Information & Ethics Committee on May 28th, 2024

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

I'm sorry. I'm just seeking clarification, Chair. What does that mean?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

It means I'm going to come back with a ruling on the question of privilege once I look at all of the information that's been presented by Mr. Bains, other information as it relates to what's in the book, and some of the discussion that went on in the past.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Do you mean in a few minutes?

He has to come back now.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

For clarity, it's not I who am going to determine whether there is a question of privilege here. It's only the Speaker who can decide that. What will happen once I come back and determine whether, in fact, I believe that a prima facie question of privilege is to be found here, is that there would be a motion of the committee to proceed and prepare this for the Speaker of the House. That's how the process would work.

At this point, I am not prepared to make a ruling. I'm going to go back and deliberate with the clerk. I will come back to the committee, not within the time period that's prescribed here, but at a later date as well.

If you have a point of order, then go ahead, Ms. Khalid.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

My understanding from the green book and from our Standing Orders is that:

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, a grievance or a matter of debate. If the Chair is of the opinion that the Member’s interjection deals with a point of order, a grievance or a matter of debate, or that the incident is within the powers of the committee to deal with, the Chair will rule accordingly giving reasons. The committee cannot then consider the matter further as a question of privilege. Should a Member disagree with the Chair’s decision, the Member can appeal the decision to the committee (i.e., move a motion “Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?”). The committee may sustain or overturn the Chair’s decision.

The committee can then sustain that decision.

I really would encourage that we come to a conclusion on this sooner rather than later, Chair, as is the precedent set by previous chairs.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay, I appreciate that. I appreciate the information you have provided.

It's also my understanding, Ms. Khalid—and I've confirmed this—that I can take my time to deliberate on this issue. That is what I am prepared to do, given the seriousness of what Mr. Bains has brought up.

I don't have to make a decision right away. That's very clear to me, and I'm not prepared to make a decision at this point. I'm going to come back to the committee in due course after I consult with the clerk. As I indicated earlier, that will not be today.

That's my decision.

On a point of order, go ahead, Mr. Fisher.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I would ask you to consult with the clerk as to whether you have the right to go away and make a decision on this. This decision, according to the green book, has to be made today, so that Mr. Bains knows whether he will or will not be able to move a motion.

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

On what page was that, on the decision?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Brock, Mr. Fisher has the floor.

I am pretty sure that I've already looked into this, and I am certain that no decision has to be made today, that I can come back to the committee. I'm certain of that, Mr. Fisher.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Chair, I have something on the same point of order.

If we can perhaps have a decision as to whether this matter presented to you is a matter of privilege or not, then you can rule on it at a later time.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Well, herein lies the difficulty, as I explained earlier. I am not sure whether it constitutes a matter of privilege. I think it's unfair for that expectation to be placed on me.

When we deal with questions of privilege in the House, oftentimes the Speaker will bring information back, will go back and seek information, either from the clerk or the law clerks, to determine whether it's a question of privilege or not.

If you're asking me to make a decision today, I think, first and foremost, that I don't have to make that decision. Second, I can go back and consult with the clerk and others on whether, in fact, I believe this is a question of privilege. If I do believe that, then I come to the committee, I make that decision, and the committee can move forward in a proper manner. If I decide that it's not a question of privilege, then the committee can move back in a proper format and manner.

I am not prepared at this point, nor do I believe I have to be prepared, to decide on the question of privilege that Mr. Bains has raised.

Go ahead, Mr. Fisher.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you, Chair.

You are right; you aren't asked to judge whether this is a question of privilege. You're not asked to come back at a later date to determine whether this is a question of privilege. You are, however, asked to determine today whether it touches on privilege. That's all the chair's role is, to determine whether this touches on privilege.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Yes, and I think I've already explained myself in that regard. Exactly what you're saying is what I realize and what I understand. If I do determine—and I'm not prepared to deal with that today or determine that today, given the seriousness of the nature of what Mr. Bains has brought up—then I can come back and say at a later point whether I do or don't believe this touches on a question of privilege. Then it will be up to the committee to determine what it wants to do at that point, whether it wants to raise it to the House and then eventually to the Speaker for him to determine.

I understand my responsibility. As much as I understand my responsibility, the option I'm choosing, given the serious nature of this, is to not determine at this point whether it raises a question of privilege or not.

I have to go back to consult with the clerks. I'm going to consult with parliamentary law clerks and then come back and give my determination at that point.

Go ahead, Mr. Kurek, on a point of order.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Just to ensure there is absolute clarity, when it comes to chapter 20, with the subheading “Questions of Privilege in Committee”, it does not, in fact, say that a ruling is required today. Just for those watching and for the edification of all committee members, Bosc and Gagnon's book is very clear that there is not a time limit, although, of course, the reasonable expectation is that it be done expeditiously, and I think we all appreciate that.

I would conclude with this and simply say that I find it troubling that the governing party—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Watch on debate.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

—would push for a decision, which certainly—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Kurek.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

—I think, underlies motives that seem to be nothing more than purely political.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Kurek.

I'm quite clear on the fact that no decision has to be made today and the chair can take his time or her time to render a decision to the committee.

On the same point of order, go ahead, Ms. Khalid.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

On page 623 of the book, it reads:

The proceedings of the House are based on a long-standing tradition of respect for the integrity of all Members. Thus, the use of offensive, provocative or threatening language in the House is strictly forbidden. Personal attacks, insults and obscenities are not in order.

I think, based on what I've heard today, those are exactly the rules that have been broken, so, Chair—

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Barrett—

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

—I challenge your ruling.

[An hon. member]

He didn't make a ruling.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Yes, he did.