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.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims) NDP Jinny Sims
Mr. Menegakis, is it on the same point of order?
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Costas Menegakis Conservative Richmond Hill, ON
No. The member apologized, so there's no need for me to say anything.
Thank you.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims) NDP Jinny Sims
Okay. I am going to remind all members of the committee that we have a motion on the floor and I'm going to encourage them to relate the comments they are making to the request for an extension with the understanding that this is not a yes or no, that there is room to debate.
In that debate, whatever points you make have to relate back and be relevant, and yes, it can be a rationale for why you're going to be moving one way or the other.
That is my advice to all committee members on both sides of the table and from all parties.
We will proceed with Ms. Sitsabaiesen.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Thank you once again, Madam Chair.
To continue on this one reason as to why I will not be supporting the motion to extend the study period for another 30 days, the sponsor of the bill mentioned that this bill would actually allow for more permanent residents to integrate into Canadian society quicker, better, and with firmer roots, but the problem is that having permanent residency is not part of the qualifications of serving in the armed forces.
When we had members of the armed forces presenting to us as witnesses, they mentioned that only about 50 permanent residents actually serve in the armed forces and 14 in the reserves. I'm not sure from the testimony if it was 14 who fell within the 50 number or if it was 14 more. It was also mentioned, Madam Chair, that it would represent less than 0.5% of the actual Canadian Forces planned intake for a year. It's interesting that it was also mentioned where we could find the policy that established the Canadian Forces enrollment requirements.
They also told us that yes, on their recruitment website it does say that you must be a Canadian citizen. However, when we spoke about how there are actual permanent residents on there, they said if you have special skills, they will target you and ask you to join the forces—or special types of recruitment, and that would be as a non-commissioned member. No. I'm sorry, my apologies.... Actually, that is correct. “In order to be eligible for enrollment in the Canadian Forces as an officer or a non-commissioned member, a person must”—I'm quoting a professor—“(a) be a Canadian citizen, except that the Chief of the Defence Staff or such officer”—
3:55 p.m.
NDP
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims) NDP Jinny Sims
Excuse me, Ms. Sitsabaiesen, I'm sorry to interrupt you again.
I always feel terrible, no matter who the speaker or on which side of the table they sit, when we have a number of interruptions, because I know the kind of impact it has on the person who has the floor to speak. I have reminded members a number of times to stay on topic, but that does not mean it's yes or no. Staying on topic means you have to relate back to the motion that's there in some way.
Mr. Dykstra, did you have a point of order?
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Yes. I think Ms. Rempel is going to make the same point of order that I am, so she's—
3:55 p.m.
NDP
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims) NDP Jinny Sims
Mr. Dykstra, why don't you make it now that you have the floor?
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
NDP
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims) NDP Jinny Sims
Once again, you have every right to pass and then I will take the next speaker on the list, because you don't get to choose who it should go to, right? If you want to make a point of order, that is fine. Otherwise I have to go down my speakers list.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Sure. My point of order is, again, to go back to relevance. Quoting witnesses and saying things like, “Oh look, this is a professor”, shows that it's a meandering process, not bringing this back to relevance.
Quoting from individuals, organizations, or spokespeople as it relates to why a private member's bill should be granted a 30-day extension, and why this motion is here, is fair game. I don't have any problem with that. There are a lot of people who have quoted and who have positions on whether a 30-day extension should be granted or not granted for private members' bills. But the individuals she is quoting are witnesses who came to this committee to speak specifically to Mr. Shory's private member's bill, not to the relevance or non-relevance of a 30-day extension.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims) NDP Jinny Sims
On the same point of order, we'll go over to Mr. Harris.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Again, what I hear Mr. Dykstra saying is that she can't be relevant because she made a mistake and she had to correct herself. If someone is saying that we don't want to grant a further extension for consideration of this bill, uses the fact that all this discussion took place under the consideration of the bill by the committee, and wants to review some of it as part of why she thinks that the consideration was thorough and doesn't need any more time, that as a private member's bill.... It's a private member's bill that we're talking about here, not a bill manipulated by the minister in the House, which is what this extension is for.
She's talking about the evidence that was given for the private member's bill, not the one the minister wants. The private member's bill had evidence, and she's talking about that evidence, and she's talking about why she considers that evidence and that discussion sufficient, I'm assuming. But she hasn't even been given a chance to say that, because Mr. Dykstra thinks she made a mistake when she was misquoting a particular piece of information.
That's really, Madam Chair, abusing the member who is trying to make a point and trying to finish her speech.
It's a point of interruption, not a point of order.
3:55 p.m.
An hon. member
Point of order.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims) NDP Jinny Sims
Excuse me.
I am once again going to remind people to raise their hands.
I will recognize you and then we will proceed in an orderly manner. I know that we've been here since 8:30 this morning after a very few hours of sleep, so people are a little bit on the tired side, and maybe we're forgetting the way that this committee has operated.
I don't know where some other members who are new to the committee have come from, but I've sat on this committee for over two years, and this committee has operated in such a way that when we've had debate and discussion on items, it has never been yes or no. Members have been allowed to present their points of view as long as they can relate it back to the topic at the table.
We had a point of order. We had a response to the point of order.
If this is on the same point of order, then I will go to Ms. Rempel.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Centre-North, AB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
To Mr. Harris' comment about how the member is being treated, I would actually go to some of your rulings that you've just made. I believe that anyone who checks our Hansard or the televised proceedings will see that you've reminded my colleague opposite to stay on topic several times.
Page 1048 of O'Brien and Bosc outlines disorder and misconduct in the committee and states that they may arise “as a result of the failure to abide by the rules and practices of a committee or to respect the authority of the Chair”.
One of those things, I would assume, is to override your decision, so I think that per that section of O'Brien and Bosc, we're almost getting to a situation where we might have to report this to the House. I would put it on the table that since there has been this consistent inability to relate the speech back to the motion at hand, this is a serious problem that this committee needs to consider.
4 p.m.
NDP
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims) NDP Jinny Sims
I want to remind members that if there is too much disorder, an adjournment takes place at that stage. I do have that right, as a chair. If I feel that harassment or other things are going on that are not welcome at this committee in the way of decorum, I will adjourn the meeting, because that is one of the few tools I have in order to ensure decorum at a committee.
I also want to remind people that I have urged everybody whenever they speak not to get too repetitive—although all of us being parliamentarians, we can't help but be somewhat repetitive—and also to stick to the topic, with the understanding that when you're speaking to either a yea or a nay on a motion, you are going to refer to your brain bank or to things you've heard at committee in order to give a rationale for where you're going. That's what I keep urging everybody to do.
In light of that, I'm going to continue to urge everybody to do that.
I have Mr. Opitz next.
4 p.m.
NDP
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims) NDP Jinny Sims
Sorry, my apologies.
It's Mr. Morin, and I've got my French ear on.
4 p.m.
NDP
Dany Morin NDP Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Thank you very much.
However, it is a new point of order. Do you want me—
4 p.m.
NDP
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims) NDP Jinny Sims
Can you hold on to that new point of order? I will go to Mr. Opitz.
4 p.m.
NDP
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims) NDP Jinny Sims
Thank you.
As I said previously, after a very long day—and reminding people that we are here about an extension of 30 days—the extension doesn't sit in a vacuum about nothing. The extension is on a specific piece of legislation in order to do things to it. So, please, let's be patient with each other and allow debate to happen, and let's be respectful.
I'll try to say it in a more neutral way. Let's be respectful of the person making their points. Because I know if I were speaking and there were constant interruptions, they could be seen as a nuisance and I could feel upset or intimidated.
What I'm urging people to do is to stay on topic and let's proceed.
Mr. Morin, do you have a different point of order?
4 p.m.
NDP
Dany Morin NDP Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Yes, Madam Chair. I think you're very kind, because I would like to raise a point of—
4 p.m.
NDP
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims) NDP Jinny Sims
I've been told many things, but not that today.
