Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege pursuant to Standing Order 48(2), which provides for matters to be raised without notice if a matter is “arising out of proceedings in the Chamber during the course of a sitting”.
This question of privilege relates to reports that have come to light in recent hours, alleging that efforts were made to prevent members of Parliament from voting on supply motions that have been, and are presently, before us in this place. I am raising this serious matter at the earliest convenience, and given that the ability to vote on supply is one of the most important duties of a member, I appreciate the opportunity to rise on this matter.
Reported by Joan Bryden of the Canadian Press late in the day yesterday, March 20, 2019, is the allegation that the member for Vancouver Granville and the member for Markham—Stouffville were prevented from voting on these matters by their caucus colleagues and/or the leadership of the Liberal Party.
Ms. Bryden's article states, “Despite the efforts to unite and put the affair behind them, one source said [the member for Markham—Stouffville] faced a ‘frank and emotional’ session with her Ontario caucus colleagues prior to the national caucus meeting she did not attend.”
Here is the part relevant to the matter before us: “And both [the member for Markham—Stouffville] and [the member for Vancouver Granville] were allowed to miss the marathon voting session in the belief that sleep-deprived Liberal MPs might take out their frustration on the pair as the voting dragged on into the wee hours of the morning.”
It goes on, “The source spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to publicly discuss confidential caucus matters.”
Furthermore, published today is a Maclean's interview with Paul Wells in which the member for Markham—Stouffville is reported as saying:
...from the perspective of somebody who is under pressure and perhaps being harassed, it’s incredibly hard –- if you talk to people who are harassed in any capacity, to maintain relationships and to find the right time to be able to speak up about the fact that you are being treated that way. So you know, I think if you look at examples of other types of bullying or harassment, it’s not necessarily as easy as people might think....
I will lay out several things regarding this matter, which is urgent and speaks to the business at hand.
These two quotes taken together should show you, Mr. Speaker, and members here that the member for Markham—Stouffville was feeling pressure from her colleagues prior to this interview taking place and before the marathon voting began. Therefore, it is more than plausible in a parliamentary sense, prima facie, that the concerns of the anonymous source in Ms. Bryden's story are valid.
There is precedent here, as you ruled in favour of another member's raising of a point of privilege on behalf of another during the course of proceedings in this 42nd Parliament.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that on May 18, 2016, during the ringing of bells, the Prime Minister was captured on video physically shoving a female member on the floor of the House. The issue was taken up on behalf of that member by the former member for York—Simcoe. You, Mr. Speaker, allowed the charge of molestation of a member to go forward as a prima facie question of privilege.
Therefore, I ask that you find a prima facie question of privilege in this case regarding the member for Vancouver Granville and the member for Markham—Stouffville as well, a case of intimidation in which clearly someone was concerned enough to breach the confidence of caucus and keep these members away from the House out of the fear that they would be intimated by their own caucus members.
The unnamed source in Ms. Bryden's article clearly indicated that whatever went on at the Liberal caucus meeting gave rise to action being taken to protect these two members from their own colleagues, preventing them from exercising one of their fundamental rights, which is to attend the House and vote.
I will lay out precedent for the validity of this question of privilege and then why I believe the severity and impact of this situation behooves you to rule in favour of my argument.
However, first I will state that I am doing this because I believe that first and foremost, members should not feel as though they cannot vote on behalf of their constituents. If there are allegations that members have been silenced by their colleagues, it is incumbent upon each of us, regardless of political stripe and out of respect for the sanctity of Parliament, to raise this matter of privilege on their behalf.
Second, I will speak to the matter of precedent.
The matter of ensuring—
