SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 329

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 11, 2024 10:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 329 - Jun/11/24
The Speaker
  • Jun/11/24 10:07:11 a.m.
  • Watch
I am also now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on May 30, 2024, by the member for London—Fanshawe concerning an alleged breach of the Deputy Speaker's impartiality. In her intervention, the member indicated that she had just been made aware that a picture of the Deputy Speaker, wearing his robes, was used to advertise a political event held last October for a Conservative Party constituency association. She further noted that he was identified with his title of Deputy Speaker and not as the member for West Nova. She referenced other recent questions of privilege where the issue of inappropriate use of the Speaker's robes was also considered, which raised concerns over the use of House of Commons resources and about the impartiality of the Deputy Speaker. In response, the member for Mégantic—L'Érable pointed out that the photo used in the ad was a publicly available image that could be found on the internet. He added that the ad contained no partisan criticism and that the event was not a fundraiser. Referring to a ruling made by Speaker Fraser on March 9, 1993, he also noted that expectations differed between the positions of Speaker and Deputy Speakers. The Deputy Speaker, for his part, indicated that he had no knowledge of the ad. He said that, had he been shown a draft, he would have objected to it, and requested that it not be posted. He shared his regrets for the confusion that this may have caused to the House. The member for London—Fanshawe intervened again on this matter on June 6, noting that she accepted the apology from the Deputy Speaker, but that the House was still owed an apology by those responsible for this mistake. Let me first elaborate on the process used to bring forward the current matter. As I have indicated before, there is a mechanism to raise concerns about the conduct of a chair occupant. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 323, states, “The actions of the Speaker may not be criticized in debate or by any means except by way of a substantive motion.” This is in keeping with past precedents, which apply to deputy speakers as well, though occurrences are rare. In addition to the 1993 ruling, referenced by the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, an interesting example can be found at pages 4365 to 4366 of the May 28, 1956, Debates. During what is known as the 1956 Pipeline Debate, the impartiality of the chairman of committee of the whole was questioned by the then leader of the opposition. Speaker Beaudoin determined that what has now become Standing Order 67(1)(p) should be used to call in question the conduct of chair occupants. He stated: There is therefore no doubt in my mind that the proper course to be followed is for notice to be given of a substantive motion. Once the notice time has elapsed for the motion on the order paper, it is placed upon the routine proceedings, namely under “motions”. By virtue of [the Standing Orders] it is debatable and must be taken up when it comes up. This is the approach also taken from March 16 to 19, 1964, regarding the then deputy speaker and, in March 2000, towards Speaker Parent. An alternative outcome was ultimately negotiated between the parties in that case. Placing a substantive motion on notice, as was described by Speaker Beaudoin, therefore remains the usual course of action. As imperfect as this mechanism may seem to some, members unsatisfied with the conduct of one of the Chair occupants should take this very serious step. They should not be raising a question of privilege or commenting on their conduct in debate. After having made this determination, deciding today whether the standard of impartiality expected of the Deputy Speaker was met or not, seems less relevant. That is a matter for the House to decide, not for the Speaker. That said, interested members can refer to Speaker Fraser’s ruling of March 9, 1993, where he stated at page 16685 of the Debates, that Deputy Speakers “remain members of their political party, may attend caucus if they choose and may even participate in debate.” This makes clear that their degree of participation in political activities is an individual decision. Furthermore, House of Commons Procedure and Practice,, third edition, at page 362, states that “the Deputy Speaker must be governed by ‘good taste and judgement’.” As such, considering the practice of the House, the Chair does not find that this is a prima facie question of privilege. Beyond the specifics of this question of privilege, and recent similar ones, this is a fundamental issue that once more has been put before the House with profound implications. Now, through this question of privilege, and in comments made here in the House, two of the Deputy Speakers have been subjected to criticism. I would caution the House against dragging the different chair occupants into debate. It has a corrosive effect on their ability to effectively preside over the proceedings of the House. I would beseech all members to think twice before using the chair occupants as a sort of political football to settle scores or to criticize their political opponents. I have full confidence in each of the Deputy Speakers, and the House should too. I thank all members for their attention.
927 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 329 - Jun/11/24
Mr. Peter Julian
  • Jun/11/24 1:25:40 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member for Timmins—James Bay does care. That is why he was voted by all parliamentarians just a few years ago the best constituency politician in the country, because he cares about his constituents in Timmins—James Bay. It is true—
47 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border