Madam LeBlanc, I need to rule against the admissibility of the motion. I can outline the reasons for that. It goes outside of the mandate of the committee and there are two specific reasons why it does.
First, Bill C-60 was not referred to this committee and certain issues raised in the motion fall outside the committee's mandate as provided by Standing Order 108(2).
As well, the motion suggests the committee call on the House to delegate a power to the Standing Committee on Finance. Committees are creatures of the House and may not go beyond the powers given to them by the House. Only the House has the ability to delegate certain powers to the committees, and refer to them in any other issue for review. That's according to O'Brien and Bosc, pages 962 and 973. Therefore, it's not admissible for a committee to make recommendations regarding the powers of another committee.
Second, it's also suggested the committee recommend to the House that the finance committee be given the power to divide Bill C-60 into several bills. It also recommends that these various bills be referred to various committees. Once again, such recommendation goes well beyond the mandate of this committee. It is up to the House to decide which committee a bill will be referred to.
The House already decided to refer Bill C-60 to the finance committee. Even if the House agreed to give the finance committee the authority to divide the bill, and the committee exercised the authority, the resulting bills would remain before the finance committee. Therefore, this is clearly not an issue that our committee is able to decide on.
For all these reasons, I have to rule against the admissibility of the motion.