“I ask that all members agree to let the member for South Surrey—White Rock give his statement again.”
“Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions, and I believe that if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to allow the member for South Surrey—White Rock to repeat his S. O. 31.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions, and I believe that if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to allow the member for South Surrey—White Rock to repeat his S. O. 31.
“Our rules say we should not interrupt someone who is speaking. The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan shouted personal attacks at the member for South Surrey—White Rock during his statement. We should not start shutting each other down like this. I want the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan to apologize.”
“Mr. Speaker, Standing Order 16(2) specifically indicates that we are not supposed to interrupt people when they are speaking. I know that it certainly does happen in the House. However, when the member for South Surrey—White Rock was giving his S. O. 31, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan was extremely loud in an otherwise very quiet room, directing some very personal comments toward the member. I understand that something may have happened in committee that upset the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, but the reality of the situation is that we have established a precedent. I would strongly encourage my colleagues to reconsider, because they know that they have found themselves in that position from time to time, and they would hate to set a precedent of starting to routinely shut statements down if this happens. Perhaps at the very least, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan could stand up and apologize to the member for South Surrey—White Rock for his actions while the latter was giving his S. O. 31.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, Standing Order 16(2) specifically indicates that we are not supposed to interrupt people when they are speaking. I know that it certainly does happen in the House. However, when the member for South Surrey—White Rock was giving his S. O. 31, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan was extremely loud in an otherwise very quiet room, directing some very personal comments toward the member. I understand that something may have happened in committee that upset the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, but the reality of the situation is that we have established a precedent. I would strongly encourage my colleagues to reconsider, because they know that they have found themselves in that position from time to time, and they would hate to set a precedent of starting to routinely shut statements down if this happens. Perhaps at the very least, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan could stand up and apologize to the member for South Surrey—White Rock for his actions while the latter was giving his S. O. 31.
“The government side also interrupted and caused noise. The parliamentary secretary made a comment about a member from Alberta asking questions, and members started shouting.”
“Mr. Speaker, the last time the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries rose in the House, he said the following: “It is interesting that the Conservatives have a member from Alberta asking questions about— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, the last time the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries rose in the House, he said the following: “It is interesting that the Conservatives have a member from Alberta asking questions about— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
“We usually let members restart their statements if there is a technical problem. I want you to rethink your decision to stop that today. I do not want this to become a rule that hurts my party later.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise as the whip. When a member is giving an S. O. 31 statement, particularly a member of a political party that has a lot of members here, the member may have to start over if there is a technical issue. It is customary to allow that. I was surprised to hear noes. I would ask if it is possible to reconsider the matter, because, next time, it might be one of my members, and their request might be denied because somebody said no once.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I rise as the whip. When a member is giving an S. O. 31 statement, particularly a member of a political party that has a lot of members here, the member may have to start over if there is a technical issue. It is customary to allow that. I was surprised to hear noes. I would ask if it is possible to reconsider the matter, because, next time, it might be one of my members, and their request might be denied because somebody said no once.
“The member should not get to redo their statement. Heckling only breaks the rules if it drowns out the person speaking. In this case, the recording was fine, and the rules were not broken.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. There are frequently comments and heckles during member statements and question period. The question is, with respect to Standing Order 16(2), where is the line crossed? I think the reasonable expectation would be that if something interrupted the ability of the member to actually get a recording, if the sound was so loud that the intervention could not be properly heard, then I would say that violates Standing Order 16(2). My understanding is that, in this particular case, that did not happen, and in fact, the recording is fine. We cannot hear the commentary of the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. As a result, I suggest that Standing Order 16(2) was not, in this case, violated and that there therefore is no need to redo the S. O. 31 statement.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. There are frequently comments and heckles during member statements and question period. The question is, with respect to Standing Order 16(2), where is the line crossed? I think the reasonable expectation would be that if something interrupted the ability of the member to actually get a recording, if the sound was so loud that the intervention could not be properly heard, then I would say that violates Standing Order 16(2). My understanding is that, in this particular case, that did not happen, and in fact, the recording is fine. We cannot hear the commentary of the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. As a result, I suggest that Standing Order 16(2) was not, in this case, violated and that there therefore is no need to redo the S. O. 31 statement.
“I agree with the member. The real test is whether someone was actually stopped from speaking. The video shows the member paused, waited, and was able to finish her speech.”
“Mr. Speaker, I do want to thank my colleague in the riding to the north of mine, the member for Lanark—Frontenac, because he is absolutely correct. I think I would agree with him that there should be an establishment of breaking in one’s speech and not being able to talk. If the member reviews the video of the S. O. 31, which he can do, he will see that the member for South Surrey—White Rock actually stopped at one point, waited and then restarted. We can see that; the video is there. I just want to thank my colleague for coming to our defence. We really appreciate that.”
Mr. Speaker, I do want to thank my colleague in the riding to the north of mine, the member for Lanark—Frontenac, because he is absolutely correct. I think I would agree with him that there should be an establishment of breaking in one’s speech and not being able to talk. If the member reviews the video of the S. O. 31, which he can do, he will see that the member for South Surrey—White Rock actually stopped at one point, waited and then restarted. We can see that; the video is there. I just want to thank my colleague for coming to our defence. We really appreciate that.
“Another member made unfair comments against Alberta, and the Speaker still has not ruled on them. If someone spoke that way about British Columbia, Quebec, or Ontario, the House would make them take it back. That member must be held accountable for how he talks about Alberta.”
“Mr. Speaker, I had raised the issue previously of the grossly unparliamentary anti-Alberta remarks of that member. When I had, the Speaker responded, which is a matter of past practice, as you know. The Speaker said at the time, “It would not be proper if somebody did that, but unfortunately, the Chair did not hear that.” He later said, “I do not know [what] it was. I will check the record.” The Speaker acknowledged that remarks of that character were improper. The Speaker has yet to come back to the House to rule on the unparliamentary anti-Alberta comments of the member for South Surrey—White Rock. I think that member needs to address the way he speaks about people from my region. If comments like that were made about members from B.C., where he is from, members from Quebec or members from Ontario, I think the House would have no problem acknowledging that they were unparliamentary and the member would have to retract those comments. The member needs to be accountable for the way he talks about Alberta.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I had raised the issue previously of the grossly unparliamentary anti-Alberta remarks of that member. When I had, the Speaker responded, which is a matter of past practice, as you know. The Speaker said at the time, “It would not be proper if somebody did that, but unfortunately, the Chair did not hear that.” He later said, “I do not know [what] it was. I will check the record.” The Speaker acknowledged that remarks of that character were improper. The Speaker has yet to come back to the House to rule on the unparliamentary anti-Alberta comments of the member for South Surrey—White Rock. I think that member needs to address the way he speaks about people from my region. If comments like that were made about members from B.C., where he is from, members from Quebec or members from Ontario, I think the House would have no problem acknowledging that they were unparliamentary and the member would have to retract those comments. The member needs to be accountable for the way he talks about Alberta.
“I want to put on the record what happened yesterday before the budget. The Prime Minister and the finance minister disrupted the House by waving the budget and cheering. They turned this place into a political rally.”
“Mr. Speaker, my point of order, unusually at the end of the question period, relates to something that happened yesterday in this place at approximately four o’clock. I think it was the member for Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay who had the floor and was speaking when the House was disrupted, very much contrary to Standing Order 16(2), in a gross violation of decorum. It was probably an accident that the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance thought it was appropriate to enter the House waving the budget and essentially turning this place of parliamentary business into a Liberal rally. I was deeply offended. I have never seen anything like it. I know the Speaker called for order at the time and did his best to remind people to take their seats, but a presentation of a budget, and I have been to many of them, is a moment when members are keen to hear from the Minister of Finance, not to have the budget paraded as a document with lots of cheering and whooping it up. I just wanted to put it on the record. The event has now passed, but people can find lots of photos of it on The Globe and Mail’s website.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, my point of order, unusually at the end of the question period, relates to something that happened yesterday in this place at approximately four o’clock. I think it was the member for Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay who had the floor and was speaking when the House was disrupted, very much contrary to Standing Order 16(2), in a gross violation of decorum. It was probably an accident that the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance thought it was appropriate to enter the House waving the budget and essentially turning this place of parliamentary business into a Liberal rally. I was deeply offended. I have never seen anything like it. I know the Speaker called for order at the time and did his best to remind people to take their seats, but a presentation of a budget, and I have been to many of them, is a moment when members are keen to hear from the Minister of Finance, not to have the budget paraded as a document with lots of cheering and whooping it up. I just wanted to put it on the record. The event has now passed, but people can find lots of photos of it on The Globe and Mail’s website.
“Yesterday, the Prime Minister and the finance minister walked in waving the budget around. They disrupted the member who was speaking. That broke her right to speak without disruption. I want the Speaker to watch the video from yesterday and make a ruling.”
“Yes, Mr. Speaker. On this point of order, related to the same standing order, I know you were in the chair yesterday when this happened. I was in the House. The Prime Minister and the finance minister walked in, waving the budget around like we were in some sort of Roman Colosseum. Maybe sometimes it seems that way, but I will say that I believe, Mr. Speaker, if you look back at the tapes, you will see that the member who was speaking was disrupted at that point as she was talking about government business. I believe her privileges to speak freely and not be disrupted in this place with respect to government business were breached yesterday. I would ask that the Speaker take it back, look at the tapes and look at the way they entered this place and disrupted the proceedings of the House.”
Official Hansard
Yes, Mr. Speaker. On this point of order, related to the same standing order, I know you were in the chair yesterday when this happened. I was in the House. The Prime Minister and the finance minister walked in, waving the budget around like we were in some sort of Roman Colosseum. Maybe sometimes it seems that way, but I will say that I believe, Mr. Speaker, if you look back at the tapes, you will see that the member who was speaking was disrupted at that point as she was talking about government business. I believe her privileges to speak freely and not be disrupted in this place with respect to government business were breached yesterday. I would ask that the Speaker take it back, look at the tapes and look at the way they entered this place and disrupted the proceedings of the House.