Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 13th, 2013

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

With respect to my point of order, I would like to say that the Conservative member mentioned the repetitive nature of my colleague's speech. I don't agree. Since I have just joined this committee, it is crucial information that I need so that I can understand the issues and make decisions.

The individuals who have been a part of this committee's deliberations for several hours now may have already heard these comments, but it is the first time for me. Since I am participating in this committee's work today, I need all the information required to get an idea of the issues and vote in good conscience on issues affecting the future of Canadians.

For those reasons, I remind everyone that it is important that my colleague go over these issues again.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

I want to remind my colleagues that MP Sitsabaiesan has only had the floor for less than 15 minutes, and she is starting her speech. I have reminded her to include new points, to pay attention to relevancy, and to proceed with that in mind. That is the direction I have given.

Now I will go to Mr. Dykstra.

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

I'm going to let Ms. Rempel finish her point. I do have a point of relevance to Mr. Morin's interjection, but I think that Ms. Rempel needs to finish her point.

[Michelle Rempel]

Madam Chair, to my colleague opposite, I'm not a regular member of this committee either, and I've been following the rivetting testimony here through various other means. I believe a lot of it is put in Hansard.

I just wanted to clarify that per that point, my understanding is that the need for robust witness testimony is something that has been clearly established in committee. Therefore, any testimony put under that category would be deemed repetitive per page 1049 of O'Brien and Bosc.

Is that your ruling?

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

My ruling right now is that the member who is speaking has been told to keep her comments relevant and not to be too repetitive.

[Michelle Rempel]

Just to be clear, the need for robust witness testimony is something that would be repetitive.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

We are not talking about robust witness testimony. There are no witnesses here. We have members who are debating an extension motion, and that is what is going to be debated today.

[Michelle Rempel]

I'm not understanding what you're ruling, Madam Chair. Was my colleague opposite in order and not repetitive, or was she repetitive?

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

You raised a concern that the member was being repetitive, and as any chair would do, I've urged her to pay attention to that.

[Michelle Rempel]

Excellent. Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

Mr. Dykstra, you passed, right?

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

Yes, I pass.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

Back to you, Ms. Sitsabaiesan.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's great that many government members are interested in immigration and this bill. It goes to show the government's interest in this bill.

I'll address the topic of acts of war and the problems with that, Madam Chair. We know what Colonel Gibson mentioned about those two words and moving forward, we have—

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

Just hold on a minute please, Ms. Sitsabaiesan.

Ms. Rempel, I'm hoping you have a different point of order.

[Michelle Rempel]

I'm actually referring to the previous point of order, which you ruled against and was overturned. I believe that my colleague's content was therefore ruled out of order, and the acts of war comment that she was making is no longer relevant.

I believe that she was supposed to move on to a new topic of debate.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

She is talking about the reasons she will be speaking for or against the amendment.

[Michelle Rempel]

We did overrule that. Is that correct?

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

At the same time, she is here and has the right to speak to the issue. She has the floor. I will remind the member not to be repetitive and not to stray beyond the area of relevancy.

We will proceed.

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

Thank you again, Madam Chair.

Issues that were articulated very clearly before by constituents who have written to me and by front-line workers are important for me to mention here, Madam Chair. I don't believe it is irrelevant. I find it interesting that a member is thinking that it's not relevant.

Nevertheless, let's talk about how much international law has shied away from using the concept and instead inclines to use the term “armed conflict”. The concept of act of war is not defined in Canadian law but when the colonel was here, he mentioned to us that armed conflict is a term that is used in international law but armed conflict is not mentioned in the bill itself. The term “armed conflict” already appears in a number of places in our federal statutes. He has suggested that maybe we should include that, but I won't go into more detail from his testimony than that, Madam Chair.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

We have another point of order.

[Michelle Rempel]

Going back to page 1049 of O'Brien and Bosc and looking at the matter of relevancy, I don't see how my colleague is tying her testimony into the subject of the motion before committee, which is a request to extend the debate on this particular bill. That point has not been made, and therefore I believe her current topic is irrelevant.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

I will remind my colleague to make sure that her topic remains relevant and on the clause and refers back to the motion that is before the committee. There is some latitude but not so much latitude that we can stray into other areas.

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

Absolutely, Madam Chair. Maybe I should clarify.

When I'm speaking of some of the items that are identified in the bill and why it's relevant to the motion at hand requesting an extension of further debate and why it's not necessary is that the amendments the government has put forward have changed the scope of the bill. I didn't want to repeat myself because I had mentioned this, and I figured my honourable colleague had heard and understood that part.

When the scope of a bill is changed so dramatically in committee that it doesn't make sense, it isn't necessary to give that extra time because it's deemed to be a different bill. It doesn't make sense for us to debate this new bill that wasn't presented to the House.

The committees are creatures of the House of Commons chamber itself. When a committee receives a bill from the House and the committee decides to.... I know that committees are masters of their own destiny; however, they are creatures of the House. When a committee receives a bill, such as Bill C-425, in its original form and then the committee—because there's a majority of government members and they have introduced multiple amendments that have changed the bill so much that the scope of the bill has changed from the original bill—it doesn't need to report that back. That is why, Madam Chair, it is important for us to have this discussion today and say that it's not necessary for this motion—

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

I have to apologize because there is another interruption. I know that you're just getting into your speech, but we do have a point of order and that does take precedence.