SoVote

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/5/23 12:36:09 p.m.
Watch

I remind the hon. member not to go into debate and to go into the issue itself, because what the hon. member is bringing up is debate. If she can get to the exact point, that would be better.

39 words

Issue

Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay

Jun/5/23 12:36:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am trying to get there. To put this in context, when the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader surprised the House with a motion to proceed to orders of the day, a non-debatable motion, the Liberals triggered a vote on short notice, catching many members off guard, and we—

55 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/5/23 12:36:46 p.m.
Watch

This is going into debate. The hon. member— Hon. Kerry-Lynn Findlay: Madam Speaker— The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): I have the floor right now. I want to remind the hon. member that what she is providing right now is more debate. The hon. member and all members in this House are well aware that votes can be had at any time and that we need to be ready to respond if required. If the hon. member wants to discuss the technical issues that were experienced, based on the report of the Speaker I am willing to entertain that. I am not willing to entertain debate on the issue. The hon. official opposition whip.

118 words

Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay

Jun/5/23 12:37:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am trying to provide context because we are seeking clarification from the Speaker, including in my own situation, where I had no use of my camera on my computer and had to switch to my phone. As you may recall, I also did not have the proper headset. I appreciate that my vote was counted, but these things happened on a Friday. I am certainly going to encourage all members of the House to make sure they have proper equipment and access at all times regardless, because of what you just said. The clarification I seek is this: is the Chair contemplating the question of privilege raised by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader? As you are aware, the parliamentary secretary rose in this place following the vote and accused the Conservatives of being in contempt of Parliament, which is a serious accusation. Such an accusation would normally be raised as a question of privilege and would then be contemplated by the Speaker, who would decide if there was a prima facie case of privilege. I note that the member did not explicitly state that he was raising the matter as a question of privilege. It is a common practice for other members to return to the House to make arguments as they see fit if the matter is being considered as a question of privilege. Therefore, it would be helpful to all members if the Chair clarified whether a question of privilege is being contemplated. For our part, I can assure the House that the Conservative caucus holds the highest regard for the institution of Parliament. We do, however, have contempt for the Liberal-NDP government that is in the process of forcing a budget through. Some hon. members: Debate. Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay: That said, I thank the Chair for clarification on this issue.

311 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/5/23 12:39:36 p.m.
Watch

I appreciate that members are trying to indicate that this is debate, but I am the Chair and am well able to decide whether it is debate or not. I want to advise the member that no question of privilege was raised. I have no way of knowing whether someone is contemplating one. It is not something we will need to come back to the House on. As for voting, as indicated, every member in the House has a responsibility to ensure that they have the necessary tools, whether it is their headphones, their phone or their computer. There are already procedures in place, which are spelled out, for what to do if they are not able to vote. As indicated, the technical team looked on our side, the side of the House, to see if there were issues technically and none were seen. I want to remind members that they all have responsibilities. We know it is a privilege to go into our ridings when the House is sitting, and we need to make sure we have the tools with us to react immediately, as required. The hon. official opposition House leader has a point of order.

198 words

Hon. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC)

Jun/5/23 12:41:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this is on a different point, but it does relate to a decision by the Chair. I want to seek clarification on the use of the word “phony” in the House of Commons. You will recall that, last week, I referred to the special rapporteur, David Johnston, as the “phony rapporteur”, because the Conservatives simply believe it is a fake job. The job is fake. The idea that he is independent is fake. He himself has acknowledged that he answers to the government, not to Parliament and not to the people of Canada. In fact, his order in council lists him as a special adviser to the Prime Minister. There is no independence around somebody who is employed by the government, who is employed by the Prime Minister and who has acknowledged that he is not independent. That is point number one— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

154 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/5/23 12:41:58 p.m.
Watch

Order. If individuals want to have conversations, they need to take them outside. Individuals can approach me and try to have a conversation quietly here, but they cannot have one across to each other while I am trying to listen to a point of order before the House. The hon. official opposition House leader.

54 words

Hon. Andrew Scheer

Jun/5/23 12:42:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, it is our contention and belief, as more and more Canadians are realizing, that the position of the rapporteur is fake and the idea that there is independence around it is also fake. The government may believe something different, but it is certainly our right as opposition members of Parliament to make that assertion. On Thursday, my question was interrupted by the Speaker because of that word, and that really puzzled me, because I have sat in that chair before and I know the exercise that one must go through in listening to interventions and assessing whether they are orderly or disorderly. It is truly a context-driven exercise. When I used the expression “phony rapporteur” last week, I certainly was not imputing motives on the part of any hon. member or suggesting that any member was deliberately misleading the House. In my view, the use of the word “phony” was acceptable and parliamentary in the circumstances. Citation 490 of Beauchesne's identifies a list of examples of expressions that, between 1958 and the mid-1980s, were held to be parliamentary. They are actually in Beauchesne's, in a list of words that have been ruled parliamentary. Not only is it not on the list of unparliamentary words, but it is on the list of parliamentary words. I refer you to page 147 of Beauchesne's sixth edition. “Phony” appears on that list with four separate rulings in support of it being a parliamentary expression: Mr. Speaker Michener, on July 7, 1959, at page 5624 of the Debates; Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole Charles Rea, on July 11, 1959, at page 5849 of the Debates; Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole Charles Rea, on May 19, 1960, at page 4051 of the Debates; and Chair of Committees of the Whole Herman Batten, on April 21, 1967, at page 15206 of the Debates. Perhaps more importantly, the expression has been in common use in the House since that time. Punching the term “phony” into the House's website search engine for parliamentary publications reveals hundreds of occasions when the term appears in Hansard. I know that I heard it often when I served as the chair occupant between 2006 and 2015. Here is one example by then leader Bob Rae, at page 6077 of the Debates, from March 12, 2012, which has a lot of resonance in this debate. It states: ...if the hon. member is so certain about his phony allegations, perhaps he would agree with me that the time has now come for a royal commission into what happened in the last election and what happened in previous elections to ensure that it never happens again. On February 14, 2013, the member for Charlottetown, at page 14160 of the Debates, referred to a minister's “phony performance”. On April 1, 2015—

492 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/5/23 12:45:14 p.m.
Watch

I think I have heard quite a bit on this. The hon. opposition House leader has been in the Speaker position before, so I know he is well aware of the following: In dealing with unparliamentary language, the Speaker takes into account the tone, manner and intention of the Member speaking, the person to whom the words at issue were directed, the degree of provocation, and most important, whether or not the remarks created disorder in the Chamber. Thus, language deemed unparliamentary one day may not necessarily be deemed unparliamentary on another day. The codification of unparliamentary language has proven impractical as it is the context in which words or phrases are used that the Chair must consider when deciding whether or not they should be withdrawn. Given the fact that the hon. Speaker has already ruled on this, it is not a matter that I am prepared to continue to entertain.

152 words

Hon. Andrew Scheer

Jun/5/23 12:46:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I take the point. I anticipated that you were going to mention that ruling, so I have something that I would like you to consider. We do have question period later on today—

36 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/5/23 12:46:24 p.m.
Watch

I would ask the hon. member to wrap it up in one minute.

13 words

Hon. Andrew Scheer

Jun/5/23 12:46:26 p.m.
Watch

I will do my best, Madam Speaker. You are absolutely right that there is context and that it is the Speaker's job to judge many factors when considering whether or not a term or a word is unparliamentary. However, I put it to you that it is a tactic of the government to take offence at words or phrases that have been used before, and they caused the disorder—

71 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/5/23 12:46:46 p.m.
Watch

This is becoming a point of debate, so I am going to shut it down. The Speaker has already ruled on this. I will certainly take the additional information the member has provided under advisement, and we will come back to the House if need be. Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Madam Speaker, on that point of order— The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): I have just closed down this particular point of order by the House leader of the official opposition. I have already stated that. If the hon. parliamentary secretary has a different point of order, I will come back to him, because somebody else has one. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

113 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Jun/5/23 12:47:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, you said that you would take it under advisement. If you do, I would like to add something to it, which is that, if you need other examples of comparison for this, you might want to refer to Wayne Easter's Canadian heritage moment when he referred to the then leader of the opposition as a “pigeon”, and the Speaker responded to that at the time. I would be happy to share the video of that if you would like to see it.

87 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/5/23 12:48:00 p.m.
Watch

I have heard enough on this particular issue. As I said, the Speaker has already ruled on this. I do not see us coming back to the House, but we will certainly look at the information provided and will come back if need be. If individuals want to have conversations, I would ask them to take them outside. The hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa.

68 words

Mr. Dan Mazier

Jun/5/23 12:48:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order to draw to your attention to proceed—

17 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/5/23 12:48:29 p.m.
Watch

Order. The hon. official opposition House leader may want to take his conversation outside.

14 words

Conversation

Mr. Dan Mazier

Jun/5/23 12:48:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a procedural matter related to Question No. 1013, which I submitted on November 23, 2022. My question was: With regard to the government’s spectrum licensing, broken down by designated tier: (a) how many spectrum licenses are currently unused; (b) how many license holders have (i) failed to meet the deployment requirement, (ii) deployed less than 50 percent of their spectrum license; (iii) deployed less than 75 percent of their spectrum license, (iv) deployed less than 100 percent of their spectrum license; (c) what is the breakdown of each response in (a) and (b), by spectrum license—

103 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/5/23 12:49:15 p.m.
Watch

I just want to remind the hon. member that I really do not need to know what the question was and that he should just tell me what the issue is. Again, if the member is not satisfied with the answer from the government, that is not something the Chair would rule on. I would ask that he explain exactly what he is raising in the point of order, without going into all of those details.

76 words

Raising
Ask

Mr. Dan Mazier

Jun/5/23 12:49:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this is a very detailed question, and it goes on through all the different spectrums, which is a very complicated subject. What we attempted to do was try to peel the onion back and understand what will actually be going on with the government with spectrum management in the coming days. However, the bottom line is that the government did not answer anyone, did not refer to any cause, did not even refer to megahertz or gigahertz, and did not use a technical term at all for a very technical question. I am asking you, Madam Speaker, to refer to Standing Order 39(5)(b), which states: If such a question remains unanswered at the expiration of the said period of 45 days, the matter of the failure of the ministry to respond shall be deemed referred to the appropriate standing committee. Within five sitting days of such a referral the Chair of the committee shall convene a meeting of the committee to consider the matter of the failure of the ministry to respond. As I noted, or was trying to note, my questions were not answered. Failing to answer these questions prevents me from fulfilling my duties as a member of Parliament. Failing to answer this question on this particular subject matter raised in an Order Paper question is preventing me from fulfilling my duties as shadow minister for rural economic development activity. I ask you, Madam Speaker, to rule that when the government significantly ignores the substance of an Order Paper question, this should be considered a failure to answer, for the purposes of Standing Order 39(5)(b). That way, the government's refusal to answer a written question can be referred to a committee for review.

292 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 206