Information & Ethics Committee on March 7th, 2011

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

On a point of order, would it not be wise of us to release our witness who is waiting here? It's obvious we're not going to get to his remarks in the next 15 minutes. In the interest of his schedule we should release him, with our apologies.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Does the committee agree to do that?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Mr. Fraser, we thank you very much for your attendance here today. We apologize that we have been sidetracked by other business. We have motions that have been brought forward at this point. We thank you for attending, but at this point we will release you and hopefully be able to book you at another time to hear your comments.

[Graham Fraser, Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages]

I hope so. I'm looking forward to it.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Thank you very much.

Okay. We'll come back to the business at hand, and I will read to you the advice that I've been given by the clerk. As I said, this is only advice. It's certainly up to the committee as to whether or not you agree with my opinion, but I think I agree with the advice the clerk has given us. I will read the statements.

First of all, I want to thank the honourable member for having moved the motion. However, given the advice I've received from the clerk, I am of the opinion that the motion is inadmissible, and I will give you the reasons for that.

First of all, I believe the motion goes beyond the mandate of this committee, specifically with regard to Standing Order 108(3)(h)(vi), which states:

vi) the proposing, promoting, monitoring and assessing of initiatives which relate to access to information and privacy across all sectors of Canadian society and to ethical standards relating to public office holders; and any other matter which the House shall from time to time refer to the Standing Committee.

It's important to understand the definition of public office holders with regard to the mandate of the committee. This standing order refers to the definition as described in the Conflict of Interest Act. “Public office holder” is defined as:

(a) a minister of the Crown, a minister of state or a parliamentary secretary;

(b) a member of ministerial staff;

(c) a ministerial adviser;

(d) a Governor in Council appointee, other than the following persons, namely,

(i) a lieutenant governor,

(ii) officers and staff of the Senate, House of Commons and Library of Parliament,

(iii) a person appointed or employed under the Public Service Employment Act who is a head of mission within the meaning of subsection 13(1) of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act,

(iv) a judge who receives a salary under the Judges Act,

(v) a military judge within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the National Defence Act, and

(vi) an officer of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, not including the Commissioner;

(d.1) a ministerial appointee whose appointment is approved by the Governor in Council; and

(e) a full-time ministerial appointee designated by the appropriate minister of the Crown as a public office holder.

Members of Parliament and their parliamentary staff are subject to the conflict of interest code for members of the House of Commons, which would fall under the mandate of another committee. Most importantly, however, in subsection 52.6(1), the Parliament of Canada Act states that:

The Board has the exclusive authority to determine whether any previous, current or proposed use by a member of the House of Commons of any funds, goods, services or premises made available to that member for the carrying out of parliamentary functions is or was proper, given the discharge of the parliamentary functions of members of the House of Commons, including whether any such use is or was proper having regard to the intent and purpose of the by-laws made under subsection 52.5(1).

This is further emphasized on page 238 of the second edition of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, O'Brien and Bosc, which goes on to say that:

The Board determines the terms and conditions of managing and accounting for the funds by the Members and has exclusive authority to determine whether their use is or was proper.

Other bylaws set out the terms governing the members’ use of budgets and other benefits provided by the House, including travel points, printing privileges, staff, and the purchase of goods.

As members of Parliament, the proper use of parliamentary resources is something that concerns us all. However, for the reasons that I've given you and from the information that the clerk has researched for me, I believe this committee is not the proper forum to hold that discussion.

Mr. Abbott.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you.

Obviously I don't agree with the position you've arrived at, and I would like to tell you why.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Mr. Siksay, on a point of order.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Chair, is Mr. Abbott directly challenging the chair's ruling? He should state that clearly before he goes into a long....

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

This has been ruled. That's been my ruling as the chair. So yes, certainly if you are challenging the chair, that's your prerogative.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair. And to confirm, I am challenging the chair's ruling.

This is exceptionally--

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Mr. Abbott, I don't believe that's debatable. So you're challenging the chair, and I believe that we call for the vote on challenging the chair.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 7; nays 3)

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Is there any other business to come before this committee today?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Patricia Davidson]

Is there a motion to adjourn? So moved by Mr. Siksay.

The meeting is adjourned.