Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 13th, 2013

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Chair, I respectfully ask for your leeway. This is my first time sitting on this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Welcome to the committee.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm sure you're finding it interesting.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

From my take on things, Mr. Chair, we have before us a procedural motion that's asking for an extension of 30 days to a private member's bill.

From my time here, the two years that I've spent here, when we're debating procedural motions and bills in the House, such as time allocation or time extension, government members often take to the floor and don't speak about the procedural motion at hand at all. They refer to the bill that will be debated in the future after the time allocation has been imposed, but the Speaker of the House tends not to limit the comments of members during those types of procedural debates simply to the procedure at hand.

I'm hoping that's not the case here, Mr. Chair, because I do want to speak not only about the procedure but also about the scope of the bill. I know from what I've heard in the past half hour that I've been here that these kinds of interventions are not welcome on the floor.

I respectfully ask for a little bit, just a little bit of leeway. I know that your duty as chair is to be impartial and non-partisan and to allow members to—

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

I have a point of order.

Every time a new member from the NDP comes to the table they repeat this message. If there is anything new that Mr. Nicholls would like to add to the argument, I'm prepared to hear it, but this has been repeated by each and every new member who comes to the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Nicholls, welcome to the committee, and you may proceed.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Thank you. I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, I had no way of knowing—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm sorry; I should recognize Mr. Harris who wished to speak on the point of order.

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

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I guess, Mr. Chair, you've dealt with it, but Mr. Dykstra was acting as though.... Whether he was prepared to listen or not, he seemed like he was acting like the chair. I think you've dealt with it by ignoring—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I've dealt with that, Mr. Harris. Mr. Nicholls has the floor.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm sorry that I didn't have any way of knowing that this argument has been made before. I didn't review the Hansard of this committee. Perhaps I should have, as Mr. Menegakis suggests.

But I have looked over historical Hansards before and I've seen rulings from the chair. I don't want to speak to those.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, you've made a ruling about repetitiveness. The member is new to the committee and he's coming here and saying he hasn't had a chance to read. He's being repetitive. It's as simple as that.

You've made a ruling that does not allow any new member of the NDP—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Menegakis, this is his first time. I welcomed him to the committee. I'm going to give him a certain amount of leeway before we have a chat about things.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I mean that. You know you can't—

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

I do.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Nicholls, one thing you have to learn is that when I speak, you can't speak.

I'm simply saying I'm allowing you a whole lot of discretion. Normally, if it was another member speaking, I'd be moving on because you are, one, irrelevant and, two, repetitive. I'm allowing you to continue on, but don't take advantage of me.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I've been wanting to speak to this for some time—actually before I was an elected member. I've been wanting to speak to this since 2004. The reason is simple. I hope this information will come as new information and will not be interpreted as obstruction in any way. I'm expressing my feelings as a member.

The fact is, Mr. Chair, that my daughter, who is eight years old, is a dual national. She's a Canadian citizen but she's also a Turkish citizen. The reason for that is that we couldn't get her immigration processed due to procedural rules.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Nicholls, your leeway is over. You're getting into debating the bill, and I'm not going to allow you to do that.

I have given you, overwhelmingly, an awful lot of discretion. I've exercised discretion by allowing you to speak perhaps on issues that are irrelevant and repetitive. But clearly you're now starting to talk about the bill, and this isn't the appropriate time to do that. The issue before us is whether the motion should carry on requesting an extension of 30 sitting days from the House.

I'm not saying that your issue isn't important. It may be more appropriate, sir, if we ever get back to it, to debate it in the House or in this committee. That has to do with the issue of the bill itself, and it is completely irrelevant to what we're talking about now.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

With all due respect, Mr. Chair, it's the word “if” that disturbs me; “if” we get back to debate of the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm going to move on.

Mr. Christopherson, you have the floor.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Can I put my name back on the list?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Yes.

Mr. Nicholls' name is going back on the list.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Well, you don't want me to talk about one of the main reasons I'm opposed to this, which is that the ministers were present and the whole process around private members' business. It really is hard to take, given that it's one of my main reasons. I think it's an incredibly legitimate one. If I could think of creative ways of arguing it, I suppose, that would be an exercise. It's a shame that I have to figure out some obscure reason, when the main reasons are very clear. In no other case have I been denied the right to speak because somebody else made a similar point at a previous meeting. The best I can do is continue to exercise my rights and live with the consequences.

The fact is that this whole process is mired right now because we feel so strongly about what is happening with the bill. Speaking directly to the extension, it's the extension that allows the government to have the intervention. This is hugely problematic.

Quite frankly, the only way we backbenchers, regardless of what side of the House we're on, can express these kinds of things is at committee. That's why we have committees.

I need to emphasize that this is not the right process. If the government wants a government bill with government components, then bring in a government bill. That's our point. Using a private member's bill to achieve.... It's bad enough that the government would start to play a role, when the bill is very clear and it doesn't need to be changed in any way. But to actually get involved in the mechanics of it, and to be here at committee embroiled in committee procedures, is not acceptable. It's not right. It's not the way we do business around here.

Notwithstanding the fact that the majority have managed to—