Mr. Speaker, the member for Mount Royal, in addressing the suggestions that there would potentially be a byelection in his constituency, has used some very strong language to describe these as misleading, wrong, untrue.
However when we go back to the original arguments the member made, we will recall that he said people received these calls and they were perplexed. They of course asked the question, “Why are you calling me?”, a reasonable question to ask in the circumstances, since he is here.
The response that was given by the callers was, as the member said, that there was a possibility, rumours or suggestions that there would be a byelection. Well that response was, very interestingly, the truth.
What he is asking you, Mr. Speaker, to do here is prevent people from being able to speak the truth. When they were asked “Why are you making this call?”, “There are rumours that there might be a byelection” was the true answer.
That is what prompted the political activity. It is something that he himself acknowledges has been out there, has been present for some 12 years. We are not talking about the past couple of weeks; we are talking about years and years.
Clearly, the basis for them answering the truth when asked that question is most reasonable. It is a reasonable part of speech. In this case what the Speaker is being asked to do is extraordinary. The Speaker is being asked to reach far outside this House, to make a ruling that will affect every single Canadian. It will affect Canadians' freedom of speech, their ability to speak their minds, their fundamental charter rights and their fundamental democratic rights. That ruling would say that they are not able to comment or speculate on whether the member would be leaving his seat and whether there might be a byelection.
I think about the programs that I watch and the news stories that I read. There are continually items of speculation on whether particular individuals in this House might leave, might leave early, might retire or might resign.
Were you, Mr. Speaker, to find favour with the point as the member for Mount Royal is asking, you effectively would be making that type of speech illegal, as it would affect or offend the privileges of every member of Parliament if it ever happened. It is like putting the special cloak of protection around parliamentarians, insulating them from normal political and journalistic discourse.
Let us think of the logical outcome were you, Mr. Speaker, to find favour with the member for Mount Royal's suggestions. A political pundit might go on a panel on a television show and say, “We have heard that the member for York—Simcoe may want to return to the private sector soon. It is more lucrative anyhow. So there is going to be a byelection in that riding, maybe.”
All of a sudden, that pundit, having speculated on that, is going to be found to have offended the privileges of the member, subject to a contempt of Parliament ruling, subject to the fairly extreme potential consequences that are available to the Speaker in that case. That seems to be very unreasonable.
The same would apply to any journalist who would engage in that kind of speculation, entirely normal freedom of speech and expression. The member for Mount Royal is asking the Speaker to suppress that. That is the logical outcome of his request.
There are fundamental rights that exist in a democracy. I can understand his concern about his privileges being offended, but to say that one cannot speculate on his future, that that form of freedom of speech should forever be suppressed, is to me an overreach that is far too great. It really reflects more his insecurity than a confidence in the robustness of our democracy, of our long political traditions.
I would be very concerned, Mr. Speaker, were you to go down that path and suppress democratic activity, suppress the freedom of speech, not just of political parties but of every single individual outside this place. It would, in effect, say to them that somehow we are beyond their ability to speculate or talk about, because if they say anything negative about our performance, if they say that we might leave, that we have other plans or that we are not working hard enough, they are somehow offending our privileges.
The member said that people are saying that, as he is leaving, he is not working hard enough and not doing things for them. People say that about members of Parliament every single day. Some people say it about every single one of us, that we are collectively not working hard enough.
That should not be found to be a breach of our privileges. That should be part of our challenge every day in this House and outside this House. That should be addressed as part of normal democratic discourse.
Mr. Speaker, I would caution you very strongly against taking the invitation that has been presented to you.
Chilling that freedom of speech and democratic discourse that exists in our society to allow members of Parliament to somehow be insulated from criticism of their performance and speculation of their jobs by anybody out there would be overreaching and unprecedented in my view. When this matter was first raised, I somewhat jokingly said that it was quite evident the member was still here. I do not think anybody is disputing that.
Sir John A. Macdonald, in his ear, faced this on a regular basis, almost every year. It was published in The Globe by George Brown, the proprietor and a member of the legislature, that his departure was imminent. Obviously, that did not happen for many decades, but it was published all the time.
Sir John A. Macdonald, in the greatest tradition of democracy, understood it to be part of normal discourse. We have seen no evidence that there were any concerns raised that his privileges were offended. He was willing to go out and address it by doing his job, and being part of the democratic process.
The fact is that this has been going on as long as politics in this country. It is a normal part of politics in this country and it is not a kind of speech that should begin to be chilled at this point.
