HAFF Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA PROCÉDURE ET DES AFFAIRES DE LA CHAMBRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, March 29, 2001

• 1141

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)): I call the committee to order. Colleagues, you'll all note we've just had a steering committee meeting, so we apologize for the slightly later start.

We're going to take up two items very quickly, with your indulgence, and then we're going to move to the matter of a requisitioned meeting as proposed under Standing Order 106 by four members of the committee.

The first item we want to deal with is a report of the private members' business subcommittee.

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is just to confirm that the subcommittee met on March 27. There were 15 items drawn and one decided not to participate. Out of the 14 we looked at very seriously, we finally were successful in obtaining a consensus on one item only. You have, I am sure, the report. The one item decided to be votable is Bill C-287, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act for genetically modified food, by Mr. Caccia.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you very much again to the members of the subcommittee for this thankless and difficult task of selecting private members' business.

I take it then that you, Mr. Proulx, will move adoption of that report from the subcommittee.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: I so move.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Guimond.

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de- Beaupré—Île d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Chairman, as a member of this committee, I will second the motion of my colleague, the Member for Hull-Aylmer.

I simply want to refresh your memory about something we discussed last time. To avoid a situation where sub-committee members would be unduly pressured by their colleagues or by members of the media, could we possibly go to the House quickly - say at the end of this meeting - and request unanimous consent to adopt the report? We discussed this together last time. This would prevent leaks and would ensure the confidentiality of the sub- committee's proceedings.

Ms. Parrish, the Chair of the Sub-committee, is not here, but I think that if we were to ask her, she would back my suggestion. I simply wanted to refresh your memory.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Guimond. I certainly support that.

I hoped there would be a willingness among the parties represented in the House to revert to routine proceedings later in the day for purposes of presentation of the report. I'll certainly try to get that consent, and I would do it today. That's an excellent suggestion.

I realize members of the subcommittee are under sometimes intense pressure from colleagues, the media, and the public when they make these decisions about votability, because of the issues involved in the bills and motions.

So that's a good suggestion. Maybe we should try to do that, Madam Clerk, in the future, because I can see it's been a problem.

• 1145

Thank you, Mr. Guimond. I'll try to respond to that.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you. I'll report it to the House as discussed.

The next item is a report, colleagues, from our subcommittee on the parliamentary calendar. That committee met more than once in an attempt to improve the operations of the calendar with reference to the month of March. Could I have someone speak to that?

Ms. Catterall is here and she chaired the subcommittee. If we just introduce it, Ms. Catterall and colleagues, I think there would be a consensus on the committee to have us adopt this report if so advised at this time but not report it to the House immediately. Rather, the consensus would be to send the report immediately to the special committee on parliamentary reform with a covering letter and thus to reserve our decision on whether or not we report it to the House. This is so we avoid potential duplication. That is the suggestion arising out of discussion between members earlier.

Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Chair, the subcommittee met several times to look at the parliamentary calendar. We started by addressing the issue of the March break to see if we could make it possible for more members to have the spring break overlap the school break in different parts of Canada. We found no consistent pattern as to when those school breaks happen across the country. So we have put forward a proposal that would probably not significantly affect members whose calendars now coincide with school breaks. However, the proposal would increase the number of members who might enjoy this opportunity every second or third year but who now don't have that possibility.

The fundamental proposal here is that Parliament return early in January, i.e., one week earlier than usual; that there be a two-week March break; that it be variable within the March period because of the complexity and the annual changes—Easter being at a different time every year; that we leave it to the Speaker in consultation to establish the calendar for the year in September as to when that March break would occur.

This is the essence of our report, that we proceed in this way and have the Standing Orders amended as required to accomplish that. So in this particular case, we are recommending that the committee proceed with an amendment to the Standing Orders.

We did discuss other issues related to the House calendar. We would like to meet again on some of those other issues and report back further to you. However, on those larger issues—for instance, should the House consider a different kind of Friday sitting—we would probably refer any recommendations through this committee to the special committee.

The Chair: Thank you. Are there any other comments?

Monsieur Bergeron? No? Okay, Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): I just have a quick question for the chair of the subcommittee, through you, Mr. Chair.

This committee met in camera because you were considering the draft report. Is that right?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: We actually had our first two or three meetings in the open. We met in camera when we were actually doing the draft of the report.

Mr. Joe Jordan: But generally it isn't an in camera subcommittee?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: No.

The Chair: Okay. Colleagues, are you satisfied with this report, at least to adopt it?

If the clerk or a researcher could advise, is it unusual to adopt but not report?

• 1150

The Clerk of the Committee: No.

The Chair: So it's okay to do that.

We could report this later. We could report it now, but I suggest we quickly get it over to the special committee.

[Translation]

Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): I'd like to comment briefly on what Mr. Jordan said.

In support of what Ms. Catterall just said, since we are talking about reforming the parliamentary calendar and since this does concern all parliamentarians, we feel it is important to debate this matter publicly. When it comes to reforming the parliamentary calendar, the debate should be public.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: If I may, Mr. Chair, I think our recommendation is in fact that the committee proceed with amendment of the Standing Orders, not simply that it refer this to the special committee.

The Chair: The motion that I think would suit would be one that simply says the draft report be adopted. Perhaps the motion should also say a copy of the report, as adopted, should be forwarded to the special committee on parliamentary reform.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: And I think we should add that our researcher be directed to prepare draft amendments to the Standing Orders to implement this recommendation, if that's the will of the committee.

The Chair: If I may, if the special committee is going to deal with this, as it may well do, it will trigger drafting as well. I didn't want to....

Well, by great coincidence, our researcher is also working with the special committee. Do you think you could avoid duplication? Is the motion as articulated by Ms. Catterall okay? Yes? All right.

So there it is. It's a triple-pronged motion. One, we adopt the report. Two, we forward the report to the special committee. Three, we request our researcher to draft an appropriate amendment to the Standing Orders.

On a technical matter, our clerk is quite right, and she reminds that reports, under the rules, under the convention, are usually secret until reported into the House. As part of our motion, I think we should therefore make a fourth prong that states the report is now deemed to be public.

An hon. member: Do we have that power?

The Chair: If we don't, someone will come back to us. But I think we do. It's our report and we've adopted it. I could just say it's not our fault there's a special committee out there and that we have to adapt our procedure to accommodate that.

Monsieur Bergeron has a point of order.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Why not simply table it in the House without adopting it?

[English]

The Chair: We could.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: We can table it, to satisfy the requirement that it be tabled in the House before be made public. However, we shouldn't call for it to be adopted immediately.

[English]

The Chair: The reason why I had suggested that we not table it at this time is simply to provide a wider berth, with some sensitivity, to the special committee, which will undoubtedly be dealing with a similar issue. Would we want to have two reports in the House that differed in some minor or major way? I don't think we would. I think we can have the same impact by not reporting. We could report later if we felt strongly enough. That was my reasoning in terms of not reporting at this time.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: On principle, I have a bit of a problem with the idea of making public a document that has not yet been tabled in the House.

[English]

The Chair: We can simply state that it's public.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, but let me say again that on principle, I have a problem with the idea of making public a document that was not first tabled in the House.

• 1155

[English]

The Chair: Does anyone else have that problem?

Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance): I don't see why we can't have this report adopted in the House. The final resolution in the report says a subcommittee recommends the Standing Orders be amended; it doesn't order they be amended. Then if it says “with consultation of the House leaders” and so on, that could happen simultaneously for this bill.

The Chair: Yes, okay.

I just urge members to consider the public perception of what we're doing here. We don't want to have two committees of the House reporting different things to the House. If members want to report this, it's their work. The subcommittee did good work and drafted the report carefully and fully within their mandate. If members want to report it to the House in that context, we're certainly able to do it.

Is it the will of members to report it to the House? Okay, then it's a three-pronged motion. It's adopt, report, and forward to the special committee with our thumbprint on it.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.

We'll move on to the next item, which is a requisition by members under Standing Order 106, a requisition for a meeting—Standing Order 106(3) with reference to Standing Order 108. Mr. Guimond wishes to speak on this.

The Chair has considered it. Certainly members have the obvious and clear right to requisition a meeting under the Standing Orders. As I've read the requisition, the chair has concerns that the subject matter of the meeting requisition is not within the mandate of the committee. As a result, the question arises of whether or not such a meeting would be in order. Essentially this is the requisitioned meeting. At least we are embarking on a response to the requisition.

Before we get into the subject matter of the requisitioned meeting, the chair is signalling concern about the mandate of the committee, the ability of the committee to undertake the subject matter requisitioned simply because our mandate from the House does not permit it.

I am inclined to take that view, but there may be views around the table that would either differ or would allow the chair to stand corrected in his view. I should allow just a few moments for members to consider that.

Again, just for the sake of focusing discussion, we're not dealing with the subject matter of the requisition; we're dealing really with a matter of order. I would be willing to hear members on whether or not the subject matter requisitioned is within the mandate of the committee before I have to finally decide—unless the matter is withdrawn, in which case I won't have to decide.

So there it is. Does anyone wish to speak to this? Mr. Guimond.

• 1200

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Chairman, on the question of admissibility, I will have you know that the four people who signed this letter, namely Mr. Reynolds from the Canadian Alliance, Mr. Borotsik from the Progressive Conservative Party, Mr. Godin from the New Democratic Party and myself, looked for inspiration to Standing Order 106(3) as well as to Standing Order 108 which deals with the mandate and powers of standing committees.

For the benefit of colleagues, I think it would be a good idea to read this particular provision:

108.(1)(a) Standing committees shall be severally empowered to examine and enquire into all such matters as may be referred to them by the House, to report from time to time and to print a brief appendix to any report, after the signature of the Chairman, containing such opinions or recommendations dissenting from the report or supplementary to it...

According to our interpretation of Standing Order 108(3), Mr. Chairman, which sets out the mandate of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, our committee is empowered to call members to give evidence and to ask them to produce papers and to testify to events that have transpired while serving as a Member of Parliament.

In this particular instance, the Prime Minister regularly makes reference in the House to his status as the Member for Saint- Maurice. I respectfully submit that in my opinion, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has a duty to call the Member for Saint-Maurice to testify and to produce all papers that would shed some light on this matter.

These are merely introductory remarks to let you know that I disagree with you when you say that this request is out of order. I would ask that you reconsider your ruling. I would also like to give notice of my intention to table a motion later on to call as witnesses other persons involved in this affair.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Thank you, Monsieur Guimond.

The motion you have suggested you table would not be in order yet until we've determined if the subject matter is within our mandate.

You have referred in your remarks to the role and functions of members of Parliament. I'll just leave that stand as a category of issue.

You've also referred to a specific member of Parliament. My understanding of the rule and the conventions around here is no committee will study, review, or inquire into the conduct of a particular member of Parliament unless that matter is referred to the committee by the House. Only the House may inquire into the specific role of a particular member of Parliament. No committee has the authority to specifically inquire into individual MPs.

With specific MPs, their work can come up for consideration by a committee, but that's only if the House decides. That usually happens when a matter of privilege is involved. Privileged matters are often referred to this committee or, as it has been, to our predecessor committees.

• 1205

If I could refer you to Joseph Maingot, in his volume Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, the second edition, he says it fairly succinctly:

The conduct of a Member may only be discussed in the House of Commons by way of a substantive or distinct motion, i.e. a self-contained proposal submitted for the approval of the House and drafted in such a way as to be capable of expressing a decision of the House.

So the House can clearly do this, but in my view a committee cannot. If there were a specific element of our Standing Order 108 mandate that you could refer us to, that might allow us to consider this matter, but I've read through it, and I don't see it.

While you're looking at that, the list we've been keeping religiously begins with Mr. Guimond, and then goes to Mr. Mahoney, Mr. Jordan, and Mr. McNally. So I'll recognize Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I've listened to what you've said, and I'd like you to tell us if that is a ruling, because you've fundamentally made every argument that I think I would make. If you're prepared to make a ruling, then we can dispose of this matter. If you're not prepared to make a ruling, I'm prepared to reiterate what you've said and perhaps expand on it.

The Chair: I was just allowing a moment or two for Mr. Guimond to make his point, simply in terms of a fair hearing here, before I make a decision. If there are no further remarks from Mr. Guimond, I'll—-

Mr. Michel Guimond: I will have more.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: If he is giving up the floor—

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I'm a little puzzled by the process here, with due respect. I heard you outline your interpretation. It's your leadership and decision that we all look to, yet if we're now to hear Mr. Guimond counter your argument, then I'm prepared to listen to that, but I would not like to relinquish my opportunity to speak to it.

The Chair: If there is something new that hasn't already been mentioned, then this is an opportunity to put it. If there isn't, I'll simply decide.

Mr. Guimond.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It's all in the way Standing Order 108(1)(a) is worded. Your earlier comments, Mr. Chairman, about the need for the matter to be referred by the House, were relevant. But why then is there a period in line five of the French version which read as follows:

[...] ou recommendations dissidentes ou complémentaires présentées, le cas échéant, par certains de leurs membres.

In the English version, there is no period. It's all one sentence. What, in your view, is the meaning of the following:

Sauf lorsque la Chambre en ordonne autrement, ils sont aussi autorisés [...]

We're talking about the powers of standing committees.

[...] à convoquer des personnes et à exiger la production de documents et dossiers, à se réunir pendant que la Chambre siège et pendant les périodes d'ajournement, à siéger conjointement avec d'autres comités permanents, à faire imprimer au jour le jour les documents et témoignages dont ils peuvent ordonner l'impression, et à déléguer à des sous-comités la totalité ou une partie de leurs pouvoirs, sauf celui de faire rapport directement à la Chambre.

All of this is rolled into one sentence in the English version. I will read it to you, using my best possible accent.

• 1210

[English]

Standing committees shall be severally empowered to examine and enquire into all such matters as may be referred to them by the House...

[Translation]

That is the gist of your comments.

[English]

“referred to them by the House”.

[Translation]

I'll accept that.

[English]

...to report from time to time and to print a brief appendix to any report, after the signature of the Chairman, containing such opinions or recommendations, dissenting from the report or supplementary to it, as may be proposed by committee members...

[Translation]

That's the first part of Standing Order 108 (1)(a), the part on which you commented. Can you explain then why parliamentarians included this second stipulation which reads as follows:

[English]

“and except when the House otherwise orders, to send...”?

[Translation]

The French version states the following:

Sauf lorsque la Chambre en ordonne autrement [...]

[English]

...to send for persons, papers and records, to sit while the House is sitting, to sit during periods when the House stands adjourned, to sit jointly...

[Translation]

Mr. Chairman, your pertinent comments relate more to the first part of Standing Order 108(1)(a) which stipulates that the matter must be referred to the committee by the House. What is the meaning then of the following: “except when the House otherwise orders”?

Mr. Chairman, surely you will agree with me that some of the questions surrounding the Auberge Grand-Mère have not been answered. From the very beginning, I've been saying that we need to shed light on this whole affair. Quebeckers and Canadians, and indeed all taxpayers, want to know what role, if any, the Prime Minister played in this affair. I'm not saying that the Prime Minister is not entitled to the presumption of innocence. If he has nothing to hide, the Prime Minister will come before this committee and produce all relevant papers...

[English]

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Point of order.

The Chair: Mr. Mahoney has a point of order.

Monsieur Guimond, you've done a wonderful job, in both official languages, of outlining the powers of committees set out in Standing Order 108(1), and those are all accurate. Those are the powers of the committee. But what I really wanted you to address was not the powers, which I think we all agree on—they're set out in the rules—but the mandate of the committee.

The mandate of this committee is set out in Standing Order 108(3)(a), in addition to the general mandate in Standing Order 108(1), but you'll note that the mandate in Standing Order 108(1), referentially, is matters referred to the committee from the House. This matter that has been raised in the requisition has not been referred to this committee from the House; it's something we're undertaking on our own instance.

Yes, we do have all the powers on a matter within our mandate set out in Standing Order 108(1), but in my view, there is no part of our mandate in Standing Order 108(3)(a) that can be related to the matter you raised.

Secondly, I want to point out, just for reference so you may have it, in Marleau and Montpetit, page 861, on the matter of summoning witnesses, it states very clearly at the beginning of the paragraph, “Committees are not empowered to summon Members of the House of Commons or Senators”. The House is capable of requiring that to happen, but the committee on its own initiative, by longstanding practice, does not have the power to summon our own members. This is done in the House itself, not in committee.

I am going to determine, then, that the subject matter put forward in the requisition is not within our mandate. Therefore it would be out of order to continue with the meeting on that subject. I'll make that ruling, and then we will move to our next item of business.

• 1215

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. With all due respect, you recognized me and I intend to continue speaking for the time I have remaining.

Mr. Chairman, you mentioned that...

[English]

The Chair: Now, Mr. Guimond, I want to point out that I have decided that the subject matter is not in order. So I'm not prepared to entertain further points of order on that.

I realize you feel strongly about it. Although I've given you an opportunity to explain your point to our other colleagues and to the chair, I have determined that the subject matter of the requisition, as it's currently put forward, is not within the mandate of the procedure and House affairs committee. I have determined that, and I'm afraid I can't entertain any further points of order that would appear to appeal that decision.

If the chair makes a decision that members are not comfortable with, they are in a position to challenge the chair. This you may do. I don't invite you to do it, but the option is available to any member. I don't see the need for further points of order.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Before I recognize anyone on a point of order, I want to make it clear that I am not prepared to continue with or recognize a point of order dealing with a subject I have already ruled on. However, I will always entertain indications of points of order.

Are there points of order out there? Mr. Bergeron and Mr. Thompson are both signalling. But I warn you, I will cut you off if the point of order attempts to question the ruling I've just made. If you're unhappy about that, you may challenge the chair, but I warn you in advance when I recognize you that I will not entertain a long dissertation on a point of order.

You've had your warning.

Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I simply think that you have overstepped your authority. Montpetit-Marleau states the following on page 858 of the English version:

[English]

An hon. member: He's challenging the chair.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: —“committee members are free to discuss a matter for as long as they see fit.”

[Translation]

Mr. Guimond had the floor prior to Mr. Mahoney's point of order. Since you recognized Mr. Guimond before Mr. Mahoney's point of order, Mr. Guimond is entitled to continue arguing his point, Mr. Chairman. According to Montpetit-Marleau, since you gave the floor to Mr. Guimond, you must let him conclude his remarks. He was interrupted by Mr. Mahoney's point of order, but he still had the floor, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, I have made an attempt all along to be very fair to Mr. Guimond. He made his opening presentation on the issue. I then gave an indication of my view as chair, and offered him a short second opportunity to raise anything new.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: With my concurrence, since I had the floor.

The Chair: Mr. Mahoney had also intervened. But I don't think we have to be overly technical here. Mr. Guimond has made a good attempt at providing a basis for a meeting based on the requisition. To the four members who requisitioned the meeting, the chair has ruled that in my view, and my decision as chair, this committee does not have a mandate to entertain the subject matter of the requisitioned meeting.

So we've got to go on to other business, because if we waste time discussing whether or not the chair is right, we're taking time away from other business. It would be out of order.

The chair has decided that there has been enough discussion on the point of order. I offered Mr. Guimond an opportunity to add anything new to the discussion, and—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, you have no authority to cut him off.

Mr. Michel Guimond: None whatsoever.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: You cannot deny him the right to speak.

• 1220

[English]

The Chair: If the chair has made an error—and I'm not saying I have, I would not concede it—if the chair has made an error, the member is at liberty to challenge the chair. I will stand corrected by members of the committee. But I do consider it my obligation as chair—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: You do not have the authority.

[English]

The Chair: —to allow members to carry on their debates and discussions on points of order and otherwise, and to do that fairly, but to bring matters to a conclusion as well.

I consider this issue a relative no-brainer. I had asked the member to make a clear statement as to why we had a mandate. He made a valiant effort to describe the powers of the committee, but not the mandate of the committee. I'm not too sure how that sounds in translation, but there is a difference.

The mandate of this committee is either matters referred to the committee from the House, or the mandate contained in Standing Order 108(3)(a). And that's it—there is no further mandate.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: In that case, Mr. Chairman...

[English]

The Chair: I've made the ruling and—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, if I may...

[English]

The Chair: I will allow you a very short period to make a point of order. I would never take that away from a member.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: With all due respect, pursuant to which Standing Order or provision in Montpetit-Marleau or Beauchesne do you have the authority to deny my colleague the right to speak? You gave him the floor and procedurally, you must let him make his point fully. What authority do you have, either pursuant to the Standing Orders or Montpetit-Marleau, to cut him off?

[English]

The Chair: There is no right to speak.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Excuse me?

[English]

The Chair: The right of freedom of expression is in the charter, but the chair always recognizes members.

The last time I recognized Monsieur Guimond, I recognized him for a short period, in an attempt to give him a last opportunity to deal with the issue of our mandate. And he did not. He was not able to do it within the short time I allowed him.

Now Mr. Guimond is asking for a longer time. That's another issue. But the chair didn't recognize him for a longer time. The chair recognized him for a short time. I hope the record will show that. That's my recollection.

If you wish to challenge the chair, you may.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I'm asking the question: What authority do you have, either pursuant to the Standing Orders or Montpetit- Marleau, to deny my colleague the right to speak?

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

I have great respect for the honourable member and for his advocacy. I am prepared to give a further two minutes to Monsieur Guimond only, to make any points relative to the mandate of the committee—not its powers, but its mandate.

I've already made my ruling. I'm only providing him with a window to make a point. We've already decided to allocate time from this meeting to the issue. Maybe he will succeed in changing members' minds. I do not know. But the chair has decided.

So I will give you two minutes only, Monsieur Guimond. Two minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Right away, I have to say that you are not interpreting the Standing Orders correctly and I will not confine myself to two minutes, because this is not at all common practice in committee. You are overstepping your authority in this matter and this is contrary to parliamentary practice observed in each House committee where members are free to discuss any subject for as long - meaning that there is no two-minute time limit - as they see fit. Consequently, I will not abide by your time limit and I will continue to speak for as long as I see fit.

• 1225

A parliamentarian is entitled to discuss a matter for as long as he sees fit when the Chair has given him the floor and I have no intention of being denied this right, Mr. Chairman.

If you want to stop me, then it will be your decision and the meeting will come to an end. However, I intend to speak for as long as this meeting continues, all the more so in that my comments are pertinent to the matter at hand.

If I started to quote last night's hockey scores or if I strayed from the subject at hand entirely, then you would be entitled to interrupt me, Mr. Chairman. However, my comments from the outset have been pertinent to the subject-matter, that is the request made by four colleagues that the committee meet to discuss this topic.

You stated, Mr. Chairman - and we can check the blues for confirmation - that the committee can decide to examine any matter it wishes. You acknowledged that the committee could decide to examine this matter. That is precisely the purpose of this request by four colleagues, namely that the committee look into this affair. You agree that the committee has certain powers and that it can decide to examine certain issues.

Therefore, I say again that it is important for the committee to follow up on the letter addressed to Mr. Patrice Martin, Clerk of the Committee, on March 23 last requesting that certain individuals be called to testify, including the Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Chrétien, with a view to shedding some light on the Grand-Mère affair. I also said earlier that we may need to hear from other witnesses and I plan to table a motion to that effect in due time.

You have to agree with me that over the past several months, some highly contradictory facts have come to light in connection with the ownership of shares by the Prime Minister...

[English]

An hon. member: I have a point of order.

The Chair: Thank you for pausing, Monsieur Guimond. I have allowed you a couple of minutes to make your point. I don't know if you believe it's really necessary to subject colleagues to further discussion on this, but I did recognize you for two minutes. When I recognized you, Mr. Mahoney had the floor.

Now we have another point of order.

Mr. Michel Guimond: I have a point of order.

An hon. member: I'd like to make a point of order.

The Chair: So there are potentially lots of points of order here, colleagues.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, you're not allowing us to get our points in on this.

The Chair: Wait a minute. What we're going to do is spend some time on points of order.

Monsieur Guimond, it's my view that you've used up the two minutes I allowed you.

If other members wish to be recognized.... If anyone wants to challenge the chair, they may.

If there are other points of order, I'm going to hear those now. I'll give three minutes to Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, you are correct that I did have the floor. Monsieur Bergeron says I gave it up. If you want to check the blues, go ahead.

What I said, Mr. Chairman, is I am asking you if you are making a ruling. If you are, I will not need to put forward the arguments I've heard you state at this committee.

Let me finish. I asked you for your answer on that. At that time you said you were prepared to give Monsieur Guimond another opportunity to bring new information to the table. If you check the blues, you will see that I relinquished the floor only for that purpose. If you want to rule that he has brought new information to the floor and make your ruling, I'm prepared to live with that. But I'm not prepared to simply hand over the floor to Monsieur Guimond to continue filibustering and making an argument. As far as I'm concerned, I indeed have the floor. So I was looking for some direction and assistance from the chair. If you're prepared to make that ruling—

Mr. Michel Guimond: I have a point of order.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: —I'm prepared to live with that.

Mr. Michel Guimond: You said it was a point of order.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It is a point of order.

An hon. member: You didn't have the floor.

• 1230

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I had the floor. I was recognized not on a point of order but to make my arguments. I'm prepared to do that. I can filibuster just as well as these guys, trust me. But I'd rather see the business of this committee dealt with expeditiously.

While maintaining control of this instrument with a red light on it, I ask you if you are making a ruling. If you are making a ruling, please make it. The only option is for someone to challenge the chair.

The Chair: Just to answer your question, Mr. Mahoney, I made the ruling. As chair, I have made the decision that the subject matter of the requisition is out of order, and we will not entertain it.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Thank you.

Did you have a motion before you, sir?

The Chair: No, I didn't.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I move adjournment of the committee.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Is it moved?

An hon. member: Call the motion.

The Chair: The motion to adjourn is not debatable.

Do colleagues wish to allow Mr. Jordan to make a point before we actually deal with—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: As long as my motion stands.

The Chair: Mr. Jordan, you have two minutes.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I won't use two minutes, don't worry.

My point is this. Looking at the references you made, I think the issue of whether we as a committee can initiate a meeting to discuss the conduct of a member clearly is not on. It's out of order.

The letter is very carefully crafted, but in his comments Mr. Guimond is making assertions that are indeed calling into question the conduct of a member. I would say that the privileges of the member from Saint-Maurice are being violated if we allow Mr. Guimond to continue, and I'll make that point in the House. He continues making references that this is a scandal and needs to be cleared up. In my view, it has been cleared up. The Prime Minister stood in the House, and that's where this needs to be debated, not in this committee.

If I hear one more phrase out of them.... Clearly, the member from Saint-Maurice is not here, and that's why you don't debate the conduct of a member outside of the House of Commons. We are currently violating the privileges of that member, and I'm not going to be part of that any further.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Jordan.

Procedurally, which is the name of the game here today, I gather, I have to deal with the adjournment motion. If colleagues are prepared to do that, I'll put the motion to adjourn. We'll adjourn as we do so often. The motion to adjourn is on the floor.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.

We are adjourned.