Sit? Okay. Okay, Mr. Chair, thank you. Mr. Chair, I have listened to the Point of Order raised by the Government House Leader and respectfully disagree.
Mr. Chair, I am a passionate advocate for my constituents, and I am here to speak on their behalf. In response to the House -- to the honourable Member's first Point of Order, I do not believe I violated Rule 3.2(3)(m). The honourable Member suggests I made a statement in the House about an individual who is not a Member of the House and is not present to defend themselves.
First, I did not name an individual person. I referred to an unnamed assistant acting in an official capacity who was relaying information on the Minister's behalf.
As noted in House of Common's Procedures and Practice Third Edition 2017, Chapter 3, Privileges and Immunities, Speakers have stated that Members need to express their opinions in a direct fashion but caution that citizens' representation should not be unfairly attacked.
In ruling on the question of privilege involving an individual who was not a Member of the House, Speaker Fraser expressed concern that the person had been referred to by name. That was not the case here. No one's reputation has been specifically attacked.
Second, the Minister was given an opportunity to respond to my comments. There was no need for the assistant to defend themselves. If the information relayed to the Minister's assistant was incorrect, the Minister and his deputy -- deputy both had the opportunity to correct -- to correct it.
As a result, Mr. Chair, I respectfully submit that on the first point there is no Point of Order.
I will now address the honourable Member's second Point of Order that I used unparliamentary language.
The honourable Member suggests that I offended the rules of debate, order, and decorum when I used the words "they are not telling the truth". Mr. Chair, those words are not unparliamentary language. I was expressing what my constituents have been saying to me. As recorded in the unedited Hansard, I said the following: Some people are saying that that is not true. It's not true that why did they -- why did they did the boundary so big. They're not telling people the truth. And for the record, what I would like the Member to do is that -- it is that can he repeat who was the zone developed by because people would like to know the truth about that one. Who was the zone developed by."
Mr. Chair, I was expressing what people have said -- have said to me about decisions made about the size of the zone. People were telling me that they believe they were not being told the truth. I shared this with the Minister and gave him, the Minister, the opportunity to explain who developed the zone so that information could be public and clear to the constituents.
On February 21st, 2003, Speaker Whitford cited Marlowe and Monpetit noted that when dealing with unparliamentary language, the Speaker must take into account the tone, manner, and intention of the Member speaking the person to whom the words were directed, the degree of provocation and, most importantly, whether or not the remarks created disorder in the Chamber. He went on to note that the language must have the character of being abusive and insulting.
In this case, I would suggest my words did not create disorder. The Chair encouraged Members to exercise caution with their words but gave the Minister the opportunity to respond and set out the facts. As a result, Mr. Chair, I respectfully submit on the honourable Member's second point, there is no Point of Order.
In regards to the honourable Member's third point, it is suggested that my comment that the Minister be shuffled went beyond the healthy level of tension that must exist between Cabinet and Regular Members. Mr. Chair, as stated previously, I am a passionate advocate for my constituents who, despite being 2022, are facing challenges accessing clean water and traditional foods. However, I appreciate my comments, while political commentary, exceeded the normal bounds of debate and for that I apologize for those comments, and I withdraw those remarks. Thank you, Mr. Chair.