SoVote

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

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/4/23 1:35:09 p.m.
Watch

Yes, this is on a committee question of privilege. I am looking at the hon. member and hoping that he can make his point quickly enough because we do have a couple of other things that we would like to do before question period. The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

53 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Dec/4/23 1:35:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of matters that happened at the natural resources committee. I am going through them, but it is important to say that there were multiple instances and multiple ways the chair violated the privileges of members, in violation of Standing Order 116. Just to clarify for my esteemed colleague—

56 words

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/4/23 1:35:43 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 1:35:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons has 20-some standing committees and there are all sorts of things that take place in the standing committees. My concern is that the member is trying to set a precedent here by bringing something when there is no report that has come from the standing committee. Therefore, this could be used as a potential tool going forward, which would be very destructive to the discussions and the debates that should be taking place in the chamber. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you have the member get right to the point. It should not be taking 15 or 20 minutes. Maybe he could try to curtail it to two or three minutes so that we can get on to what I understand is yet another question of privilege and then another point of order from the Conservative Party.

145 words

Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC)

Dec/4/23 1:36:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned that the member opposite who just spoke is not taking seriously that members were not allowed to speak at committee, and that the committee chair ignored the whole situation. That is why it had to be brought here to the House. Hopefully we can come to a quick resolution. Perhaps the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan could table all the different examples for your review, sir.

74 words

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/4/23 1:37:01 p.m.
Watch

I would appreciate maybe having a conversation with the hon. member afterwards, to get the specific points. I would hope that the hon. member would get specifically to the accusations that he has, and what the remedy might be, knowing full well that we have a couple of other questions of privilege that we would like to get to as well. The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, please get to the point.

75 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Dec/4/23 1:37:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am doing my best but I am constantly interrupted. Standing Order 116 directs us to bring these matters to the attention of the House. I believe the member for Winnipeg North supported the addition of Standing Order 116(2)(a) and (b). This was a proposal from the previous government House leader, I believe. He could propose further changes to the Standing Orders, if he does not believe that members should be able to bring these matters to the House. Here is what happened at 4:25 p.m. on October 31, at the natural resources committee. I began to speak. I was given the floor. The chair said that he was going to ask all members; there was myself and then the member for Timmins—James Bay. I began to speak. At the time I said that I would seek to move a privilege motion at committee regarding the breach of privilege for the member for Peace River—Westlock. I said that the chair had breached his privileges by refusing to allow him to speak on Bill C-69. I would ask the Speaker to review the record regarding the breach of privilege as it pertains to the member for Peace River—Westlock. This is not the only instance. At 4:25 on October 31, I took the floor and spoke to the matter of privilege. There were various repeated interruptions as I sought to make the argument. I, nonetheless, continued to make the argument in the midst of those various efforts to silence those arguments regarding the privilege. The chair did not, at the time, issue a specific ruling about whether or not this was, in his view, a matter pertaining to privilege. As members know, if a question of privilege is raised at committee, the chair then makes a determination, if he sees it as being a matter relating to privilege. If he deems it to be so, then a debate ensues on privilege. The chair did not specifically say that he considered it a matter pertaining to privilege, although my understanding at the time was that it was a matter pertaining to privilege and he had deemed it so, because he allowed the debate to continue. Again, I go to, at 5:05, the chair, the member for Calgary Skyview saying that I had the floor, where I left off. At that point I continued and the debate continued. Actually, it continued through until the end of the meeting on October 31, and then it resumed, the same meeting of the natural resources committee resumed on November 1. I still had the floor. The chair said that when we concluded the last meeting, I had the floor and he wanted to provide me the opportunity, and asked whether I would like to cede the floor or continue. I said that upon serious reflection of the matter, I had decided I would like to keep the floor because I had more to say and would do so. Thus, I continued on the point. This was on November 1. Subsequently, the chair, I gather having maybe learned some rules that he had not previously been aware of, and of which there are a good many, said much later—

547 words

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/4/23 1:40:47 p.m.
Watch

I know the committee has been in this debate since, I believe, October 30, the day before my birthday, including my birthday and a whole bunch of days after it. I just want to say that if we are going to read the account of what is happening in there, I think it would be best if I go back and read through the Hansard. I wonder if the hon. member could get to what the remedy could be and what his request is for this question of privilege.

89 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Dec/4/23 1:41:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will skip forward to give the highlights. The chair then retroactively ruled that the matter that we had been discussing for more than a day was in fact no longer a question of privilege. He said that given that committees are empowered to limit the participation of non-members, it was his opinion that the objections raised by the member constituted a point of order and did not touch on parliamentary privilege. Therefore, the chair prevented me from moving the privilege motion. I did not agree with—

91 words

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/4/23 1:41:47 p.m.
Watch

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

14 words

Secretary

SoVote

House Hansard - 261