A point of order, Mr. Chair.
Evidence of meeting #84 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #84 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
On this argument Mr. Giguère is making that a parliamentarian has the right to be heard, I just want to point out that I would also argue that the rest of the parliamentarians who are here have the right to hear that parliamentarian speak about the issue and topic at hand.
Thank you.
NDP
Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Mr. Chair, I challenge your ruling. What you just did is unacceptable.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Of course.
The question is, shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)
Ms. Sims, you have the floor.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Thank you very much, Chair.
Before I start speaking, I have to....
NDP
Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
I would like to be put back on the list of speakers, please.
Excuse me.
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
I just have to say, before I actually get to making my substantive argument, that I do have to express my concern around duly elected members of Parliament who are sitting at this committee not being able to express their arguments—
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We've passed that. We're on to debating the motion. I'd like to hear your comments on the motion.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
You will, Chair, but surely the chair is not saying that I can't make any other comment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
You're commenting on something that we just dealt with and has nothing to do with the motion.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Well, what we're here today to debate is the extension of Bill C-425 so that the government can get an expanded scope in the House. This could have been achieved in a variety of ways, and one of them was through—
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
I don't know why, but there seems to be this sticking to the other ways this could have been dealt with. Well, the way this was dealt with is in the motion before us. If there's a comment about the motion itself, I completely understand. I don't have to hear it, but I will hear it.
To now repeat the exact same arguments that Mr. Giguère has made for the last 20 minutes isn't conducive to the rules of order of our committee or of any committee. We should be hearing a new argument or something different, other than what the five issues may have been that this could have been brought forward under.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Unless Mr. Dykstra knows what I was going to say.... I had no intention of revisiting the five, because I do not know...I don't have the book in front of me. I was going to speak to the perspective that this request, this motion, is waiting its turn in the House to come up as a concurrent motion. That is related to the time for the extension, and that is the proper way. To seek this extension gives this piece of legislation we're dealing with, the private member's bill, a whole new life that private members' bills are usually not prone to.
As a result, when I look at this...the process that exists in the House is that when you have a concurrent motion, you get to debate that for three hours. The government has different ways to bring concurrent motions there, and it has not done so, so far. As a result, they're now seeking an extension so they can move their motion in the House. I'm opposed to that for a number of reasons, the first being that it will go beyond the purview of a private member's bill by expanding the scope.
