44th Parl. 1st Sess.

June 2, 2023 10:00AM

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/2/23 10:30:56 a.m.
Watch

What is the privilege?

4 words

Privilege

Hear!
Rabble!
add
star_border
share

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Jun/2/23 10:31:35 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-47

Madam Speaker, that is precisely what I intend to do. The member across the way is heckling and asking what the matter of privilege is. Again, I invite him to listen, and I think he will appreciate the point. I also want to identify, as I said earlier, that there are at least three separate ways in which the privileges of members were impacted by the proceedings on Bill C-47. I will be appropriately brief, but I want to identify all three areas where I think there was an infringement of privilege. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Mr. Garnett Genuis: The heckling continues, but I will continue in spite of it. Page 81 of the third edition of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice states: There are...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: tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions; obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of the House in the discharge of their duties; or is an offence against the authority or dignity of the House...its Members, or its officers. This is the general context. I also want to highlight Standing Order 116, which applies to the Chair's ability and responsibility here in the House to deal with violations of the rights and privileges of members that occurred in committee in a very narrow and specific situation. Standing Order 116(1) reads: In a standing, special or legislative committee, the Standing Orders shall apply so far as may be applicable, except the standing orders as to the election of a Speaker, seconding of motions, limiting the number of times of speaking and the length of speeches. The Standing Order on “End of debate” reads: (2)(a) Unless a time limit has been adopted by the committee or by the House, the Chair of a standing, special or legislative committee may not bring a debate to an end while there are members present who still wish to participate. A decision of the Chair in this regard may not be subject to an appeal to the committee. (b) A violation of paragraph (a) of this section may be brought to the attention of the Speaker by any member and the Speaker shall have the power to rule on the matter. If, in the opinion of the Speaker, such violation has occurred, the Speaker may order that all subsequent proceedings in relation to the said violation be nullified. What occurred at the Standing Committee on Finance was precisely this. Members' ability to speak was not explicitly limited in a particular sense, yet the Chair acted in a way that limited the ability of members to speak and move amendments. I acknowledge that there will be some dispute on this point, because the committee adopted a programming motion of sorts. However, the Chair took it upon himself to then make rulings that in fact went far beyond the particulars of the programming motion. That is, the Chair did not confine himself to the programming motion. Instead, he made additional decisions that further limited the ability of members to speak and to bring forward points and/or move subamendments. This was a violation of Standing Order 116(2)(b), which materially affected the privileges of members. Standing Order 116(2)(a) says, “Unless a time limit has been adopted by the committee or by the House”. In this case, while a time limit was adopted, it did not prescribe the things the Chair said it prescribed. Thus, in the process, the privileges of members, in terms of the ability of members to move subamendments and to speak, was limited. The programming motion that was adopted by the committee said the following: “That the committee continue its pre-study of Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, by: “(a) Inviting witnesses to appear on the contents of Bill C-47 during meetings scheduled the weeks of May 1, May 8, and May 15, 2023, and that “Members of the committee submit their prioritized witness lists for the study of Bill C-47 to the clerk of the committee by no later than Wednesday, May 3rd, 2023, at 12 p.m., and that these lists be distributed to members of the committee as soon as possible, “(b) Moving to clause-by-clause review of Bill C-47 no later than Thursday, May 25, 2023, at 11 a.m., provided that the bill is referred to the committee on or before Thursday, May 18, 2023, and that; “i. amendments be submitted to the clerk of the committee in both official languages no later than noon on Friday, May 19, 2023; “ii. the clerk of the committee write immediately to each member who is not a member of a caucus represented on the committee and any independent members to inform them of the study of Bill C-47 by the committee and to invite them to prepare and submit any proposed amendments to Bill C-47 which they would suggest the committee consider during the clause-by-clause study of the bill; “iii. if the committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by 4:30 p.m. on Monday, May 29, 2023, all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved, the Chair shall put the question, forthwith and successively, without further debate on all remaining clauses and proposed amendments, as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, as well as all questions necessary to report the bill to the House and to order the Chair to report the bill to the House as soon as possible; “(c) if Bill C-47 is referred to the Committee by the House during the subject matter study of the Bill, all witness testimony, evidence and documentation received in public”—

1039 words

Hear!
Rabble!
add
star_border
share

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/2/23 10:37:02 a.m.
Watch

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.

16 words

Hear!
Rabble!
add
star_border
share

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/2/23 10:37:05 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not see the relevancy of the member rising on a matter of privilege when there has already been a ruling on the proper form and process for the legislation. The member is just dictating something from a standing committee of the House with one purpose, which is to test your patience. That is what this is all about. The member is testing your patience to prevent you from beginning the formal process for the budget implementation bill. This is not a matter of privilege. The member could be far more concise in his question of privilege. I would ask that you look at what the official opposition is attempting to do—

116 words

Hear!
Rabble!
add
star_border
share

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/2/23 10:38:01 a.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Simcoe—Grey is rising on a point of order.

14 words

Simcoe
Grey

Hear!
Rabble!
add
star_border
share

Mr. Terry Dowdall

Jun/2/23 10:38:05 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I just want to say that what is being said here is very important. I had the opportunity to substitute into finance committee, and I saw what happened that day. It was extremely frustrating for democracy. My point of order on this is that I think it would go quicker if the member opposite would perhaps not rise so often. We could get through this important point of privilege—

72 words

Hear!
Rabble!
add
star_border
share

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/2/23 10:38:29 a.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South is rising on a point of order.

15 words

Hear!
Rabble!
add
star_border
share

Mr. Philip Lawrence

Jun/2/23 10:38:35 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be brief. Having been at the finance committee, I know the violation of privilege happened. This is totally separate and distinct, as I mentioned earlier in my point of order, from the point of order on the allowance of amendments at report stage. Points of privilege are, of course, incredibly critical to the functioning of the House. If the rules and the privileges are violated, it is incredibly challenging for the system and Parliament to continue. I do not believe he is taking an unreasonable amount of time. The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is simply laying down the appropriate citations, which any good lawyer would do in the court and, certainly, a parliamentarian would do here.

124 words

Hear!
Rabble!
add
star_border
share

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/2/23 10:39:33 a.m.
Watch

I want to remind members that this is a question of privilege, and on questions of privilege, the parliamentarian who is raising the question of privilege should be brief and concise, and to not go into the motions, the discussions that have happened or the goings-on at committee. If the hon. member could be brief and concise about where his privilege was breached, that would improve my ability to better review the information to see if further debate needs to be done on it. A decision could then be rendered. The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

100 words

Hear!
Rabble!
add
star_border
share

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Jun/2/23 10:40:26 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if the parliamentary secretary does not like hearing questions of privilege raised, my suggestion would be that the government not violate the privileges of members. There would then be less of a need for questions of privilege to be raised in the House—

46 words

Hear!
Rabble!
add
star_border
share

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/2/23 10:40:40 a.m.
Watch

I would just ask the hon. member to go directly to his question of privilege and to be brief and concise.

21 words

Hear!
Rabble!
add
star_border
share

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Jun/2/23 10:40:46 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be. The point that I was making, and the reason why I think taking note of the motion at finance committee is important, is that Standing Order 116(2)(a) says, “unless a time limit has been adopted by the committee or by the House”. The committee did adopt a motion that prescribed time limits. However, that motion did not establish time limits in the way the Chair was applying them. I have read most of the motion from the finance committee, which I think establishes the point that, after 4:30 p.m., on Monday May 29, it was agreed that the questions would be put. It was also agreed that amendments were to be submitted to the committee by Friday, May 19. However, and this would be clear if I had read all of it, but it should be clear enough, and members can take my word for it if they wish, the motion before the finance committee made no mention of the exclusion of subamendments. It is well-established procedure in the Standing Orders and the rules that members may move subamendments to amendments once they are on the floor. I did not propose to speak to the subamendments, but I did, on multiple occasions, seek the opportunity to move subamendments at committee—

223 words

Hear!
Rabble!
add
star_border
share

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/2/23 10:42:13 a.m.
Watch

We have another point of order. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

15 words

Secretary

Hear!
Rabble!
add
star_border
share

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/2/23 10:42:16 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, you requested that the member be concise, brief and to the point. I have listened, as you have, for the last minute, and I have no idea what point the member is making as a case of privilege. He is filibustering—

44 words

Hear!
Rabble!
add
star_border
share

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/2/23 10:42:45 a.m.
Watch

This is not a point of order. I do want to allow the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan to provide his breach of privilege, and I would ask him to go directly to that breach of privilege. As I have indicated, it is not just about me. There are many rulings I have in my hands. When it comes to breaches of questions of privilege, all of the speakers have indicated that it needs to be brief, concise and to the point. I would ask the hon. member to get to his question of privilege. We have a point of order from the hon. member for Perth—Wellington.

112 words