Evidence of meeting #84 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Chair, thank you very much. I realize you have made the decision about the fact that the previous motion is not amendable. I would like to have the reference you used in order to make that ruling.
NDP
Mylène Freeman NDP Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Chair, I'm wondering whether or not you will actually provide that. Could you clarify--
NDP
Mylène Freeman NDP Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Mr. Chairman, I have not done speaking. I'm sorry and I believe—
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Mr. Chair, what we're seeing here is member of Parliament after member of Parliament being denied the right to express their point of view. I want to say that every one of the people sitting on this side is duly elected by their constituents. They're sent here. They sit at this committee, because they're appointed to this committee, and they have certain duties and responsibilities to carry out.
I want to put on record my distress and dismay at the fact that over and over again members are being denied the right to continue to make points that would lead to their either supporting the motion to put the vote or not to put the vote on the amendment.
In order to talk about whether to put the vote on the amendment or not, one has to deal with the amendment itself as well. I think to argue differently subverts the democratic process and our ability to engage in a meaningful debate and discussion at this committee.
Conservative
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
I would once again remind my colleague across the way that I do not interrupt when he speaks, and I would really appreciate similar treatment.
When I look at the amendment here, the amendment is brought to this committee for a reason. The reason is that we do not support what the government is trying to do through the back door that which they cannot do directly at committee.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Ms. Sims, should the question be put, yes or no? That's what I'd like to hear.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Mr. Chair, it's all debate on motions and amendments and subamendments. If it's just yes or no, then I don't see why we have parliamentary democracy and why we sit here—
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
In order to say why I am opposed, I have to refer to the amendment itself. I realize I'll get a chance to go back and speak to the main motion, but I'm talking about the amendment.
Not to be able to address the amendment when I'm saying why I'm opposed to the question being put, I think it's so limiting as to end debate. If the aim is not to allow any debate, then let's be open and honest and simply say “vote” and let's not have any debate, because I will exercise my right to debate and make points. In order to explain why I speak for or against a motion being put and a question being called, I have to refer to the substance of the amendment.
I will make sure, Mr. Chairman, that I do not go to the main motion. I will stick to the amendment, because that's what the question has been called on. The question is not that simple. The question cannot be considered in isolation. If you were to isolate to that degree, all our debates would be vacuous and they would either be yea or nay. Surely that's not what we want to lower democratic debate to and we do not want to shut the voices off duly elected parliamentarians.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Mr. Menegakis, if you could bear with me for a moment, I want to confer with the clerks.
You had a point of order, Mr. Menegakis.
Conservative
Costas Menegakis Conservative Richmond Hill, ON
With all due respect, Ms. Sims was debating your comments and not being specific as to whether or not the matter should be put, which you had ruled on. I'm wondering if we can get some order back into the meeting because she's spending the entire time, after you commented to her, on arguing your intervention, which is not what we're discussing right now.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
There's a certain amount of leeway. I don't think Ms. Sims has gone into too much repetition—some—but essentially, she is arguing that there needs to be more time spent voting on the amendment.
We'll give her a fair bit of leeway on that, as long as she doesn't get into debating the amendment on and on. I think she can refer to that. That's her thesis that is a result of the question being put. I don't mean to put words in her mouth but that's what I've interpreted her saying, that there has been insufficient time to debate the amendment.
At the same time, a lot of this has been repeated by a number of members on the committee, and we must remember that, too, that we shouldn't get into repetition, which I've referred to. I've made comments. I've been challenged a little bit on that, but that's what I'm saying.
Ms. Sims, you still have the floor.
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
A point of order, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
I'll be really brief. I'm as committed as Ms. Sims to parliamentary privilege and I've stood in the House to defend that in recent weeks. However, there is a difference between saying that debate needs to be free and debate is being trivialized by these endless proceedings. In exercise of your discretion, Mr. Chair, I would just be concerned that Canadians would start to wonder if we're accomplishing anything effective here if we trivialize the debate by what's going on.
