SoVote

Dec/4/23 1:18:53 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. members for their interventions. I believe I have enough to take back. I am going to come back to the House on this one. There is a fair amount of information to look at, and it is incumbent on me to come back as quickly as possible on this. On a new question of privilege, the hon. House leader for the opposition is rising.

68 words

Hon. Andrew Scheer

Dec/4/23 1:19:18 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-59

Mr. Speaker, yes, this is a new issue. I am rising on a point of order, pursuant to Standing Order 69.1, to ask that you treat Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic—

41 words

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/4/23 1:19:31 p.m.
Watch

I am going to cut the member off because we have two other questions of privilege and I would like to get those out of the way before I go to a point of order. I apologize. On a question of personal privilege, we have the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

54 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Dec/4/23 1:19:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity, although grieved by the necessity of raising this. I am rising to draw the attention of the House to a violation of my privileges and the privileges of other members that relates to the provisions of Standing Order 116, which I will briefly read. It pertains to the work of committees: 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. At the end of debate, which is the crucial point under (2)(a) and (b), it states: (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 [notice of the] 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. I am taking advantage of the new opportunity that the provision offers members, which is to bring to the attention of the Speaker violations of privilege that have occurred in committee, in this case, at the natural resources committee. Of course, historically, it was not the case that such violations could be brought to the attention of the Chair, but there are new rules that, fortunately, in this context at least, provide us with an opportunity to bring the absolutely egregious behaviour of the member for Calgary Skyview, the Chair of the natural resources committee, to the attention of the Speaker and seek an appropriate remedy. On multiple occasions, the member for Calgary Skyview, who is the Chair of the natural resources committee, showed flagrant disregard for the rules and the rights of members in limiting the ability of members to speak, in arbitrarily imposing time limits, in depriving members of the floor when they had the floor, and in reassigning the floor. One member had the floor; he took the floor away from them and reassigned it to another member. These all had the effect—

430 words

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Dec/4/23 1:22:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we know that the Conservatives are trying to talk the clock out, but if there is a question of privilege from a committee, it has to be brought from the committee. The member did not have that support, so he is trying to overrule the Chair of the committee, who made a ruling. It is up to you to, then, decide whether you are going to overrule the Chair of a committee to whom this was brought forward and who had the support of the majority of the committee. It would set a very bad precedent for the Speaker to allow the member to override a committee Chair. I do not think that is within our rules.

119 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Dec/4/23 1:22:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, first of all, the member said it was a point of order. He was actually making arguments regarding the question of privilege, which he will have an opportunity to do. He is intimately involved in these proceedings and, I am sure, will have a great deal to say about it. I did begin my remarks, which maybe the member for Timmins—James Bay was not listening to, by mentioning that I am speaking in the context of the provisions of Standing Order 116(2)(a) and (b), provisions that, by the way, I mentioned in the discussion at the committee. The member may or may not recall that during some of the back and forth at the natural resources committee, I informed the Chair and the member for Timmins—James Bay, as well as other members, that they should be careful about whether or not they respect the rules, rights and privileges of members because, unlike what was the case in the past, there is now a provision of the Standing Orders whereby members can seek a remedy in the House. The member would be right most of the time, but he should have heeded my warnings in this case because I read Standing Order 116(2)a) and (b) to him and to other members in committee, and I have read them in the House again. They do speak to my right to highlight violations of privilege. If the member wants to speak to the issue later, he can. I, of course, think this is an extremely important issue of privilege. We see the complicity of the NDP; in fact, in some cases, the NDP is worse than the government in trying to shut down members of Parliament and deprive them of their right to speak. I think workers in the member's riding and across the country will take note of that. I would like to provide you with the evidence that I am speaking of in terms of how Standing Order 116(2)a) and (b) was violated in the proceedings of the natural resources committee. It was violated in a number of ways. The first instance was when the member for Peace River—Westlock was seeking to be added to the list of speakers and was in fact arbitrarily prevented from doing so. Committee rules allow any member who is present, even if they are not a regular member of the committee or a substitute, to be able to participate in the proceedings of the committee, with certain limited exceptions. They cannot vote, but they can participate by speaking, etc. I will draw the attention to the House of when the incident happened. It was 3:50 p.m. on October 31. This was a continuation of the meeting of the natural resources committee that began on October 1. Mr. Viersen had been seeking to have himself added to the list. I apologize. This will be challenging because I need to cite some evidence from the transcript. I know that in committees it is our convention to use surnames; of course, in the House, we do not use surnames. I will do my best to switch it over in every case, but I apologize for my error previously and I apologize in advance if I err again. I will do my best. Mr. Charlie Angus: Oh, oh! Mr. Garnett Genuis: Mr. Speaker, the member for Timmins—James Bay is very keen to get into this conversation. Frankly, I am sure he is embarrassed right now because his conduct at committee was—

602 words

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/4/23 1:26:43 p.m.
Watch

Let us try not to take partisan shots at parties as we roll along. I am hearing a lot of chatter, but I am also hearing attacks happening as well. Let us just stick to the questions of privilege that we are trying to raise and try to use the time of the House as judiciously as possible. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is rising on a point of order.

73 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

Dec/4/23 1:27:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to be clear. We know that if the Conservatives talked the clock to 1:30, the House would not be able to proceed with the business at hand. I was just asking to see the clock at 1:30 so we would not have to waste any more time, and—

56 words

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/4/23 1:27:24 p.m.
Watch

The member for Sarnia—Lambton is rising on a point of order.

13 words

Ms. Marilyn Gladu

Dec/4/23 1:27:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we have had continual interruptions and harassment from the member for Timmins—James Bay while we are trying to talk about a serious question of privilege. I am beginning to think that my privilege to listen to the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is being infringed.

51 words

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/4/23 1:27:44 p.m.
Watch

I will once again remind members of the House of Commons to keep their comments to themselves if they possibly can so we can judiciously get through the questions of personal privilege that have been brought to the attention of the Speaker's Office in accordance with the rules. I urge the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan to continue to make his point.

66 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Dec/4/23 1:28:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I certainly will, hopefully without interruptions. I share the outrage of the member for Sarnia—Lambton, although she should review some of the transcripts of the natural resources committee to realize how bad it can sometimes get with the member for Timmins—James Bay. In any event, I was sharing the evidence from October 31. This was at 3:50 p.m., and the Chair said, “I'd like to remind members that [the member for Peace River—Westlock] is not a substituting member of the committee, so I cannot acknowledge [he can sit at the table]”. The Chair then said, “When he does we will once that sub happens. Right now we will give the floor to [the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands].” The member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands pointed out, “If [the member for Peace River—Westlock] wants to join this debate, even as not one of the four voting Conservatives members on this committee, he can do that. He's fully within his right to do that. If one of the independent members or a member from the Green—

196 words

Westlock

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/4/23 1:29:18 p.m.
Watch

We have a point of order from the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

16 words

Secretary

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Dec/4/23 1:29:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the member is out of order in terms of bringing forward his question of privilege. There is no committee report before the House to be able to raise the issue that he is, in fact, raising. Some might believe that the member is trying to filibuster.

51 words

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/4/23 1:29:37 p.m.
Watch

Again, I urge everyone to stick to the points in order to make the prima facie case they are trying to make that it is a question of privilege.

29 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Dec/4/23 1:29:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. To ensure that we are following the rules in this place, which is the reason there are so many issues here today, I would refer the House to the 2017, the third, edition of Bosc and Gagnon. Regarding questions of privilege, it says, “Whenever any matter of privilege arises, it shall be taken into consideration immediately.” I therefore find it very troubling that the Liberals, and specifically their coalition partners in the NDP—

85 words

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/4/23 1:30:23 p.m.
Watch

I will use my line here, and I need to make people aware that when they bring a question of privilege to the floor, the role of the Chair is to decide whether the matter merits priority over all other business. In making their preliminary arguments, members should briefly explain the background and the main facts that give rise to the question of privilege. The focus should be to demonstrate that there is sufficient evidence of a prima facie case. I would ask the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan to make the case that this is actually a question of privilege, or we will have to move on.

111 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Dec/4/23 1:31:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the point that privilege has priority in this House. The Standing Orders do provide that when there is an issue at committee that involves the rights of members to speak, the ability of members to not be interrupted, the imposition of time limits and contravention of the rules or the orders adopted by that committee, that it is an issue that can be brought to the House. This is a new standing order: Standing Order 116(2)(a) and Standing Order 116(2)(b). It is new material in the Standing Orders, so the member for Winnipeg North and other members may not be familiar with it. It does not have, of course, the same history as other provisions because it is new. However, this clearly violated the privileges of members. It is being brought to the House because Standing Order 116 specifically invites members to bring such matters to the House. There were multiple instances, in fact, where the member for Calgary Skyview limited the ability of members to speak, interrupted them and stopped them from being able to move forward. I will go through those examples for your consideration, Mr. Speaker, and then look forward to your ruling after that. The member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands highlighted that in his view, the member for Peace River—Westlock should be able to join the debate. This was on October 31 at 3:30 p.m. He said, “ If one of the independent members or a member from the Green Party were to walk in and sit down at this table, they'd be able to join in this debate. This is a debate on a motion. It's not a substantive part of committee policy. Right now we're debating a motion, and they'd be able to join into the debate.” There was various back-and-forth among members about whether a member who is not subbed in can still participate in the debate on the motion. As members know, it is long established and consistent with Standing Order 116 on the application of the general rules of the House to committees that a member should be able to speak as part of a motion, regardless of whether they are subbed in. The chair ruled against the ability of members to do that and, as such, I raised a question of privilege on this matter in committee. I draw members' attention to about the 4:20 p.m. to 4:25 p.m. mark on October 31. This speaks to the second issue of limiting time. I was given the floor to speak by the chair, following a request from the member for Lakeland about the speaking order. It was at that time that I sought to move a question of privilege with respect to the operations of the committee. The member for Lakeland said, “Chair, just so we can all have confidence, can you review the speaking list again?” Subsequently, the chair said that the speaking list was me and then the member for Timmins—James Bay. Therefore, at 4:25 p.m. on October 31, I was able to take the—

538 words

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/4/23 1:34:26 p.m.
Watch

There is a point of order from the hon. member for Kitchener Centre.

13 words

Mr. Mike Morrice

Dec/4/23 1:34:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am here in the House of Commons today to try to make progress on the priorities of my constituents. I understand this is a very serious question of privilege. I have attempted for the last five minutes to listen to what the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is saying and tried to understand how it relates to the original question of privilege being raised, and I cannot see it. Mr. Speaker, can you help me understand the connection between what is being shared right now and the original question of privilege, which was raised an hour and 35 minutes ago?

105 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 261