SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 294 - Mar/22/24

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, CPC)

Mar/22/24 10:35:10 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. First of all, I agree that nobody should have been speaking during the member's intervention. I am happy to say I was not one of those people. With regard to the point of order raised by the member for Timmins—James Bay, he ended it by making a personal aspersion against the member. He said that the previous member, and I am not even sure which member it was, had been speaking in an unparliamentary way. That may or may not be true; I was not here to hear it. However, I do know that one cannot then add “by someone as low as that member”. If it is unparliamentary, it is unparliamentary. We do not have the sort of category where certain members are beneath contempt and can say so freely, as the member has just done, and others are not okay. That is just ridiculous. I would encourage him to reconsider that kind of language.

171 words

Context: House Hansard - 294 - Mar/22/24

Mr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC)

Mar/22/24 1:09:55 p.m.
Watch

moved: That the House, having considered the unanimous views of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, expressed in its 17th Report, find Kristian Firth to be in contempt for his refusal to answer certain questions and for prevaricating in his answers to other questions and, accordingly, order him to attend at the Bar of this House, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions on the third sitting day following the adoption of this Order, for the purposes of (a) receiving an admonishment delivered by the Speaker; (b) providing responses to the questions referred to in the 17th Report; and (c) responding to supplementary questions arising from his responses to the questions referred to in the 17th Report.

122 words

Context: House Hansard - 294 - Mar/22/24

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné

Mar/22/24 2:23:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague that upholding a degree of decorum is important. However, decorum is needed from both sides. When someone so flagrantly disrespects members in committee and has no respect for democratic institutions, as I said several times in my speech, they must appear at the bar no matter what, because they are in contempt of Parliament. If she is worrying at this stage about whether there will be decorum when this person appears at the bar, she is missing the point. Was this person in contempt of Parliament? The answer is yes. According to the Chair, this individual is in contempt of Parliament and must therefore appear at the bar and answer members' questions. That is what the Bloc Québécois has to say.

132 words

Context: House Hansard - 294 - Mar/22/24

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné

Mar/22/24 2:28:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, one thing is important. Whether it happened last year or 100 years ago, contempt of Parliament has been committed. In that context, it does not really matter what will happen from a procedural perspective. Does the fact that this procedure has not been followed recently mean that we need to add an additional step when calling that individual to the bar, as my colleague said? Does this justify referring the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs? I do not know. What I do know is that contempt of Parliament has been committed and that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs can in fact meet over the next two weeks, even if it has to happen at a time when we are in our ridings to be closer to our constituents. Perhaps the committee can meet to discuss the matter, but the most important thing to me is this: If the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs examines the issue, will it put partisan concerns aside? Will it place the democratic institutions that represent Quebeckers and Canadians above the interests of individual political parties?

193 words