International Trade Committee on Feb. 26th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Yes. We have some business arising from a previous meeting. Monsieur Cardin wished to raise a point of order. He was prepared to do that at the outset of this meeting today, but out of courtesy he kindly consented to wait until we finished the first round of questioning with the minister.

I appreciate that courtesy, Monsieur Cardin.

Before we proceed with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and our next witness, I'm going to go now to that point of order.

Monsieur Cardin.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You will recall that at the beginning of the session, I set the record straight regarding situations that might arise. In fact, I also cautioned the committee about certain accelerated procedures in a context that requires translation and where one must hear all of what is being said.

Last Tuesday, that is more or less what happened. I find this situation unfortunate and I feel that it is all the more unacceptable because of the way in which it happened, given the rules and procedures. The incident obviously concerned Mr. Keddy's notice of motion, proposing that we move to clause-by-clause study by the 3^rd of March. During the discussion, Mr. Julian took the floor, although I myself had asked to speak. The atmosphere had become more or less tumultuous and chaotic. On such occasions, it often happens that exchanges are made directly and that people use procedures that I would qualify as accelerated, which give no reaction time at all. You asked that we call the question, whereas I felt that I had asked for the floor in order to be able to express myself, which was not possible. We moved very quickly to the vote and we are all aware of the results. I wanted to speak but I was not able to. The vote, as the expression goes, was quickly a done deal. I find that terribly disappointing, particularly as this also created a rather negative atmosphere for the committee's discussions.

I challenge the decision taken last Tuesday. I would like us to go back to the debate that had begun and in which I wanted to participate.

Mr. Chairman, it is within this context that I challenge the way events unfolded last Tuesday and that I automatically challenge your position in this respect. I would like us to proceed with a new vote on Mr. Keddy's motion, with proper form and decorum. I would also like us to have a short discussion, as soon as possible, in order to clear up the situation and to avoid it happening again.

Right from the outset of this session, I honestly and humbly advised you that I am unable to follow the discussions that other members are having rapidly in English at the same rate as the others. I grasp some parts but I lose others. It is even more difficult for the interpreters to quickly render what is being said.

I reiterate my request. When we find ourselves in such situations, we must take the necessary time in order that the decisions taken reflect the will of the committee as a whole, without any voluntary or involuntary exclusion.

That is why I truly challenge what happened last Tuesday, Mr. Chairman, and I would like us to return to that issue as soon as possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you. That is a point of order. Let me first deal with your point of order and your recollection of events as they were concluded on Tuesday last.

I think it's important to note that it was very late in the day. It was 11 o'clock. The meeting time had come to an end. The meeting is to conclude at 11 o'clock, particularly with the circumstance that another committee is scheduled to be in this room, where we have the meeting, at 11 o'clock. That's well known to members. We allotted time at the end of the meeting, at the will of the committee, to deal with this motion, this matter. That was not a surprise to anyone. It should not have been a surprise to anyone. People knew we had to conclude by 11 o'clock. In fact, we had given people an opportunity to speak briefly on the motion. I think there was a clear sense—as chair, I got a clear sense—of, in your words, the will of the committee. The will of the committee was to pass this motion. We had representatives of the majority of the committee speak to the motion, in favour of the motion. We then entered what appeared to be a filibuster by Mr. Julian, just delaying, and the will of the committee was to pass the motion.

The chair then made the judgment to proceed. We had a point of order from Mr. Cannis, at which time the question was called. As chair, I recognized the question. We called the question. We had a vote. The vote was passed. The matter was dealt with, and we won't go back to that matter.

You can't challenge the chair after the vote has been cast on that matter. A matter once dealt with has been dealt with, and we won't be going back to it. So that would conclude that point of order.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Very well, Mr. Julian, on a point of order.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

I challenge your decision on that. With respect, I think you've been an excellent chair of this committee, and I think we've been very lucky. I've been the longest-serving member here, serving under Mr. Cannis in the 38th Parliament and under you in the 39th and 40th Parliaments.

You have been an excellent chair, and normally I find you go right by the rules. You didn't in this case. Everyone has a bad day. But Mr. Cardin's point is very well taken, and I contest your decision on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

You're certainly welcome to object, Mr. Julian, but at this point you can't object to a matter that has been concluded.

But as long as you're on the point, I think the chair has been very reasonable with all members, but at some point we also have a job to do, in terms of committee, to get on with the work of the committee. We have dealt with this matter now for eight months. I think it's very clear where everyone is. We're not dealing now with the free trade agreement per se; we're dealing with the implementation bill. We can't amend that bill at this committee.

The will of the committee clearly is to pass this bill. We have passed a motion that we will do clause-by-clause next week and complete clause-by-clause next week. My sense is that this is clearly the will of the committee. As you wish, you can use the rules to filibuster or to drag this out, but I think, in fairness to the rest of the committee, we have business to do. We want to get on with this. There's no doubt where the will of committee is on this matter. We can't continue to allow the tail to wag the dog. We want to get on with the business.

I think I'm just being very candid, very clear, and hopefully you'll understand too, Mr. Julian, that there are other members who feel they have an obligation to do their duty as well.

Mr. Keddy. Oh, I'm sorry, we have a list.

Mr. Cannis.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is not necessarily a point of order, Mr. Chairman, but a point of clarification. I feel obligated to clarify certain things, if I may.

When we were discussing this issue, I was facing you, sir, and addressing my remarks there. As I think I pointed out that day, given the constraints we had in terms of time--as you clearly pointed out, people were coming in--I simply wanted to make sure that we were going to get our business finished within the time allocated for us in this room.

I must also address Monsieur Cardin's concern. If I need to apologize, I have no problem. I think all brave and wise men know how to apologize. They are better people for doing so. I didn't notice that his hand was up on a point of order, because I was facing you, sir. That being the case, I extend an apology.

But I will make note of the two words the gentleman used during that debate. If I may quote him verbatim, he used the words “cacophony exchanged”. To me, if we look up the word “cacophony”, it describes certain adjectives, and I don't believe those types of adjectives were used in this room. I believe it was a heated debate, a vigorous debate, but certainly there was no cacophony--on my part, anyway, and on other members'--exchanged in this wonderful committee. Do we get excited and hot under the collar? That's part of democracy. That's part of debate.

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to close with this. I understand Monsieur Cardin's problem in terms of the English-to-French translation gap, because I experience the same thing. I only speak English--Greek too, by the way, and I don't expect a translation in Greek. But there is that delay, and I appreciate that.

To continue with what Mr. Julian said earlier, we've always had a wonderful committee. In years past, I chaired, and now it's you, sir. My experience in the last little while tells me that we're going to do some great work. Let's move towards a positive environment, not a toxic environment.

Thank you for the time, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you, Mr. Cannis.

Your point causes me also to address another point raised by Monsieur Cardin.

Monsieur Cardin, I should say to you that, as was discussed at the outset when we formed the committee, there is the question of recognizing speakers. I too try to follow the debate. My general intention is to have my eyes on the speaker at the time. Rather than miss anyone, we established very early on that I would not keep a list of speakers but would defer to the clerk. As he has today in front of me here, he keeps a list. I have asked members, if they have an interest in speaking, to not try to get my attention but to get the attention of the clerk in order to be put on the list of speakers.

I can tell you, Monsieur Cardin, that unfortunately you did not get the attention of the clerk, and your name was not on the list of speakers. The last speaker was Mr. Julian, and that was the last speaker of the day on the list. The only other one to speak, other than the chair, was Mr. Cannis on a point of order. It was, by that time, after 11 'o clock. There was no disrespect at all to you, Monsieur Cardin. I simply did not recognize that you had indicated an interest in speaking on the point until after the meeting had been adjourned.

The business of the meeting was conducted in order. There was some difference of opinion at the end of the meeting, but in these events, and because of the shortness of time—in fact, we were over time, and the other committee was coming into the room—at some point the chair has to simply make a decision. I made that decision. The decision has been made, and I'm afraid that will have to be the end of matter.

Monsieur Cardin, did you want to address that again?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

I congratulate you Mr. Chairman, on having consulted the list.

You said, and in fact repeated, that you were under the clear impression that Mr. Julian wanted to launch into a filibuster and that you decided to put an end to it. Under Standing Order 116, you cannot do so until the speaker has finished speaking. Furthermore, as it was a little after 11 o'clock, the wisest decision would have been to defer the discussion. It is obvious that Mr. Keddy, in his notice of motion, was talking about March 3. If I am not mistaken, that is next Tuesday. According to the will or wishes of Mr. Julian, that would have brought us to only the 5^th of March. It is not a big difference. If you had respected the standing orders, you could very well have let Mr. Julian speak and, with unanimous consent, deferred the debate. That would have caused fewer problems.

I consider that my right to speak has been denied and that there were significant breaches of the Standing Orders. That is why I challenge your decision. I said that at the outset of my remarks and I maintain my position. You should call the question on this challenge as soon as possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you.

Mr. Keddy.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I certainly respect the decision you've made on this particular point of order. The point I would like to raise, however, to Monsieur Cardin is that certainly on this side of the committee we will attempt to be very clear that interpretation is flowing when we're speaking, instead of three or four people speaking at the same time. I think that's only respectful and only correct. We all need to be able to understand what's being said at committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

We still have to hear from Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chair, I'm just asking for clarity from the clerk. The procedure for challenging the chair normally is that the person who challenges explains his or her position, the chair responds, then there's a vote by the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

I have to consult with the clerk on the point. We have a difference of opinion with regard to matters that must stand once they are made.

So that we're clear, Monsieur Cardin has raised a procedural matter. He wants to challenge the chair. I could probably explain to members what's going on, but why don't I have the clerk explain it.

We're really talking about two different matters here. We're talking about a decision that has been made. We have voted and that's that. We now have Monsieur Cardin challenging whether the chair will go back on the point and his challenge to the decision that was made. The chair has said he is not going back; we have made a decision. The challenge is whether or not I have the will of the committee to say that the matter is behind us.

When you challenge the chair, that is not debatable. All we need is clarity on what the challenge is. The challenge is on the decision I made about not going back to the vote. That is the question.

So we are clear, Monsieur Cardin, I have made a decision that we are not going back to the vote from the last meeting. The matter is behind us; the matter will stand. You now want to challenge that ruling, and it is not debatable.

If everyone is clear, the challenge is on my position, as chair, that I do not wish to go back to the previous meeting's vote. I would suggest that those who will be voting in favour of Monsieur Cardin's challenge will challenge my decision to carry on. That's the extent of it.

Is that clear to everyone? It is not debatable. I just want to know if it's clear to people.

[An hon. member]

It's clear to me.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

With respect, I believe the question is, do you uphold the decision of the chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Yes, but I want to be clear that upholding the decision of the chair is not to change the vote, but to my decision that the vote stands.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

That's the decision.

Did you want to add something, Madam Clerk?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mrs. Carmen DePape]

Mr. Cardin, I wanted to tell you that in the Marleau and Montpetit, on page 495, it clearly states that: “A decision once made cannot be questioned again but must stand as the judgment of the House.” It is the same thing for committees. It also states: “It is not in order for Members to “reflect“ on votes of the House [...] and, when this has occurred, the Chair has been quick to call attention to it”.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

You are talking about the Standing Orders. In this context, a decision was made despite the fact that, technically speaking, we did not have the right to call the question so long as someone had the floor who was still speaking, and normally, there should have been a name on the speakers' list. Therefore, there were speakers remaining. Therefore, in my opinion, the chair had no right to call the question at that point in time.

On the other hand, you are saying that a decision that has already been taken cannot be challenged. But when a decision has been made, it is challengeable. Does the Marleau and Montpetit provide something for a case or an event in which things unfold as they did?

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Very good. I think it's important to have the clarity so Monsieur Cardin knows.

You're absolutely correct, Monsieur Cardin. I don't challenge what you've said, but I did explain to you that your name was not on the list. By our practice here, I did not see you wanting to enter the debate. The time for the meeting had expired.

Having said that, beyond the point that you raised with some validity, the rule of the chair will supersede that. The chair made a decision. You are now challenging the decision of the chair, and at that point we will carry on one way or another. If the will of the committee is to accept the decision of the chair, then we will move on, and that's all there is to that.

Having had the motion explained, Monsieur Cardin wishes to challenge the chair and my decision to let the matter stand, as we decided at the last meeting not to go back.

[The Clerk]

If you wish to do that now, the question to ask is if the chair's decision is sustained.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Please go slowly.