Thank you, Chair.
I'm happy to develop my argument in the direction Ms. Dabrusin suggested.
The passages I have read thus far highlight the importance of freedom of speech and of that freedom being unfettered and not contingent.
As she rightly pointed out, the issue in the first instance around the member for Peace River—Westlock's ability to speak did not flow from some objection to what he said or was expected to say. Rather, it was the view of the chair at the time that he shouldn't be able to speak at all, regardless of what he was going to say.
To restrict someone's speech or deny them the ability to speak at all is in both ways a violation of the member's freedom of speech, and I think both violate the letter and the spirit of the poetic injunctions in chapter 3 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice.
I also think it's important to point out that as this discussion has evolved, the implication for Mr. Angus is that Mr. Viersen's right to speak was in some way impacted by other aspects of his service in the House, like the things he has said at different times and his participation or non-participation in certain proceedings.
I think that is a different challenge—