Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 13th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm sorry; I didn't hear you.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

I said, in fact, all Ms. Freeman is doing is repeating—twice.

I've listened very carefully to what she's been saying, and twice she referred to Ms. Groguhé and what Ms. Groguhé was saying. She has nothing new to add to this discussion. Nothing. In not one word, from the time she took the mic over there on this turn, has she mentioned anything new. In fact, she mentioned the word “excessive” three or four times. She keeps repeating it over and over.

There is a standing order, which you've read to us on a number of occasions, that speaks to repetitiveness. That's all we're hearing from Ms. Freeman.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

On the same point, Mr. Weston.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Chair, we keep hearing the same complaint: there is too much repetition during this meeting. I think it would be very helpful to us, Mr. Chair, if you would let us know the boundaries here. What are the boundaries around these repetitive comments? That will help us understand what we're doing here.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

On the same point, Ms. Freeman.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

I'd like to speak on the same point of order, Mr. Chair. I am very fed up with hearing the members on the government side repeat the word “repetition” and claim that we are repeating ourselves. That's all they keep saying. It certainly is eating up a lot of time.

Is the bell ringing?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I don't know. Lights flash in here from time to time. Now they've stopped, so we'll continue.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

They are constantly repeating themselves. When I refer to something a colleague said, I always make myself very clear. I specify that I am not going to go in a certain direction, given that my colleague already covered it. I make a great deal of effort not to repeat what's been said.

This is nevertheless excessive. They keep repeating the same point of order. It's starting to—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

On the same point, Ms. Sims.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

Once again, I want to acknowledge that, despite the rulings, I really appreciate the Chair’s allowing members to articulate their rationale for or against the extension. I certainly hope Ms. Freeman will be given that latitude because in order to get to a point, you do have to give a little of why you're getting there. That is part of the reason for debate because if that reason did not exist, every time a motion got moved, the only thing we could say is yea or nay, and we'd vote on it and we'd be out of here.

That's not what parliamentary debate is about, and that's not what this committee is about. It gives parliamentarians the right to talk on an issue, not once, not twice, but an endless number of times, as long as they are relevant.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Menegakis, on the same point.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Absolutely, Mr. Chair.

This is not the debate that started at 9:45 this morning.

This, in fact, is a debate that started at 9:45 last Tuesday morning. There's repetitiveness and repetitiveness, so I'm going back to my point of order that we'd like to hear something new. Otherwise, they're just using a procedural tactic. They want procedure to win over substance and it makes no sense.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Menegakis.

In my opinion, Ms. Freeman, there is a considerable amount of repetition in what you're saying. However, I've tried to be lenient with all members on both sides, and I will allow you to continue. But if in my opinion you continue to be repetitive, we will move on.

You may agree or disagree that I provide leniency. You may disagree or agree that there is repetition, but in my opinion there is repetition, and I will move on.

You still have the floor.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You interrupted me because, in your view, I was saying that the standing order did not include this measure. But that's not at all what I was saying. I was saying that it wasn't necessary to resort to using it. For that reason, I am going to vote against the motion.

That's what I wanted to say. That's a totally different point. When members introduce private member's bills, we don't expect this measure to be used. The point I am trying to make is that this isn't a measure that should be used.

It's not a right of a private member to have this 30 days. That's why this is so excessive, because as a private member when I bring forward a piece of legislation, I don't expect it to go past second reading. I expect to be making my case there and trying to convince other members—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Ms. Freeman.

Mr. Harris, you have the floor.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Chair.

I don't have the same experience with you and other members of the committee as Mr. Christopherson offered, although I was here in the 33rd Parliament, when there was a majority government of, I think, 211 members in the majority, and a small minority on both sides of the opposition. We did have—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Harris, I always respect what you have to say as well. I don't always agree, but you may proceed with the debate.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you.

It is relevant, Mr. Speaker, and I'll tell you why. We did have a situation then where there was a great deal of cooperation with members on both sides of the House in dealing with legislation.

But this motion before us now is actually quite extraordinary. When we're dealing with a committee, the need for an extension results basically from the fact that time is running out in terms of the committee being able to deal with amendments to legislation. It's part of the standing orders. So we're asking for an extraordinary measure to be taken. We're seeking to ask the House to do something that goes above and beyond the standard way in which committees deal with things. There has to be an extraordinary reason to do that. We're going outside of what would be expected.

The rationale to do that in this circumstance would result in setting up legislation that hasn't gone through the normal process of the House. Perhaps I can ask the clerk for clarification on that, with your permission, sir.

If we have a situation where new amendments are brought to the committee that involve principles that were not a part of the original bill that went through second reading, am I right in saying there will have been no second reading debate on those principles, or if it's a ministerial or government bill, it wouldn't have gone through the normal procedures of the House, where instead of just having a two-hour debate on second reading, there would be ample room for a full second reading debate?

Is that one of the consequences?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Harris, that's a hypothetical question, and I don't like answering hypothetical questions.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I'm not asking you, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Second, it has absolutely nothing to do with this motion.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I'm not asking you to answer, sir. I'm asking for clarification from the clerk.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I have just answered it.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I don't understand.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

That's my answer.

I'm saying your question has nothing to do with this motion. It's a hypothetical question. It has nothing to do with this motion—end of story.