O'Brien and Bosc also says the following on pages 1047 and 1048:
The idea that committees are 'masters of their proceedings' or 'masters of their procedures' is frequently evoked in committee debates or the House. The concept refers to the freedom committees normally have to organize their work as they see fit and the option they have of defining, on their own, certain rules of procedure that facilitate their proceedings.
This is common with most committees and we've done this regularly here.
These freedoms are not, however, total or absolute. First, it is useful to bear in mind that committees are creatures of the House. This means that they have no independent existence and are not permitted to take action unless they have been authorized/empowered to do so by the House.
The freedom committees have is, in fact, a freedom limited on two levels. First, committees are free to organize their proceedings as they see fit provided that their studies and the motions and reports that they adopt comply with the orders of reference and instructions issued by the House. Second, committees may adopt procedural rules to govern their proceedings, but only to the extent the House does not prescribe anything specific. At all times, directives from procedural sources higher than parliamentary committees (Constitution; statutes; order of reference, instructions and Standing Orders of the House; and rulings by the Speaker) take precedence over any rules a committee may adopt.
This committee is specifically mandated by the House of Commons. This is clear in Standing Order 108. The mandate involves the Access to Information Act, the Privacy Act, the Conflict of Interest Act. None of those acts apply to members of the House of Commons or their staff. An examination of a former House of Commons employee is beyond the scope or the authority of this committee given to it by the House of Commons.
In light of all this, I would ask the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister a very important question. In light of the Speaker's ruling, is he still going to pursue this motion? If the answer to this question is yes, then Mr. Del Mastro is voting non-confidence in our Speaker. The parliamentary secretary--