Evidence of meeting #20 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 chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Order, please.
We are resuming our hearing of March 4, and we are dealing with members' motions, for which I've been given proper notice of motion.
The first one is from Mr. Dhaliwal. That motion has been read to the committee and is before the committee members.
I ask now if Mr. Dhaliwal would like to speak to his motion.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
Certainly. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Over three days we have been trying to ask the Prime Minister to answer very simple questions in the House. Mr. Chuck Cadman's wife, his daughter, and his son-in-law have all three consistently come out and told the media that Mr. Chuck Cadman was offered $1 million worth of life insurance, which Mrs. Cadman considered to be a bribe. And further, if we take Mr. Zytaruk's tape recording—
Conservative
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Mr. Chairman, before we went into public session you gave us a hint that you were considering comments with respect to whether or not this motion is in order. You have made rulings on this type of thing in the past. Once again, I have notes on this very issue back in my office. You have misled us into believing we were going to be debating the Afghanistan issue. However, I can wing it, the way it appears that many of us are doing.
My recollection of the Standing Order, which is strictly a recollection at this stage, is that this committee has jurisdiction over members of the House of Commons, not over officials, and this motion talks about Conservative Party officials.
You indicated you were going to proceed as to whether or not this motion was in order. You have backed off that.
As I say, it's unfortunate that this whole topic, which wasn't on the agenda for today, came on the agenda at the last minute. You've put me, personally, at a great disadvantage because I was prepared to debate whether or not these motions were in order and I can't do that because I don't have my notes here. So I'm going strictly on memory that this committee can look at members of this House, of the House of Commons, but it doesn't have jurisdiction to deal with officials, and that's what this motion is all about; it's the word “officials”.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Mr. Tilson, on your point of order, as you know, there has been a point of order raised in the House with regard to the issue of mandate creep. In this regard, the clerk has advised the committee, in some detail—
Conservative
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, you stood on a point of order initially.
Conservative
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Because you weren't authorized by this committee to do that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
No, no, but as a member of Parliament, it's my right to get it on track.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I can advise all the members that the reason it was necessary was to get guidance from the Speaker with regard to what authority this committee has vis-à-vis its published mandate in Standing Order 108.
The motion that was adopted by the committee with regard to the Liberal Party of Canada's fundraising was one issue. It is a matter similar to a matter presently before the procedure and House affairs committee. In my view, that is one committee doing the job of another. That's problematic, generally speaking.
It also is applicable to the issue that I knew was coming before us with these three motions, and it has to do with whether or not this committee, notwithstanding the Standing Orders' specificity, could deal with a matter that in fact does not have any involvement of public office holders.
The clerk has advised that in a literal interpretation of that, he's advising the chair--and I'm not saying that's the decision, but simply his advice--that these motions would not be in order. However, depending on what the Speaker's ruling is with regard to this issue of going beyond mandate, if that's what the committee says, and if the Speaker ultimately rules that the committee has the latitude....
In the confusion of going from in camera to here, I didn't make the decision on the admissibility, because I had raised with the committee that I wanted to defer these items until the Speaker had ruled. The committee decided that should not be the case, and therefore I can't rule it out of order pending the Speaker's decision.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
If the Speaker rules that the matter raised goes beyond a specific mandate, then we would have to reverse any decision made here.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Mr. Chairman, continuing on--and I don't....
Sorry, Mr. Chairman.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Order, Mr. Tilson.
You rose on a point of order, and I think I've explained to you that I am not going to rule on the admissibility of this matter until I've had an opportunity to get guidance from the Speaker of the House.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
A point of order, Mr. Chairman, just so I can clarify. Does that mean you're allowing the process to continue? You're saying you're going to--
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
No, that is my mistake. There should not be debate on a motion that we have not dealt with the admissibility of.
You're absolutely right, Mr. Tilson. I made a mistake.
This is very important. I think members will understand that the issue raised and the point of order with the House has to do with the Standing Orders and whether or not this committee in fact is going to have the authorization to move where it wants to move, notwithstanding what the Standing Orders say. This is a very significant issue, and therefore I think we should hear the Speaker's guidance to this committee and all committees about dealing with matters that are not specifically in your....
So that is my ruling.
