Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As a visiting member to this committee, I'm a little bit surprised at the direction it's moving in. As a lawyer, I have a respect for the law and the interpretation of the law, and I would have thought that would have prevailed.
I have some comments to make, Mr. Chair, but I have a question for the legislative clerk. My question has to do with whether there are any limits on a committee that would prevent it from making amendments to a bill outside the scope of the bill or outside the scope of the committee. We've just had a ruling from you that because the amendment is outside the scope of the bill, it cannot be allowed by the chair. Now mob rule has prevailed, and we're making that amendment regardless.
I don't meant to offend. Okay, I withdraw the words “mob rule”. The majority has now stated that we're going to proceed with an amendment that's outside the scope of the bill.
My question is to the legislative clerk--and I want to make sure they hear my question. Then I have some additional comments, Mr. Chair.
Is there any limit to what a committee could do to amend a bill? Does not the logic of the law prevail in any means? Could this committee make an amendment that you, the chair, would overrule?
I'm elaborating on my question. Is there any limit to the kind of challenge that could be made to the chair to amend a bill? I'll use a couple of extreme examples.
I'm normally a member of the natural resources committee, and we're dealing with the isotope issue. Could the majority of the members of this committee sustain an amendment to this bill mandating the Minister of Human Resources to negotiate a national isotope strategy? Is that possible? Could the members in a majority, by overruling the chair, redefine what a house is in Canada so that it would include a car? Is this all possible? If that's the case, where does this go?
If we're moving into the realm of Alice in Wonderland, is there not any backstop at some point where someone has the authority to say okay, you've moved beyond the boundaries of what's legally possible, and no, you can't proceed? Is there any backstop at some point that would prevent a majority of a committee from making these kinds of changes?