Anthony Rota

[Privilege, October 4th, 2022]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on September 28, 2022, by the member for Perth—Wellington concerning an allegation of intimidation of a committee witness.

The member for Perth—Wellington informed the Chair of a situation that he finds troubling. Following a witness’s appearance before a Senate committee, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage submitted an inquiry request to the Commissioner of Lobbying regarding the witness’s activities. The witness had also appeared before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in March and May of this year.

According to the member, the parliamentary secretary’s conduct constitutes an attempt to intimidate the witness, an act which could be considered a contempt of the House.

While the member acknowledged that this matter relates to the work of the other place, he argued that the House of Commons should be able to take up the issue because the alleged act was committed by a member and only the House can exercise disciplinary authority over its members.

As the member for Perth—Wellington noted, this question of privilege stems from the deliberations of a Senate committee. My role as Speaker is limited to only protecting the rights and privileges of the House of Commons and its members. As stated in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, on page 317, and I quote: “It is the responsibility of the Speaker to act as the guardian of the rights and privileges of Members and of the House as an institution.”

Therefore, the Chair cannot exercise its authority to protect the rights and privileges of the other house of Parliament. The Chair will not review or rule on that house’s business.

That said, the Chair has reviewed the facts submitted that are within its purview. It is not immediately apparent that the conduct in question was intended as an attempt to intimidate the witness or an act of reprisal for his appearances before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

The Chair would also remind members of the importance of choosing their words carefully when discussing the conduct of other members.

In the opinion of the Chair, this matter does not warrant priority consideration over all other House business. I therefore consider the matter closed.

I thank members for their attention.

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division, Government Orders will be extended by 13 minutes.

[Privilege, September 27th, 2022]

I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on September 22, 2022, by the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan regarding comments made on social media by a member of the parliamentary press gallery.

In raising his question of privilege, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan explained that after he asked a question during oral questions, a journalist tweeted comments that he considered personally threatening. The member asserted that in the current social climate, these comments could incite some people to violence.

The member further stated that the journalist’s status as an accredited member of the press gallery gives him special access to the parliamentary precinct. In the member’s view, the idea of crossing paths with someone who has threatened him worries him so such that he thinks it would impede his ability to perform his duties.

The House leader of the official opposition and the members for Kildonan—St. Paul and Louis-Saint-Laurent expressed their support for the member’s statement, noting that members are increasingly dealing with similar unacceptable situations.

The Chair takes this situation very seriously. Elected officials are regularly subject to comments on social media that go beyond criticism and political debate. Some comments are sometimes extreme and occasionally even violent.

Parliamentarians, their staff and those who report on parliamentary activities should seek to raise the level of public debate and resist the temptation to trivialize or oversimplify important issues, as it can occur on social media.

In this instance, the Chair will not address issues of security or the threats experienced by elected officials since the Chair’s role, in deliberating on questions of privilege, is limited to determining whether, in light of the facts brought before the House, there is a prima facie breach of privilege and whether this matter should take precedence over all other House business. Therefore, in this case, the Chair will instead seek to determine whether the journalist’s comments about the member were designed to intimidate him and infringe on his ability to perform his parliamentary functions.

Regarding cases where members are obstructed, interfered with or intimidated by non-physical means House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states the following on page 111: “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.”

The Chair has reviewed the statement by the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan with these key principles in mind. The facts outlined in the House do not appear to show that the member was impeded in performing his parliamentary functions. Therefore, I cannot find a prima facie question of privilege.

As for the member’s second point, the Chair will not interfere with the rules governing the press gallery. The Chair is convinced that press gallery officials will continue to uphold among its members its usual high standards of professionalism.

Finally, I would like to remind everyone who influences public debate that they have a responsibility to consider the consequences of their remarks and to choose their words judiciously and respectfully.

I thank the members for their attention.

[Privilege, June 23rd, 2022]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised yesterday by the member for Calgary Centre.

The member contended that the decision taken by unanimous consent to adjourn the sitting of June 21, 2022, constitutes a breach of his privileges. He noted that due to the technical difficulties with our video conferencing system, he was unable to participate in the proceedings of the House when this decision was made. He equated this matter with previous situations where members were prevented from physically accessing the chamber and asked that the Chair find a prima facie question of privilege.

I thank the member for raising this matter. As I indicated in my statement yesterday, the sitting of June 21, 2022, was suspended due to a connectivity problem external to the House of Commons

It is clear to the Chair that there was no deliberate attempt to interfere with the member's ability to participate in the proceedings. When it was brought to the Chair's attention that there was a widespread outage preventing members from participating, the sitting was suspended. Once it became apparent that it would not be possible to resolve the matter quickly, following discussions with representatives of all parties, the sitting was resumed to allow a motion to adjourn to be presented. The motion was adopted with the unanimous agreement of all members present.

The Chair recognizes that the member was not able to provide his consent for that decision. It was specifically because some members could not participate that the House agreed to adjourn early. The decision was made with the express intent of protecting the rights of those members participating by videoconference. Continuing to sit in those circumstances would have been more problematic for the privileges of members than making a decision to adjourn,

Therefore, the Chair cannot find that this matter constitutes a question of privilege.

I thank all members for their attention.

[Similarities Between Bill C-243 and Bill S-211, June 6th, 2022]

I would like to make a statement concerning similarities between two bills that are currently before the House.

Bill C-243, An Act respecting the elimination of the use of forced labour and child labour in supply chains, standing in the name of the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River, received first reading on February 8 last and was added to the order of precedence on February 9, 2022.

As for Bill S-211, An Act to enact the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act and to amend the Customs Tariff, standing in the name of the member for Scarborough—Guildwood, a message from the Senate was received on April 29, 2022, informing the House of its adoption. It then received first reading and was added to the order of precedence on May 3, 2022.

These two bills have the same objective, to require certain entities, including federal institutions, to report on the measures that they take to prevent and reduce the risk of using forced labour or child labour in the production of goods or in their supply chains.

The case before the House involves an unusual set of circumstances. Normally, in the case of private members' bills, the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business would designate as non-votable a bill that is essentially the same as one higher up on the order of precedence. However, as it states at page 1144 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice:

In the case of a private Member’s public bill originating in the Senate, the only ground on which such a bill can be designated non-votable is its similarity to a bill voted on by the House in the same Parliament.

Since Bill C-243 had not been voted on when the Subcommittee on Private Members’ Business reviewed Bill S-211, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, on the recommendation of its subcommittee, designated the bill votable in its report to the House of May 11, 2022. Thus, two similar items are listed on the order of precedence for Private Members’ Business.

Since Bill S-211 was adopted on June 1 at second reading and referred to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, the House now finds itself in a situation in which a decision has been made with respect to one of two bills containing similar provisions and seeking the same objective.

There is a long-standing practice that prohibits the same question from being decided twice by the House during the same session. In adopting Bill S-211 at second reading, the House agreed to the principle of that bill and, thus, has also made a decision on the principle of Bill C-243.

On May 11, 2022, in a ruling found at page 5,125 of Debates, the Chair considered a similar situation concerning two other similar bills. At that time, it was determined that the House should not find itself in a situation in which it was called on to decide on the same question twice in a single session.

Standing Order 94(1) grants the Speaker the authority to make all arrangements necessary to ensure the orderly conduct of Private Members’ Business. In accordance with this authority, the Chair is ordering that the status of Bill C-243 remain pending and that it not be considered. This leaves open the possibility that Bill C-243 may be reinstated in the next session, pursuant to Standing Order 86.1, should by any chance Bill S-211 fail to be enacted in this session.

I thank all members for their attention.

[Certain Amendments Made to Bill C-19, June 2nd, 2022]

Following the presentation yesterday of the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Finance on Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, the Chair wishes to draw the attention of members to a procedural issue related to two amendments adopted by the committee during clause-by-clause study of the bill.

As the House knows, the Speaker does not normally intervene in committee matters. However, in cases where a committee has exceeded its authority, particularly in relation to bills, the Speaker has a responsibility to ensure that certain fundamental rules and practices are properly observed. As Speaker Fraser explained on April 28, 1992, at page 9801 of the Debates:

When a bill is referred to a standing or legislative committee of the House, that committee is only empowered to adopt, amend or negative the clauses found in that piece of legislation and to report the bill to the House with or without amendments. The committee is restricted in its examination in a number of ways. It cannot infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown, ... no matter how tempting that may be.

The first questionable amendment modified clause 6 of the bill in order to amend the Income Tax Act and allow individuals with type 1 diabetes to automatically qualify for a tax credit. Some uncertainty was raised about whether this amendment required a royal recommendation, and the chair of the committee ruled it inadmissible. This decision was challenged and subsequently overturned. The committee then debated and adopted this amendment.

The second amendment seeks to amend clause 135 of Bill C-19 to modify the select luxury items tax act. With respect to subject aircraft, the coming into force is changed from September 1, 2022, to a day or days to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council. Here again, the chair of the committee ruled the amendment inadmissible because it lacked a needed ways and means motion. This decision was also challenged and overturned, and again the committee then debated the amendment and adopted it.

Both amendments bring up different, but equally important, questions about the admissibility of amendments and their compliance with certain financial procedures. Page 772 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, reminds us that:

Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation. An amendment is also inadmissible if it exceeds the scope of the ways and means motion on which a bill is based, or if it imposes a new charge on the people that is not preceded by the adoption of a ways and means motion or not covered by the terms of a ways and means motion already adopted.

Given the potential consequences rising from these amendments and the way they were considered in committee, the Chair felt it necessary to review the relevant evidence together with the rules relating to financial procedure.

With respect to the first amendment related to clause 6, the Chair is unclear as to how it constitutes a new and distinct charge on the public treasury. In fact, based on the information the Chair has before it, it appears that this amendment allows a tax credit that in its application is non-refundable. Accordingly, while the chair of the committee determined that the amendment required a royal recommendation, I am of the view that it does not need one.

With regard to the amendment to clause 135, the Chair agrees with the committee chair that this amendment, by changing the date of the coming into force of the clause, could oblige certain entities to bear an additional charge. Consequently, given this possibility, this amendment needs to be preceded by a ways and means motion.

While the Chair appreciates the difficulties that can arise when examining a bill in committee, it is important to remember that a committee must carry out its mandate without exceeding its powers. In the Chair’s view, by adopting an amendment that infringes on the financial initiative of the Crown, a committee ventures beyond its powers.

Consequently, the Chair must order that the amendment to clause 135, adopted by the Standing Committee on Finance, be declared null and void, and that the amendment no longer form part of the bill as reported to the House.

I want to thank all members for their attention.

[Privilege, June 2nd, 2022]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on May 30, 2022, by the member for Perth—Wellington concerning questions related to the Board of Internal Economy in Adjournment Proceedings.

In presenting his question of privilege, the member for Perth—Wellington explained that he had put a question to the chief opposition whip, in his role as a spokesman for the Board of Internal Economy, during Oral Questions on May 16, 2022. Since he was not satisfied with the response, he gave notice of his intention to raise the matter with the whip during Adjournment Proceedings.

The Private Members’ Business Office, which organizes these debates, then informed him that his notice was inadmissible because, under Standing Order 38(5), only a minister or parliamentary secretary can respond to questions asked during this period.

According to the member, this decision does not take account of an order adopted by the House on October 2, 2001, that indeed allows a spokesperson for the Board of Internal Economy to answer these questions. Even if no such change was made to the Standing Orders, he believes that this order was of a permanent nature. He also argued that the decision to refuse his notice was a breach of his privileges and non-compliance with an order of the House.

First off, since this is a question of interpretation of the Standing Orders and our practice, the matter will be dealt with as a point of order and not a point of privilege.

Fundamentally, what is at issue in the case before us is the nature of the order adopted by unanimous consent on October 2, 2001. Normally, an order is valid for the session under way. When the House wishes to make permanent changes, it normally does so by amending the Standing Orders. In fact, the name of this document, “Standing Orders”, expresses this well. These are orders that remain in effect from one session to the next. The member did, however, cite examples of orders adopted by the House that, without amending the Standing Orders, were permanent. This was the case with the adoption of the current wording of the prayer and with the designation of a committee for the consideration of certain reports.

The recourse of unanimous consent is described thus in the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at pages 591 and 592:

At times, the House may choose to depart from, vary or abridge the rules it has made for itself. When the House has made substantial or permanent modifications to its procedures or practices, it has usually proceeded by way of motion preceded by notice; ad hoc changes, on the other hand, are often made by obtaining the consent of all Members present in the House at the time the departure from the rules or practices is proposed. Such a suspension of the rules or usual practices is accomplished by what is termed “unanimous consent”.

The motion adopted on October 2, 2001, that the member cited, began with the words, “notwithstanding any Standing Order”, which normally announces a temporary departure from the rules of the House. As such, a question was exceptionally allowed to be answered by a spokesperson for the Board of Internal Economy who is neither a minister nor a parliamentary secretary during Adjournment Proceedings.

By all appearances, the decision was an agreement for the case raised a few days earlier, on September 28, 2001. At that time, everyone agreed that it was an inconsistency in the Standing Orders, an inconsistency that, in the opinion of the Chair, is still there. The solution chosen at the time was a temporary order. In order to make that decision permanent, it should have been worded differently.

In the meantime, if the member for Perth—Wellington wishes the chief opposition whip, one of the spokesmen for the Board of Internal Economy, to be able to answer the question during Adjournment Proceedings, he can ask for the unanimous consent of the House to temporarily depart from the Standing Orders.

Moreover, if the member wishes to suggest a permanent change to Standing Order 38, I invite him to take advantage of the debate on the Standing Orders and procedure of the House and its committees, held pursuant to Standing Order 51, to make the suggestion. He can also raise the matter with the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, whose mandate is to guide the House in reviewing the Standing Orders.

I thank all members for their attention.

The hon. member for Perth—Wellington is rising on a point of order.

[March 21st, 2022]

Thank you, Ms. May.

Again, I thank His Excellency President Zelenskyy for addressing us today. I know that we will not soon forget this exceptional man.

I would also like to thank all parliamentarians and all our distinguished guests for having attended either in person or by video link. This historic joint address to Parliament will continue to be that, a historic event.

Thank you. Dyakuyu.

[Applause]

[March 21st, 2022]

Thank you, Mr. Singh.

I now invite the House leader of the Green Party, Ms. Elizabeth May, to say a few words.

[March 21st, 2022]

Thank you, Monsieur Blanchet.

I now invite the leader of the New Democratic Party, Mr. Jagmeet Singh, to speak to us.

[March 21st, 2022]

Thank you, Ms. Bergen.

I now invite the leader of the Bloc Québécois to address us.