Evidence of meeting #96 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was c-26.
A recording is available from Parliament.
6 p.m.
Liberal
Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC
If I hear well virtually, we were on clause 123. The opposing colleague was speaking, and my colleague Vance asked for a point of order on relevance. Following that was the challenge of the chair's position to go forward.
That matter has been decided. It's been voted on and we need to move on to the next. I don't think we need to go backwards and get more explanation if the chair has already taken a position, his position has been challenged and a vote has been held. That clarifies that matter and it's time to move forward.
Mr. Chair, I would like you to see to it that we move forward and not reiterate what happened in the past.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
6 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you, Mr. Iacono. I would tend to agree.
We're now at the issue of clause 124.
Mr. Strahl, you have the floor, followed by Mr. Kurek, who has also expressed interest in speaking to clause 124.
6 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC
Mr. Chair, I believe that my privileges were actually violated by your not giving me a chance to speak to a clause of a piece of legislation that we are debating by simply calling a vote on it and saying there's no speakers list. By not even calling for debate and simply moving to a question.... How are we to know that we were going to go back into the legislation, when Mr. Kurek was in the middle of debating a motion?
By failing to allow for a debate on a clause of a piece of legislation, you have violated the privileges of all members of this committee. I would like to move a motion that we debate whether or not my privileges were violated by the chair when he refused to call for debate on the previous clause before calling for a vote.
That is the motion that I would move. It's that you have violated my privileges by not allowing us to discuss a clause of this bill by simply slamming the door and moving to a vote.
That is not how we have operated for the entirety of this debate. That is not how we operated for the entirety of our consideration of Bill C-33. To get rammy now and start to push this through in a way that we have not operated in.... I recognize that the chair and the government don't like when members of Parliament in the opposition exercise our rights, use the tools at our disposal to hold the government to account, and move duly accepted and duly moved motions at the time of our choosing, as is our right as members of Parliament. They want to simply end that discussion and move on to something that they would rather talk about.
That is not what the rules allow for. The rules call for members of Parliament to have the opportunity to discuss, debate, consider, amend, propose changes from all sides and then make decisions. It is not for the chair to suddenly say “I call the vote” the very second that Mr. Badawey gets his way and a motion gets shut down.
Mr. Chair, I've always respected your commitment to fairness. I've always respected how you have been neutral in that position, but I can't quite believe what is happening here tonight, where there is a departure and a decision to simply ram these motions through without giving us an opportunity to debate.
You've ruled Mr. Kurek's motion out of order. There is another motion that deals specifically with the transport component of Bill C-26. That motion is in order and does specifically deal with this issue.
It is very clear that the rights and privileges of members of Parliament are protected by our Standing Orders. They are protected, quite frankly, by the Constitution. They are to be limited only in very extreme circumstances.
A privilege motion actually takes precedence. We know this in the House. A privilege motion takes precedence over all other matters. When a privilege motion is moved, all other legislation—anything else before the House—is set aside because the rights and privileges of members of Parliament are to supersede the rights and privileges of the government, which might not want them to be exercised. They are sacrosanct. They are, quite frankly, something that we should be very concerned about when any member, not just those who wear our team colours, is impacted by it.
This is the sort of thing, you can bet, that Liberal members of Parliament, when they were in opposition, would have raised hell about. They would never have accepted this sort of thing, clauses being rammed down our throats without the ability to even discuss them for a minute, or to have a single word brought forward before it was voted on. That supersedes, quite frankly, whether or not the chair is sustained by a vote. This is something that is bigger than that. It is something that touches the very core of what we do in this place.
I know the government is frustrated that there have been concerns raised with Bill C-33. We've heard it in the numerous meetings that we've had with testimonies, none of which spoke about the benefits of the legislation. They were all very critical of the legislation. I know the Liberals didn't like that. They didn't like that we were going clause by clause through the bill. They didn't like that a member of Parliament might want to speak about issues related to the cost of living and the cost of transporting goods. That's the sort of thing that Mr. Badawey shut down with the assistance of the chair.
Standing Order 116(1) states:
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.
It specifically talks about the end of debate. Standing Order 116(2) 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 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.
Mr. Chair, this is a very serious section. It says very clearly, “while there are members present who still wish to participate”, not who are on a list that didn't exist before debate was closed, before it was shut down. This is a very serious issue, and one that we will take very seriously, because, in attempting to get a bill passed by an artificial deadline, there is now clearly a violation of the rights of the members of this committee.
All of the members on the Conservative side of this table were prepared and willing to speak to the clause upon which debate ended artificially. Again, it says, “A decision of the Chair in this regard may not be subject to an appeal to the committee.” Quite frankly, it doesn't matter that once I stop talking there's an attempt to have the chair's ruling sustained, because, again, this is not a matter for a majority vote of the committee. Members' privileges are not subject to the tyranny of the majority. Members' privileges are protected by our Standing Orders, and they are protected by our role to represent the people who sent us here.
It would be quite something if we could, instead of having our rights protected, have our rights dictated to us by the majority of committee members, who find them to be inconvenient tonight. That is, quite frankly, something that we can't tolerate. This is something that should supersede any of the other things that we were going to talk about here tonight.
We have seen time and time again how there has been an attempt to shut down debate. We know that shutting down debate has been done in the House of Commons a record number of times.
There is a process in place for shutting down debate. In their election campaign in 2015, the Liberals promised they would never use the rules of the House to shut down debate. We've seen them break that promise time and time again, both in a majority and with the help of the NDP in a minority government. They've done that on numerous occasions. Hundreds of times they've shut down debate, but that is by a motion. That is using a process that is in place. The Speaker doesn't simply get up and say, “Debate is over. We're having a vote right now.” That is all—
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you, Mr. Strahl.
I appreciate your comments on this. You have raised that you feel this is a point of privilege.
My ruling is that it is not a point of privilege.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
I am ruling right now, Mr. Kurek. I'll finish my ruling and then I can turn the floor over to the next person who raises their hand.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
I am responding to Mr. Strahl and ruling on his point of privilege.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
I am able to do that according to the clerk, who is next to me and who shares the rules with me.
I am ruling—
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
—that it is not a point of privilege.
As the chair of this committee, I manage the speaking list. On over 122 clauses so far—
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
—I have been very diligent to ensure that the list has been followed. In this particular instance, I had no names on that list and I went to a vote.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Immediately following that, I turned the floor over to Mr. Strahl to address clause 124 because he had raised his hand to address clause 124.
That is the ruling, and I now turn it over to committee members on that ruling.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Thank you, Chair.
With the utmost respect to you as the chair occupant, and of course to our exceptional clerks who operate in the House, I would refer you to page 154 in chapter 3 of Bosc and Gagnon, 2017, which talks about privileges and immunities:
Unlike the Speaker, the Chair of a committee does not have the power to censure disorder or decide questions of privilege. 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.
Chair, with all due respect to you in that role, Mr. Strahl was still speaking, and I believe you have a speaking list on the point of privilege that he has raised. To ensure that we are operating in accordance with the rules and procedures of this place and the privileges and immunities associated with us as duly elected members of this caucus, the debate should be allowed to continue, as is very clearly articulated in the rules that help make sure that all members, including members of the government, backbench party members, opposition and otherwise, are able to do the job we've been sent here to do.
6:15 p.m.
Bloc
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
I'll recognize Mr. Barsalou-Duval, but I'm just conferring with the clerk really quickly.
I'll turn it over to Mr. Barsalou-Duval on a point of order.
6:15 p.m.
Bloc
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In fact, I noticed that there are five Conservative MPs at the committee today. I know that there is nothing to prevent there being more MPs present than the quota that must be adhered to, to ensure equitable representation of the parties when it comes to votes. However, it is important for us to know which of the MPs around the table are entitled to vote and which are not. Otherwise, it could cause confusion for committee members.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.
I am going to ask Mr. Strahl to confirm that the Conservatives who are voting are Mr. Strahl, Dr. Lewis, Mr. Lewis and Mr. Muys, and that Mr. Kurek is not voting.
Is that right, Mr. Strahl?