Peter Milliken

[Request for Emergency Debate, October 7th, 2009]

I thank the hon. member for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte for his intervention in this matter. I have examined the case with some interest given the fact that he is requesting a debate on a document that was made available to the House according to a procedure that was announced by the government in 2008.

I have here the news release of January 25, 2008 from the then minister of foreign affairs and international trade in which he announced that following the commitment made in the Speech from the Throne in 2006, international treaties would be brought “before the House of Commons to give Parliament a role in reviewing international agreements”.

The document states:

The government will observe a waiting period of 21 sitting days from the date of the tabling before taking any action to bring the treaty into effect. When treaties require legislative amendment, the government is committed to delaying the legislation until this 21-sitting-day period has passed.

The House may debate the agreement, if it chooses to do so. The government offers the House the opportunity to discuss treaties that it judges important.

There is no mechanism in the Standing Orders of the House to allow for debate on a treaty that has been tabled in the House within that 21 day period by any arrangement. Obviously, it is a matter of unanimous consent between the parties if there is going to be such a discussion. Alternatively, a motion could be moved and then, if it comes up for debate, it could be debated in the House on such an issue. However, at the moment there is nothing of that sort before us.

The hon. member for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte has now asked the Speaker to intervene in this matter and, despite apparent requests, grant an emergency debate in order to allow this to happen within the 21 day period because the expiry of the 21 day period will convert this into an emergency because there is no time for the discussion if it does not happen before the end of the 21 day period.

I am afraid that is the part of the argument that I find a little difficult. I do not think it is for the Chair to decide which treaty constitutes an emergency or which treaty requiring debate might constitute an emergency. I urge the hon. member to have a look at Standing Order 52, specifically 52(6). I will read the Standing Order:

The right to move the adjournment of the House for the above purposes is subject to the following conditions:

(a) the matter proposed for discussion must relate to a genuine emergency, calling for immediate and urgent consideration;...

I am not sure that the implementation of a treaty constitutes a genuine emergency. I agree that it may be that given the expiration of the 21 day period there may be a need for urgent consideration because of the number of sitting days between now and the expiry of the period, but I do not think it converts the coming into force or the ratification of the treaty as a genuine emergency. It is that part of the issue that I have concern about.

Accordingly, in my view, the request for the emergency debate does not meet the exigencies of the Standing Order at this time.

[Privilege, October 5th, 2009]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe concerning access to an event that took place in Saint John, New Brunswick on September 28, 2009, publicizing the government's third report on the economic action plan tabled in the House on the same day. I would like to thank the hon. member for raising this matter in the House.

The hon. member argued that his lack of success in gaining access to the event prevented him from performing his duties as a member of Parliament. I undertook to come back to the House with a ruling on this matter.

On a number of occasions, members have raised concerns about being denied access to press conferences, briefings and similar events and about the release of documents on and off Parliament Hill.

As I pointed out on September 29, the first question that concerns me is what, if any, jurisdiction the Speaker has in respect to such activities occurring off the Hill.

In a ruling I gave on November 21, 2002, in the House of Commons Debates, on pages 1741 and 1742, I stated:

Matters of press conferences or release of documents, the policy initiatives of the government, are not ones that fall within the jurisdiction of the Speaker of the House unless they happen to be made in the House itself.

...

It is very difficult for the Chair to intervene in a situation where a minister has chosen to have a press conference or a briefing or a meeting and release material when the Speaker has nothing to do with the organization of that [event].

Even when such events take place on Parliament Hill, Speakers have consistently ruled that it is not a breach of privilege to exclude members from briefings and lockups. I pointed this out in a ruling on March 19, 2001 in the Debates at pages 1839 to 1840.

In a ruling on a similar matter, Deputy Speaker Kilgour noted on April 11, 1997 in the Debates at page 9589 to 9590:

The question raised did not involve access to parliamentary proceedings, either in the Chamber or in a committee meeting room.

He went on to say:

The Speaker has no control and should have no control over such events, whether it be the manner in which they are organized or how access to them is managed.

In order to find a prima facie question of privilege, a member has to prove that his or her ability to carry on his or her duties as a member of Parliament has been impeded and that the member is acting in the official capacity that is protected by privilege. The following quotation from pages 91 and 92 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice summarizes the view taken by successive Speakers:

—rulings have focussed on whether or not the parliamentary duties of the Member were directly involved. While frequently noting that Members raising such matters might have legitimate complaints, Speakers have regularly concluded that Members have not been prevented from performing their parliamentary duties.

In the case before us, the hon. member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe may have grounds to complain that this event was not managed differently, but the Chair must conclude that there are not sufficient grounds for a finding of a prima facie breach of privilege in this case.

I thank the House for its attention.

[Points of Order, October 1st, 2009]

On June 10, 2009, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons raised a point of order with regard to the use of unparliamentary language by the hon. member for Wascana. On September 28, 2009, the hon. parliamentary secretary reiterated his request for a ruling, noting that he did find the withdrawal of the remarks by the hon. member for Wascana on September 18 to be sufficient.

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order concerning unparliamentary language.

In first raising his point of order, the parliamentary secretary noted that during question period the member for Wascana quite clearly accused the Minister of Natural Resources of not telling the truth, which in his opinion was unparliamentary language.

Making reference to sections of House of Commons Procedure and Practice and Beauchesne's, concerning unparliamentary language, the parliamentary secretary stated that what he found distressing was that the member for Wascana had used this language in a direct question in a deliberate and premeditated mode. He asked that the opposition House leader apologize and withdraw the remarks. He asked that I review the blues of the debates.

In speaking in reply to the point of order, the member for Wascana also asked me to review the blues and argued that he had chosen his language very carefully and that it was not beyond the rules of parliamentary procedure, a position he maintained when he later rose to withdraw his remarks.

I had the opportunity to review the debates of Wednesday, June 10. In his preamble to a supplementary question to the Minister of Natural Resources concerning medical isotopes, the member for Wascana made the following remark, “Mr. Speaker, the minister cannot give the numbers and clearly she cannot tell the truth either”. That is on page 4419 of the Debates. These comments created disorder in the House and as I pointed out to the member at the time, such comments were unnecessary.

When the point of order was raised, I reviewed the section on unparliamentary language contained in Beauchesne, and I noted that there are a number of expressions that are very close to what was used, but none is precisely the same. I have also looked at other more recent uses of similar language in the House. There are numerous instances where my predecessors and I have had to rule unparliamentary such phrases as the “member deliberately misled”, “the member lied”, “the member is a liar”, or calling on a member to “stop lying”. In these cases, the use of such language is clearly unparliamentary.

Similarly, the use of expressions such as “a member made an untrue statement”, “a member did not tell the truth”, “the minister did not tell the truth”, “a member was not telling the whole truth”, have always been considered unacceptable and met with requests from the Speaker to withdraw the remarks. In one instance, on September 25, 1985, in the Debates at pages 6955-6, in his question, a member had asked the Prime Minister “to tell the truth to the House of Commons”. Mr. Speaker Bosley noted that there was an improper implication to the question and asked the member to rephrase it. Unsatisfied with the rephrasing of the question, the Speaker interrupted the member and stated that making such accusations with regard to the character of a member was improper in the House. He asked the member to withdraw and put a simple question of fact.

As Mr. Speaker Lamoureux stated in a ruling on October 13, 1966, Debates, page 8599:

My limited experience in the house indicates that it is not, per se, unparliamentary to say of another member that the statement he makes is false, untrue, wrong, incorrect or even spurious, unless there is an improper motive imputed or unless the member making the charge claims the untruth was stated to the knowledge of the person stating any such alleged untruth. [...]

I do not believe that saying a statement made is spurious is unparliamentary, or that a statement is incorrect, wrong, or untrue, if no motives are imputed by the person making such a statement.

In his comments, the member for Wascana stated that he had chosen his words very carefully and that it was not beyond the rules of parliamentary procedure. Nevertheless, it appears that in stating that she could not tell the truth, the member for Wascana was challenging the truthfulness of what the minister was saying and the Chair can only conclude that the remarks were unparliamentary.

The Chair notes that the member for Wascana did rise in the House on Friday, September 18 to withdraw the remarks and that the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has since pointed out that this still leaves open the question of whether or not the remarks were or were not unparliamentary. Let me remove all doubt on the matter: the words used were unparliamentary, they have been withdrawn and the Chair considers the matter closed.

I thank the House for its attention.

[Request for Emergency Debate, June 3rd, 2009]

The Chair has considered the submissions of the hon. member for Scarborough—Agincourt and the hon. member for Scarborough Centre, and the letters received from the other hon. members that I listed.

I note that I have ordered a debate on this subject previously. I believe it was in February. I granted the debate on the basis of the humanitarian crisis that was existing at that time, and the House did have a debate on the subject.

The conflict has ended, but there is continuing difficulty in the country, I agree. However, whether it is something that constitutes an emergency for the purposes of debate in this chamber, I have doubts.

I am sure that having heard the submissions of the hon. members, I agree that further submissions by the Government of Canada may be helpful in this matter, and the government is free to make those submissions, and indeed questions are asked during question period and statements made in the House dealing with this subject, which I am sure are influencing the opinions of members of the government who make the decisions in respect of these matters.

I am not convinced at the moment that a debate in the House, on an emergency basis, is something that is required and, accordingly, I am going to deny the request at this time, bearing in mind the possibility of the matter being brought back to the chamber at another time, as it has been a couple of times since the debate in February.

Accordingly, I do not feel the submissions meet the exigencies of the Standing Order at this moment.

Before I call orders of the day, I wish to inform the House that pursuant to order made on Tuesday, June 2, because of the ministerial statement and the deferred recorded divisions, government orders will be extended by 78 minutes.

[Point of Order, May 27th, 2009]

The Chair has heard enough. I must point out that there is virtually nothing in the rules about the content of question period. For example, there is nothing requiring each question and each answer to take only 35 seconds. It merely states that 45 minutes are allocated for the entire question period, nothing more.

The order of questions is not set out in the rules. That is something that is worked out by the House leaders. The list is submitted to the Chair after an agreement among the parties in this House.

The order of this list was changed at the beginning of this Parliament to reflect the makeup of the House, the size of the parties in the House and so on. I was not party to those discussions. Those were settled by the parties themselves. It has been that way since before I was elected Speaker for the first time, in 2001.

This is not a new procedure as far as I am concerned. When I was a student there was no order prescribed. The Speaker chose who got to ask the questions from whichever party and he enforced whatever time limit he felt was reasonable. That was taken away by agreement among the parties in the House. It was not by changes in the rules, but by agreement. We have that agreement today.

If the hon. Bloc Québécois whip does not like the order that has been agreed to, he needs to negotiate it with his colleagues. It is not up to me to set the order.

The rules have been set by the House leaders themselves. They agreed on this list, and I am only following the list that is there. I agree that if time gets taken up we can lose questions at the end, but sometimes we get extra and I am not told to cut it off when we get to a certain point. I am told to continue until the 45 minutes are gone.

Yesterday, we lost four questions on what I would call the normal list. Today, we lost four questions on what I would call the normal list. There was one from each of the four parties in those four questions.

I am not here to decide who has lost questions and who has not. I have the list here before me. I followed the list given to me by the parties in the House. It is not my choice. I did not decide who would ask questions and who would not.

I know that time gets wasted with applause. I would be all in favour of eliminating applause, whether it is standing or not. However, it is not my choice. Members do it, unfortunately. I usually use the time to announce the name of the next person who is going to speak, but sometimes it takes longer than that.

I encourage hon. members to maintain order in the House during question period. We would get through more questions, if that is what members want. We would get through more questions if the questions were shorter and the answers were shorter. However, it seems that most members prefer to use most of the 35 seconds that are allotted for the purpose.

I am not being critical of this. I am simply stating what I think is obvious. I would suggest that if hon. members feel that some change is needed in this list, they have a chat at the House leaders' or whips' meeting, which I am sure will happen again next Tuesday. If they make a change to the list, as your humble servant I will of course follow the changes dictated to me by the House leaders in that respect.

[Points of Order, May 26th, 2009]

I am now prepared to rule on the points of order concerning unparliamentary language raised on May 14, 2009 by the government House leader with regard to the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie and by the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord concerning remarks made by the Minister of State for Science and Technology.

I would like to thank the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord for raising these matters. I also thank the hon. members for Laurier—Sainte-Marie and Joliette as well as the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs for their interventions.

In raising his point of order, the government House leader stated that the leader of the Bloc Québécois used derogatory and unparliamentary language and accused ministers of the Crown of lying. He pointed out that the use of such language was unacceptable and asked the Speaker to take disciplinary action.

In his reply, the leader of the Bloc Québécois stated that he had used the same language as that used by the Minister of Public Works and Government Services the previous day during question period.

In his intervention, the member for Joliette reiterated the remarks of the leader of the Bloc Québécois, particularly the plea for equitable treatment. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs contended that the Minister of Public Works and Government Services had not aimed his comments at any particular member, unlike the leader of the Bloc Québécois.

I would like to remind the members that on a number of occasions I have quoted page 526 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which states:

In dealing with unparliamentary language, the Speaker takes into account the tone, manner and intention of the Member speaking; the person to whom the words were directed; the degree of provocation; and, most importantly, whether or not the remarks created disorder in the Chamber.

I have now reviewed the Debates of May 13 and 14. On May 13, at the end of his reply to a question posed by the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services had stated: “To say that we are hindering Quebec is an untruth. What we are doing is giving it a boost.” (p. 3446 in the Debates). It is possible in a purely technical sense to argue, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister has done, that the transcript shows that these remarks are not directed to any specific individual and therefore are not out of order. A review of the video of the exchange in question has given me a better understanding of the context and suggests to me that quite a different impression may well have been left by the minister when he used the word complained of. This has led me to conclude that the minister should withdraw the word.

In his comments on the point of order, the leader of the Bloc Québécois had stated: “Mr. Speaker, when I say the government is telling lies, I am not addressing the specific individual, but an institution.” (Debates, p. 3529). However, having reviewed the beginning of the preamble to his question on May 14, this is not entirely the case. The member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie has made the point that this part of his preamble was of a general nature, similar to that of the Minister of Public Works and Government Services. However, he then added that the Prime Minister’s responses were also full of lies and this is where his remarks became clearly unparliamentary. And as the House is aware, I did advise the member at that time that the remark was unparliamentary and asked him to withdraw it.

After a full review of the remarks made on May 14, I must conclude that the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie did indeed use unparliamentary language in reference to the Prime Minister and therefore that he should withdraw the words complained of.

I wish now to address the second point of order, namely the one raised by the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord on May 14.

In his submission, the member pointed out that the Minister of State for Science and Technology had used the word “dishonest” in his reply to a question posed by the member for Shefford. The whip of the Bloc Québécois asked the Speaker to determine if such a term was acceptable to the House and, if he found it unparliamentary, to ask the minister to withdraw the word.

Having examined the debates, it appears to me that the remark of the minister of state casts doubt on the honesty of the member who posed the question and, as such, is unparliamentary. I would, therefore, request the Minister of State for Science and Technology to withdraw this remark.

The two cases just considered highlight an increasingly common difficulty the Chair has faced of late and, as members know, they enjoy practically unfettered freedom of speech in the chamber. It is in this context that the Speaker is obliged by Standing Order 10 to, “...preserve order and decorum...”, while Standing Order 18 obliges members not to, “...use offensive words against either House or against any member thereof”.

I want to reiterate that certain words, while not always aimed specifically at individuals and, therefore, arguably technically not out of order, can still cause disruption, can still be felt by those on the receiving end as offensive and therefore can and do lead to disorder in the House.

It is that kind of language that I, as Speaker, am bound by our rules not only to discourage but to disallow. That is why I am appealing to all hon. members to be very judicious in their choice of words and thus avoid creating the kind of disorder that so disrupts our proceedings and so deeply dismays the many citizens who observe our proceedings.

It is in that spirit of cooperation that I now call upon the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, the hon. Minister of Public Works and Government Services and the hon. Minister of State for Science and Technology to withdraw the remarks that gave rise to this ruling.

The hon. Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

[Points of Order, April 29th, 2009]

The issue with the statement by the hon. member for Vancouver Island North was he dealt with specific members in the House in his statement. In my view, the earlier statements he referred to, there were some quotations from members, but that is it. Then the attacks appeared to go against an entire party for being inconsistent, or whatever other words members may have used. I did not memorize them all and I would not.

There is a difference between an attack on a party's position or a party's apparent decision from an attack on an individual member. That is what happened in the course of the hon. member's statement. He went after two members for their vote on a particular item and the statements those individuals had made. In my view it constituted an attack.

There was one very similar one earlier in the week, quoting, I believe, the same hon. members. I did not get up at that time, but I did speak to the hon. member who made the statement and indicated my displeasure and unwillingness to countenance this again. The member received a warning from me. It was not done in public; it was done in private.

In this case, being the second time this week I have heard the same statement, or a very similar statement, I moved to end it.

In the circumstances, I would urge hon. members to look at what they are going to say. Attacks on party positions are entirely permitted. I have not ruled those out of order. I have simply said that attacks on individual members are out of order because, as the hon. member for Vancouver East said in her statement, there is no opportunity for a general reply. We have lots of those during question period, but there are opportunities for supplementary questions or responses to questions during that period.

Standing Order 31s are not intended as debate. They are statements by members. I quoted that in my original ruling on this subject and indicated very clearly that they should not be used for attacks on individual members. It was the individual part of it that I objected to in the hon. member's statement and it was on this basis that I interrupted him. I am sure he will take it to heart in future.

[PointS of Order, April 2nd, 2009]

I am now ready to rule on the point of order raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons concerning the procedural admissibility of the second report of the Standing Committee on Finance tabled in the House yesterday.

I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for raising this important matter, as well as the hon. member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain for his remarks.

The parliamentary secretary argued that the report was out of order because it was beyond the mandate of the committee as laid out in Standing Order 108. In his view, it was clear that the allocation of funds to the Library of Parliament for the Parliamentary Budget Officer was outside the mandate of the Standing Committee on Finance. He pointed out that the chair had ruled as such in the committee but that the committee had overturned the ruling. In concluding, the parliamentary secretary quoted from House of Commons Procedure and Practice at page 879, as follows:

Committees are entitled to report to the House only with respect to matters within their mandate. When reporting to the House, committees must indicate the authority under which the study was done, (i.e. the Standing Order or the order of reference). If the committee's report has exceeded or has been outside its order of reference, the Speaker has judged such a report, or the offending section, to be out of order.

The parliamentary secretary went on to quote from my ruling of March 14, 2008, the Debates on page 4181-3, concerning the proceedings in the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, as well as my ruling of March 29, 2007, in which I stressed the importance of respecting the parliamentary procedures by which we govern our deliberations.

For his part, the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain argued that the intent of the report was to give the Parliamentary Budget Officer the funds necessary to operate effectively. Stressing the close relationship between the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the committee, he pointed out that section 79.1 of the Parliament of Canada Act states that the Parliamentary Budget Officer is mandated to serve the Standing Committee on Finance.

For the benefit of the House, I would like to briefly summarize the events surrounding the adoption of the second report in the finance committee.

On Tuesday, March 31, in the Standing Committee on Finance, the hon. member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain moved a motion recommending an increase in the Parliamentary Budget Officer's budget and that this be reported to the House. The chair of the committee, the hon. member for Edmonton—Leduc, ruled the motion out of order because it went beyond the mandate of the committee. In his ruling, the chair cited the mandates of committees in general and those of the finance committee and of the Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament in particular. The ruling was appealed, the committee overturned the ruling of the chair and then proceeded to adopt the motion which became the second report of the committee.

As the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance noted in his ruling, the mandate of standing committees is specified in Standing Order 108(2) and states in part:

The standing committees, shall, in addition to the powers granted to them pursuant to section (1) of this Standing Order and pursuant to Standing Order 81, be empowered to study and report on all matters relating to the mandate, management and operation of the department or departments of government which are assigned to them from time to time by the House.

The mandate of the Parliamentary Budget Officer is defined in section 79.1 of the Parliament of Canada Act. Although he is specifically required to provide research services for the Standing Committee on Finance, as members know, section 79.1(1) states that the Parliamentary Budget Officer is an officer of the Library of Parliament. Thus, the resources and budget of the office are provided through the estimates of the Library of Parliament and not through those of the Department of Finance.

Standing Order 108(4) states that the mandate of the Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament includes the review of the effectiveness, management and operation of the Library of Parliament. Thus, matters pertaining to the mandate and the resources allotted to the Parliamentary Budget Officer fall within the purview of the Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament.

As members will recall, the issue of a committee attempting to go beyond its mandate as defined in the Standing Orders was raised last year. In a ruling given on May 15, 2008, in the Debates at page 5924-25, on the admissibility of the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, I reminded the House that while committees are masters of their own proceedings, a committee cannot stray beyond its mandate.

I am sure that hon. members would agree that the work of committees is vital to the functioning of the House and of Parliament. Because of their importance, the House has taken great care to define and differentiate the responsibilities of its committees, particularly where there might at first glance appear to be overlapping jurisdictions. While it is true that the House has given its committees broad mandates and significant powers, with such power and authority comes the responsibility of committees to respect their mandates and not exceed the limits of their authority.

Thus, it is expected that committees will be judicious in the exercise of their mandates so as to avoid bringing disputes to the House for the Speaker to adjudicate.

As explained in House of Commons Procedure and Practice at page 857, decisions of committee chairs may be appealed to the committee. However, as I noted in rulings on March 14, 2008 and May 15, 2008, committees that overturn procedurally sound decisions by their chairs and choose to present procedurally unacceptable reports to the House will have them declared null and void.

In this instance, while one might understand the concerns of hon. members of the finance committee, their concerns are not sufficient cause for circumventing the Standing Orders. Indeed, I find it troubling that a committee chose to proceed as it did with the knowledge that what it was doing was beyond its mandate.

The subject matter of the second report of the Standing Committee on Finance is clearly not within the mandate of that committee, as spelled out in Standing Order 108, but rather is within the mandate of the Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament, and therefore, in my view, the report is out of order.

For this reason, I rule that the second report of the Standing Committee on Finance be deemed withdrawn and that no further proceedings may be taken in relation thereto.

[Privilege, March 24th, 2009]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Malpeque on March 5, 2009, concerning information disseminated by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I would like to thank the member for having raised this matter.

In raising this issue, the member alleged that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans misused the privileges of her office in allowing the dissemination of misleading information for partisan purposes on her department's letterhead and website under the name of a Conservative senator. The member contended that the actions of the minister, the department and the member of the other place compromised his privileges as a member of Parliament.

The member for Malpeque explained that a press release by the senator was issued with the department's letterhead on its website. He also indicated that the senator was not an official spokesperson for the department. The press release concerning the seal hunt was critical of a member of the other place, the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberal Party and, according to the member, distorted the position of the Liberal leader and the Liberal Party.

The member argued that it was the responsibility of the minister to ensure that media resources were used only for departmental purposes and that she had failed to do so. He quoted at length from the communications policy of the Government of Canada, illustrating how the news release had violated that policy. He further argued that, as a consequence of the minister's allowing the department's letterhead and website to be used in a partisan way by someone with no departmental affiliation, his privileges as a member had been violated.

The release of a departmental communiqué that is critical of members of the Senate and of the House is extremely unusual and is a serious matter that causes me considerable concern.

However, while the member may well be right that it is the responsibility of ministers to adhere to the government’s communication policy, it is not within my purview to judge whether the minister did or not follow that policy. In the present case, my only role is to ascertain whether the actions of the minister and the department have violated the hon. member’s privileges.

In the past, Speakers have been called upon to rule on questions of privilege relating to actions taken by government departments that have affected the privilege of members, for example, government advertising anticipating decisions of the House. In rare cases, such actions have been viewed as obstruction.

More often than not, however, as noted in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, on pages 91 and 92:

“—rulings have focused on whether or not the parliamentary duties of the Member were directly involved. While frequently noting that Members raising such matters might have legitimate complaints, Speakers have regularly concluded that Members have not been prevented from performing their parliamentary duties”.

In the current matter, I do not think that the member has demonstrated a link to his parliamentary duties. Likewise, it has not been demonstrated that the events described have had an undesirable effect on the reputation of the House of Commons. For those reasons, I cannot find that the member's ability to perform his work has been obstructed and, therefore, I cannot find a prima facie question of privilege.

I wish to thank the hon. member for his vigilance. In raising the matter, he has drawn public attention to a serious situation that needed to be remedied. His views have been heeded from media reports and, on examination of the website of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, it appears that the offending communiqué has been removed and the departmental officials have apologized.

No doubt ministers and their officials have taken cognizance of these unfortunate events and will ensure that nothing like this happens again.

I thank the House for its attention to this important matter.

[Points of Order, March 12th, 2009]

I think I have heard enough on this point at the moment. My ruling this morning in fact dealt with two issues, one arising out of question period, primarily, but also a Standing Order 31 statement.

I turn to page 363 of Marleau and Montpetit, and I will read another section. This is referring to statements by members.

In presiding over the conduct of this daily activity, Speakers have been guided by a number of well-defined prohibitions. In 1983, when the procedure for “Statements by Members” was first put in place, Speaker Sauvé stated that Members may speak on any matter of concern and not necessarily on urgent matters only; Personal attacks are not permitted; Congratulatory messages, recitations of poetry and frivolous matters are out of order.

The comment goes on to say,

These guidelines are still in place today, although Speakers tend to turn a blind eye to the latter restriction.

I suppose that has happened. Unfortunately it appears I may have turned a blind eye to some of the other restrictions, and my ruling this morning was intended to indicate that is not to be the practice.

It represents a shift, and I have made the shift because of complaints from all sides of the House about the lack of decorum, particularly in that part.

I stress that the rules that apply to Standing Order 31 statements may not apply in debate, where members can quote other members and have a debate. In debate, there is reply; there is exchange.

Standing Order 31 is not intended as a debate. It is intended as a group of statements by members about various matters they regard as important, and in my view, that is a separate time from normal debate.

As regards what members say in debate, I believe there is what we call “freedom of expression” in this House. The restrictions, in my view, are less strict. Sometimes there are attacks during debate because members are hammering away at each other on their views on different things, but members get to reply. They can have a debate and discussion and disagree on their views and make those disagreements manifest. That is fine.

However, when we are in Standing Order 31 statements, using the statement as an attack on another is inappropriate. It is happening too often, on all sides. That is why I am concerned. That is why I made the ruling I made this morning. That is why I cut off hon. members today when they were making statements that, in my view, breached that guideline.

I urge hon. members to take a look at Standing Order 31 statements as a different time from normal debate and go back to the roots of what was intended in the statement made in 1983 when the practice was instituted in this House. If not, in my view, we are going to get in a situation where all the statements become attacks on one another and it is going to turn into a particularly unpleasant experience for all hon. members, and I do not believe that is the way it should be. That is the reason for my ruling.