Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 16 - 30 of 1727
View Derek Sloan Profile
Ind. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As I mentioned in my question, I had a parliamentary press conference that was censored by Facebook. People have reached out to me to say that they are unable to share it. That is problematic. Anything that goes on in the House should be able to be shared freely by Canadians.
I would like to seek unanimous consent for the following motion: That the House recognize that the House of Commons itself and the Parliament of Canada are a bastion of democracy and free speech; that members of Parliament enjoy special parliamentary privileges overseeing their ability to speak freely in Parliament, to discharge their duties freely and without constraint; that any Canadian seeking to share digital content of parliamentary functions should be able to do so freely and without constraint; that the government must strongly defend the rights of parliamentarians against the outside interference of social media companies such as Facebook and Twitter; and I call on the government to recognize that any potential suppression of information or censorship of parliamentary events, such as official press conferences, must not be allowed to happen and to officially sanction Facebook and Twitter for their actions.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay.
An hon. member: Nay.
View Greg Fergus Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Greg Fergus Profile
2021-06-22 15:15 [p.8983]
Mr. Speaker, I had technical difficulties and could not complete my S.O. 31 as a result. I would ask for unanimous consent to do it now.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
All those opposed to the hon. member's request for unanimous consent will please say nay.
View Mark Gerretsen Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, in the past, you have not required unanimous consent to allow a member redo his or her statement. I expect you would apply the same logic this time.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
I do not have a problem with it. The hon. member asked for unanimous consent. If he wants to retract that, I will allow him to go ahead.
View Greg Fergus Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Greg Fergus Profile
2021-06-22 15:16 [p.8983]
I would be happy to retract that, Mr. Speaker.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Since there were technical difficulties, we will allow the member to go ahead.
View Niki Ashton Profile
NDP (MB)
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to clarify the record. The Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations in question period talked about $48.8 million being given to Saskatchewan first nations. That number is incorrect. It is in fact—
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
That is beginning to turn into debate. A point of order is for referring to one of the Standing Orders and how it is contravened. Members often forget that and we get caught up, and that is fine. I thought I would point that out to remind hon. members.
View Alain Therrien Profile
BQ (QC)
View Alain Therrien Profile
2021-06-22 15:45 [p.8986]
Madam Speaker, I would like to come back to the question of privilege raised yesterday by the House Leader of the Official Opposition, who alleged that the president of the Public Health Agency of Canada did not fully comply with the order adopted by the House on June 17.
This question of privilege is quite appropriate. We are of the opinion that the order of the House was not followed in its entirety and that the House must act accordingly. It is time for it to act.
Last week, Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel Philippe Dufresne sent a document to the Standing Committee on Finance regarding the committees' power to send for papers, since the committee was finding it difficult to get documents from KPMG on its study of tax havens. This letter from Mr. Dufresne provides some thoughtful clarifications on the question of privilege we are discussing today. Regarding the refusal to produce the documents, he said, and I quote:
Only the House of Commons has the disciplinary powers to deal with this type of offence. The disciplinary powers of the House include, for example, the power to reprimand a person who is not a Member (House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 3rd ed, p. 983, n. 164). In cases where the author of or the authority responsible for a record refuses to comply with an order issued by a committee to produce documents, the committee essentially has three options. The first is to accept the reasons put forward to justify the refusal (House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 3rd ed, p. 986). The second is to seek an acceptable compromise to obtain the information with certain measures in place. This could entail putting measures in place to ensure that the record is kept confidential while it is being consulted, such as in camera review, limited and numbered copies, and/or putting in place arrangements for disposing of or destroying the copies after the committee meeting (House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 3rd ed, p. 986, notes 180, 181, 182). It could also include having proposed redactions to the documents provided to the Committee or to my Office for review before any information is made public. The third option is to reject the reasons given for denying access to the record and insist on the production of the entire record (House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 3rd ed, p. 987). If a witness does not provide requested documents, the committee’s recourse is to report the matter to the House (House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 3rd ed, p. 983, n. 165; p. 987, n. 183). Once seized with the matter, the House takes the measures that it considers appropriate (House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 3rd ed, p. 983, n. 166; p. 987).
The letter from Mr. Stewart's lawyer was tabled in both official languages in the House this morning. Mr. Stewart has no intention of complying with the order of the House for the time being, which brings us back to the third option I just mentioned.
The House has already considered what action should be taken against the Public Health Agency of Canada as a result of Mr. Stewart's refusal to table the unredacted documents before the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations.
The order adopted by the House on June 17 was adopted by a majority vote, and therefore the point of order raised by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is inappropriate. The Chair must rule on the solution, the remedy to be applied with respect to the documents that were requested but have still not been tabled in the House.
I will not repeat all the rulings and precedents that the House Leader of the Official Opposition referred to yesterday. However, I would like to come back to some of the fundamental issues he raised about the importance of decisions that are made by the House, and I quote:
If the House does not respect its orders, who will respect the laws adopted by the House? Who will respect the regulations adopted by the House? Who will respect the political decisions made after debates, albeit spirited ones, but decisions that were voted on by the individuals who were duly elected by the public?
Therefore, we ask that you take one of the conclusions proposed yesterday by the House Leader of the Official Opposition.
View Gérard Deltell Profile
CPC (QC)
View Gérard Deltell Profile
2021-06-21 15:11 [p.8855]
Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows, when a member rises to move a motion in the House, they must always have the proper equipment. We saw that the leader of the Bloc Québécois did not have the necessary equipment. That being said, I think that all parties know what the leader of the Bloc Québécois wants to talk about, and I seek the consent of the House to let him continue.
View Gérard Deltell Profile
CPC (QC)
View Gérard Deltell Profile
2021-06-21 15:11 [p.8855]
Mr. Speaker, I think we all recognize that the member for Beloeil—Chambly is not set up correctly to address the House of Commons. We also know what he wants to talk about today.
What I would suggest to my colleague for Beloeil—Chambly is that he first make his presentation in French and then after that, if he can, translate it to be sure that every member will have access, in both official languages, to his proposition of the day.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
The problem with the interpretation is due to the fact that the member does not have the proper equipment. Does the hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly agree to proceed as the member for Louis-Saint‑Laurent suggested?
Results: 16 - 30 of 1727 | Page: 2 of 116

|<
<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data