Evidence of meeting #34 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was documents.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
You are making a very serious allegation, Chair.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
You are accusing me of harassment for asking a very simple question that has not been answered. You are throwing around words with serious meaning, Chair. “Harassment” means something.
Liberal
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
My question through the chair for the witnesses is this: When was the invitation to be at this committee issued?
Director General, Housing Policy Branch, Department of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities
I'm happy to respond.
Maybe where the disconnect is happening is on the format of the invitation.
On this one, it was an email confirmation that the committee would be meeting today. We understood that it was a continuation of the previous meeting. We were asked to be ready should there be a desire for witnesses to be invited and called forward. We appeared today to ensure that if you go into the clause-by-clause, we would be available to support that.
Liberal
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
No, the procedure in clause-by-clause is that you can ask questions of witnesses—
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Chair. I appreciate your understanding.
At this point, I'd like to bring to your attention, Chair, a question of privilege with respect to the responses to questions.
Liberal
Natilien Joseph Liberal Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
In this committee, let's stay relevant and move forward. I would like to ask the witnesses if they feel comfortable with my colleague's behaviour.
Liberal
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I'd like to bring to your attention, Chair, a question of privilege with respect to the responses of witnesses. I don't have the precedents in front of me. I don't have them memorized, but the precedents are obvious and well established. There have been many cases at committees, as well as in the House, in which the failure of witnesses to provide documents or to answer questions has been considered a violation of the privilege of members.
Committees are not just spaces for conversation. They have specific powers as creatures of Parliament. The committees have the right to ask for information, and that is what I have done in this case.
I understand the limitations of public servants. I understand that, especially when they come to committee, they are operating very much under the direction that they've been given by ministers, so they want to stick to constraints that align with their political direction, but that doesn't change the expectation of responses.
In the context of privilege, I also think that this is not just a question. It's an important question in the context of the work and operations that this committee is supposed to be doing. What I'm trying to understand with this question is how we got to a point of the government not announcing and not publicizing their intended schedule and then surprising the committee with a decision to go to a clause-by-clause consideration that was not announced and was not on any meeting notice.
The committee has a right to know, and the public has a right to know, how we got here and what the government is planning to do; they have a right to an explanation as to the lack of accountability that got us here. This is why I have asked the questions of the witnesses, and the record will show very clearly that they have not been answered. I've simply asked when the initial invitation was sent. It was not a question about when confirmation was sent. It was about when the initial invitation was sent.
I understand that public servants are following the business of this committee as it relates to their files, but it's clear to me that public servants don't just show up at committees thinking they might be asked to appear. Those appearances are the result of invitations that come through the chair and parliamentary channels. That has clearly happened, and the witness, for whatever reason, has missed multiple opportunities to answer a simple question of when that invitation was initially issued. This is pretty clearly a matter that touches on privilege.
In the context of privilege, I reviewed some of the committee meetings when I was away. Just to clarify, as the chair has pointed out previously, it is not the chair who rules on matters of privilege. The speaker determines prima facie questions of privilege. The role of the chair is to rule on whether it is a matter touching on privilege.
Following the ruling of the chair, if the chair rules that it is a matter touching on privilege, then a privilege motion proceeds, and the committee can undertake, through that privilege motion, any number of things. The initial step is the question of privilege being raised, as I have done, and then it's up to the chair to rule on whether it is a matter touching on privilege. Clearly, it is.
I look forward to the chair's ruling.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
Thank you, Mr. Genuis.
After listening intently, I rule that the matter you raise does not touch on privilege.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I have more things to say on the main subject. Before I do that, I want to challenge your ruling with respect to the question of privilege.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you for letting me challenge this time.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bobby Morrissey
I ruled that the matter raised by Mr. Genuis was not touching on privilege, and Mr. Genuis challenged my ruling.
We're in a vote, Madame Larouche. We're in a recorded vote on a challenge to the Chair. The committee votes on the ruling.
