Madam Speaker, I would like to add a few things to the excellent question of privilege that was raised by the member for London—Fanshawe on Friday. I know that the Speaker will address this question of privilege in the coming days, and I wanted to add new elements and raise some important points.

The member for London—Fanshawe spoke about Standing Order 16(1), which is on decorum. I will read it: “When the Speaker is putting a question, no member shall enter, walk out of or across the House, or make any noise or disturbance.” That is precisely what happened on Thursday. It was a sad evening in the history of our Parliament. There was utter chaos.

Also, the member for London—Fanshawe read an excerpt from the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which is our procedural bible. In chapter, 3, page 107, it states:

In order to fulfill their parliamentary duties, Members should be able to go about their parliamentary business undisturbed. Assaulting, threatening, or insulting a Member during a proceeding of Parliament, or while the Member is circulating within the Parliamentary Precinct, is a violation of the rights of Parliament.

She also cited Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, chapter 12, page 241, which states, “Any form of intimidation of a Member with respect to the Member's actions during a proceeding in Parliament could amount to contempt.”

When we consider all these aspects, there is no doubt that this is indeed a prima facie question of privilege.

I would like to add what the Chair could have done, the powers given to the Chair, from a ruling made on March 30, 2000, by the former deputy speaker Peter Milliken, who said the following when there was disorder during a vote in the House of Commons, which is a key part of our work. Deputy Speaker Milliken said, “The Chair will say that if members persist in...some other demonstration of that kind which is inappropriate in the House, the Chair will have no reluctance in directing the clerk to strike the hon. member's name from the list of those who have voted and continue to strike it if the conduct persists and, if necessary, take further measures.”

It is very clear that the Speaker could have intervened in what was an absolute collapse of order in the House of Commons during the vote. The member for London—Fanshawe was very clear, as I believe other members have been; they could not even hear whether their name had been called for the vote. That is clearly stopping their ability to do their work.

We need to get to the real issue here, and I am citing Speaker Regan on November 20, 2018, on the use of alcohol in the House of Commons. He said at that time, in the Speaker's ruling, that “it is incumbent upon all of us to ensure that Parliament is a healthy and safe workplace for everyone.”

By no means all Conservative MPs, but some Conservative MPs, had very clearly consumed alcohol before they came into the House. That is something that is strictly prohibited in any workplace. I have worked in factories. I have worked in an oil refinery and in breweries. In no place is it acceptable to come to work having consumed alcohol, especially in excess. In the oil refinery where I worked, if somebody had come to work drunk, they would have been summarily fired because not only are they putting at risk their own lives in a very dangerous work environment, but they are putting in jeopardy the lives of others in the workplace. It is completely unacceptable.

As you were aware, Madam Speaker, because the Speaker's office was notified, the pages were withdrawn from the opposition lobby because of safety issues. What an unbelievable circumstance, that the pages who do such incredible work for us, who are part of the work we do each and every day, had to be withdrawn because of the drunk and disorderly conduct of some Conservative MPs. It is absolutely unacceptable that this situation happened and it is unbelievable to me that we have not had Conservative MPs standing and profusely apologizing for their conduct on Thursday night.

I also want to say that the Speaker could have taken action and chose not to on Thursday night, and I find that extremely disappointing.

The reality is that whips have an important role in the House of Commons, and it is a codified role. I want to reference appendix II of the Standing Orders. The whip's role with regard to dealing with allegations of harassment is explicit in the code of conduct for members of the House of Commons. Whips have a semi-codified role with regard to managing the conduct of their members and the appropriateness of their behaviour. For the whip to allow visibly drunk members of the Conservative caucus to come into the House of Commons and disrupt the proceedings in a drunk and disorderly fashion is absolutely unacceptable, and the whip bears responsibility as well.

When the member for London—Fanshawe rose on Friday and offered a very fulsome and well-thought-out question of privilege, we saw a number of Conservative MPs rise and spew misinformation and not a single one of them ever responded to the question of privilege. They did not cite a single standing order or a single citation from our procedural bible because they cannot. If they try to do the same thing now, unless they are citing standing orders or citing aspects of the procedural bible that governs our activities, they should not be able to go on at length spewing misinformation.

My final point is this: In the coming days, the Speaker will be asked to make a decision on this. In my mind, there is no doubt this is a prima facie case of privilege that should come to the House and then the House can decide whether the matter gets referred to the procedure and House affairs committee.

Peter Julian

$568,566.00