Mr. Speaker, I rise to raise a question of privilege in relation to the incidents that occurred on March 31 between me and the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake.
During question period, the member and I had an exchange. Subsequent to question period, the member rose on a point of order and made accusations that I believe constitute a prime facie case of privilege. Under House of Commons Procedure and Practice, members are not to make statements that are to intentionally mislead the House. I submit that there is a prima facie case to find that the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake intentionally misled the House, and as a result my privilege was violated.
I refer you to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, 2017, edited by Marc Bosc and André Gagnon, specifically under the section “Misuse of Freedom of Speech”. It reads:
The privilege of freedom of speech is an extremely powerful immunity and on occasion Speakers have had to caution Members about its misuse. Ruling on a question of privilege in 1987, Speaker Fraser spoke at length about the importance of freedom of speech and the need for care in what Members say:...
“Such a privilege confers grave responsibilities on those who are protected by it. By that I mean specifically the Hon. Members of this place. The consequences of its abuse can be terrible. Innocent people could be slandered with no redress available to them. Reputations could be destroyed on the basis of false rumour. All Hon. Members are conscious of the care they must exercise in availing themselves of their absolute privilege of freedom of speech. That is why there are long-standing practices and traditions observed in this House to counter the potential for abuse.”
I would also like to draw your attention to the section under the heading “Freedom from Obstruction, Interference, Intimidation and Molestation. It is this section that outlines the grounds for a prima facie case of privilege by the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake when she made intentional and misleading statements about me. In this section, it reads as follows:
It is impossible to codify all incidents which might be interpreted as matters of obstruction, interference, molestation or intimidation and, as such, constitute prima facie cases of privilege. However, some matters found to be prima facie include the damaging of a Member’s reputation, the usurpation of the title of Member of Parliament, the intimidation of Members and their staff and of witnesses before committees, and the provision of misleading information.
The unjust damaging of a Member’s good name might be seen as constituting an obstruction if the Member is prevented from performing his or her parliamentary functions. In 1987, Speaker Fraser stated:
“The privileges of a Member are violated by any action which might impede him or her in the fulfilment of his or her duties and functions. It is obvious that the unjust damaging of a reputation could constitute such an impediment. The normal course of a Member who felt himself or herself to be defamed would be the same as that available to any other citizen, recourse to the courts under the laws of defamation with the possibility of damages to substitute for the harm that might be done. However, should the alleged defamation take place on the floor of the House, this recourse is not available.”
There are several examples and rulings regarding matters of privilege being raised by members that constitute prima facie cases of privilege. I would like to quote one of these examples, as I believe it relates to the question of privilege here today. In the section under “Debates”, on October 6, 2005, pages 8,473 to 8,474, in particular on page 8,474, the matter was referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. In this report to the House, the committee stated, “Members of Parliament are public figures, and their reputations and integrity are among their most valuable assets. We are all cognizant of the public cynicism that exists regarding our political system.”
In the rulings determining whether or not a prima facie case of privilege has been demonstrated, the statements or actions in question had to be done so in an intentional manner to mislead, and therefore causing the intimidation or interference of a member to perform their duties.
I would like to outline why I feel the actions of the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake were intentional and, in fact, manufactured. Let me first acknowledge that if members are shouting across the aisle and statements are misheard, and then repeated incorrectly, I do not believe this constitutes an intentional misleading of the House. For the most part, I think hon. members accept when they have perhaps said things they should not have or if they have misheard, and they rise and clarify.
This was not the case on March 31 between the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake and me. Several members who were sitting around me throughout Question Period rose and confirmed that the statement, nor a statement even remotely like the one alleged by the member, was not heard to be said by me. Further to this, I immediately responded to the allegations made, and unequivocally informed the House that I never made such statements or statements even remotely similar to the one alleged.
In the House, we consider each and every one of us to be honourable. As such, I would have expected that after I clarified what had actually been said, the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake would have accepted that as truth and retracted her statement.
As a result of these allegations made against me, my office received several phone calls, emails and social media reactions that were threatening and aggressive. The incident has left not only me but also my staff vulnerable to threats. This is why the drafters of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice correctly acknowledge that acts of intimation or any impediment to a member being able to perform their duties can come in many forms, including through the act of intentionally making misleading statements in an effort to damage a member's reputation. This intimidation serves to make a member think twice before using their voice to call out the actions of others, out of fear that if they are seen to be challenging, then they might be subject to accusations that put them or their staff in danger of threats and harassment.
I have spent my career advocating for more women to enter politics. I did not grow up thinking this is a place for someone like me. I hope future generations see a different version of political service, one that is more representative of the diversity of this country. Women in this place are constantly reminded that this place was not actually built for them. We are reminded of this fact when we walk these very halls.
I have spoken out on many occasions against misogyny in this place, including calling out the Leader of the Opposition's use of embedded hashtags that target anti-women groups and spread messages of violence against women.
I believe that these misleading statements against me could have been an act of retribution, an attempt to damage my reputation in order to intimidate and silence me. This place is to hold vigorous debates, challenge opinions and represent our communities. What we should never accept is the manufacturing of statements for the sole purpose of maligning another member's reputation for pure political gain.
This is why I raise the question of privilege today. This conduct is an offence to this House, to all members in it, as misleading accusations could be made about any one of us, without recourse. I believe a prima facie case of violation of privilege occurred here.
In hopes to resolve this matter and get on with the work on behalf of Canadians, I would find the matter satisfied should the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake retract her statements and apologize to this House.
I appreciate the Speaker's attention in hearing this question of privilege. I will conclude by saying that despite the efforts by some, I will not be intimidated and I will not be silenced, because that would only serve to reward the bad-faith actions and does nothing to encourage more women and overall more diversity in this place, which I firmly believe would make this place better and benefit all Canadians.
