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
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
If you think it's hypothetical, sir, I would have to refer you to the fact that, if it wasn't introducing new principles, then it wouldn't be out of the scope in the first place.
Conservative
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
I won't ask it as a hypothetical question, Mr. Chair. Perhaps I can ask it as an actual question.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
When did committee become a structure upon which the only thing the opposition does is ask questions of the chair? That is not presenting arguments as to why the government should not be supporting the 30-day extension, which is the motion that is sitting here. If there's a clarification specifically related to the extension or to the motion, that's fine. But if these are just hypothetical questions about how committee works, how it's structured, and what the rights of an individual are, those are not arguments.
I would say that we are getting precariously close to the opposition having nothing left in terms of presenting arguments that have not been made already. If it is the case that we have an opposition that is simply now asking the clerk, through you, for clarification on nebulous issues, that means we should be having a vote, Mr. Chair.
I suspect that very shortly you'll be able to say there are no arguments coming from the opposition, and call the question.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Mr. Dykstra, members can ask questions of clarification. That's perfectly in order. But I have made a ruling with Mr. Harris that his question is hypothetical and is irrelevant to this motion.
NDP
Mylène Freeman NDP Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I wanted to speak on the same point of order.
In this particular case I was going to agree with you, so I won't challenge the fact that you skipped over me again. We need to stop doing that. It is disappointing. I feel I do have something to say sometimes when we have points of order. I feel as though I'm being ignored on this committee when I'm skipped over that often.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm not going to speak to Mr. Dykstra's point of order but to one of his comments, which is why this committee is arguing whether there should be a 30-day extension. That is the debate that would take place in the House if this motion passes. We're arguing here about whether the committee should be requesting the extension in the first place. That's what we're arguing about.
Mr. Dykstra is not the chair. I hate to have to remind him.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
I know he's anxious to try to dominate the committee and tell the chair what to do.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Mr. Dykstra, I know it's tempting, but please let Mr. Harris speak.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The question before us is whether or not this committee should be asking for an extension of 30 sitting days. My point in seeking clarification was to, I believe, underscore the problem that this committee has before it, when we're dealing with a significant change that undermines the ability of Parliament to actually debate legislation at second reading. That, in my view, is the crux of the matter.
When you have a piece of legislation that's already gone through first reading in the House of Commons, then second reading in the House of Commons, and is here before this committee, and the bill is sought to be so substantially changed that it's actually out of order, then we're talking about new principles that must have support of the House at second reading. That hasn't happened. If this request goes forward, this committee would be seeking to make sure it didn't happen.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Mr. Harris, I'm going to tell you something that I know you already know. Certainly all members know it because it's been quoted here, Standing Order 97.1(1). One of the things that the committee can do with respect to proceeding on a report is request “a single extension of thirty sitting days to consider the bill, and giving the reasons therefor.”
That has been done. It's been brought by a member of the government; I think it was Mr. Dykstra. Mr. Dykstra has every right to do that. I get the impression that you're saying he doesn't have the right to do that. He certainly does have the right to do that. What I'm interested in hearing from you and others is whether that's a good idea or not. I really prefer that your submissions be restricted to that and that you not comment on whether it was a good thing or a bad thing, because he has the right to do it. It's in the standing orders.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I don't believe I suggested for a moment that Mr. Dykstra's motion was out of order.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
All right, Mr. Harris, you're obviously opposed to the motion. You've made that quite clear. I'd like to hear reasons why you're opposed to it.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
With respect, I thought that was exactly what I was doing. We have the right to say what we don't like and why we don't like it and why we're opposed to it. But one of the reasons I oppose it is that the result of seeking this extension would be to provide an opportunity for legislation to come through and be passed by this committee, the principles of which have never been passed by the House at second reading. This whole exercise has the effect of changing the nature of the legislation from a private member's bill to a government bill. It does this by subterfuge, without going through second reading in the House. That's the broader point.
I know versions of this argument may have been made before—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Mr. Harris, that point may be valid, but I believe it would be more relevant if it was made whenever this debate takes place in the House, when there is some point of concurrence. That's what the whole issue is going to be with respect to the House. What you're submitting may or may not be a valid point, but I submit to you as chairman that it should be made in the House, not here in this committee.
What we want to hear in this committee is whether the committee is right or wrong in asking for this extension. Your point goes beyond that. Members could make those comments in the House, if and when it gets there.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
But I don't think the point should be made here. I've made that ruling.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
To my understanding, you're asking us to tell you and the committee why we don't want this request to be made. Some of those reasons why we don't want this request to be made, certainly, are the same kinds of reasons as to why we wouldn't want the House to approve the request. The same arguments can made in the House for different purposes. But I hear what you're saying, and I'll try to abide by the ruling. Still, I don't see how I can avoid saying why it is I don't think the request should be made, without, in the course of that, indicating the problem with this course of action.
We have, as part of the procedures of this House, developed this whole idea of having a strong role for the private members. The private members' process is there to allow that role to develop and to facilitate private members getting business through the House. We have two hours of debate at second reading to allow a private member to get House time to get a bill through to the committee. When the government does a bill, the government has to put the bill before the House, and if they want to have a shorter debate, they have to do time allocation. We're seeing dozens and dozens of them in the last number of weeks. If the government has a bill it wants to get through, that's what it has to do.
But what we have here is a change from that procedure, which is a shortened procedure designed to allow private members to have their say. It's now being taken over as a government measure, bypassing the second reading debate, which could go on as long as this committee has been meeting, but it would be in the House and it would be under government rules. By making this request to this House, this committee is abdicating its responsibility to protect the procedure that allows private members to have control over the future of their legislation. So this committee is making this request—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Mr. Harris, this is a difficult area in terms of whether this argument should be made here or in another place. The second paragraph of the motion says:
On Tuesday, April 23, 2013, the Committee recommended to the House that it be granted the power during its consideration of Bill C-425 to expand the scope of the Bill.
That decision has been made. I'm interested in what you have to say about that, but I believe the decision has been made. You're getting into an area where the committee has already made a decision. I'm listening to what you're saying and some of the points I agree with, but you're getting into an area that is repetitive because the decision has already been made.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
I hear what you're saying. It's that the committee has already decided to ask for the thing, so that recommendation has already gone to the House. Now we're awaiting the decision of the House. Well, I guess—