Evidence of meeting #84 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
I am going to answer the questions put by Mr. Menegakis and Mr. Opitz and also provide you with some clarifications, Mr. Chair.
I am saying that there is a lack of balance between the right to be heard and the right to limit the right to speak. I think that this lack of balance, concerning...
Conservative
Costas Menegakis Conservative Richmond Hill, ON
I have a point of order again.
I believe you ruled on that, Mr. Chair. Everybody has a right to speak, but this is again not speaking to the amendment. Mr. Giguère is going off on a tangent, with all due respect.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I will consult with the clerk for a moment.
I'm trying to interpret what you're saying, Monsieur Giguère. I think I'm interpreting it as your alleging that I as the chairman am not giving you the right to speak on what you want to speak on. I think that's what you're saying, and if it is—if this interpretation is correct—then we're getting back to something that we've already ruled on.
I can't make my position clearer than I did with Mr. Lamoureux. There are certain things that you can talk about and there are certain things that you can't talk about. I don't want to get into that. The chair has even been challenged on a number of those things.
You have the right to speak, but on the other hand the topics must be relevant. The issues can't be repeated. I've said this over and over.
That's my interpretation of what you have said; therefore, you are getting into an area that I've already ruled on.
NDP
Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
I think that there is some confusion here. There are two important points which must be considered. The gist of my statement was that Mr. Dykstra's motion causes an imbalance between two elements that underpin the philosophical bases of the book drafted by O'Brien and Bosc. I answered the objections of two of my colleagues by saying that their objections were aimed at limiting my right to speak. Indeed, they are attempting to restrict my right to speak. I answered them that basically, I was referring to a...
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
That's not true. I'm not limiting your right to speak. I'm simply saying that matters that are not relevant or are repetitious cannot be proceeded with. I am not restricting anyone's right to speak. But don't go to areas for repetition. Don't go to areas that we have already ruled are out of order.
You have the right to speak. I'm not limiting your right to speak. I have simply said that you can't repeat these matters, and there are certain other matters that we've already made decisions on.
NDP
Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Something must have gotten mixed up in the translation, Mr. Chair.
NDP
Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Something must have gotten mixed up in the translation because you're blaming me for something I didn't say.
I said that my freedom of speech was being limited, but I didn't say you were the one doing it. I was talking about the objections of my two colleagues. I did not point the finger at you. Do you see that I was not challenging your decision?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I will concede that there may be a problem in translation.
I'll do my best to try to understand what your position is, sir. I'm sorry. That's as long as you understand what my position is, and I think you do.
Go ahead.
NDP
Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
I am not trying to be repetitive. I am not trying to challenge your ruling.
But I would certainly be surprised if someone in this room were to tell me that the philosophy of law underlying the balance that I believe Mr. Dykstra's motion seeks to disturb has already been discussed. That is at the heart of what I'm getting at.
I want to talk about the fact that this motion has upset the balance between two fundamental elements of our parliamentary law. As for the two fundamental elements, I already clearly stated what they were, but I will repeat them for you. I am referring to the dichotomy between the right of the people and the scope of these changes.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I think I do understand what you're saying.
You said that parliamentary balance has been breached by decisions that have been made by me, on the approval of the majority of the committee.
Conservative
Ted Opitz Conservative Etobicoke Centre, ON
Mr. Chair, I'm feeling a disturbance and a force, too, but that has no relevance to the main motion. I'm willing to listen to Mr. Giguère talk about anything he wants, once we dispense with the motion. I would urge him to stay on point.
Sir, you have given more than ample warning, quite frankly. I'm thinking that perhaps we should move on.
Thank you, sir.
NDP
Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
That is a clear attempt to take away a parliamentarian's freedom of speech by claiming that I said things I did not. Frankly, Mr. Chair, what I have been saying this whole time is that, when it comes down to it, this motion seeks to—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Could I just ask...? I want to consult with the clerks for a moment. I'd like to hear what you're saying, but please give me a moment to consult with the clerks.
I'll suspend for a couple of minutes.
NDP
NDP
Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Very good, Mr. Chair.
To prevent any further debate on my approach, I am going to take the liberty of highlighting that, in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, O'Brien and Bosc draw a clear distinction between what constitutes parliamentary privilege and what does not. It appears on pages 60 and 96. In short, that is what my analysis is based on. If anyone is still wondering about the philosophical choice behind my approach, I would point them to O'Brien and Bosc, who laid it out very clearly.
NDP
Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
It appears on pages 60 and 96.
Right from the beginning, if we're talking about the philosophy of law, page 3 clearly states that Canada is a parliamentary democracy. We have a history of parliamentary life. It is upheld by a long tradition. With that in mind, I will occasionally provide arguments and make points to support my view.
That speaks to the very heart of why I object to this 30-day hoist motion. I think it's wrong. It think it gives rise to a permanent imbalance as far as our choices and options go. I will tell you what that imbalance is all about, from a philosophy of law standpoint.
Previously, I don't think anyone on this committee made any arguments about the philosophy of law underpinning this debate. If anyone can say that I am repeating myself, please tell me now. According to the information I was given, I don't think this approach has been used.
Obviously, this could become time-consuming. The argument I am going to make is largely supported by O'Brien and Bosc. This was supposed to be the subject of my cousin's Ph.D. thesis. I will try to keep it under 10 or 15 hours. We're talking about the philosophical debate discussed in an 800-page long Ph.D. thesis. That's not always easy.
You should understand that the devil is in the details when it comes to the philosophy of law. And the details abound. With that image in mind. I would point out that O'Brien and Bosc's publication looks more like a bible than a procedural authority. And for that reason, this could be a long debate. But so long as an attack on parliamentary life is at issue, in other words, the philosophy of law, this matter certainly warrants debate.
Although I may not have convinced all of my colleagues of the relevance of having this debate, I hope that I have at least convinced them of the newness of this approach before the entire committee.
Yes, there is a dichotomy. As the saying goes, vox populi, vox Dei. The people's voice is the voice of God. In the Middle Ages, that basically meant the people had to be listened to because they were the ultimate authority. Theirs was akin to the voice of God. That expression means that when the people speak, they must be given fundamental, lasting and painstaking respect. The expression changed over time, with “pro Dei”, or for God, being used. It is done for God.
Therefore, my commitment to the people is an act of God, an act of faith. The most beautiful expression of that concept, my favourite one, is found in Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. He described democracy in less than 100 words, the most important of those being “the government of the people, by the people, for the people”.
I respectfully submit that, in no way, does Mr. Dykstra's motion reflect any of those elements. In fact, I would even say it negates them. That is why I'm telling you there is a violation. This fundamental principle has been attacked.
We are here for the people, the people we represent. We want the people to have clear legislation. O'Brien and Bosc even highlight that fundamental principle on page 3 of their publication. They say we are the people, the representatives of the people. The words “by the people” imply that the people must see their voices reflected in these laws and be comfortable with them. In that respect as well, a serious violation has certainly occurred.
I am not saying Mr. Dykstra did so intentionally. Indeed, the philosophy of our law holds that we assume people are acting in good faith, and that is the view I take with everyone. But I believe this motion gives rise to a violation. Can it be fixed? Yes. House of Commons Procedure and Practice clearly states that it can.
The Latin expression medice, cura te ipsum means “doctor, heal thyself”. It is possible for things to go amiss, as they say, resulting in a major mistake. People make mistakes, it happens. The procedures of our law provide for that eventuality. If, however, we consider the philosophical perspective and try to find the right balance—which is hard to do—the procedures cannot be used for flawed intentions. The administration of justice must not give rise to the demise of justice.
The late Justice Steinberg taught me that in a law class. The administration of justice and its procedures must not lead to its demise. I unfortunately get the sense that the motion on the 30 additional days does not in any way adhere to the philosophical rules of our parliamentary law. It is not viable. It goes against all of our procedures.
Did you want to say something, Mr. Chair?