Privilege

The House dealt with a question of privilege raised by the member for Edmonton Strathcona, who complained that the member for Halifax had attacked her integrity by describing her opposition to Bill C-39 as “wild disinformation.” The Liberal member for Kingston and the Islands asked the Speaker to dismiss the complaint, arguing that members use the word “disinformation” routinely in debate, that the complaining member has used it herself, and that unless the House bans the word members remain free to say it. That was the only substantive statement in the debate.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text (opens in a new tab)

1 statement

Mark Gerretsen, Kingston and the Islands

Liberal
“I want the Speaker to dismiss this complaint. Members use the word disinformation all the time here, and the member who is complaining has used it herself. Unless the House bans the word, members are allowed to say it.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would very briefly like to respond to the question of privilege that was raised by the member for Edmonton Strathcona prior to question period, in which she said, “The member for Halifax attacked my integrity when she characterized my opposition to Bill C-39 as a ‘wild disinformation campaign’”. I would submit that the term “disinformation” has been used extremely loosely in the chamber. Many members use it, and it certainly is not something new. In fact, on June 14, 2021, perhaps ironically or coincidentally, in a response to a question I raised, the member for Edmonton Strathcona said, “legislation that was so flawed and needed so much work that it opened the door for the Conservative Party to sow disinformation”. In fact, I would draw the Speaker’s attention to the fact that the member actually used that term in that characterization on a number of occasions on that day. My point is only to demonstrate that “disinformation” is a widely used term in the House, and unless PROC, another body or the House is going to decide that the term is no longer allowed to be used, it is a term that we are continuing to use. The member used it in the one example I just provided.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 153

  1. Government Orders Business of Supply 51 statements
  2. Government Orders Business of Supply 64 statements
  3. Oral Questions Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship 2 statements
  4. Oral Questions Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship 6 statements
  5. Oral Questions Government Priorities 6 statements
  6. Oral Questions Public Services and Procurement 14 statements
  7. Oral Questions Canadian Identity and Culture 4 statements
  8. Oral Questions Canada Revenue Agency 4 statements
  9. Oral Questions The Economy 6 statements
  10. Oral Questions Employment 2 statements
  11. Oral Questions Steel and Aluminum Industry 15 statements
  12. Oral Questions Employment 3 statements
  13. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements
  14. Oral Questions Sports 2 statements
  15. Oral Questions Finance 6 statements
  16. Oral Questions Foreign Affairs 2 statements
  17. Oral Questions Points of Order 2 statements
  18. Oral Questions Privilege 1 statement
  19. Government Orders Business of Supply 31 statements
  20. Oral Questions Government Priorities 2 statements
  21. Oral Questions The Economy 6 statements
  22. Oral Questions The Economy 4 statements
  23. Government Orders Business of Supply 30 statements
  24. Private Members' Business Canada Labour Code 4 statements
  25. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  26. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  27. Oral Questions Business of the House 2 statements