I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on November 29 by the member for London—Fanshawe concerning alleged intimidation during the proceedings of the House.
In her intervention, the member claimed that before and during the taking of the last recorded division on Thursday, November 28, the disorderly behaviour of many Conservative Party members reached an unacceptable level. She alleged that members were disruptive to the point where she and her colleagues could not hear their names being called by the table officers.
Furthermore, she indicated that her caucus had, prior to the vote, alerted the Chair and the Table to the possibility of intentional disruptions because of what she felt was inappropriate behaviour in the shared opposition lobby. This made it difficult for her to carry out her duties as the deputy House leader for the NDP and constituted a breach of privilege and even a contempt. The member described the behaviour of the Conservative Party members both in the House and in the lobby as unacceptable, toxic and designed to intimidate other members as they carried out their parliamentary duties.
The member for New Westminster—Burnaby weighed in to support the member's question of privilege. In addition to commenting on the lack of decorum during the vote, he alluded to what he considered as other objectionable behaviours by some Conservative Party members, whom he accused of being inebriated, and reminded the House that the party whips are responsible for ensuring a safe workplace that is free of harassment for members and employees who work with them.
Other members intervened on the matter, frequently with conflicting accounts of what occurred in the lobbies leading up to the vote, as well as on the floor of the House during the sitting and after adjournment. In particular, the House leader of the official opposition rose to fully deny the accusations made by the member for London—Fanshawe and the member for New Westminster—Burnaby. He detailed the events of the evening in question as he saw them, stating that it was the members of the New Democratic Party who acted in a harassing manner toward members and staff of the Conservative Party. He argued that if any contempt occurred, it was a result of the behaviour of New Democratic Party members, who stormed up the aisle to confront the Chair at the adjournment of the House and then approached the Conservative benches to confront some other members. He therefore requested that the member for London—Fanshawe withdraw her question of privilege.
The Chair will first deal with concerns about behaviour in the opposition lobby. As described in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 295, and I quote:
Connected by doors to the Chamber, the lobbies are furnished with tables, armchairs and office equipment for Members' use. Members attending the sitting of the House use the lobbies to conduct business and are able to return to the Chamber at a moment's notice. The party Whips assign staff to work from the lobbies and pages are stationed in the lobbies to answer telephones and carry messages. The lobbies are not open to the public. Security staff control access to the lobbies in accordance with guidelines set by the Corporate Security Office after consultation with the Whips.
Whips and their staff have always ensured a harmonious cohabitation within the opposition lobby, a shared working space currently used by the three opposition parties as well as independent members. By tradition and convention, the lobbies have been viewed as a sort of sanctum that affords members and caucuses the needed privacy to plan and coordinate their work in the chamber. However, lobbies are not an extension of the House chamber, at least not in terms of its deliberative function. Ultimately, how lobbies operate and are regulated is an administrative matter under the purview of the Board of Internal Economy, as are other working spaces beyond the chamber.
On the issue of the consumption of alcohol within the parliamentary precinct, Speaker Regan addressed the matter in a ruling on a question of privilege on November 20, 2018, at page 23625 of the Debates:
Subsection 52.3 of the Parliament of Canada Act gives the board, not the Speaker, the legal authority to:
...act on all financial and administrative matters respecting
(a) the House of Commons, its premises and its staff; and
(b) the members of the House of Commons.
Accordingly, the right forum to raise such matters...remains the Board of Internal Economy.
The use of the lobbies and the behaviour of members and their staff using the lobbies is therefore a matter that should be brought to the Board of Internal Economy. To that end, I would encourage any member who is concerned about this to raise it with their representatives on the board so that it can be addressed there.
The whips of all parties also play a crucial role in the management of the lobbies. The Chair therefore strongly encourages them to look into this issue and work together in finding a suitable solution that all can adhere to. Indeed, the Chair has written earlier today to the whips of the opposition parties to this effect.
Concerning the behaviour of members in the House during the vote on Thursday, November 28, the excessive noise did indeed hamper members' ability to hear the clerks conducting the roll call. The Chair intervened midway through the vote to call the House to order.
I also made a statement the following morning, referring members to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 643, which sets out the conduct expected during the taking of a vote, which includes not making any noise. In my statement of November 29, found at page 28,339 of Debates, I stated:
The Chair hopes this will serve as a good reminder to all members of the expectations in regard to decorum during divisions. I understand that some votes are the subject of strong disagreements, but it is still expected that all members comport themselves appropriately.
And so I remind the House again that when votes are being called, members are to remain respectful so that they can be conducted in an orderly fashion. I would add that the adjournment of the House should also happen in an orderly fashion and that approaching the Chair or the seats of one's colleagues to carry on arguments is not helpful or conducive to a respectful atmosphere. While the House had technically adjourned when such events took place on the night in question, the repercussions of these actions have a negative impact on the manner in which the House operates.
The member for London—Fanshawe also complained that, in addition to the noise, the pointed heckling was inappropriate and was received by many members as harassing or intimidating. As Chair, I wholeheartedly agree that the level of noise in the chamber during the last vote on November 28 was indeed outside of the acceptable range. The lack of decorum and noisy disruptions experienced that evening do not meet the expectations Canadians have of us.
The member for London—Fanshawe equated the events to interfering with her ability to carry out her parliamentary duties. While I understand the member's concerns, I cannot conclude that it resulted in any member not being able to vote or participate in proceedings.
Therefore, I cannot agree that the member was interfered with in the performance of her parliamentary duties. What happened that night was clearly a breach of decorum. I do not excuse this or seek to normalize it, but I am not aware of any precedents where incidents of this nature rose to matters of contempt or breaches of privilege.
I nonetheless take concerns about harassment and intimidation very seriously. While moments of strong disagreement and political tension are common in this place, there is still an expectation that we, as elected officials, treat each other with civility and respect. Apart from being a deliberative and law-making body, the House is also a workplace. In addition to members, employees of the House administration and staff from political parties themselves support within these august walls our parliamentary democracy. They are all entitled to a safe working environment at all times.
The Chair believes that these concerns warrant, at a minimum, a discussion between the whips. They, and in fact any member voluntarily seeking productive solutions to conflicts, may explore available support options provided by the House administration to help mediate this situation.
Before closing, I would like to point out that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is currently conducting a study on the issue of harassment. This study arguably already provides the remedy the member for London—Fanshawe seeks, namely, referring the matter of harassment and intimidation to that committee. The counterpoints raised by the House leader for the official opposition could also fit within the committee's existing study.
Moving forward, as Speaker, I have strong expectations that the whips will address the matter in a serious and timely way. Of all the workplaces in Canada, the House of Commons, as the heart of our democracy, should serve as a role model. Members are passionate in defending their views, and this can bring vigorous debates in the House. However, when away from the cameras, we are all colleagues and we should all work together to ensure a productive and safe workplace for not only ourselves but also our staff and all those who support us in this great place.
Notwithstanding the seriousness of the matter raised, I cannot find that this constitutes a prima facie question of privilege.
I thank all members for their attention.
The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle is rising on a point of order.