Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 13th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Sims, I'd like to make a comment, because this isn't the first time that remarks have been made by both sides, both the government and the opposition. I will not be able to keep order if the two sides continue to provoke each other and call each other names. Both the government and the opposition are guilty of that.

Of course, there are always exceptions, Mr. Lamoureux....

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

But I'm just telling you that I simply will not allow.... We've let it go until now, but we're not going to allow any more provocation of the other side to be done.

Ms. Sims, you have the floor on a point of order.

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

My point of order relates specifically to the fact that Ms. Sitsabaiesan moved an amendment that we have just voted on, so notwithstanding any list that the chair can make, I believe that the rules say that because she still had the floor, and now that the amendment has been voted on, it automatically has to go back to her, and then I know the chair has a whole new list that is fully stacked for one side.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Don't do that.

We're going to suspend for a moment.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

My problem is I wasn't here last week so I'm going on the recollection of the clerk that Ms. Sitsabaiesan was speaking to the main motion. She then made an amendment and that ended her speech. Therefore, Mr. Dykstra has the floor on the main motion.

You have a point of order, Ms. Sims.

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

On a point of order, I believe it only ends her spot on the speaker's list. She gives up her space if the amendment carries. The amendment was defeated. Therefore, under the rules, I believe it goes back to Ms. Sitsabaiesan.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I've already ruled on that.

Ms. Sitsabaiesan.

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

I was going to make the same point and—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I've already ruled on that.

Mr. Dykstra, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I continue to hear debate that is not about the actual motion itself concerning the extension, which I'm going to speak to.

To clarify and for the record, we started this on June 11 at 8:45 a.m., and since that point in time only one Conservative has had the opportunity to speak at this committee. So if we are speaking about who has the ability to speak and who is being prevented from presenting their opinions and from representing their constituents, all of those arguments can be made by us over here. For each and every one of my government colleagues who sit on the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, it's exactly the same. We've had one speaker.

Mr. Chair, I know you're back in the chair this morning, but the government has bent over backwards to allow members of both the NDP and Liberal Party to have their opportunity to speak to the extension. While Ms. Sims was the chair, she allowed, for example, Ms. Groguhé the opportunity to speak for more than nine and a half hours.

I'm not sure how the NDP is going to speak to the extension, when in fact they have overwhelmingly owned the majority of—not just the majority, but almost exclusively—the time to speak. When they just about ran out of time, they determined that they would introduce an amendment, which of course allowed the process to begin all over again.

Mr. Chair, we on the government side are finally having the chance to speak to the motion that we introduced. The motion itself is not about all the debate that took place here at the committee. That was agreed to. As you recall, Mr. Chair, we had a subcommittee meeting. We determined an outline. We determined a process. We determined how that process was going to follow through, and when clause-by-clause study was going to happen. All of this was agreed to by all members of this committee.

We acknowledge that the only piece that made us have to go back to the House came when we introduced our amendments, amendments that both Mr. Lamoureux and Ms. Sims and every member of the opposition on this committee requested almost each and every single day that we met as a committee. In fact, they were requested every single day: “Can we get those amendments? Can we get your amendments?” At that time, those amendments were critical to them, in terms of moving forward.

So in principle, I don't accept the argument that the request for the extension is due to the introduction of the amendments. That is not at question. In fact, when we agreed that the amendments would come forward at a particular time in the process, there was unanimous agreement as to when those amendments would come forward. I and all members of the opposition on the committee have made the point that I actually introduced them, through the clerk, before we were required to.

In so doing, we were giving the opposition the opportunity to review in a fulsome way the amendments we were presenting. We also had the opportunity to hear from our legal clerk whether those amendments fell within the scope of the bill. It was determined at that time—and we accept that determination, Mr. Chairman—that the amendments fell outside the scope of the bill. We accepted that. We didn't argue it. We tried to ensure that the decision made was one that was founded upon the correct Standing Orders, which we have in front of us. We determined that it was.

We then took the next step in this process, which was to move the motion here at committee that in the House we seek clarification, seek authority from the House of Commons to expand the scope of the bill so that we could deal with the amendments we had presented to this committee, amendments which we presented prior to actually having to submit them to the committee.

I then went into the House of Commons, as Mr. Shory did, during proceedings each and every day for over two weeks, in an attempt to introduce a motion for concurrence so that we could have that fulsome debate in the House of Commons.

I had assurances from our House leader and our whip that it would be given priority in the House of Commons and that we would be dealing with a motion for concurrence that would allow debate to take place for the expansion of Mr. Shory's bill, expansion, by the way, with his support of each and every amendment that was proposed by me.

In consultation, in discussion, in presentation, there isn't a time during this whole process that you will find one issue that Mr. Shory had with the introduction of these amendments. He is in full support. In fact, he has attended almost all of the meetings that have taken place at this committee. Every once in a while he does get subbed in, but for the most part he has sat as a listener and an observer of what was happening here at committee in terms of the filibuster that has been occurring by the New Democratic Party.

I tried, Mr. Chair, to stand up for almost two weeks during routine proceedings, after question period or at ten o'clock in the morning, depending on when routine proceedings came up, and each and every time, NDP members stood up and blocked my ability to present the motion for concurrence regarding expanding the scope of the bill.

When I hear members of the opposition position the issue of debate around how they are prevented from discussing this issue, or pushing this issue further, I look to each and every one of them, in particular the NDP. If they truly believed that the House of Commons is the place where democracy takes place and where they represent their constituents, and where they deliver messages on behalf of their party, and where they should be listened to because they deserve to be heard, then I would submit this to each one of them. Why on earth would they not let me stand in the House of Commons to present the proposal that this committee decided on democratically, upon discussion, upon review, and further to vote, that we would ask the House to give us the ability to expand the scope of the bill?

The only reason we were prevented from doing so, that I was prevented from presenting this in the House of Commons, was the New Democratic Party knew that a private member's bill, if not submitted prior to the 60-day expiration, would have to go to the House unamended. It was not for any democratic reason, not for the reasons that would sustain a discussion in the House of Commons, but simply to kill a private member's bill, thereby killing that individual's opportunity.

Backbenchers in the House of Commons do not have an opportunity very often, Mr. Chair, to introduce a piece of legislation they would hope would carry itself through and receive royal assent at the end of the process.

We then understood, based on the opposition's unwillingness to allow our democratic right to be heard, that we would have to come back to committee to seek an extension.

I duly introduced the motion. I recall the first time we asked for the extension. Mr. Lamoureux, effectively, and as is his right as a member of the committee, agreed we were going to sit until 10:45 and he talked out the clock. Therefore, we couldn't debate the motion of the extension at that time. We would have to do so at the next meeting.

Well, Mr. Chair, you were not at that meeting. You had Ms. Sims, who is our vice-chair, take the chair and we actually had to challenge her, and win a challenge to sustain discussion on the extension. To me, I guess, it was her prerogative as chair and she had a right to do it.

I witnessed her chairmanship last week. She may have come to the corners on breaking the rules, but she did her best to try to do everything, perhaps bending them, but certainly staying within them.

That led to the opportunity of only one of the committee members on this side of the House who could actually speak to the.... In fact, it was actually only at a point when we were dealing with an amendment that we were able to speak. It was not actually to the main motion. It was the first time in almost a week that the government—this side of the committee and obviously our side of the House in the chamber—had a chance to discuss the extension.

All we are seeking in terms of this extension is not to pass the private member's bill at third reading and send it over to the Senate, not to somehow put this piece of legislation in front of the priorities that are in the House of Commons right now, whether they be priorities of government or priorities of the opposition, but simply and very quickly in the House agree to a 30-day extension for Mr. Shory's private member's bill.

Mr. Chair, there are numerous hills to die on for the opposition when it comes to immigration, and I understand that. But to determine that a private member wouldn't be allowed to have their private member's bill be heard properly, be reviewed thoroughly, be voted on democratically is unacceptable.

It's unacceptable because the request.... When you look at how simple the request is for the extension.... This motion does not come with a 2,000 word essay. It doesn't come with any type of underlying strategy to have it circumvent the process that follows us through in the House of Commons under the Westminster model of Parliament. This extension is very simply, very directly, very efficiently, very effectively drawing us to the conclusion that Mr. Shory, a member of Parliament, duly elected, has the opportunity and has the right to have his private member's bill heard. He has the right to have his private member's bill discussed. He has the right to have his private member's bill voted on.

He does not and should not be forced into a corner to stand by helplessly as he watches an opposition party determine that because they don't like the bill, they have found a procedural reason to circumvent the process.

I've heard Ms. Sims. I'll quote her. Today she said it at 12:21 that they're not here just to speak for the sake of it. Then, not two minutes later, she said that they will use the tools at their disposal.

There is a big difference in having a determination that the direction a particular piece of legislation is taking that you don't like and don't agree with, that your party won't support, that you as an individual can't vote in favour of.... I agree. I may disagree with you in terms of how I vote, but I don't disagree with the fact that you have the right to object to a piece of legislation you don't believe in.

But when you say that you will use the tools at your disposal, that is a submission, in fact, I think it's a conviction, that what you are doing is circumventing the right of a private member's bill to move forward, the right of an individual to move his legislation forward when he is fully aware and understanding of the agreement—

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

Point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

On a point of order, Ms. Sitsabaiesan.

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

Mr. Chair, my understanding is that in debate we do carry our comments through the chair. We do not directly attack members who sit opposite or other members of this committee. Right now there was a direct attack at Ms. Sims. I don't want to put words in her mouth about how she feels about being attacked with stern face and words and fingers pointing at her, but I would not feel comfortable if somebody were attacking me like that, Mr. Chair.

As a member of this committee, I want to make sure our comments are directed through the chair, as that is my understanding of the rules.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

It's a valid point.

Mr. Dykstra, you have the floor.

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

I've known Ms. Sims long enough. She knows exactly what I'm speaking to. She's been involved in a lot more difficult negotiations and probably has said a lot worse things and has been quoted for things she's already said.

Through you, Chair, I am speaking in regard to the—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

A point of order, Ms. Sims.

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

Mr. Chair, I respect my colleague making the comments he's making because he has the floor and he will speak on the issue. But I really believe the interpretation of what I may have meant by what I said has to be left to me. I believe I am on the speakers list this time, and I will get a chance to speak. I will explain then what I mean when I'm talking about this legislation.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

That's not a point of order.

Mr. Dykstra, you have the floor.

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

To the extension, Chairman, it's so straightforward:

Pursuant to Standing Order 97.1(1), your Committee is requesting an extension of thirty sitting days to consider Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces) referred to the Committee on Wednesday, February 27, 2013. 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. The Committee is awaiting for a decision of the House before further considering the Bill. Therefore, your Committee requests an extension of thirty sitting days.

Within the context of this extension, we are not seeking amendments, nor are we seeking to change the bill. We are not seeking a confrontation with the opposition to be able to use whatever means or tools that are at their disposal in the Westminster model of Parliament to deliver or to stop a bill from moving forward.

I do find it ironic and interesting, and I had some of this frustration last week when I noticed the opposition using the tools of our Westminster model and our committee process to drive forward their agenda, or what they felt the process should have been. At the same time, I do think we have that same right as a government, not just because we are the government, but because we as individuals should respect—should respect—the private members' process for a member to move a piece of legislation forward.

At the end of the day, all of us, each and every one of us who sits in the House of Commons, will have the chance to support or to vote against Mr. Shory's bill. To take away the member's right by refusing to allow the extension motion to come to a vote is by far the worst way to attempt to stop his piece of legislation from moving forward. If members want to speak in the House against it, if they want to bring witnesses to committee who don't support it, if they want to ask the questions necessary to prove the points that they're going to make, I accept that. When we speak specifically to the issue before us today, which is the extension of the right, the extension really is the right of a member of Parliament to move his private member's bill forward, have it heard, have it brought through committee, have it go through three readings in the House, and then obviously have it move on to the Senate.

I would submit that since last Tuesday, at 8:45 a.m., we have had the ability to talk, the ability to present our issues. As those who sit on this side of the House, we've had our one opportunity to speak to this bill. I've had the opportunity to speak on behalf of my colleagues on the issue of the extension. I would submit that we have had enough discussion on the extension and we on the government side are ready to vote. We are ready to move it back to the House. Each of the opposition members has had the opportunity to speak to this. They have each had the opportunity to speak to the motion. I'm prepared, on behalf of my colleagues, to give up their speaking time if we are prepared to have a vote on this issue today. That will show that we are not here to delay, that we are not here to filibuster, that we are actually here to move this process forward.

Having said that, each and every member of the opposition has had that chance to have their say.

I would submit, and I would respectfully request, that we call the question on this and vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Well, we've been through this before.

I'm now going to refer to the text of O'Brien and Bosc, page 1057. I made a ruling earlier, but I'm going to rule it out of order.

There's a paragraph on page 1057:

Motion for the Previous Question. The motion “That this question be now put” is known as the previous question. In the House, the previous question is a debatable motion. When the debate ends, the motion for the previous question is put to a vote. If the motion is carried, the initial motion under consideration is immediately put to a vote.

This is the sentence that I'm going to rely on for my decision, Mr. Dykstra:

In committee, motions for the previous question are inadmissible.

Accordingly, based on that paragraph, I'm ruling your motion out of order.

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

Mr. Chair, I want to point out a couple of things related to the extension itself.

I went through the process of what led to this extension, to show that we have done everything possible within the rules and the guidelines of the process, to be able to have a private member's bill move forward. The reason this extension is here is simply to allow that individual the opportunity to have his say and to have his private member's bill move forward in the House of Commons. I wish we could have had unanimous support to vote on this.

Through you, Mr. Chair, I want to reinforce that the one thing I did was to give the history leading up to the request for this extension, and then I spoke specifically to the request for the extension. The third piece is why the opposition, I believe, is opposed to the extension itself.

Mr. Chair, I hope I've done my best to stick to speaking to the topic at hand. I would look further, that in the very near future, we have the ability to vote on the motion itself. I think, especially, after the nine and a half hour speech from Ms. Groguhé last week, it was pretty clear that she covered just about every single angle that could be covered on behalf of the opposition.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Are you challenging the chair?

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

No, I'm not challenging the chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay. We will then proceed.

Have you concluded your debate on the main motion?