Evidence of meeting #94 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
MP Lawrence, this has to be on a different matter. It cannot be on the same matter.
We're with MP Lawrence.
MP Genuis, turn your mike off, please.
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Thank you.
My point of privilege relates to the privilege that I had taken from me. I understand your set of facts; I want to put mine on the record.
In the way that I perceive things, you are correct. There was some disruption. We were heading towards a vote and Mr. Genuis raised a point of order—rightfully so—which you called debate, which it was not. It was a point of order.
You were in an obvious hurry and a rush to get to a vote. I think that's clear. I said at least once, or I think multiple times—the record would show—“point of order”. That point of order was not recognized. It is an obligation of the chair to recognize points of order as they come in, provided it is prior to the vote.
If you look at the Hansard or the video, whichever you wish, it's clear that I said it before the vote. Regardless of whether we do a redo on the vote, which we are appreciative of, it does not ameliorate the fact that my privilege was violated.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you.
Again, I will let you know that I did not hear you, MP Lawrence. There was a lot of disruption going on at the time.
I'm glad that members have agreed to find a way forward and to move back to address that vote.
Members, are we ready to go back to clause 489?
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
On a point of order, Chair, Mr. Morantz made a point about the rules that has not been addressed. It was that when a question of privilege is raised, the chair must make a ruling on the question of privilege. You said a ruling was made and it was challenged. No, you did not make a ruling on the question of privilege that I raised and there was no challenge on that ruling, so I think there's some confusion.
The rule Mr. Morantz read says that when a matter of privilege is raised, the chair must make a ruling on that matter. It doesn't have to be right away, but the chair has to make a ruling on it. Then the committee can consider actions for going forward if the chair rules that it does, in fact, relate to a matter of privilege.
You said that it was addressed, but I don't think it was addressed. I think we're still awaiting your ruling.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
MP Genuis, I believe it was addressed. That's how we got to the UC to be able to go back to that vote.
Now we have MP Blaikie.
2:55 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
When we talk about the matter of privilege that was raised, my understanding is that the matter was raised that there was a vote going on while some members were trying to make a point of order, so not all members were aware of the vote going on, and some didn't get to cast their vote.
To raise a question of privilege at the earliest opportunity is a good thing to do. Part of the reason why you're supposed to do that is that justice delayed is justice denied, and it gives an opportunity, in this case around the committee table, not just for the chair but for the committee to respond to what happened and to try to provide a remedy.
In this case, the committee has agreed by unanimous consent to redo the vote that first gave rise to the question of privilege. You may care to return later with a ruling, but the fact that the committee was willing to provide an immediate remedy, which was to return to the vote and do the vote again, I think would be relevant to whatever ruling you may make at a later time.
As far as I'm concerned, I'm satisfied that, first of all, there was an issue. I'm not saying who was to blame. There was a lot going on. I think it would be useful if members on all sides kept their mouths shut when their colleagues have the floor for a point of order, because sometimes we have Conservatives calling points of order during a point of order being made by one of their very own colleagues. They should give each other the respect of hearing each other out when the other has the floor.
In this case, I would say that the process is working. The question of privilege was raised at the earliest opportunity, and that created grounds for an immediate remedy. If we could proceed to take the vote on that clause again, I think we would have addressed the legitimate concern within the question of privilege, and then we should be able to carry on with the business of the committee.
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I want to speak on that point, Chair.
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Chair.
The rules say some specific things, and we have to be guided by the rules. I'm a big stickler for that concept, because the rules protect our privileges. They protect our democratic institutions, and they prescribe the mix between majority and minority.
To what Mr. Blaikie said, the reality of the rules is that it is not for committees or chairs of committees to provide the remedy. If there was a matter of privilege that was violated, then the chair's responsibility would be to rule as to whether or not a privilege is engaged, whether or not it's a matter of privilege, which is a form of the prima facie privilege ruling that the Speaker makes. After that, the committee may consider a report to the House, which brings the matter of privilege to the attention of the House.
Now, the chair may rule that it is a matter of privilege, but the committee may decide not to report it to the House. The committee can consider other options at the time, but the chair has to make a ruling on privilege. It is not for the chair to provide the remedy. It is for the Speaker and it is for the House as a whole to provide that remedy.
I think it is reasonable that the committee is allowing this vote to take place again. I think that's probably something the committee would take into consideration in determining whether or not to report this matter to the House, but to say that the committee has come up with a remedy or that the chair has come up with a remedy is just not consistent with the rules in terms of the way these things are supposed to be adjudicated.
Second, I remain unclear about whether the chair has actually made a ruling. The chair has to say whether or not this is a matter that engages with the privileges of members. The chair said at certain points that he had made a ruling. Mr. Blaikie said that the chair may make a ruling later on. The chair must make a ruling, and he must be clear about what his ruling is. Then the committee will proceed on the basis of that ruling. It's a simple thing. There's no way to get around it; it is established in the rules.
We need to hear a ruling from the chair on the matter of privilege, and then the committee can decide whether to dispose of this matter by referring it to the House or by taking other actions. The committee has options available to it, one way or the other. The matter of privilege, however, requires a ruling, which the committee will then consider, and—
3 p.m.
Conservative
3 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
All right. Thank you for your attention, Chair. I appreciate it very much.
The chair will make a ruling, I hope, and then the committee will decide how to deal with it.
Chair, I await your ruling.
If you think you have made it already.... I'm not the only one who thinks you haven't, because Mr. Blaikie referred to the possibility of a future ruling, so if you intended to make a ruling, I think that was missed by people from more than one party.
We await your ruling on the question of whether or not the privilege of members was involved. Again, members also have the right to add to that question of privilege once it's on the floor, as Mr. Blaikie did. Other members may wish to add their reflections on the issue of privilege prior to the ruling being made.
3 p.m.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
If I could just add a little clarity too, I actually perceived there being two violations of privilege. One, the Conservatives were not allowed to vote, and two, my point of order was ignored. If we could get rulings on both those, that would be helpful.
3 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, MP Genuis and MP Lawrence.
Again, back to the book, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, 2017, at page 1060, says:
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.
That is for the committee to determine.
Okay, so now—
3 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Chair, did you rule that it is a matter of privilege?
3 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
It is a matter of privilege for members to be able to vote.
Now, during the time when you made a point of order, I dealt with your point of order, in my opinion. I dealt with your point of order, and from there we moved, as our motion says, straight back to clause-by-clause and to a vote. I did not hear MP Lawrence's point of order on top of whatever point of order you had going on. I don't even know if you can have a point of order on top of a point of order as that point of order is being said. There was, as we said, a lot of disruption here in the room. There was a lot of noise.
I am glad that members.... It is your privilege, as it is all members' privilege, of course, to be able to vote, and I believe, in my opinion again, that members had that opportunity to vote. I looked at each of the members as we went through the vote with the clerk. I think I named each member for that opportunity to vote. Some members may have decided otherwise.
That being said, I'm glad that members have come to a unanimous consent to go back and move to the vote in question, which was clause 489, and that we can go to that vote at this time.
Shall clause—
3 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Chair, is your ruling that the question of privilege engages a matter of privilege?
Maybe the clerk can advise the committee, but there is a specific formulation. You've said many things, so are you ruling that, yes, this is a question that engages the privilege of members?
3 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
I'm ruling that members have, of course, the privilege to vote, and I just took you through the steps in terms of what I saw, from my vantage point, taking place. You had a point of order. I ruled on that point of order. You got into debate. I moved back to where our motion says we have to go into clause-by-clause and go directly to a vote. I went into that vote. There was a lot of disruption going on at that time.
MP Lawrence says he came up with another point of order. I did not hear that, and we moved to a vote. Through that vote, members did vote, and it was a recorded vote. I believe—and we could look back at the record—that I called out members. I believe I called out your name, MP Genuis, MP Hallan—
3 p.m.
An hon. member
Chair, can we suspend for a bathroom break, please?
3 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
I do believe I called out each of the members' names, and at that point they still decided not to vote.
3:05 p.m.
Conservative