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: 66%
  • Expenses Last Quarter: $130,172.43

  • Government Page
Context: House Hansard - 213 - Jun/14/23
Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay
  • 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!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 171 - Mar/22/23
Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay
  • Mar/22/23 5:31:01 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, nobody was threatening anybody with a phone. The member happened to have it in his hand. That is ridiculous. It is beneath the House for someone to suggest that.
36 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border