Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 13th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Of course, Mr. Lamoureux.

Mr. Giguère, continue on with your reasoning.

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

I will pick up where we left off.

Mr. Chair, you indicated how we are to proceed in quite a clear manner. You don't want repetitive statements. You do not want us either to go back to issues concerning which you have made a decision. We may sometimes be disappointed by the content of your decisions, but we must abide by them.

In this case—and here I am only referring to a descriptive motion—we are debating the original motion submitted by Mr. Dykstra. So we are not discussing part of a motion, but the entire motion.

If I may, I would specify that my position is supported, from the point of view of practice, by the Zola case. Allow me to describe it briefly.

I am referring to an author whose name was Émile Zola. During the 1890s...

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Giguère, this isn't a court of law. I've heard of a guy called Zola, but we're not going to get into legal arguments. We're going to get into whether or not the Standing Orders and the positions that have been taken by Madam O'Brien and Mr. Bosc have been complied with.

I don't want to hear legal arguments here.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

He's a figure from French literature. He's a literary person.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I do recognize that. I don't want to get into French literature either, Mr. Harris.

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

I wasn't talking about French literature, but about an essential and well-known legal case, that is to say the case of Émile Zola versus the French Republic. It was about the restriction...

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I don't want to go into France. I don't want to hear any legal cases. I want you to direct your comments to the point of order that was raised by Mr. Lamoureux, or we're going to move on.

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

You want the discussions to be as short as possible, Mr. Chair, and I accept your viewpoint.

Earlier, you shared your position on...

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I want you to be relevant, sir.

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

Forgive me, Mr. Chair, but since you gave me the floor, I have the right to describe what I referred to.

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

Speaking on a point of order is more than what you want.

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

You can't interrupt me every three words.

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

A point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Dykstra.

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

While Alain may not agree with your rulings or with how you're conducting the meeting here, that is no reason to abuse the chair by raising his voice and coming directly at you. It's unacceptable, and I ask that he refrain from doing that.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Monsieur Giguère.

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

So we are going to pick up the thread of the debate.

You made a decision that I am forced to accept. You indicated that my motion was out of order. You clearly pointed out that in Mr. Dykstra's motion it says that this is “to expand the scope of the bill”. You stated that that sentence met the requirements of Standing Order 97.1(1). That is the basis for your decision, and I understood it clearly. However, the fact that you said that implies that we have the right to debate the expansion of the scope of the bill.

You cannot claim one thing and its opposite at the same time. That is the very philosophical basis of the law and of parliamentary law. You must thus accept Mr. Lamoureux's motion to the extent that you are allowing us to broaden the debate. You yourself maintained and recognized that.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Monsieur Giguère, I've already made a comment on this. My comment was that the issue of the scope of the bill will be dealt with in the House whenever we get to a concurrence motion—whenever that may happen—and not here. You're going to have an opportunity in the House to debate whether or not it's good to expand the scope of the bill, not here.

All we're talking about right now.... I don't know how many times I'm going to say this, but I'm getting a little tired of saying it. The issue that is before this committee is whether or not we should be asking the House for permission to extend the time for debating this bill in this committee by 30 sitting days. That's all that's before us—not the scope of the bill. That will take place at another time in the House. You'll have a lot of time to deal with that.

I'm going to proceed to Mr. Menegakis.

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

Mr. Chair, just a clarification?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I've made my ruling. What can't you understand?

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

At the same time you indicate that's the position, you put a restriction on the possibility for us to speak to the totality of Mr. Dykstra's motion, or is it just the question of les 30 jours?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

This is the last time I'm going to say it. I'm going to say that this is not the time or the place to debate whether or not the scope of the bill should be expanded. That will take place in the House of Commons, not in this committee. That's the time when we can do it. I won't allow any debate on whether or not the scope of the bill is going to be debated in this particular committee.

Mr. Menegakis, you have the floor.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I've already spoken to the actual amendment, I believe. As I said before, and I'm going to say it one last time—

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

Sorry, Mr. Chair, a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Sims.