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.
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
You started to....
I'll give you an example. You started to talk about the issue of debate on the bill. That has nothing to do with this. That has absolutely nothing to do with this.
I'm going to move to Monsieur—
2:20 p.m.
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Absolutely it does. It does, Mr. Chair. We're seeing—
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Well, we've already had a ruling that the issue is very narrow. The ruling has been made. How many times do we have to do that? We're only going to do it once.
2:20 p.m.
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
But Mr. Lamoureux raised a point of order, and—
2:20 p.m.
NDP
Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Julius Ceasar said: “Veni, vidi, vici”, which means “I came, I saw, I conquered”. Unfortunately, parliamentary procedure cannot be compared to statements made by Julius Ceasar, even if he was a very colourful figure.
In your response to my motion for evocation, you indicated that the justifications were to be found in the second paragraph, third line, which says “to expand the scope of the bill”. That is clearly stated, and I am going to accept your submission. I find it a bit weak, but I accept the general principle that with the statement “to expand the scope of the bill”, the requirements of Standing Order 97.1(1) stating that reasons must be provided have been met.
The words “to expand the scope of the bill” are indeed to be found in the text of the motion submitted by Mr. Dykstra. Since you have stated that these words are in the motion, we have the right to discuss expanding the scope of the bill. And so we have the right to talk about the points that amend the original bill.
This motion does refer to the 30 additional sitting days. You have just indicated that we are not to debate the 30 additional days, but with all due respect, Mr. Chair, we are not only talking about the 30 additional days. We are discussing the original motion submitted by Mr. Rick Dykstra, member of the Conservative government and vice-chair of this committee. So with all due respect to your original position, we are not only talking about the 30 additional days, but about the motion, in its entirety.
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Monsieur Giguère, I've listened to you, and you're getting into an area that we've already decided.
With respect to expanding the scope of the bill, I will point out to you that's why we're going to the House. We're going to the House to ask permission to expand the scope of the bill; that's where the debate is going to take place. Presumably there will be a concurrence motion, and you will have your opportunity to debate that matter there, not here, because we're not there yet. We're at the issue of whether or not this committee should ask the House to allow for the extension of 30 sitting days, and I'm getting tired saying this.
That's just a response to you. I haven't made a ruling yet, because we're now going to proceed to Ms. Freeman again.
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
Costas Menegakis Conservative Richmond Hill, ON
I have a point of order.
I heard you say that we're proceeding to Ms. Freeman. Mr. Giguère, I don't think, is Ms. Freeman.
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
He's free to interject. Maybe he is saying he wasn't finished. I don't know what he's going to say.
2:20 p.m.
NDP
Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
I have not finished, not at all. I am taking your comments into account, but you cannot claim one thing and its opposite. You have to clearly indicate to us how we are to proceed.
In any case, from what I see, there is a request for a vote.
2:20 p.m.
NDP
Mylène Freeman NDP Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Chair, I believe there are bells, and that we're being called to the House to vote.
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
2:20 p.m.
NDP
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We are going to reconvene.
Mr. Giguère has the floor on a point of order that was raised by Mr. Lamoureux, I believe.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
It had to do with how broadly one can talk about the issues.
I believe I have said that you are restricted to debating and giving reasons why you support or are against this motion that is asking the committee for an extension of 30 sitting days, or the opposite. I guess the point of order is on the issue of latitude.
My initial ruling was in favour of a narrow latitude and my recollection of your point of order—and please correct me, because this is what we're in the midst of—was that I as the chairman am being too narrow.
Is that your understanding of the point of order, Mr. Lamoureux.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Yes, that's fair comment, Mr. Chairman.
In fact, in your preamble, you had made reference to my giving reasons why I am against giving the 30 days. I'm very happy to explain why it is I'm against that.
The issue then became whether or not I relevant in my reasoning, and that is what my concern was.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
You're questioning that I'm too narrow and it should be broader?
4 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Yes. I should be able to provide the reasons as to why I want to—
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I've always said you can provide reasons. I just want to be clear what the point of order is. The point of order is that you feel I'm being too narrow—