Public Safety Committee on Aug. 10th, 2010

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Welcome, committee members, to this meeting requested by four committee members.

I've just been notified by the clerk that as per the rules of committees, it is the responsibility of the vice-chair to take the chair. I'm not certain how that relates to the discussion that just ensued, but I've just been given that notification, sitting in the chair now, that that is the normal practice of committee business, so this is veering away from committee business.

The purpose of the meeting today, as requested by four committee members, is that the committee discuss their request to undertake a study to consider the threat to Canadians created by the reported failure to confirm the identities of passengers travelling by air.

That is the purpose of the meeting. I might just say that I will, as chair, hold people responsible to speak to this issue and not to other issues. If committee members decide to veer off this issue, I will interrupt you and stop you from proceeding on to other subject matter.

This is the subject matter. This is why we were called here and why we are constituted today.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Yes.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chairman, first of all, my compliments for taking that position and letting some embarrassing situations from not realizing themselves.

I'm glad that you mentioned this business about what the procedures might normally be. And the parliamentary secretary for transport talked about the cost--

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Is this a point of order?

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

No, I'm coming right to it, because I do want to raise this.

The point of order concerns Standing Order 108(2) and the mandate of this committee to study the matter before us today. There are several issues, as I started to say, that concern me about the request for this meeting, but let me deal with 108(2) first.

Standing Order 108(2) gives committees the power, and I quote, “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”.

Mr. Chairman, the department responsible for the subject that the government members are wishing to study at this committee is actually Transport Canada. Indeed, the policy that is the subject of this potential study is contained in the identity screening regulations, which fall under Transport Canada through the Aeronautics Act. Further, the screening authority, CATSA, is also responsible to Transport Canada.

Now, Transport Canada, Mr. Chairman, is not one of the departments that fall under this committee's jurisdiction. Rather, it falls, appropriately, under the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Indeed, the transport committee, of which I am vice-chair, is currently undertaking a comprehensive study of air safety and security. In fact, it has already conducted over 20 hours of hearings on this matter, and we're looking to continuing this study when the House resumes.

Mr. Chairman, the Speaker of the House of Commons has been very clear about the appropriateness of committees undertaking studies on matters beyond their mandate and as prescribed by the House. Though committees are masters of their own agenda, limitations are spelled out in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, which states on page 1048, and I quote, “committees are free to organize their proceedings as they see fit provided that their studies and the motions and reports they adopt comply with the orders of reference and instructions issued by the House”. As you can imagine, Mr. Chairman, no such orders have been issued.

In a ruling delivered on April 2, 2009, the Speaker made this distinction clear when he stated, and again I quote, “the House has taken great care to define and differentiate the responsibilities of its committees, particularly where there might at first glance appear to be”--appear to be--“overlapping jurisdictions”.

In other words, Mr. Chairman, one committee cannot arrogate resident authorities and powers from another committee. This study, prompted by the Conservative members opposite, would be out of order. The former Minister of Transport has called for a departmental review of procedures and regulations relating to the proof of identification. He did that on August 1. The current minister, one can only assume in discussing with his cabinet colleague, is continuing in this study.

It is my view and the view of the Liberal members of the opposition that a committee study by this group is premature; secondly, that we should wait until the results of the review initiated by the minister be received; and thirdly, that following this, any study that would be undertaken would be undertaken by the relevant committee of transport.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

I'm going to briefly recess to discuss this with the clerk.

Can I call the committee back to session, please?

First of all, thank you, committee members, for bearing with me in this role. I wasn't expected to sit here today and to have to make such an immediate determination.

I've reviewed with the clerk and the analysts the point of order, as Mr. Volpe has articulated it, under section 108 of the Standing Orders. I won't read the section on the powers of standing committees, because I believe, having consulted and also just having read it and reviewed it, that this section could be interpreted either way on this issue. This is, in my opinion, a public safety issue in terms of what has been requested here. We could look at this and probably determine it one way or the other.

So in light of the fact that we are here to deal with this significant issue of public safety, I'm ruling the point of order out of order.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

I challenge the chair.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Okay.

The chair has been challenged. That's non-debatable, so I'll call the vote.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Just as a point of order on that, you have to be clear: voting for would sustain the chair, and voting against would overrule the chair, correct?

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Okay.

So what you are voting on is whether my ruling should be sustained or not sustained. In the affirmative, you're voting that my ruling be sustained. In the negative, you're voting that my ruling not be sustained.

All those in favour of my ruling, please indicate.

(Ruling of the chair overturned)

Okay. The chair is no longer valid then. I'll leave the chair....

So the ruling of the chair is nullified and we move forward.

How does the committee wish to proceed?

Mr. Holland first, and then Ms. Glover.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Given that the item has been ruled out of order, the next item of business, I would suggest, was this committee's discussion with respect to setting dates and witnesses for a study of G-20 security. If you recall, at the last committee meeting we ran out of time and didn't get to even a vote on that matter.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Mr. Holland, before you proceed down this line, I said in the chair from the outset that we will consider the reason this meeting was brought here. It was not brought by four other members to discuss the issue that you're leading into here, and I'm going to stop you.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Chair, if I--

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

You can challenge the chair if you wish, Mr. Holland--

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Chair, I don't--

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

--but please don't go down this road.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Can I finish my point?

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

No.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

With respect--

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

No, because it's not germane to what we came here to discuss.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

A point of order.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

With full respect, Mr. Chair, that has been ruled out of order. It is no longer in front of us.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

A point of order.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

I'm recognizing his point of order--