Justice Committee on April 8th, 2008

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chair, I guess you would not be totally surprised if I asked you to observe the rules and pick up where we left off. We had asked for a recorded division on the motion filed by our colleague, Mr. LeBlanc. Let me remind you that this is completely in line with our rules in Marleau and Montpetit. I would like to deal with this matter once and for all by asking you to call for a vote on this motion immediately without debate, and I am going to exercise my right to call for a recorded vote. That is where we were when we left off. I will remind you that there is no debate, that it is automatic, and I think that everyone will benefit if we hold the vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Right. Certainly that's what I expected to hear from you, Monsieur Ménard, and my statement will be as follows. I'm going to read it for the benefit of the entire committee here and the media, since they are present:

Since some time has passed, I would like to remind the committee members why I have ruled this motion out of order. As I said at the time, I ruled along two points, the first being that this motion falls outside the mandate of this committee; secondly, this motion requires the committee to act in a manner contrary to the purpose it was created for. Hence I might point out the clerk's clear statement on the reasons.

On the first point in relation--

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

I don't remember a statement by the clerk.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

It was my ruling, actually, that was generated through--

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Are you saying you let the clerk create your ruling?

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

No, I do not.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

You just referred to the clerk's statement.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I was assisted. She helped me prepare for it, Mr. Lee. I'm sure you understand that fully.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

On the first point, in relation to the mandate of this committee, I will save members from reading the entire standing order related to mandates for committees, but I will draw your attention to Standing Order 108(2), which reads:

108(2). The standing committees, except those set out in sections (3)(a), (3)(f), (3)(h) and (4) of this Standing Order, shall, in addition to the powers granted to them pursuant to section (1) of this Standing Order and pursuant to Standing Order 81, be empowered to study and report on all matters relating to the mandate, management and operation of the department or departments of government which are assigned to them from time to time by the House. In general, the committees shall be severally empowered to review and report on:

(a) the statute law relating to the department assigned to them;

(b) the program and policy objectives of the department and its effectiveness in the implementation of same;

(c) the immediate, medium and long-term expenditure plans and the effectiveness of implementation of same by the department

(d) an analysis of the relative success of the department, as measured by the results obtained as compared with its stated objectives; and

(e) other matters, relating to the mandate, management, organization or operation of the department, as the committee deems fit.

As committee members can see, there is no authority here for an investigation into a particular case or a specific event outside of the management and the effectiveness of the Department of Justice.

With regard to my second reason, it is my ruling that this motion asks the justice committee to do something beyond what it was created to do. This motion would require a committee to act as a trier of fact, which is the role of the judiciary, and it should be respected as such. We do not have the authority to examine particular cases or make attempts to determine facts or investigate the conduct of a particular individual or individuals. As we all know, the courts are charged with applying and interpreting the law. If an individual were accused of murder or break and enter, it would be absurd to imagine that this case would be heard by the justice committee. The specific case would be dealt with in the judicial system.

The role of the House of Commons and membership thereof is to create laws and to review the findings of the court to see if those laws are adequate. As no judicial or quasi-judicial body has made a finding on the topic contained in this motion, this committee cannot commence any such review.

It is a well-established principle that neither parliamentary committees nor the Speaker of the House is in a position to determine questions of fact. Indeed, when disputes as to questions of fact have arisen in the House, the Speaker has consistently taken the position that he is simply not prepared to rule in favour of one member against another. Similarly, this committee is not a trier of fact and should not be expected to make any such determinations.

It should be self-evident that this committee is not in a position to make any kind of legal ruling. In some, the motion is beyond the scope and mandate of the committee and is out of order.

Now, Mr. LeBlanc, since the time of that ruling, you have introduced a new motion in the House of Commons. I note this motion is quite different from the one you have been pushing here in the committee. I take that as an admission of guilt, so to speak, that the motion you have been insisting on studying here is completely out of order, as I have been ruling all along.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I've got to interrupt on a point of order. It seems to me the member who moved this challenge to the chair is entitled to have a vote on it without debate, and a few words from you as to how you got to where you are is acceptable--

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Yes.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

--but it sounds to me as if you're not just engaging in debate on that particular question, but you've now moved over to a motion that one of our members has introduced in the House and you're making inferences on his motivation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Right.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

I think we're all prepared to listen to a few words from you, but if you're going to engage in debate, then I think some of us might want to, because it should be clear from what's gone on here that we don't all agree with your conclusions. To allow you to make a statement without any challenge from us, when there should be no debate on a challenge to the chair, is giving a lot of leeway.

So I'll make that point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chair, I rise on a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

On a point of order, Monsieur Ménard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would remind you that, if you had the decency to comply with the rules and had sided with the clerk, you would find that, in allowing you to read a ruling that you have already brought to our attention many times, even this committee is putting you in a situation in which you are not complying with our rules.

I have to say that, in the Bloc Québécois, despite our friendship with you, we are questioning your ability to continue chairing this committee. I do not know if you feel that you still have the confidence of the committee, but we are wondering about your attitude. We do not understand your position, which is preventing us from resolving the crisis in which we find ourselves. Soon, you will be inviting us to question your ability to chair this committee, which would be a shame.

So, for the last time, in the name of the work that we have accomplished in the past, I am going to ask you, please, to respect the rules by immediately calling for a vote. There is nothing stopping you from doing so. There is no way out.

You are putting the committee in an unproductive situation in which we cannot honour our mandate. You do not have the authority not to call for a vote. So, once again, I am asking you, in the name of all the work we have done since 2006.

How is it that you allowed your ruling to be challenged when it was a matter of amendments filed by colleagues concerning government bills? You agreed that a recorded division on the motion would follow. But since you dislike the subject that we want to debate, you are refusing to enforce the rules.

I have been sitting in the House for 14 years, and I have never seen an attitude like this. So, I reiterate my request for the last time. Otherwise, you will be inviting us to think that you no longer deserve the confidence of this committee. This is not what we want, but we do not intend to waste our time. So, call for a vote. We challenge your decision to rule our colleague Dominic LeBlanc's motion inadmissible. Let us vote on it, and then you will have the members' co-operation. However, stop being so obstructive. Unfortunately, when we talk about you in the hallways of Parliament now, you have come to symbolize obstruction. I know that you will not be seeking another mandate. I do not believe that this is the legacy you wish to leave to this Parliament.

So, call for a vote now so that we can put this matter to rest.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I recognized Monsieur Ménard on a point of order.

Go ahead, Mr. Moore.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Chair, I see the opposition continually bringing this issue forward and calling for a vote on this motion, when in fact there have been numerous opportunities. There have been at least three, perhaps four, opportunities when a member of the opposition has taken the chair. Even in spite of, say, having witnesses who have travelled to appear before the committee, rather than hearing from those witnesses, rather than conducting committee business, which we're now falling far behind on, and rather than even conducting this vote, the members have simply adjourned the meeting. That's happened multiple times.

I'd like to know if it is within the capacity of the opposition to continue calling for a vote when they've in fact been refusing to hold this vote time and time again, on a weekly basis.There have been a number of opportunities when they could have held the same vote they're asking for, and they refused to hold it. They adjourned the meeting.

If the opposition wants this vote so badly, why are they not conducting the vote? As a matter of fact, I've not seen this reported once, despite the following of this committee and the interest it's garnered. Time and time again Mr. Murphy's been in the chair or Mr. Ménard's been in the chair. They could have chaired the meeting, we could have conducted business, and they could have called a vote, but they didn't do it. They adjourned the meeting.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Let's have the vote now.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

I would like to know what your thoughts are on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

On the same point of order, we'll have Mr. LeBlanc.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm not seeking to prolong the agony. I'm in agreement with Monsieur Ménard that we should proceed to a vote. If Mr. Moore is concerned about the numbers and the math in terms of when we should have the vote, we're very fortunate to have our full-time, permanent chair here today with us in the chair.

That's why, Rob, we're absolutely looking forward to taking the vote shortly. If you really thought it was a matter of having a vice-chair in the chair and having a vote, there wouldn't be six of you sitting on that side of the table waiting to sign in when your chair evacuates.

Mr. Chair, I would really urge you to proceed to the vote. It's amusing, this discussion. I'm not hating it; I just think it would be in the interest of all of us if we got back to the work this committee should be doing. And I remind you, Mr. Chair, that this is why we have offered to have one or two sessions on the Cadman issue, extra sessions, and not take away from the committee's work. That's why we find it regrettable that we keep arriving at this dead end.