Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 30th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Do you have a point of order, Mr. Genuis?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

It's on the same point of order my colleague just raised.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Do you have a point of order?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

It's on the same point that was just raised.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Do you have a point of order?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

It's on the same point that was just raised, so yes, of course.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Okay, just say you have a point of order and I'll give you the—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

It's not a new point. It's on the point that was just raised.

I want to quote from chapter 3 of Bosc and Gagnon on the issue of privilege in committee proceedings, because I think there is, respectfully, some confusion—not from my colleague, of course. There is some confusion elsewhere about how privilege is supposed to be dealt with at committee. I'll read the passage. It is of some length, but I think it will help members.

It states:

Since the House has not given its committees the power to punish any misconduct, breach of privilege, or contempt directly, committees cannot decide such matters; they can only report them to the House. Only the House can decide if an offence has been committed. Speakers have consistently ruled that, except in the most extreme [cases], they will hear questions of privilege arising from committee proceedings only upon presentation of a report from the committee which deals directly with the matter and not as a question of privilege raised by an individual Member. As Speaker Milliken indicated in response to a question of privilege raised in 2003 concerning the disclosure of a confidential draft committee report: “In the absence of a report from the committee on such an issue, it is virtually impossible for the Chair to make any judgment as to the prima facie occurrence of a breach of privilege with regard to such charges”.

Most matters which have been reported by committees have concerned the behaviour of Members, witnesses or the public, or the disregard of a committee order. Committees have reported to the House on the refusal of witnesses to appear

I'll skip down to this next section:

Should a Member wish to raise a question of privilege in committee, or should some event occur in committee which appears to be a breach of privilege or contempt, the Chair of the committee will recognize the Member and hear the question of privilege, or, in the case of some incident, suggest that the committee deal with the matter. The Chair, however, has no authority to rule that a breach of privilege or contempt has occurred. The role of the Chair in such instances is to determine whether the matter raised does in fact touch on privilege and is not a point of order.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We have a point of order, Mr. Genuis. I am going to Monsieur—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I am on a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We have a point of order by Mr. Simard.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

This is a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Yes, and he's allowed to have a point of order on your point of order.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Chair, you made a decision, your decision was challenged, and we voted on it. Now we're going back over a decision that's been adopted.

Our rules are clear to everyone. Some members may speak when we have guests or witnesses. We may yield our speaking time to a colleague when we hear from witnesses. However, when we debate a motion, only MPs who are members of the committee may speak. That's the way it is everywhere. You said so. Madam Clerk said so too. Now we're having an entirely futile debate—I have no idea where it's headed—that's going back over a decision that you made.

Consequently, I'd like the clerk to tell me if what I'm saying is true. Can someone—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I have a point of order.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Are committee members the only ones who can speak to a motion? Can all MPs speak to a motion? That means that, if there are 15 Bloc Québécois MPs, each one of them may speak to a motion. I don't think it works that way. So we're going to get some clarification and then perhaps move on to something else.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

First, I want to address Mr. Simard's point of order.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I was in the middle of my point of order when you interrupted me so he could give his point of order. Then you let him finish, even though I [Inaudible—Editor].

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Genuis, he is allowed to make a point of order, so you can wait until you're acknowledged.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Am I allowed to make a point of order?

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

If you can wait, the floor will go back to you in a second.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Chair, should we suspend or are we suspended? What's happening?