I had raised the issue directly with Mr. Siksay, and certainly in my own regard I feel that the motions themselves are made pursuant to Standing Order 108. I think it would be fair to say that it would be, to my mind, inappropriate to have a report go to the House when it's really not a report, particularly in light of the fact that, as I understand it, one of the issues we're going to be dealing with in fairly urgent priority is the undocumented workers as a whole. It would be number two in our items, and it certainly could be number one. I don't have an issue with saying that it's important enough for the committee to have a look at, and I certainly would have invited Mr. Siksay to amend his motion to say that the matter would be one of the considerations of the committee. There are obviously two points of view, two issues, to the whole issue that is raised in his motion, and it should be something that the committee considers from both sides before they make a recommendation.
More importantly, I find that Standing Order 108 was not meant for the purposes that we are now using it on a regular basis, to do motions of various kinds for whatever reasons. They are meant essentially to be for studies and reports. If we look at Standing Order 108(1)(a)--and this is a point of order, Mr. Chair, I'd like you to rule on--standing committees have a number of ways that they report to the House. First, the House under Standing Order 108(1)(a) can request that a committee study a matter and report. If we look at the words that they use, they talk about “study and report”.
We go to Standing Order 108(2), and it says:
(2) The standing committees, except those set out in sections (3)(a), (3)(f), (3)(h) and (4) of this Standing Order, shall, in addition to the powers granted to them pursuant to section (1) of this Standing Order and pursuant to Standing Order 81, be empowered 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 from time to time by the House.
It also says:
In general, the committees shall be severally empowered to review and report on:
a number of issues that relate to its mandate, and its mandate, of course, is pretty wide and varied and deals with matters related to its general policy and operations on immigration.
When we look at Marleau and Montpetit, it talks about, very specifically, what a committee is entitled to do. It says that the committee can hear witnesses, get points of view from various interested parties, hear all of the aspects, and after they review it and after they hear it, they then put forward a report. It indicates very specifically what the report is to look like in terms of summarizing the evidence, the issues, and putting the conclusions forward by way of recommendations and motions such as Mr. Siksay has proposed to the House to consider, and the House then reports back. But without considering a shred of evidence, without calling any witnesses or doing anything in the nature of what's considered to be a report, we're asking this House to respond to something that has no substance to it. The House would probably report back and say, study the situation and have a look at what the appropriate recommendation should be.
I would say that it would be an abdication by this committee to simply proceed with a motion without doing any review whatsoever, and pass it off to government to respond in 120 days, because this, at most, is all that's going to be accomplished--a response to that motion.
We look at the Oxford definition of the issue of a “report”, and it's defined quite simply as normally an account given or an opinion formally expressed after an investigation or consideration. The word “review” means an assessment of a subject or thing. These are conditions precedent to making the matter come before the House. So I don't think we can put forward motions this willy-nilly because of any particular reason without giving this committee the opportunity to actually debate it, discuss it, review it, call witnesses if necessary, and do it in a proper fashion, and then put it in the form of a report to the House.
To simply have a motion that gives a conclusion without the committee doing anything, and having any business to do anything, except make a point of order is irresponsible, I think. It doesn't put the committee members in the place where they should be, and it is an affront to them. I myself consider that having to vote on an issue without having any basis or facts upon which to rely is an abdication of my duty.
So I strongly, on a point of order, would oppose a motion that is not a report going forward to the House. I would, therefore, take issue on a point of order and say that this motion is inappropriate under Standing Order 108 and should not be allowed, Mr. Chairman.