Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 13th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Leung.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Yes, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

The matter we're debating is that this request takes place in the House on June 21, 2013.

I don't really care what you did in business. I'd like to hear what your thoughts are, either for or against the amendment.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

I was just trying to bring the relevance of how these procedural issues are wasting an inordinate amount of time, and that in the normal course of doing things expeditiously, perhaps we should then put the question to a vote.

I am opposed to this amendment because I think, given the questions that surround the discussion of this bill and the fine-tuning of it, the additional period is necessary for us to bring a bill to the House that makes more sense, that addresses the needs of Canadians. We need that additional 30 days for consultation, for hearing more expert witnesses, as required by our representative positions here in Parliament.

Also, seeing there is a procedural issue regarding whether the House will rise before that date, I absolutely feel the 30-day extension is necessary. We should put that to a question.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Weston, you have the floor.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I add to the welcome back. Thank you for focusing, as you are, on the matters at hand.

I would like to refer to two points that speak to the proposed amendment by Ms. Sitsabaiesan. First, the amendment, if passed, risks procedure overwhelming substance. Secondly, it could also jeopardize the important privileges of a private member to enable him to have his bill progress in fair and just procedures through our House.

The first thing is that this amendment, if passed, could ultimately kill the bill for procedural reasons, and that is because it proposes that the consideration of the bill in the House occur on a day after the House may indeed rise. Practically speaking, everybody in this room knows that may be the case.

Time after time over the centuries, natural justice has prevailed in suggesting that procedure should not overwhelm substance.

If we let the process take precedence over the content this will mean that we parliamentarians will not have the opportunity to focus on the content. The content here is citizenship, terrorism and the convergence of those two things.

It is very important that we not allow procedure...

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm sorry, Mr. Weston.

On a point of order, Ms. Sitsabaiesan.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I apologize for interrupting my colleague, Mr. Weston. However, my point of order is that we are speaking to the amendment that is before us right now, and we know, once again, that in the amendment, the motion, or in the bill that we are debating as a whole, there is no mention of terrorism. Once again, I ask that government members do respect that this bill is not about combatting terrorism and that they do not continue to refer to that.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You're right, Ms. Sitsabaiesan.

Mr. Weston, could you stick to the amendment, please?

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

That's exactly what I'm doing. I don't understand.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

No, no, you're going a little far, and as I've tried to explain, we will allow a certain amount of that, but try to stick to the amendment. It says that the request is to take place in the House on June 21st, 2013. That is what we're debating.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

But the point of that is—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I don't want to argue with you, sir.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

—it would—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I don't want to argue with you.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

I'm not arguing.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay, then continue on with your debate.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

My debate is that if we allow this to pass, the bill could not be heard Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday, but only this Friday. Given that could mean the bill would never be heard, that would be a prevailing of procedure over substance, and something that natural justice and our parliamentary procedures would militate against.

That's a key point.

Secondly, Mr. Chair, we have in front of us a private member's bill, and having seen my own private member's bill, Bill C-475, pass through the previous session of Parliament and knowing how hard it is to get a bill to this stage, knowing how hard Mr. Shory has fought to get his bill to this stage, knowing how open-minded he has been in accepting amendments, and knowing how Canadians have rallied around the substance here, and knowing how, Mr. Chair, I've even spoken in the House about private members' privileges, it's difficult—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Weston, the matter before us is whether or not this request is to take place in the House on June 21st.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

So my point is that it's really critical for him to proceed and I'd like to call the question on this matter, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm going to make the same ruling that I did before, that your request is out of order.

Mr. Dykstra.

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

I'm going to challenge you on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?

[Some hon.members]

Agreed.

No.