Evidence of meeting #2 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chairman.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Notice has been given to the members. Everybody is aware of what the motion is.
The chair has every prerogative to consult with the clerk or with the principal clerk of committees on admissibility. I have to make the final decision, but I'm going to do so with the advice of the resources I have available to me, those being the clerk and the principal clerk.
11:50 a.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
When I move my motion, then you can rule it in order or out of order as you see fit.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I can't. I will not rule on a motion if I don't know whether it's admissible. I'm sorry, I cannot do that.
11:50 a.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
I'll give you a good argument as to why it should be admissible, and that can help guide you.
11:50 a.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
If the senior clerk says it's ambiguous, that it could go either way, then it will fall to the chair to make up his mind, based on the information you have.
Let's proceed.
I move the motion:
That the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics undertake a review of matters related to the Mulroney Airbus libel settlement; including any and all new evidence, testimony, and information not available at the time of the settlement so as to determine if there were violations of ethical and code of conduct standards by any public office holders; and to report to the House on its findings, conclusions and recommendations.
I'd like to speak to the motion now that I have moved it.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Mr. Martin, I'm going to move that motion out of order pending the resolution of whether or not the motion is admissible.
I'm going to move now to Madam Lavallée for her comments.
11:50 a.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I'd like to speak to my motion before you decide to rule it out of order or not.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Mr. Martin, I'm sorry I can't do that. The motion is not in order at this time, given that the decision with regard to admissibility has not been taken.
I'm going to give the floor to Madam Lavallée--
11:50 a.m.
Bloc
11:50 a.m.
Bloc
Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
You have just made a ruling, and I would like to say that I am challenging it, Mr. Chairman.
11:50 a.m.
Bloc
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
11:50 a.m.
Bloc
11:50 a.m.
Bloc
Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
As part of the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would point out that in the House, Speaker Milliken often says committees are masters of their own procedure. As I understand it, the acting deputy clerk or the deputy clerk gave you some advice. I believe you're acting in good faith. You received some advice, but in the context of this committee, we do not have to agree with the acting clerk.
It is said that committees are masters of their own procedure, and we are. You ruled that Mr. Martin's motion was out of order. With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, we are challenging your decision, and I would call for a vote on this ruling.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Let's be clear, Mr. Guimond. I did not rule.
I explained in great detail that the clerk and the acting principal clerk have raised questions about admissibility. Rather than make a decision, because this is a new committee and the provisions do not match other committees--they do not have the general powers--this is an area in which they want to hear the argument, with regard to subparagraph (vi), as to admissibility. They will then give me their advice and recommendation on the admissibility of any of those motions.
The next person on my list is Mr. Hubbard.
