Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 13th, 2013

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

Thank you.

I feel the way that democracy is being curtailed, that we're not being allowed the opportunity to speak, is actually not parliamentary. We see this type of behaviour in the House, and now it's starting to happen more and more in committee as well, Mr. Chair.

I believe it is my duty, or my right and privilege as a member of Parliament who is elected to represent almost 140,000 people in my constituency, that I should have the ability to speak to an amendment that is before the committee which I sit on, and that every member on this committee has that same right. With the actions of this government almost effectively making it a democratic dictatorship, we don't have that ability to do what we're supposed to do.

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

[Inaudible—Editor]

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Dykstra, Ms. Sitsabaiesan has the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I can't fathom this concept of continuing to just be arrogant. The word that keeps coming to my mind, Mr. Chair, is to bully. It is to be a big bully. They're bullying the system, rewriting the rules to suit their immediate needs at the time, and even belittling you and the position that you hold as the chair of this committee with the rights and the powers that are given to the chair through our procedures and policies, our procedures of operation. I really find it undemocratic the way that it's—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Sitsabaiesan, these points have already been made by Mr. Lamoureux. If you have anything new to add, please do, otherwise we'll move on.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I have sat at this committee for a long time and have taken part in other committees. I think that to cut off one member's right to speak and make a point because somebody else may have made it seems a little over the top. If different members have points of view and they have a right to express them, I'm hoping the chair will give them leeway. Just because I said something at the beginning should not limit what they talk about or how they say it.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Sitsabaiesan, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm certainly confused with the lights flashing, Mr. Chair. If bells are ringing....

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Strange things are happening in here. The lights flash, but now they're not. So you still have the floor.

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

I also want to refer to Standing Order 1, which clearly states:

In all cases not provided for hereinafter, or by other Order of the House, procedural questions shall be decided by the Speaker or Chair of Committees of the Whole, whose decisions shall be based on the usages, forms, customs and precedents of the House of Commons of Canada and on parliamentary tradition in Canada and other jurisdictions, so far as they may be applicable to the House.

With Standing Order 1, whenever there is something that is not clearly identified already in our rule books, the Speaker of the House or the chair has the authority to make that call based on common practice in our jurisdiction or similar jurisdictions, similar countries.

In this case, the point Mr. Lamoureux made earlier was that this type of behaviour is unprecedented, that the ruling of the chair be overturned in a manner that it was in a way that is contrary to our rules that are written down.

What I learned from Standing Order 1 is that, as chair, you actually have the ability to overturn the government member's choice to bully the position of the chair because the chair has the ability to look at what is done in other jurisdictions or other—let me get the right words from the Standing Order—yes, it is jurisdictions and parliamentary traditions.

Once again, it's going to the concept of practice and looking at O'Brien and Bosc on the topic of practice, it's described as follows:

Committee practice is the body of unwritten rules governing committee proceedings. It consists of procedures that have developed over time and are viewed as standard operating practice. For example, while there is no Standing Order to that effect, the normal practice is to have government Members sit to the right of a committee Chair and opposition Members sit to the left.

That's an example of where practice is what we look at when there is no written rule.

In this case, where there's no written rule, the chair can make a ruling looking at what common practice or historical practice is in our jurisdiction, or looking at similar jurisdictions. Whether that's this committee or another committee, what's practised in the House of Commons, or what's practised in a similar Westminster model of Parliament perhaps, the chair does have the leeway to do that.

With respect to whether the question be put, I will once again submit to you, Mr. Chair, that sufficient debate has not happened on the amendment itself and so the question should not be put.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Freeman.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would also like to argue that we go against the motion that this question now be put.

I think that I absolutely have the right to speak about the same issues that my colleagues have spoken about. That is based on the fact that there are no rules around whether or not a member can speak about things that have already been spoken on.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Freeman, I have made it quite—

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

I am getting to it.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm going to point out to you that I have this thing called a gavel, and when I speak, you stop speaking. I've already made a ruling that you cannot repeat what has already been said.

You're telling me that you're going to start to do that. I'm not going to let you do that. If you start doing that, we will move on to the next speaker.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

All right, Chair. Then what I would like to say very quickly—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Point of order, Ms. Sims.

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

Mr. Chair, MPs are elected and they have a right to speak. If you as the chair feel the meeting is so out of order, you can adjourn, but I am really objecting to the fact that MPs are being denied their right to speak at this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Sims, members have the right to speak and you know that. I'm going to read to you something on the topic of repetition which comes from O'Brien and Bosc:

Repetition is prohibited in order to safeguard the right of the House to arrive—

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

What page are you reading from so I can follow along?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Page 622. I'll wait until you find it.

Repetition is prohibited in order to safeguard the right of the House to arrive at a decision and to make efficient use of its time. Although the principle is clear and sensible, it has not always been easy to apply and the Speaker enjoys considerable discretion in this regard.

I underline the words, “the Speaker”—in this case I am the chairman of the committee—“enjoys considerable discretion in this regard”.

You still have the floor Ms. Sims...or Ms. Freeman.

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

A point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Point of order, Ms. Sims.

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

I believe that what you read out applies to what repetition applies to in the House, but what happens at committee, it's relevance. If you go to the reference that I read out earlier, it's exactly about relevancy and has very little to do with repetition.

What you've quoted are rules for the House.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Sims, I've made a ruling.

Ms. Freeman, you have the floor.