I understand very clearly what my colleague is saying. However, it is the mandate which dictates our business. Standing Order 108(1)(a) deals with the mandate. It states:
Standing committees shall be severally empowered to examine and inquiry into all such matters as may be referred to them by the House...
Matters are referred by the House, not by committees.
I understand Mr. Ménard's opinion about the fact that a majority government may choose to abuse of the situation. The opposite is true ?? is possible as well. The opposition could also abuse a minority government. It goes both ways.
Whether or not I am defeated is irrelevant. What is relevant is to know the rules. If there are rules, we need to respect them, be they good or bad.
The House sends me here. I got this information out for you. Marleau Montpetit and Beauchesne are up-to-date. There is no jurisprudence. You won't find any. I've done extensive research on this, and there is none. So, today it is unchartered area. In other words, the House gives me the authority, and I must consider what it refers to me.
Either way, if we adopt this motion, there is no purpose in my being here. I just have to follow along with the opposition's agenda and go where I'm told, there won't be any purpose in me... Although you may control your time, you do not control your purpose. The main purpose is determined by the House. Not by the committee. So, if we decide to start using section 108 ?? Standing Order 108 to do other things, there's no purpose in my being here. I'll just wait for their agenda and work on that, because we'll all get along. That's all I can say.
I'm trying to say his motion is no good. It's not about the substance. It's just that he is introducing content which was not referred to me by the House. That's all.