SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 232 - Oct/16/23

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Oct/16/23 1:23:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we are learning to work together in the House of Commons and it is in that spirit I am rising today to discuss not only the matter of privilege raised by the member for Calgary Nose Hill on Thursday, October 5, but also to raise concerns about how the matter has been handled since it was originally raised. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the member's question of privilege was on the subject of responses to written questions provided to her by the government. This is an area of jurisprudence that has often been raised by members and has been ruled on by many previous Speakers. What made this situation unique was the fact the responses were signed off by the Speaker in the Speaker's previous role as parliamentary secretary. It is not uncommon for unusual or complex questions to require additional resources. The House may recall that, at the time, I indicated that I wanted an opportunity to intervene at a later date. The member for Winnipeg North did exactly the same thing. We intervened in the House to say that we wanted to intervene once the research had been done. It is essential that such interventions take place before a decision is made. That is the tradition here in the House. The next day, my office confirmed that my intervention would take place after the break week, which just ended. At no time were we informed that a decision might be imminent. However, during the break week, I was informed, by way of a CC in an email from the member for Calgary Nose Hill, and subsequently confirmed by the Speaker's office, that the Speaker had made a decision to recuse himself from deliberating on this matter. This decision was confirmed in the ruling this morning. I do believe this recusal was the right decision, but I was nonetheless very surprised to hear that a decision was made without waiting for input that had been very clearly indicated from at least two parties in the House. When important precedent-setting decisions on how the House operates are made, they are traditionally made following interventions from interested parties. That could not take place here. I was also surprised at the way in which the decision was made public. Communicating a decision directly to the member involved amounts to saying that the Speaker's responsibility is to that member rather than to the House as a whole. The fact that a member of the media, in this case an unverified blogger, received confirmation of the decision before the House or even the House leaders were informed is even more frustrating. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice states: The Speaker is the servant, neither of any part of the House nor of any majority in the House, but of the entire institution.... The responsibility of the Speaker is to the institution of Parliament and to the House of Commons as a whole, not to an individual member who raises a point and not to reporters who may be interested in the decisions taken by the Speaker. Providing more information to the media than to Parliament on matters that are fundamentally parliamentary in nature is really not acceptable. In discussing how Speakers' rulings are delivered, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, our bible, further states: Sometimes, a ruling is delivered quickly and with a minimum of explanation. At other times, circumstances do not permit an immediate ruling. The Speaker may allow discussion of the point of order before he or she comes to a decision. The Speaker might also reserve his or her decision on a matter, returning to the House at a later time to deliver the ruling It is clear that rulings are meant to be made in the House. There is no precedent for a Speaker doing otherwise, and the rule book does not contemplate otherwise. I humbly request that, in future, these matters be treated appropriately and in accordance with House practices.

669 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 232 - Oct/16/23

The Deputy Speaker

Oct/16/23 1:27:48 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member for the intervention. Of course, no decision has been made on this matter. We are continuing to look at it and taking the information in. It has been passed on to the Deputy Speaker, myself, at this point. It was the decision of the Speaker to do that. I would be more than happy to listen to any further information to come before us as well.

71 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 232 - Oct/16/23

The Deputy Speaker

Oct/16/23 4:36:22 p.m.
Watch

I appreciate the intervention from the hon. member.

8 words