SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 181

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 20, 2023 10:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 181 - Apr/20/23
The Speaker
  • Apr/20/23 3:10:52 p.m.
  • Watch
I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on April 17 by the member for Pickering—Uxbridge concerning comments made following Oral Questions on March 31 by the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake. In her intervention, the member for Pickering—Uxbridge alleged that the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake had intentionally misled the House by falsely accusing her of having made a statement containing offensive words. This, she suggested, was a misuse of the privilege of freedom of speech. She categorically denied having made such a statement and felt that the accusation had damaged her reputation. She added that her ability to perform her duties had been hindered because of these allegations, since her office received several threatening and aggressive phone calls, emails and social media reactions. For her part, the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake asserted that her version of the events was different than that of the member for Pickering—Uxbridge. She countered that this matter did not meet the standards needed to establish that a member deliberately misled the House, and thus did not rise to the threshold of a question of privilege. The Chair has had an opportunity to review the proceedings. No part of the off microphone exchanges between the members for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake and Pickering—Uxbridge was captured in the transcript or by the video recording. In a ruling on a similar matter, on October 30, 2006, found at page 4414 of the Debates, Speaker Milliken stated, and I quote: ...requesting an apology or a withdrawal is predicated on a common agreement about what actually took place, either because the exchange appears in the official record or because both parties acknowledge that the exchange took place. In this case, the official record is not helpful and the Speaker is faced with a dispute, indeed a contradiction, about what actually happened. This also appears to be the case here. One member alleges that something was said, while the other denies having said it. The Chair has no reason to doubt that both members sincerely thought they were right and, therefore, I can only conclude a misunderstanding between them. One way to avoid such misunderstandings is to be civil with each other at all times. The Chair is cognizant that exchanges in the House, on and off the record, can sometimes become heated. However, the Chair would urge members to be judicious with the words they use. There are alternative ways to make one's point and still remain respectful with each other. As to whether the events described constitute a question of privilege, as indicated, the Chair does not believe that it has been established that there was a clear intent to mislead. Finally, it is not clear how the member was prevented from fulfilling her parliamentary duties. Accordingly, the Chair cannot find a prima facie case of privilege. I consider the matter closed. I thank members for their attention.
503 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border