I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on October 21 by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands concerning the alleged mis-characterization of members' remarks.
In raising her question of privilege, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands said that, on October 7, the member for Halifax had imputed improper motives to her and other members by accusing them of engaging in a disinformation campaign about Bill C-39, an act respecting certain measures to strengthen the economy. In her view, these comments were a way of indirectly accusing other members of lying, they were therefore an attack on members' honesty and integrity, and they amounted to a breach of her parliamentary privileges. She asked the Chair to rule that the remarks were unparliamentary and to direct that they be withdrawn. The member for Edmonton Strathcona made the same request on October 22.
In response, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons said that same day that the comments of the member for Halifax were not directed at any member in particular.
The Chair would like to begin by clarifying that this matter is not a question of privilege but rather a point of order. By this, I mean that when a member raises concerns that a standing order may have been contravened, or that certain actions or remarks may have offended the standards of order and decorum of the House, the matter should be raised with the Chair as a point of order. Indeed, in presenting her complaint, the member for Saanich-Gulf Islands specifically referred to Standing Order 18, thereby underscoring that her concern was founded primarily on an alleged breach of the rules, practices or procedures of the House, rather than on a violation of her parliamentary privileges or those of the House.
That said, the Chair takes any allegation of an attack on members' integrity very seriously. As section 13.29 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, states:
Remarks which question a member's integrity, honesty or character are not in order. A member will be requested to withdraw offensive remarks, allegations or accusations of impropriety directed towards another member.
Having reviewed the speech given by the member for Halifax on October 7, the Chair finds that the language used that day was not contrary to the Standing Orders.
Expressing different points of view or criticizing an opposition position, particularly when the comments are not specifically directed at or made against a member, is not a violation of our rules or a question of privilege. However, the line separating what is acceptable from what is not can sometimes be quite fine. The Chair would therefore encourage members to stay well away from any language that their colleagues might interpret differently. Vigorous debate and disagreement are possible while maintaining a respectful and measured tone.
I thank members for their attention.