Debates of Nov. 23rd, 2021

Allegations Concerning the Clerk of the House

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I am disturbed by the attack on individuals in our administration from either side. Something we have to look at is that these items are personnel items and normally dealt with at the Board of Internal Economy. To attack someone with allegations who is already in our administration I find very troubling. I feel that if the hon. member wants to deal with that item, I would feel much more comfortable and would ask him to have his members of the Board of Internal Economy bring it forward and actually look into the facts rather than the allegations that are being brought forward.

To attack someone who cannot defend themselves in the chamber, I feel, is very troubling, and I must stop that attack. I ask the member to talk to his representatives on the Board of Internal Economy so that we can look into it deeper, find out what the facts are and then proceed from there.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I stated at the outset, the allegations are extremely disturbing and troubling. If we are going to go back and forth on this, I think—

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I will let the hon. government House leader rise on this question of privilege.

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

Mr. Speaker, let us not start this Parliament in this way, by attacking servants of the House. There is a forum for this. You have stated that that forum is the Board of Internal Economy. That is where we deal with personnel matters. We do not deal in this chamber in parlaying in rumours and things that people received in their inboxes, with all due respect to the member across the aisle.

Every individual who works for this place, particularly those who are servants of this place and do not have the ability to defend themselves or stand in their places to give their side of the story, should have these matters adjudicated in camera, with the opportunity for all of the facts to be present as opposed to a one-sided smear of an individual who is trying to serve this place and to do so with distinction and honour.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard enough. Please let us end this.

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

Mr. Speaker, congratulations on your role.

I would make this argument. Allegations have come to light about somebody who is serving in this room's capacity to serve the House. Those allegations speak to our privilege as members, in that some of the allegations that I believe my colleague will address speak to investigations that did not come to light. These did not happen at the Board of Internal Economy. The allegations that have also come to light since the dissolution of the last Parliament relate to the ability of the House to address sexual harassment issues, including from former members of staff.

At the start of this Parliament, it is imperative that we understand if the House has the ability, under the leadership of this person, to conduct appropriate investigations and ensure that sovereignty is maintained. This is not just a breach of a staff member's privilege, but it is a breach of my privilege.

On the 100th anniversary of the first woman being elected to the House of Commons, I would argue that systemic misogyny and the inability of the House to adequately address sexual harassment issues is in fact a breach of privilege. I believe what my colleague is about to do is to explore and give you, Mr. Speaker, evidence to consider whether or not this is the case.

The time to do this is now, at the start of the first Parliament. The allegations that have come to light over the last several weeks deeply suggest that something is wrong and something is amiss, and that the typical processes through the Board of Internal Economy, in which someone in this room has a significant role, are not able to function. That in and of itself is a case of privilege.

On this point of order I would say, respectfully, Mr. Speaker, out of respect for this institution, as well as a note to my colleague to be concise in his arguments, that this is something we absolutely must address in this place, particularly for the people at home who cannot speak here and who have been impacted by this. You were very right in saying that there are people here who do not have a voice and this place is for us to give a voice to them.

Mr. Speaker, respectfully, and again to my colleagues, I ask that they bring these matters up in fact-based, non-partisan facts. We are dealing with the ability of the House to function in this Parliament. I am deeply troubled by it. I am also tired of having to stand up and give the same speech in the same iteration over and over again. I would ask respectfully that my colleague be allowed to continue. I will probably add to his argument. I would ask my colleague to be concise in his argument, but this must be addressed. Light must be shone on it. It is only to be done in this place.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Just so that the hon. member has some background here, sexual harassment is something that is being dealt with as part of the agenda in the next Board of Internal Economy meeting. Looking at the facts is very important.

The hon. member for Banff—Airdrie.

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

On that same point of order, when a member rises in this place to bring forward a point of privilege, that is to bring arguments before you, Mr. Speaker, to give you the opportunity to determine whether there is in fact a breach of privileges. It is not for the government House leader or anyone else in this place to determine the validity of that point of privilege. He can certainly make his arguments, if he wishes, when the member making the point of privilege has finished making his points.

As my colleague has just indicated, obviously whatever would have occurred at the Board of Internal Economy has not managed to resolve this matter. If it is a breach of members' privileges, this is the place for it to be dealt with. I would also remind the House that the Clerk is in fact appointed by the House, not by the Board of Internal Economy. There is an argument that needs to be made here in the House.

I think it is important that this member be heard, and that he has the opportunity to bring forward his points so that you, Mr. Speaker, can properly determine this. It is not for anyone else to make that determination. I think he should be allowed the opportunity to make his points so that you can determine whether there is in fact a breach of privilege.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I want to thank the hon. member for that point, and I agree with him on the point of process and how the Clerk is appointed. That is something that gets decided by members, and that is something we can look at.

However, when it comes to personnel issues, I feel very strongly that these should be dealt with at the Board of Internal Economy. When these come up, they should be dealt with there by all members. There is representation from all sides on that one.

I will let the hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil continue, but I want to ask for less innuendo. Just stick to the facts, please. That is all I ask, to say something that we can prove. We want to see the facts.

I will ask the hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil to continue.

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

Mr. Speaker, the arguments that have been made are profound on the part of the privilege and the rights of members. The Speaker will recall that some very serious allegations have been made that I believe breach the rights and privileges of members, not the least of which is a table officer acting in a partisan manner.

I am not attempting to bring those issues in a manner that exacerbates the kinds of challenges that exist. What I am trying to do is lay out the facts as we now know them so the Speaker can make a prima facie case of the rights and privileges of the members being dealt with.

At the end of what I am presenting, I offer an option and a solution that the Speaker can act on, but in the absence of presenting the facts as we know them and the facts as they came out, it is awfully difficult for me to talk in terms that would give the Speaker a better understanding to make a decision that is in the best interests of the House. We are dealing with not just the rights and privileges of our members, but also the confidence in the ability of our democracy and our democratic institutions to function in the manner in which they should.

Some of those accusations, as salacious as they are and as uncomfortable as they may be, are very important points I need to make in this discourse to the Speaker. I would ask for some latitude with that and ask that I continue to lay these out not as a way to disrespect a certain individual but to present the information that is in front of me, and that has been presented to all of us as members, as it relates to our rights and privileges.

I will continue in the manner in which I started, which is to lay out this case to suggest that the rights and privileges of members have been breached as they relate to the functioning of our democracy.

As I continue, according to CBC, Colette Labrecque-Riel, a former clerk assistant, wrote to the Speaker that—

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

We have a point of order from the hon. government House leader.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is a terrible precedent. If we are going to adjudicate claims or rumours of harassment in this forum, where there is parliamentary privilege and where the individuals in question cannot defend themselves, it is an abhorrent precedent. We have the Board of Internal Economy. We have a process for this.

I stand not only because of this situation, but for any person who would ever wish to serve the House and who could imagine themselves in a situation where their accuser was given the opportunity to fully display the arguments of the accusation, but the person who was being accused was afforded no opportunity of defence or to produce their evidence. There is a process for that, called in camera. It is called the ability to examine these facts.

I remind members that we are talking about the Clerk of the House of Commons, a servant of 40 years whose integrity is being questioned at this moment. On the allegations, a third-party independent report was done that stated the attacks on his integrity and honesty were “baseless”.

To litigate these matters in the House without the opportunity for the individual in question to stand and defend himself or to produce evidence to the contrary is an abhorrent violation of what any employee should expect in terms of protection so these matters can be looked at. There is a precedent being established in this chamber right now. There is a line being crossed.

I ask the Speaker to please, for the sake of this place and the people who would serve it, to stop this absolute farce from continuing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on the same point of order.

For what it is worth, I think you may have a point on perhaps not reiterating the entirety of the allegations that have been reported to the CBC. However, I would ask that you understand that these are material to the case that is about to be made. I am not a member of the Board of Internal Economy. I would like to speak to this point of privilege from a different angle than perhaps my colleague will, but I think it is important that you hear him speak to what he believes the breach of privilege is. This is the time to do it, at the start of this Parliament. I am acutely aware, personally, of the ramifications I might have in my role because of questioning someone in a position of power such as the person we are discussing. I understand what that might mean for me given the import of his role in the House of Commons.

I would not be doing this lightly if I did not feel it material to the functioning of the House going forward. I would ask you respectfully to allow my colleague to continue. I would perhaps strongly agree with you that my colleague keep his argument tight to the matter at hand and only refer to the allegations and assumptions as we know them, but we are allowed to make the case of privilege.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

These are allegations. The facts should be found and discovered. I would be very happy to put this on the agenda, as the Chair of the Board of Internal Economy, to be dealt with in the right process. It is something that I would be very comfortable with. An open chamber such as this is not the right place to debate this issue. That is my view of it. The whip of the opposition is on the Board of Internal Economy.

Does the hon. member for Banff—Airdrie have something to add to that? Does he agree with me?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would agree that it is probably best that the member gets to what he sees is the breach of privilege. It is important, and it should be important, that he gets an opportunity to lay out the facts. Perhaps that will happen at a later date should you find a prima facie case. However, I think it is important that you hear what he sees is a breach of privilege before you make a ruling. It is critically important that you give him the opportunity to do that concisely and quickly because that is important before you make a ruling.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil must keep it very concise and to the point. Please do not bring up allegations that have not been proven. We are talking about a personnel issue. When personnel issues are dealt with they need to be dealt with in the Board of Internal Economy, normally as in camera items because they involve personnel. Most big corporations, private corporations and small companies do not discuss personnel issues in public. I honestly feel very strongly about this.

I will let the hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil continue. Again, you have a very quick point to make. As I said, you have my word that it will go to the Board of Internal Economy as part of the agenda and be dealt with in the right process.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I continue, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to table copies of the relevant PCO documents that were disclosed through access to information. I would like unanimous consent for that.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Do I have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I am afraid we do not have unanimous consent.

I will let the hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil continue.

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

Mr. Speaker, without laying out properly the facts of this case as we know them, it is awfully difficult to present a prima facie case, but regrettably a cloud has been placed upon the House administration, and it certainly has given Conservatives cause to reflect on what extent to which we can collaborate. In fact, the same paranoia is, as we have seen, among House officials themselves.

In my view, the House could and should refer this whole mess to the procedure and House affairs committee for full and proper investigation. As much as some of the reactions of the media have referred to some secret external review, it has been completely uncontested in the reporting that this review has never considered any of the partisan revelations that have come to light.

To that end, we should bear in mind the words of Mr. Speaker Milliken's February 1, 2002 ruling, at page 8582 of the Debates, where he said:

...in view of the gravity of the matter, I have concluded that the situation before us where the House is left with two versions of events is one that merits further consideration by an appropriate committee, if only to clear the air.

Surely, when it appears that perhaps one side is not aligned with this, all sides should agree that the air needs to be cleared here. That is why the Conservatives last week asked for the Liberals to release all correspondence and records they had with the clerk so we could see whether the allegations were true or just how big that pipeline was, yet the Liberals have not been forthcoming to this point, which speaks volumes. That is why stronger tools are now needed to clear the air.

A parliamentary committee is a strong vehicle to do just that, as Mr. Speaker Milliken ruled on October 15, 2001, at page 6085 of Debates:

There is a body that is well equipped to commit acts of inquisition, and that is the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which has a fearsome chairman, quite able to extract information from witnesses who appear before the committee, with the aid of the capable members who form that committee of the House.

The House must stand up for its own dignity and self-respect. If you find a prima facie case of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared, as I said earlier, to move the appropriate motion for a committee study. This is the only way, I am afraid, that the cloud can be cleared and these foundation-shaking allegations can be either confirmed or purged so we can get to the real business of Parliament.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Saint-Jean on a point of order.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I want to pick up on what my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill said. She talked about people who worked on Parliament Hill, people who chose to dedicate themselves to serving democracy. They deserve a safe workplace free from inappropriate behaviour, bullying and harassment. We owe them that much. As to the point of order, we owe it to ourselves too. These people support our work as parliamentarians. They are the ones who support us as we exercise our parliamentary privilege. That is what this is about.

Regarding the allegations that were made, we believe it would be appropriate for the Board of Internal Economy to investigate. We have talked about this. We have to be able to determine whether measures were implemented to punish the subjects of harassment complaints. The Board of Internal Economy has a mission and authority under the Parliament of Canada Act, the Standing Orders of the House of Commons and the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, so it must investigate and report to the House.

That is the only way for us to ensure that the authorities who have the power to act in such circumstances, namely, the Privy Council, the Prime Minister and you, Mr. Speaker, in your capacity as Speaker of the House and chair of the Board of Internal Economy, acted promptly. We need to know how those authorities applied the appropriate measures to be apprised quickly of the allegations, to stop the unacceptable behaviours and, if need be, to punish the perpetrators.

In conclusion, we would like the Board of Internal Economy to be given the mandate to investigate and report to the House as quickly as possible.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add to my colleague's argument with additional evidence. It is not allegations, but additional rational. I would like to argue that the Board of Internal Economy is not, in fact, the place to have this happen.

Adding to the argument of my colleague from Barrie—Innisfil, I would argue that my privilege as a member has been breached here, because it is arguably not safe to work here. The allegations that have surfaced could be put into two silos. There are other silos, but these are the ones I want to address.

The first silo is that there is a toxic workplace culture in House administration, and there was no appropriate vehicle by which to air that problem and have appropriate human resources' actions taken. That is very clear by the CBC report. Given that, moving that review into private under the auspices of the person by which the allegations are levelled is completely inappropriate by any human resources standard. The process that we have to deal with a circumstance like this, respectfully, would be PROC, or referred to a committee for study.

The second silo that I would argue with respect to it not being safe to work here is that there were serious allegations that came to light about a former staff member against a former member of Parliament wherein she stated in reports that House administration steered her toward mediation when she felt that a full complaint was warranted. That flies directly in the face of the Board of Internal Economy's policy on workplace harassment. In fact, members can find it on page 12. House administration should never have steered a complainant toward an example.

Given the fact that there are allegations of toxic workplace culture within House administration that the human resources department is part of—

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is this what we are doing? Are we hearing evidence on this case? I am hearing the member opposite posit a number of different items that she is stating as fact that, again, there is no opportunity to respond to or hear other evidence of. Is this what we are doing? I just want to understand what the ruling is in this matter.