Mr. Speaker, this morning I rise on a question of privilege arising out of statements made in the chamber yesterday which were, in my view, a personal attack on my person, on my integrity, on my honesty, on my character and on my honour as a member of Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, May 13, I gave notice to you on a matter arising out of the statement by the member for Selkirk—Interlake just after question period.
The reasons and the basis for making this statement, I think, are sustained by all of the reasons why you, Mr. Speaker, had to issue a letter on February 26, 2009, to the House leaders of the House of Commons concerning members' statement made pursuant to Standing Order 31 in which you state:
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 363 and 364, sets out guidelines governing the content of such statements. In particular, it states that “personal attacks are not permitted”. I intend to halt at an 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.
I am seeking your assistance in informing Members in your party of my approach in this regard.
It was carbon copied to the whips of the House of Commons, as well as to the two independent members of Parliament at the time.
I will begin by referencing the specific statement, because I believe that anyone who is following this would like to know what actually was said.
On page 2787 of the House of Commons Debates of yesterday, the member for Selkirk—Interlake rose and stated:
Mr. Speaker, by long-standing constitutional convention, any MP may attend and participate in any committee meeting. Standing Order 119 says:
Any Member of the House who is not a member of a standing, special or legislative committee, may, unless the House or the committee concerned otherwise orders, take part in the public proceedings of the committee, but may not vote or move any motion, nor be part of any quorum.
He goes on to state:
Today, defying the Standing Order—
My emphasis is on “defying the Standing Order”.
—the Liberal chair of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics—
Who is myself.
—forbade the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development from participating in its proceedings. This ruling was contrary to law and turned the committee into a kangaroo court.
Further, by denying the minister her legal right to participate, the chair was undermining the principle of ministerial responsibility and accountability, a key principle of our Constitution. It is outrageous that the chair of the ethics committee, the member for Mississauga South, would reject the principle of ministerial accountability, all in an attempt to score cheap political points. He should be ashamed and he should resign.
Those are not just casual statements. This is an indictment of a member of Parliament. It is contrary to the spirit and the intent of your letter of February 26, 2009, to the House leaders.
It went further than that. During question period, a question was posed by the member for Peace River in which he asked:
Mr. Speaker, today is perhaps a precedent-setting day in the history of a Westminster system of parliament.
This morning a minister of the Crown appeared at committee as an individual. According to our system of government, she is ultimately accountable for her ministry and yet the opposition, led by the chair of that committee, [myself] dismissed our system of ministerial accountability and would not let her answer for her department or for herself.
Having been silenced this morning, I wonder if the Minister of Human Resources will now be permitted to speak and to share with this House her reaction to this seemingly unprecedented event.
The minister in response answered:
Mr. Speaker, today I voluntarily appeared before the ethics committee to answer questions about the department for which I am ultimately responsible. Shockingly, opposition members refused to allow me to speak.
This may be the first time in parliamentary history that a ministerial responsibility has been denied. Ministerial responsibility is the cornerstone of our parliamentary system.
This is proof that the opposition members are not in it for accountability or truth. They are just in it for themselves.
I think those statements from the member for Selkirk—Interlake, from the assertions of the member for Peace River and from the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development. are very clear.
Mr. Speaker, I need to rise on a question of privilege because I have no other recourse but to rise in the House to defend myself.