Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 13th, 2013

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

I actually don't have a report to read—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

That's very good. Thank you.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

—but thank you for pointing that out.

I do have a survey that was done—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I don't want to hear about the survey.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Okay.

Mr. Chair, let me ask this; perhaps I can ask you for some clarification on this. As a member of Parliament, I have documentation to support an explanation for my making this subamendment. That supporting documentation was part of the work done by my staff in putting together information for me to decide upon, prior to my preparing the subamendment and moving it as a motion here in committee.

Am I not allowed to speak now to all of this very valuable information that gave me the impetus, the background?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We'll have a go at it, but you're getting warmed up to be kicked out.

You go right ahead, sir. I respect what you're trying to say. You're trying to explain why you've made the subamendment. I think the committee is prepared to hear why you have made the subamendment.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Okay.

I made a subamendment for a number of reasons. Number one is that I believe this legislation and its amendments are good legislation. I believe that as members of Parliament we have a responsibility to make legislation better during deliberations at the committee stage, and we certainly have an opportunity to exercise our opinion with our vote—the ultimate power we have as members of Parliament.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay, those comments you're getting into should be on the main motion. We're going to move on to another speaker.

Ms. Sitsabaiesan has the floor.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

There is a point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Chair, shortly after the meeting was called to order I indicated that I would like to speak. I'm wondering if you could read off the speaking order, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Sitsabaiesan is next and then Ms. Sims. Mr. Toone is not here. Ms. Freeman isn't here. So we have Mr. Lamoureux following Ms. Sims and then Mr. Dykstra. If you're not here, you can't be on the list.

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

I just need some clarification. What we have been doing the last few days—and we operated on this with advice—is that the person who substituted for the person who was on the list, because we were going—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

No, I don't like that.

Ms. Sitsabaiesan is next, then Ms. Sims, and then Mr. Lamoureux followed by Mr. Dykstra. You have to be here to be on the list.

I'm looking at notes here from last week, and of course I wasn't here last week.

Mr. Toone, Ms. Freeman, and Ms. Latendresse are not here. So the speaking list—I'm sorry Mr. Lamoureux—has Ms. Sitsabaiesan next, followed by Ms. Sims, Mr. Dykstra, and Mr. Lamoureux.

On a point of order, Mr. Dykstra.

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

I just indicated to the clerk that all of us who hadn't spoken to this motion yet wanted to be on the list.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Well, I have a list. Do you want me to go down the list? It goes on for a page.

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

No, it's fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We're going to proceed with Ms. Sitsabaiesan.

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

Mr. Chair, I have a question. I'm sorry. Can one person just walk up and put everybody from their team on the list?

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

You did that last week.

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

I was in the chair, and I made a list of people down both sides.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Sitsabaiesan, you have the floor.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome back.

I'd like to mention that we're here, and Mr. Menegakis, who is the mover of the subamendment mentioned that he was moving this subamendment because he wanted, to take the opportunity to review it and debate it further. I'm assuming that when he mentioned “it” he meant the original bill that is before us.

With respect to that, I respectfully submit to this committee that we have had the 60 days within which a bill is required to be studied in a committee. I can provide a plethora of examples as to why and how we have studied it enough and that we don't need the extension of 30 days to continue the study of this bill. As you mentioned, Mr. Chair, in referring to O'Brien and Bosc, with respect to the rules of a petition or in order to respect the time of the House and to respect the time of this place, we don't want to unduly continue the same arguments over and over again. That is why I believe, Mr. Chair, that this bill has had a sufficient amount of study.

The subamendment before us would tell the committee that we need to table our report not earlier than June 21, which means that we have to continue our committee meeting until then, and only after June 21—which means after the House has risen.... What this subamendment does is automatically extend the time that is given to this committee, or this would be a motion of instruction from the House to extend this time.

Also, some of the arguments that Mr. Menegakis made to move this subamendment went to prove that we don't need further study, as when he says that the differentiation between the amendment and the subamendment is that in the amendment we're saying that the request is to take place on June 21, which would mean that we would deal with this in a quicker, more timely manner than Mr. Menegakis is proposing in the subamendment, which is just saying that we would bring this back to the House at any point in time after June 21—which could mean in September, on whatever date we come back, but could also mean two years from now. There's no real specification as to what the requirement is. It just says “not earlier than”, which means that it's any time after.

The high level of ambiguity that this subamendment provides makes it not very sound. It makes it a subamendment that is not clear. It makes it a subamendment that will further the confusion with respect to the work on this particular bill.

My confusion, Mr. Chair, is with respect to this private member's bill. Even though it has received its 60 days of study and the schedule for the study in committee was set by the government.... I guess I should offer apologies, Mr. Chair; I should say by the government members who are on this committee. If they felt that they needed more study time—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Please stick to the subamendment, Ms. Sitsabaiesan.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Absolutely, Mr. Chair.

This is very pertinent. What I'm trying to say is—