precedent in terms of how to handle such situations?
Acting Clerk of the House of Commons
Through you, Madam Chair, I thank Ms. Romanado for the question.
Normally, we don't comment, nor would the Speaker—in this case, the Deputy Speaker—comment on rulings that they make. The ruling stands for itself. I think the wording in the ruling made it clear that this was a pretty exceptional circumstance, which is why the Deputy Speaker ruled in the manner he did. Again, there's not a whole lot of precedent with respect to this.
You're right. In the past, they have been addressed through a substantive motion. Again, if one were to reread the ruling.... I think some elements in there explain why the Deputy Speaker decided to go with the ruling he ultimately went with.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
Thank you.
After being elected Speaker, a member no longer takes part in partisan things. For instance, Mr. Fergus is not part of our caucus. He does not attend caucus meetings, and so on and so forth.
Would you recommend extending this to meetings and events outside of Parliament?
Acting Clerk of the House of Commons
I suppose, ultimately, that's for this committee to dwell on.
It's very hard, I think, to enumerate all the different activities. I think everybody realizes that the Speaker is still the elected representative for their constituency. They have certain roles and responsibilities in play: party AGMs, fundraising events or just meeting with community stakeholders. There's a range of activities.
It may be something this committee would want to spend some time thinking about: Are there any of those activities for which it should be impressed upon Speakers that they should not be involved with, or that, based on practice to date, would be allowed?
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
Actually, during debate on this privilege motion in the House, one of the members of the Conservative Party for whom I have a lot of respect brought up the issue of how, in the U.K., there was a recommendation that maybe the Speaker should run as an independent in subsequent elections, because of the fact that they need to show impartiality.
Could you elaborate a bit on that, if that's something you think we should look into?
Acting Clerk of the House of Commons
Very quickly, certainly, the long-standing practice in the U.K. is that the Speaker, once elected, becomes independent. Usually, the other parties don't put up candidates in their riding. Other jurisdictions have other ways of doing it as well. In Ghana, for instance, the Speaker is either somebody from the outside or a member of the elected assembly who quits as an MP when they become Speaker.
There are different options that could be considered.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
Thank you.
Mrs. DeBellefeuille, you have the floor for six minutes.
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Salaberry—Suroît, QC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Good morning, Mr. Janse.
I'm going to speak more slowly than I usually do to allow my colleagues who don't speak French to hear me clearly and to make life easier for the interpreters.
I heard the remarks that my colleague Mrs. Romanado made earlier, but I have to say I don't share her opinion. Our work today is directed by a motion that was unanimously passed in the House of Commons. With your permission, I'm going to read an excerpt from that motion, which states that there was “a serious error of judgment which undermines the trust required”. The incident wasn't a minor one. In fact, it was deemed to be so serious that the motion was adopted unanimously. All parties and members found that it undermined the trust of the House.
Have I clearly understood the seriousness of that motion?
Acting Clerk of the House of Commons
Thank you for your question, Mrs. DeBellefeuille.
A question of privilege is always addressed in two stages. First, the Speaker—in this case, it was the Deputy Speaker—determines whether, on the face of it, the subject should take precedence over all other business of the House. Second, as you mentioned, it is for the House to decide whether to adopt the proposed motion. In this instance, the motion was indeed passed. Everyone agreed that the question should be referred to the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Salaberry—Suroît, QC
The motion clearly states that the incident was serious enough because it undermines the trust of the House.
You said several times that you had found no precedents, although you may have come across similar situations that had occurred in other legislative assemblies, but never in the Parliament of Canada. Personally, I think that's because this serious incident reveals a major lack of judgment.
Does that mean that our recommendations and study will become a precedent? Will the decision we make at the end of our study become jurisprudence?
Acting Clerk of the House of Commons
According to procedure, the committee has until Thursday to report the matter to the House. Then it will be up to the House to determine whether it wishes to adopt the recommendations contained in the report. If it does, then, yes, that will somewhat alter our practices.