SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 285 - Feb/26/24

Feb/26/24 12:48:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that is a point that makes itself. We are sent here to make sure we get results for our constituents, that we participate positively in debates and that we put forward proposals and bills that help the people we represent. When we are blocked from doing that, systematically, by an opposition that consistently puts up procedural roadblocks to that, of course, any responsible government has to act in the way we are doing today.

76 words

Context: House Hansard - 285 - Feb/26/24

The Speaker

Feb/26/24 3:20:06 p.m.
Watch

During key moments, remarks have, at times, gotten too close to the limit of what is considered respectful and courteous, or even in good taste. Other interventions have clearly crossed the line of unparliamentary language. As a result, proceedings were often interrupted by a Chair's interventions or by points of order generated by the conduct of members from all sides of the House. In some cases, the use of certain expressions or language was determined by the Chair to be unparliamentary and resulted in the withdrawal of the offending term or an apology from the member. In those instances, the Chair considered the matter closed and we moved on. There are other times when the Chair has issued warnings, encouraging members to stay away from certain terms. While not finding them unparliamentary, they do contribute to disorder and we would all be best served by avoiding this sort of language. On other occasions, the Chair has ruled that something was considered “a matter of debate”. When a Chair rules that a particular statement is a matter of debate, the Chair is saying that there is a debatable point in the balance as opposed to a personal attack, the use of an easily identifiable unparliamentary term or an exchange that results in disorder. Insofar as debate can, on occasion, be sharp and tense, even sometimes causing some members to take offence, it can still fall within the realm of an acceptable discourse in the House. The Chair will continue to make these distinctions when necessary. Even when there was no finding of the actions or language in question being unparliamentary in a strict sense, it is evident to the Chair and to those watching our debates that the accumulation of this sort of behaviour has had a negative lingering effect on our proceedings. Since January, the Chair has heard statements that were excessively provocative and insulting. These sorts of comments have proven to be disruptive to our proceedings, hurtful to members, detrimental to moving our work forward, and beneath the high office we hold as members of parliament. On December 12, 2012, one of my predecessors had observed, at page 13,215 of Debates: The House is also an inherently adversarial forum that tends to foster conflict. As a result, sometimes emotions get the better of us and we quickly find ourselves in situations marked by disorderly conduct. Tone and gestures can cause as much of a reaction as the words used in debate. Lately, it appears that at different times the mood of the House has strayed quite far from the flexibility, accommodation and balance that ideally ought to exist in this place. Regardless of whether the Chair finds language unparliamentary, it is incumbent upon all members to judiciously consider their remarks. As I stated on October 18, 2023, at page 17584 of the Debates, and I quote: The House is a place where freedom of speech is primordial and where views are strongly held and vigorously defended. While the Chair must allow the widest possible range of individual expression possible, members are expected to be mindful of their words and behaviours within the realm of what would be considered parliamentary. The Chair, and by this I mean myself and my fellow presiding officers, therefore, encourages all members to take part in our proceedings, even vigorously and passionately, as the case may be, but to do so in a civilized and respectful manner in accordance with our own rules. The Chair will continue applying the rules, fairly and forcefully when required, but in the end, it is every member's responsibility to exercise a reasonable degree of self-discipline and restraint while exercising their privilege of freedom of speech. I thank all members for their attention and for their continued efforts in improving decorum in the House.

640 words

Context: House Hansard - 285 - Feb/26/24

The Speaker

Feb/26/24 3:26:12 p.m.
Watch

I am also now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on February 8, by the member for Regina—Lewvan concerning allegedly misleading statements made in the House by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. In raising his question of privilege, the member alleged that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change had misled the House during Oral Questions on February 7 and 8, when they implied that he said there is no link between the carbon tax and food prices. The member quoted one of the statements he made in the House on February 6, to assert that, in fact, he had made such a link. In the member's view, this misrepresentation rose to the level of a prima facie question of privilege. The question of privilege the Chair is being asked to rule on can be summarized as follows: determining whether the statements of the Prime Minister and the minister contain inaccuracies that would show that they knowingly misled the House. When the member raised his question of privilege in the House, he rightly referred to the three conditions that must be met for the Chair to find a prima facie case of privilege. In my ruling of February 15, 2024, I laid out those three conditions. I would encourage members to review that ruling. In a similar situation, one of my predecessors said, in a ruling on April 30, 2014, which can be found on page 4,753 of Debates: Thus, it is not sufficient for members to simply make allegations based on their perceptions of what is or is not factually correct. Members must recognize and accept the existence of differences of fact and interpretation, which have always been a part of the normal cut and thrust of debate and question period. As for the question of privilege before us, I reviewed the statements of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change during oral questions on February 7 and 8, 2024. The Chair could not find in those statements any grounds to conclude that those members knew their answers were misleading or that they intended to mislead the House. The member for Regina—Lewvan was able to correct the record by explaining his intent and his point of view. In my opinion, we are therefore dealing with a matter of debate. Consequently, the Chair cannot find a prima facie case of privilege here. I thank all members for their attention.

424 words