SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 179

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 18, 2023 10:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 179 - Apr/18/23
Mrs. Laila Goodridge (Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, CPC)
  • Apr/18/23 3:22:28 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to the question of privilege that was raised yesterday by the member for Pickering—Uxbridge. On Friday, March 31, I rose on a point of order to draw to the Speaker's attention comments made by the member for Pickering—Uxbridge, whom I heard using inappropriate and unparliamentary language. The member had the opportunity to respond and under normal circumstances in matters such as these, the Speaker would check the records of Hansard and come back with a ruling. In the absence of any recording of the exchange, the matter is usually left as a dispute of the facts. Those are the normal circumstances. In this case, the member responded by calling me a liar. Those comments she rightly apologized for yesterday. The member then immediately followed her apology with a question of privilege, accusing me of lying. While I was awaiting a ruling from the Speaker on my point of order from Friday, March 31, the member was drafting a question of privilege in an attempt to do indirectly what she could not do directly on Friday. Mr. Speaker, if you have any doubts as to the member's intentions, I draw to your attention the Debates from Friday, March 31. After the Speaker called out the member for her unparliamentary comments, the member said, “I will withdraw the word but the sentiment remains”. Since Speakers have consistently ruled that it is out of order to attempt to do something indirectly that one cannot do directly, this matter should be dismissed on those grounds alone. Further, at page 88 of Bosc and Gagnon, it states that members should not raise trivial matters as matters of privilege or contempt. Clearly, this matter does not come close to meeting the threshold of privilege. It is a well-established principle that in order to have a prima facie case of privilege in relation to a claim of misleading the House, three elements must be established. First, it must be proven that the statement was misleading. In this case, the member only has her claim of the facts and I have mine. Second, it must be established that the member making the statement knew it to be misleading. Simply put, I heard what I heard and the member had the opportunity to address my point of order. While she got off to a shaky start with unparliamentary language, she had the opportunity to express her version of those facts and when we left things on Friday the Speaker was to look into the matter. The member had risen and had stated that she did not say those words. I prepared to follow the standard convention of this House and take the member at her word and let the matter drop. Third, the misleading statements must have been presented with the intention to mislead the House. Again, I heard an offensive comment and I raised it with no other intention except to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, a breach of the rules of decorum and use of language. The member had the chance to respond and, while I do not want to belabour the point that the member ironically responded to my point of order by breaching the rules with more unparliamentary language, those are the facts.
554 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border