Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, May 6 I gave notice to the chair of a matter arising out of the statement by the member for Peace River just prior to question period.
You issued a letter, Mr. Speaker, dated February 26, 2009, to House leaders concerning members' statements made pursuant to Standing Order 31. That is the reason why I have raised this privilege. You expressed your concern about what was happening. The letter to the House leaders states:
In recent days a number of Members' Statements made pursuant to Standing Order 31 have caused me some concern.
House of Commons Procedure and Practice at pages—
That has been amended now with the second edition of O'Brien and Bosc at page 422.
—sets out guidelines governing the content of such statements. In particular, it states that “personal attacks are not permitted”. I intend to halt at early stage any trend in this direction. As such, I am writing to advise you that I will vigorously enforce the authority given to me by Standing Order 31 to cut off Members if, in my opinion, improper statements are made.
This letter is signed by the Speaker. A carbon copy was sent to all whips and encouraged them to inform members of their parties of the Speaker's approach in this regard.
Obviously the matter has become untenable. It is out of hand. The statement I am rising on is probably the worst thing that has happened to me in my over 16 years as a member of Parliament. I want to read into the record the offensive S. O. 31 made by the member for Peace River. It can be found on page 2459 of May 6 House of Commons Debates. The member states:
Mr. Speaker, this morning the Liberal chair of the ethics committee showed yet again the ethical bankruptcy of the Liberal Party, when it was revealed that he had a private conversation with the interim Information Commissioner about an ongoing investigation.
Is this how the Liberal Party respects the independent officers of Parliament? All members of the House should believe in respecting due process, all members should believe in respecting the independence of officers of Parliament.
No member of the House should be engaged in a private conversation with a legal authority about an ongoing investigation in the middle of that investigation.
Yet, the member for Mississauga South threw due process and respect for the independent authority of that officer completely out the window by attempting to influence, interfere or direct that independent officer of Parliament.
This is highly inappropriate, grossly unethical, and shows yet again why the Liberal Party cannot be trusted.
I do not think I have to explain to you, Mr. Speaker, how these allegations are all directed at myself.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, I have no recourse to defend myself. If I do not, then it is important that I take the consequences. As I said, this is so serious that I had to rise on this matter.
I should make reference to Standing Order 18 as it regards using offensive words against either House or against any member thereof, with which the House is well familiar. I can also refer to page 618 of O'Brien and Bosc which states:
The proceedings of the House are based on a long-standing tradition of respect for the integrity of all Members. Thus, the use of offensive, provocative or threatening language in the House is strictly forbidden. Personal attacks, insults and obscenities are not in order.
That is footnote 176.
That is footnote 176. It also includes, “any allegation that a member has lied or misled the House”. This is a very important aspect of this. Certain allegations in the statement by the member for Peace River he knew were incorrect and yet he proceeded to make the statement even when he knew the facts were different. It goes on to say:
Personal attacks, insults and obscene language or words are not in order. A direct charge or accusation against a Member may be made only by way of a substantive motion for which notice is required.
That is Speaker Michener's ruling of June 19, 1959, which I wanted to raise with you, Mr. Speaker.
I should indicate that I had to wait for the blues to ensure I had the words and the statement absolutely correct. Unfortunately I was unable to attend the House to give proper notice and to rise at the late hour of the day on Thursday. I had to catch my plane home to attend to parliamentary business.
I want to raise this also in the context of freedoms of speech. I refer O'Brien and Bosc, pages 97 and 98 and I think that this helps with the essence because it does refer broadly. There is no question, and I will not read all of this. I want to be concise. It states on page 98:
It states on page 98, “Such a privilege confers grave responsibilities on those who are protected by it”. That refers to the immunity privileges that we have here, that nothing we say in here can be used against us outside of this chamber and the same goes for things that are said in committee, for instance. It goes on to say, “By that I mean specifically the Hon. Members of this place. The consequences”, and Mr. Speaker, this really is serious. If the members are not interested in allowing me to have freedom of speech—