Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 13th, 2013

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

I do actually have reasons that are relevant to the reasons for the extension. However, my fear is that I will be ruled out of order as soon as I start to talk about the reasons for the extension. I'm worried, because I brought up the point before and was not allowed to actually get to what I was speaking about, which was my daughter's home country of Turkey, where the prime minister has dubbed peaceful protestors as terrorists. To expand the scope of this bill to terrorists, when the definitions of terrorist around the world are quite different, will pose a problem. Repressive regimes—and I'm not calling Turkey a repressive regime—often put this label on people. In the case of Turkey, where the prime minister called peaceful protestors terrorists, this poses a problem directly for dual nationals who are of Canadian and Turkish origin. If they are labelled terrorists in their nation, it will pose a problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Nicholls, we went through this the first time you spoke. I can't allow you to deal with this.

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

The reason for the extension, Mr. Chair, is to expand the scope to the word “terrorist”. I'm submitting to the committee, and I'll do this briefly, that if you're judged a terrorist in another country and you're convicted as a terrorist there, that possibly.... I don't agree with the expansion just because the definition of terrorism globally is not the same as the one that we have in Canada, which I have full confidence in. For convicted terrorists in Canada I have confidence in the justice process. But, expanding the scope and using the word “terrorist”, the word means different things to different people around the world. In some countries, a peaceful protestor can be called a terrorist.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Nicholls, allow me to interject for a moment. If you don't have the notice of motion before you, I'll read it. It's been read a number of times.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.

We had this out with Mr. Harris. That was the time to debate the issue that I've allowed you to have time on. I ruled you out of order the first time and I'm ruling you out of order this time. This is not the time to get into this. It may be a very relevant issue, but not for this motion. It's more appropriate that you would do it in the House or, if this committee ever gets back to dealing with Bill C-425, then at that time. The only thing that is before us now is whether the committee should be asking the House for an extension of 30 days

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

Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm sorry, sir, I can't allow you to proceed on your issue. I understand.

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

I've already put forward the point, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I can see you're very emotional about this, and I understand that it's a personal issue, but it's simply not relevant to this, sir.

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

I was trying to address the reason for my opposition to the extension. I think I've made the point in the brief comments that I've made. So, I thank you for the time that you've given me, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Nicholls.

Mr. Harris, you have the floor.

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

Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to debate this matter a little further. I don't know exactly whether this specific topic has been raised before, although the fact that a topic has been raised before doesn't necessarily mean it's repetitive. Maybe some people have different arguments or are more persuasive.

One of the reasons I am opposed to this extension being requested is that it puts the committee in a position to be actually facilitating a process that would deprive the consideration of the proposed changes to the Department of Justice for vetting under the requirements of compliance with the Charter of Rights. When government presents legislation to the House, there's a requirement under law that the bill be presented to the Department of Justice for an opinion as to whether or not there's compliance with the Charter of Rights. There's been quite a bit of debate about that within the past year. In fact there's a case before the Federal Court of Canada as to whether or not that process has been conducted properly. It's been a matter of public debate in legal circles and the point about whether or not the justice department is doing a proper job or being given the wrong instructions has been raised in Parliament on a number of occasions. However—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Harris, if I can interject for a moment, you may or may not have a correct point. It may be a valid point for a court of law. It may be a valid point for debate in the House. It may, indeed, be a valid point if this committee ever gets around to debating the provisions of Bill C-425. But getting into issues of the charter with respect to this motion—

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

I'm not debating the charter, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Well, I heard the word “charter”. I heard you say it.

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

Well, you may have heard the word “charter”, but I'm not debating the charter. Perhaps if you'd let me finish, you could hear what I'm talking about.

What I'm saying is that the whole consideration of whether or not the legislation is complying with the charter, the committee, by seeking this extension, is actually bypassing that process. That's the point I'm trying to make. The process is—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I don't think that has anything to do with this motion.

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

It does.

You asked us whether we supported the motion or not and the reasons. One reason is that I don't think this committee should be seeking this extension because the consequence of the extension would be to give rise to legislation going through this committee that should have gone through the Department of Justice as a government bill. That's required by law. The Department of Justice has to pass as to whether or not it's complying with the charter. That's a process that is required by law for government legislation. By going through this procedure, seeking this extension, which is granted automatically, facilitates that process. I don't think this committee should be party to that procedure.

Whether you agree with that argument or not—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I don't. Oh no, you're not going to get me into whether I agree or disagree with your argument, Mr. Harris.

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

—that shouldn't interfere with your decision as to whether it's relevant.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Harris, we're not going to get into whether I agree or disagree with your argument.

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

It shouldn't interfere with whether it's relevant.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

It does not. My job is to make sure that the topics being debated are relevant to this motion. I don't think it is. I know you're going to disagree with me, but I don't think it is.

Essentially, as I understand it, you're saying this matter should have gone to the Department of Justice. For all I know, it did. I don't know whether it did or not. It never appeared in—

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

No, that's not what I'm saying.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

All right. Well, maybe I should listen to you more. Go ahead, sir.

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

Thank you, Chair.

What I'm saying is that if the government brings forth legislation that is government legislation, there's a requirement by law that the Department of Justice has to give an opinion as to whether or not it meets the charter requirements. That's not the case for private members' business.

By taking this route, and by the committee's seeking an extension to allow this to happen, we're actually facilitating a bypass of that legal requirement for something that ought to have been a government bill, which is being bypassed --