Debates of Dec. 4th, 2023

Alleged Limiting of Members' Ability to Speak at Committee

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I will use my line here, and I need to make people aware that when they bring a question of privilege to the floor, the role of the Chair is to decide whether the matter merits priority over all other business. In making their preliminary arguments, members should briefly explain the background and the main facts that give rise to the question of privilege. The focus should be to demonstrate that there is sufficient evidence of a prima facie case.

I would ask the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan to make the case that this is actually a question of privilege, or we will have to move on.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the point that privilege has priority in this House. The Standing Orders do provide that when there is an issue at committee that involves the rights of members to speak, the ability of members to not be interrupted, the imposition of time limits and contravention of the rules or the orders adopted by that committee, that it is an issue that can be brought to the House. This is a new standing order: Standing Order 116(2)(a) and Standing Order 116(2)(b). It is new material in the Standing Orders, so the member for Winnipeg North and other members may not be familiar with it. It does not have, of course, the same history as other provisions because it is new.

However, this clearly violated the privileges of members. It is being brought to the House because Standing Order 116 specifically invites members to bring such matters to the House. There were multiple instances, in fact, where the member for Calgary Skyview limited the ability of members to speak, interrupted them and stopped them from being able to move forward. I will go through those examples for your consideration, Mr. Speaker, and then look forward to your ruling after that.

The member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands highlighted that in his view, the member for Peace River—Westlock should be able to join the debate. This was on October 31 at 3:30 p.m. He said, “ If one of the independent members or a member from the Green Party were to walk in and sit down at this table, they'd be able to join in this debate. This is a debate on a motion. It's not a substantive part of committee policy. Right now we're debating a motion, and they'd be able to join into the debate.” There was various back-and-forth among members about whether a member who is not subbed in can still participate in the debate on the motion. As members know, it is long established and consistent with Standing Order 116 on the application of the general rules of the House to committees that a member should be able to speak as part of a motion, regardless of whether they are subbed in.

The chair ruled against the ability of members to do that and, as such, I raised a question of privilege on this matter in committee. I draw members' attention to about the 4:20 p.m. to 4:25 p.m. mark on October 31. This speaks to the second issue of limiting time. I was given the floor to speak by the chair, following a request from the member for Lakeland about the speaking order. It was at that time that I sought to move a question of privilege with respect to the operations of the committee.

The member for Lakeland said, “Chair, just so we can all have confidence, can you review the speaking list again?” Subsequently, the chair said that the speaking list was me and then the member for Timmins—James Bay. Therefore, at 4:25 p.m. on October 31, I was able to take the—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

There is a point of order from the hon. member for Kitchener Centre.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am here in the House of Commons today to try to make progress on the priorities of my constituents. I understand this is a very serious question of privilege. I have attempted for the last five minutes to listen to what the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is saying and tried to understand how it relates to the original question of privilege being raised, and I cannot see it. Mr. Speaker, can you help me understand the connection between what is being shared right now and the original question of privilege, which was raised an hour and 35 minutes ago?

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Yes, this is on a committee question of privilege. I am looking at the hon. member and hoping that he can make his point quickly enough because we do have a couple of other things that we would like to do before question period.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of matters that happened at the natural resources committee. I am going through them, but it is important to say that there were multiple instances and multiple ways the chair violated the privileges of members, in violation of Standing Order 116. Just to clarify for my esteemed colleague—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

We have a point of order from the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons has 20-some standing committees and there are all sorts of things that take place in the standing committees. My concern is that the member is trying to set a precedent here by bringing something when there is no report that has come from the standing committee. Therefore, this could be used as a potential tool going forward, which would be very destructive to the discussions and the debates that should be taking place in the chamber.

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you have the member get right to the point. It should not be taking 15 or 20 minutes. Maybe he could try to curtail it to two or three minutes so that we can get on to what I understand is yet another question of privilege and then another point of order from the Conservative Party.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned that the member opposite who just spoke is not taking seriously that members were not allowed to speak at committee, and that the committee chair ignored the whole situation. That is why it had to be brought here to the House.

Hopefully we can come to a quick resolution. Perhaps the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan could table all the different examples for your review, sir.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I would appreciate maybe having a conversation with the hon. member afterwards, to get the specific points. I would hope that the hon. member would get specifically to the accusations that he has, and what the remedy might be, knowing full well that we have a couple of other questions of privilege that we would like to get to as well.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, please get to the point.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am doing my best but I am constantly interrupted.

Standing Order 116 directs us to bring these matters to the attention of the House. I believe the member for Winnipeg North supported the addition of Standing Order 116(2)(a) and (b). This was a proposal from the previous government House leader, I believe. He could propose further changes to the Standing Orders, if he does not believe that members should be able to bring these matters to the House.

Here is what happened at 4:25 p.m. on October 31, at the natural resources committee. I began to speak. I was given the floor. The chair said that he was going to ask all members; there was myself and then the member for Timmins—James Bay. I began to speak. At the time I said that I would seek to move a privilege motion at committee regarding the breach of privilege for the member for Peace River—Westlock. I said that the chair had breached his privileges by refusing to allow him to speak on Bill C-69.

I would ask the Speaker to review the record regarding the breach of privilege as it pertains to the member for Peace River—Westlock.

This is not the only instance. At 4:25 on October 31, I took the floor and spoke to the matter of privilege. There were various repeated interruptions as I sought to make the argument. I, nonetheless, continued to make the argument in the midst of those various efforts to silence those arguments regarding the privilege.

The chair did not, at the time, issue a specific ruling about whether or not this was, in his view, a matter pertaining to privilege. As members know, if a question of privilege is raised at committee, the chair then makes a determination, if he sees it as being a matter relating to privilege. If he deems it to be so, then a debate ensues on privilege.

The chair did not specifically say that he considered it a matter pertaining to privilege, although my understanding at the time was that it was a matter pertaining to privilege and he had deemed it so, because he allowed the debate to continue.

Again, I go to, at 5:05, the chair, the member for Calgary Skyview saying that I had the floor, where I left off. At that point I continued and the debate continued. Actually, it continued through until the end of the meeting on October 31, and then it resumed, the same meeting of the natural resources committee resumed on November 1. I still had the floor.

The chair said that when we concluded the last meeting, I had the floor and he wanted to provide me the opportunity, and asked whether I would like to cede the floor or continue. I said that upon serious reflection of the matter, I had decided I would like to keep the floor because I had more to say and would do so.

Thus, I continued on the point. This was on November 1. Subsequently, the chair, I gather having maybe learned some rules that he had not previously been aware of, and of which there are a good many, said much later—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I know the committee has been in this debate since, I believe, October 30, the day before my birthday, including my birthday and a whole bunch of days after it. I just want to say that if we are going to read the account of what is happening in there, I think it would be best if I go back and read through the Hansard.

I wonder if the hon. member could get to what the remedy could be and what his request is for this question of privilege.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will skip forward to give the highlights.

The chair then retroactively ruled that the matter that we had been discussing for more than a day was in fact no longer a question of privilege. He said that given that committees are empowered to limit the participation of non-members, it was his opinion that the objections raised by the member constituted a point of order and did not touch on parliamentary privilege.

Therefore, the chair prevented me from moving the privilege motion. I did not agree with—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader on a point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is becoming somewhat laughable and very serious at the same time. The Speaker just asked the member to point out a remedy. Everything he is quoting is already in Hansard; the Speaker can reference it. I would ask that he listen to his last instruction from the Speaker and get to the point of the matter as opposed to continuing with a filibuster on the floor of the House.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I agree with the hon. member in this particular case. There are a couple of other things we need to hit: the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton has a point that we would like to address and the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman has a comment on a previous point.

I am going to ask the hon. member to get to the remedy.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan has the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, if this is the wish of the House, then I would simply commend to the Speaker the reading of all of the blues that came from the natural resources committee. I will not cite the evidence then if the Speaker is not interested in hearing the evidence, but I thought it might in fact save time—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

It is not that I am not interested in hearing the evidence. It is that I know there is a lot of evidence there, so if the hon. member was going to quote all of the evidence, we would be here until next Thursday. I really do not want that. I am responsible to the hon. members and the order we have and the agenda we are trying to keep.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan may continue.

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

Mr. Speaker, the point is that the floor was taken away from me. I had the floor, I tried to raise a question of privilege and the Chair said I could not, which I did not agree with. That is one issue in terms of privilege. Secondarily, the Chair then said that he would go to the member for Timmins—James Bay and give him the floor.

In the middle of a member speaking who has not moved any motion, which I tried to do but was not able to, when the member has the floor through proper means and the Chair has recognized the member on multiple occasions as having the floor, the Chair cannot simply take the floor away and decide to give it to the next member on the list. That is very clearly imposing a time limit, contrary to Standing Order 116.

In this instance, we saw multiple violations of privileges of members through the limiting of their ability to speak, in one case involving the member for Peace River—Westlock not being able to put his name on the list. The Chair, at that time, did not consider it a matter pertaining to privilege, even though it clearly did. Second, when I had the floor, the Chair took the floor away from me. The Chair can review the evidence and see all that.

I will raise a final issue, which is that the member for Timmins—James Bay used clearly unparliamentary language in committee, accusing members of lying. This was brought to the attention of the Chair, and the Chair ruled that it was perfectly fine for the member for Timmins—James Bay to use that kind of unparliamentary language under those circumstances. It was really unprecedented that the member for Calgary Skyview, as Chair, would hear members who are part of his own coalition using clearly unparliamentary language in committee and that he would allow those members to persist in using that language. It is quite horrifying and also violates the privileges of members, although maybe it is not as clear whether that is a matter that can be raised in the House and relates to standing orders 116(2)(a) and 116(2)(b), though the first two points very clearly do.

Mr. Speaker, you had asked about the appropriate remedy for these violations of privilege. I think there is some clear direction in standing orders 116(2)(a) and 116(2)(b) regarding the remedy that would be appropriate under the circumstances. The Standing Orders again say:

(2)(a) Unless a time limit has been adopted by the committee or by the House, the Chair of a standing, special or legislative committee may not bring a debate to an end while there are members present who still wish to participate. A decision of the Chair in this regard may not be subject to an appeal to the committee.

(b) A violation of paragraph (a) of this section may be brought to the attention of the Speaker by any member and the Speaker shall have the power to rule on the matter. If, in the opinion of the Speaker, such violation has occurred, the Speaker may order that all subsequent proceedings in relation to the said violation be nullified.

Various violations of privilege have occurred in the course of debate on the motion at the natural resources committee. At a minimum, the first remedy I would suggest would be that you nullify subsequent proceedings that took place at the natural resources committee and restore the floor to me, so I can continue with the remarks that I was planning to make at the time.

Secondarily, it is a grave problem when we have chairs of committees who show such flagrant disregard for the rules as we have seen by the member for Calgary Skyview. I suggest you call to order chairs of committees who allow unparliamentary language to be used, violate rules and take the floor away from some members. In addition to the remedy specifically prescribed in Standing Order 116(2)(b)—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

We have enough information to review this. We will try to come back as soon as possible on this. When we specifically look at nullifying, “If...such violation has occurred, the Speaker may order that all subsequent proceedings in relation to the said violation be nullified”, we need to look closely at what has happened and Standing Order 116. I thank the hon. member for his intervention.

I will go to the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton for his question of privilege.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, having given the appropriate notice pursuant to Standing Order 48(2). It pertains to a breach of a committee order of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for the production of documents regarding the incident in the galleries on September 22, during the address by the Ukrainian president. That incident, of course, involved the recognition by the Speaker of a former soldier of the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS.

It is an incident that brought enormous shame on this House. It caused significant international embarrassment and enormous hurt to Jewish Canadians and, indeed, Jews around the world. It showed a total lack of respect for the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces, who fought valiantly in World War II, including 45,000 Canadians who gave their lives to secure freedom and to defeat the evil Nazis. It demonstrated disrespect to the memory of six million Jews who were murdered at the hands of the Nazis during the Holocaust.

This incident in the galleries constituted perhaps the greatest in a long list of international embarrassments caused by the Prime Minister, who is himself an international embarrassment.

In order to get to the bottom of this egregious incident that happened under the watch of the Prime Minister on September 22, I moved a motion at the procedure and House affairs committee. For some context, I will read the relevant parts of the motion.

It called for the production of documents. More specifically, at paragraph (B), it provided as follows:

...an order do issue for all e-mails, memoranda or other documents transmitted between the Speaker’s Office or the House of Commons Administration, on the one part, and any government department or agency, including the Prime Minister’s Office or any other minister’s office, as well as the House Leaders of all recognized parties and their offices, on the other part, in relation to the Address of the President of Ukraine, including but not limited to reference to the name “Yaroslav Hunka”, and the arrangements concerning it, provided that these shall be deposited with the clerk of the committee, in both official languages and without redaction, within ten days....

That motion was adopted after considerable obstruction by the Liberals on the procedure and House affairs committee, no doubt to shield the Prime Minister from accountability for this embarrassing incident. It was adopted nonetheless, at the end of November. I do not have the date, but I can assure the Speaker that the deadline, the 10-day period for documents to be produced, including from the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister's Office, came and went as of December 1.

Conservatives complied with the motion—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think it is really important to recognize that there is no report from the standing committee. Therefore, it is questionable that the member would stand up and have a privilege issue when there does not seem to be any issue that he can raise.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Yes, I would ask the member to report that. Speakers have consistently ruled that, except in the most extreme situations, they will hear questions of privilege arising from committee proceedings only upon presentation of a report from the committee that deals directly with the matter.

I would ask the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton to get to that particular point, so I can rule one way or another.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, to your point about exceptional circumstances, that is consistent with a ruling of Speaker Fraser on March 26, 1990. I would submit that if there ever were an instance in which there are exceptional circumstances, it is in regard to this matter.

This, after all, goes to the heart of the administration of the House and protocols that were breached, causing enormous embarrassment to all members.

On that basis, I would submit that the failure of the Prime Minister's Office and the PCO and other relevant departments controlled by the Prime Minister to turn over documents within the 10 days is a matter that is quite appropriately raised in the House in the absence of a committee report. An extraordinary set of circumstances led to the commencement of this study in the first place. Moreover, I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that this resulted in the resignation of the former speaker, indeed, underscoring the degree to which this matter is extraordinary.

Before I was interrupted by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, I would note that the power—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member has still not justified this. The member is talking about something in order to try to amplify it as if it justified this, but that is somewhat debatable at the very best. There is no report. Therefore, the member should not be rising to make his case at this point. Once the report is actually tabled, then he would be in a much better position to do so.

Letting the member continue encourages the abuse of our tradition inside the House. Even given a quote from 30-plus years ago, it is not justified.