- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan
- Alberta
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $170,231.20
- Government Page
- Mar/20/24 4:10:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to add my comments and agree with the question of privilege that was raised.
In general, what happened on Monday night was a gross and disgusting violation of the principle of the House being a deliberative assembly of members. The fact that the government put forward a last-minute, very substantive amendment, which was not at all debated in the House, is disgusting, and it would not be acceptable in any legislature around the world. It was particularly unfair, for the reasons my colleague explained, to our francophone colleagues because of the lack of translation available.
In general, the timeline and the process presented by the government seemed to try to reduce Parliament to pageantry and theatre, rather than recognize our substantive role as the deliberative assembly of one nation in both official languages. This was wrong and unfair in general, but it was particularly unfair to our francophone colleagues. I hope you will find in favour of this question of privilege.
166 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 3:17:40 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could clarify the rules with respect to the cases in which members are expected to apologize for a violation of the rules and the cases in which members are not required to apologize.
I note the difference between the treatment of a member of the NDP caucus during question period and that of a member of the Conservative caucus this morning, even though the violation by the member from the NDP caucus was evidently much more egregious.
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 3:17:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder if you could clarify the cases in which an individual is expected to apologize for a violation of the rules and when an individual is not expected to apologize for a violation of the rules.
During question period, a member used unparliamentary language and was not expected to apologize. Meanwhile, earlier today, a member of the Conservative caucus was forced to—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
76 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- 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
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 10:24:06 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
- May/8/23 11:25:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is actually a different point of order.
The Speaker, prior to question period, made it clear that doing indirectly what we cannot do directly, which is accusing someone of lying or calling someone a liar, is a violation of the rules. The member just got up and said that what had been said by the member was not true. I think he should be forced to apologize and withdraw that comment or be prevented from speaking henceforth.
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
