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
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
I realize I haven't heard all the points of order here, but am I correct that you're suggesting that the only thing one can talk about is whether or not it should be 30 sitting days or 40 or 50 or 60?
If the issue is the last sentence of the motion and not the entire motion, surely you can't just say yes or no. You can't just say you agree with an extension or you don't agree with an extension. You have to say the argument in one direction or the other of agreeing with an extension must include the reason why you think the committee should request or not request this extension. That has to be a part of the debate over whether or not...and even if you did restrict it to the last sentence, the debate about whether or not that should be accepted has to be about why it should be requested or why it should not be requested or why you would be against it.
So I can't conceive that you've suggested that you can only say yes or no. There has to be the rationale for one supporting or not supporting that motion. Have I got that wrong, or are you saying you can only talk about those six or eight words?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
No, I did clarify with Mr. Lamoureux that I've put a very narrow position on what can be debated.
Mr. Harris, in terms of the items that are in the motion—on expanding the scope of the bill and on the House further considering the bill—we've already made a ruling on that. We've already made a ruling.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
So you voted separately on those sentences, is that it?
Have you voted on those sentences?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We've already made a ruling that those issues will not be part of this debate as to whether or not this motion should carry.
Those matters will be dealt with when the matter goes, if it ever does, to the House.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
But anything that would come under the question of whether or not the committee should request this extension or not....
The role of the committee, what the committee is doing, the role of committees generally, the role of private members—all of these things certainly come under the question of whether or not an extension of 30 days should be granted. That can certainly be debated.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Well, we've already made a ruling, Mr. Harris, in this committee. It's finished. The decision was that the more appropriate forum to debate those items will be in the House.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
I don't mean those items. The issue is whether or not there ought to be an extension or not, and whether the committee should request the extension.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Oh, if...absolutely. I've made that quite clear all along. I have been waiting for arguments for and against. I've made it quite clear to Mr. Lamoureux.
Maybe there's a misunderstanding, but I've been waiting for arguments—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
—as to why it should be for or against. We've already decided that two of the arguments aren't applicable, the issue of the scope of the bill and the issue of a decision of the House; that will be dealt with in the House of Commons, not here.
So I'm waiting. If there are any other arguments that members have, I'd be pleased to listen to them.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
I'd certainly like to have an opportunity at some point to try out some of the arguments, because I think—
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
—and I'm going to now rule on it.
Mr. Lamoureux, I'm going to confirm what I ruled before, that the issue that's before this committee is dealing with the issue of whether or not this committee can ask the House to give permission to this committee for an extension of 30 days to deal with Bill C-425.
To repeat what has already been ruled, the issue of expanding the scope of the bill and the issue of the decision of the House before considering the bill go beyond that view.
We now have a point of privilege from Ms. Sims.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
I'd like to challenge the chair on the confirmation that the chair just made. And I would like a recorded vote.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Thank you, Ms. Sims.
Shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?
[Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5]
Madam Sims, you now have an issue of privilege, which you had started on and which I had asked you to forego until after we dealt with the point of order.
You now have a point of order on the matter of privilege.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Thank you very much.
I realize, Chair, that it's only the Speaker who can rule on a point of privilege. However, I do realize that I have full rights to present my case here before the committee, and then for the committee to make that determination.
Therefore, it is with that understanding, and fully cognizant of the fact that it is beyond your reach to make a ruling on privilege, that I am proceeding with this.
Specifically, I got elected in 2011. I have participated in committees, not only this one but another one as well. And what I'm finding here is that the practices at play, and the rulings of the chair, really do interfere with—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I'm sorry to interrupt you, but you've just said something, and I'd like to make it clear what my position is.
It's true what you've said, that the Speaker decides these matters. But the chairman of a committee has the right, and indeed the obligation, to determine whether or not the matter raised in fact does touch on privilege.
So I have to make a ruling—
Conservative
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
My understanding was that the only person, just from reading in here, who could make a decision on whether a privilege had been breached was the Speaker. Also, in order to get it to the House I would need a majority vote from this committee, and then a decision would be made in the House. The actual privilege decision is made in the House. But you are in the chair and you have just explained something to me. Thank you.
Can I proceed now with explaining why I feel that my privileges have been violated?