Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 13th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Lamoureux, this all started with you, sir, the point of order, and you still have the floor on the main motion.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In talking to the motion, I would like to be very clear. I do appreciate a number of the comments you have made, Mr. Chair. One of them is that it's very important in my comments to speak strictly to the reason or to provide reasons as to why I am against the motion that would give the 30-day extension. That's in fact what I want to do. I want to explain why it is that I find—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Excuse me, Mr. Lamoureux.

A point of order, Ms. Sitsabaiesan.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You were correct, and Mr. Dykstra was correct in his point that you had made what you called a ruling. I did challenge the chair. My understanding is that that is not debatable. The question should be put as to whether the ruling of the chair is sustained or not. That vote did not take place, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Are you challenging the ruling, Ms. Sitsabaiesan?

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

The one I had already challenged that we didn't vote on.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You're challenging the ruling I made with respect to privilege—

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

With respect to privilege.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

—and that is in order.

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

I'd like a recorded vote, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay. Shall the ruling of the chairman be sustained?

[Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5]

The chair's ruling is sustained.

Mr. Lamoureux, you have the floor.

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

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

It's our belief—it's my belief certainly—that the ruling is not only on the motion itself but on the point of privilege and the question of whether it's debatable. These are beyond the scope of the rules, the Standing Orders, and procedures.

I believe this ought to be reported to the House for the House's decision, for the Speaker to make a ruling on this. I would like to move that these rulings be reported to the House so that they can be addressed.

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

Call the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

There's no question to be called. The issue has been challenged on both those rulings. Both of them have been challenged and the rulings of the chair have been sustained.

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

The committee can't take the rules on their back, Mr. Chair. You can't just—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

All I'm telling you, Mr. Harris—

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

You can't just, by unanimous consent, change the rules of the House and the procedure.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Harris, the debate is over. The rulings were made. The chair's rulings were challenged. The committee has sustained the chair's rulings.

Mr. Lamoureux.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I've been attempting to do this for the last couple of hours. I'm not exactly sure where I left off. I don't necessarily speak from notes, so I'm going to try to be as short and as consistent as one can be in trying to address the specifics.

As you have pointed out in many of your comments, Mr. Chair, to be clear as a member of the committee, I do have the ability to give reasons as to why I am against giving the 30 days in my case. That's something on which you've been very clear about, that I do have the ability to do that.

What I'd like to be able to do is simply that—follow your direction and give my reasons as to why I am against giving this bill a 30-day extension. It goes right to the heart of the matter. We have a private member's bill, and under a private member's bill there's a certain process that must be followed. We will find in the Standing Orders a set process, which is actually quite different and very unique. Within the rules, it does allow for a 30-day request, or the committee can come back to the House looking for an extension for a private member's bill. To that extent, the motion that we are debating today is in fact, as it has been, ruled in order.

My concern is that at some point I will be expected to vote on the motion. When it comes to actually voting on the motion, I want to be very clear, by providing good, solid reasons, as to why it is that I cannot support the motion. It goes to the fact that private members have very limited opportunities to bring forward legislation. A smaller percentage of private members bills actually make it as far as this particular bill has done, in terms of getting into committee stage. The bill itself, as we have it today, deals with important issues. I must admit that I'm somewhat frustrated, in the sense that I was hoping we would have been in the clause-by-clause stage by now. But if we do not support this motion, I think it important that we be very clear on the point that the bill does not die. If the majority of committee members vote against the motion, we are not killing Mr. Shory's bill. The bill will go back to the House with no amendments. At least, that's the way it has been explained to me.

In good conscience, that is one of the reasons why I believe it's important that we vote against this motion. I think it's a very good reason. If you take a look at the original bill that we talked about in second reading, and you contrast that to the presentations, and more specifically when we actually broke from the committee, there were some significant changes being suggested.

If we acknowledge or allow for this extension to pass—in other words, if a majority of the committee members vote in favour of this motion—Mr. Shory's bill will be granted an extension and potentially it will change. It's very important that we're clear on that point, because at the end of the day, once all is said and done, when a private member's bill gets to this stage, it's more than just one individual's bill.

We have had a thorough debate on second reading. A number of members have expressed concern, some expressed support, and a number of members want to see the bill move forward in a somewhat similar fashion. If we don't respect that, we could see substantial changes that would not receive the support that I'm confident the bill would have received had we allowed it to go to third reading or report stage—in other words, not give it the extension.

If we collectively, or unanimously, ideally, do not support this motion, the bill will go back to the House and then there will be a vote in the House. I suspect that Mr. Shory's bill will pass. Who knows who will ultimately support it at report stage?

If we vote in favour of the motion, it means it will continue to be held into the fall, at which point we have no idea what will happen to the bill. We know that some within the government benches have full intentions of changing it quite significantly. The impact of those changes will cause a number of people to vote against this legislation, which was supposed to be a private member's bill.

I say that because I think we should all be concerned about what is happening when we put our yeas or nays on this extension of 30 days.

My recommendation to committee members is that we recognize this as a private member's bill, as an initiative, and that we allow it to go through the normal process. I would be interested in hearing from the government, or some of the members who are going to be voting in favour of the motion, whether or not this type of request for an extension has been applied for in the past and the rationale that may have been there.

For example, given that it is a private member's bill, one would like to think that you might have more of a consensus, maybe even unanimity, amongst committee members that yes, we want to see the extension occur. That's why I think it would be wonderful to see more members from the opposite side sharing with us their understanding of the actual intent by supporting this motion.

Once it's all said and done, it would be great if all members of the committee had a sense that there was some form of cooperation, because it is different. It's not a government bill. It is a private member's bill. We recognize the difference inside the chamber. Inside the chamber, you will find that in private members' bills there are often members of the same political party who will vote in different ways. We recognize that. I think for the most part that is perceived as a positive thing.

In regard to this motion for the extension of the 30 days, I would like to see that same sort of treatment. It is a private member's bill on which members should feel free to vote as they like without having to feel that there's a consequence if they have to abide by the party line.

I'm not convinced that we have heard the arguments or the rationale or the motivation or the reasons for why we should be having a positive vote outcome.

This is other than the fact, and the only justification I've heard, that by voting yes, it will enable us to get an extension so that we could have more amendments brought to it.

To prevent it from going on the normal path that every other private member's bill, from what I understand, since these rules have been instituted.... I do not believe, nor have I been advised or told by anyone—which is why I would look across the table and I would challenge members to provide us information—that any private member's bill prior to this one has had a request for a 30-day or any sort of extension in committee.

Has there been? If that is not the case, then I would caution members as to why and what we're doing before we start with a vote saying, yes, I'm voting in favour of this 30 days.

I would think that this would be an ill-informed way to place a vote, because we are changing the way in which we are treating a private member's bill. I think that's to the detriment of the process.

So my challenge to members, Mr. Chair, is that before we allow this issue to ultimately come to a vote, members reflect on that.

I don't know if it's maybe even more appropriate for us to consider suspending for a bit so that members would in fact have the opportunity, if they are not prepared to share their thoughts with committee members, to talk about the ramifications of what is actually being requested.

Let there be no doubt: if this 30-day extension is given, we are denying this bill, not necessarily.... I don't always want to refer to Mr. Shory, because this private member's bill goes beyond an individual. It's the property of the House. There are many members, many members of the forces, and many individuals following the debate on this.

Mr. Chair, before we jump to giving this private member's bill treatment that no other private member's bill has ever received in the past and giving it an extension, I want people to understand why. What is the motivating factor?

Today the motivating factor for this extension request is wrong, I believe. That is why I would highly recommend, using that reasoning, that members not support voting in favour of this, and that is why I have made the determination that it's not in our best interest to do so.

I'll hold my comments at that, Mr. Chair, in anticipation that there might be others who will be commenting on this. I'll reserve the opportunity to add a few more words before we conclude.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Lamoureux.

Ms. Sitsabaiesan.

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

I'll strike myself off the list for now.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Sims.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

We're here today to debate the motion before us, which is in two paragraphs, that actually requests an extension of 30 days. It requests an extension for Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces).

It is here before us, and we have to ask ourselves why it is here for an extension. The committee has heard witnesses. The committee has had an opportunity to move amendments, albeit they were ruled out of scope. The committee has done all of those things.

The natural process at that stage is that the bill goes to the House of Commons, which is where it will be deemed to have been reported on June 21. We are opposed to this extension because this undoes or tries to redirect private members' business through a different process.

We believe that this bill has had all the witnesses as agreed to by all the parties. We listened to them and we had our opportunities to question them. If I remember correctly, the minister came in as well, and we had that opportunity.

As far as the committee business part of it is concerned, the committee has addressed this bill through its natural rinse cycle. It's gone through that rinse cycle, so now it will be reported in the House, as you said earlier.

What this motion does is try to get enough time to achieve an expansion of scope. That, I believe, is contrary to what governs and surrounds private members' bills. As you know, when private members' bills are introduced, there are certain limitations on them. People with far greater minds than mine rule on amendments, whoever they come from, whether they come from the opposition or from government, as to their admissibility. As you know, the amendments that were brought forward were inadmissible, so I'm not going to talk about the amendments.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

There have never been any amendments brought forward. There's never been any debate.

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

No debate, but they were not admitted.