Environment Committee on March 4th, 2008

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Why don't we just simply see the clock at 5:10 p.m?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Can I see the clock at 5:10 p.m? I'm happy to see the clock at 5:10.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Do you want a motion to that effect?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

It's your decision. It's the committee's decision. If you want to go to the vote, we can see the clock at 5:10.

Mr. Watson wants to speak.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I believe you made a ruling, and I have the floor next, not Mr. McGuinty for another question. I believe that's the proper order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Watson, very briefly, on the point of privilege....

Let's carry on. Let's do it that way.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I just need to know, then—and I was on a point of order, as a matter of fact, Mr. Watson—is it possible, Chair, through you to the clerk, that this committee sees the clock? Can I put a motion now to see the clock at 5:10 p.m?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

You're on a point of order. You can't move a motion on a point of order.

My proposal or my ruling is that we carry on, that we have these four speakers—I'm not sure, Mr. Godfrey, if you're still on this list, but we have three speakers—and that when we get to 5:10, we have two votes and we're done.

Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. In that spirit I will keep my remarks as brief as possible.

I think Mr. McGuinty's interventions underscore that there's discretion, as far as the chair goes, and where there's discretion there's debate. It's not as ironclad as it might suggest.

The question is on a question of privilege. Standing Order 116 lays out that in a standing 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”. There is no effective limit on the speaking time, Mr. Chair. I think this comes to the original contention of Mr. Warawa. Of course, I know that our colleagues opposite would rather have limits on speeches.

I'd like to carry on here. I'd like a little bit of attention here, if I could, and a little bit of respect from the members opposite.

The rules exist. We have Standing Orders. We have Marleau and Montpetit. We have books that go into great depth about the rules. The overwhelming import of having rules is to facilitate debate, not to shut it down.

I understand that our colleagues opposite may not like what we want to debate. They may not like our viewpoint in debate, but that's what debate is for. Debate is to counter bad argument with good argument. If you think our argument is bad, you don't counter bad argument by closing down argument. There are hundreds and hundreds of pages and books upon books. We don't even have the exhaustive volumes here. But the rules exist to facilitate debate. That's what separates us from other nations in the world. What makes our country good is that we encourage debate.

We howl in the House if the government brings forward a motion on closure, because that shuts down debate and everybody gets their hackles up about that. But at committee we seem to use points of order—not even valid points of order—to call for the question or to put motions forward. That represents an abuse of the privilege. I know it exists as a loophole, but points of order like that to seize the floor and shut down debate run counter to the spirit of the rules, which exist to facilitate the debate. I think that's the point of privilege that the member is raising here.

I defend it jealously. We're in a minority government and we are certainly in a minority position at this table. The opposition clearly agree on a number of things. My rights, being on the minority side of the table, are important.

These rules would be as important if we had 307 seats out of 308 seats in this Parliament. The one lone opposition member would deserve the same rules and rights to continue debating at the table. That's why these rules exist. That's what's supposed to separate this country from other countries. We're not a junta and we're not a totalitarian dictatorship in this country. That's what makes our country better. Our privileges are very important.

I know Mr. Regan wants to laugh. He's chortling over there with Mr. Simard across the table. Maybe they don't care about their privileges as members of Parliament. That's up to them.

This is an extreme privilege, Mr. Chair. I came from the assembly line right to the House of Commons. I remember my swearing-in ceremony. I took an oath to the Queen and I took a real seriousness about the job ahead of us. I remember the first time they threw open the doors of the House of Commons after my swearing-in, and I had one of those gasping-of-breath moments because I recognized the significance. Very few people get to do what we do in this country.

I know Mr. McGuinty is in tears over there, but they're tears of laughter, unfortunately. He's not taking this seriously.

Every time I stand at the bus shelter beneath the Peace Tower and look up at the flag flying over the Peace Tower, these are important things. We have an extreme privilege to be selected by people to come here and carry their voice to debate.

It's fair enough if they think they have the votes around the table to carry their will. That's fine, but it doesn't mean that people back home who elected me should somehow be silenced at this table. That's why we have the rules.

Raising points of order that are not points of order so they can challenge the chair because they know they can overrule the chair is an abuse of the rules to end debate. I don't know if that's the so-called new democracy of the New Democratic Party, but that's not the kind of democracy I believe in. They can disagree with us—I've disagreed with Mr. Cullen many times—but that's what debate is for, and we have every right and every privilege. We have very jealously guarded privileges in this House to be able to sit at a table or rise in the House and speak.

In the House we have a different set of rules, obviously. We have rules that will limit how many times you can speak or what the length of your speeches are. But the point of his privilege is Standing Order 116. Committees are very different in that regard. What we've seen is the abuse of a tool in order to close down debate, and I think that's a shame. I will be supporting this point of privilege going forward.

It's not only my privilege sitting here. It's Mr. Cullen's privilege, whether he respects it or not. It's Mr. Godfrey's privilege, whether he respects it or not. It's Mr. McGuinty's privilege, whether he respects it or not. It's Mr. Regan's privilege, whether he respects it or not. It's Mr. Simard's privilege, whether he respects it or not. It's Mr. Lussier's privilege, whether he respects it or not. It's Mr. Bigras' privilege, whether he respects it or not. And I fight jealously for those privileges.

Mr. Chair, I'll be supporting the point of privilege when it comes to a vote. I will cede the floor to others who need to speak to this, because it's their privilege as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Harvey.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I am very surprised to see this kind of debate unfold here today. Let me review the facts briefly for you.

Following a 10-minute presentation by the parliamentary secretary, Mr. Cullen tabled a motion to the effect that the parliamentary secretary's comments were not relevant to the business of the day. However, the chair disagreed and maintained that the parliamentary secretary was on point, that there was no repetition or anything of that nature. An attempt is being made to muzzle him. This is important to people like Mr. Lussier, Mr. Bigras and Mr. Cullen who represent parties that will never be in a majority situation here. The NDP, in any event, has been in a minority position for the past 45 years.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

It is a matter of democracy.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Precisely, Bernard. Our role here is to ensure that democracy is upheld and that everyone is treated in a democratic fashion. I can easily imagine Bloc members wringing their hands outside this room and complaining that they have been muzzled.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Harvey, I would remind you to talk about the point of privilege and not....

Mr. Bigras will fill him in on what happened after.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

I am talking about what is going on here right now. I would also point out to Mr. Cullen that we were respectful of a bill tabled by his leader. It was short on content and anti-constitutional, but we debated it. Today, you are coming forward with a bill, and you are attempting to muzzle the government while the parliamentary secretary is speaking. That is unacceptable, to my mind.

In the two years that I have been here, I've been told on a regular basis that a parliamentarian has first right. I'm not talking about a privilege, but about a right. It goes beyond the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A parliamentarian has the right to express himself, to issue opinions in this forum, in Parliament, and to be respected. I find it despicable to see the opposition take advantage of its majority position. You have defied the chair's ruling to the effect that the comments of the parliamentary secretary were relevant to the issue at hand. You all raised your hands to vote against his ruling.

This behaviour is unacceptable, especially coming from parties like the Bloc and the NDP. For 45 years, the NDP has always been respected and has always had the right to speak. It is unacceptable for this party to move this kind of motion today. This is a direct assault on democracy and on everyone here who has already been heard. You may be laughing today, Bernard, but when the day comes that you experience a similar fate...

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I wish to remind you that members of this committee must speak through the chair. If Mr. Harvey wants to play that game and you allow him to do so, you'll find out that I can play the game as well. So then, I ask that he speak through the chair, otherwise I will get involved. Until now, I've remained calm, Mr. Chairman, but if you want me to play the game...

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Bigras, I admire your patience.

I would like to remind Mr. Harvey that Mr. Vellacott would like to speak. We have about four minutes left, and we are going to vote in four minutes.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I don't care of this debate last four minutes, or all night, because the first duty of a parliamentarian is to protect his right to speak. I'm not even close to the four-minute mark. I am prepared to defend my country, my province, my family and my rights.

We have just witnessed an attempt to make of mockery of the rights of a member of Parliament. This is very serious business. Frankly, I would like the House or another competent body to review this incident. What happened here is unacceptable.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Harvey.

Mr. Vellacott, please.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

In my engagement in the last few minutes that remain here, I want to just remind you or reiterate in summary--because we've had some good debates, some good points made, from Standing Orders that are pretty clear, and there's no vagueness or ambiguity about it--that I support you in terms of your considered and very good judgments along the way here.

I just want to say it's one thing to overrule a chair, and some of us have been involved in those settings in committees and so on, because his judgment is off or maybe the Standing Order is vague, as sometimes is the case. But just because you have the numbers, that's a clear abuse of democracy.

So I bring this back to the Standing Orders, and I cite them for the record as we close here. Standing Order 116 is very, very explicit; there's no vagueness or lack of clarity about this one. Mr. Cullen has really assumed that it would be an abusive process, real chaos if we were to follow this kind of a mode in the future. It says here, and it goes on to say:

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.

In fact, there could have been more speakers on this.

The Chair [...] shall maintain order in the committee, deciding all questions of order subject to an appeal to the committee; but disorder in a committee can only be censured by the House, on receiving a report thereof.

Particularly, then, I will move on to a very weighty volume here called the House of Commons Procedures and Practice, by Marleau and Montpetit. Specifically where you based your judgment, on page 456 here, it says very, very pointedly--and it's footnoted as well--that “The previous question cannot be moved in a Committee of the Whole nor in any committee of the House.” This, in fact, is where we went wrong here today, where your ruling was correct--absolutely and to the nth degree. “The previous question cannot be moved in a Committee of the Whole nor in any committee of the House.”

I ask all the members to consider this: why do we have any of these volumes? We might as well pitch them all out and just start like the wild west, a total recipe for anarchy and chaos. As I said, it's one thing when it's vague and ambiguous. Mr. McGuinty knows that, and it'll come back to bite Mr. Cullen sometime too. When you have very clear instructions here in any of these procedure books and you're going to totally ignore them and fly in the face of that when there's nothing imprecise about it, then it's ludicrous.

If you have any books like these on your shelf, Mr. Cullen, Mr. McGuinty, or anybody else opposite, or any of us here, for that matter, you might as well pitch them in the garbage as you walk to your office later on in the day.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Vellacott, could I ask you to just come to a conclusion so we can get to our vote, please?

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

I will summarize. Absolutely.

My only point--and obviously in irony and with the height of sarcasm here--is that these books have no meaning whatsoever. They are totally insignificant and without any value. If in fact we just make it up arbitrarily from day to day, it's a totally chaotic situation.

There are other isms around the world that would maybe follow in that mode, but in a democracy, in our country, we choose not to. So again I cite, in closing, very clearly from Marleau and Montpetit, from the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, on page 456 and from footnote 56 there as well, that “The previous question cannot be moved in a Committee of the Whole nor in any committee of the House.”

While Mr. Warawa's privileges were violated, Mr. Cullen perpetrated upon this whole committee an abusive process in a very significant way today.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Vellacott.

So we have two votes. The first vote is on the point of privilege placed by Mr. Warawa, which basically says his privileges were violated. A vote in favour of that would require, then, that I report it back to the House and they deal with it. If it's defeated, of course, it's defeated and we move on to the second vote.

[An hon. member]

A recorded vote, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

(Motion negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])