International Trade Committee on June 1st, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

The orders of the day, pursuant to the order of precedence of Monday, April 19, 2010, are Bill C-2, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Colombia and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, clause-by-clause consideration.

[An hon. member]

Point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1 is postponed.

[An hon. member]

Point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

We will have a point of order as soon as--

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Will you please stop interrupting? I will just finish this sentence and then you can have a point of order.

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

Monsieur Laforest--

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Monsieur Laforest was never recognized to have the floor, Mr. Julian. We're not accepting this rudeness any further.

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

You cannot--

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Clause 2: we are going to clause 2--

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

There are points of order--

(On clause 2--Definitions)

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

We are now on clause 2. I'm happy to hear the points of order, but I just wanted to be very clear that the committee, regardless of your filibuster, is moving on.

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

You have to hear points of order--

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

We are at clause-by-clause.

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

Point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

We are discussing clause 2. Do you have a point of order on clause 2?

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

No, it's not a point of order on clause 2, Mr. Chair. You can't simply cherry-pick points of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Well, you have the floor now. You have a point of order. Go ahead.

Or shall I hear Mr. Laforest first? He was the first to interject.

Monsieur Laforest, do you have a point of order?

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I raised a point of order because you interrupted Mr. Julian, saying that you had already heard his arguments on this point of order. What I was saying was that I do not approve of your decision, because Mr. Julian's arguments are--

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Whether you agree or disagree is not a point of order. That is debate. Do you have a point of order, Monsieur Laforest?

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Yes, I am just trying to explain. In his arguments, Mr. Julian talked about tyranny and, in my opinion, that is exactly what we were seeing. You do not consider it to be a point of order, Mr. Chairman, but I say that what Mr. Julian is doing is demonstrating, relying on precedents, that there are very clear situations where Committee chairs or the Speaker of the House have made ruling that are completely contrary to the spirit of your rulings today.

So, that is the reason why I am speaking to this issue. The point of order I am making now is in support of what Mr. Julian was saying. In my view, he should continue to explain the precedents, because they are extremely relevant and clearly show that others have an opinion which is exactly the opposite of your own.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Very good. Thank you, Mr. Laforest.

Okay: clause 2.

Oh. Mr. Julian, on a point of order...?

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

In fact, I would now like to raise a point of privilege which, as you know, has to do with all the other issues that are before the Committee.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, you are required to hear these points of privilege. So, I will begin by addressing exactly what that involves, particularly in light of what has just occurred in this Committee today. My rights as a member of Parliament have been seriously violated by your actions, Mr. Chairman. I harbour no personal resentment against you, obviously. Far be it from me to question your many contributions to this country and to the House of Commons, but today, you have clearly violated my privileges as a member of Parliament sitting in the House of Commons.

We are governed by these rules, by the procedure in the House of Commons and in committee, as well as by the Standing Orders which apply to everyone in Committee. In the case that we are concerned with, at the beginning of the meeting, there was a refusal to acknowledge points of order which, in fact, are part and parcel of the procedural rules we must abide by. All members of this Committee must respond to points of order and have a clear understanding of them. Yet at the beginning of this meeting, points of order were not acknowledged.

Following that, Mr. Laforest spoke to this. I have no doubt that he will probably raise a point of privilege himself, later on, because his rights have been seriously violated. After that, the many questions raised about what occurred are such that privileges were breached.

Furthermore, there was a refusal to acknowledge points of order which were duly and properly raised before the Committee. Then a motion was suddenly bypassed in favour of the other motions, in spite of the fact that it had been tabled at 5:39 p.m., Eastern time, last Friday, after the three other motions that are before us. So, recognizing one member rather than the others, when there is no unanimity, breaches the privileges we enjoy in the House and in committee. It is our privilege to receive equal treatment, based on precedents. In fact, motions are to be debated one after the other, according to the time when they were tabled--

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Excuse me, Mr. Julian. You are again being repetitive. You've said this before.

I should just clarify with you that we have consulted with the clerks right up the line and there is no precedent for...or we need to go in the order of when they arrived.... The motions do not have to be done subsequently. So I'm just telling you that. You can carry on with this, but we have ruled on the matter.