Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I want to thank you and the members of the committee for inviting me to appear today to discuss the question of privilege that you are studying. I hope my testimony will assist the committee members in their deliberations on the question of privilege that the House has referred to you.
My contribution to the committee's study today will be some general observations on the committee's role. I will be providing some information that I hope will be of use to the committee in its consideration of this question.
In adopting its order of reference, the House determined that the matter required further examination and that your committee was the most appropriate forum to do so. Usually, when considering a question of privilege, a committee first seeks to determine the facts surrounding the events in question. It can then assess whether those events constitute, in its opinion, a breach of members' privileges or contempt of the House. Finally, it can examine corrective measures, if any, to be proposed in the circumstances.
This is, in fact, what the order adopted by the House on December 6 is calling for. It goes without saying that the House itself will ultimately decide whether its privileges have been breached and what action is appropriate in the circumstances.
Invariably, by the nature of our parliamentary and electoral systems, Speakers have to walk a tightrope, balancing their duties in the chair, their role in representing the interest of their constituents and the fact that they are still members elected under the banner of a party. This challenge is perhaps even greater in the age of social media.
The Standing Orders of the House do not provide a framework for the concept of the impartiality of the chair or for the other roles that the Speaker may perform outside the House. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has seemingly never been directed to consider a question of privilege related to the conduct and actions of a Speaker of the House.
A review of precedents from other Canadian legislatures may provide a few areas to think about.
I would like to put forward for your consideration a 2016 study by the Standing Committee on Rules, Regulations, Private Bills and Privileges in Prince Edward Island. The committee did a comparative analysis on partisan activities of Speakers from various legislative assemblies in Canada.
It would appear that certain assemblies have previously proposed a variety of measures to frame the principle of impartiality of the chair. Consider, for example, the adoption of resolutions reaffirming the importance of the impartiality of the chair, the prohibition of partisan activities during certain periods, such as before, during and after a session, and the establishment of a code of conduct for the chair and other occupants of the chair.
As for corrective measures to be recommended regarding the Speaker's actions under review, only this committee's members can decide and ultimately the House. It's up to the committee to recommend measures that it considers appropriate and provide guidance to the House on how to respond to this matter.
I will close by thanking you again for inviting me to appear before you. My colleagues and I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have.
