Oh, oh!
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.
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.
2:20 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
2:20 p.m.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
I do appreciate that you're in a very difficult position. But I want you to know that, as parliamentarians, we're also in a very, very difficult position.
The question I have relating—and it relates to the point of order—is what avenues do I have if I feel that my parliamentary privilege to speak on an issue in a fulsome manner and to raise relevant issues is being limited through rulings? What options do I have?
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We need order, Mr. Opitz.
Just so I'm clear, are you rising on a question of privilege, or—
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
You know what, perhaps I should confer with the clerks.
It seems to me that what is before us now is a point of order, and the question of privilege could follow the point of order.
So I have—
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
2:20 p.m.
NDP
Mylène Freeman NDP Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Is that the point of order that was raised by Mr. Lamoureux?
Is that where we are?
2:20 p.m.
NDP
Mylène Freeman NDP Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Okay.
Mr. Chair, I was just going to raise my voice in support of my colleague saying that he felt his ability to debate his reasons for not supporting the motion before us has been limited, and that it has been limited to a degree that is very, very limited.
My understanding at this point is that we are only allowed to talk about the 30 days. I'm not actually sure what that means. We're not allowed to provide reasons why we don't want something to be 30 days, or we don't have the ability to motivate—
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
How many times do you want to deal with this? We just had a ruling on it.
Monsieur Giguère.
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't see your name. Ms. Sitsabaiesan is before Monsieur Giguère. I apologize.
2:20 p.m.
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Lamoureux's point is that he is not being given the latitude that a Speaker would give to a member in the House or that a chair would traditionally give to a member in committee when he or she is arriving at their point.
I do agree with Mr. Lamoureux that we're here to debate the motion before us on a 30-day extension, but if you, as chair, are saying that I can only say that I agree or disagree with the 30-day extension, then I'm having an empty debate, and I'm not able to—
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
No, Ms. Sitsabaiesan, I didn't say that, and if that was the impression that was given....
What I did say was that I'm interested in debate on that issue, debate that someone is either in favour or opposed to it. I didn't say “yes or no”. I said I was restricting it to that, because that's what the motion says.
We've already had a ruling that the sole issue before this committee is whether or not we can ask the House to authorize us to proceed for another 30 days with respect to this bill.
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I have never said “yes or no”. I have said the debate must be on that, on giving arguments as to why it shouldn't be allowed or whether it should be allowed.
That's what I said.
June 17th, 2013 / 2:20 p.m.
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
My apologies if I put words in your mouth, Mr. Chair.
The debate right now is about whether the 30 days should be extended on this bill. This is a bill that's severely flawed. It creates instances of statelessness. It creates four tiers of citizenship. It takes away people's citizenship.
All these things are the reasons why I will not be supporting this motion. I should be able to speak about the reasons why I will not be supporting this motion in front of us.
2:20 p.m.
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
However, when I had the floor, Mr. Chair, the floor was taken away from me because I was trying to—
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
The floor was taken away from you, Ms. Sitsabaiesan, because you were getting into areas that had absolutely nothing to do with that question.
2:20 p.m.
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
I just mentioned three, Mr. Chair, and you said, yes, I had the ability to speak on those. Now you're saying no.
Earlier you said no, now you're saying yes, so I'm a little confused.
