Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 13th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I heard it.

Mr. Menegakis and then Monsieur Giguère.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, it's there in plain English, as far as I'm concerned. The piece of paper we all have before us says “Request for a 30 days extension” right on the top. It clearly says, “Therefore, your Committee requests an extension of thirty sitting days”. We are at this point debating that very amendment, the 30-day extension. Whether the House considers a change in the scope, we're waiting to hear about that. We're asking for the 30-day extension to allow for that to happen, plus the proper debate to happen. As far as....

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

I'm sorry, I heard some noise from the other side. I thought it was a point of order.

[An hon. member]

Courtesy, please.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

I apologize, Mr. Menegakis. I would never interrupt you.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

I appreciate that.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Menegakis has the floor.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'm not going to belabour the point. It's very clear to me that all we're debating right now is a 30-day extension. Anything else is just procedural mumbo-jumbo—getting into the “therefores”, the “that fors”, the “what fors”—to try to delay the process. We know the game that's being played here. It has been played for a week.

At this point we're debating the 30-day extension. I know the opposition is having a hard time sticking to that point. They want to talk about everything else but that. Their goal, of course, is to get to June 21.

However, let's get back to the point, Mr. Chair. I think your ruling that you had to take back, that you withdrew momentarily so you could hear everybody, was accurate. We're only debating the 30 days right now.

That's all I have to say on the matter. Thank you.

[An hon. member]

That is correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Monsieur Giguère.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

I am happy to see you back in this excellent committee.

I am very sorry that you had to cut short your trip to London. I am sure that would have been much more interesting to you than being here.

I am submitting a motion in evocation to you, in accordance with the delegatus non potest delegare principle — a delegate cannot delegate. You surely noticed that the first sentence in Mr. Dykstra's original motion begins with the words “Pursuant to Standing Order 97.1(1)”. The word “pursuant” essentially implies that we must respect all of Standing Order 97.1(1), where it is indicated that we may ask for “a single extension of thirty sitting days to consider the bill, and giving the reasons therefor.” However, in Mr. Dykstra's motion, no reasons are provided.

The committee cannot delegate to the House a power that is delegated to it through regulations, and this is why I invoked the delegatus non potest delegare principle, because Mr. Dykstra's motion is out of order given the way in which it is worded, since it does not provide any reasons, as required by Standing Order 97.1(1).

I can understand that on such a technical point, you may need jurisprudence and various elements to confirm this. Essentially, the delegatus non potest delegare principle concerns this type of situation.

This committee is entitled to ask the House for an extension of 30 sitting days. However, that request for a 30-day extension must imperatively be accompanied by a justification. It is the committee's duty. It cannot ask the House to provide reasons in its stead. The power that is delegated to us pursuant to Standing Order 97.1(1) cannot be subdelegated to the House.

Mr. Chair, with all due respect, I would like you to comment on this point of view. If my request is justified, I would like you to ask Mr. Dykstra to withdraw his motion since it is out of order. However, if my request is not well-founded, I would like a legal opinion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I will comment. I'm here as a chairman, and not as a lawyer or a judge. I'm here as the chairman of the committee and won't be giving any legal opinion.

Ms. Sitsabaiesan, I have you speaking next.

Thank you, Monsieur Giguère.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order. As chair, you are bound by a legal text. My point, basically, is that this request is out of order pursuant to Standing Order 97.1(1).

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I understand your concern. I'll take all that into consideration. Thank you.

We have Ms. Sitsabaiesan.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank my honourable colleague, Mr. Giguère, for pointing out the standing order that we're actually debating here.

Mr. Chairman, I want to follow up on Mr. Giguère's argument and the clarification provided through Standing Order 97.1.(1) The standing order says that when a motion is requesting an extension of the 30 sitting days, it requires a reasoning, and Mr. Giguère argued that this reasoning is not provided and so the motion is out of order.

My request to you, Mr. Chair, is that it's either one of the two. You will rule that the motion is in order or that it's not in order because of the argument that Mr. Giguère made. So you can agree with his reasoning or you can go and say that the motion is in order because reasoning was given. If that's the way you proceed, Mr. Chair, then the reasoning must be the “therefore” clause, because it's a conditional statement that's being presented to us. In that sense, the intent of the committee to expand the scope is actually the reasoning for requesting the 30 days' extension. If that is the reason for the request to extend the length of study of this bill, then that is very much part of the substance of the motion and should be part of the debate that follows here on the main motion itself.

That's what I respectfully submit to you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

We've had a lot of discussion on this point of order, and there've been good points made on both sides.

I'm going to suspend until after the vote.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

What if there isn't a vote?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

If there isn't a vote, we will return forthwith at 3:10. I've been told there is a vote.

So you're quite right, Mr. Dykstra. If there's a vote, we will return here and the meeting will start moments after the vote has taken place; if there is not a vote, we will return here at 3:10.

So we will suspend this meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We will reconvene.

I'm going to make a ruling on the point of order. I want to thank Ms. James, Ms. Freeman, Mr. Weston, Mr. Dykstra, Ms. Sims, Mr. Menegakis, Mr. Giguère, and Ms. Sitsabaiesan for their comments on this point of order.

I'm going to give you my decision on the point of order that was made. Once a decision is made by the committee, the committee cannot come back on a decision unless that is unanimously agreed by its members. I refer to the good book of Madam O'Brien and Mr. Bosc, page 582-583. On Tuesday April 23, 2013, the committee adopted a report recommending to the House that it be granted the power to expand the scope of Bill C-425. The committee already made a decision on that, so that particular matter should no longer be debated. That information in the motion is only there to outline the reason of the extension, which is required by Standing Order 97.1(1) and was referred to by Mr. Giguère in his comments.

We're not voting on that reason. The motion is asking for a 30-day extension and this is strictly what is before the committee. Mr. Giguère made reference to Standing Order 97.1(1) and pointed out that it stipulates that a reason should be included in the request.

The first two sentences of the second paragraph of the motion outline the reason for this request, so the motion is in order. Mr. Giguère's point is therefore out of order.

That is my ruling. We will proceed to the main motion.

Ms. Sitsabaiesan—

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Chair, on a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Just a second.

You have a point of order, Ms. Freeman.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Chair, if I understand correctly, I can go back then and challenge your original ruling, based on the fact that you had not heard all the evidence.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I've already advised, Ms. Freeman, that I was withdrawing my original reason, and that's why I gave you and others—I apologized to you, if you recall, and I apologized to all members of the committee for jumping in.... I had mistakenly thought that was the end of the list. I am looking at two lists. I had withdrawn my former ruling based on the fact that I hadn't heard everyone because of your submissions, which I quite appreciate, and therefore the ruling I just gave is the ruling.

Go ahead, Ms. Sitsabaiesan.