Anthony Rota

[September 21st, 2023]

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr. President, as has been noted today, you join a very small group of world leaders who have addressed a joint session of our Parliament for a second time. Among those leaders, one stands out for his oratory, his leadership in the face adversity, and his strong determination to fight on behalf of his people and on behalf of what is right. That leader was the late African president and Nobel Peace Prize winner Nelson Mandela.

In his first address to the joint session of our Parliament, Nelson Mandela said of the Canadian people, “They are to us like brothers and sisters from whose warm embrace we shall never be parted.” Mr. President, I want you to know that we feel like that still with Ukraine.

I am sure you share the same sentiment after your visit today, Mr. President. It is more than just a metaphor. The ties between Canada and Ukraine are family ties, ties between our two peoples strengthened by the Ukrainian-Canadian community, which is 1.3 million people strong.

Your words today also remind us of another world leader who addressed both our Houses during a time of war. On December 1941, during World War II, British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill travelled to Ottawa and delivered an impassioned speech on behalf of his people to rally for the continued support for his country at war. It was a defining moment of history, and one that must never be forgotten.

We have here in the chamber today a Ukrainian Canadian war veteran from the Second World War who fought for Ukrainian independence against the Russians and continues to support the troops today even at his age of 98. His name is Yaroslav Hunka. I am very proud to say that he is from North Bay and from my riding of Nipissing—Timiskaming. He is a Ukrainian hero and a Canadian hero, and we thank him for all his service. Thank you.

As freedom is being attacked in many countries around the world and autocrats are banding together, Ukraine's resistance is rallying democracies and pushing us to action.

Resistance often starts at the top with you, Mr. President, but also with the Verkhovna Rada, where the business of parliament, the people's business, has never stopped. I know that parliamentarians in this chamber have marvelled at the courage and determination of our counterparts. Ukrainian legislators have pursued their critical work despite the continued warning of missiles and drones, despite the threat to the well-being of their families and homes and despite the overwhelming challenges of recovery and rebuilding.

Throughout this terrible war, I have had the great privilege of developing a great friendship with my counterpart, the Speaker of the Verkhovna Rada, Chairman Stefanchuk. Like you, Mr. President, he advocates for his country with passion and with poise, and like you, he has conveyed what is at stake: Ukraine's freedom, but also the preservation of the rules-based international order, which is a fundamental part of the future of the democratic world.

Most recently, he spoke at the G7 Speakers' summit in Japan. At that time, he shared with me a drawing from a young Ukrainian girl who thanked Canada for our support and our shared wish that all Ukrainian children should live under peaceful skies. It moved me to tears and it moves me there again.

It is moments like these and ties like those that remind us that we must stand with Ukraine to face the threat against its sovereignty.

Mr. President, Canada has stood with Ukrainian people throughout their proud history, and that will not change. We will continue to stand for justice and peaceful skies over Ukraine. Thank you once again for addressing our Parliament.

Slava Ukraini.

[Applause]

[September 21st, 2023]

Thank you, Mr. President.

I now invite the Hon. Raymonde Gagné, Speaker of the Senate, to address the House.

[September 21st, 2023]

Your Excellency President Zelenskyy, Prime Minister, Speaker Gagné, party leaders, hon. members, distinguished guests, welcome to this momentous event, the second joint address to Parliament by His Excellency Volodymyr Zelenskyy, President of Ukraine.

On behalf of my colleagues, we are honoured for your visit. As we come together under one roof, we take a moment to celebrate the friendship and shared values of our countries. We celebrate our people and the history of co-operation between Canada and Ukraine, and we celebrate solidarity.

I will now invite the Right Hon. Prime Minister to speak.

[Points of Order, June 21st, 2023]

I am now ready to rule on the point of order raised on June 20, 2023, by the chief opposition whip concerning the enforcement of the rules of decorum.

In her intervention, the whip explained that she was rising with respect to the right of the member for Lethbridge to speak in debate on business then before the House. Earlier in the sitting, a series of exchanges led the member for Lethbridge to accuse the Minister of Canadian Heritage of lying. The member was called to order by the Assistant Deputy Speaker and Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole. The chief opposition whip indicated that she accepted this decision. However, she felt that, given the member subsequently apologized, there was no reason to continue to bar her from participating in the proceedings. The whip finished her intervention by emphasizing the need for an “even-handed application of the rules”.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader countered that the Assistant Deputy Speaker acted appropriately. He pointed out that she made several attempts to bring the member for Lethbridge to order, before informing the member that she would not be recognized for the remainder of the day. The members for New Westminster—Burnaby and Elgin—Middlesex—London also made interventions.

When this point of order was first raised, I committed to review what occurred. I have now done so.

The member for Lethbridge, while the Minister of Canadian Heritage was responding to her question during debate, persisted with the heckling, ultimately accusing him of lying. The Assistant Deputy Speaker, who was in the chair at the time, repeatedly asked the member to cease with the heckling. The Assistant Deputy Speaker informed the member of the consequences she would face, namely that the member would not be recognized for the remainder of the sitting. Since the heckling did not cease, the Assistant Deputy Speaker indicated that this sanction would be applied. Moreover, following a point of order from the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, she was asked to apologize for using unparliamentary language, having accused the minister of lying.

The member did make an apology but qualified it by using a different formulation of words. The Assistant Deputy Speaker commented on the nature of the apology. She reiterated that the member would not be recognized for the rest of the day, as had been decided prior to the request for an apology for the use of unparliamentary language.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 646 states, and I quote:

Members rarely defy the Speaker's authority or risk evoking the Chair's disciplinary powers. If a Member challenges the authority of the Chair by refusing to obey the Speaker's call to order, to withdraw unparliamentary language, to cease irrelevance or repetition, or to stop interrupting a Member who is addressing the House, the Chair has recourse to a number of options. The Speaker may recognize another Member, or refuse to recognize the Member until the offending remarks are retracted and the Member apologizes. As a last resort, the Chair may “name” a Member, the most severe disciplinary power at the Speaker's disposal.

As a result, I cannot find fault with how the Assistant Deputy Speaker handled the situation. Having called the same member to order four different times in the space of about a minute, it should not come as a surprise that she chose to apply a sanction. The chief opposition whip may find the sanction excessive, but I trust each chair occupant to do what is appropriate in the circumstances. I also trust members to do their utmost to maintain order and decorum at all times, and when it has been given, to heed the direction of the Chair.

I note that later in the sitting yesterday, some members equated the sanction applied with censorship, which only serves to undermine the Chair's authority. If members wish to participate in debate, they need to respect the rules that we have all agreed to.

Presiding over the House can be a challenge even at the best of times. The chair occupants, to whom members have entrusted the conduct of our proceedings, depend on the co-operation of all members in maintaining order. Over the course of the past weeks, we have seen examples from both sides of the House of how various accusations quickly devolve into a difficult work environment, which borders on bullying, I might add. In each instance where the chair occupant has been called to intervene, they have attempted to restore order and ensure our rules are respected. Once a ruling is delivered, the matter is considered closed.

I take the remark seriously of the need for the Chair to be always even-handed, as voiced by the chief opposition whip. I will take the opportunity to state firmly that I and all chair occupants strive to be fair, balanced and equitable when presiding over the business of the House. We endeavour to do this every day. We will continue to do so.

I thank the other chair occupants for their support and commitment to the House, and all members for their attention.

[Privilege, June 20th, 2023]

I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on June 15, by the member for Calgary Nose Hill regarding the government’s answer to written Question No. 974.

In raising the question of privilege, the member for Calgary Nose Hill argued that the government had deliberately provided an incomplete answer to her written Question No. 974. The member stated that she had received, through an access to information request, a copy of emails showing that public servants had prepared the answer while limiting it to generalities and openly stating among themselves that the answer did not need to address every aspect of the question. She further noted that the public servants had analyzed the risks of a potential Speaker’s ruling in determining what kind of response to provide. According to the member, this situation amounts to a breach of her rights and privileges to obtain complete information from the government.

The members for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, Lakeland, and Saskatoon West also rose to echo the member’s statement, while noting that their own written questions had met the same fate.

In response, the deputy government whip pointed out that the member had obtained an answer within the prescribed time frame. She said that the decision of February 2, 2023, showed that the Chair cannot review the content of answers to written questions. She added that Question No. 974 asked for secret information and that, on that basis, the government was within its rights to provide a response that appeared incomplete. In her view, the matter does not constitute a prima facie question of privilege.

As for the member for Calgary Nose Hill, she acknowledged that the Chair had issued a ruling on the same written question on February 2, 2023. However, in her view, the new information obtained through her access to information request justified further action by the Chair. I agree with the hon. member on this point.

On September 27, 2016, my predecessor rightly remarked, on page 5176 of the Debates:

Access to information, accurate information, is one of the cornerstones of our parliamentary system. Members must be able to rely on it at all times. The integrity of many of our procedures, especially those relating to written questions, rests on the rightful expectation that ministers and the public servants who support them understand the value and utility of providing, not simply technically accurate, but also complete and transparent, answers in the written responses that they provide to members of the House.

Ministers and their officials are expected to provide members with the most accurate answers possible to written questions, regardless of their name, reputation or political affiliation. Written questions and the responses to them are essential parts of the process of accountability. Consequently, they are central to our parliamentary system.

However, in seeking a decision on this matter, the member for Calgary Nose Hill asked the Chair to rule not on the quality of the answer but on departments' internal processes for preparing responses to written questions.

On April 3, 2014, one of my predecessors ruled that this was beyond the powers of the Chair. Allow me to quote from page 4208 of the Debates:

Regardless of whether the department's internal processes on written questions have changed or not, it remains beyond the role of the Chair to undertake an investigation into any such matter or to render any judgment on it.

The Chair's powers therefore seem to be limited. In the case before us, I must conclude that there is no prima facie question of privilege.

However, the Chair would like to note that it finds the remarks of public servants reported by the member very troubling. I am especially troubled by the comments from the public servants to the effect that the Chair could not intervene in case of a point of order and that this could justify an incomplete response.

It is true that, based on many precedents, the Chair does not judge the quality of responses, and the reasons for that fact are understandable. However, my predecessors and I have repeatedly emphasized the importance of providing members with the information they need to do their work properly.

There may be legitimate reasons not to provide certain information in answers to written questions. In the present case, the government invoked the confidentiality of international relations and trade negotiations. Still, the Chair has noticed that members are questioning more and more the quality of answers to their questions.

There was a time when members complained about how long it took to receive a response, which led to the requirement of answers being provided within 45 days and the referral of late answers to committee. The time may have come for the House to consider how it wishes to deal with the issue of incomplete answers.

In the meantime, the Chair encourages ministers to find the right words to inspire their officials to invest their time and energy in preparing high-quality responses rather than looking for reasons to avoid answering written questions.

I thank the members for their attention.

[Privilege, June 19th, 2023]

I am now ready to rule on another question of privilege, raised on June 14 by the chief opposition whip concerning the behaviour of the member for Kingston and the Islands.

In her intervention, the chief opposition whip alleged that the member for Kingston and the Islands obstructed her in the performance of her parliamentary duties because of his unparliamentary behaviour and an offensive gesture. The chief opposition whip qualified the behaviour as an “ordeal”, as well as distracting and disruptive to her efforts to complete her speech. While she acknowledged the apology provided by the member, she indicated that she did not feel it was sufficient. Citing procedural authorities and previous rulings, the member felt the matter met the threshold for a prima facie question of privilege.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons countered that the matter had been resolved when the member for Kingston and the Islands unreservedly apologized for the gesture he made. He also noted that the apology was delivered shortly after the incident occurred and that the Deputy Speaker accepted the apology; therefore, he considered the matter closed.

The Chair reviewed the incident that occurred on the evening of June 13, 2023, and accepts the word of the chief opposition whip as to how upsetting she found the offensive behaviour directed to her. Frequently, the House debates contentious subjects where emotions run high on both sides of the issue. This should never be used as a justification for inappropriate behaviour.

When the incident occurred, the Deputy Speaker ably addressed the behaviour by instructing the member for Kingston and the Islands to apologize unreservedly for his behaviour and offensive gesture. The member complied with that direction, and the Chair, who was tasked with making this determination, considered the matter closed.

I would remind members that decisions from the Chair are final. They are not to be debated after the fact, nor are they to be revisited once they have already been settled. That is our practice. In fact, on October 9, 1991, Speaker Fraser, at page 3516 of the Debates, made this observation, and I quote:

The member in this case, as has been the practice, has apologized. Hon. members clearly feel very strongly about the matter as perhaps so does the Speaker. I cannot allow…that a practice build up of continuing the debate.

The Chair also observes that the participation of the chief opposition whip in proceedings remains undiminished. As such, I cannot find a prima facie question of privilege.

The Chair will finish by echoing a very simple and straightforward request often made in the past: Please observe the same common courtesy that should regulate interactions in any professional setting. Vigorous exchanges of ideas, which are the hallmark in any democratic assembly, can and must be exercised in conjunction with some self-restraint.

I thank all members for their attention.

[Privilege, June 19th, 2023]

I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on June 12 by the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo concerning an allegation of intimidation by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.

The member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo explained that, during question period on Thursday, June 8, the minister sent him an email, the contents of which the member interpreted as a threat to tarnish his professional reputation and his standing in the legal community. The email referred to the member reacting to a question by the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, which referenced a former Supreme Court justice. It also included the sentence, and I quote, “I will let the community know.” He felt that this constituted a form of intimidation, impeding him in the performance of his duties as parliamentarian.

For his part, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons asserted that the member misinterpreted the minister's words. According to the parliamentary secretary, the motives imputed to the minister by the member were not based in fact and were pure speculation. He indicated that the minister had refuted the allegations, which he described as unsubstantiated.

The Chair takes allegations of threats or intimidation against a member seriously. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, page 111, states the following concerning cases where members are obstructed, interfered with or intimidated by non-physical means:

In ruling on such matters, the Speaker examines the effect the incident or event had on the Member's ability to fulfill his or her parliamentary responsibilities. If, in the Speaker's view, the Member was not obstructed in the performance of his or her parliamentary duties and functions, then a prima facie breach of privilege cannot be found.

The Chair has reviewed the arguments presented and the relevant precedents. The member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo referred to the ruling by Speaker Bosley from May 1, 1986, on a similar matter. In that ruling, the Speaker did not conclude that the matter at hand was prima facie. As pointed out by Speaker Bosley, at page 12847 of the Debates:

Should an Hon. Member be able to say that something has happened which prevented him or her from performing functions, that he or she has been threatened, intimidated, or in any way unduly influenced, there would be a case for the Chair to consider. I cannot see that the Hon. Member’s ability to perform her parliamentary functions have been impaired in any way.

As the member knows, to find a prima facie question, the Speaker must be satisfied that the member was in some way hampered, deterred, or otherwise prevented in carrying out their parliamentary duties. In the present case, the Chair is not convinced that this email exchange has impeded the member in such a way.

Accordingly, I cannot find there is a prima facie breach of privilege.

That being said, and while not wanting to speculate about the intention behind the minister’s email, the Chair would invite him to reflect on his actions. I also encourage members to be courteous in their interactions with one another, as they all have a role to play in setting the appropriate tone for our proceedings.

I thank members for their attention.

[Privilege, June 13th, 2023]

I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on June 5 by the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes concerning the vacancy in the position of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

In his intervention, the member alleged that the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner had been hampered in conducting investigations by the government’s failure to appoint a new commissioner. By extension, the member contended that the ongoing vacancy impeded him and the House in the performance of their parliamentary duties.

To support this assertion, he referenced proceedings in the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, where officials from the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner indicated that they are limited in their ability to initiate or conclude investigations, until the position of commissioner is filled.

As described at pages 239 to 241 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is appointed by the Governor in Council, after consultations with the leaders of all recognized parties in the House. This appointment process is clearly defined in the Parliament of Canada Act.

The House and its committees do play a role in the ratification process in accordance with Standing Order 111.1, but not in the initiation of the appointment process. This authority clearly belongs to the government by statute. The commissioner is an officer of this House who plays an important role in the administration of the conflict of interest regime prescribed by law and by our Standing Orders. It would, of course, serve the interests of all members to have the position filled promptly.

As to whether the ongoing vacancy constitutes a prima facie question of privilege, it is a well-established practice that the Chair needs to be satisfied that the matter is raised in the House at the earliest opportunity, while clearly illustrating what breaches of privilege or contempts have occurred.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states at page 145:

The matter of privilege to be raised in the House must have recently occurred and must call for the immediate action of the House. Therefore, the Member must satisfy the Speaker that he or she is bringing the matter to the attention of the House as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the situation. When a Member has not fulfilled this important requirement, the Speaker has ruled that the matter is not a prima facie question of privilege.

The Chair did not hear an explanation as to why this matter should take priority of debate now. The vacancy referenced has been an ongoing matter for some time. Therefore, I cannot find a prima facie question of privilege at this time.

I thank members for their attention.

[Points of Order, June 8th, 2023]

Before proceeding with the vote, the Chair wishes to return to the issues experienced with the voting application during the votes held yesterday.

Multiple members claimed to be having difficulty with the voting app, and instead sought to cast their vote by video conference. Many others, having voted successfully with the app, connected to the video conference, seeking to confirm their vote. Their interventions were often preceded by lengthy preambles, despite the instructions of the Deputy Speaker to cast their vote without additional comments.

As was done after similar difficulties last Friday, the Chair asked the House administration to investigate what had occurred. Many employees worked last night to confirm, once again, that there was no generalized outage and that, with a few isolated exceptions, the application worked as intended.

In the two years the House has been using the voting application, there have generally been a small number of members who experience technical difficulties on a particular vote. In those cases, the correct procedure is for them to connect to the video conference and to cast their vote orally.

There are also some occasions where the app will signal to members the potential for an issue and invite them to confirm their vote via video conference. Again, this is normal and generally presents no problem for the small number of members affected. Finally, technical difficulties can often be resolved by contacting an IT ambassador which, as members know, is something that is highly recommended as a remedy for issues. These are then normally very quickly resolved.

What was unusual was that, both Friday and yesterday, a particularly large number of members who seemed to have such difficulties were almost exclusively from one political party. However, only three members made any attempt to contact our IT support during the votes.

One of the advantages of the voting application is that it can be used by members from anywhere in Canada. As such, the Chair finds it curious, even worrisome, that yesterday, a good number of members who seemed to have issues were using the application from their lobby. Furthermore, when claiming to have experienced issues, they opted to log into the video conference from the lobby rather than walking the few metres it takes to enter the chamber to clarify their vote.

More troubling is the audio feedback issues that were created while doing this from the lobby, thereby putting the safety of our interpreters at risk, something that was addressed by the Deputy Speaker yesterday.

Given these circumstances, the Chair suspects that these difficulties were not technological in nature. A verification of our technical logs leads one to the same conclusion.

In the ruling delivered on Monday, found at page 15261 of the Debates, I stated, and I quote:

The Chair has the utmost respect for the voting process. The success of the voting application depends on the good faith of members. All members are to treat their right to vote in this place with the sanctity and respect it deserves.

As we approach the summer adjournment, I recognize that there are often moments when tensions run high, and disagreements can become more pronounced, but the Chair implores members to carefully consider their actions and the example they are providing.

On March 14, 2008, Speaker Milliken said, at page 4183 of the Debates:

Like all Canadians, and indeed all hon. members, I realize and respect that political exigencies often dictate the strategies adopted by parties in the House. However, as your Speaker, I appeal to those to whom the management of the business of the Parliament has been entrusted—the House leaders and the whips of all parties—to take leadership on this matter....I ask them to work together to find a balance that will allow the parties to pursue their political objectives and will permit all members to carry on their work.

In this spirit, the Chair once again hopes that members will cast their votes with the solemnity such an act deserves and will refrain from actions which bring the House into disrepute.

I thank all members for their attention.

[Points of Order, June 5th, 2023]

Finally, the Chair would also like to revisit the technical issues raised during the taking of the recorded division held on Friday. This matter is of significant importance given that recorded divisions are scheduled regularly.

Casting one’s vote is an important part of our parliamentary system and is central to each member’s parliamentary duties. Members can exercise their vote in person, by rising in the House when their names are called or, since 2021, electronically through the voting application.

The process for electronic voting is spelled out in the order made on June 23, 2022. Subparagraph (o)(iv) of this order specifies that “any member unable to vote via the electronic voting system during the 10-minute period due to technical issues may connect to the virtual sitting to indicate to the Chair their voting intention by the House videoconferencing system.”

If a member is not successful in casting their vote using the app, they may indicate on the House’s Zoom feed how they wish to vote. They can simply connect to the feed, use the raised hand function, wait for the Speaker to recognize them and, when invited to do so, cast their vote, promptly—and I am emphasizing “promptly”—without getting into specifics or providing unnecessary details. This is especially important as there is generally no interpretation during this part of proceedings, as the Clerk announces the name of the member and their vote in English and French.

Last Friday, an unusually large number of members connected to the virtual sitting claiming technical difficulties. As Speaker, I was concerned and therefore mandated the House administration to conduct an assessment of the situation. I would like to commend our committed staff for having invested their time to do a fulsome analysis.

I am happy to report that, besides very minor issues affecting only a few members, no generalized outage occurred that day. The voting application worked as it was meant to.

That being said, issues may arise from situations that are not related to a malfunction of the voting application. While giving the benefit of the doubt and taking members at their word, the Chair has found no evidence of difficulties some members claimed to have experienced.

In a statement made on March 7, 2023, I indicated that the effectiveness of remote participation is based in large part on the use of proper equipment. This ranges from an optimal Internet connection, the type of device used and to the need for adequate sound quality. This includes the use of proper headsets with an integrated microphone. I therefore encourage members to ensure they are properly equipped before participating remotely in a sitting, including when using the voting application.

The Chair has the utmost respect for the voting process. The success of the voting application depends on the good faith of members. All members are to treat their right to vote in this place with the sanctity and respect it deserves.

I want to thank all members for their attention.