Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 13th, 2013

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I agree with you, Mr. Chairperson.

That's what we're getting to when we talk about a consensus versus a majority in terms of looking for support for the chair. You have a way as the chair to seek guidance from a committee. Generally speaking, the chairperson will get a sense of the direction the committee would like to be able to go. Based on that direction and using the standing orders and committee proceedings, using traditions and things that have happened in the past, a chairperson will try to facilitate the business of the committee by ensuring that all members are afforded, for example, the opportunity to be able to speak; that all members are being respectfully listened to in the form of decorum; also that individual's rights are in fact being protected within the committee.

Here, it has been pointed out by Rathika, we have a rule that says that at the end of the day, members should be able to speak. It's virtually endless at the committee stage. It's a well-established rule, Mr. Chairperson. You have made the fair ruling in terms of your position as chairperson after you were challenged by the government that the question be put. But it's the consequence of these rulings that need to be talked about. We need to realize that there's a bit of frustration that has been occurring over the last period of time that has ultimately driven the government to challenge your ruling.

What was your ruling? Your ruling was to allow for debate to be able to continue. Then Mr. Dykstra, on behalf of the government, feeling frustrated, asked that the question now be put. By doing that, Mr. Chairperson, Mr. Dykstra knows that he has a majority of the members on the committee. Mr. Dykstra knows what the typical process is at a committee meeting. He understands and he appreciates the rule that Rathika read off, a rule that was read last week. It is very clear. We have a government member who is very much aware of the rules. What he has done is he has challenged—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

On a point of order, Mr. Menegakis.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

My point of order is simply the member is debating a completely different issue now. He's trying to get into—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm going to give him a bit of leeway.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

He's right. Try to stay on topic. The issue is should the question be put.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

We have to be a little sensitive here in the sense that if you interrupt quite often, Mr. Chairperson, one can easily lose the train of thought. I don't think that is helpful in terms of what's happening right now.

At the end of the day, Mr. Dykstra knew full well that by moving this motion, that the motion he was moving was wrong. He knew that. He knew he could not stop debate on the motion. Knowing that, he tried to bring it to an end.

You as the chairperson had an obligation to respect what the rules are and what they state. It's very clear in terms of what the rules say. The government compromised you, Mr. Chairperson, by saying they were going to force you to abide by going their way, not with what the rules were saying. They thought they could force you as a chairperson to support a majority party position on the issue, and that's in fact what they've done, Mr. Chair. It didn't matter. You have an obligation, as chairperson, to review our rules, and you made the right decision. You were prepared to allow the committee to go. Then, using the majority of the committee, the government challenged your ruling, knowing full well that as long as they voted as a block, it would, in fact, end the debate, even if it meant going against the rules.

Even the government House leader, Mr. Chairperson, hasn't been as bold as members of this committee in terms of overruling the chair. The government House leader, for example, will bring in a time allocation. Time allocation is in the rules. Could you imagine if the government did exactly what the committee members on the government benches did here, Mr. Chair, where the chairperson makes a ruling, such as you did, and since they don't like the ruling because it doesn't facilitate their agenda—it has nothing to do with the rules and everything to do with their agenda—they then challenge the ruling?

What would happen if we took that same principle in terms of what we just witnessed now and we applied that principle into the House of Commons? I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairperson, that we would have chaos. This is happening in a committee room, out of the view of Canadians. I don't see a litany of media observing what's taking place in the committee room. If this same behaviour was occurring in the House of Commons, it would not be tolerated. The government should be in fact withdrawing or ideally following my comments and apologizing to the committee.

Let's maybe give them a bit of slack here and say that maybe they didn't understand the consequence of what it was that Mr. Dykstra was proposing. I think they need to understand that by challenging you as the chair, Mr. Chair, what they've done is.... I have never witnessed anything of this nature in my years of being a parliamentarian, and I just think it's a dangerous direction.

Whether we want to see the committee end in five minutes, an hour, or two hours is secondary. I just don't believe it's healthy for democracy when we see behaviour of this nature taking place, where you have a majority, in essence, overriding the rules and manipulating the chair to the degree to which you have been compromised.

I believe, Mr. Chair, that you have been compromised. It would be my intention, at some point after trying to get a better understanding of what I've witnessed here this morning, to raise the issue inside the House, if, in fact, it's not resolved in a more positive way. This is indeed a matter of privilege that has a very profound impact.

Could you imagine if every committee were to take the same sort of attitude? It could virtually shut everything down. This is not healthy. It's not the way in which we should be dealing with legislation. It is not the way in which we should be behaving inside the committee.

I was here last week and there were some things that may have occurred that should not have occurred, but nothing to the same extreme as what we witnessed just now.

I'm not speaking in an attempt to try to filibuster in any fashion. I'm going to conclude my remarks on that. Suffice it to say, I do have a lot I would like to be able to say on the subject. I hope I get the opportunity to deal with that, but if we don't see a change of attitude I suspect that I won't, Mr. Chairperson. I think that would be most tragic because it would be something that I don't think any one of us should be proud of.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Lamoureux.

Ms. Sims has the floor.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Can we have some order, please?

Ms. Sims.

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

There are a number of points I want to make before I get into the substance.

First of all, I realize and respect the decision you made as the chair. Also, you were overruled, then we had to go back and debate the previous question. What I am still struggling with is that the rules that exist in this House, they exist for reasons. When I look at page 1056, under “Amendments”, it says:

...there is no limit on the number of amendments that may be moved; however, only one amendment and one subamendment may be considered by a committee at one time.

So your ruling that there could be no further amendments, I find really confusing.

The other one is:

Debate on the main motion is suspended, and the amendment is debated until it has been decided. Debate on the main motion then resumes, whether or not it has been amended.

Those are the rules.

I know the government has a majority, and it has used its majority like a hammer in the House to set time allocations. But right here at this committee, it is using its majority to go way beyond what I believe are all the rules we have around parliamentarian privileges to be able to speak. There is no time limit or number of times a person can speak to a motion in committee.

I feel, with the chair's ruling, what he has said is that the question is not only on the amendment, but the question is going to be put on the whole motion straight after the amendment without any debate. In that process, I have to agree with my colleague that my privilege—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Sims, you've raised some points that I'd like to consider further. I'm speaking about the issue of further debate. I'm going to suspend for a few moments so I can confer further with the clerks.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We will suspend for a few moments.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay, you still have the floor, Ms. Sims, but I would like to make a couple of comments. You've raised an excellent point.

I have conferred further with the clerks. Everything I said as to the procedure is correct, with the exception that there will be no debate once this debate on the question be put is finished. There will be no debate on the amendment, but I am changing my position as a result of a conference with the clerks. There still would be debate on the main motion.

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

And there would be further amendments if people—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

No, there would be no further amendments, but there would be debate on the main motion. As soon as this debate is finished, we would vote on the amendment. There would be no further amendments. We would then move to the main motion.

I was incorrect when I said there was no debate on the motion. There would be a debate allowed on the motion.

You still have the floor, Ms. Sims.

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

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, just to remind me, are we now debating the motion to put the question?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Yes, we are.

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

And on the—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

The previous question.

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

The previous question on the amendment.

I am opposed to this. I believe there are members of this committee who still had things to say and have not said them. When we look at the rules that exist, there is no limit of time or of the number of times members can speak to an issue, especially when we're looking at motions such as this in committee.

We are not talking about a minor issue here. We're talking about something pretty substantial that is very important both to the opposition, and obviously, to government as well. Therefore I am opposed to the question being put at this time. As I said, we do not want to get into violating the privileges of parliamentarians, who are duly elected and then selected to come and sit on these committees so they can participate in debate to the fullest extent, whether it's on the main motion, the amendment, or the subamendment.

Also, when you're looking at it substantially, the amendment we're putting the question on is a pretty substantive amendment. What it does is it reaffirms a rule that already exists for private members' business, and that is the legislation we're looking at here. That's the only thing we're looking at here, and the seeking of an extension for that. When I take a look at that, I believe the amendment was accepted when it was moved. There was no challenge from the chair for accepting it, and the chair accepted it after full consultation and everything.

There was a previous amendment before this that was not acceptable according to the rules, and the chair ruled it out of order. This amendment was acceptable, so what we're dealing with here is a duly moved and accepted amendment. What I'm saying is that there are still points to be made.

I know we did debate the subamendment, but on the amendment itself, I have not had an opportunity to speak to it. Because we are talking about voting on the amendment that I've not had an opportunity to speak to yet, I would like to—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm sorry. Sometimes my voice carries, and I apologize.

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

No, it's not your fault. I think we're all working under some pretty unusual times, to say the least.

Ms. Sitsabaiesan moved her amendment. I really would like to exercise my parliamentary responsibility, duty, obligation, and right to be able to speak to this amendment before a question is put. I'm not asking for something unique, or a gift here, Mr. Chair. I'm asking for something that is actually—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Point of order. Mr. Dykstra.