SoVote

Dec/4/23 1:00:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, maybe there are more I am not aware of, but my understanding is that we have three former Speakers in this chamber: the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, the member for Nipissing—Timiskaming and the member who is speaking. I think it is important to hear from members with specific expertise on the role of the Speaker who have been Speakers. They understand the pressures on them far more than I do, as I have fortunately never had to take off my partisan colours for any reason. I want to hear what the member's experience is and what he has to say.

107 words

Context: House Hansard - 261 - Dec/4/23

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

Dec/4/23 1:05:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do want to address this question of privilege and speak to the international role of the Speaker, which I do not think has been raised by other members. The primary role of the Speaker, of course, is to preside over this chamber, and impartiality is crucial in his work in that regard. However, the Speaker also represents this chamber in various fora with respect to international work, with respect to Canadian diplomacy around the world. The parliamentary website specifically identifies the role of the Speaker in terms of international work and diplomatic functions. Just this year, a previous Speaker made numerous international trips: at the end of June, a trip to Italy and the Holy See; in April, a trip to Denmark and Sweden; and in March, a trip to Argentina and Chile, for example. The Speaker's impartiality is crucial for their role in international diplomacy and in their work around education and modelling democracy, in some cases, in countries where there are struggles with democracy, where institutions are more vulnerable to capture and to other kinds of pressures and problems. The reality and the presentation of impartiality are critical for a Speaker's work, representing this chamber diplomatically, seeking to promote democracy. I hope that is taken into consideration as well, as the question of privilege is evaluated; that is the Speaker's role internally as well as the Speaker's role externally, speaking on behalf of members and on behalf of the House. Frankly, it is a grave scandal that we would have a Speaker giving the appearance of active partisanship while in his or her position, because that member, subsequently, will be expected to travel to other countries, to speak about our institutions and, in fact, to make the case, in more troubled context, for the importance of impartial institutions, the importance of having independent election authorities, officers of Parliament, etcetera. If the Speaker is compromised with respect to perception of his or her authentic impartiality, if compromised in that perception domestically, it becomes very challenging for that Speaker to fulfill his or her function internationally. It is a critical issue for Canadian democracy, for our own ability to represent our constituents in Canada, but it is also a pressing and important issue in the projection and promotion of our values around the world. Again, I would just encourage you, Mr. Speaker, to take this element of the question into consideration as you prepare for your ruling.

414 words

Context: House Hansard - 261 - Dec/4/23

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

Context: House Hansard - 261 - Dec/4/23

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

Context: House Hansard - 261 - Dec/4/23

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

Context: House Hansard - 261 - Dec/4/23

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

Context: House Hansard - 261 - Dec/4/23

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

Context: House Hansard - 261 - Dec/4/23

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

Context: House Hansard - 261 - Dec/4/23

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

Context: House Hansard - 261 - Dec/4/23

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Dec/4/23 1:42:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, if this is the wish of the House, then I would simply commend to the Speaker the reading of all of the blues that came from the natural resources committee. I will not cite the evidence then if the Speaker is not interested in hearing the evidence, but I thought it might in fact save time—

59 words

Context: House Hansard - 261 - Dec/4/23

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Dec/4/23 1:43:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the point is that the floor was taken away from me. I had the floor, I tried to raise a question of privilege and the Chair said I could not, which I did not agree with. That is one issue in terms of privilege. Secondarily, the Chair then said that he would go to the member for Timmins—James Bay and give him the floor. In the middle of a member speaking who has not moved any motion, which I tried to do but was not able to, when the member has the floor through proper means and the Chair has recognized the member on multiple occasions as having the floor, the Chair cannot simply take the floor away and decide to give it to the next member on the list. That is very clearly imposing a time limit, contrary to Standing Order 116. In this instance, we saw multiple violations of privileges of members through the limiting of their ability to speak, in one case involving the member for Peace River—Westlock not being able to put his name on the list. The Chair, at that time, did not consider it a matter pertaining to privilege, even though it clearly did. Second, when I had the floor, the Chair took the floor away from me. The Chair can review the evidence and see all that. I will raise a final issue, which is that the member for Timmins—James Bay used clearly unparliamentary language in committee, accusing members of lying. This was brought to the attention of the Chair, and the Chair ruled that it was perfectly fine for the member for Timmins—James Bay to use that kind of unparliamentary language under those circumstances. It was really unprecedented that the member for Calgary Skyview, as Chair, would hear members who are part of his own coalition using clearly unparliamentary language in committee and that he would allow those members to persist in using that language. It is quite horrifying and also violates the privileges of members, although maybe it is not as clear whether that is a matter that can be raised in the House and relates to standing orders 116(2)(a) and 116(2)(b), though the first two points very clearly do. Mr. Speaker, you had asked about the appropriate remedy for these violations of privilege. I think there is some clear direction in standing orders 116(2)(a) and 116(2)(b) regarding the remedy that would be appropriate under the circumstances. The Standing Orders again say: (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. Various violations of privilege have occurred in the course of debate on the motion at the natural resources committee. At a minimum, the first remedy I would suggest would be that you nullify subsequent proceedings that took place at the natural resources committee and restore the floor to me, so I can continue with the remarks that I was planning to make at the time. Secondarily, it is a grave problem when we have chairs of committees who show such flagrant disregard for the rules as we have seen by the member for Calgary Skyview. I suggest you call to order chairs of committees who allow unparliamentary language to be used, violate rules and take the floor away from some members. In addition to the remedy specifically prescribed in Standing Order 116(2)(b)—

685 words

Context: House Hansard - 261 - Dec/4/23

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

Dec/4/23 2:12:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, have members ever known people who have said they would have their backs and then immediately folded under pressure, or who said they would be there for them and never were? Canadian workers are discovering that the federal NDP are exactly that. The NDP has the consistency of Alcibiades. The NDP has the strength and steadfastness of a broken felt hat. We have learned that the Stellantis EV battery manufacturing plant in Windsor plans to hire hundreds of foreign replacement workers. EV battery plants will receive more than $40 billion in subsidies. Rather than creating powerful paycheques for Canadians, the Liberals are funding foreign replacement workers with hard-earned Canadian taxpayer dollars. The leader of the NDP initially joined Conservatives in calling for the contracts to be released, but the member for Windsor West has now done a complete 180 and proposed allowing EV companies and unions to redact the contracts. Just a little Liberal filibustering and the NDP is quickly looking for the exits. The Conservatives will stand our ground, defend workers and demand the public release of these contracts. What will the NDP do?

188 words