Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 13th, 2013

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

If Ms. James is so interested in the number of times the question has been asked, could we perhaps—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

No, no.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

—suspend and ask the analyst to verify how many times she's asked that question.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Nicholls, I don't want to hear any more.

Ms. Sims, you have the floor.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

I just want to clarify and put it on the record that when I was in that chair I did not speak. The first opportunity I had to speak was when you came back. I did speak while we were in camera, but I realize that remains in camera. I can really say that I'm making this concurrence motion discussion for the first time here.

For me, I'm not even talking about the concurrence motion. What I'm really talking about is the impact the extension will have on the workings of the committee. You have to look at that from different angles. I covered some of the content that will be impacted earlier and now I'm looking at the process and how that will actually impact the workings of this committee. When I take a look at all of those things, then I realize that it is not right.

I would actually be negligent in my duties as a parliamentarian to even look at voting in favour of this, because I'd be supporting more, I would say, quiet time for the committee. Everybody who knows me knows that I'm not in favour of too much quiet time. We're sent here by our constituents to do our work, and I certainly want to do that.

With that, Mr. Chair, I'm going to put myself back on the list so that I can come back and make other new points. At this moment hunger calls, and I'm going to grab a sandwich.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Christopherson, you have the floor.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair. I appreciate that.

With your indulgence, Chair, just so I'm clear, my understanding is that much of the reason for limiting debate here is that there will be debate in the House.

Yet it's my understanding that Standing Order 97.1(3) says: (a) Upon presentation of a report requesting an extension of thirty sitting days to consider a bill referred to in section (1) of this Standing Order, a motion to concur in the report shall be deemed moved, the question deemed put, and a recorded division deemed demanded and deferred to the next Wednesday, immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business.

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

[Inaudible--Editor]...vote?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Sorry?

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

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. There was a suggestion there might be voting, so I was just getting really excited.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Dykstra, Mr. Christopherson is speaking.

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

Yes. I'm sorry.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I'll continue:

(b) If proceedings on any motion to concur in a report of a committee requesting an extension of thirty sitting days to consider a bill have not been concluded by the sixtieth sitting day following the date of the referral of the bill to the committee, the said bill shall remain before the committee until proceedings on the motion to concur in the report have been concluded, provided that: (i) should the motion to concur in the report be adopted, the committee shall have an extension until the nintieth sitting day following the date of the referral of the bill to the committee; or (ii) should the motion to concur in the report be negatived, the bill shall be deemed to have been reported without amendment.

It's my understanding, Chair, that if that happens, there is no debate on the amendment, if it goes to the House that way.

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

There's no debate on this motion.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

There's no debate on this motion if it goes to the House. So I'm having some trouble understanding the ruling.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Christopherson, this is not an amendment. This is a motion. I don't know what you're talking about. With due respect, it may be that I haven't understood what you're saying, but this is a motion. This is not an amendment.

Mr. Harris.

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

To that point, Chair, my understanding is that what Mr. Christopherson is saying is that if this motion were to pass this committee, there would actually be no debate on it in the House of Commons. There would be a vote, but no debate.

I guess the point is that your limiting debate in this committee, because the matter would be debated in the House when this motion goes to the House, is negatived by the standing order itself, which says that there's a “deemed” discussion and debate and questions being put, and then it's deferred.

There's a recorded vote. There's a vote yes or no, but there's actually no debate on this motion in the House of Commons.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

So what's your point?

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

I guess the point is that they're raising the concern that many of the objections from our colleagues here, and some of your rulings, are that this is going to be debated when this motion goes to the House.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

No, sir. All of my comments had to do with the issue that you'll have an opportunity during the concurrence motion, if and when that ever happens.

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

On this motion—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Harris, all the matters I raised with respect to some of the items, which a number of members, including you, have raised, such as the scope of the bill and that sort of business, would be raised during the concurrence motion.

Those were the points I made. You misunderstood what I said.

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

But there is no concurrence debate on this motion, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

There is no concurrence on this debate, but we know that there's a concurrence motion that could be called in the House with respect to the matter of April 23.

Proceed, Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thanks.

No, I think what confused it was that I had used the word “amendment” when I meant to say “motion”. This is just to make it clear.

I understand your ruling, but even you have said—