Finance Committee on May 22nd, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I'm going to interject.

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

That is one of the Standing Orders.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

There's a point of order.

PS Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I'm sorry. I believe we're still debating a subamendment.

Actually, the subamendment was withdrawn, so there's an amendment on the floor. I'm not sure—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We are on the subamendment.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Yes, it's the new subamendment. I apologize. I misspoke there for a second.

However, I'm not sure what the relevancy of Mr. Genuis's argument is here.

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

I'll bring it back.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

It sounds like he's going back to something that happened yesterday, which doesn't seem relevant to the debate at hand.

Maybe you could bump him gently back into the lane.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, PS Turnbull.

What I will do is clarify for MP Genuis that the Standing Orders state that, if not subbed in, the committee may not authorize the member to speak. It is a committee decision to do so.

There was no implied consent from this committee for you to do so, MP Genuis. I think you understood that. That is the standing order.

You can get on now with the debate.

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

Chair, just on that point of order—I am keen to avoid crosstalk, so I let you finish and now I'll make my comments—you said, “the Standing Orders state”. Then you read some text off your phone, or appeared to behave as if you were reading some text. The text you were reading is not actually text in the Standing Orders. If it is, I wonder if you could cite the specific standing order.

What I just did was say that I was about to read Standing Order 119, and then I proceeded to read Standing Order 119. You asserted an idea, a concept, a doctrine. I mean, it might be what you think the Standing Orders should be, but it's not actually what the Standing Orders are.

Standing Order 119 explicitly says the following:

Any member of the House who is not a member of a standing, special or legislative committee, may, unless the House or the committee concerned otherwise orders, take part in the public proceedings of the committee

What that means is that if there is an order of the committee, one that the committee has adopted and that the committee has voted on, to say that notwithstanding the usual practice, it will not allow associate members to raise points of order or to speak—and the committee may adopt such an order—then that order applies. However, in the absence of an order, the rules established under Standing Order 119 apply. This is what every single other chair in this place knows and has applied.

Now, I think we have a general problem in terms of understanding how rules should apply and what constitutes decorum, because you got very angry at me yesterday and proceeded to make all kinds of disparaging personal comments. I don't take that personally, but I'm concerned about adherence to the rules. You got very angry when I repeatedly tried to raise points of order that simply involved stating the rule that every other chair knows. You don't know that rule, or maybe you don't want to know that rule, but Standing Order 119 doesn't give you the discretion to ignore it.

I hope we don't have this problem going forward. I would like to spend as much of my time as I can on the balance of my remarks. I just think it's important for you to understand that your authority as chair does not come from your arbitrary will. Your authority as chair emanates from the rules. The rules establish that you, as chair, do have certain authority over certain matters. You also don't have authority over other matters. You can't order a member to change their tie colour or to get a haircut or something. That's outside your jurisdiction as chair. You can order a member to take certain action in the context of a committee meeting. When a member moves a certain motion, you can proceed to call it. There are actions that you can take as chair. Those are prescribed by the rules.

What was happening yesterday was that you were kind of demanding adherence to your arbitrary will, even though your arbitrary will was explicitly at odds with what was in Standing Order 119. You characterized my actions in the committee in curious ways. You said that a member can't just barge into a committee, sit down at the table and raise points of order.

Well, actually, a member is welcome to enter a committee meeting. That's what Standing Order 119 says. There are special cases where a special order has been adopted, but a member is welcome to enter a committee room. Any one of my colleagues can go into any committee room.

In fact, it may have just occurred. A member who may not be a regular member of this committee has just walked through the door of the committee room. I would affirm his right to do so. I wouldn't characterize him as having barged in. I would say he has a right to come into the room. He's providing, in fact, an object lesson in precisely the point I'm making. Some would deem his action of bringing donuts as disruptive. I do not. I affirm his right, his privilege, to proceed as he has. If this gentleman were to sit at the table and raise a point of order, again, he would be protected by Standing Order 119 in his ability to do so.

I hope that can be received, Chair, in a spirit of fraternal correction, because I have sensed the hostility you feel. I do just want to challenge all chairs to know the rules.

The rules are what protect your credibility in your position, and you don't have problems of order if you exercise the authority you're given by the rules.

I hope we will be able to operate going forward on the basis of adherence to the rules, and Chair, that you and I will have a more constructive and warm relationship going forward.

I will continue to enter committee rooms and to assert my right as a member on behalf of my constituents to do their work. I am not a regular member of the finance committee, but, nonetheless, my constituents do have an interest in finance issues, and they want me to speak—

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

On a point of order, no doubt, based on Mr. Genuis's comments, I'm able to make a point of order at any time.

I just want to ask for relevance again. Mr. Genuis has gone on for a good length of time about something that happened yesterday, on which, quite frankly, I think you ruled fairly.

I know that Mr. Genuis did not contest the chair's ruling on that; if he had, we could have voted on that. In any case, my main point is, could he get back to the matter at hand, and could you encourage him to stay relevant? There is a standing order on that, which I can cite if you would like.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

You want him to stay relevant—

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I can find that if you need it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Genuis, could you get back to the debate on the subamendment, please.

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

Well, thank you, Chair. It is gratifying to know that my soothing manner has put the committee in a good mood. If only the chair had allowed me to speak yesterday, I might have been able to calm the storm. But here I am now, and Mr. Turnbull won't have to wait any longer, because although I do think my earlier comments were relevant, I do want to speak now specifically about the programming motion.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

On a point of order, Standing Order 11(2) under Order and Decorum speaks to relevance. Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, PS Turnbull.

MP Genuis, go ahead.

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

Thank you.

I want to thank Mr. Turnbull for that as well as the people elsewhere in the room, who no doubt played some role in furnishing him with that so quickly.

I never disputed that such a standing order existed. I was just curious as to whether he knew it. But I will say, of course, that the interpretations of relevance have some latitude, especially when you're responding to previous comments that were made. If a member, say a chair, made a comment and I was responding to comments that were made in a debate, it would be hard to say that responses to previous comments made in a debate were not relevant if those previous comments were deemed relevant.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Can I use the Simms protocol and maybe ask Mr. Genuis whether latitude and discretion for chairs on other standing orders also apply?

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

I do love that the Simms protocol is being cited, because I recall that from the days of our great discussion back at PROC in the 2017 period, when Mr. Turnbull wasn't even a member.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Mr. Genuis, let's take a page out of MP Chambers' book and the way he acted, and let's get on with your debate.

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

I think we're furnishing Mr. Chambers with some great material for his householders, so let me go further and say that every day I wake up and think about how I can be more like Adam Chambers in how I comport myself.

Mr. Turnbull had a clever retort, which I missed. I wonder if we could use the Simms protocol to allow him to say it on the record. It would be a tragedy if that weren't captured by Hansard.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Genuis, PS Turnbull and everybody else, please, for those who are not speaking, enjoy your apple fritter, which came through thanks to Minister Beech.

Now, MP Genuis, please return to the debate.

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

Just on a brief point of order, clearly Mr. Turnbull was making an insult against his colleague Mr. Weiler, who was indeed attempting to be Mr. Adam Chambers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Genuis.