Evidence of meeting #7 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I have a point of clarification. Can you share with me what the procedure would be following this vote?
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I'm assuming that there will be a debate on the motion with the speaking list that you have just outlined.
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Then I'm assuming it will come to the question. What will happen subsequent to its coming to the question?
6:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rachael Thomas
Mr. Fergus, I'm not able to tell you where that vote will end, but once the vote is completed, which is what I'm assuming you're asking, if the motion passes, then this committee would have the responsibility to determine a witness list and so forth. We'd move forward. The clerk, of course, would call for those documents as outlined in the motion. However, if this motion does not pass, then you are all free to go on your way and that's that.
6:35 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
The reason why I ask, Madam Chair, is that, given that we have passed the time that was scheduled for our regular business meeting—and, of course, there is a motion on the table, so it needs to be considered—following that motion, would there be an automatic adjournment and move to the subcommittee for the subcommittee business that was planned to be taking place starting at 6 p.m.?
6:35 p.m.
The Clerk
The motion as amended reads, “That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h), the Committee review the safeguards which are in place to avoid and prevent conflicts of interest in federal government procurement, contracting, granting, contribution and other expenditure policies; and that, to provide a case study for this review, an Order of the Committee do issue to Speakers’ Spotlight for a copy of all records pertaining to speaking appearances arranged, since October 14, 2008, for Justin Trudeau, Sophie Grégoire Trudeau, Margaret Trudeau and Alexandre Trudeau—including, in respect of each speaking appearance, an indication of the fee provided, any expenses that were reimbursed and the name of the company, organization, person or entity booking it—provided that these records shall be provided to the Clerk of Committee within one week of the adoption of this Order; and that the clerk provide these records to the members of the Committee and the Ethics Commissioner for study; and that any examination by this Committee of the documents referred to be done in camera; and that this Committee calls upon Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to appear to give testimony relating to these matters.”
6:35 p.m.
Conservative
6:35 p.m.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
It's wonderful that we are able to talk this much, but these opportunities do not last long.
If I understand correctly, we took the time to consider the issue from all angles for our constituents. Considering that we have managed to unanimously move forward, I hope that we will remain open-minded during the discussion leading up to the vote, but I feel we could raise new points, rather than repeat what has already been said at our last two meetings. I know that we are capable of doing it.
The next speaker can have the floor, because I'm ready to vote.
6:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rachael Thomas
Thank you very much.
Moving down the speakers list, we have Mr. Kurek.
6:35 p.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I, too, would acknowledge the breadth of the discussion that has already taken place and would cede my time in order to proceed to a vote.
6:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rachael Thomas
Thank you, Mr. Kurek.
My next speakers are Mr. Fergus, Madame Brière and Madam Shanahan.
Mr. Fergus.
6:35 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Madam Chair, thank you very much. I will once again raise my opposition to what we're doing and I think I have parliamentary reasons to support this. When you take a look at the “Selected Decisions of Speaker Milliken”, you will find several examples that indicate committee reports that exceed the scope of their committee's mandate. You can find those rulings, Madam Chair, as was brought to my attention over the weekend, on pages 774 to pages 799. There are a number of rulings that Speaker Milliken had issued stating when committees had exceeded their mandates.
I won't review them here. I won't waste your time, but I think it is really important. When you look at those rulings, you'll see the talk about the mandate of this committee. It is really important. I would like to point out, near the end of that selection of readings on page 798, Speaker Milliken says, “Like all other powers of standing committees, the power to report is limited to issues that fall within their mandate or that have been specifically assigned to them by the House.”
In other words, the mandate of the committee limits not only the scope of the committee's report and its study, but also the scope of its power to send for persons and/or papers. We are exceeding our mandate here today.
Madam Chair, I know you did not issue a ruling. I would request that perhaps you take a minute to confer with the clerk, but based on that citation I would love to have a ruling from the chair as to whether or not you think this main motion—if it should pass—should be considered.
Does it fall within or without, inside or outside, of the mandate of this committee?
6:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rachael Thomas
Mr. Fergus, thank you.
It has been brought to my attention, actually, through due diligence on my own part as chair. I have conferred with the clerk and have done my own research. I appreciate you referencing those pages. I trust they are from the 2017 edition.
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
This time it is just from the “Selected Decisions of Speaker Milliken”. It's not necessarily the House rules of procedure from 2017 actually. It's from his—
6:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rachael Thomas
That's good clarification; thank you. Having reviewed that, I would say that this motion is in fact within the scope of this committee.
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I will be asking that you rule on this, in light of the “Selected Decisions of Speaker Milliken”, pages 774 to 799.
6:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rachael Thomas
Just give me one moment.
We're just going to suspend for one moment please.
Thank you.
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rachael Thomas
Mr. Fergus asked me to make a ruling with regard to whether or not the motion is admissible. I have conferred with the clerk on this matter once again, and have concluded that it is. I conclude that it is within the mandate of this committee based on Standing Order 108(3)(h)(vii). Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h), the committee is able to review the safeguards that are in place to avoid and prevent conflicts of interest in federal government procurement, contracting, granting, contribution and other expenditure policies, as outlined in the motion.
Standing Order 108(3)(h)(vii) states that the mandate of this committee includes the following: “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”. Given that this is part of the mandate of this committee, I see no reason why the motion does not stand. Therefore, I am ruling it as within the purview.
We go to Madame Brière.