Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his comments.

First of all, the reason for this debate is that the Speaker did find a prima facie case of contempt.

My friend says that there is some problem of accuracy. However, that is not the problem here. It was not that member for Mississauga—Streetsville was inaccurate, but that he attempted to mislead the House.

The Speaker of the House of Commons found that the member for Mississauga—Streetsville managed to satisfy all three criteria for showing contempt of Parliament: that he knowingly misled the House, that he was aware of it at the time, and that his attempt to mislead the House was intentional. These are not easy things to do.

However, the member seems to dismiss it as if there was some point of fact that was inaccurate and the member for Mississauga—Streetsville just corrected it, so what is the big deal, since it happens all the time?

It happens all the time—really? It happens all the time that members walk into this House, knowingly mislead the place, and attempt to contort the debate?

The member says that it is “torquing up” the debate. This is not torquing something up; that is rhetoric. This is not about rhetoric, and that is not what the Speaker said.

I am not sure if the member is actually challenging the ruling that came down. It seems that way. It is as though there were no prima facie case of contempt found, as though that is just what the NDP believes.

No, no, my friend. The Speaker also agrees with us. If the Conservative member would like to challenge the Chair, then he is able to make that kind of point. However, that is not what is happening here.

The member also said that “all of the facts are now known”. Wow, that is great. I would like him to leave some of those with us this afternoon as to what the facts of the case are. He said that the member for Mississauga—Streetsville had a moment of conviction, which is why he came back, and that he is the product of his environment. I wish the Conservatives thought that about all Canadians. I wish they thought that when misdeeds happen, they are all just products of their environment.

My question is this: is the member challenging the Chair? Is he suggesting that only NDP members have found a prima facie case of contempt, or is it in fact the Speaker of the House that I heard make that ruling this afternoon?

Nathan Cullen

Transcript

Routine Proceedings

Discussions (0)