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.