Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 13th, 2013

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

I really do appreciate that, Chair, and I apologize that I will be repeating myself somewhat, but I was screaming over here. I understand that we're all very frustrated by this process right now. I will just go over what I was trying to say.

Basically, this motion exists only because this committee needs to ask the House to expand the bill, and we cannot do that, as we have come to see, without our then passing this motion to extend by 30 sitting days. Therefore, our committee requests an extension because we need to ask that the House grant the power during consideration of Bill C-425 to expand the scope of the bill. As a result, we cannot speak about the request for an extension without speaking about the reason we have asked for an extension. That, Chair, is because we need to expand the scope, and I think as a result we are absolutely allowed to speak about expanding the scope.

What are the things that have called this committee to be in a position where we are expanding the scope? We know as members of this committee that—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

On a point of order, Mr. Dykstra.

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

On a point of order, while I don't agree with anything Ms. Freeman has said on the matter of an expansion of scope, putting my feelings aside, I would let her know that this is about a 30-day extension, not about an expansion of scope.

Ms. Groguhé actually said that the expansion of this bill greatly concerned her, because it was in fact a radical change from the original bill. She said that the original bill deserved to be reviewed, corrected, and obviously have some limitations fixed with regard to its content. She said the committee started to work for several sessions to eventually develop amendments.

Even though I'm pushing aside my argument that we shouldn't be talking about scope, Ms. Groguhé has already made the exact argument that Ms. Freeman is making right now—and it's actually in Hansard.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

My problem, Mr. Dykstra, is that this is not debate on the motion—albeit I obviously got confused a few moments earlier. It's on the point of order, and I think Ms. Freeman is in order.

But try not to repeat yourself.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I was getting close to concluding my point, actually.

Basically, I don't understand exactly what Mr. Dykstra was getting at there, but I have points to be made about whether the request of this committee to expand the scope of this bill is something we should be doing. I have not yet been able to bring them forward. I think I am absolutely within my rights to speak about this in the context of this motion of our committee asking for an extension. As a result, I am looking forward to getting to those points, and would very much appreciate if the chair would allow us to speak about this very substantial piece of why it is that we are currently in gridlock.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You've concluded? Thank you.

This is just to remind members, particularly you, Mr. Dykstra, that points of order are not debatable. This is a point of order. The point of order is with respect to whether or not the issue of the scope of the bill is part of what is being requested in the motion. Have I worded that correctly?

The issue is whether or not the scope of the bill is part of this motion. It's worded in there, but the sole issue is whether or not this committee should request an extension of 30 days. That's my understanding. No one's correcting me, so I assume I'm correct.

Go ahead, Mr. Weston.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It may be that we've just reached a critical stage in the discussion. Ironically, hours and hours and hours may have passed, but we've hit a stage where we can all finally understand what we're talking about. If my colleagues across the way wanted to suspend for five minutes to confirm their understanding of the epiphany that we're just talking about the extension, not about how the bill itself will be expanded, I would be totally open to that. Maybe we could bring this to a conclusion within minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Well, I've already withdrawn my ruling on it, perhaps because of the representations made by Ms. Freeman. I don't want to be accused again of not allowing people to speak on a point of order, so notwithstanding that I made a ruling on it, I am withdrawing that until I've heard all of the members of the committee who wish to speak on this.

You are on this list, sir. You are able to speak now.

If you're asking to suspend, I'm not prepared to suspend until I've heard—

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

I was just saying that I would be open to agreeing to that if you need unanimous consent.

It seems that we may have the basis of an agreement, which we didn't have...absent the current understanding.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

That isn't what I understand.

Have you concluded?

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

I'm done. As long as they agree, it doesn't matter if you don't.

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Dykstra.

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

No, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Sims.

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

Chair, I really want to thank you—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

On a point of order, Mr. Menegakis.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

I apologize. I am wondering if I am on the list.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Oh, yes, you're on the list. You follow Ms. Sims.

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

Chair, first of all, I want to say that I appreciate your giving us all an opportunity to speak on this point of order. Having sat there, I know how difficult it can be with things flying at you from all directions. I do appreciate your understanding on that.

When we look at what's in front of us, it's both of these paragraphs. I think the word that is telling, that links it back to the scope, is the word ”therefore”. If the word ”therefore” were not there, you could argue differently. Being an English teacher and seeing how “therefore” is applied, I know that “therefore” actually applies to what is immediately in front of it, which is asking for an extension and waiting for the House to decide. It is not the extension; it is not that in isolation. We're only asking for an extension because the House has not dealt with the request for an expansion of the scope. To say that the two are severed, I would say, is doing injustice to the motion that is before us.

When all else breaks down, Mr. Chair, we're stuck with the language that is before us. Obviously, past procedures and actions are on the side now. It is “therefore” that links it to what precedes that paragraph. Those whole two paragraphs are preceded by the word “therefore”, and therefore there is a very strong linkage there.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Point of order.

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

Are you going to make a ruling?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Yes, as soon as everybody speaks.

Ms. Sims.

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

Did you hear what my final...?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I certainly did.

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

About the word “therefore”.