Finance Committee on May 7th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Genuis.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I'm raising a question of privilege, and I'll start by reading the relevant citations from chapter 20 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice regarding the status of members and the rights of members to speak at committee. It says:

Standing and standing joint committees also have associate members. Associate members may be named to subcommittees and may act as substitutes for regular committee members who are unable to attend a committee meeting. When Members serve on subcommittees or as substitutes for regular members, they enjoy all the rights of regular members: they are counted for purposes of a quorum; they may participate in debate; they may move motions and vote; and, if required, they may submit a notice of motion. The use of associate members on subcommittees helps to reduce the workload of regular members.

The Standing Orders provide that any Member, whether affiliated with a political party or sitting as an independent, may take part in the public proceedings of any committee of which he or she is not a member, unless the House or the committee in question orders otherwise. The Standing Orders specifically exclude a non-member from voting, moving motions or being counted for purposes of a quorum.

Committees often adopt a routine motion that governs the process and time allotted for committee members to question witnesses.

It continues, but the important point is that the Standing Orders and House of Commons Procedure and Practice very clearly establish that associate members of committees duly elected by their constituents have a right to come to participate in committees, and to participate in all aspects of those committees within certain constraints, namely that they cannot vote, move motions or be counted for the purposes of quorum.

I was not seeking to vote, move a motion or be counted for the purposes of quorum, but was raising a point of order. What followed was a denial of my right to speak, followed by various outrageous slanders from other members impugning my approach to committee and my motivations.

The fact of the matter is, though, that I will assert the vital importance of adherence to the rules of the committee. The rules are not invented by the chair, with all due respect. The chair is responsible for enforcing the rules as enumerated in House of Commons Procedure and Practice and in the Standing Orders. The Standing Orders provide that I have a right to raise points of order and I have a right to speak. I was seeking to raise a point of order, and crosstalk only emerged when I was prevented from exercising my rights as a member of the committee.

I want to note, with respect to the health of interpreters, that this question of crosstalk and the impact on the health of interpreters was dealt with extensively at the natural resources committee. The Liberal chair there, George Chahal, initially claimed that the health and safety of interpreters were threatened by crosstalk. He subsequently had to retract that and admit that he had been wrong.

Of course, crosstalk makes it more difficult for interpreters to interpret. That's true. It's harder for them to interpret when there are multiple people talking at once, but it is not a threat to their health and safety. Health and safety issues of interpreters are engaged in other cases—for instance, when there is a loop created with the sound device—and this is well known. I would caution people like Mr. Angus from making things up and saying that something is a problem for health and safety when it's not.

The issue I am principally raising in relation to the matter of privilege is that I have a right to speak at committee. That is clearly established in the Standing Orders. I was denied that right by you a few moments ago.

This does engage my privileges very clearly. The most foundational privilege that members of Parliament have is the ability to speak in committees, and the denial of that privilege does constitute an issue touching on privilege. In that light, I'm prepared to move a motion of privilege that the chair be instructed to prepare a report outlining the material facts of this breach of privilege and present that report to the committee.

I will speak to that matter now.

Briefly, when a member is denied the right to speak, that is a gravely serious issue. All of us are elected, whether we're regular members of a committee or not, and however we come into the room, we have the right to speak and be heard on behalf of our constituents. The established rules and protocols around the privileges of members and the ability of members to speak are not deniable by an individual chair or by a committee acting without the clear adoption of a motion, because of the long-standing principles around these issues.

I know that some of my colleagues may want to come in on this issue of privilege, but I'll say that Speakers' rulings, going back a very long time, have established rules around the right of speakers. The way to have a committee unfold in a productive, effective, respectful manner is to have rules adhered to. I think a chair cannot and should not demand adherence to their will apart from their own willingness to adhere to those rules. This motion of privilege asking for the preparation of a report to the House will allow the committee to re-establish a footing that says all members have a right to speak. All members are duly elected, whether they are regular members or are subbed in.

The key point is that the right to speak as a member in the House or at committee does not emanate from the leadership of one's party. Of course, we understand that systems exist for the establishment of lists that go to the Speaker or for the establishment of memberships of our committees. The various lists that establish members of a committee are submitted from party whips, but the effect of that should not be to prevent members from exercising their privileges. Although party whips establish who the regular members of committees are, those who are not assigned to be regular members of a committee may have an interest in the subject matter of the committee and nonetheless need to have their right to speak protected as part of the proceedings of the committee.

In fact, the House has taken additional steps in some cases, at the clause-by-clause stage of a bill, to allow amendments to be moved by members who are not regular members or members of recognized parties. People may leave their party caucus for various reasons, or they may be elected as independents. Their rights to speak at committee or in the House must still be protected. If we were ever to move away from the principle that the right of participation in committees stems from the status of a person as a member of Parliament and start to instead view it as emanating from their status as being chosen by party leadership, that would reduce members to merely creations of their parties and their party leadership as opposed to representatives of their constituents.

We come in here not principally as representatives of parties or members of parties, but as people who have been selected by our constituents to represent their concerns. Although I'm a regular member of the government operations committee, my constituents may and often do have concerns that relate to the subject matter of other committees, so in the process of not merely exercising my rights as an individual member of Parliament but wanting to represent my constituents, that brings me to wanting to voice the concerns, the ideas and the priorities of constituents by participating in the conversations that are happening in various other committees.

The principle established in the rules is not only that members can participate in the discussions and deliberations that are happening in other committees. It is also an important principle that they have a protected right to participate in the deliberations of other committees. If they did not, it would undermine the core principle of representation, which is about who we're supposed to serve here. This is at the heart of the principle of privilege.

What is privilege? What is the privilege of members to protect? It's not about the assertion of the entitlement of a member to want to do something or not do something; it is about the obligation of members to act on behalf of their constituents and therefore about having the ability to carry out their function as a representative of their constituents.

This is, I think, a clear-cut matter, Chair, and I'm hopeful that if we see the rapid adoption of this matter of privilege, we will be able to quickly return to the main subject matter before us.

I'll leave my comments there. I think maybe Mr. Lawrence had a comment on the question of privilege as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Genuis, are you done?

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

Yes, I'm done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Okay, so MP Genuis—

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

On a point of order, it's “Genuis”. You don't want to give him an attribution that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

You know, I never know how to best pronounce his name.

Can you tell us how to best pronounce your name?

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

Generally in this business, it's worth lowering expectations, not raising them. On that basis, you can go with Genuis or the traditional Maltese Genuis.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Okay.

MP Genuis, first off, let me just reiterate to you and all members, and to those here and those watching, that the paramount priority for me as chair is the health and safety of everybody in this room. The crosstalk, screaming and banging that MP Genuis has demonstrated, not just here today, but many times at this committee, have affected our interpreters.

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

What are you talking about?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Mr. Genuis, please.

We can go look through the video of MP Genuis screaming into the mic at this committee, with the crosstalk.

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

Sure, let's do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Genuis, to say that those antics do not hurt our interpreters and do not cause injury to their health and safety I think is completely wrong.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

If you believe, MP Genuis—

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

The chair is crosstalking. I have a point of order. You have to recognize me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Lawrence, go ahead on a point of order.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

I have a right to speak, guys. I know you wouldn't like it—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I will give my ruling.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

I don't think it's necessary for you to invoke a personal attack, Mr. Chair, on Mr. Genuis. If you want to go through the facts, that's fine. That's your prerogative, but with the personal attacks, I realize it's late—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

This is not personal. I am sticking to the facts. I'm sticking to the point that MP Genuis made that it does not create a health and safety issue when he crosstalks, when he screams or when he does different antics at this committee. Be it MP Genuis or other members, I believe it does affect—

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

I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Please don't crosstalk.

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

It's a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Okay. I'll give you my ruling, but proceed on a point of order, MP Genuis.