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.
Conservative
Ted Opitz Conservative Etobicoke Centre, ON
We're spending far too much time debating this. Using your own judgment, Mr. Chair, the chamber's just up the road here. I would say 2:50 would be sufficient.
Conservative
NDP
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
The motion is in order because I said 2:30 and it is not debatable.
The motion is that we see the clock at 2:30.
It's a recorded vote and the clerk is going to take over the vote.
(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 4)
The motion fails.
Mr. Christopherson, you have the floor to debate the main motion.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you very much. I appreciate that, Chair.
What I want to move to after my first point—I don't think I completed it, but I see that I'm not going to get much further in making that point, so I will move along.
The next thing I'd like to discuss as an important reason that I am opposed to this motion is that there would have been ample time to deal with this bill, clause by clause, had this committee been engaged in that bill, but right off the bat, my understanding is that we had this motion come in where the government is seeking to expand the scope of the bill. Again, it's a private member's bill. The motion is to allow enough time for the executive council to get their hooks into it.
By virtue of moving this motion right off the bat, there was really no.... One can't find any evidence that the government was ever serious about dealing with this as a bill and talking about its merits, and going through it clause by clause, which we still could do right now if the committee wanted to actually do the work of a committee. Instead, we're caught up in this power play—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Mr. Christopherson, we've been through this argument many times.
Mr. Calandra.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
Mr. Chair, I was reviewing the transcripts and it sounds like we've heard this argument many, many times, so I'm wondering if we could move forward.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
It may not have been by you, sir, but it's been by a number of people. The ruling has been that if we've heard it by a number of individuals, then that's called repetition.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Last Tuesday.
This is only the first time I've experienced—
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, with all due respect, when members come to this committee, they bring with them their riding experience as well as their parliamentary experience, as well as their right to be able to speak. We often substitute. Just because one person has said something, I would argue that should not preclude another member of Parliament from expressing that point of view differently.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Well, I've said this a number of times. When there's substitution, it's up to the person who is substituting and the other members, whatever party it is, to inform those members what has been discussed.
To give him credit, Mr. Christopherson may not have heard this argument before, but that's not the fault of the chair. I've pointed out I don't know how many times that there's an obligation by Mr. Christopherson's colleagues to inform him what areas have been covered. That area has been covered a number of times and I'm not going to allow him to start repeating what has been discussed, even yesterday, again.
Thank you.
A point of order, Mr. Harris.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Sir, on a point of order, I think it needs to be put on the record that there may be five reasons, for example, why someone opposes a particular motion or aspect, but that doesn't mean that fifteen people could not be persuasive in different ways.
The object of debate is to persuade others of your point of view and to convince them of your arguments and to hear those arguments. There could be a list of five reasons, but there may be a lot of arguments within those reasons, and there may be more persuasive ways of saying it.
To say that the matter has been raised before doesn't mean that the argument or the discussion is repetitive. Individual members have a particular way of expressing themselves, and one may be more persuasive than another. I think that needs to be part of the record.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I don't know how many times I've read from O'Brien and Bosc that I have considerable discretion to rule on whether or not there's been repetition. I'm saying there's been repetition with respect to the position that Mr. Christopherson is taking.
Mr. Calandra, do you have a point or order?
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
Chair, there's been repetition, so could we move on?
I think you've been quite clear on this.
Conservative
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Well, I wanted to point out again that this is a serious matter, Chair. Nobody is denied the right to say something in the House because their colleague said exactly the same thing two days ago. It's outrageous. It has never happened. No Speaker is going to say, “No, you can't say that because that MP over there already said it.” That's ridiculous.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I have made a ruling, Mr. Christopherson. It has been challenged, I think, and my ruling has been sustained.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Yes, it has been sustained and it's the tyranny of the majority.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
You're extinguishing my rights by virtue of the government majority backing your ruling, even though your ruling is undemocratic.
Conservative
David Wilks Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Mr. Chair, I'd like to remind Mr. Christopherson that we're not in the House of Commons. We're in committee.