Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have some concerns, but not of the amendment. Could I just step back? I appreciate members' giving me a moment to get up to speed. This is my first time at this committee.
Members will probably know that we dealt with this subject to a great extent on the procedure and House affairs committee. There was, in fact, a ruling made on the confined motion that it was indeed out of order because the original motion, which has been deemed in order at this committee, is actually far too specific. That opinion was generated by opinions of the clerks, in particular the head law clerk, Mr. Robert Walsh.
A number of analogies were used to convince the chair of that committee that the original motion that this committee was looking at was in fact not within the mandate of the committee because it was too specific in nature. There's enough precedent, Mr. Chair, to rule that in fact that would be the case.
For example, Standing Order 108(3)(a)(vi) says, and I'll quote the Standing Orders, “the review of and report on all matters relating to the election of Members to the House of Commons” is the mandate of the procedure and House affairs committee. That's right from the Standing Orders. As you can hear when I read the quote out of the book--the bible, as we call it here on the Hill--that's a fairly broad mandate, and it's been written for a specific reason.