Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 13th, 2013

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

Thank you very much.

It is my pleasure to speak on this amendment...not on the amendment. Sorry, Chair, we've been here so long it's sometimes difficult to remember. But we're here dealing with the main motion, which asks for an extension of 30 sitting days in order to give the government time to get a concurrence motion in the House, which would give them an expanded scope.

I am opposed to the extension for a number of reasons, the very first being that there is a reason why there are a number of days allocated for private members' business, which, simply to remind us all, is 60 days. The committee will have had 60 days on June 21. Therefore, the request for an extension at this time would give extraordinary treatment to one private member's bill and would not be fair to all the other private members. As I have said previously, this is not a comment on the actual bill, because there are elements in this bill.... I will not get into too much detail here, but to get to the point as to why the 30 days.... There are elements of this bill we do support.

We're actually looking forward to an opportunity to vote on this bill in the House, because this committee, due to a decision made by a government majority, has not done clause-by-clause. Therefore, the bill will actually be up for a vote unless this extension is given, as is, without any amendments. We are quite prepared to go into the House.

This extension would actually give extraordinary privilege to one particular private member's bill. I believe we, as the opposition—and I can't speak for the other opposition party or for the independent—are certainly ready and willing to go to the House, because the bill has been reported there, debate the bill, and go through the three-hour.... Is it a two-hour debate or three-hour debate in the House?

[A voice]

Three hours.

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

I don't want to get that wrong, Mr. Chair. I think it's a two-hour debate when it goes back into the House.

We will take part in that debate, and based on what we hear, we're then prepared to vote on the legislation that Mr. Shory has put forward. There is no way in that process we would try to prolong or put any obstacles in the way, because you are absolutely right, every private member has the right to bring forward legislation, have it go through the process, and have it voted on in the House.

You know, we're looking forward to that and we will participate in that in a fulsome way, both in the debate at third reading, as well as in the voting procedure that takes place.

I can tell you, we're not planning to sit on our hands during that debate, because we believe that private members' business needs to be treated as seriously in the debate process as we do with any government legislation, because that is the only legislative tool that is open to members who are not members of the cabinet and who are not parliamentary secretaries.

Because we feel that the government, the majority, has had an opportunity to address amendments and deal with all those things right here at committee and has not used that time, I do not think it's right to reward bad behaviour with extended timelines. That's one of the things I try to work on with my kids—not only my own kids, but the students I have taught over the last 30-plus years.

One of the key elements for me is that if you do not use the time you have, then to come forward and ask for an extension is a little bizarre, to say the least. It would be like a student saying to me that he didn't do his homework last night because he went out to play, so maybe he should get some more time. I would have to have a serious conversation—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Dykstra.

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

I know exactly where Ms. Sims is going with this argument because she's made it about four times now. She thinks the government had lots of time to attempt to move this bill forward, but didn't use the time wisely and therefore the extension should not be granted. I don't need to hear the argument again. I understand her perspective. Of course I don't agree with it, but she's making exactly the same argument that she made the previous time she spoke. I would like to hear something new, if possible. I don't think it is, but I would love to hear something new.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Do you have the same point of order, Mr. Christopherson?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes, on this point, Chair, I hear my colleague Mr. Dykstra, but I still have trouble understanding how something could be ruled out of order before it's even said. I would at least urge all members and the chair to allow the member to say what she has to say. Then if people have comments, fine, but to start being clairvoyant about what someone's going to say and then rule them out of order in the future is a bit much, even for some of rules that are happening around here, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Dykstra's right, we have heard this argument in the past. It isn't new because you are repeating yourself. Again, I'm giving you leeway, but hopefully you'll move on to another point because you have made this point before. If you continue with it, we will move on.

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

With all due respect, Chair, if I could.... In my previous turn I talked about the business that could be done during this time, during the extension that was sought. Now what I'm trying to say is that the time that wasn't used accordingly should not be rewarded. I believe it's a new point I have not made before. I would beg your indulgence in allowing me to finish that point.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I did say I would give you leeway.

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

Thank you, Chair.

As I was saying, time is allocated for a reason, and if you do not use that time, then I think to seek an extension is both disrespectful of the committee and the processes we have. On the other hand, if the government had used every one of those days since we passed this motion on April 23, then I believe the opposition might have been a little more understanding and been more willing to cooperate to give an extension because then we could see what we were dealing with and where we were going to go with it. But when the time has not been used it makes it very difficult for me to justify why I would support an extension. That is one of the first new points I wanted to make.

Another point I wanted to make is that this extension will leave us sitting in limbo as we have since April 23. When I think about it—April, May, June—that's three months in limbo, and now we're talking about September, October, November, which is more time in limbo. There is no guarantee that the government could get a concurrence motion on the paper during those 30 days and get it moved. Once again, I feel we are gambling here and asking for an extension to create an even greater vacuum, not just for the three months that have gone by, but for the months ahead.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Although to be fair to the government, Ms. Sims, part of the reason there was a delay is that one of the members of the House rose on a point of order with respect to the application of this to the House. It was some time before the Speaker ruled on that. I can't remember whether it was a point of order. It may have been a point of privilege.

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

Yes. Ms. Groguhé read that into the record, actually, during her speech.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

There was a point of at least a week, I think. I know I'm crossing the line. I don't mean to get into a debate, but just to comment on who's at fault on the concurrence issue—it may be the government, it may be the opposition—part of the delay, clearly, was that the House was stymied because of the Speaker not ruling on that point of privilege.

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

Thank you, Chair, for reminding me of the rulings that we were waiting for the chair to make. The chair did make the ruling, and since then the government has had an opportunity to move a concurrence motion. I think it isn't only the government that has concurrence motions. Independents and opposition parties also have concurrence motions. I believe there is an order through which we proceed. I think what was happening over there in the House was happening according to the rules that are allowed there. What I'm really talking about when I talk about the request for an extension is the impact that has on the workings of this committee. That is really relevant when we talk about the seeking of an extension.

Mr. Chair, there is no guarantee that giving an extension of 30 days would actually get that concurrence motion moved in the House.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

On a point of order, Ms. James.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I've heard that argument about whether we can get it through or not 100 times in the last week—maybe not 100 times, maybe 99, but I've heard it multiple times.

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

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Well, I haven't done anything. I haven't said anything.

I'm at a disadvantage not having been here last week. You were in the chair—

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

No, that's not a disadvantage.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

I did not make the concurrence argument while I was in the chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm relying on you. You know whether there's been repetition on that point. Ms. James is not going to make something up. If there's repetition, please do not proceed with repetition.

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

Chair, just to clarify that I did not—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

On a point order, Mr. Nicholls.