Mr. Dykstra.
Evidence of meeting #23 for Justice and Human Rights in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #23 for Justice and Human Rights in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
April 8th, 2008 / 3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Mr. LeBlanc actually aroused an interest in me to partake in this discussion. It was a comment that he made about getting back to the business that this justice and human rights committee is supposed to be doing. I think it's probably the most salient point he's made in the last four meetings during which we've tried to work through this.
With all due respect, I would like to remind him that it's very clear that the motion that he has moved has nothing whatsoever to do, through you, Mr. Chair, with the work and the responsibilities of the justice and human rights committee.
It's pretty clear that if his suggestion is--and in fact if he's prepared to move a motion--to get back to the work and the efforts that this committee was doing prior to the introduction of a motion that at the ethics committee was actually turned down by a colleague of his who chairs that committee and who actually said that the motion was out of order there.... It arrived here at the justice committee not because it was changed, not because it was corrected, not because it was made to fit the confines and responsibilities that we have as a committee, but simply as the exact same motion that ended up not being heard at the ethics committee.
Perhaps it's debate, Mr. Lee, but I don't think so, because what Mr. LeBlanc suggested was that we get back to the business of the committee. All I'm doing is taking his comments and expanding on them a little bit in terms of what our responsibilities are at this committee.
In fact it's very clear. The motion proposes that this committee conduct a study to determine the facts of a particular case. While this committee is fully able to undertake studies into matters concerning the Criminal Code, it does not have the authority to examine particular cases or make attempts to determine facts or investigate the conduct of a particular individual or individuals.
It can't be any clearer. It is the ruling of the chair. It is the ruling of the chair here at the justice committee. It is the ruling of the chair at the ethics committee. It is the exact same ruling.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Mr. LeBlanc was suggesting that we get back to the order and responsibility of what this committee is supposed to be doing, which we were doing extremely well prior to the introduction of a motion that actually is out of order.
I've never heard any question around whether the motion is out of order. All I've heard from those in favour of moving ahead with a challenge of the chair is that they don't like the decision that he's made. They've never actually articulated whether he was right or wrong.
3:50 p.m.
An hon. member
That's debate.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
The point is that what we have in front of us is a motion. And you're well within your rights to be able to challenge the chair on this, but the fact is that the motion is out of order. It's been ruled out of order.
I couldn't agree with you more, Dominic. We want to get back to the responsibilities of what we have to do here at this committee, and certainly I am looking to you to do that as quickly as possible.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
On that same point that's been raised, on the issue of getting business done, as a matter of fact, this committee has been handed one of the heaviest workloads of all committees. I think something we could all be proud of, in fact, is that we were getting a lot of great work done on behalf of Canadians until—and I think the Speaker himself spoke to this in his ruling—we had an attempt at a partisan hijacking of the committee.
I'm going to reference something again, for the benefit of those who probably haven't been aware of this. The Speaker gave a ruling that was exactly on point to what we're dealing with today, Chair. I would like to make a comment on one thing he said. He was speaking to the situation at committees.
He said:
Since that time appeals of decisions by chairs appear to have proliferated, with the result that having decided to ignore our usual procedure and practices, committees have found themselves in situations that verge on anarchy.
This is a ruling by the Speaker of the House of Commons.
Even the prestigious Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which, as the Striking Committee, is the very heartbeat of the committee system, has not escaped the general lawlessness.
He goes on to say:
Last week, I understand that the committee elected as its chair a member who stated unequivocally that he did not want the nomination.
So the Speaker calls on all of us, as parliamentarians, to not, in his words, invoke the tyranny of the majority and to allow a sound ruling by the chair of a committee to stand, rather than having the majority on a committee overrule what is a valid ruling.
I think that's what we have here, Chair. We have a valid ruling by you. This is directly on point to what the Speaker has ruled, and I see the opposition continuing to act, flying in the face of a sound ruling and a statement by the Speaker of the House.
The Speaker goes on to say—and I think we should all take this to heart—and I quote:
Frankly speaking, I do not think it is overly dramatic to say that many of our committees are suffering from a dysfunctional virus that, if allowed to propagate unchecked, risks preventing members from fulfilling the mandate given to them by their constituents.
I would suggest that the mandate given to us by our constituents is to work on their behalf as a committee dealing with legislation that's been put before us, not to go on what I would say is a partisan witch hunt completely outside the scope of the work this committee should be doing--in fact, the work with which this committee is vested.
I just want to say one more thing, Mr. Chair. The Speaker must remain ever mindful of the first principles of our parliamentary tradition to protect the minority and restrain the improvidence and tyranny of the majority in order to secure the transaction of public business in a decent and orderly manner.
I'm calling on all members at the table. We have worked together very well on legislation that is important to all Canadians. We've worked on legislation that's important to our constituents. We've seen, time and time again, an attempt to introduce something in this committee that you, Chair, have ruled out of order. The challenges to your sound ruling fly in the face of the Speaker's ruling, and I ask that members respect the Speaker's ruling.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Thank you.
Mr. Murphy, for a final word.
Mr. Comartin, on a point of order.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
On a point of order, I just want to correct Mr. Moore. He is lumping me in with the opposition parties. The NDP has made it very clear that it agrees with the Chair's ruling.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
I apologize to Mr. Comartin. I hadn't seen him there, so I apologize. Now that you're here, I don't want to lump you in unfairly with the Bloc and the Liberals.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
I have recognized Mr. Murphy, apart from Mr. Comartin's point of order.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Mr. Chair, I know it might be completely out of place at the justice committee to inject a brief view of what the law might be, but any decision—really in any tribunal, any administrative board, or any court—has, roughly speaking, four elements of natural justice that we observe in this country, in the British Commonwealth system. There are basically four.
One is that you have to know what the issue is. That has been very clear. We know what the issue has been.
Sides have the right to be heard audi alteram partem. Mr. Chairman, you did a wonderful job of letting people be heard.
When a decision is reached, you have to know what the reasons are for those decisions. And again, you've been stellar as a chairman in eliciting your reasons, so compliments to you.
It's on the last aspect. What remedy is there for a decision that's laid down? The law recognizes in various tribunals, courts, and everywhere, and at this committee, a right of appeal. That is what, by your actions, you are denying. You are abridging the rules to your own opinion and satisfaction, but you are denying the right of appeal; and for that reason, I can't....
Otherwise you have conducted, in the last two years I have been here, a stellar record on responses to all the questions I've ever had, as a member of this committee. On this one, sadly, you fail me, and you fail the Canadian justice system.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Thank you very much, Mr. Murphy. I'm going to give you a grand opportunity to fulfill all those very words you just spoke to me, that you feel I neglected. However, before I do, for the record I will go through my original statement on the ruling, for the benefit of the committee and those listening today.
I have to say that I'm more than troubled by the insistence of the opposition in introducing this motion. It flies in the face of what this committee should be about doing, and they know it. However, for the record, this is it.
As observers of this committee will note, this committee is meeting for the second or third time in public to discuss committee business. We have now had five consecutive meetings in which certain members of the committee insisted on pressing their point before we could do the work that this committee has already agreed should proceed.
In three of those meetings, witnesses who travelled across the country were unable to testify because of the opposition's antics. It is my opinion that these actions do not show proper respect for the witnesses. I will not allow the witnesses at my committee to be treated in this manner; hence there are no witnesses here today.
Now, I have been blamed, to put it mildly, both here and in the media for ending these meetings. This is simply not true. Marleau and Montpetit, chapter 20, page 829, makes it clear that when a chair of a committee is not available, a vice-chair--which would be you, Mr. Murphy--is fully authorized to take his or her place and conduct the committee's business. When I left the room, the meeting did not end. Either of the vice-chairs who were in the room were free to preside over the vote and were certainly free to preside over the hearing of the witnesses on Bill C-27.
But that is not what occurred. Instead of taking the vote or continuing our Bill C-27 study, the vice-chair simply adjourned the meeting, leaving the witnesses high and dry. I can only assume--
4 p.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Chair, you are out of order. We are supposed to have a vote. I don't understand why you're doing this.
4 p.m.
Conservative
4 p.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
I do not understand why you are doing this. I do not understand why you do not call for a vote. You are perpetuating the disarray of this committee. Your position is out of order.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
I can only assume that until this issue is resolved by the committee, the same thing will continue to happen. As chair, I will not put the witnesses in that position.
Now, if the Liberals and the Bloc wish to proceed with their motion, I have no issue in saying I will not preside over the vote. I will not preside over the overturning of a correct procedural ruling I have made, or a mockery of Parliament in clear violation of the rules. And the Speaker has attested to that.
