Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 13th, 2013

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

I'm not saying it should become our practice.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Let's move on to debating the motion.

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

Here we are today debating a motion that sits before us. I'm not going to read it out to everybody. I want to thank the clerk for giving us a clean copy, because all of us have a tendency to doodle and write on them. We had motions before us with amendments and subamendments, and here we are, having dealt with the subamendments and the amendments, back to the main motion. The main motion actually asks the House for a 30-day extension in order to facilitate a request for an expansion of the scope of the bill.

Mr. Chair, pursuant to your rulings yesterday, I'm very aware I cannot talk about what that expanded scope would look like, but I can certainly talk about the fact that that's what the request is about, and that's what I'm here to do today. As far as we are concerned—and I certainly am concerned—Bill C-425 has gone through the process. The process was actually truncated—and this is a new point that I am making here—by government action. That truncation occurred when the meetings were adjourned and a motion was moved to get an expansion of the scope from the House. That's exactly what happened.

We then wasted many, many committee meeting hours and days when we did not meet because we were waiting for the House to deal with the issue of the expansion of the scope. The House still has not dealt with that, and that's why we are here now seeking a 30-day extension. I think that's where I have to emphasize the fact that this member's bill has had due diligence and will run out its timelines in committee on June 21, because of the 60-day rule that exists in the House.

What we have here now is a way to extend that June 21 date by adding another 30 working days. This request has to go before the House and has to get before the House before or on June 21 at the latest.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Menegakis has a point of order.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Chair, this is a broken record: we've heard exactly the same words over and over and over again. We don't need an explanation as to when it expires and when it doesn't expire a hundred times. We've heard it once, we've heard it twice. This is getting pretty close to a hundred times, I might add. It's really repetitive.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You're right, Mr. Menegakis. I'm trying to give her some leeway because I assume she's leading to something else, but you're right.

At this point you are being repetitive, Ms. Sims, so could you get to your point please?

Madame Groguhé has a point of order.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Another point of order.

Ms. Sims is talking about what appears in the motion that seeks the 30-day extension. If the extension were agreed upon, where would those 30 days take us to on the parliamentary calendar? Can the clerk tell us?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Give me a moment, please.

I'm going to suspend for a minute while I confer with the clerk.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We will continue.

Madame Groguhé, after consulting with the clerk, if the House were to rise on June 21, it would indeed, and if the House granted the order to extend the time, there would be 30 days. If the House granted an order of extension today and the House adjourned today, there would be 33 days.

It all depends, first, on whether the House grants an order and, second, on when the House grants that order. What is being said about June 21 is right to a degree, but who knows what's going to happen. If the House were to rise today, and an order were granted today, it would be 33 days.

Does that answer your question?

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Yes, absolutely. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Lamoureux, on the same point or another point?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

On the same point, Mr. Chair, just again for clarification.

You say that if the House grants the order, but what happens if we as a committee do not pass it today or tomorrow, or it just doesn't pass before June 21 then?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm going to try, Mr. Lamoureux, and if the clerks correct me, I'll let them explain.

If nothing happens until June 21.... You know what? I don't want to mislead the members of the committee, so I'm going to let the clerk explain what the perception is.

As I understand it, if it's not reported back on June 21, the bill is deemed to be reported back without amendments.

Madam Clerk, perhaps you could explain, so I don't confuse the issue.

[The Clerk]

When a private member's bill goes to committee, the committee has 60 sitting days to study it. The committee is allowed to make a one-time request of 30 additional days to study the bill further. If the House grants the extension request, the 30 days are added to the initial 60. In order to obtain those 30 extra days, the committee must make the request to the House, which makes the decision to grant them or not.

In this case, the 60 days end on June 21. So if the House breaks for the summer before June 21, any days remaining from that 60-day period will be postponed to the fall. If the committee has not requested an extension by June 21, the bill will be deemed referred as it currently stands, meaning in its original form, since no amendments have yet been made.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

If I understand correctly, Mr. Chair, if we, for example, were to adjourn today or tomorrow, that would mean that we still have the opportunity—it might be for only one or two days—to give the extension in the fall.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

That's my understanding.

Is everyone clear about that?

Ms. Sims.

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

Unless the House should adjourn and deem that we have sat until Friday, in which case then I think the 30 days are done. I'm just saying.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm not going to philosophize on that. I don't want to go there.

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

I just wanted to be clear that there are other things going on.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I don't want to go there. Listen, there are people who are more knowledgeable about the rules of this place than I, and I don't want to start “what if”, “what if”. I don't want to do that.

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

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I believe the questions that were asked by Madame Groguhé and Mr. Lamoureux were reasonable questions and, hopefully, we've answered those questions.

You still have the floor.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Try not to repeat.

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

I will, but as you said, Mr. Chair, we did adjourn last night, and we've come back. I think it's always good to refresh our grey brain cells a little bit.