Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 13th, 2013

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for bringing up that it's repetitive.

I have to tell you that I have not heard anything new, anything that I didn't hear last week, for the entire week the NDP spoke. So that is definitely being repetitive.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I have a problem. I wasn't here. So you'll have to bear with me.

Ms. Sims, you have the floor. You can talk about timelines to a certain degree.

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

I also want to remind members that I have not had a chance to speak to this motion in public. We were in camera at the time.

What I want to get back to is the fact that there is a different process for a private member's bill. When the government brings forward legislation—and this fits in, because it ties into the timelines this way, Mr. Chair. The timelines are very different. What I believe this extension is trying to achieve is to get around those timelines.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

It's another way of saying “circumventing private members' business”, which has been said quite a few times.

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

I'm just trying to point out that the timelines are different.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ah, indeed, in a different way, you're talking about not circumventing private members'....

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

Let me talk about the timelines that exist for private member's business. I believe that's how we....

Private members' business gets introduced in the House and gets very limited debate, as we all know. Then it gets to committee. After committee it goes back into the House, and there is a limit of two hours' debate. That's all the debate that occurs at that time, and the debate is very different from the debate on government business, because the debate is just that you get to speak. There is no cross-examination or cross-questioning as we go.

Because the government is bringing significant changes to this legislation, I believe it will not afford the opposition the time and the process it needs to examine the possible amendments that we have already seen. It is because—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You have a point of order, Mr. Dykstra.

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

I'm not quite sure how the last three sentences of Ms. Sims have anything to do with the extension. I just don't understand what she said at all.

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

What I'm talking about here is how the timelines for government legislation and private members' business are different and how the process is different.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I understand what she's saying, and I think she's in order.

Go ahead, Ms. Sims.

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

Thank you very much.

And because the process is so different for government business versus private members' business, I believe it behooves us as parliamentarians to defend private members' business, to defend the processes we have, and to ensure that the executive branch of the government cannot insert itself into private members' business in such a way that it escapes scrutiny.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Sims, I do understand what you're saying. However the question that's before us is a request for an extension of 30 sitting days. So really all of what you're saying is interesting and may or may not be true. It's an interesting debate. I don't really think it has much to do with the issue of extending the sittings for this private member's bill in this committee for 30 days.

I'd rather you zero in on that, as opposed to giving us your position on the comparison between a private member's bill and a public bill in the House. You may or may not be right. That's not an issue. The issue is whether this committee should vote to extend the time for debate or other presentations in this committee by 30 sitting days.

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

Once again, Mr. Chair, I find myself in a very unenviable position, I am sure, and a very unique one for the first time in my very long career in dealing with committee work and dealing with processes, whereby when it comes to discussing an extension, the reasons for the extension—the very bill and the processes it's governed by—are being ruled as being not relevant.

I would argue—and I will—that in order to speak for or against an extension, it is logical by any kind of parliamentary rules, or Robert's Rules of Order or any other rules that exist for conducting meetings, you should be able to reference back to the very item you are discussing, the reason for an extension, to support why an extension should or should not be granted.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Menegakis has a point of order.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Getting back to your point about repetitiveness, Mr. Chair, we've heard hours and hours of this, and now it's more of the same. We've heard hours and hours of it, Mr. Chair, of this meeting, this meeting that was suspended and was continued today, hours and hours of debate about this very issue, making the exact same point. The inference or the statement by Ms. Sims that she finds herself in a different situation and doesn't know why she can't speak to it is way off base.

The ruling on repetitiveness, I think, needs to be respected by all of us.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm in an awful position because I wasn't here, and I can't confirm whether you're right or wrong, Mr. Menegakis.

At this point you are in order, but keep in mind the issue of repetitiveness. It is not allowed.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm going to trust you that you won't repeat what went on last week.

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

Just to clarify, Chair, I was in camera. I know that we cannot discuss what happened in camera, so I'm not going to, but in a public meeting I have not spoken on this motion at all.

I feel that I need to be given some leeway to talk about this motion in a fulsome way, in the same way that was accorded to Mr. Dykstra and others. I am being very, very careful that I do not mention the content of the amendment, because I realize that's not what's here before us.

But the expansion of the scope is before us, because that was put right into the motion, and it is because of that reason that the opposition, the NDP, is here. We actually.... I don't want to repeat myself, but I have a lot of sympathy for Mr. Shory's bill. I have a lot of sympathy for Mr. Shory's bill. There are bits in there where it talks about—

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

Mr. Chair, a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Dykstra, on a point of order.

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

Last week, on Thursday, Ms. Groguhé actually spoke to the very issue about what's in the bill already. In fact, she listed out all of the reasons why they supported the bill, even though that has nothing to do with the motion on the floor. It's in the Hansard. I could give it to you, Chair.

I do have copies. I'd be prepared to give them to you, because I know you weren't here last week. I can quote from them, showing what the support is, so we don't need to hear—I don't think we do anyway, because it's actually out of order—why they support the bill. We already know.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Well, Ms. Sims, I'm in a bit of a quandary. I'm relying on you not to repeat what was said last week, not necessarily by you, but by Madame Groguhé or anyone else.

If Mr. Dykstra is able to persuade me that all of these positions were made clear last week by others, such as Madame Groguhé, you're into repetition. As I've tried to make quite clear throughout this day, we're not allowing repetition.

There's a certain amount of trust that I'm placing in you to not repeat what was said last week. Otherwise, I am sure that Mr. Dykstra is suddenly going to start reading the blues to us, and that takes up more time.

Keep that in mind. I'm not saying who's right and who's wrong. I'm just saying that we've had allegations. Mr. Dykstra has the blues in front of him, and if indeed Madame Groguhé made the comments that you're making now, that's repetition, and I would rather that you not get into that.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

What I'm hearing from what you're saying is that only one person needs to have said something and the second person can't say it, because suddenly it has become that kind of aggravating repetition. Because that—