Mr. Chair, if you want to give the impression of destruction of due process, you could do that by shutting down a member of the opposition on a point of order.
So the leader of the official opposition appeared. Subsequently we asked the Speaker for a ruling. I won't read the whole ruling, but at the heart of the motion, as discussed by the Speaker, was an issue of whether the motion in question was an admissible motion pursuant to Standing Order 56.1. Further, on page 6 of his lengthy ruling, he says the following:
In fact, it leads the Chair to the conclusion that the motion was...stepping beyond what the House has come to accept as being within the confines of Standing Order 56.1.
So I'll read that again:In fact, it leads the Chair to the conclusion that the motion was...stepping beyond what the House has come to accept as being within the confines of Standing Order 56.1.
So in terms of the admissibility, in terms of whether or not the original motion was in order, the Speaker was very clear. The motion was not in order. The motion was not admissible. He said the leader of the official opposition has already appeared. So of course that component is moot. I think we would all agree with that. The reality is the leader of the official opposition answered all questions, and the folks who I talk with are very clear that it's good to have a leader actually taking responsibility, coming forward, and answering questions. But there's no doubt that the Speaker's ruling changes this committee's focus.
The committee cannot continue with a study already raised by the deputy law clerk, and already raised by the former Law Clerk, as being problematic with the exception of the fact that the motion was brought forward in the House. I can reference that more specifically. Both the deputy law clerk and the former law clerk said, “This is really problematic”. There is a House order, so maybe there is a way of looking through this. Now we have a very clear direction from the Speaker that the motion was inadmissible; it was out of order.
Mr. Chair, with all due respect, I think it's been made very clear. The Speaker should not be defied on this. The Speaker should not be overruled by a committee. The Speaker has ruled. The Speaker has said that it was inadmissible; it was out of order; it goes beyond the confines of what is permitted under Standing Order 56.1.
That is a clear acknowledgment that the idea government members have that we can just pursue this Standing Order 56.1 study forever, that we can continue a kangaroo court forever, is something that has been very clearly pointed to by the Speaker as not being appropriate. It's inadmissible. It was out of order. That means, of course, that things will continue in other venues like the Board of Internal Economy, which to our mind is partisan and secretive, but the reality is in terms of the original House order, it was inadmissible.