44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 13, 2023 10:00AM
- Jun/13/23 6:27:45 p.m.
- Watch
May I interrupt for just a moment? If there is new information to be provided about the question of privilege, I would be more than happy to hear it. If it is just a general comment on something, I will make a decision quickly as to whether it is admissible.
The hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.
59 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 6:27:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am rising to deal with the question of privilege response that was given by my—
19 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 6:29:31 p.m.
- Watch
While I appreciate that we are talking about this question of privilege, we are basically rehashing what was said before. If there is new information or if some responses have been received, I think the Chair would be more than happy to hear that.
The hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.
53 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 6:29:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, when I raised my question of privilege, the Minister of Justice had not gone to the media, and the member for Winnipeg North had not spoken. This is not about impugning somebody's reputation in the legal community. It is about impugning their reputation in the Italian community.
A member's privilege is fettered when they are intimidated from speaking based on something like clapping. In my respectful view, it should be a foregone conclusion that damaging or sullying someone's reputation in their cultural community is as bad as, if not worse than, sullying their reputation in the legal community. However, we have the member for Winnipeg North reading something, presumably from the PMO, that does just that and justifies it. The Liberals are victim blaming in this case in what is an obvious overstep by the Attorney General.
I will end with this. The member deliberately used the term “thin skin”. I would have challenged him or the member for Kingston and the Islands, who said it to me earlier, to come to work with me for one week when I was prosecuting sexual offences against children to see if they could last. That was a completely inappropriate comment. He should retract it and he should apologize. He should not be doing this to hon. members in this House, because it is dishonourable conduct.
230 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 6:31:25 p.m.
- Watch
As I said earlier, the Chair is actively looking at the question of privilege and will come back with a response as soon as we possibly can.
27 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 8:06:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I was listening intently to the speech by the member for Edmonton West this evening, and I feel as though I have an entire speech of questions I would like to pose, so I am going to try to narrow it down.
The first thing that comes to mind is accountability. I really think that, when we are holding fellow members of Parliament accountable in the House, we have to do some self-reflection with respect to our own parties.
Just the other day, I watched as Conservative members decided they wanted to circumvent a vote. They went on the other side of the wall here to cast their votes through the hybrid voting system. They did not have the appropriate headsets on, which put the interpreters at risk. Therefore, I think we need to look at ourselves.
Currently, the representation of women in Parliament is only at 30%. We can do better to ensure we have representation in this party. To say that everybody has equal access to being members of Parliament and serving here is completely out of touch and unrealistic. Quite frankly, those remarks show an element of privilege.
My question for the member is this: Why does he not believe in the tools necessary to have equitable representation within the chamber?
217 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 8:08:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague keeping it to two questions and not going on for a full 10 minutes, as she had commented.
To the first issue, I would say that those in glass houses should not throw stones. I sit on the operations committee, and I watched the NDP join the government in a filibuster to block our ability to bring a privilege motion to the House. Our rights and responsibilities had been taken away by bureaucrats who refused an order of the House, and we had the NDP filibuster it. Therefore, I can understand the member's frustration with voting, but it is no different than filibustering to prevent members of Parliament from exerting their privilege.
With respect to the comment on privilege, Canadians do have equal access to be able to run. People are in different stages of their life and in different circumstances. Certainly, we should encourage everyone we can to run. I agree that, if there are ways we can improve access, that is wonderful, but it should be decided among the parties, not just the by the government, with its enablers in the NDP, forcing these changes down our throats.
It used to be tradition that changes to the Standing Orders were done through a consensus in the House. If one person said no, the government would back away. We are not seeing that. At the operations committee, we saw the government try to change the process with the estimates to allow it to have access to I think it was $7 billion of spending on vote 40. When Scott Brison was the president of the Treasury Board, he tried to change the Standing Orders on the main estimates, which is the reason Parliament exists, to suit himself and the government. Again, it is moving away from consensus to deciding and ramming it down the throats of others, and I do not think that is right.
323 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
