I want to raise a point of order and get a ruling on whether this motion is in fact in order.
The reason I say this is that the main motion this member is referring to was a motion that flowed from the industry committee. I would suggest that it has to do with the Statistics Act, which is under its specific jurisdiction. When it moved that motion, the House found it in order, and when another committee moved a similar motion, they moved it out of order because it already had been dealt with.
Now, the central point of my objection is the fact that, if one were to look at the way this motion is drafted, even though it's cleverly drafted—and I've come to appreciate the cleverness of the drafting over he last little while—it talks about “recommend” and “if necessary”. But the germane portion of the motion is to delay the next census to a later date, and of course the date of the census is established, as I would understand it, by the Statistics Act. In order for the House to do that, that amendment would have to be made to that piece of legislation.
For this committee, when we first embarked upon the study, the purpose of the study, and any recommendations flowing from it, should be specifically in line with the motion that was passed and presented to this committee by Mr. Savage. It said that it “study the impact of cancelling the long form census, particularly as it relates to planning and tracking of vital social trends related to economic security”.
Now, this motion is outside of that mandate. I would like the clerk to specifically look at the mandate of the motion under which we're studying this and also keep in mind the effect of the motion with respect to amending it.
Then I would raise the standing orders themselves. We've been looking at Standing Order 108(2), and it talks about what the standing committee can do, and of course it can deal with the statute law relating to the department assigned to it. The Statistics Act is not assigned to the HUMA committee; it's assigned to the industry committee.
Given all of those arguments, it would seem that implicit in this motion is a direction that would be outside the scope and mandate of this committee, and therefore should not be entertained.