Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate you because these issues are not easy issues to preside over. I think you have allowed a certain amount of latitude as we are trying to work through this issue.
I feel I need to point out a couple of key points. One is that the issue of hearing this today was not a decision by the government. It was a decision by the Speaker. If opposition members have a problem with that I suggest they take it up with the Speaker's office. I brought this issue on February 28 because under the rules of the House I had an obligation to bring it to the House at the earliest opportunity and that is what I determined to be my earliest opportunity. I would ask if the issue of timing could be addressed in the ruling, because it has been brought up numerous times that this issue somehow was not raised properly. I think if we could clear that up it would go a long way to moving this discussion forward.
Second, in no way and at no time did I ever try to imply that opposition members could not do their job. My entire point deals with the language that they used, not their right to do their job.
I would conclude by reading one paragraph from Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada , at page 254. I think this is demonstrated and reinforced by the fact that the opposition was not allowed to read the press release here. It states:
Language spoken during a Parliamentary proceeding that impugns the integrity of members would be unparliamentary and a breach of order contrary to the Standing Orders. But not a breach of privilege.
If it is spoken in the House.
Spoken outside the House by a Member the same language reflecting on the Member's Parliamentary capacity would be considered contempt of the House.
That was the issue I was raising. I think it is a very narrow and simple issue. The opposition members have confirmed they made the statement.
Mr. Speaker, the ruling is in your hands and I look forward to your judgment.