Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 76 - 90 of 456
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Again, I must remind the House that we cannot do indirectly what we cannot do directly.
The hon. Minister of Justice is rising on a point of order.
View Mark Gerretsen Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to the question of privilege raised by the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London. I understand the concerns raised by the member. This was indeed an unfortunate and unacceptable incident.
I would simply like to point out that the member for Pontiac has taken responsibility for this incident. He has apologized and proactively disclosed that the incident occurred. He has stepped aside from his parliamentary secretary responsibilities and from his committee responsibilities. He has stated publicly that he will seek assistance.
In light of the fact that the member has indicated that he is taking some time to seek assistance, he cannot apologize in person or virtually for this incident, but he has apologized in his statement on social media. He has also asked that I convey this apology to members in this House on his behalf.
While this incident is indeed unfortunate and unacceptable, I do not believe that it constitutes a question of privilege. There is a long-standing tradition in this House that, when a member apologizes, the House accepts that apology. I believe the member for Pontiac understands the seriousness of the incident, has apologized for it and is taking the appropriate steps to ensure that nothing like this happens again.
View Karen Vecchio Profile
CPC (ON)
Madam Speaker, I recognize that Canadians are being challenged right now. There are many issues and problems that we must face, but it is my regretful duty to rise today on a question of privilege concerning the admissions published late last night by my colleague, the member for Pontiac, concerning his conduct while attending the House on Wednesday.
In a statement released on Twitter at 10:34 p.m. last night, the member admitted, “Last night while attending the House of Commons proceedings virtually, in a non-public setting, I urinated without realizing I was on camera”.
This shocking event is, in my respectful view, a contempt of the House. On page 81 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, it explains that :
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.... ....or is an offence against the authority or dignity of the House
To do what he did within the House is quite frankly an offence to the dignity of Parliament. Though a very quick scan of our precedents does not reveal any past cases of contempt of this specific nature, I would suggest two things: First, such shocking and reckless conduct is likely unprecedented, and second, no specific precedent is required for the House to act.
On page 81 of Bosc and Gagnon, it explains:
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. This area of parliamentary law is therefore extremely fluid and most valuable for the Commons to be able to meet novel situations. Throughout the Commonwealth most procedural authorities hold that contempts, as opposed to privileges, cannot be enumerated or categorized.
On page 83, it continues:
Just as it is not possible to categorize or to delineate every incident which may fall under the definition of contempt, it is also difficult to categorize the severity of contempt. Contempts may vary greatly in their gravity; matters ranging from minor breaches of decorum to grave attacks against the authority of Parliament may be considered as contempts.
Even though it is impossible to complete an exhaustive list of what might constitute a contempt of Parliament, the United Kingdom's Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege included in a 1999 report a collection of various categories of contempt. At the top of the list was: “interrupting or disturbing the proceedings of, or engaging in other misconduct in the presence of, the House or a committee”
That list, including the item I quote, is favourably cited by Bosc and Gagnon at pages 82 and 83. The actions of the member for Pontiac without a doubt represent the engagement in misconduct in the presence of the House.
I know that some could be quick to stress the part of the member's statement that he was “in a non-public setting”, but frankly, there is no part of the House of Commons that is non-public. While I am speaking right now, the cameras are on me and more than 95% of the rest of the chamber is not in the camera shot. That does not mean that what is happening outside of the camera shot is non-public or what not happening inside the chamber. It certainly does not stop us from properly calling to order those who are disorderly, wherever they may be.
I would also refer the Chair to paragraph (c) of the special order adopted on January 25, 2021, which authorizes our current hybrid proceedings, as follows:
any reference in the Standing Orders to the need for members to rise or to be in their place, as well as any reference to the chair, the table or the chamber shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the virtual nature of the proceedings
Consistent with the decision of the House and by all logic, to turn on our camera and to log onto the House Zoom feed is the same as opening one of those doors behind me and walking down to any of the 338 seats in this majestic room. The use of our webcams in our proceedings is less than an year old and, if I have anything to say about it, only temporary.
The television cameras filming us have been here since 1977. The House of Commons is, on the other hand, an ancient institution and its rules and its rights long predate cameras and broadcasting equipment. To claim that what happens in the House is only what is broadcast on the outgoing television feed is nonsense and it cheapens what is the institution and what it represents.
Whether something happens right here on the floor of this chamber, either in or out of the camera shot, or in the extension of the chamber through the video conferencing, we must apply equal treatment to members' conduct. It falls to us to respond to offensive behaviour in the same manner too.
The member's behaviour, whether committed right here or via Zoom, cannot be condoned.
Finally, let me address one further technical matter. On Wednesday evening, the House was sitting in committee of the whole, though it is not clear whether the misconduct of the member for Pontiac occurred before or after the House resolved itself into the committee of the whole. In normal practice, questions of privilege arising in committee shall first be reported to the House from the committee itself. However, given the practical realities surrounding how committees of the whole conduct their business, you ruled on July 22, 2020, at page 2,701 of the Debates:
I accept that the particular circumstances of this situation, notably the challenge surrounding the committee of the whole format, do make it appropriate to bring the matter to the Speaker.
In closing, this is not the first time the member for Pontiac has exposed himself while virtually attending a sitting in the House. It is not even the first time this spring. I recognize that he has apologized, and acknowledged that he requires some form of assistance or intervention, but it does not absolve him of the responsibility for his conduct and his choices while attending a sitting in the House.
Even if the member's conduct was unintentional or lacking in malice, we must also recognize that it still puts his colleagues, plus all of the hardworking staff of the House of Commons administration, in a very uncomfortable position. It is incumbent upon us to ensure that the House of Commons is, and remains, a safe and respectful workplace.
Canadians send us to Parliament to represent them because they believe we possess the good judgment necessary to make these important decisions on their behalf. The reckless conduct the member for Pontiac admitted completely undermines that for himself, for each of us and for the institution of Parliament as a whole.
What is more, it is becoming clearer by the day that we must draw a bold, bright line that confirms that logging into the virtual House is the same as entering into this room, and that standards of behaviour in both places must be the same. Perhaps the procedure and House affairs committee would be able to make this point should the matter eventually be referred to it.
Madam Speaker, should you agree with me that there is prima facie contempt, I will be prepared to move an appropriate motion, even if I wish these circumstances had never happened.
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)
I wish to thank the hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London for the detailed information she has provided. I will review the information and will return to the House with a response.
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)
I would ask the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni to make sure his microphone is off.
The hon. member for Vancouver East has one minute to finish her speech.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
I must interrupt the member. Someone has forgotten to mute their microphone.
I now invite the member to repeat his question.
The member for Burnaby South.
View Mark Gerretsen Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order rising out of question period. I know we tried to address this issue during question period, but we continue to have members who are participating virtually interjecting into the debate and making comments, which is making it extremely difficult for members who are participating virtually to participate. I know that on at least one occasion it was the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. He has routinely been called out by you or the Chair occupant at the time to discontinue this practice.
I would encourage you to ensure, by whatever means you have possible, Mr. Speaker, that those who are participating virtually have the ability to do so unimpeded by members who are participating in this manner.
View Garnett Genuis Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, if you will indulge me, I will just briefly address the same point, because it is important for members to hear what is at stake in this conversation. Canadians of Asian origin are speaking out about the impact of—
An hon. member: This is not a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Some hon. members: Debate.
Mr. Garnett Genuis: Mr. Speaker, I note that I am being heckled—
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Order please. I am going to interrupt. It sounds like it is getting into debate, so I am going to leave it there. However, on that note as well, when someone speaks, the Chair usually determines whether it is debate or a point of order. I appreciate the help, but I would like a few seconds to determine what the member is about to say or is saying so we can determine whether it is debate.
While I do appreciate the people shouting out and trying to help, it just makes it very disorderly, which leads us to the point of order from the member for Kingston and the Islands, where, if we are here and someone does interject, it does make it difficult for everyone. This is about respect for each other in the chamber, and that is what I am asking.
View Gérard Deltell Profile
CPC (QC)
View Gérard Deltell Profile
2021-05-26 15:16 [p.7377]
Mr. Speaker, I remind the House that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is the one who brought up the participation of the member from Alberta who spoke earlier. I apologize, but I cannot remember his riding name.
If he was called out by the government member, it is perfectly normal and appropriate for him to get a chance to explain himself. That is why I think he should have the floor.
I want to point out that members on the government side are enthusiastic advocates of virtual participation, so they certainly know what they are talking about.
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2021-05-26 15:17 [p.7377]
Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, over the last number of months, I, as have many of my colleagues, tune in virtually and understand what our obligations are. If we want to get the attention of the Chair, we put our hand up and then we wait until we are recognized.
On several occasions during question period, members, and in this case it was the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, intentionally undo the mute button to interject. It is one thing to do it by accident, but it is the same member on several occasions, and there needs to be a consequence—
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
I am going to have to interrupt, because it sounds like we are getting into debate again. The point of order is not interjecting in the chamber. We will deal with that one a little at a time.
Again, I want to remind all members that it is on the individual member's honour that we are in here following the rules. I want to encourage everyone to follow those rules so we can run smoothly.
View Michael Barrett Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Speaker, it seems as though, in raising the point, which has been raised before by the member opposite and by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, that it is in effect itself an attempt at a commentary or debate or to name and shame particular members, in this case the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.
However, while that member was responding to that point, the member for Milton and the member for Winnipeg North also took their microphones off mute in the same way that the member for Kingston and the Islands said was inappropriate, and the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader and the member for Kingston and the Islands were seeking for the Chair to sanction the member for doing just that.
I defer always to the judgment of the chair occupant. Perhaps, if there is to be a ruling in the opinion of the Chair, we just ask members to appeal to their honour and the regular traditions and customs of this place and not look to tattletale every time they hear a member engage in what has been a traditional practice in this place for many years.
View Mark Gerretsen Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, the intent of my rising to indicate this point of order was because of the fact that the particular member has done it repeatedly on a number of occasions. He routinely does this where he interjects. It is not affecting the ability for those in the House to listen to the debate; it is affecting those who are online, because suddenly the entire feed and sound is eliminated and they are unable to hear anything.
The point is that those who are doing this are doing it repeatedly, and I would encourage you, Mr. Speaker, to somehow enforce some kind of rule that would prevent this from continuing to happen.
Results: 76 - 90 of 456 | Page: 6 of 31

|<
<
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data