Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just want to address the point of order raised by my colleague across the way and say, first off, that I'm grateful for the opportunity to sub at the trade committee. I don't think I've been here yet during this Parliament. I know that our trading relationships with countries around the world are extremely important, so I'm grateful for the opportunity to be a guest here today.
I work with Mr. Virani on the Canada-Tibet friendship group. It's a bit of a different format, but it's always good to be able to work with him.
On the particulars of the point of order that he raised, Madam Chair, first of all, I think it's important to just underline that there are no limitations in terms of whether you can refer to things that happened in the previous Parliament. The rules on what you can and can't refer to are fairly broad. Members may reference important precedents that come from previous Parliaments that involve other countries and use that information to help them inform and understand best what they're working on and what applies to the particulars of the case before the committee.
That it draws on a precedent from a previous Parliament, I don't think that fact alone could in any way be seen as providing a basis for making a determination with respect to the relevance of the issue being raised.
I think it's quite germane to look at that. If the text of the same bill was proposed as a bill in a previous Parliament, and if advice was received from officials in the context of that previous Parliament, it would seem most important. Certainly on the various committees I've been a part of, that has been a standard procedure, to try to refer to precedents on similar bills from previous Parliaments and other bills that may raise similar kinds of issues.
I think the points that were made were certainly valid and I think they're important. The arguments being made are important, but maybe they underline the need for that education to be shared with members across the way who may not fully appreciate or understand the relevance and significance of the issues being put forward.
In terms of the other point raised, I don't think, respectfully, that this is a matter of order. Questions of what content should or shouldn't be in the speech or who should be told what are not matters that would typically be thought of as being matters of order. Matters of order are those that are prescribed by the Standing Orders.
My colleague across the way is quite right to say.... I'll just refer to the Standing Orders here in terms of the rights of members as they relate to speaking on issues. I can think of Standing Order 116(2)(a), for example, which says:
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.
Standing Order 116(2)(b) goes on to read:
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.
Those are the standing orders. I think, in fact, that's a relatively recent addition to the Standing Orders that was agreed on by the House. It was designed to protect the rights of members when it comes to these issues. Of course, members don't always exactly know the specific nature of the points they want to make, and there's no obligation to have pretimed or prewritten remarks in advance.
With all due respect, Mr. Virani, I think that the interventions are germane and they're in order. Certainly, the standing orders I have read, as well as others, provide important protections with respect to what a member can do. I don't have the standing order in front of me precisely, but there are other, clearer standing orders that provide for those rights.
I'll leave the points there, but I just wanted to provide that clarification in response to the points raised by my colleague and friend, Mr. Virani.