:
Good morning, everyone.
I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 98 of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
The committee is meeting today to study the question of privilege related to the Speaker's public participation at an Ontario Liberal Party convention.
This is a reminder that care must be taken. Please don't have your earpieces near the microphone.
All comments will go through the chair. The clerk and I will maintain a consolidated speaking list.
We have with us today Eric Janse, acting clerk of the House of Commons. Just so we know, this committee has the power to remove “acting” from his title. I'll just be a little bit biased and share that. I hope we do.
We also have Michel Bédard, interim law clerk and parliamentary counsel, Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel; and Jeffrey LeBlanc, acting deputy clerk, procedure.
I understand that one person is bringing comments, and you will have up to 10 minutes for those comments. The time starts now.
Welcome to PROC.
Clerk, you have the floor.
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I want to thank you and the members of the committee for inviting me to appear today to discuss the question of privilege that you are studying. I hope my testimony will assist the committee members in their deliberations on the question of privilege that the House has referred to you.
My contribution to the committee's study today will be some general observations on the committee's role. I will be providing some information that I hope will be of use to the committee in its consideration of this question.
[English]
In adopting its order of reference, the House determined that the matter required further examination and that your committee was the most appropriate forum to do so. Usually, when considering a question of privilege, a committee first seeks to determine the facts surrounding the events in question. It can then assess whether those events constitute, in its opinion, a breach of members' privileges or contempt of the House. Finally, it can examine corrective measures, if any, to be proposed in the circumstances.
This is, in fact, what the order adopted by the House on December 6 is calling for. It goes without saying that the House itself will ultimately decide whether its privileges have been breached and what action is appropriate in the circumstances.
Invariably, by the nature of our parliamentary and electoral systems, Speakers have to walk a tightrope, balancing their duties in the chair, their role in representing the interest of their constituents and the fact that they are still members elected under the banner of a party. This challenge is perhaps even greater in the age of social media.
[Translation]
The Standing Orders of the House do not provide a framework for the concept of the impartiality of the chair or for the other roles that the Speaker may perform outside the House. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has seemingly never been directed to consider a question of privilege related to the conduct and actions of a Speaker of the House.
[English]
A review of precedents from other Canadian legislatures may provide a few areas to think about.
I would like to put forward for your consideration a 2016 study by the Standing Committee on Rules, Regulations, Private Bills and Privileges in Prince Edward Island. The committee did a comparative analysis on partisan activities of Speakers from various legislative assemblies in Canada.
[Translation]
It would appear that certain assemblies have previously proposed a variety of measures to frame the principle of impartiality of the chair. Consider, for example, the adoption of resolutions reaffirming the importance of the impartiality of the chair, the prohibition of partisan activities during certain periods, such as before, during and after a session, and the establishment of a code of conduct for the chair and other occupants of the chair.
[English]
As for corrective measures to be recommended regarding the Speaker's actions under review, only this committee's members can decide and ultimately the House. It's up to the committee to recommend measures that it considers appropriate and provide guidance to the House on how to respond to this matter.
I will close by thanking you again for inviting me to appear before you. My colleagues and I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have.
I will just ask that the exchange back and forth—one person speaking at a time—maintain its course throughout the whole meeting. I would like to not have to interrupt. I think that was a great exchange.
Mr. Janse, I know you're not usually the person speaking or receiving attention, but just make sure that your volume is high enough for everyone in the room to hear, including the interpreters, without popping their ears. That would be appreciated.
We have Mrs. Romanado. We have one person speaking at a time through the chair.
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
It really is a pleasure to be here early on this Monday morning.
[English]
Thank you so much, gentlemen, for joining us today. I have a couple of questions.
In your remarks, Mr. Janse, you mentioned the 2016 study from P.E.I., and that coming out of that study, there was a code of conduct established for Speakers. You mentioned that when a new Speaker is elected, they are provided some briefings, whether it be a written or verbal briefing, and you mentioned also that perhaps those could be strengthened.
We're also looking at how we can make sure that, in terms of remedying this situation going forward, any Speaker who occupies the chair is fully briefed, understands clearly what the expectations are, and so on and so forth.
Would it be possible for you to perhaps submit with this committee that actual document with respect to the study from P.E.I.?
:
We certainly could. Maybe I can offer a small precision.
The P.E.I. report, as you'll see when you receive it, didn't include a code of conduct. It included a recommendation that basically indicated that Speakers should “abstain from all partisan political activity, (including attendance at party caucus meetings), for a period of 60 days prior to the commencement of sessions...and for a period of 30 days after the conclusion of sessions”.
It was when we looked at other jurisdictions that we noticed that the Yukon Legislative Assembly has a procedural handbook for their Speakers, which has a few sections on impartiality. We could perhaps share that section of that handbook as well.
:
I think that would be very helpful. Thank you.
Gentlemen, I'd like to put this in context. There's been a lot information flowing around this situation. We're looking forward to hearing from Speaker Fergus himself later today.
The Speaker did not attend a partisan event. The Speaker made a video, wearing the robes, in his chamber, which is inappropriate. The Speaker did not know—and we're going to clarify that—that it would be used or shown at a political event.
Lots of people have come to me and said that the Speaker attended a convention. The Speaker did not attend a convention. The Speaker made a video. Is it inappropriate? Yes. Was it a misuse of parliamentary resources? Probably.
We'll get more into that. I want to put it into context, because we have, before this committee, another question of privilege that we have not been able to complete, because of delay tactics, which involved a member's privilege—threats to a member's family in terms of foreign interference.
I want to make sure that people who are watching understand that what we're talking about is a video that was made, probably with an inappropriate use of parliamentary resources. What we're trying to do is understand what happened and prevent it from happening again. That is the goal of this morning's meeting.
Can I ask your opinion on the fact that normally such a procedure would be a substantive motion of contempt versus a question of privilege raised in the House? We have two other cases where that would be the precedent, yet the Deputy Speaker ruled that he would allow it.
Is this not opening up a new precedent in terms of how to handle such situations?
:
Through you, Madam Chair, I thank Ms. Romanado for the question.
Normally, we don't comment, nor would the Speaker—in this case, the Deputy Speaker—comment on rulings that they make. The ruling stands for itself. I think the wording in the ruling made it clear that this was a pretty exceptional circumstance, which is why the Deputy Speaker ruled in the manner he did. Again, there's not a whole lot of precedent with respect to this.
You're right. In the past, they have been addressed through a substantive motion. Again, if one were to reread the ruling.... I think some elements in there explain why the Deputy Speaker decided to go with the ruling he ultimately went with.
:
I suppose, ultimately, that's for this committee to dwell on.
It's very hard, I think, to enumerate all the different activities. I think everybody realizes that the Speaker is still the elected representative for their constituency. They have certain roles and responsibilities in play: party AGMs, fundraising events or just meeting with community stakeholders. There's a range of activities.
It may be something this committee would want to spend some time thinking about: Are there any of those activities for which it should be impressed upon Speakers that they should not be involved with, or that, based on practice to date, would be allowed?
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Good morning, Mr. Janse.
I'm going to speak more slowly than I usually do to allow my colleagues who don't speak French to hear me clearly and to make life easier for the interpreters.
I heard the remarks that my colleague Mrs. Romanado made earlier, but I have to say I don't share her opinion. Our work today is directed by a motion that was unanimously passed in the House of Commons. With your permission, I'm going to read an excerpt from that motion, which states that there was “a serious error of judgment which undermines the trust required”. The incident wasn't a minor one. In fact, it was deemed to be so serious that the motion was adopted unanimously. All parties and members found that it undermined the trust of the House.
Have I clearly understood the seriousness of that motion?
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Messrs. Janse, Bédard and LeBlanc, thank you for being here today.
The motion passed by the House refers to a serious error undermining the trust of the House in the chair. So this is serious. The committee has to take it seriously, and that's why we've asked you to be here.
Mr. Janse, you said that, if you had been consulted, you would have told the Speaker that he was going too far and that he should not proceed as he did.
[English]
I wanted to know if you were consulted after Saturday night, after the video was broadcast. Was there contact from the Speaker's office, the Speaker's staff or the Speaker himself, asking for advice?
:
Again, we'll be distributing this material further to the question of Mrs. Romanado.
In the Prince Edward Island example, their committee—the equivalent of your committee—adopted a resolution or recommendation that Speakers should abstain from partisan activity, including caucus attendance, for 60 days prior to the commencement of a session and 30 days after. That was the recommendation in their report.
In the Yukon, they had prepared a memo that went on for some length in terms of outlining certain things a Speaker should and shouldn't do. For example, one is that “publications of the Speaker's party and caucus should not include photographs of the Speaker in the Speaker's robes.”
Again, we will circulate those documents.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good morning to our witnesses. Thank you for being here.
I want to follow up with some questions on the Washington, D.C., trip. You mentioned that the trip was booked through the international and interparliamentary affairs directorate. Usually when the Speaker travels, there's a delegation of MPs, one from each recognized party, that would go.
Did that happen, and if not, why not?
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Mr. Julian, you're referring to a case that occurred in 1993. When Ms. Champagne was Deputy Speaker of the House, she was also asked to chair a Progressive Conservative convention at which Ms. Campbell was elected party leader.
A question of privilege was then raised in the House regarding Ms. Champagne's participation in that partisan activity. The Speaker of the House at the time, Mr. Fraser, responded that expectations of impartiality and duties might not be as high for Deputy Speakers as for Speakers, as Deputy Speakers could at times attend their party's caucus meetings. In those circumstances, it therefore wasn't considered a question of privilege.
It seems to me he also noted the fact that the conduct of occupants of the chair is not normally criticized through a question of privilege but rather by means of a substantive motion.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to Mr. Janse and his colleagues for all the good work they do for us every day.
Madam Chair, I'd like to go back to a point that my colleague Monsieur Lauzon raised. This is regarding the incident where funds were transferred from Mr. Scheer's riding association to the Guelph candidate. There was some controversy surrounding this. Just to get a bit of clarification, while that transfer happened during a time when Mr. Scheer was not Speaker, the answers coming back regarding that particular transaction came from the long-time director of communications in the Speaker's office.
I'm wondering if you could comment, Mr. Janse. Do you think it was appropriate for the director of communications in the Speaker's office to have responded, or should that have rightly come from somewhere like his constituency office?
Regarding the question that Mr. Duguid has asked for a response to, is it the will of the committee to get that response? Excellent.
With that, I would like to thank you, Mr. Janse. While you're here, we're going to give you a little bit of a gift, possibly.
I would like to ask committee members if we recommend to the House to ratify the appointment of Eric Janse to the position of Clerk of the House of Commons. Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: We will be reporting that back on Thursday as well.
With that, thank you for your time and attention. We look forward to receiving documents in both official languages.
Congratulations.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
The Chair: The meeting is suspended.
We will be back in our seats in two minutes with the Speaker of the House.
:
Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee.
First of all, allow me to apologize to all of you here present, to all our colleagues in the House of Commons and, obviously, to all Canadians.
I recorded a video for John Fraser, a friend of long standing. Despite the fact that I had received confirmation to the contrary, that message was broadcasted at a public and partisan meeting. However, regardless of whether the message was broadcasted in private or in public, I should never have recorded it. I know that I made a mistake, I will not make it again, and I apologize unreservedly.
When I assumed the speakership, I said I was taking on the role of a referee. I believe that, if there's one thing Canadians know about, it's that referees are human. They make mistakes, but, unlike a referee after a game, I'm here to tell you I made a bad call.
I am also telling you that I will do better. I am putting in place a more rigorous communication protocol to ensure this will never happen again. I will rely much more on the services of the House Administration, under the direction of the Clerk of the House, to evaluate this type of request. I have also contacted speakers of legislative assemblies and parliamentary experts in Canada and other Westminster-style parliaments. My work will benefit from their opinions and counsel.
I told you that words and symbols count. From the moment I put my name forward for the position of Speaker, I told you that respect would be central to my actions: respect for individuals, respect for decorum, respect for the parliamentary institution. These values are still important to me, although it is fair to say that, like anyone starting a new employment, I will be learning on the job.
Allow me to provide more details on the events that have brought us here. Like many of you, I have formed deep and lasting friendships with people of every political stripe. A member of Mr. Fraser's family phoned my office to ask me to provide a personal video for a surprise private event to mark Mr. Fraser's departure from a management position at the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.
I agreed to send what I thought was a private congratulatory message, having quickly recorded the video between two meetings. In that video, I talked about the importance of his friendship and his support for my wife and me when we first met, when we were newly married and, later, when we became parents.
That personal message was then broadcasted at a public and partisan meeting. That should never have happened. Even more important, it would never have happened if I hadn't recorded the message in the first place. It was my fault, a hard lesson to learn and a mistake I will not make again.
Before I conclude, allow me to tell you what I felt as a young Black Canadian who loved Parliament and procedure, a child who dreamed of one day becoming a member of Parliament but who didn't know if that was realistic. I hadn't seen any MPs, and even fewer Speakers, who looked like me.
I was recently stopped in Toronto by Lionel, a young Black Canadian father who had recognized me. He told me how important it was for him and his daughter to see me become Speaker. He also said that his daughter now wanted to run for office when she grew up. To Lionel and his daughter, as well as Black and racialized Canadians who are following these debates, I apologize for disappointing you. I promise I will do better.
In closing, I want to make it clear to you that Parliament and its traditions are deeply rooted within me. I have had a strong connection with this place since I was a teenager 35 years ago, when I was a parliamentary page. I remain determined to chair the House of Commons fairly, thoughtfully and in a spirit of collaboration.
My first task every day is to perform my role in an impartial and respectful manner because that's what Canadians of all origins and political convictions are entitled to expect from the Speaker of the House of Commons.
[English]
Madam Chair, I thank you and the committee members for the time.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much for being with us this morning, Mr. Fergus.
I'd like to talk to you about your role, your adjustment and the big learning curve facing you when you become Speaker of the House of Commons.
You left your seat as an MP and took up your duties as the Speaker from one day to the next. We understand perfectly well that you had some experience with the Standing Orders of the House, but tell me about that sharp learning curve. You had to put a team in place. You had to direct the entire team of clerks with whom you work directly. I imagine you had to field a lot of requests from all directions. And you made a video in the midst of it all.
Tell me about the learning curve that makes for a lot of work at the start of a Speaker's mandate. Tell me about your experience after two months in the chair.
:
Thank you for your question, Mr. Lauzon.
I can tell you that the learning period was mind-blowing. You go directly from a member's seat to the Speaker's chair. To be honest, in my mind, I wondered whether I could take just a one-week break to have all the briefing and training sessions before I began presiding over the House. However, it all went so quickly, in three days.
You're right. I had to assemble a team. Fortunately, some people from my predecessor's team had decided to stay on, but others unfortunately left. I had to hire people to round out the team, and I had to attend briefing sessions in order to understand all the aspects of the Speaker's role.
As you know, the Speaker is both the person who presides over the House of Commons and someone who occupies a diplomatic role that is fifth in the order of precedence in Canada, in addition to being an administrator.
The House of Commons has 2,800 employees, and you have to learn who they are, from our interpreters to the people who prepare for meetings, provide IT services, are responsible for security, provide transportation, prepare our meals and so on. Learning who all those employees are is a big adjustment.
:
Thank you for your question, Mr. Lauzon.
Even before this situation occurred, we were working on establishing a process to ensure that all received invitations would be evaluated based on a new evaluation grid. We would thus be able to determine, for example, whether we should take part in a given exercise or whether we were running the risk of disappointing expectations that people might have of the Speaker of the House.
We will also submit that evaluation grid to the office clerks, who will evaluate it and decide whether they approve of it. The clerks definitely have a lot of experience in determining what has been done in the past. We'll thus be able to decide for each communication effort that we make, whether it's appropriate or not. It will be completely clear.
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Mr. Fergus, thank you for being here this morning. You recognized my forthright approach at a meeting of the Board of Internal Economy last week. As I'm sure you will understand, I won't make any exceptions this morning: I'll be frank and sincere.
We had a discussion after you had just been elected, and I told you that you were being closely watched. It's a major challenge to switch from one's seat as an MP, quite a partisan role, to the role of Speaker. I told you that you were being watched and that I hoped you would convince me of the quality of your judgment and of your impartiality because, to my mind, those are the two major qualities that a Speaker must absolutely have. I'm sorry to say this to my Liberal colleagues, but you either have judgment or you don't. It's not something you learn.
You no doubt heard the testimony of Mr. Janse, who said several times, in English and in French, that you didn't consult your right-hand man, the clerk, before making the video. You did it on your own, with your office staff. You recorded a video using House resources, which is prohibited under the Standing Orders. You must be beyond reproach, Mr. Speaker. You recorded that video in your Speaker's robes, in the Speaker's office, and presented yourself as the Speaker of the House of Commons.
You also slighted my leader, the leader of the Bloc Québécois, by suggesting that one of his questions was illegitimate. You apologized personally, but not in the House. You blamed the incident on the interpretation.
Then you went to Washington. I don't understand that. You went to Washington while the House was sitting, and your situation created a crisis of trust in Parliament. To my mind, that was a second display of poor judgment. It seems to me that, when you know you've made a mistake, you should do what you're supposed to do. You need to listen to and see what's going on in the House, which withdrew its trust in you by means of a motion.
In addition, you referred to your partisan past while you were in Washington. I understand you because that's who you are: you're a campaigner and a partisan. However, you were unable to detach yourself from your past and put on your new Speaker's robes. It's difficult. I knew it would be a challenge for you.
You haven't been Speaker for very long, and you didn't consult the clerk. Did you at least consult your chief of staff or your entourage to see whether it was a good idea to do all that in your Speaker's robes, in the Speaker's office while presenting yourself as the Speaker? But it was a personal video intended for a friend. Did you ask your chief of staff for advice?
:
Mr. Fergus, I'm interrupting you because I don't have enough time, and I have a lot to tell you. I don't mean to be impolite.
I understand your intention, but that's where you lacked judgment. How can you imagine that you can shoot a video, in the office of the Speaker of the House, dressed in the Speaker's robes, for a friend who's leaving political life?
If I had been your chief of staff, I would've told you that you couldn't do it, that you would be at risk if the video turned up somewhere else and that the Speaker must be impartial and unassailable. So I think your entourage lacked judgment. You had the video shot by your Hill assistant. You didn't consult Mr. Janse. You didn't consult your chief of staff.
So you acted alone. To my mind, that shows a lack of judgment. You tell me it won't happen again, but I'm worried all the same because you will have to judge more complicated situations than that. I would be very concerned because this one was so easy to judge.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I feel saddened. That week we had a speakership crisis. It was tough for everyone, including all Canadians. Now I sense that we're in the midst of another speakership crisis. This is an incident that called for some serious thinking that we should all do. The Speaker's role is so important.
[English]
I'm saddened that we're in this situation. I'm saddened that the House felt compelled to refer.... They referred this to the PROC committee unanimously, because of what they consider to be a serious error.
I've been listening very carefully to your testimony, Mr. Fergus. I want to know when you realized this was a serious error. When did you know that it was wrong to have done that video?
:
Through you, Madam Chair, to Mr. Julian, that was the problem with it. It was a very quick. It was, “Let's just quickly get this done.”
It was not a partisan video. It was a very personal video. I did talk about my past, but it wasn't one where I was pronouncing about the present or making a declaration on that front. It was a mistake. I shouldn't have done it—period—but when I was making it, it was in the moment. It was between two meetings. We were in a rush, and I just did it in one take and moved on to my next meeting. I've been replaying this moment in my mind over and over again, and I wish I had just taken a moment to think about it.
Sometimes in politics—and I think we all do this, but it's glaring when it happens to you, and it's as embarrassing as all out—when you do these things, you're not thinking. We move from pillar to post so quickly. We go from one event to another, and we don't take the time sometimes to take a step back to think about it.
That's why a protocol is being put in place to make sure that all communications will be going through a process that will use the administration of the House, especially the Clerk, to determine whether something is appropriate or not.
:
I'm troubled by something else as well. In your apology to the House on Monday, December 4, you said video “was played at a convention for a party that I am not a member of, in a province where I do not live in and where I have been unable to vote for nearly three decades”.
However, on the Saturday 48 hours before, The Globe and Mail quoted you as saying, in terms of Mr. Fraser, “He's demonstrated so much calm, and conviction and resolve and determination, and he's held it all together at a very challenging time in the history of our party”.
You referred to “our party” in The Globe and Mail on Saturday. You said on Monday that it's “a party that I am not a member of, in a province where I do not live in and where I have been unable to vote for nearly three decades”. Do you see the contradiction between those two statements?
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Mr. Fergus, you stated that you realized that it was a mistake when it had been aired publicly, and that if only you had a moment to reflect on it, you wouldn't have done that. You stated that as though the video was done in isolation, except it wasn't done in isolation. On the evening of December 1, the day before the Liberal leadership announcement, an interview in The Globe and Mail, written by Laura Stone, was published in which you praised Mr. Fraser and offered partisan comments.
Did you think that interview was going to be in private?
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Mr. Fergus, you told Mr. Julian that everything happened very quickly and that you made your video between two meetings without giving it too much thought.
From what I understand, your employees didn't give it much thought either. You consulted no one because you didn't have the presence of mind to think that might not be something you should do. It happened quickly.
I'm sure you'll understand that, to my mind, you need to set an example as Speaker of the House. However, in my opinion, what happened doesn't augur well for the future because your work as Speaker constantly involves making quick decisions amid various stressful events and always drawing on the best advice. You must be above the fray. From what I see here, there was no thinking on your part.
What impresses me most is what followed, and I'd like to get an answer from you on this. How do you explain why you waited a week before apologizing for that serious mistake? It took a week for you to think, reflect and accept the fact that you had made a serious mistake that undermined the trust of the House. Can you explain that significant delay to me?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
This is saddening for Canadians.
I need to understand, having gone through what we consider to be a campaign for speakership. We have Speakers who offer themselves. They all talk about the role of the Speaker. They talk about impartiality and non-partisanship. I'm interested in your perception of impartiality and non-partisanship prior to your election and what you did following that to ensure a full understanding of impartiality and non-partisanship in terms of precedence.
I was disturbed by Mr. Janse's testimony that he had not been consulted in any way about the filming of the video. I need to know and I think Canadians need to know what steps you took after your election to ensure that the comments you made, which were very strong about impartiality and non-partisanship, were kept moving forward?
:
The problem, Mr. Fergus, is that you acknowledge your wrongs, but then you repeat them.
I would like to translate a statement that you made when you were found guilty of a lack of ethics on February 14, 2023, not long ago. You essentially said that you would redouble your efforts to be more diligent in the future to ensure that you fully meet your obligations under the act. You also said that you hadn't done what was expected of you as a parliamentary secretary.
That was in February of this year. Here we are, less than a year later, once again assessing and discussing your judgment. For members of Parliament, the Speaker is the person who must fairly adjudicate debates and require members to apologize when they retake the floor. Consequently, we may seriously challenge your ability to make decisions that show good judgment.
The clerk of the House was very clear this morning. If you had consulted him, if you had the judgment to consult the clerk, he would've recommended that you not make the video, that you not dress in the Speaker's robes and that you not discuss your Liberal past at an official event in Washington. That seems quite clear.
Despite the fact that you had previously undergone a similar process, you did it again. Mr. Fergus, it's very hard to accept from a Speaker who aspires to be an arbiter, as my colleague mentioned, that you currently think an apology will be enough to erase that act. I turn the floor over to you.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to thank the Speaker of the House of Commons for being here.
[English]
I just want to clarify some points, Mr. Fergus.
You mentioned your office received a call from a family member of Mr. Fraser on Monday, November 27, asking for a private video, an homage to a friend, that would be played in a private setting on Friday, December 1. We're talking Monday to Friday of that week. It's a 105-second video that was shot at some point during the week. Do you recall what day you filmed that?
:
With respect to when a Speaker is normally elected, we all know that normally what would happen is that there would be an election, and after the House is dissolved, people would be campaigning to be Speaker and so on and so forth. After a general election, the first order of business is to elect a Speaker.
In your case, it literally was because of the resignation of the former Speaker. Normally, there would have been a kind of cooling-off period in terms of your having time to campaign to be Speaker and so on and so forth. In your case, that was not the case.
In terms of recommendations, we heard from the Clerk this morning about perhaps beefing up some of the briefings and recommendations to train new Speakers on the dos and don'ts of being a Speaker. Is there any recommendation you would also put forward, given this lesson learned, that you think we should also recommend to the House?
Mr. Speaker, you're probably not aware of it, but late last night, many members of PROC received letters supporting you in your role as Speaker. In fact, I believe at 10 a.m., the West Island Black Community Association was holding a press conference in Quebec supporting you and acknowledging that you made a mistake.
I don't know about you, but I think every single one of us in this room has made a mistake in their lives. It's what we do with it. We apologize. We learn from it, and we move on.
I want to personally convey to you that you have people supporting you who have written to all of us to say that you are new and that we all make mistakes. It's time to acknowledge you made a mistake. You've apologized for that mistake. We're going to put remedies in place.
I want to thank you and let you know there is support out there for the role model you are being for young Black Canadians. I want to thank you for that.
:
I have a point of order, Madam Chair.
I'm wondering, in reference to Mrs. Romanado's comments.... She referenced some emails we received last night, including the members of PROC in their personal parliamentary emails. I'm looking for unanimous consent to table those two letters that were provided to us by email last night. Also, I would include in that a copy of the metadata from both of those. When you open the Microsoft Word document, you can actually see who the original authors of those two were.
Along with each, I'd like to table not only the letters but also the names of the authors of each letter. One letter, dated yesterday, came from Liberal-appointed Senator Andrew Cardozo. With the second letter, I'd like to table not only the letter but also the metadata that shows the author of that original letter, who is former Liberal member of Parliament Frank Baylis.
I'd ask for unanimous consent that those full documents be tabled with the committee, please.
:
I don't think there are any concerns. I will be going through documents at the end.
To remedy this, are we fine with that?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: We welcome them to the digital binder.
With that, we will be going into a six-minute round with Mr. Scheer, followed by Mr. Duguid, Madame DeBellefeuille and Monsieur Julian.
Mr. Scheer, go ahead for six minutes.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think it's really important for Canadians to understand why this is such a big deal. You have come from a very partisan past, what some might describe as a hyperpartisan role, given the fact that you have served in executive-level positions. I think you said that nationally you were director of the Liberal Party and president of the youth wing. You were parliamentary secretary to the right up until the beginning of this fall session. Those are roles in which you were very close with the government and very close with the Prime Minister himself.
When you ran for Speaker or once you won and transitioned into being Speaker, members of Parliament had to kind of park that history of yours and trust that you were going to be non-partisan and objective.
The fundamental rule of being Speaker is also one of the easier rules to follow, and that is that you don't do partisan things. You don't participate in partisan events. You don't say things publicly or certainly while wearing the Speaker's robes in the Speaker's office that would have any connection to partisan activities or partisanship or indicating partisan favour.
You did an interview with The Globe and Mail in which you praised a sitting Liberal politician. He's currently an MPP, and he's given every indication that he's going to run again as a Liberal in Ontario, so it's not as though it was a retirement party or that he was going off to do something else. He's going to continue being an active partisan player in Ontario politics. You referred to the Ontario party as “our party”.
All of this has come to light. In addition to this, we understand that your chief of staff—and I understand your hesitance to name certain people at committee, but he is listed on a public website, the government employee directory service—Tommy Desfossés, was very close with the current Prime Minister, . He was his executive assistant at one point, and now he's your chief of staff. You have had a hyperpartisan role in your very recent past and you hired someone very quickly out of the PMO who has very close personal relationship with the Prime Minister, and now this has come to light.
You talked about the arbitrator and you didn't quite address the nature of my question. If you were a hockey player and you were about to play a game and you just saw the referee in his uniform giving a pep talk to the locker room of the opposing team, it wouldn't matter what the context was—would it? You wouldn't want that official refereeing your game. If you were involved in some kind of dispute that needed an arbitrator and you saw that judge in his robes at an event with opposing counsel, no matter what the context was, you couldn't unsee that.
You've now acknowledged that it was a grave error in judgment. As many colleagues have mentioned, you are trusted to make on-the-spot decisions without time to run things through filters or decision-making trees, and we have to trust that those decisions are coming from a non-partisan and objective place. I would suggest that the fact that you didn't see that shows that you're still too close to the partisanship of it. You're too close with these partisan players if you don't see how, for members of other parties, that would be a problem.
Again, I ask you this: Would you want to hear your case adjudicated or would you want to play in a sports game, having seen the referee or having seen the judge or arbitrator involved in that type of display with an adversary or an opponent? Having seen that would you trust that process?
:
Madam Chair, through you, I think it's very important and I thank the honourable member for his intervention—a person who has sat in this role before.
To go back to the ref analogy, quite frankly, it was a different league in which we were involved. However, I also recognize that the member is right. Talking about my past, that reference to the notion of “our party” was to when I was a resident of Ontario, back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, up until 1994. It was that time that it was referring to. I do not like talking. I don't want to talk about my past here, because, every time I do, I know that it sounds like I'm being partisan. It is a matter of record that, at that time, we were both members of the same party. It is a fact that I don't want to.... I'm not validating that today. I just want to make sure about that.
The second thing is that you raised the issue of my chief of staff. As you know, having been Speaker, you're administrating a large organization. My chief of staff left Parliament Hill in early 2018. It's been almost six years that he's been occupying a senior management role in the private sector. He's someone who can help manage this and, more importantly, someone who also has political experience. He understands what it is to be a third political party, and to be in official opposition and in government. He's someone who has an ability to hear and respond to the needs brought up by all folks. That's the reason why this person was hired. He's calm and collected, and he has a great reputation on the Hill.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to thank the Speaker for his forthrightness today, for admitting his mistake, for apologizing—I certainly accept his apology—and for referencing how this is a position he was thrust into quite recently. There's a learning curve and mistakes are made.
Earlier, I referenced, Madam Chair, as you will recall, an error committed by the previous Speaker's office. His communications officer commented on what was clearly a political matter—a riding association matter. It's a little much for Mr. Scheer to get on his high horse today. We'll get some information back, which the Clerk has promised us, and we'll be able to weigh in on that.
I'm interested in the future. We've heard a lot today about codifying, protocols and clarity, and we've heard about a Nova Scotia study. We've heard about best practices around the world.
I'm wondering, Mr. Speaker, if you could comment on the thoroughness with which you were going to approach that issue, so the guidance you received can guide not only you but also, potentially, other Speakers throughout the federation.
:
Through you, Madam Chair, I would like to thank the member for the question.
I think there's a lot of work which a committee can do on this, if it were to turn its mind to this issue, in terms of comparing how our system stacks up to various other Westminster parliamentary systems.
In the U.K., for example, the Speaker, once elected as Speaker, of course, completely resigns all partisan affiliations and runs again as an independent. There is a tradition in the U.K. that the opposing parties agree not to run against that white flag candidate, that neutral candidate, as Speaker.
In Ghana, for example, when a Speaker is elected from members of Parliament, the Speaker not only resigns party affiliations but actually resigns her or his seat in the legislature and becomes just an officer of Parliament who is not an active politician.
We have an interesting system here. We request for our Speakers to be impartial. That is entirely correct. Speakers then also have to run again. They don't run as independents. They run as a member of their party—at least that's been the Canadian tradition. In doing so, they have to do fundraising. There are a number of things—advantages—which accrue to being a member of a party, as opposed to being an independent member.
That is a very interesting perspective that you're raising.
:
Through you, Madam Chair, this is a source of pride for me. It's also a burden. Being the first, you're held to a higher standard. You want to make sure that you lead the way so that you won't be the last.
I'm certain not to be the last. This is a very generous country and this country has given me so many opportunities, as the son of immigrants, in being here. It's given an opportunity to so many Canadians to be welcomed and to be able to run for Parliament, for all political formations. It's remarkable.
I also have to say it has been a particular source of pride. I've received a lot of correspondence. I talked to you about Lionel. He was not the first person to stop me in the street—somebody who doesn't know me, who has never met me before, but recognizes the face. It has been a significant achievement for the community.
I made a mistake. I apologized for this mistake. I'm putting in place protocols to make sure this never happens again, and I hope to be able to continue to be a symbol for Canada's generosity.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Fergus, if we summarized things briefly so we can understand the situation clearly, we could say that you misused House resources. You recorded a video with House of Commons resources. You recorded the video in the Speaker's robes. You described yourself as the Speaker when you made the video. You left on a mission to Washington while there was a crisis of confidence in connection with leadership in your office. You did not consult anyone. When you got to Washington, you referred in your speech to your partisan past. You did not consult your chief of staff or the Clerk of the House.
You said earlier that you had apologized. I am going to quote what you said on December 4: “I regret that this video was used in a different way than intended.” On the same day, you told the Canadian Press: “I recognize how this may have been interpreted.” In all sincerity, those are not, in my opinion, genuine apologies like you gave this morning when you recognized the significance of your error of judgment.
In fact, what we understand, Mr. Fergus, is that these were errors of judgment made one after the other. You will understand that it has affected our confidence to such an extent that half of the members of Parliament have called on you to resign your office. I do not know the committee's conclusions in advance. However, I can tell you that I wonder how you are going to regain the confidence of half of the members after doing what you did.
I used to be a social worker, and I understand that we learn from our mistakes. However, there is no protocol, no manual, no pedagogical tool that prevents people from making errors of judgment. The Speaker of the House, it may be dull, but he has to be above it all. He cannot make mistakes, as Mr. Rota also learned the hard way. He made a serious mistake and he had to leave.
Today, we are here before you. I want to tell you this: Mr. Speaker, I think that in the name of democracy—because you are a major democrat, you respect democracy and you respect Quebec—you have to keep in mind that it may be preferable for you to resign your office of your own free will, out of respect. What you did was a mistake, but it was not a small mistake. It was a serious mistake.
I don't know how you think you are going to be able to regain the confidence you have lost. What I can tell you is that we in the Bloc Québécois, with what has happened and with your staff, we cannot continue to have confidence in you. How do you think you can deal with the situation in a minority government and the atmosphere we find ourselves in now, and having lost the confidence of half of the members in the House?
:
Mr. Fergus, you are aware of the fact that you are the one who has created a precedent. We asked Mr. Janse whether there were precedents, but he did not find any.
By wanting to continue as Speaker of the House of Commons, if the recommendations support that, you are therefore aware that with this event, this serious error of judgment, the precedent that will guide future advice and future clerks' manuals for the use of future Speakers is being created.
As I see it, by agreeing to continue your work and not taking into account the significance of what has happened, you are agreeing that a precedent be created that lowers the bar for the rigour, impartiality and judgment that are required. It must be understood that this will lower the bar for what guides your clerks from now on.
How do you see this situation? Do you agree with what I am saying?
:
I wanted to follow up on two things that I'm still trying to understand.
First, you testified that on Saturday night you learned of the video in the same way all Canadians did. I want to know the actions you took immediately following that. Did you feel betrayed? Did you contact Mr. Fraser? What did you do in terms of the Liberal convention, and what did you do in terms of your own team, your chief of staff? The clerks have testified. Mr. Janse testified that you were in contact over that weekend around the apologies, so I need to know what actions you took.
Secondly, I wanted to ask you about the Washington trip. We went through this crisis. It was convulsive around the speakership in October. It was profoundly difficult for our Parliament, and I think for Canadians. We're in what can be legitimately described as a crisis. Two parties that day—the Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party—called for your resignation. Did you contemplate cancelling your trip?
It seems to me in a minority Parliament that kind of situation merits that the Speaker be here in the House of Commons at the very least, having discussions with members of Parliament.
:
I called my chief of staff and we started to go through it.
I did not personally call Mr. Fraser. I'll be honest with you; the reason why was that I knew this was such a situation, and I did not want anyone to think that I was calling Mr. Fraser to influence what he would say. I was going to let the process play out. I knew I had truth on my side. I didn't want to play around with that so that I would be accused, post that, afterwards, “Did you call Mr. Fraser? Did you try to work things out? Are you close friends?” and the like. I made sure that this did not happen.
Regarding the Washington, D.C., trip, Mr. Julian, certainly we did contemplate cancelling the trip. We actually went back and forth on this and had a huge discussion on this matter. We realized that perhaps because of the recusal.... Of course, on the Monday morning at the first opportunity I recused myself from any matter that would be coming forward to this debate to make sure that I wasn't going to be a part of the decision-making as to what the decision of the would be. We then found ourselves saying, “Okay, well, should we cancel or should we continue with this?”
We had meetings set up with just over a dozen representatives and with senators, and we also had diplomatic meetings that had been cancelled beforehand. When the previous Speaker had designed these meetings, they were set up in terms of the Speaker receiving diplomats and some of them were accredited from the United States. There were a couple that had been cancelled, so while I was going to be there, I was going to take up the flame and do that. We didn't want to cancel a second time.
That was the reason why we decided, let's go down to Washington, we'll continue with the responsibilities and we'll be back in time for the decision by the .
Mr. Fergus, you've been a member of Parliament now since 2015, if I remember, when you arrived here on Parliament Hill.
In the eight years that you've been a member of Parliament have you ever had a conversation with any of your communications people, either in your constituency office or in your Hill office, in saying, “No, we can't send this out because it's not saying something that I want to get into the public domain”, or something to that effect?
I'm not asking you to name staff and I'm not asking you to name an issue, but have you ever had a conversation with anybody, saying, “We have to be careful what we send out because we don't know if it's going to be in the public domain”?
:
I think you already did. The premise of my question.... I think you'll be able to get to where you want to go as I follow up with you here.
The entire argument that I'm hearing here at this committee is that things are right or wrong depending on who is the recipient of the information. We fully know, as members of Parliament, that anything we send beyond the care and control of our offices, and in your case the office of the Speaker, once it leaves, there is no guarantee that it will end up in the public domain. You've just told me.... It's common sense, because every member of Parliament does this. Every member of Parliament has this experience. You are an experienced member of Parliament. You ought to have known...and you've apologized. You ought to have known that something like this could end up in the public domain.
How is it that with that experience, with all of the years of experience of sending out correspondence, letters and social media posts, that you didn't consult with somebody in the non-partisan aspect of your office?
You, sir, have more staff than any other member of Parliament here, except for maybe a ministerial office. You have the most resources out of anybody at this table to help you in the administration of your duties and responsibilities. How is it that nobody in the non-partisan portion of your office was even asked or approached before you sent this out, even though it's a typical practice for a member of Parliament, even within his own office, to vet these things, knowing full well that they could end up in the public domain? I'm flabbergasted that this happened.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for being here today.
Mr. Scheer is not here, regrettably, but I was struck by his comments about partisan actions by Speakers.
I recall that Mr. Scheer, just prior to becoming Speaker, had money from his EDA transferred under his watch to engage in questionable robocalls. Then when he became Speaker, he refused to recuse himself and did not let the House know that he had been involved in this. I am sure that the response that Liberal members of Parliament at that time gave him, which was the benefit of the doubt.... I am sure that our Conservative colleagues will extend the same courtesy to you for something that is, I would argue, far less egregious.
I note that, after he became Speaker, he continued to serve on the board of his EDA.
We all make mistakes in life. Some people are generous of spirit, and they are able to move on in the interest of all Canadians. I'm sure the Conservatives will do the same.
I want to talk a little bit about the question that was asked of you earlier about your relationship with Mr. Fraser. Mr. Gerretsen spent a little bit of time on this. Did you see this as a partisan thing, or did you see this as doing something for someone that you cared about as a human being?
I want to read from a statement made by Mr. Scheer when he was Speaker. He said, “Another [one] of our time-honoured traditions is that of respect for the office of Speaker.” He goes on to say, “O'Brien and Bosc, at page 313, states that: 'Reflections on the character or actions of the Speaker—an allegation of bias, for example—could be taken by the House as breeches of privilege and punished accordingly.'”
I start with that because I reflect on something that was said to me when I was elected to this office, and it is that people of colour are treated sometimes differently when you get to this place. It's an uncomfortable thing for us to talk about, but it's an important thing for us to talk about because we are, for better or for worse, role models for others. We are, for better or for worse, sometimes the front line for things that happen outside of this place. This place is no different, sadly, and sometimes things in this place, when it comes to matters of diversity, are worse.
My question to you, in the context of that statement by Mr. Scheer and the quote from page 313 is this: Do you think you are, or have been, treated differently as somebody who is a person of colour in the process of becoming Speaker and since you have become Speaker?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Fergus, this meeting is not easy for you. Today, you have apologized officially for poor judgment. You have done that in front of us and the people watching us, and the journalists, and it is not easy to say that one has had poor judgment.
You know that I speak plainly; you have told me so in the past. I am therefore going to tell you sincerely that I will always doubt you, because the mistake you made is not a learning error, it is an error of judgment.
It is all very well for you to put whatever manual you want in place. It may help you make fewer mistakes. But it tells me a lot about your ability to be a Speaker who stays above the fray and to regain the confidence of the House. That has nothing to do with you personally. You are a good person; I am simply saying that you may not be in the right place.
What is happening right now is that the seriousness of your mistake is undermining the confidence of the 32 Bloc Québécois MPs. Do you remember what I said to you personally, when you were nominated? I told you that you were under tight surveillance, because I had doubts about your election. My doubts have been confirmed. I know you have good intentions, but every time you do something or make a decision, I am going to doubt you. I will be wondering whether you are talking to the government.
The Bloc Québécois wants the Speaker to be the Speaker for all members. It does not want the Speaker to be the Speaker for the government. It wants to be sure that you are able to be an arbitrator and not to favour any party in the House.
Today, I am sad to tell you that unfortunately the Bloc Québécois will never regain its confidence in you. That is sad to say, but it is the truth. I strongly urge you to think about what I am telling you, because when you return to the House, it will not be easy for you to know that a large number of members have lost confidence in you, in a situation in which the government is in the minority and the atmosphere is not always easy.
On that note, I will conclude. I hope that you will make the right decisions when the results that come out of the Committee's recommendations are known.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to thank you, Mr. Fergus, for coming to committee.
I'm satisfied with some of your answers. I will say, quite frankly, that I'm not satisfied with other answers.
What I have clearly understood from your testimony is that you understand this committee has to go through a process that, ultimately, could be decided by the House of Commons, and that you are ready to accept the conclusions of the committee, whether we're talking about penalties or potentially asking for your resignation. You are prepared to heed the results of this committee's inquiry.
Am I right?
I will ask you this: I only have about a minute left and there are a number of documents that I think would be very useful to this committee. We've asked Mr. Janse, as well, to provide them. The reality is that we need to receive all of it today, because the timelines in the House order, as you know, are very short. We have to report back by Thursday, which means we have to draft this report and conclude by tomorrow. I would ask that those documents and those questions that remain unanswered.... If you can endeavour to do that in the coming hours, it would be very helpful.
I think it is fair to say that we all feel, keenly, the convulsions we went through in October. It was profoundly difficult for Canadians. I know this committee will reflect properly on this, even if we have a very short time frame to do this.
I appreciate that you will be providing those documents in the coming hours.
Thank you.
:
Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Speaker, do you agree that it was poor judgment on your part, while in Washington, D.C., to make comments at a retirement party for a Liberal friend of yours, Claus Gramckow, about your partisan history with the Young Liberals of Canada? You were part of an official Speaker delegation that originated before you became Speaker.
Do you believe that your comments, again, that night were a breach of the code that we've been talking about with regard to partisan politics for a Speaker delegation?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Fergus, thank you for all the time you have allowed us this morning.
I want to talk to you about consent. When a person decides to make a video, there is always the question of consent. Today, we have clearly understood that you did not give your consent for this video to be shared. I think that this consent is the key point of the meeting today. Although you were wearing your robes and you were in your place of work, I have never felt today that you had given your consent for the video to be made public and for you to find yourself in this situation this morning.
I am going to give you the opportunity now to wrap up, Mr. Fergus. If you had not been wearing your robes and had not been in your office, would you still have made the video? Would you have made it in a private context, at your home?
Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.
[Translation]
I speak French a little, but for this discussion, I will speak in English so I can make sure I am being precise and using the right words.
[English]
Please feel free to ask questions in any official language. I won't make you endure my trying to respond in French, because I don't want to take up too much time. Thank you for your acceptance of that.
My name is John Fraser. I am the member of provincial parliament for the riding of Ottawa South and the former interim leader of the Ontario Liberal Party. I was elected in a by-election in 2013 and was subsequently re-elected in 2014 and again in 2018. After the 2018 election until March of 2020, I served as the interim leader of the Ontario Liberal Party. Subsequent to that, after winning another election, in the summer of 2022, I was asked again to serve as interim leader—a position I served in until December 2 of this year.
I am also a friend of Greg Fergus, whom I have known for over 30 years. Although I am 10 years older, our friendship grew through our political community work and our faith. I am here today at the committee's request to discuss his participation in a tribute video to me, which was played at the Ontario leadership event on December 2.
I will begin with a bit of context.
As most members in this room will know, political parties will usually compile a tribute for an outgoing leader. Typically, these tributes will involve family members. In mid-November, through a volunteer, the party asked my family to coordinate a personal video about me, to compile photos and video and audio clips that would speak about my life and about me as a person. You will note that it includes photographs of me as a child, with my parents, my grandparents and my siblings, and with my extended family. These are pictures and words about my life— very personal ones.
The tribute was a surprise. I was not part of these discussions, nor was I made aware of the tribute or its content. As part of this tribute, my wife Linda Hooper called Greg's office and spoke to Mr. Desfossés about providing a brief video clip speaking about me as a person. A video was then returned to the family. As the timeline was short, it was immediately provided to a volunteer at the party who assembled the presentation, which I assume most of you have all now seen.
The request was made to Greg, as a family friend and someone who has known me personally for over 30 years. As the content was to be personal, apart from Greg, the only other non-family member who was asked to participate in the tribute was Dalton McGuinty. Again, that request was made as someone who had known me for more than 30 years and with whom I worked for almost 15.
As anyone who has viewed the series of videos that were used in the tribute can attest, they are deeply personal. Though some identify me as a politician, they are all in reference to me as a person.
The video provided by Greg, though it referenced the political activities that brought us together, was deeply personal and a kind, heartfelt gesture from one friend to another. Both my family and I were moved by its content, and we're deeply sorry that an innocent request has negatively affected Greg and caused undue attention.
I have known Greg for 30 years. For a period of time, we and our families were very close. I know that Greg is a person of integrity, generosity and kindness. He was asked to give a personal tribute to me by my family and that is what he did.
What Greg did was done with kindness, because that is his nature. I deeply regret, again, that this has caused any harm, hurt or undue attention.
I'm happy to take your questions.
We will now enter a six-minute round starting with Mr. Cooper.
Mr. Fraser, at this committee, we respect the two official languages, so feel entirely comfortable to speak in the language of your choice.
If you're using the earpiece, please just keep it away from the microphone so that it does not cause a feedback loop. Keep it either in your ear or outside your ear, just not near the mic.
I'm sorry it has come to this, because none of us are new. All of us have a lot of regard and respect for this work. I need one person speaking at a time. I think we need to understand.
I think we know the parameters in which we are working. All members know, publicly, what the motion we agreed to was. We understand there are some documents we're asking for. People are endeavouring to provide them, and we need to have some regard for this. To pretend that, prior to our next meeting later on today, we're going to have all this stuff.... It's not factual or real. There are certain things that I think are very important. I'm not determining what isn't. I'm just suggesting we maximize our time to get the information we need from the people we called here, so that PROC can do its work and report back in a timely fashion.
Moving forward, I would like to hear one person in my ear at a time. I put my earpiece on to ensure that remains the case.
Mr. Cooper, you have one minute and 52 seconds.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Fraser, I understand your discomfort at being here. I also understand the discomfort felt by your wife at finding herself in this adventure, but don't worry, it is not your fault. The fault is Mr. Fergus's, because he is the one who agreed to make the video.
He said himself that he made a mistake and that if he had to do it over, he would not make the video again. He committed an error of judgment and he recognized that earlier.
You are a good friend of his and he was asked to pay tribute to you because you are long-time friends. I am going to read the title of the message. The video started with:
[English]
“A Message from the Hon. Greg Fergus, Speaker, House of Commons of Canada”.
[Translation]
Do you think that tribute might have been paid to you on behalf of the House of Commons?
:
Thank you very much for your question.
I think if we go back to where this all started, I'm not privy to all the exact details of the conversation that occurred between Linda and Mr. Desfossés, so I can't give you what happened on the other end. All I can tell you is what I saw, what I heard and what I know.
I know my friend was asked to do something for me. He did something very kind, and I really appreciate what he did. I regret that a request that was put forward to my friend to do something for me has gotten to a situation right now where it has obviously caused some harm and some hurt and undue attention.
That's the answer I can give you on that. Thank you.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Fraser, for being here today.
I want to follow up, because Mr. Fergus said several times here at committee, and in the past few days, that you're a departing colleague. You've confirmed, again, that you are planning to seek, God willing, re-election in the next provincial election.
Could you also confirm that you're going to be remaining a Liberal MPP? With the leadership race done, you're still the parliamentary leader because the new leader does not have a seat. Is that correct?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Fraser, for being here today.
When I was listening to you speak earlier about Mr. Fergus, I don't know, but perhaps you were a little humble in your relationship. Mr. Fergus referred to you as a role model.
He said that you're somebody that he looked up to and learned a lot from. He said that he's babysat your children and that you've babysat his children, and that you were there particularly for him as a support around the time that he was getting married. Are you a role model for a lot of people like this or...?
:
I'm just trying to picture the correspondence here, and I'm hearing that there might be an opportunity to get a little more detail on that later. I'm just trying to picture how this went down, for lack of a better expression.
Mr. Fergus is contacted by your wife, who is clearly not going through the channels of the official correspondence with the Speaker's office. Mr. Fergus receives the request of somebody he knows very well—he's babysat her children and she has allowed her children to be babysat by him—and he replies, “Yes, of course I'll do that. This is my friend.” Is that a fair assessment of how it probably went down?
There are people around this table who are trying to paint this as though official correspondence comes to the Speaker's office. The Speaker's office weighs the pros and cons. The Speaker's office decides that yes, he should make this video. The Speaker's office coordinates setting up this video.
I think that, based on what Mr. Fergus has said and based on your testimony today, it's much more plausible that your wife, who is a lifelong friend of Mr. Fergus, reached out and said, “Hey, we're doing this event for John.” It's going to be private or the information was delivered in such a manner as to suggest that and then she says, “Will you make this video?” or “Will you record something?”
Is that a fair assessment?
:
Mr. Fraser, concerning your testimony, we have to be clear: the problem is not that your wife asked her friend Greg to make a video, it is that Mr. Fergus made a video at his friend's request but kept his Speaker of the House of Commons garb on and stayed in his office. That is the mistake.
Ultimately, who can criticize a friend who makes a video for a friend? Mr. Gerretsen told you that your wife approached an old friend, a very close friend, based on all the details you have given, but the big problem is that she asked for something from a friend who forgot that he was also the Speaker of the House of Commons and kept his Speaker's garb on to pay tribute to him, going so far as to introduce himself as Speaker of the House of Commons. It is not a video along the lines of "Hi John, I'm Greg;" rather, it is along the lines of "I am the Speaker of the House of Commons," with all his garb and in his office. That is the problem.
We are not denying that your wife did something nice, that you are good friends, and that Mr. Fergus is a good person. This takes nothing away from him in that regard. What it takes away from him is that he made a bad decision and he showed poor judgment. It is very sad to say, Mr. Fraser, but you are here today to defend Mr. Fergus because he is your friend and you feel bad that he is in a fix because of a situation relating to his tribute to you.
As a parliamentarian, it is impossible for you not to feel bad about the fact that he has compromised his impartiality. The way he made that tribute compromised his impartiality to the point that the members of the House of Commons unanimously told him that he had undermined the confidence of the House. You cannot say that what he did is not serious. It was nice of him to say fine words of friendship and love to you, but not the way he did it. That is what he is being criticized for.
You, as a parliamentarian, would you have liked your Speaker, dressed in his garb—I do not know how he dresses where you are, to be able to introduce himself at a Conservative convention and make the same video paying tribute and expressing love for a friend? You would probably have been the first to raise the hue and cry, as we are doing now.
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Through you, I would like to thank Mr. Fraser for being here.
I want to make sure I'm clarifying something for the record. There have been a lot of comments made.
I'm looking at the exact transcript of the video Mr. Fergus did. It starts out with, “Hey, buddy. It's such a great opportunity to speak about my long-time friend, John Fraser.” It doesn't say, “Hi, I'm Greg Fergus, Speaker of the House of Commons.” When I look at the actual transcript of what he said, it is very clear that his understanding of this request from your wife, a friend for a long time, is that it would be a private video to you. He didn't preface this with, “I am the Speaker and I'm wearing my robes. Here I am.” He thought it was a video to you. It was to thank you and talk about your friendship.
I want to make sure that's clear. There have been some allusions here that it was in his capacity as Speaker. I understand it got sent to the Ontario Liberal Party. They put a preamble on it—an introduction for a whole bunch of videos that says who these people are.
It's very clear to me that Greg made a mistake. He's apologized for that mistake. Quite frankly, the fact that this point of privilege.... Two parties in the House of Commons came out on Monday and said he should resign, without even giving him the opportunity to defend himself or to hear what actually happened, which we've now heard today. To me, they don't want to know the truth.
The truth is that he was asked to make a video. He made a video. He made a mistake. He's apologized, but they have already convicted him in the court of public opinion. Do you agree with that?
With that, Mr. Fraser, we thank you for your time and attention today.
I will note that, because you are a sitting member of the provincial legislative assembly, we would not have been able to make you come. We appreciate that we invited you and you made yourself readily available.
With that, we wish you the best. Have a great rest of the day.
:
Hello and welcome back to committee.
For our final panel, we have Simon Tunstall, chief returning officer of the 2023 leadership election, by video conference.
I am going to remind members that, when it comes to interpretation, when we're all in the room with our mics, it's a connected system. When we bring people in by video conference, these are systems working with each other, and therefore, if the witness is speaking, no member in this room will turn on their mic, because that also causes feedback.
We have tech people who will turn mics on and off. I will watch the clock, and I would ask that nobody turn their mic on, because I need the system to unfold. If this is not adhered to, I will use my prerogative as chair to protect the ears of the interpreters. One thing that's causing us the most challenge right now in responding back to the House is interpreters and translation services.
I am clearly using my words and stating my expectations, and I do expect that they will be satisfied and met.
We have Madame DeBellefeuille.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, everyone.
I prepared some remarks earlier this morning. I since was watching John Fraser's appearance. I've learned a few things, so I will update a few comments at the end.
My name is Simon Tunstall. I was the chief returning officer for the Ontario Liberal Party's 2023 leadership election.
Before I go any further, I need to start by saying that I've been a little bit sick for the past few days. In particular, I've been sneezing and coughing a lot. I just wanted to give a heads-up that if I very suddenly move off camera or mute myself, it is because I would really like to avoid sneezing into a microphone on camera.
On Thursday, December 7, this committee passed a motion to invite the “chair or co-chairs of the Ontario Liberal Party's 2023 leadership election organizing committee”. The leadership election organizing committee, or LEOC, is a body mandated by the governing documents of the Conservative Party of Canada and the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario. The Ontario Liberal Party does not have a committee by that name or any committee by any name with a similar function.
Setting that aside, it appears that the committee was interested in inviting the senior official or officials with authority and responsibility for the organizing of the Ontario Liberal Party's 2023 leadership election.
The Ontario Liberal Party's constitution gives authority and responsibility over almost all aspects of the leadership election process to the chief returning officer. The chief returning officer is the only close equivalent in the Ontario Liberal Party to the “chair or co-chairs” of the leadership election organizing committee.
In April 2023, I was appointed by the Ontario Liberal Party executive council to be the chief returning officer for the 2023 leadership election. For a little context about me, I held senior roles in the two other Ontario Liberal Party leadership elections that were held this century, in 2013 and 2020. I also oversaw the organization and execution of almost all of the Ontario Liberal Party's contested nomination meetings for four consecutive nomination cycles, in 2007, 2011, 2014 and 2018, usually in the role of returning officer. Additionally, I have twice held the role of executive director of the Ontario Liberal Party.
From the time I was appointed as chief returning officer in April, I had authority and oversight for the organization and administration of the 2023 leadership election contest. One secondary component of that was determining how to announce the results of the election.
On Saturday, December 2, the Ontario Liberal Party held an announcement event at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre. The broad content and agenda for the announcement event was decided upon by me as chief returning officer. The programming included videos from the leadership candidates, speeches by former premiers Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne and a tribute to outgoing interim leader John Fraser.
However, in the days leading up to that announcement event on December 2, my focus was on preparing for the counting of the ballots, which was taking place at the exact same time. The receiving of all the other components of the announcement event, such as the videos from the leadership candidates, the speeches from the former premiers and the tribute to John Fraser, were handled by volunteers and staff.
My understanding is that the content of the tribute to John Fraser was determined and compiled by supporters, friends and family of John Fraser. This is normal. As I recall, there were similar tributes to Dalton McGuinty in 2013 and Kathleen Wynne in 2020, with the content organized by their close supporters, friends and family. I suspect this is also true for almost all tributes to politicians in almost all political parties.
I personally did not become aware that there was a video message from Speaker Greg Fergus until more than an hour after the video was shown at the event. I do not know who the close supporters, friends and family of John Fraser were who put together the content of the tribute. Therefore, I do not know which of those supporters, friends and family communicated with the Speaker or with his staff regarding the purpose or content of the video. Therefore, I do not know the content of those communications with the Speaker or his staff. I should also add that I have never met the Speaker and have never had any interactions with him.
As a final comment, I would like to add that John Fraser is an exceptionally kind and thoughtful person. I have not actually watched any part of the tribute from December 2 yet, but John absolutely deserves every nice thing that is said about him by anyone. He is a genuinely good human, and I hope he plans to stay in public life as an MPP for many years to come.
That was what I wrote this morning.
I watched the tail end of the Speaker's appearance before this committee and I watched almost all of John Fraser's appearance before the committee. I learned that the conversation happened between John's wife, Linda, and.... I'm sorry that I didn't catch the individual's name. I believe they were referenced as the chief of staff to the Speaker. It's not an individual I'm familiar with. That was news to me today.
That's all I have to say. Thank you very much, Chair.
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Through you, I'd like to thank the witness for being here today. I'm sorry that he's ill and contagious, and I hope he feels better soon.
I have a very brief question, and then I'll pass my time to Mr. Gerretsen.
We've learned now, after interviewing witnesses, that what happened was that the spouse of Mr. Fraser reached out to the chief of staff of Mr. Fergus to request a personal video about his friendship with Mr. Fraser. That was provided by Mr. Fergus for a lifelong friend.
Unfortunately, he did the video in his robes in his office. However, it's very clear to me that it was not in his capacity as Speaker of the House. I can imagine the reaction by Mr. Fergus and his chief of staff and staff when it became public that this was shown at a leadership announcement for the Ontario Liberal Party.
Mr. Tunstall, did you get any feedback from the Speaker's office in terms of their surprise or shock that this was actually shown at the leadership event?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Gerretsen, for passing the baton.
Madam Chair, once upon a time, I was a party officer like Mr. Fergus. The one thing I know about the Liberal Party is that, like the Conservative Party, it is a volunteer organization. There are a few paid staff, but for the most part, we are all volunteers. As I understand the sequence of events, it was volunteers who put together this video. It was a volunteer who obviously mislabelled Mr. Fergus's status on the video. Madame DeBellefeuille has repeatedly mentioned that this was coming from the Speaker himself, which is not the case. He starts off his video with “hey, buddy” and clearly indicates that he's a friend of Mr. Fraser.
I wonder if Mr. Tunstall could comment on the nature of the Liberal Party. It's a volunteer organization. Volunteers make mistakes, and clearly the Speaker had no knowledge of how his participation would be labelled in that particular video.
Then I'll pass my time to Mr. Lauzon.
:
Thank you, Mr. Tunstall. I just wanted to get an answer to my question.
Essentially, my Liberal colleagues were trying to lay the blame for this mistake on the volunteers who put a banner in the video identifying Mr. Fergus as the Speaker of the House of Commons. It would actually have been difficult not to do that, since he was in his Speaker's garb. They were intelligent enough to understand that this was not Greg who made a video in a T‑shirt and jeans in his living room; it was the Speaker, who was wearing his robes very solemnly in his office on Parliament Hill. He may well have started the video by saying "hey buddy;" nobody can say "hey buddy" while wearing the Speaker's robes.
In my career, I spent a long time managing volunteers, and never, but never, will I say that volunteers made a mistake, because they do their best. The main error lay with the person who agreed to make the video and send it off. The problem we are discussing cannot be mitigated today by saying that some volunteers sent off a video and others inserted a banner into it saying "Speaker of the House of Commons." That is not the issue today.
The issue is that the Speaker, Greg Fergus, agreed to make a video to be sent to a friend he is very fond of—we have understood that—for it to be played at your event. The volunteers put the videos together and inserted a banner, but the primary responsibility lies with the person who agreed to make the video.
You do know that all of the parties in the House of Commons have acknowledged that this video undermines the confidence of the House. It is not just me, Claude DeBellefeuille, the Bloc Québécois whip, saying it. All of the parties admitted that it was a serious mistake. So I am sorry, but I am unable to lay the blame on the volunteers and party workers who did their best to make your event a success. You will let them know that we are not blaming them; on the contrary.
Now, I would like to know your opinion, since you have organized a lot of events. Do you think it is appropriate for the Speaker of a great Parliament like Canada's to make a video to be played at a partisan event?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
It is important to note that the issue is not the banner that was put in the video, it is the fact that the Speaker of the House was wearing his robes and was in his office. That is what brings us to this meeting, at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, to examine the facts and get answers. Some answers have satisfied me, but others have not at all. I hope we will obtain all the documents that are needed in order for the committee to be able to make the decisions that are required in the next few hours.
[English]
Mr. Tunstall, you're part of this process of getting information. I wanted to understand what the vetting process is for videos that are broadcast through the Ontario Liberal Party convention. Obviously, there is a whole series of things that need to be checked. Videos don't go out on their own, so what was the vetting process to ensure that the videos produced for the convention didn't contravene any rules or cause any offence?
:
Thank you for the question. I think there are three relatively quick parts to that.
One, there's an element of trust that the people around John Fraser.... They were giving us videos, and the four leadership candidates were providing videos, and any other content was coming from good sources.
Two, there was a team of volunteers who were reviewing the videos. I believe they all came in within a day or two or three, right before the event. I was preoccupied with other components of the event.
Three, I think the main interest in reviewing the videos would have actually been more from an audiovisual technical perspective than a content perspective, because all these videos, whether they were coming from leadership candidates or supporters and friends of John Fraser, were all coming from friendly sources.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I will just say that I am disappointed by the lack of information provided by the Ontario Liberal Party today and the lack of respect, frankly, especially knowing the tight time frames that our committee is under.
The Ontario Liberal Party has had four days since Thursday, when we passed the motion here at committee, at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, to have someone appear regarding the leadership announcement event by the Ontario Liberal Party.
Mr. Tunstall, you were the one offered by the party. What was frustrating this morning was that you're not new to politics. You've served as executive director of the party multiple times, and you've been involved in politics and in public life as a staff member for many years.
We got a letter from the legal counsel of the Ontario Liberal Party this morning. It goes through a bunch of reasons as to why you're not an appropriate witness, after the party offered you to come here today. The only thing they offer at the end here is, “Mr. Tunstall would beg for the Committee’s indulgence and be excused from making an appearance.” They didn't offer an alternative to say, “Okay, here's somebody we can provide who would know information”.
The legal counsel, I'm sure, and I'm sure you and others in the Ontario Liberal Party.... We're now nearly five hours into committee testimony here today. We've asked for the production of documents multiple times, and to have to go back to legal counsel at this point.... Legal counsel had no problem sending us a letter over the weekend begging for you not to appear, but you had no time to offer to get an answer about document production or provide some assurances of what happened. You say how it innocent it was, but nothing is provided.
It is extremely frustrating, and what I'll do here is ask for unanimous consent, Madam Chair, to do the same thing that we did for the production of documents from the clerk this morning during Mr. Fergus's testimony with his team. We all agreed by unanimous consent for a similar set of documents.
I will ask for unanimous consent that an order do issue to the Ontario Liberal Party for all copies of emails, memoranda, records of communications, including text messages and instant messaging application messages, or any other documents that are under the party's control concerning the Speaker’s tributes to the former interim leader of the Ontario Liberal Party, provided that those be deposited with the clerk of the committee no later than 5 p.m. today.
I will just say that there's no reason why any of that should be a surprise. They've known for four days at the party, and they should have known that this request was coming.
I will ask for unanimous consent on that, Madam Chair.
:
I have a really serious role in front of me, and I take it seriously. I am really trying to get to the crux of the question of privilege that's come here.
I do not like this, in a sense, culture we're creating, where the House sends us work to do and we cannot get to it. We have had conversations in camera. I think there's a little bit of cuteness being displayed, because people know that my hands are tied and I can't talk about certain things. We know the conversations we've had. We know the timeline we have.
With that, Mr. Duncan, you have a minute left, if you would like it, for questions and comments to the witness. Otherwise, I'd like to move on.