Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 30th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Colleagues, we are on the subamendment to CPC-4. I'm going to ask the committee to pause for a moment to get clarity.

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

Chair, I have an issue to raise.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We are going to the subamendment to CPC-4, and we'll go to the vote.

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

Chair, I have a point of order to raise. There's nothing in the House order that prevents me from doing that. There is nothing in the House order that prevents it.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Genuis, it cannot be used as debate if it's a point of order.

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

That's correct.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Specifically on the point of order, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I believe this committee should have gone to the full two hours.

I would move that the committee report to the House that the privileges of all members of the committee were violated when the chair limited debate on clause-by-clause of Bill C-50 to less than two hours, in violation of the House order adopted on Monday, September 24, 2023.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

He needs to read the motion, Chair.

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

This is a question of privilege, and clearly the House order does not preclude members raising questions of order or privilege.

Here is the issue. The House prescribed, I think, a very narrow and draconian but nonetheless specific framework within which the natural resources committee would consider the issues before it, namely Bill C-50. That motion prescribed within it that the committee would begin at 6:30 and would be able to meet for two hours, and then at 8:30 the successive voting would be taken up on clause-by-clause.

I think there's an argument that there are privilege issues raised even by that issue. Nonetheless, it was an order adopted by the House. When the House adopted that order, it was very specific about what time the committee had to start. It said “the committee shall meet at 6:30.” The chair provided an explanation for the committee not beginning at 6:30 saying there were technical impediments. Regardless of whether there were technical impediments, whether it was was through mal-intent or simply by accident, the fact is that the House order was not followed. The House order required the committee to meet at 6:30. That did not occur, which was a violation of the directive of the House.

Normally speaking, the privileges of members, which include the right to speak, are protected. They are sacrosanct. The rights of members are prescribed in the Standing Orders, and it is only when the House adopts a special order that those can be abridged. Obviously, we are operating under a special order, but any further abridgement of the rights and privileges of members that goes beyond the special order is a violation of their privileges.

Standing Order 116 specifies the following:

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.

Standing Order 116(2)(b) provides that if the chair, in violation of part one of the standing order, violates the privileges of members—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Genuis, I'm going to have to pause there.

You're getting into debate. This is not a question of privilege. That is my ruling.

We will proceed. That is the ruling of the chair.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I have a point of order, Chair.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We do not debate a ruling.

If a member wants to challenge the chair, I would ask the member to challenge the chair.

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

Chair, I have a right to make arguments about privilege.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Genuis, the ruling has been made.

If a member—

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

Chair, you didn't listen to the argument.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

—would like to challenge the chair, please go ahead and challenge the chair.

A ruling has been made.

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

On a point of order, Chair, members have a right to make arguments about the matter of privilege. You presumed to make a ruling about whether or not it was a matter of privilege before I had come anywhere near the making of arguments—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Genuis, I'll ask you to turn off your mic.

The chair has made a ruling. The ruling is not debatable. A ruling has been made.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Brock, go ahead.

You cannot debate the ruling that's been made. If you want to challenge the chair on the ruling that's been made, you can do so.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I have a point of order.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, chapter 20, page 1060, says:

The Chair of a committee does not have the power to rule on questions of privilege; only the Speaker has that power. If a Member wishes to raise a question of privilege during a committee meeting or an incident arises in connection with the committee’s proceedings that may constitute a breach of privilege, the committee Chair allows the Member to explain the situation.

You have denied the privilege of Mr. Genuis in doing so by interrupting him.

The Chair then determines whether the question raised in fact relates to parliamentary privilege. If the Chair determines that the question does relate to parliamentary privilege, the committee may then consider presenting a report on the question to the House. The report should:

clearly describe the situation;

summarize the facts;

provide the names of the people involved, if applicable;

state that there may be a breach of privilege; and

ask the House to take such measures as it deems appropriate.

Ordinarily, presentation of a report to the House is a prerequisite for any question of privilege arising from the proceedings of a committee.

Chair, you did not allow the member to fully explain the privilege.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Brock, thank you.

I made a ruling. We'll not engage in further debate on that.

Ms. Gladu, go ahead on a point of order.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Yes, Chair.

First of all, let me say that I've never seen anything like this. I chaired a committee for years on the status of women. This is unbelievable.

On the specific point, I witnessed Mr. Genuis being prevented from speaking by numerous interruptions. He was making a motion about a point of privilege when you cut him off.