Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 13th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Well, you know what?

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

—and I am speaking to the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Freeman is correct.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I am speaking to the motion because I am requesting that—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Just don't get into the bill, because the bill may or may not come at another time. The issue is the motion, which has to do with an extension of 30 sitting days.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Absolutely, and that's the point I'm trying to get across. It's that I'm here to represent my constituents, and they want this bill to go through, which is why I fully support the 30-day extension.

It's absolutely imperative as a member of Parliament to have the opportunity to put through private members' bills. Fortunately, I actually had a private member's bill receive royal assent in this session. I wholeheartedly accepted recommendations from the committee that worked diligently on my bill to make it better, to improve upon it, as has my colleague, Mr. Devinder Shory.

I just want to say that he is open to these amendments. It's important that we listen to the will of this committee, the will of the member of Parliament who put forward this bill, and also the recommendation that we extend the sitting for 30 days, so that we can properly address these amendments. I think it is unjustified for any committee to go to the length that this committee has—the opposition—to delay for over a week a simple vote that would have taken less than two minutes, Mr. Chair. Therefore, I respectfully put forward my support of this motion that requests an extension of 30 sitting days.

[A voice]

Well done.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

This will definitely give the proper respect to my honourable colleague, who is sitting at this committee now. As my colleagues have mentioned, I've sat beside this particular colleague, Mr. Devinder Shory, throughout every committee meeting on Bill C-425. He was there to welcome amendments and to provide his insight.

In fact, Mr. Chair, back at the end of January, when I found out that I was given the opportunity and was asked whether I wanted to speak to this particular bill in the House, I basically jumped up and down, because I think this bill is so important to Canadians and to Canada. I think it goes a long way.... The amendments that were put forward—and again, I'm not speaking directly to the amendments—are the reason we're asking for the extension of 30 days. I think 30 days is not unreasonable. If we were seeking 365 sitting days, perhaps that might be unreasonable, but so far, the amendments that we've put forward, and this particular motion addressing the need to allow those amendments to be heard, are not unreasonable.

We've been sitting here for a week. Again, in the nine and a half hour speech from the opposition, they covered absolutely everything possible that they could read from a book and from the other things that were handed to them, and I only have a few moments to speak directly to this specific motion and the need to have the extension.

I'm sitting here and speaking on behalf of my constituents and the over 80% of Canadians from coast to coast to coast, I have to say, who support Devinder Shory's bill and wholeheartedly embrace the amendments that not only did this committee put forward, but that the member himself agreed with and embraced wholeheartedly.

On that, Mr. Chair, I have to say that as I sit here and ponder what has happened in the last week, I can only look to the opposition to put a stop to this nonsense that's been going on with this filibuster, to speak for a couple of moments to this particular motion, and then to allow it to go to a vote.

There are Canadians who are watching this right now and are seeing what is going on. There is also the expense to Canadian taxpayers by sitting here around the clock debating. It's not proving a point. They would like to see the extension granted so that this can be properly debated and voted on in a very democratic manner, as I said, representing the constituents of my riding of Scarborough Centre.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Ms. Sims has the floor.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I am speaking against the motion that is before us today. I believe that what is before the committee is the unamended motion as it was originally moved.

With that understanding, we've heard a lot today about private members' business. I just want to say that I have a lot of respect for my honourable colleague across the way, Mr. Shory, and for private members' business, but there is a process in place for private members' business.

As a matter of fact, when it came to first and second reading, I stood in the House and supported Mr. Shory's bill going to committee stage, where we did have amendments that we would have wanted to make to it. The reason we're here debating an extension is that the amendments brought forward by the government were ruled out of scope. It's because of that ruling we are here today.

When it comes to private members' business, Mr. Shory's bill can actually be, and will be deemed to be, reported on June 21, and he will get his day in court. There will be that debate, which will happen in the House of Commons.

Therefore, I want to be very, very clear that the opposition is doing nothing here to circumvent private members' business. As a matter of fact, it's the fact that it is a private member's bill....

Just to review, Mr. Chair, as we know, it's only backbenchers and the opposition who can bring forward private members' bills, not parliamentary secretaries, according to the parliamentary rules, and certainly not ministers, the cabinet. If the cabinet or a parliamentary secretary have significant legislation, there's a way to bring it forward. It's called government orders. They can bring forward a government bill.

I can assure them that this opposition would be more than willing to work with them on government legislation to address issues of national security and of terrorism in a very fulsome way. At no time does the opposition or anybody—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Ms. Sims.

Ms. James, on a point of order.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I didn't have a great opportunity to speak, and when I mentioned the word “terrorism” once, I was jumped on by the opposition, saying that I was not within what we're debating.

I just heard Ms. Sims say the very same word, and I notice that no one from the NDP is raising that as a point of order.

I thought I would take the opportunity to do that for you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

She's right.

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

Thank you very much.

If the government has amendments—and they do; we've seen them—that will fundamentally change the nature of the bill, and will expand the scope...because that's where we are....

Mr. Shory's bill actually got fair hearing at this committee. We heard witnesses. We had debate. It now goes back to the House. We're here today not because Mr. Shory is being denied any...or any closure motion was moved on the discussion of his particular bill; we're here today because the amendments brought forward by the government were ruled out of scope.

I say “out of scope” for a reason, because they went beyond—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You're starting to repeat yourself, Ms. Sims.

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

—what is envisaged in a private member's bill.

We are not trying to shut down Mr. Shory's bill. As a matter of fact, his bill will go back to the House as is. It will proceed to the third reading, and it will be debated. The government and the opposition, all parties and the independents will have a say in the debate. We will of course debate that, and then a vote will take place.

At no stage, when I look at that spectrum, is Mr. Shory being denied the right to carry out his private members' business. That's the argument that was put forward—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Sims, you're repeating yourself. We'll have to move on if you keep doing that.

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

Chair, I'm just trying to reiterate in a different way what I heard, that we were trying to circumvent private members' business.

I will add that we're here today to debate the extension motion. It's very difficult to debate the extension motion—unless you want a yea or nay vote and no debate—without referencing what happened at committee, as long as we relate it back to the bill.

I'm not going to get into the content of the amendments, as you've said, because we're not here to discuss them. We're here only to take a look at an extension for Bill C-425. That's what I will focus on, an extension for Bill C-425.

I believe at this stage the extension is being sought to circumvent private members' business so that the government can carry out its own agenda.

Mr. Chair, I'm really trying to stick to the motion that is before us. The motion before us—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Sims, that's the third time I've heard the word “circumvent”. That's called repetition.

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

Yes, but to use one particular word in different sentences does not make it repetition. The word takes on different meanings.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Well, I'm warning you.

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

Yes.

I want to remind us all of what's before us: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.

On Tuesday, April 23, 2013, the Committee recommended to the House that it be granted the power during its consideration of Bill C-425 to expand the scope of the Bill. The Committee is awaiting for a decision of the House before further considering the Bill. Therefore, your Committee requests an extension of thirty sitting days.

It's the very wording of that motion that brings me to speak about the government's request for an extension. It is not to address the content of what is already in Mr. Shory's bill. It is to go before the House to seek an expansion of scope, and that, I believe, will fundamentally change Mr. Shory's bill in a significant way.

When I read that motion out and then try to relate it to what we're here to debate, it is perfectly within my rights and privileges, I would argue, to discuss what is in the motion to explain why I am against the extension.

I believe that every member of Parliament, not the cabinet or parliamentary secretaries—excluding that group—has a right to bring forward private members' business, and a right to have it go through the systems we have in the timelines we have.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Sims, you are definitely repeating yourself, and you are definitely repeating what others have said.

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

Can I talk about the timelines, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

All right.

I'm simply saying that the talk of circumventing private members' business, members not having a right to speak.... I've heard that over and over. We don't need to hear it anymore.

If you want to talk about timelines, that may or may not be a new issue, so we'll allow you to proceed.

Ms. James has a point of order.