International Trade Committee on June 1st, 2010

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

So I'm going to rule negatively to you.

Mr. Allison.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

If there are no more comments, I think we should try to get to clause-by-clause.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Guimond.

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Don't worry; I will not be long.

My colleague spent quite a few minutes discussing a member of Parliament's right to freedom of speech. We have been talking about democracy for several hours now, with respect to parliamentary rules, and I have to say that I am disappointed with the way we were treated in the first hour of this Committee meeting.

I raised my hand several times. The Chairman heard me but never recognized me. I have been sitting on this Committee for a year and a half now. I have never abused my right to speak. I have always shown great respect for the Chairman performing those duties.

That is why I want to take this opportunity to say that I am very disappointed at what occurred. It is no different from Bill C-2 which we are examining today. It concerns a free trade agreement between Columbia and Canada which does not have unanimous support and is highly controversial. It is very much like what we are witnessing today. It is unfortunate, because I believe we are part of a great democracy; today, however, we were not given a great example of Canadian democracy.

Thank you.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Guimond, I'm certainly not going to comment on your relationship, or lack of it, with the regular chair of your committee. I wasn't here for those meetings, and I urge you to take that up with Mr. Richardson.

As far as the procedures with this committee, you've obviously made your point. I guess you really haven't asked for anything; you just made a point.

We're going to move on. I heard a suggestion from Mr. Allison to move to clause-by-clause.

Mr. Julian.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I am raising a point of privilege because we were not given the right to consult the Committee Clerks. Mr. Chairman, you are surely aware, having worked in other committees, that Committee Clerks are professional. In that regard, Mr. Chairman, I would like to quote from O'Brien and Bosc:

The Clerk of a committee is a professional from Procedural Services of the House of Commons who serves at the committee's procedural and administrative officer. The Clerk is the Committee's principal advisor regarding parliamentary procedure, especially committee procedure. [...] As a non-partisan and independent officer, the Clerk also provides advice to all members of the Committee.

Earlier, Mr. Chairman, we were treated to a real procedural disaster. We saw our rights as members of Parliament infringed, we were not given an opportunity to consult the Clerks, and we were not able to raise points of order. All of these fundamental rights were taken away from us, even though they are laid out in all the rules and Standing Orders which we, as members of Parliament, are required to follow.

Mr. Chairman, in light of parliamentary standards, it is quite clear that our rights as parliamentarians were systematically breached. As you know, there are clearly differing viewpoints, as we were elected in different parts of the country, and often from different political parties. Moreover, we have the ability to represent our constituents and present their views in the House of Commons and, of course, in committee. All of these rules should be observed. In the past, they have been cited on a number of occasions. In some cases, the Speaker of the House of Commons has refused to accept reports tabled by committees because the principle of respect for parliamentarians was not observed.

In light of all these points, the very least that can be said is that the current procedure is illegitimate. It is a process that does not comply with the rules, no more than it follows O'Brien and Bosc. All of these rules and the different codifications of those rules have been around for many years. All of us are required—just as you are, Mr. Chairman—to observe and abide by those rules.

Mr. Chairman, nowhere do I see in the rules governing committees that the Chair has the right to refuse to allow Committee members to consult the Clerk. I have never seen that before. I have been a member of this Committee for six years and it has never happened. Parliamentarians have never been prohibited from invoking the rules of procedure or raising points of order. Never have the rules been so poorly applied, or so completely ignored.

Now the public is asking that we comply with those rules and follow the established procedures.

At the very least, Mr. Chairman, it is clear that there is a problem. You refused to hear Mr. Laforest's point of order. You also refused to hear Mr. Guimond's point of order. I suppose that by accepting them, you would have been acknowledging that they were right on the question of respect and the point of privilege. It is one thing to let someone talk for a few minutes, but it is another to raise an issue and say that what is clearly laid out in the rules has not been followed.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I have a point of order raised.

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

A point of order cannot--

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I have a point of order--

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

It's a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. A point of order cannot be raised when a question of privilege is being addressed.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

A point of order, Mr. Trost.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Chair--

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Julian, you're out of order for a second. I will get back to you.

Mr. Trost.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

This could be either a point of order or a point of privilege.

I believe Mr. Julian is referring to things that were done in camera. That's my understanding of what he's saying. As such, they cannot be repeated here.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I'm making notes. I know that some of the things he has said absolutely did not happen while I was here, so you may be correct.

I would point out, for the benefit of Mr. Julian, that if you are referring to stuff in camera, I guess you're at your own peril.

You have the floor.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

You were here when the Chair refused to let us consult the Clerk. You are well aware of that; you were here, along with the public. Now we are in front of the real public.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

That's not what I was referring to, Mr. Julian. I will respond when you're finished.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You were here. I saw that you were here a little earlier, when we asked that the Clerk be consulted and the Chair of the Committee refused. That is precisely the issue I am addressing in my point of privilege. Because the Clerk and the services of the Clerk belong to all Committee members, the Chair cannot unilaterally decide that members will not request the Clerk's opinion.

Requests were made several times, but you don't seem to take these questions of privilege seriously. As you know, Mr. Chairman, you normally are required to consider them, to gather the facts and to dig a little deeper. That is normally your responsibility, when a question of privilege is raised.

Now if you do not follow proper procedure with respect to questions of privilege, the entire process loses its legitimacy. This process allows us to report if we want Bill C-2, an Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement Between Canada and the Republic of Columbia, the Agreement on the Environment Between Canada and the Republic of Columbia and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation Between Canada and the Republic of Columbia, to reach the report stage. It's the third step in a lengthy process that some would say is a nuisance.

In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, it is precisely when a bill is controversial that it is even more important to respect the right of minorities and allow members sitting at this table to consult the Clerk, who is very clearly available for that purpose according to O'Brien and Bosc. That is also stated, albeit with less clarity, in the regulations.

All of these things must be done in the proper order and according to the process, as you well know, Mr. Chairman.

We have made all these points. That means that there will be an effect on everything that happens for the rest of the evening. The former Chair said that we have a few hours for the clause-by-clause consideration, but the fact is, Mr. Chairman, that you have not considered the matters raised by Mr. Laforest and Mr. Guimond. This is not just going to end here; that is obvious. In their case and in my own, you could have said that you would look at the facts, take the time to do so, and possibly ask the Committee to suspend debate in order to get to the bottom of this.

If you systematically ignore the questions of privilege that have been raised today, we will be forced to report this to the Speaker. As we said earlier, Mr. Chairman, and as all the precedents clearly demonstrate, the Speaker of the House has the right to refuse a report that is not consistent with the rules.

Ordinarily, Mr. Chairman, you could have said, when Mr. Laforest finished speaking, that you would look at this—not that you weren't here and would not accept these points of privilege. That is not your role, Mr. Chairman.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Carry on, please.

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

Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.

And it is the same thing for Mr. Guimond; you could have said debate would be suspended while you looked into these matters. Questions of privilege are not often raised, Mr. Chairman. In my case, this is the second time in six years that I have raised a point of privilege. As for Mr. Laforest or Mr. Guimond, I am not aware whether they have raised a question of privilege previously or not.

Mr. Laforest and Mr. Guimond are signalling to me that they have not. This is not an insignificant matter; this is not something that can be brushed aside in that manner. It is a question of enormous importance, and if Mr. Allison and Mr. Keddy raise points of privilege, it will be equally important to consider them, because these are substantial issues. For all these reasons—and you were in the room when Mr. Laforest and myself asked to be given the Clerk's opinion—and after all the questions that have been raised, I think you have things to consider now. This truly is a question of privilege.

Mr. Chairman, I am therefore asking that you rule on these three questions of privilege. If you refuse, in addition to the fact that you arrived late, we will find ourselves in a situation where everything that follows is not legitimate. Having said that, we will try to start the clause-by-clause consideration, but that does not change the fact that what happened today is not legitimate and that this will not stop here. It is obvious that it cannot stop here. For that reason, and because of the issues that have been raised, the entire process surrounding Bill C-2 is now tainted and, as you know, Mr. Chairman, the public takes a great interest in this. There have been a lot of public meetings about this and it was standing room only; so, there is no doubt that the public will also want to have its say on these matters. We are calling on you, Mr. Chairman, just as Mr. Laforest and Mr. Guimond have done. This is truly a question of privilege and I hope that you will take it seriously.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Julian, I always consider committee work very seriously, and I remind you, with less than three hours left, to treat your time seriously and use it to your best order.

On your points of order about not being recognized, again, I can't speak to what happened before I was here, but while I was here, Mr. Richardson did eventually recognize your point of order, so you're mute there.

As far as respect, you made a suggestion, and Mr. Laforest as well, about respecting democracy, and you made a statement as well that democracy is illegitimate. Democracy is how it works. I don't have a Webster's dictionary with me, but I believe that if you look in there, democracy is the will of the people. Whether or not you like 50 plus one, a majority is democracy. The fact that you don't agree with it, Mr. Julian, is tough luck. I mean, that's the way it works, at least in this country.

As far as consulting with the clerk...they're here as resources. In my role as chair, I use them on a regular basis when necessary, and I'm sure that Mr. Richardson does as well, although I'm not going to speak for him.

You also mention about Mr. Laforest and Mr. Guimond raising a point of order--not while I was in the chair. Mr. Laforest was already speaking when I took the chair, and after that, I already had Mr. Allison and then Mr. Guimond. So I took Mr. Guimond. Again, mute point.

With that, you have until 10 o'clock here. I'd advise you to use it to the best of your ability.

I've had a suggestion to go to clause-by-clause, and we will now do that.

Shall clause 2 carry?

Mr. Julian.

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

Mr. Chair, I don't think I need to spell out the process for you; I know you have a lot of experience.

What this committee hasn't done, of course, because we didn't have full committee hearings into Bill C-2.... There are a whole bunch of organizations that have asked to come before the committee that have not, and I'm sure those organizations will be voicing their concerns in the coming days now that it's out in public. Organizations like the Canadian Labour Congress, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, and many other organizations, are not coming forward. They are being denied their right to speak on Bill C-2.

I think as you know, Mr. Chair, the normal process in a healthy democracy is that we go to the clause, see if there are any questions for the guests here tonight, have debate on it...and then we would go to clause 2.

Mr. Chair, for the record, I will be asking for a recorded vote on every amendment and every clause.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

That's your prerogative, Mr. Julian.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to say that just once. Hopefully that's acceptable to you, Mr. Chair.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

As we come to it you'll have to indicate that for each one, as is normal.