Debates of May 19th, 2016

Reference to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the leader of the official opposition for the tone she is giving to this debate. It is dignified and reflects the importance of our democratic institutions. She deserves our full respect.

I would like the leader of the official opposition to share with us her reaction as an elected woman in the House when she realized that the Prime Minister had hurt the member for Berthier—Maskinongé. I know what mine was when I realized that the Prime Minister had hurt the member for Berthier—Maskinongé

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I go back to the fact that everyone in our House deserves the respect of the Prime Minister, but we should all respect one another. I know the Prime Minister apologized for what happened, and that was the right thing to do. However, at the end of the day, he should not have been down there to begin with. That is the issue. The issue is that he needs to take responsibility for his actions.

We know the member was very shaken up. These things affect people, especially if they have never experienced something like that before. We all are thinking of her. Again, as I said, in these kinds of situations, whether personal or professional, it is not for her to fix this; it is for him to fix this.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as a new parliamentarian, I believe the actions of our Prime Minister yesterday were shocking. The Liberal government has talked about new ways of justice, and first nations being its most important relationship. It is talking about new ways of justice with offenders. Far be it for me to dictate, or talk about the Prime Minister's schedule, but it is important that, while we are having this discussion, I hope the Prime Minister is able to sit through it and listen to the comments as to how this affected each and every member of the House. I hope we are able to continue this discussion as long as possible.

I would ask our hon. leader if she feels the Prime Minister should be able to hear the impact statements from our colleagues in the House with respect to how his actions yesterday impacted us all.

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, thanks to you, that is why we are having this debate, and people are having an opportunity to speak, and that is right.

Nothing can change what the Prime Minister did last night. However, how he conducts himself moving forward from this point can be changed. I spoke about some of the actions he might take such as allowing members to speak to issues. It is unprecedented that a debate on an issue of conscience, like assisted dying, be cut off in the House. He might want to revisit that.

I also implore the Prime Minister to remove the motion that he placed forward in the House which would strip the opposition of our tools to do our job. Our job is to be the opposition. We are proud of that. We have a role to play in our democracy. Therefore, there are things that he can do. I ask him to do that. It is up to him to fix this.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to apologize for two incidents that took place yesterday in this House.

First, I apologize for crossing the floor in an attempt to have the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes take his seat. That intervention was not appropriate. It is not my role and it should not have happened. In particular, I should not have made physical contact with the member, and I apologize to the member and to all parliamentarians for my inappropriate contact.

Second, I would like to apologize to the member for Berthier—Maskinongé. In my haste, I did not pay attention to my surroundings, and as a result I accidentally bumped the member for Berthier—Maskinongé, something I regret profoundly. I sincerely apologize for my actions yesterday.

I would also like to apologize to all my colleagues in the House and to you, Mr. Speaker, for failing to live up to a higher standard of behaviour. Members rightfully expect better behaviour from anyone in the House. I expect better behaviour of myself.

Consequently, I believe that it is completely appropriate for the incident that occurred yesterday in this place to be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for review. I am fully prepared to accept the committee's decision and respect the will of the House.

The way members behave in the House is very important. It is important because we are here to serve Canadians, and Canadians deserve to have their concerns expressed fully and fairly in a direct and dignified manner.

I know and I regret that my behaviour yesterday failed to meet this standard.

I also believe that the work we do here is important, and I know that Canadians are looking to us for leadership on a range of serious issues in this House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your time and consideration.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Prime Minister for clearly a heartfelt apology.

However, I noticed in his comments that he got to the heart of the issue, which I thank the leader of the official opposition for raising today as well. It is important for all of us here to understand why things have become so heated in this chamber. It is important that the rights of all the members in this place be respected, not just to be free of physical assault, but to be free of having their rights and privileges assaulted.

I noted that the Prime Minister has correctly said that Canadians' concerns deserve to be heard fairly and effectively, and I am wondering if, as part of the apology, he will consider reversing the decision to take away our rights and privileges so that we may all participate here equally in this chamber.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Edmonton Strathcona for her question and her thoughtful remarks. She noted that the way this House has been engaging and the way, indeed, the government has been behaving over the past while have perhaps led to this incident.

However, I certainly know that the member would agree with me when I say that no amount of escalation or mood in this House justifies my behaviour last night. I made a mistake, I regret it, and I am looking to make amends.

I fully hear the desire of not just the member but a number of members across the House, including the leader of the official opposition, that we take concrete measures to improve the way the tone functions in this House and the way this government engages with opposition parties as well.

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, of course, we heard the Prime Minister's apology. From now on, the future is what is important.

The men and women here in the House work really hard to effectively represent their constituents, their province, and their country with dignity and respect.

We think that this week's motion undermines our right to effectively represent our constituents.

Since we are talking about the future and a fresh start, what does the Prime Minister intend to do about that motion?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the opposition member's concern about the consequences and the debate that is taking place on a number of issues.

However, this morning, I want to focus on the fact that I made a mistake and behaved in a way that was unbecoming of a parliamentarian. I take full responsibility for my actions and I apologize. We will work together to improve the way the House works, but I know that the problems we have been having in that regard do not justify my behaviour last night.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Prime Minister for his apology. It is appropriate for him to be here today and to take full responsibility for his actions.

In many ways, the Prime Minister is the CEO or the chief manager of this place, and this is our place of work. I was a labour lawyer before I was elected. I worked for 16 years in employment law, and I can say that there is not a workplace in this land where employees at work would be subjected to having their boss, the CEO, come into their place of work, being physically touched, and being moved along.

What I can say as well is that in our justice system and employment law, while an apology is absolutely essential, that is not sufficient. We do not deal with employment- or work-related transgressions and dismiss them and move on simply by an apology. There is a consequence to that behaviour.

I am wondering if the Prime Minister could tell us what consequence he feels is appropriate in this situation, to deal with the situation and the breach of privilege of my colleagues here in the House of Commons, their place of work.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Vancouver Kingsway for his question and recognize not just his expertise but also his deep devotion to workplace health and safety and protections.

We have in this House a procedure and House affairs committee that is tasked with engaging with issues of privilege and issues of mistakes like the one I made last night. I look forward to seeing that committee engage with this, and I look forward to engaging further on this particular topic.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask just one question for the Prime Minister. If in fact the Prime Minister is apologizing and if we are to take that in a sincere way, will the Prime Minister instruct his cabinet to ensure that Motion No. 6 does not proceed in this House?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, the behaviour I engaged in last night is not becoming of any member of the House, and I regret it deeply. I made a mistake. I am apologizing and asking members to understand how contrite and regretful I am over my behaviour.

The fact is that we will now engage in how we can move forward as a House, given this incident and given the broad range of serious issues that Canadians expect us to debate responsibly and move forward in this House. I look forward to working with all members in the House to move the debate forward in a constructive and productive way.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank the Prime Minister for his genuine apology with his sincere words.

Being a new member of Parliament in the House, I have to say I find the tone has been a bit of a challenge, especially for the past little while. Does the Prime Minister feel that this justifies in any way the behaviour he exhibited yesterday?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand a number of people have talked about this as an escalation as a result of challenges in this workplace, but I refuse to allow anyone to think that there was any justification for my behaviour yesterday evening. It was on me. It was my mistake. It was unbecoming of any member of the House. I expect better from myself, and my colleagues on all sides certainly expect better from me.

Looking at the tone even as a way of explanation for this is not correct. I wield full responsibility for my poor choices last night, and I ask for Canadians' understanding and forgiveness.

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Prime Minister's apology, but he is saying he wants to move forward and he wants us to do that responsibly and together. I do not know how we can do that unless he removes the motion he has on the Order Paper.

He would strip the opposition of our jobs. We have a job to do in the House, and we take it seriously. If he truly respects the role of opposition, and the role of every member of the House, then he has to withdraw the motion.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for her question and for her strong and measured statement earlier this morning.

As I highlighted, it is important that we draw a clear line between what was my unacceptable behaviour and the general tone of the House. The escalation and the tone of the House does not lead to any justification of my actions, and I accept that fully.

As I have said, I look forward to working with the members opposite, and all members in the House, to improve the way we function and ensure that people can be heard on the serious issues of the day, which Canadians expect us not just to discuss but to move forward on.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Cariboo—Prince George.

The House is built on centuries of democratic evolution in the mother of Parliament, Westminster, and for a century and a half here in the Canadian capital. Members of Parliament are guided by accumulated precedents, by interpretations of evolving procedures and practices, and by ancient custom.

In light of the current question of privilege, I am reminded of the space that separates the government from the opposition. Because early members of the British Parliament often brought their swords to Parliament, we are told that government and opposition benches were spaced two sword distances and one inch apart. Our own guiding reference, House of Commons Procedure and Practice advises that this space in our Canadian House of Commons serves as a reminder to seek resolution of differences by peaceful means. Well, two swords and an inch clearly was not an adequate space last evening.

What we saw, I believe, and would like to introduce to this debate, was not only a breach of privilege but a contempt of Parliament. I would refer to our guiding tome, the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, where it says that:

It is important to distinguish between a “breach of privilege” and “contempt of Parliament”. Any disregard of or attack on the rights, powers and immunities of the House and its Members, either by an outside person or body, or by a Member of the House, is referred to as a “breach of privilege” and is punishable by the House.

We know that process will be followed in the PROC committee.

However, there are other measures of affronts to Parliament. There is a range of affronts listed, which in various ways affront not only the dignity but the process of our Parliament. We are reminded by O'Brien and Bosc that in one sense, and a very clear sense, “all breaches of privilege are contempts of the House, but not all contempts are necessarily breaches of privilege.”

The authors of this fine book refer us to a United Kingdom joint parliamentary committee on parliamentary privilege, which attempted to provide a list of some types of contempt. This was in a report tabled in the British Parliament in 1999. It says that the interruption or disturbing of proceedings, or engaging in other misconduct in the presence of the House or a committee, signifies and can be defined as contempt. Assaulting, threatening, obstructing, or intimidating a member or officer of the House in the discharge of their duties is also a contempt of Parliament.

I would respectfully suggest that the Prime Minister's spontaneous, impetuous crossing of the floor last night, touching a fellow colleague, and pushing and issuing profane comments, is not only a breach of our privilege but it is a contempt of Parliament. The temporary delay of the opposition whip at the other end of the House may in itself have been ruled a contempt of Parliament, but it in itself would have delayed our proceedings last evening by only a matter of minutes, if not seconds, and did not justify the Prime Minister's angry intervention into the moment.

I must say that the Prime Minister's behaviour and the profanity spoken to hon. members last night is at odds with his many statements of professing high standards, opposing bullying, respect for women, and respect for the House.

It is not, unfortunately, the first time we have seen disrespect, arrogance, and immaturity from the member for Papineau. In December 2011, in an admittedly very emotional question period, I was interrupted by a loud, crude insult issued by the member. There was an apology, an apology which I accepted. It was a conditional apology, guilty with an explanation, so to speak, but it was accepted.

We have heard the Prime Minister's apology today. We saw humility and I believe there was sincerity in the words that he spoke to the House today. He apologized fully, took responsibility, and reminded us that he will accept the consequences. I thank the member of the NDP who raised the question of appropriate consequences and what the Prime Minister thought would be appropriate action in response to his disrespect for the House last night.

However, we are reminded that the procedure and House affairs committee has a majority of Liberal members and we know, from the behaviour of the Liberal majority in a number of committees in recent weeks and months, that the majority has been used in a rather heavy-handed way. I would hope that when this question of privilege goes to the procedure and House affairs committee, the Prime Minister and the government House leader will encourage the members of the Liberal majority on that committee to put aside their partisan support of the Prime Minister.

We have heard a great deal of excuse-making in the last 12 or 15 hours. Nothing can justify what happened last night. The Prime Minister has acknowledged that in words today. For those who saw the touching, the physical intervention, and heard the profanity spoken against members of the House and said that it should just be shuffled off and taken as a single impetuous moment that is excusable, I am afraid that simply cannot be accepted.

I hope the Prime Minister is sincere in the apology he issued today and that he receives support and guidance from his colleagues and advisers in his recurring anger management and reinforcing his respect for this institution.

Last night's unacceptable breach of privilege, and I believe contempt, was the result of increasing acrimony in the House, and as the leader of the official opposition has remarked today, along with many others in recent days, this is the result of the closure motions and the motion that would strip the House of all of its rights and privileges from now until the end of our sitting in June.

I believe that amends can be made. It has been suggested more than once this morning that the government rethink its interference, its refusal to allow more than two-thirds of the members of the House to speak on one of the most important pieces of legislation that we will ever consider in our parliamentary lifetime, and I hope that motion will, as the leader of the official opposition has requested, be formally withdrawn.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, sitting on this side of the House last night when the event took place, never have I ever, in 16 years of being here, witnessed what we saw last night, and never have I stood and supported the NDP on much of anything. However, last night I could not help it. After the initial event, knowing that one of the NDP colleagues had been hurt, I went down to ask the leader of the NDP how badly was she hurt. All of a sudden, again, the Prime Minister tried to make his way through and although I did not hear the profanity and offensive language, others did.

The hon. member spoke about disrespect of this place. Even today, the Prime Minister's speech was very much about the tone of this place and that maybe he just got caught up in it. We have all seen that happen on television in other Parliaments, but we have never really seen a president or a prime minister do that.

Perhaps the member would just go back a bit on Motion No. 6 and tell us why he believes that the government should pull back this offensive way of taking every tool away from all opposition members to do their business here in Parliament. It is one thing to do what we did last night, but it's another thing to take away the tools of Parliament to hold the government to account, and make members get up at three o'clock in the morning to come in here and debate in the silence of the House and in the silence around the country. Would the member tell us why that is, by all parties, offensive?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question and for making the point. That is exactly what is wrong with the motion. It, essentially, enables the government to steamroll its own agenda without respect for the normal process of the House, both in debate and in the manner that the debates would be held. I appreciate his remarks.

The government has said that it offered extended hours of debate on Bill C-14, for example. However, he is quite right that those extended hours, which we refused then, before the motion was imposed, could now be imposed on the House so that members who wish to speak to, as I said, one of the most important pieces of legislation that will be considered in the House in our parliamentary lifetime would occur in the dark hours, in a marathon vote, which is obviously intended by the government as a way of talking out the clock.

I believe that if we are to truly respect this institution, if the government is to truly respect the role of an official opposition, it must respect the ability of all members of the House who wish to speak on important legislation to rise in their places and speak to the issues of the day.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask the Prime Minister two questions, but I did not have the opportunity to do so. First, is he prepared to testify before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs when this case goes before the committee? Second, will the government use its majority on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to make this incident disappear?

Does my Conservative colleague think that that is what should happen? Does he think that the Liberals will use their majority to make this all disappear?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think we would have to go to O'Brien and Bosc to find the ability of a committee to call the Prime Minister to appear before committee, but I think that it would demonstrate exceedingly good grace and humility if the Prime Minister were willing to respond to that call. Certainly, I believe opposition members of the committee would make the Prime Minister appear before them to discuss further, and with specific questions, matters arising from this breach of privilege and as I said contempt.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you so much for the honour to rise today and speak to the incident that happened yesterday.

For years I worked toward my dream of becoming a member of Parliament because I knew it was an opportunity for me to at least try to change people's lives and have an impact on our country. I hold the House in high regard. I hold all members of the House in high regard.

Indeed, in my very first speech in the House, I offered that I was looking forward to working collaboratively with members from all sides of the House. I offered my hand even at that time that while I may hold their feet to the fire during debate in times of seriousness and when we need to, that I also would offer my hand across the way when they needed help in terms of personal struggles. Indeed, yesterday it was great to see our colleague from Scarborough—Agincourt in the House. I know that he is fighting his own battles. It was great to see him here this week.

I have been sitting in the House for only a few short months and I will be very honest in terms of the respect and disrespect that we have seen across the way by the Prime Minister over the last six months. I will also be honest that he has afforded me time outside of the House when I have constituents who want to meet with him. He has been very respectful and he has offered us a considerable amount of his time. I know his schedule is hectic. But frankly, I was embarrassed and ashamed to have been witness to the conduct of our Prime Minister yesterday. His behaviour was appalling, unacceptable, and shocking. For anyone to angrily stride across the floor like that, elbowing another colleague, is deplorable. That is what we are talking about today.

On this side we have witnessed his actions over the last six months. When our colleague from Alberta was talking about a constituent who was losing her family's house because they were out of work and she was near tears while she was relaying this question, I witnessed the Prime Minister smiling and laughing. We have witnessed the Prime Minister sticking his tongue out at members of the opposition. We have witnessed him saying snide remarks about members of the opposition.

There are times for jabs. There are times for partisan jabs back and forth and we have all been part and parcel of that. But our Prime Minister should be held to a higher account. The conduct is unbecoming of someone holding that office.

Yesterday, when our Prime Minister angrily charged across the floor, he shouted swear words. He was using language unbecoming of the House. I heard it, but I also saw members from both sides engage in some heated discussion. I saw members come across the floor and I, too, tried to break it up and make sure that none of us did something that we would regret later on.

However, we are talking about the Prime Minister today and the actions that are unbecoming of a prime minister.

I am a small business owner and if I had seen any of my employees do the exact same thing, they would have been fired on the spot. We talk about workplace violence. We talk about domestic violence. We see our Prime Minister who is angered and definitely striding across the floor to show us who is boss, to assert his authority. It is unacceptable.

Parliament should be the pinnacle of democracy. We as members of Parliament should be held to a higher standard and we are. Leadership starts from the top. That seat sets the tone for all, not just on his side, but also on our side. That seat sets the tone for all parliamentarians.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister showed a complete and utter disregard for the institution and for all Canadians with his actions and behaviour. Throughout the day we heard shouts from the other side that the opposition was irrelevant. Then there is Motion No. 6, which is unacceptable. Again, it is just part and parcel of the actions of the Prime Minister who has authority now and he is going to show us who is boss. He is going to show Canada who is boss.

Right now, outside these doors, there are school tours going on, and there were school tours here yesterday. How was yesterday's incident an example for these schoolkids, these kids who are coming here to watch what we do? Does he say it is okay to conduct himself in that manner? Then he stands to make more excuses for it.

The offender never intends to hurt somebody, a drunk driver never intends to kill people, but the fact of the matter is the offence happened. How can we leave the next generation in a better position to succeed in the future if the Prime Minister himself, who has the ability to inspire so much change and indeed campaigned on real change cannot even respect his own colleagues?

It is not for us to determine the intent of the Prime Minister's actions. Only he truly knows what the intent of his actions was. However, offering excuses for the offender, which is what we saw afterwards, minimizing the impact on our colleague from the NDP, minimizing it, and then when our colleague from the NDP composed herself and managed to come into the House and talk about the impact, we saw eyes rolling and laughs from the other side, minimizing it.

That is a problem not just in this House but outside in society: turning a blind eye and making excuses for what happened. We all should be doing what we can to stop this kind of behaviour, and not make excuses for the offender about why it happened, that he is such a nice guy and did not mean to do it.

The excuses we heard earlier are typical. If this were a domestic abuse case and the abuser, the offender stood up and said, “I did not mean to do it; I did not know what I was doing; I did not mean to hurt the person”, it would be unacceptable.

I just do not understand it. I was shocked and appalled. This is not a playground, nor is it a baseball game or a hockey game. I think I speak for all members when I say that this is not the legacy that we want to leave. This is not the legacy that any of us came here to leave.

Even more disappointing was that when the discussion and debate started, the Prime Minister chose to leave and not hear how his actions impacted us, as if that discussion was not worthy of his time. It is unacceptable. I mentioned it earlier in this debate. If he truly meant what he said and was apologizing, he would be here listening right from the start about how that impacted us.

It is a privilege to sit as Prime Minister. Canadians elected a Prime Minister to what is arguably the most powerful position in this country. He ran an entire campaign on change. This is not change. In fact, it is the opposite. People praise democracy around the world because it allows people to have a voice, and they expect their members of Parliament to carry their voices forward on their behalf, not carry the voice of Ottawa to their ridings, but carry the voices of their ridings here.

A majority government, or any number of seats of this House, does not give the right to stifle debate. It does not give anyone the authority to manhandle other parliamentarians. It does not give anyone the right to stifle members because one's ego is bruised. It certainly does not give anyone the right to be aggressive and attack another member of Parliament, either verbally or physically.

This House belongs to the people, not us, not me, and most certainly not the Prime Minister. Motion No. 6, closure, asserting his authority, all that we have seen over the last six months, sticking his tongue out, childish behaviour, perhaps a Prime Minister, a member of Parliament who just was not ready.

I ask one final thing, and I am speaking as a father and a husband, and I know the Prime Minister is a husband and a father as well. If this happened to any of his kids or his wife, how would he react?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to questions and comments, just a reminder to hon. members, particularly when recounting the events of yesterday which has given rise to the debate today, that in their remarks, making reference to the absence or presence of hon. members is not permitted in the Standing Orders. They should keep that in mind in terms of their comments and/or speeches.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Essex.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech in this place today. I think he speaks for all of us in saying that we need to raise the level of decorum in this place and where we have devolved to over the last few days has become a shock to many of us.

It is not just those of us sitting on this side of the House, but I have to believe there are members opposite who also became members of Parliament to effect that exact change the hon. member spoke about, to do something better, to represent people. However, stifling opposition parties, stifling other MPs in their ability to represent the people they are elected to represent is not the way to do that. I have to imagine there are members opposite who would agree with that as well.

We all signed a code of conduct when we entered into this Parliament, which said that we would be in a harassment-free place inside this House of Commons, which is part of our workplace. We have heard that spoken to today very well.

I want to be clear, though, that in order to restore this decorum, I think it is incredibly important that the government immediately back away from this unacceptable proposal to strong-arm the opposition in Parliament. I ask the member if he would agree with that statement.