Mr. Speaker, the debate is on the Standing Orders, but we are also discussing parliamentary procedure in general, which I am doing.
As I was saying, Hamilton is a rough place to be an elected representative, and I am rather used to some rough treatment. I am very proud to say I have served two terms. Before that, I worked for 20 years in heavy civil construction as a structural engineer. In total, that is 27 years working as a professional and being accountable, publicly and privately, for what I said, what I wrote and how I presented myself, in an environment where making a false or defamatory statement would quickly result in a lawsuit.
Now, I understand the history of parliamentary privilege and why it exists. Without it, MPs could be under the threat of silence through frivolous lawsuits, and courts could be second-guessing parliamentary debate, but again I go back to my initial point that, at the municipal level, municipalities across Canada have wide-ranging democratic debates without parliamentary privilege protecting members from lawsuits. What it comes down to is that it really only works when members of Parliament approach this role in good faith. People have often asked me what the biggest difference is that I have seen between working at the municipal level and working at the federal level, and it is the hyperbole, nonsense and expanding the truth that we see rather routinely in this chamber, which is at times, I would submit, rampant abuse of parliamentary privilege.
How I am seeing parliamentary privilege being used here, and this is my observation, is that there will be false, defamatory, over-the-top hyperbole or a statement made in the House that is clipped and shared on social media, and then there are legions of followers, trolls and alternative news sources that then share and promote it as if it is true. It is an intentional strategy that builds anger and creates division and an entire industry of political grift. I would be really interested to test this theory: In the House we are protected by parliamentary privilege, but if a member shares a false or defamatory statement on social media, are they still protected by parliamentary privilege when they are publishing false and defamatory statements outside of the House? As far as I know, the courts have not tested that. I am not a lawyer, but I would love to investigate that further.
That brings me to a point about the need for a strong and robust mainstream media, such as the CBC, because legitimate journalists are bound by a code of ethics and the threat of lawsuits. They do not generally re-publish false and defamatory materials. Standing Order 18 on parliamentary privilege does prohibit personal attacks, accusations of dishonesty, and disrespect toward Parliament, the Crown or members. As a member, I cannot say that a member is lying, even when it is a blatant lie, and that is kind of bizarre if we think about it. I can use all kinds of euphemisms. I can say it is misleading, it is misinformation or the member did not understand, but I cannot straight up say it is a lie and the member is lying. That may be something that needs to change.
Technically, the Speaker, under Standing Order 16 on decorum and Standing Order 18 on parliamentary language, can intervene to correct statements such as that, misinformation or lies. Maybe we need to encourage the Speaker and the party whips to be a little more aggressive and use formal points of order to correct blatant lies that are put on the record.
I will make a couple of comments on dress and decorum. The Standing Orders require members to be properly attired in the chamber. Of course, for men, that means wearing a tie. I am strongly in favour of maintaining those provisions. I think losing the tie is the thin end of the wedge to hoodies and track suits in the House of Commons. We have an obligation to Canadians to be professional in our role and project that to the public.
I welcome any questions.