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.
Conservative
Ted Opitz Conservative Etobicoke Centre, ON
If the member is going to argue or debate, at least his facts should be correct. If he's already acknowledged—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
That's debate, Mr. Opitz. You'll have your chance.
Mr. Christopherson.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair. I appreciate that.
I'm sorry if the members find me a little long-winded, but—
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
On a point of order, we have never said that.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I realize that sometimes I can take a little while to get to the point, but the fact is that I do have that right.
On the point, I was talking about the minister, and I was talking about the fact that it's unusual. To put it in context, I was recognizing that there are exceptions.
You and I have both had an opportunity to travel this beautiful country as MPs and MPPs. We know that things are done differently in different parts of the country—let alone within the Commonwealth—even though we all share the same basic parliamentary structure. My point is that having ministers come in on private members' bills is—abuse is a bit of a strong word, but it's certainly not the intention of what private members' business is about. That's why it's called a private member's bill. It's not called any member's or all members'; it's called a private member's—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Mr. Christopherson, I have listened to you, and I hope you will return to the fact that you're either going to support the motion or oppose the motion as to whether an extension of 30 sitting days will be granted by the House of Commons.
My concern is that you are critical of the minister coming to the committee and giving—I'm paraphrasing what you said—the impression that he really wants the government to fully support this private member's bill. That may or may not be correct. However, I don't think it has anything to do with this motion. You've said it does, but I don't think it does.
NDP
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I have the right to tell you whether it's relevant or not, and I don't think it's relevant.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
But there's great scope at committee for members to make their case. That's why we have the rules—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I have the right to tell you whether it is relevant or not relevant.
I've read this a number of times. You may not have been present because you're substituting for someone. This is from the good book of Madam O'Brien, on page 620.
When enforcing the rules against irrelevance and repetition, the Speaker can call a Member to order and, if necessary, warn the Member that he or she risks being directed to discontinue his or her speech. Such warnings are usually sufficient. However, should the Member persist, the Speaker can proceed to recognize another Member....
You have been so warned.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
All righty, then; that's interesting. All I can do is continue and bear in mind, with the greatest respect, what you have had to say, Chair.
I am assuming, however, that this is not a case of the tyranny of the majority denying me a basic, fundamental right, which is to come to a committee and speak on behalf of the people I represent in Hamilton Centre. If I begin to repeat my arguments, by all means you can bring me into line, sir. I don't believe I've done that yet. In fact I've had trouble even getting going, because of all the interruptions.
Getting back on track, and to address and speak directly to the concern you've raised, Chair, so that my relevancy is clear to you, I was saying that on the immediate matter in front of us, which is the 30-day extension, I, like my colleagues, am opposed.
One of the reasons is that I believe this is an inappropriate use of private members' business procedures. I am making the case that having ministers—and I'm led to believe by my colleagues that the chief government whip, no less, was here.... I'm making the case that this is one reason. I have many that I hope to touch on, but that's one reason that I am opposed to this.
I can't think of anything more relevant than to give the reasons I am opposed.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Mr. Christopherson, I have talked about repetition with you. I'm going to read another quote and then I'm going to move on to another speaker. It's on page 622 of Ms. O'Brien's book:
Repetition is prohibited in order to safeguard the right of the House to arrive at a decision and to make efficient use of its time. Although the principle is clear and sensible, it has not always been easy to apply and the Speaker enjoys considerable discretion in this regard.
I'm moving on to Ms. Freeman.
NDP
Mylène Freeman NDP Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Thank you, Chair. It's nice to be here again this morning.
On the matter of asking the House to extend our ability to work on this bill for 30 more days in the committee, I believe that is actually quite extreme. As my colleague Ms. Groguhé earlier asked, and as was pointed out to us, if things go well, that brings us to November 1. That's quite a long time to talk about a private member's bill. That is something that is not expected of private members' business.
I put forward a motion in my private member's business capacity and I was not expecting that this extent of time would be spent on something I was doing. Normally we only get the two hours of debate and then it goes to committee and then comes back for two more hours of debate.
This is actually quite extensive, and it goes back, I think obviously—and I won't spend any time on this, but will just mention it—to the problem, which is that we're expanding what this bill is doing. This is why it is beyond what a private member's bill would normally be doing, and this is what is clear in this 30-day extension.
As my colleague Ms. Groguhé earlier found out for us, this brings us to November 1 at the best, if we follow our regular business. I assume therefore, Chair....
Actually, let me get clarification on that. Is this the case, if we pass it on June 21, or is it 30 days on top of the 21st or before that?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We've made this quite clear. I'm not going to get into this.
You can proceed. If you didn't understand it the first time or the second time, we made it quite clear. I'm not going to keep interjecting and commenting on all of that. You should know this by now.
Proceed with your debate, or we'll move on.
NDP
Mylène Freeman NDP Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Chair, I would like to make the argument that 30 days is excessive. That's far more than any private member would expect. There are plenty of other ways you can make a point with a private member’s bill beyond extending the amount of time, given that our time is usually limited. That's why this is just so excessive because normally it's limited time.
Normally the way that private members make a point of their bills is through the media, through keeping the issue going with interlocutors in civil society; not through asking for an extension—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Ms. Freeman, the 30 days is in the standing orders. This isn't something made up. It's in the standing orders.
NDP
Mylène Freeman NDP Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
I was not arguing that it's not in the standing orders. At no point did I argue that this was not something that existed.
Chair, I don't want to repeat anything, but we have definitely gone back to Standing Order 97.1(1) several times.
Conservative
Costas Menegakis Conservative Richmond Hill, ON
Mr. Chair, all Ms. Freeman has done so far is repeat—