Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order that actually comes out of question period from yesterday.
It is well established and agreed on by everybody in the chamber that the reputation of the Speaker is an impartial reputation, and when I say “the Speaker”, I mean the chair occupant; that might be yourself, the Deputy Speaker, one of the Assistant Speakers from time to time or even somebody who sits there for a few moments to substitute when a Speaker has to depart. The point is that the impartiality of the position is absolutely critical.
In fact a former Speaker who used to sit in the chair, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle and currently the House leader for the Conservatives, once said, in a ruling on September 24, 2014, that:
Another of our time-honoured traditions is that of respect for the office of Speaker. O'Brien and Bosc, at page 313, states that:
“Reflections on the character or actions of the Speaker—an allegation of bias, for example—could be taken by the House as breeches of privilege and punished accordingly.”
There is actually more than what the Speaker at the time indicated. If members go to page 313 and look at the heading about impartiality, the immediate next paragraph starts off by saying, “On two occasions, newspaper editorials were found to contain libellous reflections on the Speaker and were declared by the House in one instance to be a contempt of its privileges and in the other a gross breach of its privileges.”
I bring this to your attention, Mr. Speaker, because following your rulings and some actions you had to take yesterday after question period, the member for Calgary Nose Hill issued a tweet that said, “Watch the Speaker (a Liberal MP) kick me out of the House of Commons and silence me for speaking the truth.” She goes on to say, “Liberal censorship is alive and well in Canada.”