SoVote

Jun/2/23 10:58:41 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I just want to contribute some facts to the discussion of these questions of privilege that the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan has raised.

28 words

Context: House Hansard - 205 - Jun/2/23

Mr. Daniel Blaikie

Jun/2/23 10:59:11 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as a member of the committee on finance and somebody who was there during the times when the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan alleges there were violations of privilege that went on, I just want to provide a couple of reflections for you, Madam Speaker, and some important facts for you to consider as you deliberate on these questions.

63 words

Context: House Hansard - 205 - Jun/2/23

Mr. Daniel Blaikie

Jun/2/23 1:44:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, prior to question period, I was hoping to weigh in on a question of privilege that had been raised earlier. I thought this might be—

28 words

Context: House Hansard - 205 - Jun/2/23

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

Jun/2/23 1:47:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will try not to be more than a few minutes, but I did want to contribute to the question of privilege that was raised by the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. I took him to have raised three separate questions of privilege, and it may be that he wants to subdivide those a bit more. I do not know, but I am going to respond to what I think were the three major themes of his intervention. One had to do with his ability to move subamendments; another had to do with a vote that was taken on a particular clause that was at issue at committee; and the final one was about drafting for report stage amendments. With respect to his ability to move subamendments, I think it is important for the Speaker to know the following as this question of privilege is deliberated. The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan did mention that the committee had adopted a programming motion by unanimous consent. It was very clear that there was to be no debate during the votes after 4:30 this past Monday. That means that no member was able to get the floor to move a subamendment, so I think it was pretty clear by the terms of the motion. It should not have been a surprise to the member that there would not have been the ability to move subamendments. I think that was foreseen by all members of the committee when they agreed to that programming motion. I would also say that there was, in fact, time to move subamendments, which I think is an important thing to consider with this question of privilege. The committee met last week for about 10 hours to consider clause by clause. During that time, Conservative members of the committee chose to filibuster on a motion they had presented, and that ate up all the time we had to discuss the amendments that had already been presented according to the deadline or to move subamendments to those amendments. That was a choice by members, and the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan substituted in on the committee to be part of that filibuster at one point. There had been warnings. I intervened at the committee to say that we were risking losing the time we had, not only to debate amendments, but also to move subamendments, so I would say, in this respect, the member's question of privilege is a bit like a member who tied themselves to a chair in their own home and then claimed they were physically obstructed from getting to the House of Commons. It may be true, but it is superficially true, and I do not think it is really a matter of concern for the House. I would note also, as the member did, that he submitted his amendments, to the extent he did, after the deadline. On the report stage amendments, he said that he was not aware that the bill would be called for debate today until it was announced in the Thursday question. However, I would say that members should know, and perhaps the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan does not know, in which case that would be tragic and he should be informed, members can contact drafters and ask to have amendments drafted well in advance of the bill being called for debate. All of us who were following the progress of that bill at committee knew that it had passed out of committee on Tuesday night. We knew that it had been reported to the House on Wednesday. There was nothing stopping that particular member from contacting drafters earlier in the process to ensure he had those amendments drafted and ready to go for when the bill was ultimately called. Of course, we knew that, with a bill being reported back to the House from committee on a Wednesday, the first day eligible for debate would be a Friday, so I respectfully submit that the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan knew, or ought to have known, that the bill could be called Friday and had ample opportunity to prepare his amendments. In respect of the missed vote on a clause at committee, there was certainly a lot of disorder in the room going on at that time. I think if we were to go check the video, we would find that the proximate cause of that disorder was the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan when he opened his microphone, took an electronic device and held it to the microphone. He was playing question period into the microphone. One of the reasons that caused so much disorder was, as we know and as we have been told many times, this causes harm to the interpreters. We are not to hold electronic devices playing sound of any kind to the microphone because it hurts people and it is a workplace safety and health issue for the interpreters. There was no reason for the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan to do that. He could have made his point in many other ways, ones that were not damaging to the people who support our work in the House of Commons. The chair asked him to stop. He would not stop, and disorder ensued. I will not belabour that point any further. All that is to say that this was part of what was going on, so there is a reasonable question as to whether the Chair ought to have tried to call a vote in the midst of that level of disorder. However, I would note, and I think it is important for the Speaker to know when deliberating on this question of privilege, that when the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan raised this as a question of privilege at the committee level, the committee agreed, by unanimous consent, to go back and redo the vote on that clause, ensuring that everyone knew we were voting on that particular clause and that they were paying attention during the vote to ensure that all those votes were cast. Those are things that I think are really important for the Speaker to note while deliberating on these points of order. I think the member is referring to certain things that if they had played out some other way might have been quite serious, but the committee was very willing to entertain the legitimate concerns the member raised. I think that is evidenced by our providing unanimous consent to go back to the vote and I think it is evidenced by the programming motion that is at issue in all of this having been agreed to by unanimous consent after being negotiated between Liberals and Conservatives and then being presented to the committee. I think those are all things that really ought to be taken into account, and I suspect they may be things that the member himself may want to contemplate for future instances.

1178 words