Fergus says decision to kick out Conservative MP was ‘justified’

Article content

OTTAWA — House of Commons Speaker Greg Fergus dismissed a Conservative MP’s complaint that she was unjustifiably kicked out of the chamber during a raucous question period after withdrawing her offending comments off microphone.

Rachael Thomas raised a question of privilege earlier this month after noticing that her words “I withdraw” appeared in the unedited transcript of the House of Commons on April 30 but were absent in the official record of the proceedings known as Hansard.

Article content

On Thursday, Fergus rendered his decision on the matter. He said that the final version of the debates, which the Speaker plays no part in, was prepared in accordance with the usual standards and that his decision to eject Thomas was “justified” at the time.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre was also expelled that same day for calling Prime Minister Justin Trudeau a “wacko” and refusing to withdraw his comment.

Thomas had called the Speaker’s handling of the proceedings “disgraceful” that day and reiterated those comments when asked to withdraw them. Fergus, who did not hear her withdrawal amid all the noise and the heckling, expelled her from the House for the rest of the day.

“I hope she will accept that, because she began by repeating her comments, and because the noise level was so high, the Chair did not hear her say that day that she was withdrawing her words,” said Fergus in reading his decision Thursday.

“My decision to name her seemed justified, based on the information I had at the time. If the member had begun by withdrawing her words, events surely would have unfolded differently,” he added. “Consequently, I cannot find a prima facie question of privilege.”

Article content

Article content

The decision — delivered the same week that the Conservatives attempted to remove Fergus as Speaker for a third time over allegations he is too partisan — sparked many questions.

Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner asked Fergus why he did not recuse himself from this decision. Fergus responded that the question raised by Thomas was related to the contents of the official transcript, “which of course the Speaker has no role in doing.”

Green Party co-leader Elizabeth May interjected to say that the staff preparing Hansard have in the past contacted her directly if they were unsure if they heard her correctly, and she asked if they had done the same for Thomas.

Thomas said there was “no effort made to reach out to my office to clarify what I had said that day.”

Parliamentary secretary to Government House Leader Kevin Lamoureux said it is not the job of the parliamentary staff to record comments that have not been picked up by the microphones, nor does he believe they should have the duty to do that.

Article content

“What the member said was completely off the record. I never even heard it,” he said.

Conservative whip Kerry-Lynne Findlay argued that there was “an exchange going on” between Fergus and Thomas that day, and that her last comment was “I withdraw,” which was picked up by the unofficial transcript then dropped in the official one.

In the end, Fergus put an end to the debate and invited all MPs to read his ruling.

Later in the day, the NDP raised another question of privilege, this time, to point out that the deputy Speaker, Conservative MP Chris d’Entremont, had appeared in his official robes in a social media post last fall advertising a partisan event in Nova Scotia.

The post, which has since been deleted, said d’Entremont was to appear at a free “meet-and-greet” event on Nov. 18 alongside newly elected Conservative party national councillor Christopher Guinan for the Dartmouth-Cole Harbour Conservative Association.

NDP MP Lindsay Mathyssen said that the case was similar to the debate surrounding Fergus’s participation in a Liberal event in his riding, which was originally posted on the Liberal party website with a partisan description. The party has since apologized.

Article content

D’Entremont said that while he attended the event, he had not approved of the choice of photograph nor the wording for the social media post.

“Had I been asked or shown this Facebook post in draft, I would not have approved it as such. In any event, I have asked the riding association in question to remove the Facebook post,” he said, while apologizing for the “confusion that this may have caused.”

National Post
calevesque@postmedia.com

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.

Article content