Jay Hill

[Committees of the House, May 15th, 2008]

Also, Mr. Speaker, I move:

That, in relation to its study of economic development challenges in Canada's northern territories, twelve (12) members of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development be authorized to travel to Iqaluit and Pangnirtung, Nunavut, in June 2008 and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee.

[Committees of the House, May 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I think if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent for the following two travel motions.

I move:

That, in relation to its study of science and technology in Canada, twelve (12) members of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology be authorized to travel to Winnipeg, Manitoba; Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; and Vancouver British Columbia, from May 25 to 30, 2008 and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee.

[Points of Order, May 14th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be very quick. I have a few points that I want to add to this discussion and to your further deliberation on this matter.

First of all, I would like to point out that it is more than a little bit ironic that the chair of the ethics committee suggests that it should be acceptable to bring forward a report back to the House outside of the mandate.

He fully admitted it and in fact ruled that way, that this report was outside of the mandate of his committee, but he uses as an excuse the fact that the procedure and House affairs committee currently is not sitting. He uses that as an excuse.

I would point out the irony in the situation. The procedure and House affairs committee is not sitting because, as he stated, the imposed hijacking by the government. The procedure and House affairs committee is currently not sitting because the tyranny of the majority at that committee ruled a sound ruling by the chair, the member of Parliament for Cambridge, out of order, and tried to overrule it and ultimately remove that chair from his position.

The government members on that committee are determined to support the member for Cambridge and his chairmanship. It was a sound ruling when he ruled against an investigation into what opposition members called the so-called in and out financing of the Conservative Party of Canada in the last election campaign. They wanted that committee to be seized with an investigation and the chair ruled that it was beyond the mandate of the committee.

That issue, as you know, Mr. Speaker, is before the courts. There is an ongoing dispute between the Conservative Party of Canada and Elections Canada on the interpretation of the election laws and the chair, the member for Cambridge, ruled that out of order.

Subsequently, the majority, made up of opposition members, overturned his ruling. It is exactly the same situation that happened to my hon. colleague, the member for Mississauga South, when he ruled something out of order and as he fully admits it is out of order, it is beyond the mandate.

So the very thing that you, Mr. Speaker, warned about in your ruling is coming about more and more often, that the tyranny of the majority is alive and well in committee. Sound judgment, sound rulings by the committee chairs are overturned by the majority because they do not like them for partisan political reasons.

There are other options. The member for Mississauga South asked what are the other options without the procedure and House affairs committee sitting? It is the rightful committee that should have dealt with this issue or should be dealing with it is perhaps a better term. A party could obviously bring forward an opposition motion and get a vote that way. There are votable opposition motions if this is really of such huge importance that we have to deal with it immediately. We could deal with it that way.

The member from Bathurst, a few moments ago, said that we need to find a solution. I agree with him that we need to find a solution. I think the solution is quite simple. When the chairs of committees make a sound procedural ruling that is supported by the clerk of the committee, the committee has to uphold and respect that ruling. That is not too difficult. That is what happened in the past. The solution is simple. All committees should follow the rules and respect the rules, the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. Then we will not have this problem.

[Points of Order, May 14th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning the report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, which was presented to the House earlier today by the chair, the member for Mississauga South. I submit that the report is out of order and that it is beyond the mandate of the committee, as set out in Standing Order 108. I would like to begin with a bit of background.

The committee report recommends an amendment to the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons. Standing Order 108 makes it clear that the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons does not fall under this committee's mandate. Standing Order 108(3)(h) states that the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics has responsibility for overseeing “the effectiveness, management and operation, together with the operational and expenditure plans relating to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner”, as well as the commissioner's annual reports on activities in relation to public office holders.

On the other hand, Standing Order 108(3)(a)(vii) states that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is responsible for reviewing “the annual report of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner with respect to...her responsibilities under the Parliament of Canada Act relating to Members of Parliament...”.

Furthermore, Standing Order 108(3)(a)(viii) states that the procedure committee's mandate includes, “the review of and report on all matters relating to the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons”.

It is, therefore, clear that the Conflict of Interest Code for members of the House of Commons falls under the mandate of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs rather than the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. It therefore follows that the report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics is beyond the committee's mandate.

I recognize that the Speaker often declines to interfere with committee proceedings by noting that committees are their own masters. However, in your ruling on March 14, 2008, in which you expressed your concerns over committees exceeding their mandates through, in your own words, “tyranny of the majority”, you stated:

However, if and when the committee presents a report, should members continue to have concerns about the work of the committee, they will have an opportunity to raise them in the House and I will revisit the question at that time.

The authority for the Speaker to rule a committee report out of order is confirmed in Marleau and Montpetit at page 879, where it states:

Committees are entitled to report to the House only with respect to matters within their mandate. When reporting to the House, committees must indicate the authority under which the study was done, i.e. the Standing Order or the order of reference. If the committee's report has exceeded or has been outside its order of reference, the Speaker has judged such a report, or the offending section to be out of order.

In conclusion, I understand that the chair of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics had ruled this motion out of order on the ground that this issue did not fall under the mandate of his committee. However, his ruling was subsequently overturned by a majority of committee members.

Mr. Speaker, you have already raised concerns in the House that procedurally sound decisions by committee chairs are being overturned by majorities on committees. In your March 14, 2008 ruling, you stated:

...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.

I submit that this is another example where a sound decision by a committee chair has been ruled out of order. While I am confident that this report itself will be ruled out of order, it does not address the problem that the committee proceedings that lead to reports of this nature may damage the reputation of an individual or a political party, and the committee is allowed to do so by breaking the rules.

Mr. Speaker, in your ruling, you quoted Bourinot and how he described the first principle of our parliamentary tradition as:

To protect the minority and restrain the improvidence and tyranny of the majority, to secure the transaction of public business in a decent and orderly manner....

If we are truly to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority, then the rules must be respected at the front end of the process as well, and that is at committee. If we are to avoid anarchy in the committee system, then the majority must respect sound rulings by chairs, particularly those that touch on the authority provided to the committees by the Standing Orders.

As the Speaker ruled on June 20, 1994 and on November 7, 1996:

While it is a tradition of this House that committees are masters of their own proceedings, they cannot establish procedures which go beyond the powers conferred upon them by the House.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I am confident you will rule this report out of order and I thank you for allowing me to express my continuing concern and caution over the ongoing defiance of committee mandates by brute force of numbers in our standing committees.

[Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, May 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I think we are getting encouragement from all members of the House to apply the results of the vote just taken to all of the amendments that you have to present to the House.

[Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, May 6th, 2008]

No, Mr. Speaker, it is not the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion. If you were to seek it you would find unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the motion presently before the House.

[Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, May 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, at the risk of being repetitive, I think if you were to seek it you would find unanimous consent of the House to apply the results of the vote just taken to the motion presently before the House.

[Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, May 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is the same scenario. If you were to seek it, I think you would find the unanimous consent of the House to apply the results of the vote just taken to the motion currently before the House.

[Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, May 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, were you to seek it you would find unanimous consent of the House to apply the results of the vote just taken to the motion presently before the House.

[Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, May 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I think if you were to seek it you would find the unanimous consent of the House to apply the results of the vote just taken to the motion presently before the House, with Conservative members present this evening voting no.