SoVote

Dec/4/23 1:09:04 p.m.
Watch

I am trying my best to stick to the facts so this can come forward. Will the member for Saskatoon—University just give the clarification that he wants to give, please.

32 words

Mr. Corey Tochor

Dec/4/23 1:09:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, when I resigned as Speaker, that was before taking part in a partisan meeting, not after. It was not that I got caught being on the video screen at a national event for a partisan party; it was to take part in a federal nomination to be here. I could not take part in that partisan activity with that hat on—

64 words

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/4/23 1:09:41 p.m.
Watch

I thank the member for the clarification. The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

15 words

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Dec/4/23 1:09:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is troubling that we are forced to have this discussion in this place. I will reference another privilege discussion that I observed a number of years ago under a previous Speaker, under a previous government. The reason I reference it will become very apparent shortly. It happened to be an NDP member at the time, who was on the opposition bench in the official opposition under former prime minister Stephen Harper and the then Conservative government. There was a discussion about the privileges of a member being violated because the security guards did not allow ease of access to the chamber in the old Centre Block, which, of course, is a little different circumstance than now. An extended discussion took place about the particular NDP member's ability to access the House of Commons and that in the likelihood that ability was hindered in any way, it would have been a violation of the member's privilege, a privilege that is guarded so dearly. Most people watching would hear of the idea of a question of privilege and probably have many questions about what the big deal is. When it comes to the privileges we have in this place, they are so carefully guarded, because that is the mechanism for which we are able to represent the people who send us here to perform our sacred duties. When it comes to the discussion that took place on that question of privilege on the few moments that an NDP member was unable to enter this place in a timely manner, which could have led to her not being able to perform her duties, there is a direct correlation to the discussion we are having here today because—

290 words

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen

Dec/4/23 1:11:45 p.m.
Watch

I rise on a point of order. I think you know what I am going to say, Mr. Speaker. You have already ruled on this. You have asked for this debate to end and for us to continue with the business of the House. Therefore, I would ask that happen now.

51 words

Rise
Point

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/4/23 1:11:59 p.m.
Watch

I will caution the hon. member to get to the point because there are a number of things I want to get moving on. We are already a little over an hour into this question of privilege. I want to give it its due time, but I also want to take it back and then render a decision in the House as soon as possible as Deputy Speaker. The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

76 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Dec/4/23 1:12:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, not very often will I defend the NDP whatsoever, but I find it interesting that the NDP would be opposed to an example that gets to the very heart of what we are discussing. In that case, it was the physical—

44 words

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/4/23 1:12:38 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is rising on a point of order. I know what he is going to say, and it is about making the point. I did ask the hon. member to make that point. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

48 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

Dec/4/23 1:12:47 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we want to hear a ruling. This is a serious issue. What I am seeing, though, is like allowing a free pass to take partisan shots that are needless. If we are going to have a chamber that does the job of dealing with something as serious as this, I want to hear a ruling. I do not need to see this descend into this kind of partisan gamesmanship. I am asking you to bring the proper focus to this.

82 words

Hon. Mike Lake

Dec/4/23 1:13:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on that point of order, NDP members have stood multiple times now, giving cover to the government. At this point, we do not know what the NDP position is. We know what the positions of two of the parties are on this serious issue. Perhaps the next time the member stands, he can shed some light on whether the NDP is going to continue to cover for the Liberal government.

72 words

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/4/23 1:13:46 p.m.
Watch

I am going to go to the next individual. We are down to the last speakers on this question of privilege. I do want to cut this off because I am fully aware that time is going by. The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.

47 words

Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC)

Dec/4/23 1:14:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on this question of privilege, I wanted to provide some extra information, because, like everyone else, I was shocked when I saw the Speaker in his robes addressing a leadership convention. I wanted to look at the use of the House of Commons resources as described under the bylaws of the Board of Internal Economy. Under “Parliamentary functions”, section 4(1), it says: The funds, goods, services and premises provided by the House of Commons to a Member under the Parliament of Canada Act, this By-law or any other by-law made under that Act may be used only for carrying out the Member’s parliamentary functions. It goes on to say, under “Partisan activities”, section 4(2): The funds, goods, services and premises provided by the House of Commons to a Member may be used by the Member for partisan activities only if those activities fall within the parliamentary functions of the Member. It goes on to say, “Not parliamentary functions”, under section 4(3), “For greater certainty, the following activities, when performed by a Member, are not parliamentary functions.” Clause (b) goes on to say: activities related to the administration, organization and internal communications of a political party, including participation in a party leadership campaign or convention, solicitations of contributions and solicitations of membership to a political party; It further says under “Precision”: For greater certainty, a Member’s parliamentary or constituency office shall not be used as a meeting or organizational location in relation to any of the activities referred to in subsection (3). This is very clear, that all of us are prohibited from using our House of Commons resources, including our staff, our premises, being our offices, for any partisan activity. Here we have the Speaker himself using his office, dressed in his House of Commons Speaker robes, addressing a Liberal provincial leadership election. I lose complete faith and trust in the Speaker for violating the rules that he is supposed to enforce himself.

344 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Dec/4/23 1:16:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention by my colleague from Manitoba. I would simply say this. When it comes to the role that partisanship does play in the House, I, among many others, are known for their partisanship. I do find it troubling that there would be members of this place who would use a debate that is about defending the rights and privileges of members to represent their constituents, including when that partisanship takes place, which is why I very carefully selected the example I did about an NDP opposition member's ability to access the chamber. I make that quick connection to the debate that we are having here today. If members look at the back of their IDs, they will see the very clear rules of privileges and what parliamentary privilege means with respect to accessing the parliamentary precinct. A member's ability to access this place goes beyond simply the physical ability for us to walk into this chamber. It needs to ensure that members are able to, in an uninhibited fashion, trust the institutions and infrastructure of this place, including the role of the Speaker as the arbiter and a non-partisan voice that does not take preference over another. To sum this up very quickly, the actions of the Speaker have called into question whether myself or any other member of this place can truly trust the actions of the Chair to ensure that the role of the Speaker and the sacred obligation that this has within our parliamentary system is maintained. Without that, it devolves into something that truly does abuse our privileges.

270 words

Mr. James Bezan

Dec/4/23 1:18:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, just to add to my comments on the bylaws, I should also draw your attention to section 7, which says: Except as may be approved by the Board and subject to subsection (2), a Member may not use funds, goods, services and premises provided by the House of Commons for the benefit of any person, association or organization, or for the promotion of a product, service or event of any person, association or organization. This is very clear, that when the Speaker addressed the Liberal convention this past weekend, it was to the benefit of a third party. There needs to be actions taken to prevent that from ever happening again.

113 words

The Deputy Speaker

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

SoVote

House Hansard - 261