SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

Member of Parliament

Garnett Genuis

  • Member of Parliament
  • Member of Parliament
  • Conservative
  • Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan
  • Alberta
  • Voting Attendance: 67%
  • Expenses Last Quarter: $170,231.20

  • Government Page
Context: House Hansard - 311 - May/8/24
Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)
  • May/8/24 8:32:25 p.m.
  • Watch
moved: That the prima facie contempt concerning the People's Republic of China's cyber attack against Members of Parliament be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
31 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 205 - Jun/2/23
Mr. Garnett Genuis
  • Jun/2/23 10:31:35 a.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-47 
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!
  • star_border