Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 13th, 2013

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

In order to motivate why I am opposed to this, I hope the chair will bear with me as I give a rationale. To have a rationale in isolation of the major focus here would be vacuous in its very argument because if you cannot refer to the substance as to why the subamendment has been moved, then it does make it very difficult for those who want to speak to or against the subamendment to put forward their argument, and thus interferes with their right to be able to express themselves.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Let's be clear, Ms. Sims. There are three matters before this committee.

One is the request that this committee extend the time by an additional 30 days. Some of your arguments are most relevant to that. We're not there yet.

We have a subamendment and we have an amendment. The rationale that you're about to get into—and we'll see how it goes.... But I don't want to hear about a rationale that's relevant to the original motion. You know, you're right, we need to know the rationale as to why the government is requesting 30 days. That's not the appropriate time to do it with respect to this subamendment. The subamendment has to do with dates. That's all I want to hear. I don't want to hear a rationale that you're going to be getting into with respect to the main motion.

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

Mr. Chair, I hope you will bear with me as I present my rationale, and in order to present that rationale, as you know—no matter how many committees I've sat on or how many different venues I've participated in—in order to explain why I'm opposed to this, unless I make a linkage, it is as I said a very vacuous argument where the only thing one is talking about is earlier than or on this.

I believe that the argument—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

That's what these amendments are about. The main motion has to do with what you're about to talk about and if you get into the main motion I'm going to move on to another speaker.

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

Chair, as I said, on the motion of whether it should be on or before, the reason it is there specifically in the original amendment as “on” is because that is the rule that exists right now. The bill will be deemed to have been reported, as is, by June 21. That's why the amendment is there.

What the subamendment does is undo the intent of the amendment by now saying, “in the House not earlier than”, which ultimately, as you know, fundamentally changes when and how the extension is going to be tabled in the House. That's what we're talking about—when and how.

As you know, committees can put forward motions to seek an extension, but those extensions have to be sought within the timelines unless we can get a variation from the committee here.

What we have done.... There is a concurrence motion in the House, as you know, that has not been moved yet. That is one way for the government to do this. But I believe this is a way for the government to now change the timelines, and I am on the timelines, Mr. Chair, because I'm specifically talking on—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Sims, we're not talking about concurrence motions. That has nothing to do with the subamendment, it has nothing to do with the amendment, and indeed it has nothing to do with the motion.

The motion is all about extending the time by 30 days. We're not going to talk about that.

I'm going to do the same thing as I did with Mr. Menegakis. You've had two strikes. On the next strike, you're out.

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

Mr. Chair, if you feel there is so much disorder, you do have—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

No, I didn't say that there was disorder. I'm trying to keep the debate relevant to the subamendment. That's all I'm trying to do.

We're dealing with a subamendment. We're not dealing with the amendment, we're not dealing with the motion, and we're not dealing with a concurrence motion.

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

Let me get back to the timing “on or no earlier than”. When you look at “no earlier than”, it gives back to the government a way to deal with the bill, Bill C-425—and it is relevant for me to talk about that in that context because I'm now talking about the timing. It gives the government a way to deal with that bill that actually changes the rules that exist in the House.

Currently, as you know, the original amendment said that the request is to take place in the House on June 21. The subamendment fundamentally changes that and basically opens it up and gives an extension that goes way beyond that.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Point of order, Mr. Opitz.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, she already made the same point near the beginning of her argument.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I've actually been taking notes, Ms. Sims, and you are starting to repeat yourself. I read the ruling once. I'm not going to rule it again. If you continue repeating yourself or going off topic, we'll move on to the next speaker. You're about to have three strikes.

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

Chair, when I talk about “on” or “no earlier than”, I do have to keep repeating those words because that's what I'm here to talk about, whether the subamendment, which says, “no earlier than” as it refers to the amendment, which says “on”. If I repeat those phrases often, it is for the reason that the chair has asked me to relate everything I say back to the wording that is here. I'm doing my very best to do that.

For me to comprehend and to motivate why I am opposed to the subamendment to the amendment, it is very difficult to put forward those arguments without using those words. If the chair has suggestions of other words I could be using instead of those over and over again.... Will I say that subamendment?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm just trying to keep order, Ms. Sims. I'm not going to tell you how to debate.

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

I am just trying to follow the rules.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I am telling you that you can't repeat; you have to stay on topic.

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

I would argue that I am opposed to this subamendment and I'm opposed to it for the following reasons. I'm opposed to it because it allows an open door, number one.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Go ahead, Ms. Sims. I'm listening to you.

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

Second, I'm opposed to it because once again this subamendment gives the government the opportunity to carry out their agenda to do, through this extension, what they could not do through the initial committee.

I will say that there are other ways government can achieve this agenda. They can achieve the agenda they want to achieve here. They can achieve what they want to do through this subamendment through a government bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay. That's it.

Mr. Dykstra has the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Why don't I try this? The opposition is so opposed to the subamendment, the government would be willing to withdraw it. Unanimous consent will withdraw the subamendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Unanimous.

Ms. Sims, you need unanimous consent to withdraw.

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

I've heard the opposition say and repeat time and again that they're opposed to this subamendment, so we'd be willing to withdraw the subamendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Do I have unanimous consent that the subamendment be withdrawn?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.