Evidence of meeting #3 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Order. I'm now prepared to rule on the admissibility of motions submitted to--
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I have put you on notice that I was going to raise this point of order. It has to do with some comments that were made by Mr. Martin at the end of the last meeting that were most inappropriate. You, sir, have an obligation to keep order in this meeting. You have an obligation to maintain the integrity of this committee.
Mr. Martin, whom I have sat with on other committees, is normally an excellent member of committees, and he normally isn't subject to those outbursts. I hope it was something that he simply lost control of for a few moments. I believe he should apologize not only to you, sir, because the remarks were directed toward you as the chair.... I could go into the rules of order of the House that talks about that, but I'm not going to do that. Most of you are all aware of that. Certainly his comments were most inappropriate, and considering that this is the ethics committee--this is the ethics committee--and we have members making derogatory comments to the chair of the committee on at least two occasions, once from his chair and once from up here, I hope we'll give him a chance to speak. Hopefully he will withdraw or apologize profusely, because of all the committees, this is the committee in which you don't act in that fashion.
11:05 a.m.
An hon. member
A point of order, Mr. Chair.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Mr. Chairman, I'm still on my point of order. You listened to me and now you're moving on. Are you not going to rule on my point of order?
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Do you want me to go on? If you're not going to say anything, I'll go on and we'll make a speech.
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Mr. Martin and I have met and we spoke last night and again today. He has apologized to me and I accepted his apology.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
11:05 a.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will speak to the point of order. I did plan, when I got the floor later in the meeting, to preface my remarks with a statement something like the following. I do sincerely regret my outburst from yesterday. I apologize to anyone within earshot. Whether it was within the meeting or not, I believe the gavel had probably banged. But that doesn't matter. Vulgar words were used, and I regret that and apologize for using that language.
11:05 a.m.
Some hon. members
Hear, hear!
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Thank you.
I'm now prepared to rule on the admissibility of motions submitted to our committee that relate to the Mulroney Airbus settlement and the ethical standards of public office holders.
At our November 20 meeting I advised the committee that our clerk, in consultation with the acting principal clerk of committees, had concerns with respect to the admissibility of motions submitted to our committee that relate to the Mulroney Airbus settlement. Substantively, the concerns brought into question were whether these motions were within the mandate of the committee.
The members will know that the general mandate of all standing committees is laid out in section 108 of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. The more specific mandate of our committee is presented in paragraph 108(3)(h), items (i) to (vi).
Having reviewed the Standing Orders, I can see no disagreement that items (i) through (v) are not applicable to the question of admissibility of the motions for which concerns have been expressed.
Item (vi), in relation to ethics matters only, effectively reads that the mandate of our committee shall include:
the proposing, promoting, monitoring and assessing of initiatives which relate to...[the] ethical standards relating to public office holders
The concerns expressed to me as chair relate to the term “initiatives”, which is not defined in the Standing Orders.
If the paragraph is read to assume that “initiatives” refers only to the initiatives of this committee or the Ethics Commissioner, the paragraph is restrictive. If, however, the paragraph is read to assume that “initiatives” includes initiatives of entities other than this committee or the Ethics Commissioner, the scope of our mandate is substantially enhanced.
This committee was created to take a principal role in the areas of access to information, privacy, and ethics; therefore, to restrict its scope in these areas would also restrict its ability to discharge its responsibilities.
The Government of Canada has called for a public inquiry into the Mulroney-Schreiber affair, which resulted in a $2.1 million settlement from taxpayers to cover Mr. Mulroney's defamation lawsuit. This initiative—and I stress “this initiative”—by the Government of Canada was prompted by new evidence and allegations that may—and I stress “may”—involve ethical violations by public office holders.
Having consulted with procedural officials and legal counsel, it is my ruling that the motions related to the Mulroney Airbus settlement are admissible within the mandate of this committee.
I invite Mr. Martin to move his motion.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have spent considerable time reviewing the mandate of this committee. I strongly suggest to you.... I did hear what you had to say, but in light of the efforts I've made in reviewing the very tight guidelines with which this committee was established—because this committee was established specifically to ensure ethics in the House of Commons—the only way this committee could entertain any of these motions, with the exception of the one that's been put forward by the parliamentary secretary, is by reference from the House of Commons.
There is a specific.... It says “and any other matter the House shall from time to time”—
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Please answer the question. Is the point of order to challenge the decision of the chair?
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
No, my point of order is to suggest that in the last meeting you were entertaining arguments as to why they should be admissible--any of those motions. We have not heard those arguments as to why they should be admissible.
I heard you suggest why you feel they may be admissible, or why you feel they are admissible. My feeling is that they are not admissible under the Standing Orders that have been established.
This committee was established with very tight parameters as to what it is to be working on. This committee could be doing some very good work. I don't believe it's in the interest of Parliament and I don't believe it's in the interest of Canadians that this committee chase off on a witch hunt. I suggest, if I may, that if the committee is to entertain these motions, it needs to do so via a reference from the House of Commons.
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Thank you.
Mr. Del Mastro, I do not believe that is a point of order.
Order, please.
Now I have a point of order from Madame Lavallée.
Vous avez la parole.
11:10 a.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Chair, I would like to interrupt my colleague Mr. Del Mastro because according to the Standing Orders, a ruling of the chair cannot be debated. You can challenge it or uphold it, but you cannot debate it. I am asking Mr. Del Mastro to stop debating your ruling.
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
A point of order, Mr. Chairman.
I don't mean to annoy you. These are important issues that I believe we're raising. I sense you are being annoyed and I don't mean to do that.
The issue I wish to speak on involves Mr. Thibault. Mr. Martin is going to make a motion and you have now ruled it is in order to make that motion. Ultimately, we're going to vote and debate that matter. Mr. Thibault will be in a position to correct me if I'm wrong. I believe he's an honourable fellow. I've sat with him on committees and I've observed him. But it's my understanding that this topic, this whole issue, involves Mr. Schreiber and Mr. Mulroney, and as I understand it, Mr. Mulroney has a lawsuit against Mr. Thibault.
11:10 a.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!