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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
I recognize your point of order. Do you have a point of order right now? What is the point of order?
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
The point of order before the last vote.... That vote didn't happen.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
You overruled Mr. Genuis—fine, fair, I accept that. I said “point of order” clearly.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
No, we weren't. I said it before the vote. Check the Hansard.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
I wish to challenge your ruling that I didn't say “point of order”.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Okay, there's a challenge.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)
Shall clause 490 carry?
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Chair, I would like to raise a question of privilege, which members are actually required to do at the earliest reasonable opportunity.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
We are back.
MP Genuis, you have a question of privilege. What is your question of privilege?
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Chair.
Really, the most foundational right of members in this place is the right to vote. There are extensive protections that are established in terms of the right of members to vote. I did want to be able to raise this quickly, given that I think a violation of privilege has taken place, even though I don't have all the precedents in front of me around this.
I do recall a number of rulings, though. One was by the previous speaker, when a number of members were not able to vote simply because they were not able to get to the vote in time because the buses weren't running. At the time, the Speaker of House, Speaker Regan, granted a prima facie case of privilege. Members were prevented from doing their job simply because the buses were not getting there in time.
That is one example I can recall. I think there would be many examples where various Speakers and committee chairs have recognized the centrality of members' right to vote and that right being unfettered.
I would also add, in terms of understanding the right to vote as it exists in our parliamentary tradition, that the right to vote is an individual right. It's not dependent on membership in parties. It's not dependent on what one's own party may or may not be doing. If a member of the same party is engaging in activity that is disruptive to another member's ability to vote.... I don't think that's what was happening in this case, but even if that was your view of it, the fact is that the right of a member to vote is individual.
The committees exercise delegated authority from the House, which means that the rights that exist for members in the House ought also to be protected by members in committee. In this case, the role of committee members voting in committee should, I think, not be seen as materially different. I mean, it's different in certain respects, but not substantively in terms of the privileges of members. The ability of members to vote in the context of committee should be afforded the same fundamental protections as the right of members to vote in the context of voting in the House. That's the right to have unrestricted and unfettered access to the place where the vote is taking place. It's the right to exercise their vote without being blocked in any way from doing so. These are all foundational to the rights of members of Parliament.
They're foundational because this is what makes us members of Parliament. There are many activities that we engage in that other people can engage in or that are potentially optional for us, but the most core thing our constituents send us here to do is to vote on their behalf—that is, to be their voice through the voting process and cast their ballot for them in the House and in committee, on their behalf.
We had a situation take place at the finance committee earlier this day where members were trying to raise points of order. There were clearly disputes among members, as well as between members and the chair, about the appropriate process for raising those points of order. There were various members saying “point of order” at the same time. There were, simultaneously, some audio and translation issues. The point is that points of order were being raised at the time members were speaking. Other members who did not have the floor were sharing thoughts off-mike back and forth with members. There was considerable noise in the room.
In the midst of that environment, members were trying to raise points of order and had concerns about whether the committee should be suspended or not because question period was, at the time, about to begin. The chair first told one member who was raising a point of order that the member could not raise the point or order. He said that it was a matter of debate, and then he said that we were proceeding to a vote.
That member continued to try to raise the point of order; meanwhile, multiple other members were, at the same time, raising points of order. In spite of the general level of noise and discussion in the room, and despite the fact that members were raising points of order about what was taking place, the chair made the decision to proceed with the vote.
This was an environment in which I could not hear what was being voted on, even the initial question that led to that. Members didn't have an opportunity to indicate how they thought the vote should proceed. The chair called the vote after members had already begun to raise points of order and when there were multiple members who were trying to raise points of order at the same time.
The chair then proceeded with the vote. I'm not sure what the status of interpretation was at the time, but I suspect that members were not able to hear the votes that were going on because some members were, I think, still of the view that we were not into consideration of a vote, that we were into consideration of points of order.
Members then went through and were instructed to vote. I believe maybe some members voted, but a number of members did not vote during the vote that was taking place, so they may not have been aware of what was being voted on. Other members were in the middle of speaking, trying to raise points of order and other members in the....
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
I think debate on the matter of privilege has collapsed, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
No, I'm still speaking, but the chair is not in the chair, and I'm trying to make arguments to the chair.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
If you're speaking, you have to be audible, or it doesn't count.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
The irony is that I'm raising a question of privilege. I'm trying to make arguments to the chair about my privilege. Maybe there's a vice-chair. Is the vice-chair available to assume the chair?
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for returning to the committee.
I'll now continue with my arguments about privilege—
Liberal
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I'm not finished with my point of privilege, Chair.
I was outlining the series of events—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
The chair's heard enough of your point of privilege, so I have a good understanding—
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
May I finish the set of facts, Chair?
There were a number of members in different situations. Mr. Morantz was asked for his vote. He said, “I think we're on points of order.” The matter was not clarified. The clerk simply bypassed him after he had raised the issue. I can say for myself that I was in the middle of raising a point of order. I think Mr. Lawrence has already said that he had a point of order that was happening at the same time, and Mr. Hallan as well. You had multiple members in different situations who were not able to vote, who were prevented in their right to vote, and this is a serious matter of privilege.
I would submit to you, again, in the interest of minority rights, the rights of members of Parliament to be heard and to vote on behalf of their constituents, that this is a serious matter of privilege, and I would ask that you take it under consideration and report back to the committee. There may be other members who wish to add to this question of privilege.
This is an important matter dealing with the right of members to vote, so I hope the committee will uphold the right of members to vote and identify an appropriate remedy, because we are not here to just express our own opinions. We're members of the “deliberate assembly of one nation”, as Burke said, and we have a responsibility not just to articulate what we think, but to be the reasoned voices of our constituents and to exercise our considered judgment and reflect their voices in the things we say and the arguments we make in our defence of the rules and procedures in this place in the way that we seek to uphold the integrity of this institution.
We may at times be called upon to forcefully defend the functioning and the integrity of this institution, but that all comes back to the right to express ourselves—yes, in speech; yes, through putting various proposals on the table; but, most fundamentally, members have the right to vote. This is well established in rules and precedent. Members need to be able to vote and to access places where voting takes place unfettered. I think the facts of the case we dealt with earlier today.... I don't know if there were members of other parties who were affected—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Mr. Genuis, I'm just going to interrupt you. I've heard a lot. I've heard enough, I believe, to—
Conservative