Mr. Dusseault.
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.
1:55 p.m.
NDP
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Kevin Lamoureux
No, we deal with this one first.
Having sat in the chair and observed the chair previously, one of the things I noticed was that Mr. Tilson was very good at voicing an opinion, and often even posing a question.
Before I give my ruling on it, I want to share from an individual member of Parliament's perspective that I recognize the importance of question period. I do believe there is an expectation from all of our constituents that we participate in question period, and that it would be a mistake for the committee to not allow us to participate in question period, because it's one of the cornerstones.
This is simply an opinion as the chair and you can respond to it.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Kevin Lamoureux
You don't even know what my ruling is. I'm going to be ruling in your favour, so you might want to hold off before you challenge the ruling.
This is a personal opinion that I have, and Mr. Tilson has expressed his thoughts on it.
Having said that, yesterday we sat through question period. There is nothing in the rules that specifically allows us to suspend for question period. It was my intention at two o'clock to suspend, believing that would have been the will of the committee, given the expressions that have been given. I understand that in order for us to suspend at this time, because of the expressions, there would have to be a motion brought forward by Ms. Groguhé, and ultimately that motion would have to be voted on. If it was defeated, we would continue on.
The only way in which we can actually suspend at this point is if Ms. Groguhé were to introduce a motion that would have us suspend so we could attend question period and then come back. Failing that motion and direction from the committee, we will continue to sit.
Ms. Groguhé, you have the floor and it will be up to you whether or not to move the motion because the floor is yours, unless there are any other points of order.
On a point of order, Monsieur Dusseault.
1:55 p.m.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
I want to comment on another issue. I simply want to make sure that the rules have been properly followed. I am not a permanent member. I had to be officially replaced, and I informed the clerk of that. I wanted to know whether Mr. Del Mastro had done the same thing in order to speak within this committee.
2 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Kevin Lamoureux
Yes, you've been officially substituted. You are a voting member of the committee, and so is Mr. Del Mastro.
Ms. Groguhé, you may continue.
2 p.m.
NDP
Sadia Groguhé NDP Saint-Lambert, QC
Mr. Chair, I have listened carefully to the arguments raised with respect to my colleague's question, which had to do with attending question period. I agree with the idea that a request must be made in order to suspend our work so that we can attend question period. As my colleague said, it's important. Even though our work is very important, it is just as important that we attend question period.
So I move a motion that we suspend our work and that we resume after question period. I call for a vote.
2 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Kevin Lamoureux
To clarify, Sadia, you are moving a motion that we suspend. Is that correct?
2 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, there's a motion on the floor that we're debating, and now she's moving another motion before that motion has been voted on. If she would like to move that motion, why don't we vote on the extension and then we'll vote on her motion to go to question period?
2 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Kevin Lamoureux
Rick, what the clerk has told me is that she can move the motion to suspend because she has the floor even though there is a motion, but it is a votable motion. That means if you want to continue sitting, you just vote against it.
For clarification purposes, Sadia, are you're now moving a motion to suspend?
2 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Kevin Lamoureux
All those in favour of Sadia's motion, please raise your hand.
All those opposed, raise your hand.
2 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Kevin Lamoureux
There has been a request for a recorded vote. The nays would appear to have it, but we've been requested—
2 p.m.
Conservative
Costas Menegakis Conservative Richmond Hill, ON
It's already done. It's over.
You do it before the vote.
2 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Kevin Lamoureux
Technically, that's the chair's mistake, so I will ask the clerk to count the names for the recorded vote. It only takes a minute, then it's resolved.
(Motion negatived: nays 5; yeas 3)
The motion is defeated.
Ms. Groguhé, you have the floor to continue on the motion itself.
2 p.m.
NDP
Sadia Groguhé NDP Saint-Lambert, QC
Very well, Mr. Chair.
So I was saying that two related problems stem from this fact.
First of all, the minister just circumvented the work done by the committee members by imposing his amendments on his parliamentary secretary and on the committee. Then—and this is the heart of the matter—the bill of the member for Calgary Northeast practically disappeared because of government amendments.
As a result, we cannot really speak about a private member's bill. Rather we are interpreting it as a government bill. This practice is another attack by the Conservatives of parliamentary institutions. What is worrisome about all of this is that suddenly our work is focused on a false content. Let me explain.
These meetings, which took place over two months, were not really about the actual content of the bill. The real bill is the minister's imposing amendments to the bill of the member for Calgary Northeast.
Given that the Parliamentary Secretary took so long to share written amendments imposed by the minister, we weren't able to question witnesses about the minister's amendments. We were not really able to do our work. And mostly, the amended version of the bill would not have been a private member's bill, but a government bill. That hijacks the process and, above all, limits the scope of our work as members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.
Moreover, on May 21, 2013, the Speaker of the House ruled on a point of order raised by the hon. member for Toronto-Centre regarding this report, as I said previously. Although the Speaker found it admissible, the report's content gave rise to a number of questions and, above all, a number of reservations. By that very fact, we are in a position to insist on the fact that permission to broaden the scope of the bill can hardly be granted and we must be able to examine these aspects much more thoroughly. This is a whole different ball game, and we cannot go forward with a bill with a scope that has been broadened and no longer resembles its initial version, which had an objective of honouring the Canadian Forces.
We also note that, as I said earlier, there are considerations that highlight the amendments we are considering with respect to broadening the bill. The initial bill was aimed at reducing the wait time by one year for granting citizenship to any permanent resident who is a member of the Canadian Forces and who has signed a minimum three-year contract and completed basic training. If we were considering just that, this bill could be passed by unanimous consent. We would have had no need to debate it because it is a completely commendable proposal. However, complications arose after the statements of the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism who, in proposing these amendments, tried to change the bill to revoke citizenship.
There is an essential and important difference between a private member's bill, like the one we have here, and a government bill. A distinction must be made between these two types of bill, which are extremely different. Government bills must receive constitutional approval by the Minister of Justice, in accordance with the Department of Justice Act.
In other words, when measures like this are presented for a private member's bill, we circumvent the long-standing process that enables us to determine whether legislative processes are consistent with the Constitution of Canada. If we are in a position to do these evaluations, we can determine whether there is a litigation risk when a bill is proposed and implemented. These risks must be assessed and taken into account by the Department of Justice, which leads us to wonder whether this bill, as some witnesses mentioned, is constitutional or whether there is a litigation risk. Those were the questions we asked ourselves beforehand.
In simple terms, section 10 of the Citizenship Act already sets out a process for revoking citizenship. The process states that should a person obtain citizenship through fraud, false representation…
2:10 p.m.
NDP
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims) NDP Jinny Sims
I'm sorry, Madam Groguhé, but I have to interrupt you.
I want to let members know that I did seek agreement from the parliamentary secretary to see if someone in one of our speaking spots, which is the next one, could switch spots with Mr. Lamoureux.
It does not affect other people on the list, because it is the same kind of switch that we did the other day.
I believe we have agreement, and with that understanding—
2:10 p.m.
Conservative
Costas Menegakis Conservative Richmond Hill, ON
Mr. Lamoureux was not on the list. After your speaker was Mr. Dykstra.
When you started the day—
2:10 p.m.
NDP
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims) NDP Jinny Sims
No, nobody's changed the list.
Let me go over it again. It was Madam Groguhé, then Rathika, and then Rick.
What we're doing is Kevin, who was further down the list, is changing spots with Rathika, and Rathika will go further down the list. In other words, Mr. Dykstra will still have the third spot.
2:10 p.m.
Conservative
2:10 p.m.
NDP
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims) NDP Jinny Sims
No, she'll be here. She's on her way. That's not the issue.
