Debates of Nov. 23rd, 2021

Allegations Concerning the Clerk of the House

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I will come back to the House with a ruling. I have made a commitment to bring this to the Board of Internal Economy to get down to the bottom of it one way or another. I think that is a fair offer. I want to bring that to the board, find out what is going on and then come back with a ruling before that. I just need some time to process it.

We have points of order all over. We will go to the hon. member for Banff—Airdrie and then come back to the member for Calgary Nose Hill.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate and know that your intentions here are good, that you are looking to find a way to resolve the matter, and that is appreciated. I know that is important to you as well.

If what I am hearing is right, the member is trying to make the arguments and make the case that she believes there is another avenue that should be taken. I do think it is important for you, before making a ruling, to hear her out and hear why she believes there is a different avenue that should be taken. I hope she does not intend speak at great length, but it is important that we hear her arguments for why another avenue is the better alternative. It is important that you hear that, Mr. Speaker, before making a ruling.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

If the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill can make her point, then I will take it into consideration and come back to the House with a ruling.

The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not feel the Board of Internal Economy, which is largely a closed-door process, is appropriate to deal with the breach of privilege that I am raising today. My privilege is breached because it is not safe to work here by virtue of other people not finding it safe work here. Frankly, I have raised this issue in numerous forms over the entirety of my decade in this place. A decade into working here, I still do not feel like it is safe to work here.

With respect, I do not think shunting this issue into a closed-door committee, when there are people at home who have not had justice, is appropriate. I just cannot stress this enough.

I would argue that should an open-door process find it appropriate to review personnel decisions or new processes in House administration through the Board of Internal Economy, that this is a route we should take. However, at this point in time, be it within political parties of all stripes in this place but certainly now within the House itself, there are no assurances for anybody coming forward with harassment that this will be taken seriously. This has to be done not in a closed-door committee, but in an appropriate parliamentary committee. That is the only way this will be addressed.

My privilege, and all our privileges, are breached, because we are doing the emotional labour of dealing with unwanted touching, sexual harassment and workplace harassment instead of doing our jobs, and that is the definition of privilege being breached. It has to be done outside of the Board of Internal Economy, and light has to be shone on this.

I do not want to be doing this. I want to be talking about other things today, but I am tired of this. Therefore, on the 100th anniversary of women being elected in Parliament, we should not shunt this to a closed-door committee. We should put it out in public. I beg that of you, Mr. Speaker.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as you mentioned earlier, we agree that this is a very serious matter. We are talking about issues pertaining to human resources, how our employees are treated and of course the impartiality of the House of Commons. All these issues are extremely serious and involve serious allegations.

We believe that the Board of Internal Economy is in fact in the best position to address these matters. These are important matters. I know that is not lost on you, Mr. Speaker. You have already told us that you are taking this very seriously. I think all members agree on that. The Board of Internal Economy is in the best position to consider these matters, since it is the body responsible for human resources.

We are talking about serious allegations. They need to be treated seriously. We believe the Board of Internal Economy is the right place to have those discussions that must surely follow the interventions today.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I want to thank the hon. members.

I think what we are hearing is partially process. What is going with the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill has one implication and the other one is on a particular case. If members do not mind, I would not mind taking some time in going over this and returning with a judgment at some point in, hopefully, the next week. It is something that takes a lot of time and consideration, so we do the right thing and not go in the wrong direction and have the wrong allegations or facts twisted so we end up in the wrong place. All of us want this place to be safe, and sexual harassment is something we take very seriously on the Hill.

Access by Members to the House of Commons Precinct

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I also rise on a question of privilege. However, as this is my first time rising in this Parliament, I would like to congratulate you on your election as Speaker. I know you will face a number of challenges, as you did in the last Parliament, and that you will handle them with the same tact, grace and dignity that you always have. Congratulations from this side of the House on your continuing role in the chair.

I also want to express my appreciation to the voters of Banff—Airdrie for giving me another opportunity to represent them in this place. No matter how many times one is elected to serve, it is always an immense honour.

I am rising on a question of privilege that relates to the decision of the Board of Internal Economy that was announced on the evening of October 19. I will quote from that decision:

Speaker of the House of Commons and Chair of the Board of Internal Economy, reports that the Board has determined that, effective Monday, November 22, 2021, individuals must be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 to be allowed within the House of Commons Precinct. This requirement will apply to any person who wishes to enter the House of Commons Precinct, including Members....

In media comments the following day, I said that the Conservatives could not agree to seven members of Parliament, and I was referring to the non-Conservative members of the board, meeting in secret and deciding which of the 338 members of this House, who had just been elected by Canadians, could enter this chamber to represent their constituents.

Members will recall that, once upon a time, the Liberals were boasting about the Board of Internal Economy meetings being open by default and talking about the great transparency they were going to bring to them. Instead, in this case, we ended up with a decision that has very sweeping constitutional implications being made behind closed doors under a very vague agenda heading referring to legal employment matters. Frankly, that could have meant practically anything to anyone who was looking at the board's website.

As the board meeting was held in camera, members will appreciate that I will have to be cautious in what I say about those deliberations, but one of the traditions of the board is that it operates on a consensus basis. Votes are, in fact, very rare. I think there have been fewer than a handful of them in the past decade or two.

There are a lot of good reasons for consensus decision-making at the board. That model is important there. Not the least of these reasons is that, when a decision is made, every member of the board can then go back to his or her caucus and simply explain the decision without having to betray the in camera discussions that took place.

I will say that the opposition House leader and I abstained from the vote on that board decision, given that we believed that the board lacked the jurisdiction to limit members' access to parliamentary proceedings. I am challenging that lack of jurisdiction here today by way of this question of privilege—

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the proceedings of the Board of Internal Economy are in camera, and therefore, the discussions about votes of the Board of Internal Economy are supposed to similarly be in camera.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the government House leader has been on his feet several times. Just because he does not like what opposition members are saying does not mean that it is not fair. In fact, the member for Banff—Airdrie made the point that he would not discuss anything that was in camera at the Board of Internal Economy, so I think he should be able to continue with his remarks.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I do not want to get involved in the debate. To be honest, I have just called upon the clerks to ask if reporting on a vote and how people voted in camera would be a breach.

I will let the hon. member continue. I will listen in, consult and see where everything is going.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was not attempting to reveal the votes of other members. I was simply indicating that I abstained from the vote.

I want to make one thing really clear right now. This question of privilege does not relate in any way to disputing vaccines or their very vital role in conquering the COVID-19 pandemic. What I am challenging is the authority of the—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I have consulted with the clerk, and it is a fine line, but basically the hon. member for Banff—Airdrie is saying that he did not vote.

There is a fine line between saying what happened in the board and what did not happen, so I want to caution everyone. What happened was in camera. Please keep that in mind.

The hon. member for Banff—Airdrie has the floor.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I respect that, and as I have indicated, I will be cautious.

I want to make it clear that I am questioning the jurisdiction of the board to be able to make that decision, not the decision itself, because I do believe vaccines are critically important in conquering COVID-19. Conservatives have said the entire time that vaccines are the safest and most effective way to reduce the spread of COVID-19 and prevent serious illness. We encourage every Canadian who can to get vaccinated because vaccines are our ticket out of this wretched pandemic. I want to make that very clear.

This is why we have been so persistent in critiquing the government's efforts in the procurement of vaccines and why we were urging the Liberals to ensure more Canadians had access to get jabs in their arms sooner.

Unlike the Prime Minister, who should be ashamed of himself for politicizing vaccines and dividing Canadians, Conservatives abided by all of the public health guidelines during the recent election campaign. This is also why the Leader of the Opposition announced—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I want to clarify with the hon. member that we are getting into a debate. I just want the facts of the case. If he could stick to that, I would appreciate it.

The hon. member for Banff—Airdrie has the floor.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I understand it is as important to establish what it is not about as it is to establish what it is about, so I will take the point and move on. I think I have made clear what it is not about. Certainly, it is not about the efficacy or the importance of vaccines. I will make that clear.

What I am rising about today is this. I believe the Board of Internal Economy's decision represents a major breach of the ancient privileges of the House and in fact could set a very troublesome precedent.

Following the Prime Minister's lead, some pundits have been quick to claim that this issue is about some politicians looking out for their own self interest, but as pages 59 and 60 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, remind us:

The privileges of the Commons are designed to safeguard the rights of each and every elector.

That is critically important, because barely two months ago the electors it refers to chose the 338 people who sit in the House of Commons to represent them here.

Page 60 of Bosc and Gagnon quotes from the 20th edition of Erskine May's parliamentary procedure that:

The privileges of Parliament are rights, which are “absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers”. They are enjoyed by individual Members because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its Members.

A similar point is made by Joseph Maingot on page 12 of his second edition of Parliamentary Privilege in Canada. The privileges that are implicated by the Board's decision are in fact to be found among the House's collective rights.

In particular, I point the Speaker to page 59 of Bosc and Gagnon, which explains:

The rights and powers of the House as a collectivity may be categorized as follows:

[The] exclusive right to regulate its own internal affairs (including its debates, proceedings and facilities);

and

[The] right to provide for its proper constitution, including the authority to maintain the attendance and service of its Members.

This right of the House to maintain the attendance and to have the service of its members finds expression in Standing Order 15, which states:

Every member, being cognizant of the provisions of the Parliament of Canada Act, is bound to attend the sittings of the House, unless otherwise occupied with parliamentary activities and functions or on public or official business.

I underscore that every member is bound to attend the sittings of the House. Some exceptions are indeed noted, but none of them suggests this expectation can be waved off by the Board of Internal Economy.

Bosc and Gagnon, at page 107, state:

In order to fulfill their parliamentary duties members should be able to go about their parliamentary business undisturbed....

Speakers have consistently upheld the right of the House to the services of its members free from intimidation, obstruction and interference.

The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, in its 66th report, presented in April of 1999, elaborated at paragraph 15:

One of the privileges of Members of the House of Commons is a right of unimpeded access to Parliament and the parliamentary precincts. Members are entitled to go about their parliamentary business undisturbed, and cannot be prevented from entering the chamber or a committee room for a parliamentary proceeding. This privilege...can be...traced back to at least the early eighteenth century, and is part of the heritage of all legislative bodies that trace their origins to the British parliamentary tradition. It is based on the pre-eminent right of the House to the attendance and service of its Members. Any obstruction of Members constitutes a breach of privilege and a contempt of the House of Commons.

There can be no doubt that the board's decision constitutes or purports to be an obstruction to members of the House and their ability to come here for its sittings, and, once our committees are struck, potentially for their meetings as well.

That leads me to the comments of Bosc and Gagnon at page 110, which state:

In circumstances where members claim to be physically obstructed, impeded, interfered with or intimidated in the performance of their parliamentary functions, the Speaker is apt to find that a prima facie breach of privilege had occurred. Incidents involving physical obstruction...either impeding Members' access to the parliamentary precinct or blocking their free movement within the precinct...have been found to be prima facie cases of privilege.

Indeed, Bosc and Gagnon, at page 86, remind us that:

The denial of access of members to the parliamentary precinct has been found to constitute contempt of the House on several occasions.

While those instances typically relate to security activities or maybe organized protests, for example, the occasions afforded the procedure and House affairs committee offer several different opportunities to shed light on how critical these rights of the House actually are.

For example, the committee wrote in its 21st report tabled in January 2005 that:

The denial of access to Members of the House—even if temporary—is unacceptable, and constitutes a contempt of the House. Members must not be impeded or interfered with while on their way to the chamber or when going about their parliamentary business. To permit this would interfere with the operation of the House of Commons and undermine the preeminent right of the House to the services of its members.

That report was subsequently concurred in by the House on May 17, 2005.

The procedure and House affairs committee later wrote, this time in its 26th report, tabled in May of 2012 that:

As part of the parliamentary privilege, Members of the House of Commons have the right of unimpeded and unfettered access to the parliamentary precincts, and are entitled to go about their parliamentary duties and functions undisturbed and without any form of interference.

The same point was made almost word for word by the committee in its 34th report presented in March 2015 and in another 34th report, this time presented in June 2017. In fact, I pause to observe that I was actually a member of the committee for both of those reports. It was clear to me, from my participation during those committee deliberations, that there was a growing impatience in the parliamentary community with members being thwarted in their efforts to come to the House. That is why I was so surprised to see, only a few years later, the Board of Internal Economy take such a casual approach to imposing barriers without sufficient accommodations for MPs being able to come to the chamber.

The earlier attitudes that I have spoken of can be found, for example, in the 2012 report of the procedure and House affairs committee, which restated the obligations and expectations of those regulating access to Parliament, including this observation:

First, Members of the House of Commons should not, in any case, be denied or delayed access to the Hill and the precinct when they are known to be Members.

Speaker Regan, in an April 6, 2017, ruling, which would eventually lead to the 2017 report that I cited earlier, commented at page 10246 of the Debates. He said:

The importance of the matter of members' access to the precinct, particularly when there are votes for members to attend, cannot be overstated. It bears repeating that even a temporary denial of access, whether there is a vote or not, cannot be tolerated.

The 2017 report, meanwhile, noted that:

In line with past precedents, the Committee strongly believes that the right of unimpeded access for parliamentarians to the parliamentary precinct is of the upmost importance and that obstruction or interference with Members engaged in parliamentary business cannot be condoned.

We are left with a trail of precedents, which goes directly to the right of this House to have the attendance and service of its members. Now, some may say that the board's decision should be upheld because it is about safety. I agree that in pandemic times it is right that we should take appropriate precautions. However, that does not mean the rights of Parliament should just be tossed out, but rather it is incumbent upon us to find an appropriate balance. Even for physical security operations, which I am sure we can all agree are very important activities around here, it does not mean that Parliament's rights are expected to yield.

Mr. Speaker, one of your predecessors, the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, in a March 15, 2012, ruling at page 6333 of the Debates, indeed made the point that “...the implementation of security measures cannot override the right of members to unfettered access to the parliamentary precinct, free from obstruction or interference.”

Earlier, I mentioned that the House itself also has rights to control its own internal affairs. Bosc and Gagnon, for example, comment on page 122 that:

It is well established that, by extension, the House has complete and sole authority to regulate and administer its precinct, without outside interference, including controlling access to the buildings.

The authorities are also clear that these rights may be reconciled when they conflict with members' rights to come here to represent their constituents. Indeed, that is where the balancing act that I am suggesting comes into play.

For their part, Bosc and Gagnon, at pages 87 and 88, note:

...the individual Member’s rights are subordinate to those of the House as a whole...is extremely rare, however, that the rights of the House collectively will be used to override those of an individual.

Maingot adds, at pages 13 and 14:

While it will be seen that the Member enjoys all the immunity necessary to perform his parliamentary work, this privilege or right...is nevertheless subject to the practices and procedures of the House.

The real crux of the question before us, then, is who has the proper and lawful authority to impose limits or controls on those individual rights. Perhaps I could offer an analogy.

I am standing here today in a suit and tie, partly because, according to the customs and usual practices of the House, I must do so in order to be recognized to speak. If I were to take my tie off, Mr. Speaker, you would not recognize me and I could not speak, yet I would not suggest that my rights were breached.

The difference between the tie requirement in my analogy and the vaccine requirement of the board is that one is the established practice of the House and the other was decided by some outside body and imposed on all MPs. Yes, that outside body might be composed of MPs, but it does not constitute all MPs and therefore cannot be the House.

Parliament and even judicial authorities recognize that the control of the precinct vests in the House and, on its behalf, the Speaker.

Madam Justice Charron, for a unanimous Ontario Court of Appeal in the 1999 Zündel v. Boudria decision, held, at paragraph 18:

In my view, it should be self-evident that control over the premises occupied by the House of Commons for the purpose of performing the Members' parliamentary work is a necessary adjunct to the proper functioning of Parliament. Surely, someone must be in control of the premises. Who better than the Speaker, who historically has exercised this control for the House? In my view, the courts would be overstepping legitimate constitutional bounds if they sought to interfere with the power of the House to control access to its own premises.

Notice that Madam Justice Charron referred to the House and the Speaker, and not to the Board of Internal Economy and the chair of the board.

I will be as brief as I can, Mr. Speaker, but there are a number of things that I have to address to ensure that you can properly make the ruling based on what is and is not.

Mr. Speaker Milliken, May 10, 2006, at page 1189 of the Debates, remarked:

...it is my role as Speaker to protect the House's control over its premises and to protect the access of members to these premises...

Mr. Speaker Regan, in his April 6, 2017 ruling, noted at page 10245 of the Debates:

As Speaker, it is my role to ensure that the privileges of the House and the individual privileges of members are protected, including that of freedom from obstruction; for it is that privilege of unfettered access to the parliamentary precinct which ensures that members are able to discharge their responsibilities as elected representatives.

It is worth bearing in mind, of course, the words also of Bosc and Gagnon, at page 317, that the Speaker is the chief servant of the House, and that it is your responsibility, Mr. Speaker, “to act as the guardian of the rights and privileges of Members and of the House as an institution.”

The Speaker of the House also, of course, serves as the ex officio chair of the Board of Internal Economy, but that is, I would suggest to you, a different legal and constitutional capacity that you have as Speaker.

Indeed, the November 2 Globe and Mail article describes a distinction between these two roles, with particular regard to the board decision I am speaking about today, based on an interview with you, Mr. Speaker. It states:

In his defence, [the Speaker] said he only chairs the board and decisions, including that one, are made by MPs who sit on the board.

That is to say that the Speaker, when acting as chair of the Board of Internal Economy, is not acting directly in his or her constitutional capacity as the guardian of the House's rights and privileges or as the House's delegate for managing the precinct. In any event, on the basis of that Globe and Mail interview, it is fair to say that the chair of the board's October 19 meeting certainly did not see it otherwise. Since you, Mr. Speaker, distanced yourself from ownership of the board's decision, the question becomes whether the board itself has the authority.

In my respectful opinion, the Board of Internal Economy simply does not have the statutory authority or the delegated authority from the House to make a decision like this one with such sweeping implications. If members will allow me, I would like to talk about what some of those implications are. I will do it as briefly as I can.

Section 52.3 of the Parliament of Canada Act prescribes the board's authority: “The Board shall act on all financial and administrative matters respecting (a) the House of Commons, its premises, its services and its staff; and (b) the members of the House of Commons.”

This is an important part of the argument. In my respectful view, those administrative matters concern items like staffing policies, office use guidelines, IT regulations and things like that. They do not touch upon the procedural concerns of the chamber. The former senior legal counsel of the House, Steve Chaplin, shared that view in a recent interview with the National Post, when he commented, “There is no business or jurisdiction for the Board to interfere with the proceedings in the House, including members’ attendance and participation.... Privileges are constitutional and, at the end of the day, the independence of the House to carry out its functions and how this is done is for the House to decide.”

Indeed, I would submit to members the background to the adoption of section 52.3 bears out that interpretation, and I just want to share that background. It originated from the recommendation in the fourth report of the Special Committee on the Review of the Parliament of Canada Act, often known as the Danis committee. That report was presented to and concurred in by the House on June 1, 1990. The context of paragraph (b) concerning members of the House is explained by the Danis committee at page—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I will interrupt the hon. member.

I believe I have enough information to determine whether it is a prima facie case, and I will get back to the House.

I want to thank the hon. member for the very detailed presentation, and a case that has been made. I just want to say that I believe I have enough details and enough facts there. I do not need any more. If he wants to just wrap it up in 30 seconds we will move on, and the hon member for Salaberry—Suroît would like to comment on that as well.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do believe there are, in fact, other elements that I wanted to touch on, and I intended to do it as briefly as I could, but I will respect the Speaker's ruling, as I must.

I am thankful for the chance to wrap up, because I think it is important that I have this opportunity to at least indicate what I see as a potential remedy in this situation. If you were to find a prima facie case of privilege, I would then have other arguments I should make.

However, we are still in the midst of a pandemic. I think we all hope we are in the home stretch of it, so action is certainly necessary. That is why I would not propose that we refer this issue to the procedure and House affairs committee for a time-consuming study or for analysis. Similarly, I would not want to waste our time pronouncing the board, the Speaker, the Parliamentary Protective Service or anyone else in contempt of the House over this situation.

Time and action are of the essence here. If you find a prima facie case, I intend to put forward a motion that would allow the House directly to pronounce itself on a vaccination or test mandate for members to access the precinct. I think this is a balance we can strike.

In closing, I would urge that the Speaker find that the board decision represents a breach of the House's rights to control its own internal affairs and to have the attendance and services of its members, because of the obstruction imposed upon the members' rights to unfettered access throughout the precinct.

There is an argument to be made that this could be, in fact, an academic debate, given that all members are vaccinated and have access to the precinct, but I do not think that it is academic, because it is precedent that we are talking about here, as well.

These are very weighty and very serious concerns with very serious public safety and also constitutional implications. I know it is important that we have a ruling on this, whether it is seen as academic in the current context or not.

I know you will certainly do what is right by the House, and I look forward to the opportunity to put forward such a motion to find that appropriate balance.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I want to thank the hon. member. I believe we have a number of different comments on this one as well. We will go to the hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît, followed by the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby and then over to the government House leader.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share certain points that we believe must be considered with regard to the question of privilege raised by the chief opposition whip.

I would first like to say that the decision made by the Board of Internal Economy concerning vaccination of people on Parliament Hill was necessary and vital given the COVID-19 pandemic. As the administrative body of the House of Commons, it is evident that the Board of Internal Economy acted responsibly and in the interest of all by adopting this health measure proposed by scientists, which is proving to be very effective in overcoming the pandemic.

It is important to point out what motivated the board to require that those entering the parliamentary precinct be vaccinated. Need I remind the House that COVID-19 is responsible for the loss of thousands of lives nationwide?

As of early November, the death toll was almost 12,000 in Quebec, almost 30,000 in Canada and more than five million around the world.

We have a duty to reflect on the issues that have been generated and magnified by the pandemic, and we have a duty to do what is needed to address them. This is what we were elected to do. We must be sensible in carrying out our parliamentary duties in order to protect our democracy as much as possible for the good of society, for everyone here and for our children.

There is broad consensus among scientists that vaccination is one of the best ways to get through this pandemic, and we need to set an example. We have a duty to keep Parliament running so that we can do the legislative work we were elected to do. The parliamentary privilege that each one of us enjoys is offset by this duty.

The decision regarding proof of vaccination and access to the parliamentary precinct for members and their staff is a purely administrative one that we believe falls under the jurisdiction of the Board of Internal Economy. The authors of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice state on page 304 that the “powers and authority of the Board flow from provisions of the Parliament of Canada Act, the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, and the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act.” According to section 52.3 of the Parliament of Canada Act, the Board of Internal Economy “shall act on all financial and administrative matters respecting (a) the House of Commons, its premises, its services and its staff; and (b) the members of the House of Commons.”

It is therefore clear that the Board of Internal Economy can make administrative decisions that it deems are in the best interest of the House of Commons in order to ensure that parliamentary work can be done properly. It is in the very nature of an organization, whether it be public or private, to make decisions regarding the health measures to be implemented, taking into account public health recommendations and provincial government orders, in order to ensure the well-being of the organization and to protect staff, clients and service providers.

It is clear that the Board of Internal Economy has not only the power to require double vaccination on Parliament Hill but also, and most importantly, the duty to make the decision to add this public health measure to the other public health measures it has implemented over the past year. I would also point out that the Board of Internal Economy is an extension of the House of Commons.

The Board of Internal Economy's composition ensures it remains non-partisan and balances the interests of the government and the opposition parties. The decision made by the majority of its members was made in accordance with the usual practices and the statutory and regulatory authorities.

It is worth noting that, in 2013, at the request of the House, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs considered whether to replace the Board of Internal Economy with an independent oversight body. The committee concluded that the Board's structure and mandate, as we know them, “is the most appropriate model”. In our view, therefore, the Board of Internal Economy has the legitimacy to take action on such matters.

The official opposition is suggesting that the Board of Internal Economy's decision regarding the vaccination of MPs on Parliament Hill is a violation of parliamentary privilege.

We should consider the particular circumstances resulting from the pandemic. The decision to require vaccination was made for public health reasons. In this case, the administrative decision of the Board of Internal Economy does not in any way breach parliamentary privilege. Although in other circumstances we might agree that preventing certain members from accessing the House of Commons and Parliament Hill would constitute a breach of parliamentary privilege, the current pandemic leads us to conduct a more nuanced analysis of this privilege.

At this point, we must highlight the intrinsic objectives that led to the tradition of parliamentary privilege enshrined in the Constitution Act, 1867. On the one hand, Bosc and Gagnon say the following on page 75 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice: “The collective privileges of the House of Commons and the individual privileges of its Members are not unlimited.”

On the other hand, parliamentary privilege does not put the individual rights of members first to the detriment of collective rights of the House of Commons. The individual privileges of members when exercising their parliamentary duties should not contradict the purpose of the House as a deliberative and legislative assembly working on behalf of democracy.

Tradition and practice dictate that the collective rights of the House take precedence over the rights of parliamentarians as individuals in order to protect Parliament from any abuses by individual parliamentarians. Is it not the intrinsic purpose of parliamentary privilege to enable Parliament to do its work?

To determine whether the privilege of unvaccinated members has been breached, we must ask ourselves whether the repercussions of their presence on the Hill, due to the fact that they are not vaccinated, could hinder the legislative work and deliberations of the House of Commons.

Allowing members who are not adequately vaccinated onto the Hill in the middle of a pandemic could have an adverse or even disastrous effect on the proper functioning of the House in the event of an outbreak. Favouring the privilege of unvaccinated members could in fact breach the collective privilege of the House to fully and adequately carry out its work and hold debates. This would be contrary to the interests of the public and society, which expect Parliament to operate as the seat of our democracy.

In reality, the purpose of requiring double vaccination is specifically to prevent the virus from spreading in Parliament and avoid having to stop or disrupt parliamentary activities. The Board of Internal Economy's decision to require members and staff to be vaccinated in order to work on Parliament Hill is entirely legitimate and necessary.

Furthermore, because the Constitution Act, 1867, refers to the usages and forms of the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to determine the extent of the privilege of the Canadian Parliament, it makes sense to look at whether other Commonwealth parliaments require their members to be vaccinated against COVID-19, notwithstanding parliamentary privilege.

In October, the Australian Parliament became the first Westminster government to require that members and staff be vaccinated in order to enter Parliament. A majority of Australian members adopted a motion to that effect in the House. If members do not comply with the vaccination requirement, they are suspended from the parliamentary precinct until the second sitting day of 2022.

The Scottish Parliament also ruled on vaccination for its members. The July 20, 2021, edition of The Herald reported that, during deliberations in the House, the Scottish Speaker said that there is nothing to stop a member from entering the House unless the House says otherwise. That is essentially what our own Board of Internal Economy has done.

Mr. Speaker, for all these reasons, we respectfully suggest that you immediately put the question to see whether the House supports the Board of Internal Economy's decision to require vaccination on Parliament Hill.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that action was taken by the Board of Internal Economy. I agree with my hon. colleague from Salaberry—Suroît who said that that decision makes sense.

Today we should be thinking about the 30,000 Canadians and five million people around the world who have died from COVID‑19. This is a serious pandemic. We have not seen a pandemic this bad in over a century. Appropriate measures are needed to address this kind of pandemic. That is why I am surprised and disappointed by the question of privilege raised by my colleague, the official opposition whip. These decisions really are just common sense.

As we know, this Parliament and previous Parliaments have given specific instructions and bylaws to the Board of Internal Economy. The Board of Internal Economy bylaws that were fixed by Parliament specifically empower the board to “make policy decisions to govern the use of funds, goods, services and premises provided for the House, its committees and members”. Those bylaws, which come from Parliament and parliamentarians themselves, further define the premises as “any place provided for the use of the House of Commons, its committees, and members or the House Administration, and any place where the House or any of its committees sits”.

Parliament already gave those powers to the Board of Internal Economy. The Board of Internal Economy made an important decision to ensure the health and safety of members of Parliament, employees, whom we must respect at all times, and, most importantly, the public. There are 338 of us who come from all corners of Canada. Some of us are from high-transmission zones of COVID right now. There have been outbreaks in my communities of Burnaby and New Westminster, as you are well aware, Mr. Speaker. Some of us come from areas where there is very low transmission, but the reality is that all of us coming together into one room leaves the possibility that we can have transmission from one member of Parliament to the other, and that member of Parliament can take COVID back to their region, which may be a low-transmission zone but could effectively be impacted by the decisions that were made.

Therefore, the Board of Internal Economy made the decision that members of Parliament had to be double vaccinated or, in the case of medical contraindication, subject to regular testing with 48 hours' notice, to ensure they have a negative COVID test. These are smart policies that were put into place by the Board of Internal Economy.

I should add that we are asking Canadians now. We know, as members of Parliament, that when we got on planes, we had to show our confirmation of double vaccination. When we go to restaurants in Ottawa, we have to show confirmation of double vaccination. To say that the general public's contribution in the effort against COVID is showing their double vaccination but that somehow members of Parliament should not be inclined to do that just does not make any sense. We have a responsibility and a duty to protect the employees of the House of Commons, the House administration and everyone else with whom we come into contact.

My final point is that we have a responsibility to lead by example. There are 30,000 Canadians and five million people worldwide who have died from COVID. We have a responsibility, as members of Parliament, to lead by example and to ensure that we are showing the utmost adherence to good, solid public safety recommendations. Public health and safety need to be paramount in our minds at this time, when we have the pandemic and its deadly fourth wave ravaging certain communities, including mine.

We have an option as well. In this corner of the House, the leader of the NDP, the member for Burnaby South, has advocated for a hybrid Parliament, to ensure that we have the hybrid tools so that if any member of Parliament, for whatever reason, is unable to satisfy the vaccine requirement, if a member of Parliament needs to go into quarantine, or for any other reason, they can still actively participate, support and speak up for their constituents in this House of Commons. The NDP will continue to advocate for those hybrid tools to be used during this pandemic.

For all those reasons, I do not see a substance behind a question of privilege on this basis. It is smart, prudent public policy that was put into place by the Board of Internal Economy and is something that should be upheld.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, as I take my place here yesterday and today, I cannot help but reflect on how fortunate I am to be here and thank the good folks of Ajax for sending me to this place for the sixth time. In returning for the sixth time, I welcome this debate because it is an opportunity for us to have a discussion on the nature of privilege.

Of course, privilege is extended to us not because we are special but because we hold an important democratic function representing the people in our ridings. We have a duty, as was just articulated by the NDP House leader, to lead by example and to use that privilege for the purpose for which it was intended, to extend the betterment of Canadian citizens, their health and well-being, and ensure we comport ourselves in a way that inspires leadership in the rest of the country.

We hit a big milestone today: 90% of Canadians have at least one vaccine and over 86% have two. It is a remarkable achievement. It is remarkable because we have been able to frankly be much less divisive in our country than we have seen in other places.

Every time we debate this, and is why I lamented being here today, it makes it harder for that last 10% to get that first shot and harder for that last 14% to get that shot. It is my sincere hope we can dispose of this matter and stop talking about it so we can be united in our desire to see every single Canadian vaccinated so we can put this whole business of COVID behind us.

I look at this and my problem is really a couple-fold. One would hold out that the Board of Internal Economy is only seven members of Parliament. Those members are representatives of their respective parties and represent more than 70% of the elected will of the Canadian people.

Others have spoken about other mandates in place and how we should expect Parliament to be no different. I would actually say that this place has an extra special responsibility to make sure everybody is vaccinated here, specifically because we are criss-crossing from every part of the country, convening in this room, meeting for very long hours and then returning to every part of this country.

This is not the same situation as the local restaurant. There is no other workplace like this one. Therefore, we have to be even more careful in how we—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Order. There appears to be a problem with the interpretation.

Now that the interpretation is working, the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, questions of privilege are not just about individual members; they are about the collective interest and health of all members. What happens if a member has a health problem? That is why we are having these in camera discussions at the Board of Internal Economy. People's personal situations and health status must be discussed in private.

We have members in this place who may be immunocompromised, people who are actually put at very real, elevated risk compared to others because of a communicable disease. What about their privilege? I do not hear the Conservative members talking about the privilege of members who are in that very vulnerable state.

This place is not just about our privilege. As I stand here, I see members of the House administration. I see pages. I know there are people who are doing translation. There are journalists. What about their health? What about their privilege to have their health protected? At what point do we set rules to make sure that the privilege of an individual does not compromise the safety and health of others?

We know that this chamber is full of rules and full of things that would infringe upon our individual privilege. The whip spoke about the fact that I have to wear this tie. He is absolutely right; that is a rule, and I suppose that is an infringement of my privilege if I did not feel like wearing a tie. So are dress codes, limited hours and limited debate. I was just talking to the member for Winnipeg North, who was telling me a story of a member who walked into the Manitoba legislature with a knife and had to be told that their privilege did not include carrying a knife.

There are limits on our privileges in this place. Those limits are present at all times. I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that they most certainly are present during a pandemic. We are in a public health crisis. We would expect all workplaces to have these provisions. I am, frankly, disappointed that we are talking about this, because all of these conversations miss the single most important fact, which is that with unanimity we could have avoided all of this. We could simply have agreed that vaccines, in this place, on the parliamentary precinct, are the right thing to do. Instead, we are continuing to debate this for reasons that frankly, I have to say, are confusing to me.

If these moral arguments do not hold sway and if the concern of privilege for others does not hold sway, I will refer specifically to some items within the Parliament of Canada Act and elsewhere that demonstrate the Board of Internal Economy's ability to have authority to decide vaccination requirements within this House.

I would like to draw to the attention of members section 52.3 of the Parliament of Canada Act, which states, in respect of the functions of the Board of Internal Economy:

The Board shall act on all financial and administrative matters respecting

(a) the House of Commons, its premises, its services and its staff; and

(b) the members of the House of Commons.

The Board of Internal Economy has a legislated mandate to act on administrative matters for the House and its members.

I would also like to draw the attention of members to Government Motion No. 1, which the government gave notice of today on the special Order Paper, and which was shared last week with all parties. Motion No. 1 directly addresses the matter of ensuring that members who participate in the deliberation of this House in person must be fully vaccinated or have a legitimate medical reason for not being vaccinated. This is a fundamental issue of the collective privileges of the House.

I can assure members that this matter will be debated as soon as possible to send a clear message that the health and safety of members who participate in person are of the utmost importance to the government members and, by extension, the House.

I would point out that not only does the Board of Internal Economy have the authority to make the sensible decision it has made, but also this matter will be debated and voted on in the next few days, which will further resolve the point raised by the opposition member.

In closing, I would like to cite a salient point made in the 2014 edition of Erskine May's A treatise on the law, privileges, proceedings and usage of Parliament, at page 203. It states that certain rights and immunities, such as freedom from arrest or freedom of speech, belong primarily to the individual members of each House and exist because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its members.

It goes on:

Other rights and immunities, such as the power to punish for contempt and the power to regulate its own constitution, belong primarily to each House as a collective body, for the protection of its Members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity. Fundamentally, however, it is only as a means to the effective discharge of the collective functions of the House that the individual privileges are enjoyed by Members.

That last quote is most pertinent to this situation. The question of the relationship between individual privileges and our collective privileges is a fundamental issue for this House to determine. That is precisely what the government is proposing to accomplish through Government Motion No. 1.

As the last point, even if the party opposite continues to protest in this way, there is a very simple solution, which the House leader for the NDP has indicated, and that is an extension of the hybrid measures which would allow the members who are unvaccinated in their caucus to participate remotely and do so in a way that is safe and does not in any way impugn their privilege. They are in the odd position of disenfranchising their own members by saying they are both against having this hybrid provision and also having this position on vaccines, which I find strange.

This matter is clear. Absolutely the board has the authority and collective privilege has to be respected in this place.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I speak as a member in a party that does not have a seat on the Board of Internal Economy in support the decision the Board of Internal Economy has made.

I speak also as someone who, being in the House for the last two days, does not feel safe to use the opposition lobby. It is overcrowded. Even with masks, we need to maintain physical distance. We need to be careful. I am particularly vulnerable and feel vulnerable in that space, because I am not confident that all the other people sharing it are double vaccinated. We are members of Parliament from four parties in that space and I feel my privileges to do my work as a member of Parliament are impeded by not being able to use the opposition lobby until matters of public health and safety are completely and rigorously observed in this place.

I speak in support of the member for Salaberry—Suroît, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby and the hon. government House leader. This matter should not be burdening us now. We need to feel that public health measures are rigorously enforced here.

Parenthetically, at COP26, they had strict measures of wearing masks, keeping physical distancing and every single person, 35,000, did daily COVID lateral flow tests to once again ensure we were all safe together. We should all support these measures.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear by the discussions today that there was a lot of unfinished business in Parliament as a result of the election and clearly there is new business as well. When the House began its summer adjournment, the Chair had before it a question—