Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 13th, 2013

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

You are kind indeed.

I would like to raise a point of order based on misconduct, page 1048 of O'Brien and Bosc.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

Please hold on a moment.

I don't want to rely only on what my ear hears; I want to be able to read the words at the same time.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

The reason I'm raising this point of order is based on misconduct on the part of Mr. Dykstra and Ms. Rempel, who, for the past 30 minutes, have raised numerous points of order while my good colleagues have been trying to get a point across.

In O'Brien and Bosc on page 1048, it is written that “disorder and misconduct also include the use of unparliamentary language,”—which is not the case right now—“failure to yield the floor”—and that is not the case, but where it is problematic is “or persistent interruption of the proceedings in any manner”.

This is the case right now, Madam Chair.

Both members, Mr. Dykstra and Ms. Rempel, keep interrupting my colleague persistently by raising the same point of order. You've made your ruling every single time, but they keep misconducting themselves by persistently interrupting the proceedings of the committee.

You've raised this topic before. I sit in the health committee, and I sit with the lovely Kelly Block. Hello, Kelly, nice to see you again.

I know personally that when I'm cut off during my speech, I lose my train of thought. I'm sure my good colleague feels the same way. It is misconduct and I would urge them to stop doing it. It is really disrespectful.

That's my point of order and I would like you to make a ruling on the misconduct of both Rick Dykstra and Michelle Rempel, please.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

A number of hands have gone up. We've written down every name, and I'm going to go down the list, and if you're on this point of order, you will speak. If you have a different point of order, you will remain on the list and we will go back to you.

Ms. Rempel, go ahead first.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

I respect the comment of my colleague opposite about ensuring that the proceedings go forward in a respectful way. With respect, I think the comments brought up with regard to relevancy have been brought up on separate occasions, on separate and different relevancy issues, and tied back to the fact that there is relevancy to the particular motion.

Therefore, I think the points of order have been in order, Madam Chair.

I appreciate deeply your saying that we need to stay on topic, which is what I think you've said several times, but I don't think that's been respected by my colleague opposite. So it is my hope that is how we would proceed.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

I'm going to my colleague, Mr. Harris. Then I will make my comment and we'll proceed.

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

Madam Chair, I've only been here for a few minutes, and I've seen serial interruptions that seem to be making the same point over and over again with no new reason to bring it forward. The only purpose is to intimidate the speaker. I wouldn't say the purpose is to intimidate, but it can have that effect. If she has constant interruptions, it prevents the member from even maintaining her train of thought. By being rattled by the members with their constant interruptions, she makes a mistake and misreads something, and that's another excuse for a further interruption.

Madam Chair, one of the roles of the chair, I say with respect, is to protect the speakers from this type of misconduct. I don't have the rule book in front of me, but I think it certainly deserves some consideration by you, as chair, as to whether this amounts to misconduct by the members opposite in preventing Ms. Sitsabaiesan from making her remarks. You can decide how persistent it was. I've seen several interruptions in a few minutes and several attempts to make the same point for the same reason.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

Thank you.

As chair, I'm going to make a comment. I'm beginning to be very, very concerned about the length of time being taken up with points of order. I don't want there to be a misrepresentation of what I will say is going to be allowed at committee when it comes to discussion on a motion. I have made it very clear. I've read out the wording of the motion to everybody, and I'm more than willing to do it again, if you want.

If there is any member who wants to hear it read again, I will do so.

[An hon. member]

I would.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

You would like to hear it so I will read it out again:Pursuant to Standing Order 97.1(1), your Committee is requesting an extension of thirty sitting days to consider Bill C-425, An Act to amend the CItizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces), referred to the Committee on Wednesday, February 27, 2013.

This motion does not say it's a discussion of an extension about nothing. This motion is seeking an extension of 30 days on Bill C-425 which amends the Citizenship Act. Therefore, the chair has urged, and will keep urging members that when they speak to this it should relate to the extension of 30 days for this particular act. The content of your comments has to relate to the act. That's how you will justify whether it goes forward. And whether you're going to speak one way or the other, it could also be related to process.

If the purpose of this motion were a simple yes or no, we would not be here to debate it. I want to remind my colleagues that we have been debating this since 8:45 on Tuesday morning, in one form or another. I find it interesting, and I must admit that as chair I'm perturbed by this as well. This particular member has shared with this committee, in an open meeting, about the kind of discomfort she has felt at the committee, the kind of targeting, I would say, that she has felt at the committee.

I'm finding it really unfortunate that not one of these points of order has related to relevancy. I have not found anything so far with the previous speakers that has been relevant.

I would urge colleagues on all sides to remember to be respectful, to have decorum. We've had a lot of emotion at this meeting. We've actually had a member who has had to leave another meeting in tears. I don't want to go through that. I'm telling you that as long as I'm in this chair, that is not going to happen. I would remind everybody that we are here to deal with this motion, but it does not mean you only get to say yes or no. I would ask that you be relevant and discuss the issue. If you meander too far, this chair will pull you back to the motion.

Thank you.

Mr. Morin, is it a new point of order?

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

No, it's the same one. I don't think you actually ruled on whether those two members, Rick Dykstra and Michelle Rempel, did or did not misconduct themselves.

On the point of order I raised, you were supposed to rule if they did or did not misconduct themselves.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

I am going to look. We've all been at this for a long time. I am going to rule at this stage that they did not, and we're going to proceed. But I am going to let my colleagues know they must be very careful when they are raising points of order, in respect of the language we use and how and where we do this.

I will go back. I did rule on the point of order—

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

I have a question about—

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

—but not against you.

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

Right, I realize that.

I have a question, though. You keep referring to what we may ask in a point of order, as if we're using some sort of unparliamentary language or we're being abusive. I would like you to give me an example of any time, since 8:45 this morning, you think anyone on this side of the table has been abusive or used unparliamentary language.

I have been very careful. Every time I raise my hand and speak on a point of order, I refer to the member, and I make sure that I show relevance to the point that I'm making. Ms. Rempel has done the same, as have Mr. Opitz and Mr. Menegakis.

You can't make sweeping claims about this. You're stating something that you say we shouldn't be doing, and you're describing us from a personal perspective. I would argue that this is not the case. We have been respectful. We listened to a speech that took over eight hours to complete. I don't know why you would suggest there has been misconduct in any way, shape, or form. You touched on something about how this committee has operated for the last two years, and it's continuing to operate this way.

This filibuster isn't because we want to be here. We would like to have a vote, but you don't want to have a vote so you're preventing a vote from happening. Your responsibility as the chair is to be equal to both sides.

I would submit that it is unfair to suggest that we are being abusive or unparliamentary.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

The chair would like to remind people that the chair actually ruled that she did not find this. What the chair did report on was the kind of concerns a particular member of the committee—the one who has the floor right now—expressed quite openly at this committee earlier on in the meeting. But when it came to the ruling, and I stated that as a fact, I ruled that it had not.

I would urge members not to keep bringing up the same points of order. Let's try to accommodate and get on with hearing from Ms. Sitsabaiesan.

I have made my ruling, so unless it's a new point of order, Mr. Morin, we're going to move on.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

I don't know if it is a point of order, but may I ask for a five-minute break so both sides can convene?

On our side, we're going to make sure that we take under consideration the advice to refocus the message. On the opposite side, they will have five minutes to make sure they grasp what you just said a number of times.

I believe a five-minute time out should be good for the committee. We're all passionate about this issue, and I think a five-minute break would suit everyone well.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

We will have a five-minute suspension, and it will be only five minutes. We'll put the timer on.

I am going to urge both sides to use these five minutes to centre themselves so that we can come back and deal with the issues at hand.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

I'm calling the meeting back to order.

We are going back to Ms. Sitsabaiesan, and I'm hoping the five-minute respite has given everybody a little bit of calm.

Ms. Sitsabaiesan, you are speaking to the motion.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair, yet once again for passing the floor back to me.

I believe, from our experience over the last 60 days, that the consideration of Bill C-425 at our citizenship and immigration committee was thorough and that it does not need further study, Madam Chair. I'd like to identify some of the reasons why I believe that the study was thorough and that we do not need further study.

I was at the point of speaking of pathways to integration, because the presenting member, Mr. Shory, had mentioned in his remarks to us as the committee that his goal through this bill was to increase pathways to integration for newer immigrants and permanent residents. However, many problems were identified with this, and these are reasons why I believe the discussions we've had are sufficient.

I'll tell you some of what our discussions were, Madam Chair.

I already spoke about the fact that only citizens can qualify for recruitment. I don't want to go back into that, Madam Chair, but what I do want to move on to is how a permanent resident can actually be recruited. When we had members of the armed forces present to us, they did say it does happen in an extremely rare number of cases.

I might say the name wrong, but Professor Grazia Scoppio said:

In order to be eligible for enrolment in the Canadian Forces as an officer or non-commissioned member, a person must: (a) be a Canadian citizen...

—I'm not going to read the entire quote, but she said that they must be Canadian citizens—

...except that the Chief of the Defence Staff or such officer as he may designate may authorize the enrolment of a citizen of another country if he is satisfied that a special need exists and that the national interest will not be prejudiced thereby.

When she presented this testimony to us, she explained to us how citizens foreign nationals, citizens of another country, can actually serve with the Canadian Armed Forces, wearing the red maple leaf on their uniform, though they don't have Canadian citizenship. I felt that this was important for us because in the deliberation of the bill, the presenter himself said that one of the very important pieces of the private member's bill that he was putting forward was to increase recruitment of permanent residents. But we heard, and it was very clear, that there aren't very many permanent residents who are recruited, and there's only one way that it can be done, and that's through the Chief of the Defence Staff.

On this point, Madam Chair, I think it's very clear that the discussion we had already in the committee was sufficient and that we don't need to continue the discussion on this point. That's another reason that we don't need to extend the study period of this bill in committee and, once again, the reason I will not be supporting this motion moving forward.

Another item, Madam Chair, is that members of the committee were concerned whether this measure in Bill C-425, as it was presented to us, would have a real effect on the people it's actually targeting, given the backlog that already exists with Canadian citizenship. We know that wait times for Canadian citizenship are extremely long.

Constituents in Scarborough—Rouge River have contacted me time and again, through Twitter, Facebook, writing me an e-mail, coming into the office, calling me, responding to mail-outs, whatever it might be, or just speaking to me at the grocery store.By whatever method it might be, many residents of Scarborough—Rouge River have spoken to me about their difficulties with the length of time it takes to go through the residency questionnaire and then, after completing the residency questionnaire requirements, how long it takes while they're waiting for their citizenship. The citizenship application process is such a lengthy process. It's not that you just come here and are a permanent resident for three years and then qualify to apply and there is a quick and dirty application and you're done, and then there's the test, of course. This is not the case anymore.

When I became a Canadian citizen, I didn't have to take the test, because I was a child. Because my mother took the test, my young sisters and I were part of the group with her, so I didn't have the same experience that new Canadians have today. But we know that becoming a Canadian citizen means a lot to many people.

Considering the extremely long wait times to become a Canadian citizen, we asked experts whether Bill C-425 was going to achieve the results the member was trying to achieve and would actually reach the targeted groups.

Once again we heard from the professor, who said that the intended outcome was quite unclear. If the intent is simply to expedite the citizenship process for a few select immigrants who happen to have the unique skills to fulfill a special need of the Canadian Forces, then the bill if passed would be accomplishing this outcome and would have a small-scale impact. If, however, the intent is to open the doors of the Canadian Forces to greater numbers of qualified landed immigrants with permanent residency in order to provide—and the professor quoted Mr. Shory, the sponsor of the bill—“new Canadians with more pathways to integration”, as Mr. Shory mentioned, this bill would actually not accomplish that broader outcome.

Looking at the amendments that the government has already put forward and looking at this testimony provides another reason that I will not be supporting the motion that is before us today, Madam Chair.

I want to also tell you some of what one of the colonels who spoke to us mentioned. When we spoke to the colonel, we spoke about the air force and becoming a pilot, and he mentioned that many people want—everybody wants—to become a pilot. You yourself, Madam Chair, mentioned earlier in the debate on this specific motion your wish to join the armed forces and what your experiences were like in that regard. I have also had the wish to become a pilot. What the colonel said is very true; this is a wish that many people have. He said it seems that in the Canadian population everybody wants to fly. He mentioned an airplane, but I think many people just want to soar also.

That said, there are some very severe selection criteria that might prevent many people from joining the forces even if they have their permanent residency. Another factor that he mentioned is that the training is actually very long and demanding.

If the goal of this bill was to reduce the wait time for applying for citizenship from three years down to one year, the colonel mentioned that the training is so long for somebody before they can serve that they won't actually be reducing to that one-year time, because they won't be serving by the time the two-year period has lapsed. They would just qualify under the regular citizenship process and wouldn't really need to have their application expedited, because they already would have met the three-year requirement.

Once again, that is another reason that I will not be supporting this motion to extend the debate here on Bill C-425, Madam Chair.

He went on and spoke of examples of pilots from the U.K. and noted that we have some of them. I have a friend who is a major in our air force—

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

I hope this is going to relate to the motion here.

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

Absolutely, Madam Chair.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

Okay, thank you. I look forward to seeing how it is going to link.

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

Absolutely. Thank you very much.

—who serves quite regularly with the U.S. forces and flies for them whenever those instances arise. That type of give and take is given in the service of our countries, as long as we are allies. I read somewhere that this type of respect is given to Commonwealth countries. I think it was from a presentation from the UNHCR that this was brought up, that the countries we commonly compare our legislation with—the U.K., Australia, New Zealand, and I don't remember the fourth country off the top of my head,—