I want to add, Madam Chair, that whether this committee passed something unanimously or whether it didn't pass something unanimously is entirely irrelevant. It has to pass something within its mandate. Its mandate for government operations is set out clearly on page 83, and you were trying to read into the record what constitutes the mandate of this government.
I realize that members opposite may feel something, but feeling something and being something are two different ideas entirely. This committee could pass a unanimous resolution that the sky is blue, but it's not within its mandate to say whether the sky is blue or not.
So to go through, as I hoped Mr. Warkentin would let you do...you will note that (c)(i) says a review and report of the effectiveness, management, and expenditure plans of the central departments and agencies. Clearly that doesn't fall within even the most generous interpretation of the allegation here. It doesn't fall within that issue.
The second point is within the jurisdiction of this committee. It is “the review of and report on the effectiveness, management and operation, together with operational and expenditure plans relating to the use of new and emerging information and communications technologies by the government”. Again, that's not within the most generous interpretation of the unanimously passed resolution of this committee. It doesn't fit within that.
Then you go to the third one, which is “the review of and report on the effectiveness, management and operation of specific operational and expenditure items across all departments and agencies”. Again, the allegations have nothing to do with committee.
There may be allegations that people want to make against Mr. Lee, for reasons best known to them--from my side of the fence they are largely driven by politics, but we'll leave that aside--but your committee is limited to the standing rules. You might wish to carry on all kinds of inquiries, but your inquiries are limited to your standing rules.
This is an important committee; you have a lot of things you can do. But out of the first three items you're able to do, certainly this allegation doesn't fall within any one of them.
The fourth one is “the review of and report on the Estimates of programs delivered by more than one department or agency”. Well, this has nothing to do with estimates, so again, it's well outside of your purview.
I can go through item (v), item (vi), item (vii). Item (viii) is “the review of and report on the effectiveness, management and operation, together with operational and expenditure plans arising from supplementary estimates”. Again, it's nothing to do with that.
“The form and content of all estimates documents”...again, nothing to do with that.
“Crown Corporations and agencies”...again, nothing to do with that.
“In cooperation with other committees, the review of and report on the effectiveness, management and operation”...the majority of the funding from the Government of Canada. Again, it's nothing to do with that.
So if you take paragraph 108(c) and you go (i) through (x), you're functus; this is not your thing.
Mr. Lee has quite generously, in my view, directed the committee that if a member wishes to raise allegations, there is a procedure available. It's not available before this committee; it's available before another committee.
Keep in mind, Madam Chair, that we are dealing with a member of Parliament who's been here for 22 years. I've had the privilege of knowing Mr. Lee for way longer than Mr. Lee and I actually care to admit. It goes back to college days, when he was the brains of the class and I held up the other end.