House of Commons speaker Peter Milliken has ruled on Ralph Goodale's point of personal privilege relating to the alleged actions/comments last week in which it is now widely accepted (via the release of audio tapes) that Foreign Affairs Minister Peter Mackay in response to a question from the opposition about his dog pointed to Belinda Stronach's empty chair and said 'You already have her".Milliken ruled, citing House precedents, that Goodale's assertion that such behaviour affects the integrity of MPs to be believed is a matter of debate rather than a matter of privilege. It is not the role of a speaker to decide on issues that are debatable. Thus, Milliken concluded, he now considers the matter closed.
I am currently transcribing his remarks, which I have taped, and will post them ASAP.
Update: Here's the transcript.
Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on Wednesday October 26th by the honourable member from Wascana concerning comments allegedly made by the homourable Minister of Foreign Affairs last Thursday October 19th, 2006.
I would like to thank the honourable member for raising this matter as well as the honourable government house leader for his response for it gives me the opportunity to clarify the very limited role that the speaker can play in situations of this sort. Let us review the events to date.
On October 19th the honourable member for Bourassa rose on a point of order to object to remarks he alleged were made by the honourable the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He was supported by the honourable member for Ajax-Pickering and since I had not heard the remarks complained of, I undertook as I would usually do in such cases, to review the record and return to the house if necessary.
On October 20th, the honourable member for Newmarket-Aurora rose on a point of order and quoting standing order 18 sought an apology for offensive and disrespectful remarks allegedly made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs the previous day. The chair responded as follows and I quote myself here:
As I indicated yesterday when this matter was raised, the news of these statements is something that is new to me because I did not hear the comments or see any of the gestures that are alleged to have taken place.
My staff have carefully reviewed the audio tapes of question period and the written transcript of Hansard, which I myself have seen, and of course there is no reference to these words in either. So I am unable to confirm any of the suggestions that have been made. I know several members say that they heard these remarks.
However, in the circumstances, there is nothing further I can do at this time.
End of quote.
Now, the House leader of the offical opposition has risen on a question of privilege on this same matter and has provided the chair with affadavits signed by several honourable members stating that they heard the offending remarks. In the meantime of course, as the house knows, audio clips of the October 19th proceedings have been aired in the media. Indeed a transcript one such report has been sent to me by the member from Newmarket-Aurora. However, last Thursday when asked by the honourable leader of the official opposition to apologize, the honourable Minsiter of Foreign Affairs replied and I quote him, 'I made no such gesture. I made no derogatory or discriminatory remarks toward any member of the house.' End of quote.
The honourable member from Mississauga South argues that the chair might refer this matter to the standing committee on Proceedure and House affairs so that the committee can get at the truth in these competing claims. Even if I were so inclined, it is not for the chair to refer matters to a committee but for the house to take that decision. When a member has made a reamrk considered unparliamnetray or inappropriate, the speaker has asked the member to withdraw or rephrase the comment. Standing order 18 prohibits disrespectful or offensive language against a member of the house and as Marlowe and Montpetit states at page 522, 'a member will be required to withdraw offensive remarks toward another member.' End of quote. But, such action by the chair, that is requesting an apology or a withdrawal, is predicated on a common agreement about what actually took place either because the exchange appears in the official record or because both parties acknowledge that the exchange took place. The official record is not helpful and the speaker is faced with a dispute indeed a contradiction about what actually happened. Some honourable members insist they heard the offensive remarks. The honourable Minister denies making them.
In examing the precedents I find guidance in a ruling delivered on December 12th, 1991 by Mr Speaker Fraser at pages 2618 and 2619 of the debates he stated and I quote:
'The chair is faced with a dispute and is unable to resolve it. When the official records are not supportive of the allegations, I am convinced that it is not the duty of the chair to try and resolve it. As far as I am concerned from a procedrural point of view and in keeping with our conventions, the matter is closed.'
End of quote.
In the circumstances, I've listened very carefully to the arguments presented, notably by the honourable member for Wascana who contends that quote 'the privileges of members have been infringed by lingering untruth and the inability of the minister to be believed'. End of quote.
While I may agree with the honourable member that the circumstances surrounding the situation are most regrettable, it is not clear to me how prevent honourable members from accomplishing their work. And since I fail to see how the privileges of the house have been breached by this unfortunate situation, I cannot conclude that a prima facie breach of privilige has occured.
[The speaker then refers to two other precedents which conclude who cited Citation 113 of Beauchenes, 4th Edition, which states: 'A dispute arising between two members as to allegations of fact does not fulfill the conditions of parliamentary privilege'.]
In the case before the house now, the remarks may or may not have been said but it is not for the speaker to decide where the truth lies. I regret that the chair can offer no remedy to the house particularly because as it seems apparent that the situation does nothing to enhance the reputation of the house of commons and its members. Members on all sides of the house have commented on the erosion of mutual respect in the house and as was stated by the chief government whip on October 20th, it is encumbent upon all of us to work harder towards maintaining decorum in this chamber. I believe we would do well to recall the words of Mr speaker Fraser on December 11th, 1991 when he said: 'Few things can more embitter the mood of the house than a series of personal attacks. For in their wake, they leave a residue of animosity and unease'. End of quote.
I appeal therefore to all honourable members to be judicious in their language and to avoid personal attacks on other members so they do not bring themselves and this house into disrepute. And in this particular case, in keeping with my predecessors, Mr Lamoureaux, Jerome and Fraser, I must now consider the matter closed.
Note: For the official record, check Hansard once it's updated.
No comments:
Post a Comment