- Member of Parliament
- Member of the Board of Internal Economy
Chief opposition whip
Member of the panel of chairs for the legislative committees
- Conservative
- South Surrey—White Rock
- British Columbia
- Voting Attendance: 66%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $130,172.43
- Government Page
- Jun/14/23 5:10:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, he did not adequately take responsibility for his actions. He should apologize to me, the Chair and the House.
In the circumstances, and upon some reflection on the matter, now that we are out of the heat of the moment, I truly believe that with his misogynistic bullying and insults, the parliamentary secretary was trying to obstruct me from making and completing my speech.
House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 107, states:
In order to fulfill their parliamentary duties, Members should be able to go about their parliamentary business undisturbed. Assaulting, threatening, or insulting a Member during a proceeding of Parliament...is a violation of the rights of Parliament.
Continuing at page 108, it states:
Speakers have consistently upheld the right of the House to the services of its Members free from intimidation, obstruction and interference.
This is a long-standing and well-established principle in the law of parliamentary privilege, tracing its roots back to the April 12, 1733, resolution of the British House of Commons, which states, “That the assaulting, insulting or menacing any member of this House, in his coming to or going from the House, or upon the account of his behaviour in Parliament, is a high infringement of the privilege of this House, a most outrageous and dangerous violation of the rights of Parliament and an high crime and misdemeanour.”
Bosc and Gagnon observe the following at page 109:
In order to find a prima facie breach of privilege, the Speaker must be satisfied that there is evidence to support the Member’s claim that he or she has been impeded in the performance of his or her parliamentary functions and that the matter is directly related to a proceeding in Parliament.
On May 1, 1986, at page 12847 of the Debates, Speaker Bosley held:
If an Hon. Member is impeded or obstructed in the performance of his or her parliamentary duties through threats, intimidation, bribery attempts or other improper behaviour, such a case would fall within the limits of parliamentary privilege.
While I did complete my speech, I have to say it is very disturbing, distracting and disruptive to have to finish a speech after being put through that escalating ordeal by the member for Kingston and the Islands. I say that as someone who has spent a career as a litigator.
Certainly, the giving of the finger is improper behaviour at the least, and with the context it was given in last evening, it was intended to be of a threatening or intimidating nature. In fact, the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, second edition, defines giving the finger, at page 555, as “mak[ing] an obscene gesture with the middle finger raised as a sign of contempt.” A “sign of contempt” is the literal definition. It is certainly unparliamentary, and I would argue that it is contemptuous, behaviour. No matter how we cut it, it is unacceptable conduct in any professional setting. I must say, I have never experienced this in my professional career to date.
While I do not believe we have ever had a Speaker's Ruling on a member giving another the finger, Bosc and Gagnon explain, at page 112:
It is impossible to codify all incidents which might be interpreted as matters of obstruction, interference, molestation or intimidation and, as such, constitute prima facie cases of [contempt].
At page 81, they state:
There are, however, other affronts against the dignity and authority of Parliament which may not fall within one of the specifically defined privileges. Thus, the House also claims the right to punish, as a contempt, any action which, though not a breach of a specific privilege: tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions; obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of the House in the discharge of their duties; or is an offence against the authority or dignity of the House, such as disobedience of its legitimate commands or libels upon itself, its Members, or its officers.
They continue:
The House of Commons enjoys very wide latitude in maintaining its dignity and authority through the exercise of its contempt power. In other words, the House may consider any misconduct to be contempt and may deal with it accordingly.
Indeed, on June 7, 2021, at page 8034 of the Debates, the Speaker found a prima facie contempt concerning our former colleague, Will Amos, who, while attending the House virtually, urinated into a coffee cup.
I would note the wording from that ruling. It states:
In response, the member for Kingston and the Islands agreed that it was a deplorable and unacceptable incident, while also pointing out that the member for Pontiac had accepted full responsibility and that he had stepped aside from his parliamentary secretary responsibilities and from his committee responsibilities in order to obtain the appropriate assistance. For that reason, he was again apologizing on his behalf.
Further in the ruling, it states:
I obviously take note of the apology from the member for Pontiac. He recognized that his behaviour was completely inappropriate and confirms his commitment to obtain the necessary assistance. Nevertheless, the Chair is required to determine whether the alleged facts are a breach of the rules governing contempt and thus merit priority consideration.
That is the case here.
Just as in those circumstances two years ago, I believe that the misogynistic bullying and offensive gestures by the member for Kingston and the Islands must absolutely be called out. They rise to the threshold requiring your intervention, Mr. Speaker, and this House's disposition through a privilege motion.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, should you agree, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.
954 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege concerning the offensive and unparliamentary gesture the Parliamentary Secretary to the government House leader, Senate, made toward me last evening during private members' hour. The facts are well known already. Put bluntly, he gave me the finger.
It is my belief that this constitutes a prima facie contempt and should be taken up by the House as such. Hansard shows the sequence of events and comments that led to the incident during the debate on Bill C-311, the violence against pregnant women act.
I argued that the government had lost credibility on the matter of women's rights, in part because it had failed to stand up for the victims of Paul Bernardo. As members know, this killer and serial rapist targeted female teenagers and traumatized our nation. In my speech, I referenced a unanimous consent motion that the member for Niagara Falls brought to the House. The motion reads as follows:
...that the House call for the immediate return of vile serial killer and rapist Paul Bernardo to a maximum security prison, that all court-ordered dangerous offenders and mass murderers be permanently assigned a maximum security classification, that the least-restrictive-environment standard be repealed and that the language of necessary restrictions that the previous Conservative government put in place be restored.
In my remarks, I stated that the member for Kingston and the Islands was a member who denied consent.
245 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
