House of Commons Hansard #104 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was budget.

Topics

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Andrew Scheer

Is that agreed?

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Question No. 463
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

NDP

Mylène Freeman Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC

What is the total amount of government funding allocated to the constituency of Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel between fiscal year 2007-2008 and the last fiscal year, broken down by: (a) department or agency; (b) initiative or program; (c) year; (d) amount; and (e) recipient?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 465
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Sean Casey Charlottetown, PE

With regard to websites accessed on the personal departmental desktop computers, laptop computers, mobile phones, tablet computers, or other internet-enabled devices issued to the Minister of Justice and to the Minister of Public Safety: (a) what are the URLs of all websites accessed on said devices between 12:01 a.m. on February 1, 2012, and 12:01 a.m. on February 14, 2012 (all dates and times inclusive), listed by ministry; and (b) at what times were those websites accessed, listed by ministry?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

Shelly Glover Saint Boniface, MB

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Andrew Scheer

Is that agreed?

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns
Routine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Statements by Members
Points of Order
Routine Proceedings

April 2nd, 2012 / 3:20 p.m.

NDP

Joe Comartin Windsor—Tecumseh, ON

Mr. Speaker, earlier today, you interrupted the statement that was being presented by the member for Mississauga—Brampton South. As there is some confusion, I am asking for some indication from the Chair as to how you intend to handle this.

Mr. Speaker, you will recall that last week the member for Toronto—Danforth had raised a point of order with regard to the statement, again presented by the same member on the government side, in terms of the nature of the statement being a personal attack on him, which is a violation of the long-standing tradition of this House and any number of Houses in the Westminster system, and more specifically, it is in violation of the rulings of your predecessor, Mr. Milliken in the last Parliament where he ruled that personal attacks against other members during the course of an S. O. 31 statement is improper.

We are not clear, Mr. Speaker, whether in fact, by cutting her off today, you were expressing your intent as to your ruling or when we might expect a determination from you on the point of order that was raised by the member for Toronto—Danforth last week.

Statements by Members
Points of Order
Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Mississauga—Brampton South
Ontario

Conservative

Eve Adams Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not believe that citing somebody's record, philosophical stance, policy stance or facts that are a matter of record is an attack on an individual.

it is something that gentleman has authored. He wrote a report that was cited in court. The Court of Appeal dismissed his report as methodologically unsound and tainted by ideology. I think that is fair game to cite here in the chamber.

If that gentleman is no longer proud of his stance, if he no longer feels as though he was correct in the report that he authored or if he or his party is somehow embarrassed by his position, then perhaps he could stand and apologize.

Statements by Members
Points of Order
Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Andrew Scheer

I appreciate the member for Windsor—Tecumseh raising this. I was here in the previous Parliament when my predecessor attempted to bring some kind of cohesive parameters as to what would be acceptable during S. O. 31s.

Members are granted a great deal of latitude on the type of things they are allowed to talk about during their statements. Some guidelines have existed and some have been enforced at various times and some have not been. For the House, especially in this Parliament, what may help members is, if they are referencing a particular individual, that the bar would be higher during S. O. 31s than it might be during question period or during the normal course of debate.

As my predecessor mentioned, statements by members is a time of the day when it is impossible for a member who has been referenced to respond. This is different from question period and it is different from other types of debate so, as previous Speakers have done, the Chair will look at a few things, such the nature of the words being used, as well as the reaction that it provokes. Members are free to take issue with statements or positions that other members have expressed and can talk about their own personal views on that or what the party might think in terms of ideas. However, when they are going to touch on these things in a very personal way, they need to choose their words very carefully and the tone and the reaction will be examined by the Chair.

I hope that helps. I do not think there is a formula. I do not think we can write down a mathematical equation as to what will be ruled in order or out of order but if all members took it upon themselves, if they are going to make reference to other members to highlight what it was that was said, that it not be done in a personal way. The House would appreciate it and then it would be easier for the Chair to determine what the nature is.

I am prepared to go back and look more closely at what the member for Mississauga—Brampton South said during her S. O. 31. As I heard it, it certainly did provoke a reaction and it seemed to assign some kind of motive to the member's alleged comments. I will go back and look at it if she feels she should not have been cut off. However, at the time it did seem to be causing quite a lot of disruption and it did seem to me to be worth stepping in to move on to the next one. I will come back to the House if necessary on that particular one.

I hope that answers the member for Windsor—Tecumseh's question in a more general format.

Statements by Members
Points of Order
Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

NDP

Joe Comartin Windsor—Tecumseh, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would ask you, in particular when you are looking at today's statement, to take into account the statement that was made last Thursday. How can a member possibly call someone a hug-a-thug and say that is about his philosophical underpinnings or about a policy issue? It is not. It is a personal attack. It is name-calling at its basest level. Therefore, I would ask you to look at both the statements, not just the one today.

Statements by Members
Points of Order
Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

Eve Adams Mississauga—Brampton South, ON

Mr. Speaker, I did not say that the gentleman was a hug-a-thug. I said that his philosophy was one of hug-a-thug—

Statements by Members
Points of Order
Routine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Andrew Scheer

Order, please. I will look at both statements and come back to the House if necessary on that.