SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

Member of the Board of Internal Economy Chief opposition whip Member of the panel of chairs for the legislative committees

Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay

  • 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: 65%
  • Expenses Last Quarter: $130,172.43

  • Government Page
Context: House Hansard - 217 - Jun/20/23
Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay (South Surrey—White Rock, CPC)
  • Jun/20/23 1:55:35 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-18 
Madam Speaker, I rise on a serious point of order with respect to the right of the member for Lethbridge to speak during the debate that is currently on in the House. At the end of the time provided to question the Minister of Canadian Heritage for his use of time allocation on Bill C-18, the online news act, there was a heated exchange between the minister and the member for Lethbridge. It is no secret that the member for Lethbridge is a fierce critic of the minister and has opposed his legislation every step of the way. She makes the point that Bill C-18 is the next step in the government's censorship of the Internet. The member has repeatedly argued that the minister is the one rewarding tech giants, as he will give them more power with Bill C-18. The minister accused the member for Lethbridge of using the talking points of tech giants in opposition to the bill. In response, the member for Lethbridge accused the minister of lying. We know that term is unparliamentary, and I accept the decision of the Assistant Deputy Speaker to call her to order. It should also be pointed out that, when one member makes a false claim about another member, it is not uncommon for disorder to follow. The member for Lethbridge did the right thing when she said clearly, “I will apologize for using that word.” She went on to say, “He misinformed the House.” This is a matter for debate, although for my part, I agree with her. The Chair took exception to that comment, informing the House that the member for Lethbridge would not be recognized for the remainder of the day. To be clear, the member did not accuse the minister of deliberately misinforming the House. She simply made the point that the minister was misinformed and brought that misinformation to the House. At most, this is a point of debate. It is not something that a member should be sanctioned for. The irony is not lost on me that the member is being censored during debate on what amounts to a censorship bill. In my view, this is a heavy-handed response from the Chair, given the poor behaviour of Liberal members in recent days. The Chair has accepted apologies for behaviour that is far more egregious without Liberal members attracting any sanction. We can take the member for Kingston and the Islands as an example. Last week, he gave me the middle finger when I called him out for denying a unanimous consent motion that called for Paul Bernardo to be put back in maximum security. That member gave the most insincere apology I can recall in the House. There was no sanction for him. In fact, later that day, he was given the floor in the debate. Therefore, I would expect that the apology from the member for Lethbridge would be accepted by the House and that the Chair would allow her to participate in the debate this afternoon. Further, the House would benefit from even-handed application of the rules that is not seen to benefit one party over another. I would like the Speaker to clarify how the rules should be applied, regardless of who is presiding over the debates.
556 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 212 - Jun/13/23
Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay
  • Jun/13/23 5:36:05 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, that member just turned to me, made a face and gave the finger to me. I do not even know how you categorize that in the House of Commons. Some hon. members: To all of us. Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay: Mr. Speaker, he did it to all of us and specifically to me. That member should be sanctioned in the strongest possible terms. He should be thrown out of the House. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
78 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 191 - May/4/23
Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay (South Surrey—White Rock, CPC)
  • May/4/23 3:16:54 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are looking for some consistency in the Speaker's rulings. On March 31, 2023, in this House, the Liberal Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Infrastructure and Communities said: Madam Speaker, I am absolutely disgusted that the member opposite would outright lie, and yes, I am saying “outright lie”. Later on, when asked by the Speaker to withdraw that statement, the same parliamentary secretary said: Madam Speaker, I will withdraw the word but the sentiment remains, that it absolutely did not— She was then cut off because of the noise in the room. The point is that there should be consistency in rulings from the Chair. That member was not sanctioned, nor was time taken away from the Liberal Party. That person was not threatened with being kicked out of this House or any similar type of sanction. We want consistency in the rulings from the Chair so that we understand how we can and are able to conduct ourselves in this place.
178 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border