Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
“I want this question of privilege dismissed. The member waited five sitting days to bring it up, which breaks the rule to raise it right away. Also, the remarks were about members in general, not aimed at her. This is just a debate over the facts.”
“Madam Speaker, I am rising to respond to a question of privilege that was raised by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands on October 21, respecting the deliberations in this House that took place on October 7. On procedural grounds, five sitting days had elapsed since the deliberations in question took place in the House. The member has not observed a key requirement in raising the matter at the first opportunity. On these grounds alone, the matter should in fact be dismissed. On substantive grounds, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands assumes that a part of the speech by the member for Halifax on October 7 respecting the second reading debate of Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act, was directed toward her. The first point is that all members who speak in debate must direct their comments through the Chair. The second point is there is no way to substantiate that the member for Halifax was directing her comments to anyone in particular. It is a more reasonable assumption that the member was referring to members in general. In fact, this is supported by what the member for Halifax actually said in the House. The member said, “some of which has been perpetrated by members of this House.” A principle observed in this House is that we give members the benefit of the doubt. In this case, there is no ambiguity that the member for Halifax was referring to members in general. I submit that this is clearly not a question of privilege, even at first glance. What we have before this House is conjecture, which amounts to a dispute over the facts. On June 19, 2025, the Speaker ruled on a matter that constituted a dispute as to the facts, which I would like to quote. He said, “If every disagreement is to be raised as a question of privilege, the House would spend its time doing little else. There are many opportunities in our debates for members to challenge each other on the facts of a particular case, and that is the correct way of dealing with such disagreements.” I therefore would conclude that there are no grounds to find a prima facie question of privilege in this matter due to the procedural requirement to raise matters at first opportunity and, more importantly, that there is nothing to substantiate the allegation that the general remarks were directed to any member in particular. This is simply a dispute as to the facts.”
Madam Speaker, I am rising to respond to a question of privilege that was raised by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands on October 21, respecting the deliberations in this House that took place on October 7. On procedural grounds, five sitting days had elapsed since the deliberations in question took place in the House. The member has not observed a key requirement in raising the matter at the first opportunity. On these grounds alone, the matter should in fact be dismissed. On substantive grounds, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands assumes that a part of the speech by the member for Halifax on October 7 respecting the second reading debate of Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act, was directed toward her. The first point is that all members who speak in debate must direct their comments through the Chair. The second point is there is no way to substantiate that the member for Halifax was directing her comments to anyone in particular. It is a more reasonable assumption that the member was referring to members in general. In fact, this is supported by what the member for Halifax actually said in the House. The member said, “some of which has been perpetrated by members of this House.” A principle observed in this House is that we give members the benefit of the doubt. In this case, there is no ambiguity that the member for Halifax was referring to members in general. I submit that this is clearly not a question of privilege, even at first glance. What we have before this House is conjecture, which amounts to a dispute over the facts. On June 19, 2025, the Speaker ruled on a matter that constituted a dispute as to the facts, which I would like to quote. He said, “If every disagreement is to be raised as a question of privilege, the House would spend its time doing little else. There are many opportunities in our debates for members to challenge each other on the facts of a particular case, and that is the correct way of dealing with such disagreements.” I therefore would conclude that there are no grounds to find a prima facie question of privilege in this matter due to the procedural requirement to raise matters at first opportunity and, more importantly, that there is nothing to substantiate the allegation that the general remarks were directed to any member in particular. This is simply a dispute as to the facts.