44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 2, 2023 10:00AM
- Jun/2/23 10:08:43 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, just logically, I am confused by the arguments from the member for Winnipeg North. He is saying that the Speaker is, in his view, about to make a ruling, and, therefore, that the member should wait to hear the Speaker's ruling before making arguments that would be material to the Speaker's ruling. It seems to be quite logical that members would want to make arguments to the Speaker prior to the Speaker's ruling, in order to inform the Speaker in their deliberations about what ruling they are going to make.
The Standing Orders are also explicit about the fact that oral arguments may be part of the deliberations around which amendments are put forward. Standing Order 76 describes not only the procedure whereby members may write to the Speaker, but also the procedure whereby members may address or be called upon to address the Speaker with oral arguments. It is fairly rare that we are in the situation where this is necessary, but insofar as the situation is necessary, the procedure being followed by my colleague, the member for Calgary Forest Lawn, is clearly anticipated by the Standing Orders.
200 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I do think it is material to the requirements here that the government made a last-minute change to the schedule with respect to the calling of Bill C-47. Members became aware of it for the first time in the Thursday question, which was very late in the day yesterday.
I understand that it is common for members to write to the Speaker in advance, and that is ideal, but it is ideal under circumstances in which members have sufficient time. As I am going to raise in a question of privilege shortly, there was a mad scramble, which limited the rights of members in terms of submitting amendments. Therefore, some degree of recognition of that fact is important in this case, in light of the fact that the government is trying to limit the ability of members to move amendments and make arguments by these last-minute changes to the schedule. I hope that is part of the consideration as well.
165 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/23 10:19:38 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it was actually a point of order on the process for raising points of order during points of order. This member has, on multiple occasions, interrupted a point of order. When another member is raising and explaining a matter of order, his point of order should not take precedence over an existing point of order on the floor.
I think he has also failed to take note of the fact that the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South's point of order was distinct from the point of order raised by the member for Calgary Forest Lawn.
His objection may have had some relation to the previous point of order, but it does not have any relation to the one currently being raised.
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/23 10:24:06 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I recognize the correctness of everything you said, but I would add that there is an exception to the Standing Orders in terms of the Speaker's power as it relates to what happens at committee. Standing Order 116(2)(b) reads:
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 believe that may have been where the member was going. I am not entirely sure but, certainly in my own view, there were things that occurred at the finance committee that were in violation of Standing Order 116(2)(a), which is referenced in Standing Order 116(2)(b). Therefore, I think those arguments can at least be made, given this particular and admittedly very unique exception to the Standing Orders that allows matters from committee to be brought directly to the attention of the Speaker.
190 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to raise a question of privilege in relation to a number of issues respecting the process on Bill C-47 that I believe violate the privileges of members. I will identify at least three distinct situations, or areas, where the privilege of members of Parliament, in my view, was violated in the process of disposing of this bill. I will begin with just a few relevant references to contextualize this.
The discussion of privilege in Bosc and Gagnon, at page 57, reads:
It also refers to the powers possessed by the House to protect itself, its Members and its procedures from undue interference so that it can effectively carry out its principal functions which are to legislate, deliberate and hold the government to account. In that sense, parliamentary privilege can be viewed as the independence Parliament and its Members need to function unimpeded.
At page 59, it states, “The House has the authority to assert privilege where its ability has been obstructed in the execution of its functions or where Members have been obstructed in the performance of their duties.”
Page 60, meanwhile, elaborates on the concept of contempt, saying:
Any conduct which offends the authority or dignity of the House, even though no breach of any specific privilege may have been committed, is referred to as a contempt of the House. Contempt may be an act or an omission. It does not have to actually obstruct or impede the House or a Member; it merely has to have the tendency to produce such results.
Then, at page 81 of the third edition, House of Commons Procedure and Practice states, “There are...other affronts against—”
286 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/23 10:30:43 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, with due respect to my friend from Winnipeg North, he is clearly not even paying attention. I have raised an issue of privilege, and he is welcome to make arguments about it—
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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
- 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
- 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
- Jun/2/23 10:44:19 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have important points to raise. I think it is evident, from the sound of my voice, that I have a sore throat. I asked the member for Edmonton Manning to come over here and then I requested he get me a glass of water, as he has just graciously done. The fact that this is being used by the member for Winnipeg North is grossly unfair.
I am trying to execute my responsibilities, in spite of the state of my voice, and I am trying to do my job as a member—
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/23 10:45:03 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would welcome the members who have returned.
The programming motion did not mention an exclusion of subamendments. I, as a member of Parliament, believe that it is consistent with my privileges to be able to propose some amendments at the committee stage. The right to move subamendments flows from what is referenced in Standing Order 116, namely that “the Standing Orders shall apply so far as may be applicable”. That is Standing Order 116(1).
This is the first violation of privilege. Standing Order 116(1), which prescribes the right of members being applicable from the House in committee, was not applied in the process of the determinations made at committee, and the Chair made a ruling to not allow subamendments, which were not mentioned in the motion. Having read and reviewed the motion in detail, it makes no mention of whether subamendments could be moved.
In another respect, we saw a violation of privilege in members' right to speak around the ability of members to raise points of order. Although the ability to raise points of order are distinct from points of debate, a member's ability to raise points of order, to identify violations of order that have occurred at committee, can be reasonably seen to flow from the provisions established in 116(2)(a). It says that the Chair may not limit the ability of members' right to speak and that violations of such right may be brought to the attention of the Speaker. This was also a matter that was violated.
Further, we saw a violation of privilege in the rights of members to vote. The sacredness of the rights of members to vote is well established. Every time members have faced impediments in their ability to vote or have been blocked in their ability to vote, and we have seen various instances of this have been raised, including things that are on their face trivial, such as limits to transportation, that have obstructed the ability of members to get to the House, the House has ruled in favour of members in the importance of their privilege and of their right to vote.
At committee, we saw it happen at approximately 3:15 p.m. on Tuesday during considerations of the budget bill. What we saw—
386 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, just to clarify, I was conceptually grouping the violations of privilege that had happened at committee. I think there were a number of violations of privilege that happened at committee.
The second issue, and this was raised as a question of privilege at committee, does touch on 116(2)(b), and that is the right of members to be able to vote. It is the right of members to be able to raise subamendments that was limited, which is a matter of privilege of members. It was the right of members, as well, to be able to vote at committee.
I remember the time this happened because the points of order were in relation to the finance committee continuing to sit during Question Period. At 3:15 p.m. on Tuesday, members were trying to raise points of order with respect to the fact that the finance committee was continuing during Question Period. While members were raising those points of order, the chair, in spite of that, proceeded pushing through to have votes take place, which a number of members were not able to participate in.
This was raised at the time as a violation of the privileges of members, and it has obviously materially impacted the bill that is before the House. This is also an issue of privilege, the rights of members to vote on something as critical as the budget implementation bill was limited by the process that unfolded at committee. This is a matter that should be of grave concern to all members.
I would just say as well that the subamendments that we wished to raise were substantive and were in fact submitted to the clerk in advance. Admittedly, they were not submitted in time for the deadline for the submission of amendments, which was Friday, May 19, however, they were submitted in advance of the consideration of those amendments. It would be impossible to submit subamendments to amendments unless those amendments had already been seen.
There would be no way to submit subamendments and get those subamendments in time for the amendment deadline, because members obviously have to be able to see the amendments in order to be able to then move the subamendments.
There were a limited number of subamendments that were emailed to the clerk. Many of them were emailed in both official languages. The clerk had them. They could have been moved. They should have been moved. It would have been a matter of privilege for members to be able to move those subamendments. They were prevented from doing so by a ruling of the chair. That ruling was challenged, but a majority of the committee did not choose to uphold the privileges of members.
It is in those circumstances, the right to move subamendments and the right to be able to vote, that I have raised this question of privilege in the House.
There is one very distinct issue of privilege, as well, that is important to raise, because it deals with what happened after the committee, that is with the process for being able to move report stage amendments and the process for being able to bring those report stage amendments to the House.
There are various services available to members in the drafting of amendments, the drafting of subamendments and the drafting of report stage amendments. These services are particularly important for members of the opposition. The reality is members of the government, when it comes to drafting amendments, subamendments and report stage amendments, have resources available to them that are associated with being in government that members of the opposition do not have available to them.
It is important for members of the opposition, especially, to be able to access those resources in a timely way that corresponds to the calendar of being able to bring these issues before the House. The right of members to be able to do that in a timely fashion depends on the ability of members to receive support from the House in order to be able to bring those things forward.
I became aware, yesterday afternoon, of a last-minute change in the schedule. This was in response to the Thursday question, after Question Period, moved by the Associate Minister of Finance, when he told the House that Bill C-47 would be brought forward to debate. He said tomorrow, which is today, Friday. At the time, I immediately sent my draft of the subamendments that I had wanted to move at committee, that I would like to move at report stage.
My view is that, given that they could not be moved in committee as a result of the ruling of the chair that subamendments could not be moved, they could then be moved in the House as report stage amendments.
Therefore, I sought the assistance of the appropriate legislative staff in preparing those subamendments and I immediately sent those in following the Thursday question, at which point we were provided information saying, where we thought we would have a bit more time, that this was required immediately.
850 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/23 10:56:48 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I just want to be able to finish this third point. It is the final point and I will wrap it up as quickly as I can.
The issue is that I sent six distinct subamendments to the House of Commons drafting service and I asked that these be generated as report stage amendments, which was a request that I sent in as soon as I was able to, following the announcement of the change in the timeline. At that point, I expected to be able to receive that information back from our legislative staff at least by 6 p.m. so that I could put them on notice by the deadline, by 6 p.m., so that we could get the report stage amendments in and that at that point they would be on notice so that they could be moved. I did, in fact, send a letter to the Speaker making my argument. I did all the things that I could within the very tight timeline that I had.
However, of those six subamendments that were submitted to the legislative staff, I only got one of them back. Therefore, my request for drafting was only honoured in one out of six cases. I want to be very clear that I am not criticizing the staff. The staff here work very hard; they do their best within very tight parameters but it is a question of how many staff were available and it is a question of the resourcing that was available. These raise questions of privilege for members who should be entitled to move those report stage amendments. I wanted to move those report stage amendments—
281 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/23 12:07:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Liberals have wreaked havoc on our immigration system. Canadians and prospective Canadians who play by the rules are being forced to wait for years, while the integrity of our system is threatened by unscrupulous consultants and an incompetent government.
Conservatives have moved a motion at the immigration committee to get to the bottom of a scandal in which the government issued visas based on fake college acceptance letters and then tried to punish the victims instead of the scammers. My question is for the chair of the immigration committee: After Liberals and New Democrats shut down debate on this issue, does the committee have plans to study the impact on students of the government's failure to properly enforce Canada's immigration laws?
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/23 12:17:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I raised a question respecting committee agendas. I will note page 512 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice specifically says that members may raise questions concerning matters before committee and that those questions are directed toward the committee chair. Page 512 reads:
Questions seeking information about the schedule and agenda of committees may be directed to Chairs of committees. Questions to the Ministry or to a committee Chair concerning the proceedings or work of a committee, including its order of reference, may not be raised. Thus, for example, a question would be disallowed if it dealt with a vote in committee....
The question I raised was very clearly dealing with the agenda of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. I will note various examples that are in the footnote: “for example, Debates, May 20, 1970, pp. 7126-7; November 4, 1981, p. 12499; March 9, 1987, p. 3955”. Various points continue.
The footnote continues:
In the 2008 example, the Liberal House Leader rose...on a point of order and asked the Speaker if someone other than the Chair of a committee could respond to a question concerning the agenda of a committee. The Speaker advised that his role is to “take a look at those who are standing to answer and choose who is going to answer”. He indicated that he had recognized the Government House Leader because he was the only Member rising to respond and that it seemed preferable for the Member asking the question to get an answer than none at all.
However, in this particular case, there was no opportunity given for the chair or vice-chairs of the committee to rise. Sadly, the right of members to raise questions to committee chairs is becoming in practice almost irrelevant because, every time members have raised these kinds—
311 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/23 12:19:54 p.m.
- Watch
Respectfully, on the facts, Madam Speaker, I believe someone may have been trying to get the attention of the Chair online. I cannot say for sure, because I was not online and I am here, but I—
38 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
