Debates of June 2nd, 2023

Alleged Breach of Privilege at Committee

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Simcoe—Grey is rising on a point of order.

[Terry Dowdall, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Madam Speaker, I just want to say that what is being said here is very important. I had the opportunity to substitute into finance committee, and I saw what happened that day. It was extremely frustrating for democracy.

My point of order on this is that I think it would go quicker if the member opposite would perhaps not rise so often. We could get through this important point of privilege—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South is rising on a point of order.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be brief. Having been at the finance committee, I know the violation of privilege happened. This is totally separate and distinct, as I mentioned earlier in my point of order, from the point of order on the allowance of amendments at report stage.

Points of privilege are, of course, incredibly critical to the functioning of the House. If the rules and the privileges are violated, it is incredibly challenging for the system and Parliament to continue.

I do not believe he is taking an unreasonable amount of time. The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is simply laying down the appropriate citations, which any good lawyer would do in the court and, certainly, a parliamentarian would do here.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members that this is a question of privilege, and on questions of privilege, the parliamentarian who is raising the question of privilege should be brief and concise, and to not go into the motions, the discussions that have happened or the goings-on at committee.

If the hon. member could be brief and concise about where his privilege was breached, that would improve my ability to better review the information to see if further debate needs to be done on it. A decision could then be rendered.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Madam Speaker, if the parliamentary secretary does not like hearing questions of privilege raised, my suggestion would be that the government not violate the privileges of members. There would then be less of a need for questions of privilege to be raised in the House—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would just ask the hon. member to go directly to his question of privilege and to be brief and concise.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be. The point that I was making, and the reason why I think taking note of the motion at finance committee is important, is that Standing Order 116(2)(a) says, “unless a time limit has been adopted by the committee or by the House”. The committee did adopt a motion that prescribed time limits. However, that motion did not establish time limits in the way the Chair was applying them.

I have read most of the motion from the finance committee, which I think establishes the point that, after 4:30 p.m., on Monday May 29, it was agreed that the questions would be put. It was also agreed that amendments were to be submitted to the committee by Friday, May 19.

However, and this would be clear if I had read all of it, but it should be clear enough, and members can take my word for it if they wish, the motion before the finance committee made no mention of the exclusion of subamendments. It is well-established procedure in the Standing Orders and the rules that members may move subamendments to amendments once they are on the floor. I did not propose to speak to the subamendments, but I did, on multiple occasions, seek the opportunity to move subamendments at committee—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We have another point of order.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, you requested that the member be concise, brief and to the point. I have listened, as you have, for the last minute, and I have no idea what point the member is making as a case of privilege. He is filibustering—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

This is not a point of order. I do want to allow the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan to provide his breach of privilege, and I would ask him to go directly to that breach of privilege.

As I have indicated, it is not just about me. There are many rulings I have in my hands. When it comes to breaches of questions of privilege, all of the speakers have indicated that it needs to be brief, concise and to the point. I would ask the hon. member to get to his question of privilege.

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Perth—Wellington.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, quorum has been lost.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will double-check if we have quorum.

And the count having been taken:

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We have quorum.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has a point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I do not know if it is appropriate for another member to instruct one of his caucus colleagues to exit the chamber to—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry, these are becoming points of debate.

On the point of order, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Madam Speaker, I have important points to raise. I think it is evident, from the sound of my voice, that I have a sore throat. I asked the member for Edmonton Manning to come over here and then I requested he get me a glass of water, as he has just graciously done. The fact that this is being used by the member for Winnipeg North is grossly unfair.

I am trying to execute my responsibilities, in spite of the state of my voice, and I am trying to do my job as a member—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

These are becoming points of debate. I will hear this question of privilege. If the hon. parliamentary secretary has a question of privilege, I will hear it after.

I would ask the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan to get to his question of privilege now.

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

Madam Speaker, I would welcome the members who have returned.

The programming motion did not mention an exclusion of subamendments. I, as a member of Parliament, believe that it is consistent with my privileges to be able to propose some amendments at the committee stage. The right to move subamendments flows from what is referenced in Standing Order 116, namely that “the Standing Orders shall apply so far as may be applicable”. That is Standing Order 116(1).

This is the first violation of privilege. Standing Order 116(1), which prescribes the right of members being applicable from the House in committee, was not applied in the process of the determinations made at committee, and the Chair made a ruling to not allow subamendments, which were not mentioned in the motion. Having read and reviewed the motion in detail, it makes no mention of whether subamendments could be moved.

In another respect, we saw a violation of privilege in members' right to speak around the ability of members to raise points of order. Although the ability to raise points of order are distinct from points of debate, a member's ability to raise points of order, to identify violations of order that have occurred at committee, can be reasonably seen to flow from the provisions established in 116(2)(a). It says that the Chair may not limit the ability of members' right to speak and that violations of such right may be brought to the attention of the Speaker. This was also a matter that was violated.

Further, we saw a violation of privilege in the rights of members to vote. The sacredness of the rights of members to vote is well established. Every time members have faced impediments in their ability to vote or have been blocked in their ability to vote, and we have seen various instances of this have been raised, including things that are on their face trivial, such as limits to transportation, that have obstructed the ability of members to get to the House, the House has ruled in favour of members in the importance of their privilege and of their right to vote.

At committee, we saw it happen at approximately 3:15 p.m. on Tuesday during considerations of the budget bill. What we saw—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry. I have another point of order.

The hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would request a quorum call again, please.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will double-check if we quorum.

And the count having been taken:

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We have quorum.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is on the right track and is being succinct with his points of order. I would ask him to finish up.

The hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South is rising on a point of order.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I believe that the parliamentary secretary for finance was in the House without a jacket on, which I do not believe is—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am not entertaining such points of order. The only thing that is required is for hon. members to have a jacket and tie when they are speaking.

Is the hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South rising on the same point of order?