Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 13th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

No, no, we have a point of order, Ms. Sims.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

I'm serious. If there's something new to be said, I want to hear it and I want to be part of it, but right now it seems we're spinning our wheels and it's all a deliberate attempt to waste time. Taxpayers don't like that, and I don't like it either, and I don't think we should be doing this.

I think, Mr. Chair, there's an abuse going on of the very rule that you set out at the beginning of this meeting. So I'd ask you to just review whether we are really covering new ground. If not, can we get to our conclusion and move on?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I love it when everybody picks on the chairman.

You can continue, but he's right to a certain degree: you are getting into repetition.

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

When you look at Bill C-425 and the request for an extension, the request for an extension is here for one reason only, and that is to get an expansion of the scope.

I need to say those words again, Mr. Chair, so I can then get into why I believe that is an abuse of the parliamentary process when it comes to private members' bills. What is being sought here is an extraordinary timing allocation for a private member's bill that's had every opportunity, with many, many days of the committee not sitting, waiting for the House to decide, and what the government could not achieve in the House through getting their concurrent motion on the table, what they're trying to do is do it through this committee. I believe that this is really trying to steer around what a private member's bill is.

This government had every chance to bring forward different amendments and then go through clause-by-clause. We would have been finished it all, and Mr. Shory could have gone home happy for the summer holiday, saying, “My bill has either passed or failed, but I did my very best.” There were parts of the bill that we did agree with, so everything would have been fine. But that's not where we are at, because what's being done here is an attempt to go outside all of those parameters and to try to change what can happen in a private member's bill. That gets to the crux of why we are adamantly opposed to the extension of 30 sitting days, and we will continue to be opposed no matter how long we are sitting here, Mr. Chair.

Can you put me back on the speakers list, please?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Monsieur Giguère is next.

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

Mr. Chair, there will be three parts to my statement. The first concerns the text of the motion you have before you. My second point will be about the philosophy of law, and thirdly, I will conclude with an analogy.

Standing Order 97.1(1) lists five distinct elements regarding dealing with a bill. These are possibilities, not absolute obligations. This regulatory text does not state that it must necessarily be 30 days. There are other possibilities, and I am going to discuss all of them, with your permission.

In the first possibility, we must report on the amendments in the 60 days following the reference. Parliamentarians sitting in committee may decide to debate a bill and submit amendments to it, and then send it back to the House in the 60 days that follow. That is where we were heading with Bill C-425 before Mr. Dykstra's motion and the amendments to the bill submitted by the department were introduced. At first, Bill C-425 was heading toward that first eventuality, i.e. that we report the bill to the House, with amendments, in the 60-day period following its reference to committee.

The second possibility evoked in Standing Order 97.1(1) provides that we report without amendment in the 60 days following the bill's reference to the committee. In this case this means that Bill C-425 would have been such a good bill that it would have garnered unanimous consent around the table, and all of the parliamentarians would have approved it without any amendment and referred it to the House; the House of course maintains its right to debate it.

Those are the two most frequent procedures used in dealing with a bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Monsieur Giguère, I believe that everybody here understands Standing Order 97.1(1). I do, and I'll bet you everybody here does. You're going through it, and I guess you're entitled to that, but I'm telling you that you're going over an area that everybody understands. We all know the procedure.

We all know the procedure with respect to this report and the different options the committee has. I suppose I'm obliged to let you do this until you start repeating yourself, and you haven't done that yet, but I just want to make it clear to you that what you're doing is telling us something that we already know.

You can proceed. I just draw that to your attention.

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

Thank you, but I am going to continue anyway in order to inform everyone, since there are people entering and leaving the room.

The third possibility is to not consider the bill. If all of the members of the committee had been against Bill C-425, the committee would have had the right to not continue its study, on that basis.

The fourth possibility, which is the topic of the current debate, is to ask for a single extension of 30 sitting days, and provide the reasons for that. That is what is currently being proposed. The request has been justified because of a considerable expansion in the scope of the bill. The scope of Bill C-425 has been considerably broadened, and that is why we are being asked for an extension of 30 sitting days.

The fifth possibility is subsidiary. I hope everyone understands the legal definition of “subsidiary”. It is something that is included by default. If nothing is done in the 60 days following referral to the committee, by default, it may be considered that the bill has been reported without amendment.

Mr. Chair, the problem is that on this side, we are against the 30-day extension period. Bill C-425 may have been unanimously approved, but that is not the case for its amendments. What is being proposed is practically a new bill and a new legal context. During those 30 additional days, in my opinion, it would have been preferable to submit a new bill. The government chose to not submit a new bill, but rather to resort to what one might call a “mammoth” procedure...

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Giguère, I believe you're getting into the same area that Ms. Sims did. You're getting into amendments, the amendments that you're alleging will change the scope of the bill, amendments that have never been made. I don't think it's appropriate. I'm giving you a lot of leeway here—

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

Very well.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

—but, quite frankly, I don't think it's appropriate to assume that amendments have been made. They may never be made. Maybe they will, but we don't know at this stage. It's true we have all seen amendments, but they haven't been formally presented to the committee, and here you are getting into amendments. It's true you're not talking about specific amendments, but you are talking about amendments that you allege will change the scope of the bill. We know such amendments have never been made.

My comments to you are the same as they were to Ms. Sims. I don't think it's in order to talk about something that hasn't happened, to get into a hypothetical situation. It is appropriate to talk about facts. I'd be pleased if you would tell us the facts as to why you are opposed or not opposed to this motion.

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

Mr. Chair, I want to point out that I am opposed to broadening the scope of the bill, which objective is clearly stated in Mr. Dykstra's motion. I am opposed to it because Bill C-425 had a very clearly established legal framework on which we could work quite easily.

We are being asked for an extension on the basis of something that is unknown to us, and we do not like that uncertainty. We are refusing to do that.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Just one minute. I'll give you a chance, Mr. Dykstra.

My understanding is that this committee voted on that topic of scope last week, and here you are talking about it again. Therefore, I don't want to go back to that. I don't think you were there either, but my understanding is that the topic of—

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

That is indeed the case.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

—this issue was debated last week.

Mr. Dykstra, on a point of order.

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

Just on the same point of order, this is a repeat of an argument that Ms. Groguhé made last week, and I quote from her speech. She said that by allowing a standing committee to expand the scope of a bill without specific instructions, we open a door extremely sensitive in the current context, with the very obvious trend that we do not lose sight of a majority government using private members' business to promote its own agenda; private members' business can be used as a way for the government to circumvent rules.

It's the exact same argument that Alain is making right now. It's repetitive and he should move on.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Monsieur Giguère, on Tuesday, April 23, 2013, the committee recommended to the House that it be given the power during its consideration of Bill C-425 to expand the scope of the bill. The committee is awaiting the decision of the House before further considering the bill. So all of what you way, quite frankly, is not relevant.

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

Are you the best judge to decide what is politically relevant and what is not? I think that you are here, rather, to determine if procedures are acceptable or not. Perhaps you can enlighten me on that point of law.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Monsieur Giguère, we have already disposed of the issue of the scope of the bill. We voted on it, it's been decided, and now you're raising it again. I'm not going to allow you to go there. I'm quite prepared to listen to you raise arguments. Again, we're going back to the motion on this business of extending the time for the committee to review this bill by 30 sitting days. That's what I want to hear. You're getting into other matters that have either been decided or aren't relevant.

You may continue, sir.

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

In that case, I am going to focus on this 30-day extension from the perspective of the legal philosophy put forward by O'Brien and Bosc. That is the old debate of seeking balance between two very old concepts. They can be summarized by the opposition of the expressions of Vox populi, vox Dei and Medice, cura te ipsum, that is to say that we must seek balance. In their document, O'Brien and Bosc sought that balance.

What I am saying, basically, and I am going to attempt to demonstrate this with the legal philosophy...

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Excuse me, sir. It may have been the translation, but I would like you to repeat what you said. You said that there should be a balance between the two; then the translation did not make clear to me what you said.

Could you clarify what the balance is?

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

Fine, I am going to go back to that and discuss that matter in greater detail.

The first concept is that of Vox populi, vox Dei—the voice of the people is the voice of God. The second concept is Medice, cura te ipsum, that is to say, physician, heal thyself. In fact, we cannot blame someone else for what we have done to ourselves. We cannot restrain...

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We have a point of order.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

I'm trying to determine the relevance of this. This is like legal mumbo jumbo. What is the relevance of it? We're discussing a specific motion, Mr. Chair, and I don't know that this is relevant.

That's my point of order: it's not relevant.