Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 13th, 2013

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Well I would suggest, Mr. Chair, that it does have something to do with the subamendment and I'll try to explain why perhaps.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I just told you I'm giving you a warning. We'll move on to the next speaker if you can't specify this.

It's all very interesting. I expect what you have been talking about was talked about over and over last week. I don't want to hear that. The committee doesn't want to hear that. We want to hear why you're arguing that this request is to be tabled in the House not earlier than June 21, 2013. That's all we want to hear about. We don't want to hear about anything else.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Fair enough, Mr. Chair.

I want to explain myself a little bit. I accept your ruling, of course. You're the chair. You're in the chair. I think it's important that we all understand that if we do not get an extension, this bill will go back to the House unamended. That's not something we would like to see.

We believe the legislation and suggestions to make legislation better ought to be discussed amongst the members of Parliament and not use some kind of procedural deadline to kill very important legislation, because that's not what Canadians want us to do.

There are a whole bunch of things I can say, but I don't want to risk getting out of the level of discussion we should be talking about now, the matter at hand, which is the subamendment. But you should know, as everyone in the House should know, that over 82% of Canadians would like to see this legislation move forward. It's very important we understand that on the question of whether Canadians agree that those found guilty of treason or even war against Canadian troops, and a piece of legislation that addresses that.... Over 82% of Canadians believe this legislation should be moving forward.

So I'm speaking to the subamendment because I want it to be discussed. I want it to go further. I don't want it to die or come back unamended simply because somebody has decided they're going to filibuster this legislation or try to take advantage of the fact that it has a deadline by which, if it's not discussed, then too bad, it's going to come back unamended and the opposition has a win. That's not what it's about. We're here to serve.

Therefore my subamendment allows for an extension so that we can discuss all of these things and make this piece of legislation even better than it is. Because at the end of the day, we are not talking about taking anything away from Canadian citizens. We are talking about punishing terrorists who commit acts of war or treason—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

On a point of order, Ms. Sims.

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

On a point of order, Chair, I'm all for the latitude and everything, but there is nothing in Mr. Shory's bill that even indirectly refers to acts of terrorism or terrorists. I would really ask that we stay with Mr. Shory's bill, which is what we're going to the House to seek an extension on. Here there is a subamendment to the amendment about the date and the timing.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Sims, I would go even further than that.

I've asked you once. The issue that is before this committee now is the subamendment that says this request is to be tabled in the House not earlier than June 21, 2013. I don't want to hear anything else but debate on that issue. This is the second warning. On the third warning, you're out. Three strikes and you're out, in the old ball game.

You now have the floor.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Well, Mr. Chair, I certainly understand that.

It's certainly difficult to argue for a subamendment if I can't speak to the reason I put that subamendment forward. My insistence.... It's not even an insistence. I've tried to change my train of thought to be more in alignment with your ruling on this matter. I have nothing but the utmost of respect for you trying to keep order, and I certainly welcome it.

When we consider what we were put through here last week—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Don't go there.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

No, I'm not.

There is a lot that has been said in this committee, Mr. Chair. This was a suspension of a previous meeting, so it's a continuation of that, unfortunately.

I believe we need an opportunity to discuss the amendments put forth without letting a deadline expire or be reached, at which point the opportunity to make a piece of legislation better would have been missed. It would be a travesty to miss spending a few extra weeks to have an opportunity to discuss amendments that would punish terrorists. These amendments would help, if you will, to give some comfort to Canadians, and particularly to victims. I think it is incumbent upon all of us as parliamentarians to do so.

We're on the right side of this equation, and this is what Canadians—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

On a point of order, Ms. Sitsabaiesan.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome back.

I'd like to provide some clarity. Once again, I think we are speaking to the motion before us and the subamendments to the amendment. Nowhere in the subamendment, the amendment, the motion, or the original bill that the motion was written about, is there any mention of punishing terrorists. I find it a bit misleading to Canadians who are watching this at home who might think we're debating the punishment of terrorists. There's no mention of terrorism and the punishment of terrorists in the bill, the motion, the amendment, or the subamendment that we're discussing right now.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay. I understand. I'm not going to agree with you

But I will say, Mr. Menegakis—I'm sorry to keep picking on you—that you're starting to repeat yourself, on a number of fronts.

I allow a certain amount of leeway, but we won't have repetition. There is a rule against repetition, and I'm reading from O'Brien:

The rule against repetition can be invoked by the Speaker to prevent the repetition of arguments already made during the debate by any Member. The rule of relevance enables the Chair to counter any tendency to stray from the question before the House or committee. It is not always possible to judge the relevance (or the repetition) of a Member's remarks until he or she has spoken at some length or even completed his or her remarks. In practice, the Speaker allows some latitude—if the rules are applied too rigidly, they have the potential for severely curtailing debate; if they are neglected, the resultant loss of debating time may prevent other Members from participating in the debate. Particular circumstances, the mood of the House and the relative importance of the matter under debate will influence the strictness with which the Speaker interprets these rules.

That will be the last time I will read that to anyone here.

You are repeating yourself quite a bit. That has to stop, or we're going to move on to the next speaker.

You may continue.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is the first time I have had an opportunity to speak to the subamendment, Mr. Chair. Perhaps erroneously—although I personally do not think so—I think it's incumbent upon me to try to convince the honourable members around the table of the importance of allowing a bit more time to review this piece of legislation and its amendments, and not simply be guided by a deadline that ends on a specific day, in which case this piece of legislation will go back to the House unamended, which is something that I certainly would not like to see.

In so doing, I feel it very important to delve into some of the material that we have heard over the past week, because it's the first opportunity I've had to speak to the subamendment. I am hoping, in the spirit of openness around the table, that members opposite will see some merit and some of the logic behind asking for this particular subamendment to extend the time. This is why, therefore, I'm perhaps sounding a bit repetitive, but it is not intended in any way, shape, or form, as a form of disrespect towards the chair or the rulings of the chair; that is for sure.

One might ask why it is that member Menegakis wants an extension—

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

I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

On a point of order, I will hear Ms. Sims.

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

I believe there is a way to get on a speakers list, and that is that we raise our hand from our seat to get on the speakers list. I'm hoping that the chair will follow that process, because what I just heard really concerns me. I don't think one person can put everybody on the speakers list.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

That's not a point of order.

Continue, Mr. Menegakis.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you very much.

I don't believe I said anything about a speaking list.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You're on your debate on this subamendment.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

What I was getting to is simply this. I want to give some of the reasons that explain why I think this subamendment is very important. I want to speak to the subamendment by proving my case as to why I want to see an extension, why I want to see a period of time allowed so that we can properly debate this issue.

I am somehow buoyed by the results of a study that was done that said this is what Canadians would like to see. After all, we're all elected here. Canadians would like to see us on the right track, as far as this piece of legislation is concerned. The only way we can deliver to the people who voted for us is to extend the period of time in which we can evaluate the importance of these amendments one way or the other, Mr. Chair. It is very critical that we not allow procedure to get in the way of a good piece of legislation.

Here is a survey that was done, if you'll allow me. Now, if this is off—

I see you shaking your head. Perhaps you don't want me to go there, so maybe I won't.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You only have one strike left, and then you're out.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

I understand that. I played baseball growing up, Mr. Chair, and I understand what three strikes mean. It's quite possible that I would end up—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You're getting very close. There are no more balls; it's three and two.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

I know, but you still have to pitch it, and somebody has to swing and miss. Let me just try to summarize my comments.

I want to speak to the importance of allowing enough time for these amendments to be debated, moving forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I don't want you reading a report. You're not going to read a report, are you?