Evidence of meeting #5 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was study.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
No. Okay, that's my ruling. If they were public office-holders and they got involved in a land deal that turned out to be shady, etc., it would be a problem and studyable by this committee.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
No, I mean, that's the fact. It's anywhere there is a pecuniary interest, a potential conflict of interest or anything like that.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
It had nothing to do with the public office they were holding.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
No, that's not a criterion, and that's why we have to get into that as well.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
I think that's why we would need the legal officer here for that.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
However, let me please refer you again to the ruling in detail in the 38th meeting of the last Parliament.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Fair enough. Let me make another point.
You mentioned the Speaker's ruling in the case that Mr. Hiebert cited, which was that if the committee were to study and prepare a report and then submit it to the House, the Speaker would rule at that time on whether or not that report could be submitted to the House. It seems to me that it would be a gross waste of taxpayers' dollars for this or any other committee to do a report that may not be admissible to the House, and therefore we should seek the ruling of the Speaker now and get the benefit of the legal officer of Parliament before we embark on spending any taxpayer dollars.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Let me refer you to the Speaker's ruling on the point of privilege by Mr. Jay Hill, who I believe was the whip at the time, on the last day of the last Parliament, in which he raised on a privilege precisely the point that you just made. The Speaker said, “I have received nothing from the committee. I can't make a ruling on it. But should a report come and I deem it to be beyond the mandate, it would not be receivable by the House.”
Your point is well taken, but those are the rules. The Speaker has no basis for making a ruling until he gets something formal from this committee.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
So let it be on the record, then, that at least I believe that for this committee to embark on a study that may not be within the purview of this committee would be a terrible waste of taxpayer resources.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
And therefore, on that basis, I would encourage all the members of this committee to defeat this motion at this time and then let's hear what the law clerk has to say. I think we could do great work not only for this committee but for all committees if we were to get a ruling on this point, which all committees could use in further deliberations on this sort of issue.
Thank you.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
Actually, Chair, along those lines, I'd like to make an amendment to this motion that at the beginning of the--
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Could you please then read it slowly, so that our clerk and researchers can also write down the wording, to be sure.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
I was going to try to verbalize it and then perhaps the clerk can help me do so clearly, but it follows along the point that Mr. Dechert was making. Instead of our commencing this study, which could, as you indicated, in the preparation alone take a tremendous amount of time, not even considering the number of witnesses we'd have to hear from, why not get an advance ruling from the Speaker, have him clarify for this committee whether or not this is within our mandate? If it is, then we commence the study, and if it's not, then that informs our priority.
So the amendment would be something like “that the committee resume the study that it began”, etc. Before the semi-colon, once or depending upon....
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
In the event of an affirmative ruling by the Speaker that this study is within the purview or mandate of this committee.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I think everyone understands the intent of it. We'll have to be careful about getting the wording, but I think the clerk...in the event of an advance ruling from the Speaker confirming--
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
That the study is within the mandate of this committee.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Just a moment.
Madam Freeman, do you understand the amendment? And Madam Thi Lac, are you okay? We tried to get it in both official languages. I know you may have had the translation, but because of the chit-chat going on in trying to craft this thing....
So after the colon in the main motion, we would include the words “in the event of an advance ruling from the Speaker confirming that the study is within the mandate of the committee”, and then carry on with the rest. I think everyone understands the intent.
Mr. Hiebert, please.