House of Commons Hansard #37 of the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-31.
Brent St. Denis Liberal Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
Mr. Speaker, mindful of your admonition, I will be very brief. I would ask the indulgence of the House to revert for a few moments to the introduction of private members' bills.
The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie
Is there unanimous agreement to revert to the introduction of private members' bills?
Security and Prosperity PartnershipPetitionsRoutine Proceedings
Some hon. members
Agreed.
Brent St. Denis Liberal Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-496, An Act to promote the teaching of aboriginal history and culture in Canada's schools.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Yukon for seconding this bill. If passed, the bill would ask that the federal government to work with the provinces, first nations and aboriginal leaders across the country to ensure that as much as possible our primary and secondary schools will include in their curriculum the teaching of aboriginal history and culture to promote understanding and better comprehension of the history and culture of our very important first nations and aboriginal peoples in this country.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have a brief point of order.
On behalf of my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, I am appealing to you with regard to a decision made by the chair of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on December 6. The chair deemed that an amendment introduced by my colleague on behalf of the Bloc Québécois was out of order.
I will explain very quickly. This has to do with Bill C-3 concerning security certificates. The bill already allows an appeal, but only in very restricted circumstances. An appeal can be made only if a judge believes that a serious question of general importance is involved. Only then can the case be re-examined.
Since the bill opened the debate on appeals and in light of the serious consequences of security certificates, we amended this appeal process to broaden it. People can be detained for several years on the basis of these security certificates. We therefore wanted the appeal process to go beyond what the bill allowed and be governed by more or less the same provisions as in the Criminal Code.
When my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin introduced his amendment, which we felt was in order because it amended an existing part of the bill—namely, the appeal process—the amendment was ruled out of order because it was considered to be outside the scope of the law. Consequently, we were unable to discuss the amendment in committee, and our colleague was not even able to present his arguments.
I would like to bring to your attention the French and English dictionary definitions of “scope of the law”, which in French is rendered as portée de la loi. The English term is found in the eighth edition of Black's Law Dictionary.
It states that “scope of authority” is:
The range of reasonable power that an agent has been delegated or might foreseeably be delegated in carrying out the principal's business.
The French term “portée”, or scope, is defined in the third edition of the Dictionnaire de droit québécois et canadien:
Scope: term used to refer to the area of application or effects of an act, agreement, legal decision, etc.
Consequently, in our opinion, the amendment introduced by the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin was completely in order because it pertained to an existing clause of the bill. Certainly, it broadened that clause, but in our opinion, when a bill is being studied clause by clause, nothing prohibits a member from introducing an amendment that broadens or restricts an existing clause of the bill—in this case, the appeal clause.
We are therefore calling on you to rule that this amendment was in order, so that we can introduce it here, in Committee of the Whole, when we discuss Bill C-3 regarding security certificates.
The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie
Is the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader rising on the same point of order?
Bill C-3—Immigration and Refugee Protection ActPoint of OrderRoutine Proceedings
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform
Yes, Mr. Speaker. Through you to the hon. House leader of the Bloc Québécois, I would point out that the ruling in committee by the chair of that committee was that this amendment was out of order, that it was outside the scope of the bill.
Of course as we all know, and as you well know, Mr. Speaker, committee decisions are made and should be final and binding, but I should also point out to my hon. friend that those rulings are not done in an arbitrary manner. Those rulings are usually done after consultation, with legal counsel in some cases, and certainly with the advice and the interpretations on a process and procedures basis from all clerks who assist our chairs and all committees.
I would certainly suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to my hon. colleague, that the ruling was in fact a correct one and should not be interpreted otherwise.
The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie
The Chair does intend to rule on this, but not at the moment. I have listened to hon. member for Joliette and also to the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. The bill in question is not now before the House. At the appropriate time, there will be a ruling from the Chair on this point of order.
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie
There being no motions at report stage of this bill, the House will now proceed without debate to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.
Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984Government Orders
Some hon. members
Agreed.
No.
Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984Government Orders
Some hon. members
On division.
The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie
I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to)
When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?
Monte Solberg Conservative Medicine Hat, AB
moved that Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, be read the third time and passed.