44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 19, 2023 11:00AM
- Jun/19/23 11:01:17 a.m.
- Watch
All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
An hon. member: Nay.
40 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 12:02:16 p.m.
- Watch
The question is on the motion.
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
46 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 12:03:08 p.m.
- Watch
Pursuant to an order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 21, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
28 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 12:03:54 p.m.
- Watch
I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on June 12 by the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo concerning an allegation of intimidation by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.
The member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo explained that, during question period on Thursday, June 8, the minister sent him an email, the contents of which the member interpreted as a threat to tarnish his professional reputation and his standing in the legal community. The email referred to the member reacting to a question by the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, which referenced a former Supreme Court justice. It also included the sentence, and I quote, “I will let the community know.” He felt that this constituted a form of intimidation, impeding him in the performance of his duties as parliamentarian.
For his part, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons asserted that the member misinterpreted the minister's words. According to the parliamentary secretary, the motives imputed to the minister by the member were not based in fact and were pure speculation. He indicated that the minister had refuted the allegations, which he described as unsubstantiated.
The Chair takes allegations of threats or intimidation against a member seriously. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, page 111, states the following concerning cases where members are obstructed, interfered with or intimidated by non-physical means:
In ruling on such matters, the Speaker examines the effect the incident or event had on the Member's ability to fulfill his or her parliamentary responsibilities. If, in the Speaker's view, the Member was not obstructed in the performance of his or her parliamentary duties and functions, then a prima facie breach of privilege cannot be found.
The Chair has reviewed the arguments presented and the relevant precedents. The member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo referred to the ruling by Speaker Bosley from May 1, 1986, on a similar matter. In that ruling, the Speaker did not conclude that the matter at hand was prima facie. As pointed out by Speaker Bosley, at page 12847 of the Debates:
Should an Hon. Member be able to say that something has happened which prevented him or her from performing functions, that he or she has been threatened, intimidated, or in any way unduly influenced, there would be a case for the Chair to consider. I cannot see that the Hon. Member’s ability to perform her parliamentary functions have been impaired in any way.
As the member knows, to find a prima facie question, the Speaker must be satisfied that the member was in some way hampered, deterred, or otherwise prevented in carrying out their parliamentary duties. In the present case, the Chair is not convinced that this email exchange has impeded the member in such a way.
Accordingly, I cannot find there is a prima facie breach of privilege.
That being said, and while not wanting to speculate about the intention behind the minister’s email, the Chair would invite him to reflect on his actions. I also encourage members to be courteous in their interactions with one another, as they all have a role to play in setting the appropriate tone for our proceedings.
I thank members for their attention.
566 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 12:08:35 p.m.
- Watch
I am now ready to rule on another question of privilege, raised on June 14 by the chief opposition whip concerning the behaviour of the member for Kingston and the Islands.
In her intervention, the chief opposition whip alleged that the member for Kingston and the Islands obstructed her in the performance of her parliamentary duties because of his unparliamentary behaviour and an offensive gesture. The chief opposition whip qualified the behaviour as an “ordeal”, as well as distracting and disruptive to her efforts to complete her speech. While she acknowledged the apology provided by the member, she indicated that she did not feel it was sufficient. Citing procedural authorities and previous rulings, the member felt the matter met the threshold for a prima facie question of privilege.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons countered that the matter had been resolved when the member for Kingston and the Islands unreservedly apologized for the gesture he made. He also noted that the apology was delivered shortly after the incident occurred and that the Deputy Speaker accepted the apology; therefore, he considered the matter closed.
The Chair reviewed the incident that occurred on the evening of June 13, 2023, and accepts the word of the chief opposition whip as to how upsetting she found the offensive behaviour directed to her. Frequently, the House debates contentious subjects where emotions run high on both sides of the issue. This should never be used as a justification for inappropriate behaviour.
When the incident occurred, the Deputy Speaker ably addressed the behaviour by instructing the member for Kingston and the Islands to apologize unreservedly for his behaviour and offensive gesture. The member complied with that direction, and the Chair, who was tasked with making this determination, considered the matter closed.
I would remind members that decisions from the Chair are final. They are not to be debated after the fact, nor are they to be revisited once they have already been settled. That is our practice. In fact, on October 9, 1991, Speaker Fraser, at page 3516 of the Debates, made this observation, and I quote:
The member in this case, as has been the practice, has apologized. Hon. members clearly feel very strongly about the matter as perhaps so does the Speaker. I cannot allow…that a practice build up of continuing the debate.
The Chair also observes that the participation of the chief opposition whip in proceedings remains undiminished. As such, I cannot find a prima facie question of privilege.
The Chair will finish by echoing a very simple and straightforward request often made in the past: Please observe the same common courtesy that should regulate interactions in any professional setting. Vigorous exchanges of ideas, which are the hallmark in any democratic assembly, can and must be exercised in conjunction with some self-restraint.
I thank all members for their attention.
492 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 12:19:21 p.m.
- Watch
I thank the hon. member for her intervention, and it will be taken into consideration in the ruling.
The hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.
28 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 12:25:23 p.m.
- Watch
I want to thank the hon. member for his input. I do want to assure him that any decision made by the Speaker and by the office is made following the rules that are set forward by the members of the House, and followed so that it will be fair to all members: not one side or the other but all members.
The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill is rising with a short reply.
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 12:42:22 p.m.
- Watch
I am going to interrupt and ask how much more there is remaining. I think the hon. member has made her point. We are talking about history and what goes on in England and other places, and points of order are usually very concise and to the point. We will look into history and everything else, but I am sure she is able to wrap it up, or at least give us the salient points.
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 12:45:50 p.m.
- Watch
I feel like I am being lectured by different members today on how to do my job. I would just appreciate if the hon. member got to the point, and maybe just let me know what she is getting at, and then we will go on from there. I do not think that lecturing the Speaker on how they should do their job is appropriate, but please continue.
68 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 12:46:12 p.m.
- Watch
There is another point of order.
The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is rising.
16 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 12:46:35 p.m.
- Watch
I believe I have already done that, in a nice way.
The hon. opposition whip has the floor.
18 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 12:47:42 p.m.
- Watch
I thank the hon. member for her very thorough presentation.
10 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 12:49:02 p.m.
- Watch
Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period.
I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places or use the “raise hand” function so that the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.
The hon. member for Calgary Midnapore.
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 2:08:39 p.m.
- Watch
I declare the motion carried.
5 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 2:09:05 p.m.
- Watch
All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
36 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 2:10:32 p.m.
- Watch
I want to remind the hon. members that Statements by Members are taking place and I am sure that everybody wants to hear what they have to say.
The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.
38 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 2:32:26 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. minister has about 20 seconds left.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 2:39:53 p.m.
- Watch
I am going to interrupt. I am having a hard time hearing the question, and it is just people talking to each other more than anything else. I am going to ask everyone to take a deep breath and if members are going to have a conversation, please take it into the lobby.
The hon. member can start from the top so we can hear the question, please.
68 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 2:59:22 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington.
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/19/23 3:13:52 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. government House leader has the floor.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
