SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 314

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 21, 2024 10:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 314 - May/21/24
Mr. Peter Julian
  • May/21/24 9:19:35 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, we now know the facts: this was posted without the Speaker's knowledge or authorization, it was promptly deleted and an apology has been issued, so I think in a very clear sense, that should bring closure to the question of privilege. I did want to comment on a number of the points that were made this morning by the member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie. First, and I find this somewhat disturbing, the member from Grande Prairie—Mackenzie seemed to be questioning a decision made by the Assistant Deputy Speaker when the Speaker ruled on the issue of the moving of a substantive motion around the issue of the Speaker. That ruling is absolutely correct. It should not be called into question. In fact, it would be inappropriate for a member to call that into question. It follows along with the procedural manual, the bible of this House of Commons. It is very clear that this ruling was appropriate. If Conservatives felt strongly about this, they could move a substantive motion during any opposition day. It is quite clear, given that we have had the same opposition day motion moved, with a bit of tweaking, for two years, that the Conservatives have basically been using their opposition days to move the same thing over and over again. The reality is that the rules of our House actually stipulate that an opposition day motion could be used in that regard, so I found the questioning, by the member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, of a decision that is very clearly in keeping with the procedures of this House, quite disturbing. Second, the issue that was raised by the member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie questioned the decision to ask the member from Carleton to leave this House when he caused disorder with very unparliamentary, disrespectful language that the Speaker asked him to withdraw and apologize for, and he refused. The characterization by the member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie in his question of privilege is completely inaccurate. We all saw that scene. We were present in the House of Commons. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the one party that was not in favour of it was the party that was impacted by the member for Carleton refusing to apologize and withdraw, and all other members in this House believed that the Speaker had made the right decision. I find that disturbing as well. Third and finally, in the comments made by the member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, he did not recognize the fact that the events that happened in December of last year were treated through a PROC motion that was brought forward to this House, voted on and passed concurrence, so that issue had already been dealt with. To raise that as a new question of privilege is clearly not appropriate. Mr. Speaker, my final comments are these: I have raised this with you previously, and this comes from a ruling that was established by this House on September 24, 2014, by the former Speaker, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, who is currently the Conservative House leader. He said, “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 have raised this numerous times. We have seen disrespectful, unparliamentary comments on social media from numerous members of the Conservative caucus that are violations of this very clear ruling from 10 years ago. I have brought them forward for your judgment, Mr. Speaker. In my opinion, for the Conservatives to so cavalierly throw the rule book out, throw precedence out and throw the very clear decisions of this House and rulings by the Chair out the window and continually question the Speaker, raising allegations of bias, is something that could be treated as a breach of privilege and could be punished accordingly. I find the question of privilege this morning to be in a very similar vein: it was factually inaccurate, poorly drafted and contained elements that were, quite frankly, false and misleading. It does constitute again, rather than a bona fide question of privilege, an attempt to skirt the rules of this House that have been clearly established. I come back to that issue of numerous cases of Conservative MPs violating that principle from 10 years ago and the ruling by the former Speaker, now the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you look into that and come back to the House in short order. These violations cannot continue. They are inappropriate, unparliamentary and disrespectful of this place.
785 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border