Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 30th, 2023

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

This is death by delay, just like everything else the NDP-Liberals do.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Colleagues, I am going to suspend for a few moments until the clerk can get the information back to us.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I call the meeting back to order.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I have a quick point of order, Chair, if you don't mind.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We have a point of order on Mr. Angus's point of order.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

No. It's a separate point of order, Mr. Chair. I'm just—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Can we rule on it first, if it's separate point of order? Unless it's on Mr. Angus's point of order.... The clerk has advice for the committee based on the question asked.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

For sure.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Okay. I'll ask the clerk to provide advice based on Mr. Angus's point of order.

[Miriam Burke]

So—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Chair, perhaps I could....

I'm sorry, Clerk. Thank you.

Maybe you could remind everyone what Mr. Angus's question was. There have been so many stops and starts.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I think that will be answered.

Go ahead, Madam Clerk.

[Miriam Burke]

According to the book, if an incident arises within the committee's proceedings that may constitute a breach of privilege, anybody can raise it if it's considered to be an incident of the committee's.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We have Mr. Patzer on a point of order.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Chair, because there was lots going on here at the start, when my colleague moved his motion, I believe I had raised my hand for the speaking list.

I'm just curious whether you can confirm who the next two or three speakers are on the speaking list for this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

After Mr. Genuis, it's you, Mr. Patzer.

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

Thank you, Chair.

If there are no further points of order for the time being from Mr. Angus, I'll continue with my remarks. I'm grateful for that opportunity.

Chair, before I was interrupted I was talking about the way in which the term “privilege” is colloquially used and contrasting that with what privilege means in the particular context of a parliamentary process.

The privileges of parliamentarians, by contrast with the way the term “privilege” is typically used now, are not the assertions of individual entitlements. Rather, they are in many respects the assertion of the opposite; that is of the particular tools associated with obligations for members of Parliament, who are conduits for magnifying the interests, priorities and concerns of the people in their constituency.

We protect the rights of members of Parliament. We protect the privileges of members of Parliament, not because they are special, but because the people they represent are special and deserve to have their voices heard in the House. That is why we talk about privilege, because our ability as members of Parliament to do our job is the essential vehicle through which constituents, the people who live in our communities across the country, are able to have their priorities, concerns, etc., reflected.

We have responsibilities as members of Parliament to be representatives of the common good of our constituents, and we have tools that allow us to fulfill those responsibilities. If members fail to take seriously their responsibilities, then they will likely not continue in their roles; but if members are denied the tools that allow them to fulfill their responsibilities, perhaps because of the actions of other members of Parliament, perhaps because of other administrative or incidental factors, then the voices of the people they are supposed to be representing are absent from this place.

I would extol members, in their consideration of this question of the privileges for the member of Peace River—Westlock, to think of this not particularly as a matter in a colloquial sense of the privileges of the member for Peace River—Westlock, but rather to think of it as the just rights of the people of Peace River—Westlock, and their right to be heard in Parliament through their duly elected member. When the member for Peace River—Westlock is obstructed in his ability to fulfill his responsibilities as a member, then in fact the people of Peace River—Westlock have been obstructed in their ability to be heard.

This is foundational to every concept of representative democracy that we speak of here, not in our own right, but we speak here because we have been sent here by the people we have a sacred trust to serve as their representative. Of course, as their representatives we exercise our own considered judgment. We are not merely delegates of hostile interests, to paraphrase Burke. We owe our constituents both our industry and our judgment, and so we don't cease to be independently thinking, operating, considering individuals.

We frame our considerations of these matters with reference to the common good of our constituents, and we always consider, evaluate and work with an eye to the interests, well-being and common good of the people within our constituencies, which isn't quite the same as their interests, but that's maybe another conversation for another day.

I'm being particular in my choice of the phrase “common good”.

This is the basis of our system of representative democracy. It's the responsibilities we have as members of Parliament and the fact that we need tools to use them. Therefore, when members of Parliament assert, “This is my privilege”, “My privilege has been violated” or “I want my privileges protected”, this is not the same as a private person making those assertions. Rather, it is a sense of responsibility from constituents that leads people to raise these issues.

As such, it is not only the right of members who feel their privileges have been violated to raise these matters of privilege, but they have a responsibility to do so. If my colleague from Peace River—Westlock or other members who have at times felt their privileges have been violated would passively allow chairs, committees or incidental events to disrupt them in their ability to do their jobs, then they would be in fact denying their responsibility to their constituents.

We not only have a right to assert the doctrines of privilege when violations of privilege emerge, but we actually have, I believe, a responsibility to assert those doctrines of privilege. It is through that assertion that we protect our ability to serve our constituents.

Also, I think we are seeking to preserve the structure of our representative democracy for our future constituents and for future citizens in our areas and other areas because we see here the power of precedent. If processes unfold that violate the privileges of members and they become commonplace, are allowed to take place and are ignored, then those violations of privilege themselves become precedent that will perhaps facilitate other instances where privileges are violated. This is the process by which there can be a gradual erosion of the strength of our representative democracy and a move to something less than the authentic fulfillment of what that system is supposed to be.

Privilege, as I have said today, is not—

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Can I just confirm that I am now on the speakers list? If I'm not, could I be placed there?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Would you like to be added to the speakers list?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Yes, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Genuis.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Chair, I wouldn't want to be accused, like I was earlier—or someone was—about not speaking into their mike, but of course the question of—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Do we have a point of order, Ms. Stubbs?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Yes, it's a point of order on the question about our colleague speaking. I think that's where this all started. That's great that you're putting him on the speaking list.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you for your point of order.

We just want to make sure that members acknowledge the chair if they do want to be put on the list. A member did, so it's acknowledged. Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Genuis.