SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 147

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 13, 2022 10:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 147 - Dec/13/22
Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)
  • Dec/13/22 12:16:56 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry if words were said that offended people on either side. I agree with my colleague that people have lost confidence because of the kind of bickering that goes on. However, I do not know if what has been raised meets the test. I say that because it is not clear what was said. We know that a lot of dumb comments were being made that day on both sides, and that is certainly a question of the confidence that people have, but I do not know if that means we are losing confidence with respect to the ability to govern. This does not meet the test that we are now a divided House that is unable to govern; rather, this is a partisan House. I am not questioning whether this was or was not said. The member certainly feels that her reputation has been impinged. However, she raised three examples of why this meets the test, and I do not think they do meet it. The first example was about using bulk mailings to attack someone else. That is using parliamentary resources to deliberately target someone in a riding. That would be an abuse of parliamentary rights, because the resources of the House are being used to attack. Second, if someone makes comments on the record to a journalist, that is an official statement, which is different than someone heckling. A heckle is something that is ethereal; it may or may not have happened. However, if someone puts something on the record to a journalist, that can be brought back to the House if it is false. The third example she gave was of a minister deliberately misleading the House when answering a question, because what has been asked in question period is on the record. When it is on the record, a minister must speak truthfully. We have had a number of examples over the years where ministers have misled the House, but we have also had examples where ministers were clearly not telling the truth and the Speaker deferred based on the issue that it may or may not have been a deliberate attempt to mislead. Therefore, the standard we have for meeting the test for contempt, I think you will find, Mr. Speaker, is very high. However, I remember the other day when this unfortunate incident came to light that the Speaker said he would go back and check the record to clarify if this was said. If it was, then my colleague has a right to go forward. If it was not said or was not picked up, then it is a matter of opinion of what happened back and forth with respect to the heckling. I leave that to the Speaker.
462 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border