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
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
I feel as if I'm in the movie Groundhog Day, because I have heard this again and again. Even before this week, Mr. Chair, when you returned, we heard this last week again and again. I'd like you to make sure that anything that is brought forward is new to this discussion.
Conservative
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Thank you very much.
When I take a look at what has not happened in the House—and I've only missed the House sessions while I've been sitting here—I'm sure we would have been called back if the concurrent motion had come up in the House. We would all have rushed in there to take part in that debate for three hours, but that has not happened.
Now we have a government, through a private member's bill, looking at getting an extension so that they have a longer time to try to find a spot on the parliamentary agenda to argue the expansion of the scope of the bill before us.
Once again, let me reassure everybody that the NDP has no interest in getting in the way of serious public safety, but we are very concerned about the processes we have and how a private member's bill can be subsumed or inserted into so that the scope can be expanded.
I pulled up some quotes. This is from Hansard of June 12, 2001, at 10:45, while debating a supply day motion to make votable all items of private members' business. At that time—I'm going to quote the serious comments that were made. I know you're dying to hit that, about a member's right to speak on issues, and it is because we have that right to debate issues—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Ms. Sims, I'd like to interject.
I've heard this before. I've heard this issue discussed today.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Therefore, it's repetition. I'm going to read a section that came out of the book, with respect to my interjecting, with respect to my being concerned, with respect to....
Oh, I'm sorry, Ms. Sitsabaiesan. It's at the top of page 1049.
NDP
NDP
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Yes. I believe—I not only believe, I'm certain—that what you're talking about now has been mentioned several times throughout this day.
I'm going to read the section because that's exactly what I'm doing—I'm interjecting. I'm going to give you a chance to move on or we'll move to another speaker, because you are getting into an area of repetition:
In addition, the Chair may, at his or her discretion, interrupt a member whose observations and questions are repetitive or are unrelated to the matter before the committee. If the member in question persists in making repetitive or off-topic comments, the Chair can give the floor to another member.
With respect, I believe you are getting into areas discussed many times before by you and by your colleagues, so I would like you to move on to another issue.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We've dealt with the scope issue too. We even had a ruling that we're not going to talk about the scope issue.
NDP
NDP
Mylène Freeman NDP Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
I have a point of order.
Could we get an update on where we are with the speakers list? If we're going to be cutting speakers off, it would be helpful to the members of the committee to know what the list—
Conservative
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Thank you very much.
Chair, as I do have the floor and I realize my colleague did not, is it possible to share the speakers list with everybody, so if people want to get on it, they can?
Conservative
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
No, I haven't finished.
Therefore, in talking about the request for an extension of 30 sitting days here.... We are not talking about 30 calendar days; we are talking about 30 sitting days. So the timeline would not be into July or August. The days would start counting and it would actually go into September, and probably right into October, because of how late we start in September.
I think in the meantime, when you look at it, we will have already heard from our witnesses and a great deal of time would have gone by. Once again, I feel we will be doing a disservice to Mr. Shory's bill because we will be leaving too huge a time between clause-by-clause, as you have aptly said. We bypass that simply because of the timelines. So just because the timelines have played out, that is no reason to try to set the clock differently. That's what I'm arguing here.
For me, it does a disservice to a private member's bill when you can have that huge a distance between different components of dealing with the bill. It also loses some of the currency during that time. I would say that depending on what happens during those 30 days, that could also fundamentally change how we are going to be proceeding with this, because there is no guarantee that within the extension of 30 days you could actually get the concurrent motion dealt with in the House. There is no guarantee, and because there is no guarantee, I feel we're going through this exercise for very little reason.
To me, that is a compelling argument when you're talking for or against an extension, because at the end of the day, the private member's business gets reported back on the 60th day—within 60 days. The 60 days will be up. This gives only an extension for 30 days. It doesn't give any other direction for the committee to deal with this any differently. All it says is 30 days so that the government can get the expansion in the scope. But if within those 30 days the government cannot get an expansion, then unfortunately we are at the bill having been reported. That's exactly where we are today.
I feel that the committee has really important work to do. I know we were in the middle of a study on temporary foreign workers. I know that we have a great deal of interest in pursuing a study on citizenship and the huge wait lists that exist. We also want to talk about PNPs and many other issues. So when I think of the time of the committee being tied up to do a private member's bill that is already running out of time...I would say that those are new arguments being put forward as to why an extension at this stage is not the right thing to do.
I know some of my colleagues are getting a little bit frustrated and are shaking their heads, but I think it is a legitimate point to be made that the committee's business is far more than this private member's bill. As a matter of fact, we were in the middle of hearing witnesses. Witnesses were waiting the day this all started—