Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 13th, 2013

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

I just want to remind my colleague that I read this ruling when the meeting was in camera. We asked for the meeting not to be held in camera. As I mentioned in my introduction, it is important for Canadians listening to us to be informed of the ruling as well.

If I may, Mr. Chair, I will continue reading. Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Kevin Lamoureux]

Is there any further comment?

Mr. Menegakis.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Yes, Mr. Chair. Madame Groguhé just made reference to something that she said in camera. I'd just like to get clarification from you that we cannot refer to anything at all that happened in an in camera meeting.

She just made reference to something that she said in camera. She said, “I read this in camera.” I don't believe it's proper procedure to do so.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Kevin Lamoureux]

I appreciate, Costas, the heads-up on that particular issue. I believe Sadia is actually aware of that and she will do what she can to refrain from making comments that would have been expressed in camera.

We're going to go to Jinny, if she wants to deal with the point of order that was raised, and then we'll go back to Sadia.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

On the same point of order, in order to argue for or against the extension, which is the motion that is before us, it is very important to put on the record why we're going to be voting one way or the other on that extension. I believe that's what my colleague is doing.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Kevin Lamoureux]

Are there any other comments regarding this point of order? Otherwise, I'm prepared to make a ruling.

If we take a look at House of Commons Procedure and Practice, in the second edition, I'm going to cite page 1051, where it states:

This means that, in principle, the number of times a Member may speak in committee and the length of his or her speeches is not subject to any limit.

I do believe that Sadia was in fact relevant to the debate. How often a member actually repeats something that would have been previously stated is something that, unless it becomes overly abusive, I'm prepared to accept. So my ruling would be that there is no point of order.

Sadia, you can continue with your comments.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

So I will continue to read the Speaker's ruling:

In raising this matter, the hon. member for Toronto Centre explained that during its consideration of Bill C-425, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration adopted a motion recommending that the House grant the committee the power to expand the scope of the bill in order to allow for the consideration of what he called “amendments that the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism has asked be added to the list”.

This is the crux of our current debate. We are genuinely concerned about the expansion of this bill.

I will continue:

This led to the presentation on April 23, 2013, of the committee's eighth report. He found this approach to be problematic in two respects. First, he argued that pursuant to Standing Order 97.1, committees examining private members' bills are restricted as to the types of reports they can present to the House. He argued essentially that since the eighth report falls outside these parameters, it is out of order. His second argument centred on the impact such a manner of proceeding could have. Specifically, he expressed concern that if committees examining private members' bills were to be allowed latitude to proceed in this fashion, the effect of this practice “will be that the government could, by extrapolation, even add an omnibus feature to a private member’s bill...”

This is one of our concerns, Mr. Chair. Another concern raised by the possibility of turning it into an omnibus bill is, as I said at the beginning of my speech, all this latitude handed en masse to the minister to take over a bill, thereby making it a government bill.

I will continue reading the Speaker's ruling:

The Government House Leader explained that, in view of the differences of opinion expressed in the committee as to whether the amendments proposed were within the scope of the bill, the committee was seeking guidance from the House on the matter. In making this observation, he pointed out that this process would result in a number of hours of debate in the House on the committee report before a decision was taken. In his presentation the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons argued that Standing Order 97.1 does not preclude a committee from seeking an instruction from the House in relation to a private member's bill. He further explained that the committee remains seized of Bill C-425 and that its eighth report in no way supersedes the 60-sitting-day deadline to report the bill back to the House. At the outset the Chair wishes to clarify what appear to be certain misconceptions about the nature of private members' bills. The first of these has to do with the arguments made by the House leader for the official opposition and the member for Saint-Lambert in reference to the constitutional compliance of legislation sponsored by private members.

As pointed out by the member for Saint-Lambert, constitutional compliance is among the criteria used by the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business to determine non-votability of private members' bills. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, describes these criteria at page 1130, including one requirement that “bills and motions must not clearly violate the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms”. The Chair is not aware of further constitutional compliance tests that are applied to any kind of legislation, whether sponsored by the government or by private members, once bills are before the House or its committees. In addition, hon. members will recall that in a recent ruling delivered on March 27, I reminded the House that as Speaker I have no role in interpreting matters of a constitutional or legal nature. Another apparent source of confusion has to do with the difference between private bills and public bills. Virtually all the bills that come before the House are public bills, whether they are sponsored by private members or by the government. As O'Brien and Bosc explains at page 1178: Private bills must not be confused with private Members' bills. Although private bills are sponsored by private Members, the term “private Member's bill” refers only to public bills dealing with a matter of public policy introduced by Members who are not Ministers. Thus both government and private members’ bills are subject to the same basic legislative process, namely introduction and first reading, second reading, committee stage, report stage and, finally, third reading. At the same time, the House has seen fit to devise specific procedures for dealing with public bills sponsored by the government and private members alike. For example, Standing Order 73 allows the government to propose that a government bill be referred to committee before second reading after a five-hour debate. The purpose of this rule is to allow greater flexibility to members in committee by enabling them to propose amendments to alter the scope of the measure. The procedures in place for dealing with private members’ bills are likewise many layered, and have evolved in response to particular situations faced by the House in the past. This is the case with the provision for a maximum of two hours of debate at second reading, which came about to allow the House to consider more items and thus to allow more private members to have their measures considered. Similarly, Standing Order 97.1 was originally brought in to ensure that private members’ bills referred to committee would be returned to the House and to the order of precedence in a timely fashion.

In the present case, it appears to the Chair that the essence of the procedural question before me is to determine whether the House has the power to grant permission to a committee to expand the scope of a private member's bill after that scope has been agreed to by the House at second reading and, if so, whether this can be achieved by way of a committee report. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, is helpful in this regard. It states at page 752: Once a bill has been referred to a committee, the House may instruct the committee by way of a motion authorizing what would otherwise be beyond its powers, such as, for example, examining a portion of a bill and reporting it separately, examining certain items in particular, dividing a bill into more than one bill, consolidating two or more bills into a single bill, or expanding or narrowing the scope or application of a bill. Clearly then, by way of a motion of instruction, the House can grant a committee the power to expand the scope of a bill, be it a government bill or a private member's bill. An example can be found at page 289 of the Journals for April 27, 2010, where an opposition member moved a motion of instruction related to a government bill. Having established that the House does have the authority to grant permission to a committee to expand the scope of a bill through a motion of instruction, the question becomes whether a committee report is also a procedurally valid way to achieve the same result. The member for Toronto Centre is correct in saying that the explicit authority to present this type of report is not found in Standing Order No. 97.1, which exists to oblige committees to respect deadlines for reporting back to the House on private members' bills. In that respect, Standing Order No. 97.1 continues to apply. However, Standing Order No. 108(1)(a) does grant committees this power under their more general mandate to: …examine and enquire into all such matters as may be referred to them by the House [and] to report from time to time… In describing the three broad categories of reports that standing committees normally present, O’Brien and Bosc, at page 985, describe administrative and procedural reports as those: in which standing committees ask the House for special permission or additional powers, or those that deal with a matter of privilege or procedure arising from committee proceedings.

An example of a committee reporting on a matter related to a bill may be found in the Journals of April 29, 2008, where, in its sixth report, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development felt compelled to provide reasons why it did not complete the study of a particular private member’s bill. Finally, O'Brien and Bosc, at page 752, further state: A committee that so wishes may also seek an instruction from the House. This undoubtedly could be done only through the presentation of a committee report to the House. What this confirms is that the authority of the House to grant permission to a committee to expand the scope of a bill can be sought and secured, either through a motion of instruction or through concurrence in a committee report. O’Brien and Bosc summarizes this well at page 992: If a standing, legislative or special committee requires additional powers, they may be conferred on the committee by an order of the House—by far the most common approach—or by concurrence in a committee report requesting the conferring of those powers. Later, O’Brien and Bosc explain, at page 1075: Recommendations in committee reports are normally drafted in the form of motions so that, if the reports are concurred in, the recommendations become clear orders or resolutions of the House. Just as the adoption of a motion of instruction to a committee would become an order of the House, so too would the adoption of a committee report requesting the permission of the House to expand the scope of a bill. Of course, it has always been the case that instructions to a committee must be in proper form. According to O’Brien and Bosc, at page 754, such instructions must be “worded in such a way that the committee will clearly understand what the House wants”. It is nevertheless clear to the Chair that there is genuine disquiet about the impact of this attempted procedural course of action.

At this point, Mr. Chair, the Speaker of the House is acknowledging well-founded and potentially genuine concerns about this course of action and about a request of this nature when made through a committee report.

Going back to the words of the Speaker of the House:

The Chair is not deaf to those concerns and, in that light, wishes to reassure the House that this manner of proceedings does not obviate the need for committees to observe all the usual rules governing the admissibility of amendments to the clauses of a bill, which are described in detail at pages 766 to 771 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition.

He mentioned the admissibility of amendments, Mr. Chair. The Speaker of the House made this clarification in order to reply to the concerns raised by the tabling of the eighth report with reference to the expansion of Bill C-425.

Going back to the Speaker's ruling:

In particular, granting a committee permission to expand the scope of a bill does not, ipso facto, grant it permission to adopt amendments that run counter to its principle. Were a committee to report a bill to the House containing inadmissible amendments, O’Brien and Bosc at page 775 states: The admissibility of those amendments, and of any other amendments made by a committee, may therefore be challenged on procedural grounds when the House resumes its consideration of the bill at report stage. The admissibility of the amendments is then determined by the Speaker of the House, whether in response to a point of order or on his or her own initiative. For all of the reasons outlined, I must conclude that the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration is in order. I thank all hon. members for their attention.

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

Chair, I have a point of order.

I'm noticing it's 10 o'clock. Would it be possible for us to take a comfort or a health break so that committee members can get some fresh coffee and use the facilities, and come back in five or ten minutes?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Kevin Lamoureux]

Ms. James, on the same point of order.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Actually, as Ms. Freeman, the member opposite, knows, any member of this committee is free to get up and help themselves to coffee. We found that out yesterday. Actually, the chair vacated the seat multiple times, so we know that's possible. And yesterday the same member left the room to use the facilities, so there is no reason for a comfort break.

I find this discussion very interesting and I suggest that we continue moving forward. If the member desires a 10-minute break, she has other colleagues at this table who can carry on.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Kevin Lamoureux]

Jinny, on the same point of order.

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

Chair, first, to put something on the record, the chair got up exactly twice to go and get hot water, and it is not unusual for the chair of this committee to do that. I wanted to put that forward and not leave the impression that the chair was running backwards and forwards on some kind of exercise program while she should have been in the chair.

I think the request, in polite terms, was more for a comfort break, and I think my colleague was trying to present it in such a way. But I also....

Are the bells ringing? What is happening? I suddenly saw the lights.... Oh, the House is convening.

I think, Chair, it would not be unrealistic for the meeting to be suspended for five or ten minutes for people to take a comfort break.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Kevin Lamoureux]

Mylène, on the same point of order, and then Sadia.

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

I do want to clarify that, yes, we could all get up and leave à tour de rôle, but if every couple of hours we were to take a five- to ten-minute break, I think that would be to the benefit of all the members of the committee. We are all pretty sure we're going to be here for quite a while. None of us is going to stand down on this. If we're going to keep doing this, I think it would be to the benefit of all members of this committee if every couple of hours we were to break, simply to let everybody stretch their legs at once, so we aren't going back and forth, everybody getting up and walking around, for the next week. That would be a little less organized.

I suggest that in order to keep our longevity going, that's what we should do.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Kevin Lamoureux]

We'll go with Sadia, followed by Mr. Opitz, Ms. James, and then Ms. Sitsabaiesan.

Sadia.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Chair, I have a simple question that follows on my colleague's comment. When a committee debates a motion, isn't it possible to ask for a break, even if just for physiological reasons?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Kevin Lamoureux]

I will make a ruling on it the moment I've heard from everyone who wants to contribute to this particular point of order.

Thank you, Sadia.

I have Mr. Opitz.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, we're all individuals on this committee. We're all on other committees as well. It's incumbent on individuals to regulate themselves, as we do, and as the member demonstrated yesterday. She was free to conduct personal activities outside the boundaries of this room, or stand up and get a coffee, as the chair did twice last night, and that's fine. We can do these things without having to interrupt the proceedings in kind of an all-inclusive exercise where everybody has to go to the bathroom together.

I think that's not something that's valid, and we've just burned up valuable time debating bathroom breaks.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Kevin Lamoureux]

It's good of you to point out just how much time we have spent on the point of order.

We still have another three people. Ms. James, Ms. Sitsabaiesan, and Mr. Shory have all indicated...so we'll continue.

Ms. James, on the point of order.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I just want to reiterate to this committee that the reason we're here is that the government is seeking an extension to actually consider amendments to this bill. We are being delayed and obstructed through adjournments and suspensions of committee meetings by the opposition. Now we're hearing that they need comfort breaks.

I just want to say—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Kevin Lamoureux]

Yes. We have to—

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I'm actually on a point of order.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Kevin Lamoureux]

It's okay. We'll finish up the current point of order.

Ms. James, perhaps you could, relatively quickly, draw your words to a conclusion. Then we'll put Ms. Sims on.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Now that I'm hearing that the opposition is calling for comfort breaks every couple of hours, it just goes to show that they want to delay this. They want to obstruct.

Agreeing to an extension of the time for this particular bill so that we can examine the amendments is absolutely outrageous, considering that 80% of Canadians are in support of this legislation. They are in opposition to most Canadians.

If the member is feeling so uncomfortable that she needs a comfort break, there's an easy solution. We can actually just put this to a vote right now and then she can take the break she so desires and she can rest. But if we want to debate this.... If the opposition is truly interested in talking about this particular issue, they will not try to suspend/adjourn and now take comfort breaks.