Debates of June 2nd, 2023

Request to Consider Motions in Amendment

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, there is well-established process that needs to be followed in order to be able to do what it is that the Conservative opposition party is attempting to do. The Conservatives have known, and we, as a government, have followed due process. We can go back to Wednesday and to the Thursday question. All of this has been before the House. What is not appropriate is for opposition members to anticipate the type of ruling that you could make, Madam Speaker, and addressing it at this point in in time.

The opportunity was there. Maybe the Conservatives did not do their homework, or whatever it is, but that does not justify their breaking the process that has long been a procedure of the House, not only for the current government but also for the governments before it.

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

Madam Speaker, it was actually a point of order on the process for raising points of order during points of order. This member has, on multiple occasions, interrupted a point of order. When another member is raising and explaining a matter of order, his point of order should not take precedence over an existing point of order on the floor.

I think he has also failed to take note of the fact that the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South's point of order was distinct from the point of order raised by the member for Calgary Forest Lawn.

His objection may have had some relation to the previous point of order, but it does not have any relation to the one currently being raised.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I have not heard enough of the point of order from the hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South to determine whether it is in order, so if we can allow him to elaborate. It is different from the previous point of order. This is more about regrouping. Again, it seems to border on a decision that has not been rendered yet. I will just double check that by allowing him to elaborate a little bit more on his point of order before I indicate whether I will allow him to go even further.

The hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South.

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

Madam Speaker, as always, I appreciate your patience on these matters.

It is normal, of course, for a government to table a budget and then get a bump in the polls, but this budget is so unpopular with Canadians that the Liberals actually dropped in the polls after the finance minister tabled it in the House—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Some of what the hon. member is bringing up is debate. I would just ask him to get to his point of order without bringing debates into the matter.

The hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South.

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

Madam Speaker, I will jump ahead in my remarks here in order to expedite things, given your continued patience.

I will start here and, I promise, get to my point relatively quickly. This little bit of context is important and germane to my point. I am just going through the facts here.

On May 29, beginning at 4:30 p.m., the Chair was empowered by a programming motion to put every question necessary to dispose of the bill without further debate and then report the bill to the House. The Chair interrupted the programming motion in such a way that the amendments could not be table-dropped or moved from the floor. Instead, he ruled that the only amendments that could properly be moved were to the ones provided to the Clerk before May 19. Notably, this was before testimony was supposed to be wrapped up. He also ruled that subamendments could not be moved, because members would need the floor in order to move a subamendment, but he refused to allow debate under the programming motion.

These rulings by the member for Mississauga East—Cooksville made the committee even more dysfunctional but, importantly, at the heart of—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind the member that decisions made by the committee are not things that the Speaker can rule on, as mentioned on a number of occasions while I have been here. Other speakers have also indicated that we do not give rulings to committees. Committees are an entity in themselves and make their own decisions.

If there are matters about the report itself, those matters within the report are what can be debated. At this point in time, I am not satisfied with the additional information the hon. member is providing, especially given the fact that there has not been a decision read out and rendered by the Speaker.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan has a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, I recognize the correctness of everything you said, but I would add that there is an exception to the Standing Orders in terms of the Speaker's power as it relates to what happens at committee. Standing Order 116(2)(b) reads:

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.

I believe that may have been where the member was going. I am not entirely sure but, certainly in my own view, there were things that occurred at the finance committee that were in violation of Standing Order 116(2)(a), which is referenced in Standing Order 116(2)(b). Therefore, I think those arguments can at least be made, given this particular and admittedly very unique exception to the Standing Orders that allows matters from committee to be brought directly to the attention of the Speaker.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. parliamentary secretary is rising on the previous point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, a point of order is when a member would highlight a breach of the rules. It is clear that this particular bill is properly before the House. You have already ruled on that. I would suggest that the Conservatives are doing indirectly what they cannot do directly, and that is to filibuster by using points of order to prevent matters from being debated in the House.

The government has followed the process, and the opposition knows that. The Speaker has recognized that the bill is properly before the House.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South wants to weigh in on the point of order again.

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

Madam Speaker, my point of order is a little different from what the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan was saying, but I look forward to hearing his comments with respect to that.

I was literally stating the facts, which I believe, on a point of order, I am not only allowed but also obligated to do. Facts that I am describing are critical to the argument because, in order to introduce an amendment at report stage, it has to be established that it could not be made at committee. I was simply litigating the facts, and not debating, as per my point of order.

Relatively quickly, I will cite a couple of sections, Madam Speaker, if you would be so kind. I will then yield the floor.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member is basing his arguments on an anticipated decision, and that has not happened yet. That point of order is not acceptable, and I will end it here.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan can proceed with his question of privilege.

Alleged Breach of Privilege at Committee

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to raise a question of privilege in relation to a number of issues respecting the process on Bill C-47 that I believe violate the privileges of members. I will identify at least three distinct situations, or areas, where the privilege of members of Parliament, in my view, was violated in the process of disposing of this bill. I will begin with just a few relevant references to contextualize this.

The discussion of privilege in Bosc and Gagnon, at page 57, reads:

It also refers to the powers possessed by the House to protect itself, its Members and its procedures from undue interference so that it can effectively carry out its principal functions which are to legislate, deliberate and hold the government to account. In that sense, parliamentary privilege can be viewed as the independence Parliament and its Members need to function unimpeded.

At page 59, it states, “The House has the authority to assert privilege where its ability has been obstructed in the execution of its functions or where Members have been obstructed in the performance of their duties.”

Page 60, meanwhile, elaborates on the concept of contempt, saying:

Any conduct which offends the authority or dignity of the House, even though no breach of any specific privilege may have been committed, is referred to as a contempt of the House. Contempt may be an act or an omission. It does not have to actually obstruct or impede the House or a Member; it merely has to have the tendency to produce such results.

Then, at page 81 of the third edition, House of Commons Procedure and Practice states, “There are...other affronts against—”

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There is a point of order by the hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is very clear, but to make it as crystal clear as possible for the member and members listening, the Speaker has made it clear that a ruling was made on this bill. It has gone through the process properly, and it is in order. The members opposite are using points of order in order for us to prevent—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

This is not a point of order, but a question of privilege. I will allow the hon. member to continue.

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

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

Madam Speaker, with due respect to my friend from Winnipeg North, he is clearly not even paying attention. I have raised an issue of privilege, and he is welcome to make arguments about it—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

What is the privilege?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the hon. parliamentary secretary that this is not a point of debate. This is a question of privilege, and a question of privilege is to be explained. However, there is limited time to bring forward the information the Speaker requires, so I would just ask the member to try to keep it as brief as possible.

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

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

Madam Speaker, that is precisely what I intend to do. The member across the way is heckling and asking what the matter of privilege is. Again, I invite him to listen, and I think he will appreciate the point.

I also want to identify, as I said earlier, that there are at least three separate ways in which the privileges of members were impacted by the proceedings on Bill C-47. I will be appropriately brief, but I want to identify all three areas where I think there was an infringement of privilege.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

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

The heckling continues, but I will continue in spite of it.

Page 81 of the third edition of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice states:

There are...other affronts against the dignity and authority of Parliament which may not fall within one of the specifically defined privileges. Thus, the House also claims the right to punish, as a contempt, any action which, though not a breach of a specific privilege: tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions; obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of the House in the discharge of their duties; or is an offence against the authority or dignity of the House...its Members, or its officers.

This is the general context.

I also want to highlight Standing Order 116, which applies to the Chair's ability and responsibility here in the House to deal with violations of the rights and privileges of members that occurred in committee in a very narrow and specific situation. Standing Order 116(1) reads:

In a standing, special or legislative committee, the Standing Orders shall apply so far as may be applicable, except the standing orders as to the election of a Speaker, seconding of motions, limiting the number of times of speaking and the length of speeches.

The Standing Order on “End of debate” reads:

(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.

What occurred at the Standing Committee on Finance was precisely this. Members' ability to speak was not explicitly limited in a particular sense, yet the Chair acted in a way that limited the ability of members to speak and move amendments.

I acknowledge that there will be some dispute on this point, because the committee adopted a programming motion of sorts. However, the Chair took it upon himself to then make rulings that in fact went far beyond the particulars of the programming motion. That is, the Chair did not confine himself to the programming motion. Instead, he made additional decisions that further limited the ability of members to speak and to bring forward points and/or move subamendments. This was a violation of Standing Order 116(2)(b), which materially affected the privileges of members.

Standing Order 116(2)(a) says, “Unless a time limit has been adopted by the committee or by the House”. In this case, while a time limit was adopted, it did not prescribe the things the Chair said it prescribed. Thus, in the process, the privileges of members, in terms of the ability of members to move subamendments and to speak, was limited.

The programming motion that was adopted by the committee said the following: “That the committee continue its pre-study of Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, by:

“(a) Inviting witnesses to appear on the contents of Bill C-47 during meetings scheduled the weeks of May 1, May 8, and May 15, 2023, and that

“Members of the committee submit their prioritized witness lists for the study of Bill C-47 to the clerk of the committee by no later than Wednesday, May 3rd, 2023, at 12 p.m., and that these lists be distributed to members of the committee as soon as possible,

“(b) Moving to clause-by-clause review of Bill C-47 no later than Thursday, May 25, 2023, at 11 a.m., provided that the bill is referred to the committee on or before Thursday, May 18, 2023, and that;

“i. amendments be submitted to the clerk of the committee in both official languages no later than noon on Friday, May 19, 2023;

“ii. the clerk of the committee write immediately to each member who is not a member of a caucus represented on the committee and any independent members to inform them of the study of Bill C-47 by the committee and to invite them to prepare and submit any proposed amendments to Bill C-47 which they would suggest the committee consider during the clause-by-clause study of the bill;

“iii. if the committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by 4:30 p.m. on Monday, May 29, 2023, all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved, the Chair shall put the question, forthwith and successively, without further debate on all remaining clauses and proposed amendments, as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, as well as all questions necessary to report the bill to the House and to order the Chair to report the bill to the House as soon as possible;

“(c) if Bill C-47 is referred to the Committee by the House during the subject matter study of the Bill, all witness testimony, evidence and documentation received in public”—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I do not see the relevancy of the member rising on a matter of privilege when there has already been a ruling on the proper form and process for the legislation. The member is just dictating something from a standing committee of the House with one purpose, which is to test your patience.

That is what this is all about. The member is testing your patience to prevent you from beginning the formal process for the budget implementation bill. This is not a matter of privilege. The member could be far more concise in his question of privilege.

I would ask that you look at what the official opposition is attempting to do—