Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 13th, 2013

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

Ms. Sitsabaiesan, I am going to interrupt.

I want to know, for the sake of clarity for the clerk and me, who here from the government side are actually voting members now. You can have other people here and that's fine, but we need to make sure that our papers are in order. We have had a number of switches and replacements, and process is very important.

I see that we have six and Mr. Dykstra. Is Mr. Clark no longer with us?

[A voice]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

As I have made clear many times, this is an open meeting. MPs are welcome to come and participate.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

It is everybody, including Mr. Dykstra but not Mr. Shory. Those are the seven people who are here.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

Thank you.

So Mr. Shory is not here officially right now. We recognize him as here, just not as a voting member. There seemed to be a lot of movement, and I wanted to have that clear in my head.

Thank you so much for the clarification, Mr. Menegakis. You're always so very helpful and gentlemanly. Thank you.

We'll now go back to Ms. Sitsabaiesan.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think I've hammered that one home for now. I'll move on to another one of the reasons I will not be supporting this bill. There is a very serious concern about the creation of stateless people because of this bill.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

I'm sorry to interrupt you, Ms. Sitsabaiesan.

I want to make it very clear that any member who has the floor has the chance to speak for as long as they want, as long as they are speaking to the motion and can relate it to the motion on the floor. I don't want any member to have to apologize for the length of their speech or anything like that. I just want to make that rule clear, because that's the rule that exists.

We'll go back to you once again, and this time the chair apologizes for the interruption, but I didn't want you to feel that there was a time constraint on you.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I guess you were correct in stating earlier that when the government members constantly interrupt a speaker—and of course, it is me that they interrupted, not any of the other speakers who we had—

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

As chair I'm going to say let's deal with the motion.

Carry on.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll try to remember not to apologize for actually wanting to participate in the debate and to explain why I am not going to be supporting this motion that's before us to extend the time of debate on Bill C-425 here in our committee.

The topic I'd like to discuss now, Madam Chair, is the fact that Bill C-425 before it was amended—this bill as it is—would actually create people who become stateless. We heard from many witnesses. I'd like to first discuss what we've heard from the UNHCR. I have high respect for the United Nations and I thank them for coming to help us in our deliberations and study of this bill. I'm going to read to you from the actual bill. It says that there is a deemed application for renunciation of Canadian citizenship where that citizen engages in an act of war against the Canadian Armed Forces and that same citizen is also a citizen or legal resident in a country other than Canada.

That's clause 2 regarding proposed subsection 9(1.1) of the Citizenship Act. I had already touched on, but didn't speak in depth, the fact that “act of war” is not defined in our laws so we don't know what that means. Legal experts who came in front of this committee don't know what that means. I did touch on that, so I don't want to go into it right now. Possibly later I might want to come back to the act of war topic, Madam Chair.

We've learned that there are two ways of losing citizenship. One is voluntary revocation, voluntarily relinquishing one's citizenship, and the other is having it revoked or taken away from you by the state that gave it to you. We're not talking about voluntary relinquishment of citizenship here when it says that there is deemed to be application for renunciation of Canadian citizenship.

I want to make sure I read the words correctly so that I don't get interrupted again, Madam Chair.

In this case what we learned from the representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees was that renunciation is the voluntary act of relinquishing one's citizenship or nationality while deprivation is carried out by the authorities of the state. So those are the terms I'll use to go back and forth: renunciation of citizenship and deprivation or revocation.

I'd like to look at the countries that we generally compare ourselves to. When we do many of our studies we like to compare our laws to those of the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Australia, and sometimes also the U.S.A. because the United States is our next-door neighbour and is very similar to us with respect to also being an OECD country and being the global north in the western hemisphere.

The UNHCR had mentioned that the renunciation of nationality or citizenship in the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Australia is carried out through the initiation of a formal procedure by the individual wishing to renounce their citizenship. In the case of the U.S.A., six of the seven methods of renouncing citizenship require that very similar filling out of a formal procedure along with an application to the court.

Also, they mentioned that in the U.S., if you serve in the armed forces of a foreign state that's engaged in a conflict against the U.S, then you are deemed to have renounced your citizenship.

They also helped us understand what deprivation of citizenship is, and that deprivation of citizenship is possible in the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Australia. This concept is possible in these three countries we compare ourselves to.

In the United States of America, Congress has no power under the U.S. Constitution to revoke a person's U.S. citizenship, unless of course that person voluntarily relinquishes it. When we speak of the forced deprivation of somebody's citizenship or nationality, the U.S. Congress does not have that power under the U.S. Constitution.

We have seen this happen in Canada, so we know that in Canada, the minister.... I mentioned very briefly the increased discretion for the minister in this bill and how much we've spoken about that. That will be another reason, Madam Chair, that I will not be supporting the motion before us to extend the debate on Bill C-425. I do believe those topics have been studied sufficiently in this committee. I'll make that very clear later on in my speech. I think ministerial discretion is number seven or eight on my list of items I'd like to go through. I'm on number two right now, Madam Chair.

Once again, coming back to the concept of statelessness and looking at the three countries we are talking about, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Australia, all of them contain provisions within their nationality law that provide—I'm going to read this really slowly—“One of the most important safeguards against statelessness is that...”.

Of course, all three of those countries are signatories or parties to the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Of course, I should point out here, Madam Chair, that Canada is also a signatory to that convention..

This convention provides an international framework to ensure the right of every person to a nationality by establishing safeguards to prevent statelessness, whether it's at birth or later in life. What we've learned will happen and what we've debated in committee already in the 60 days that were allotted, is this bill would create a state of being stateless later in life for Canadian citizens. If they are citizens of another country, then Canada would deprive them of their citizenship. If their citizenship in another country is not recognized by that state because of that conflict or whatever it might be....

A great example is that many people I have spoken to in Scarborough—Rouge River have fled instances of conflict, have come to Canada as asylum seekers or as refugee claimants, and have lived as refugees or permanent residents, and then have moved on to become Canadian citizens. They're from the country I was born in, Sri Lanka. People who have left the country and have been active and have spoken out loudly, or who have spoken out about the state-sanctioned human rights violations in that country, generally there have been examples where their passports have been taken away because it's been said they are not a true national. They've conducted or said things that are contrary to the state, and so they can't travel or be recognized as a national.

According to Canada, one would think they still have their citizenship from that country, and if Canada were to revoke their Canadian citizenship for any reason, the person would be left in limbo because they've now lost their Canadian passport—

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

They're stateless.

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

Exactly. They don't have the passport of their country of birth.

I use one country as an example, but we know there's a plethora of countries that are in a state of conflict, whether it's armed or not, though armed conflict is usually what leads to many people fleeing a country and seeking asylum in another. So Canada would create a state of statelessness for these people and that is, of course, in contravention of the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness to which we are signatories. We can't let this happen, Madam Chair.

This was discussed very much. Many of our witnesses who came before the committee during the time we've had to study this bill spoke about this.

I will continue to explain a little more on this same topic of statelessness, Madam Chair, and prove to you, show to you, demonstrate to you, that these topics have been discussed in committee and that witnesses have provided their testimony, and this is why we don't need another 30 days of study on this bill, because the same topics are going to come up again and again in committee when the witnesses appear. If we do grant another 30 days, then these same issues are going to come up. That's why, Madam Chair, we don't need another 30 days of study time on this bill.

Let's look at New Zealand's case. We like to compare ourselves to these countries all the time, so I'll do that here as well.

New Zealand entered a declaration in their legislation itself. They entered a declaration under article 8.3 of the convention at the time of a session pertaining to the right to deprive an individual of New Zealand citizenship when the person acquires nationality or citizenship of another country, or performs duties of another nationality or citizenship that may act in a manner that is contrary to the interests of New Zealand.

The Government of the United Kingdom declared, in accordance with article 8.3—the same article in the convention when they signed it—that the U.K., and I'll read so it's clearer, “...retains the right to deprive a naturalised person of his nationality...inconsistently with his duty of loyalty to Her Britannic Majesty, the person....” I don't want to read all of it.

Nevertheless, when the United Kingdom and New Zealand signed the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, they maintained some ability to continue their practice of being able to deprive individuals of their New Zealand or United Kingdom citizenship for naturalized citizens. What's a little odd is that they actually don't mention anything about citizens of those countries who are born.... Those countries have a two-tiered citizenship system is what I'm learning from this.

Canadian citizenship is valued so much, by my family anyway. I can only speak of my personal experience, and I can speak of the experiences of other constituents who have spoken to me. Every few months, Madam Chair, I have a gathering of new citizens and we share what it means to be Canadian and why they chose to become a Canadian citizen. Time and again it's on the faces of my constituents, who simply light up and want to talk about their Canadian citizenship, because they're so proud. They're so proud that they were able to leave whatever situation they were in and become Canadian, because Canada is a country that treats everyone equally, that treats everyone equitably. People say they know that when they become Canadian citizens....

I vividly remember what one little girl told me. I think she was about nine years old. She said, “When I become a Canadian citizen, it means that I get to go to school. It means that I get treated the same as the boys. It means that I can become a doctor when I grow up.” For her, it meant that she was going to have opportunity, that she was going to be treated as equal to every other Canadian, every other person who is a Canadian citizen. She would have that same treatment.

We don't want to get to a point where we are creating two, three, four tiers of citizenship in this country, Madam Chair. Right now, we have one Canadian citizenship and it is that you are a Canadian citizen. That's it.

Madam Chair, what comes to mind again is something that you hammered home to all of us. You're either a citizen or you're not a citizen. It's like being pregnant or being not pregnant. There's no opportunity to be half-pregnant. If there's a fetus in you, then you're pregnant. There's no, it's a fetus of two months, so it's a half-pregnancy. The gestational period is generally nine months. A fetus of four-and-a-half months is not a half-pregnancy. There's no such thing.

You had very clearly articulated that you're either a citizen or you're not a citizen, and that once you become a citizen you are a citizen. There are no levels to that citizenship. That's the beauty of Canadian citizenship.

The UNHCR representative's report to us mentioned that other countries have made sure that they're able to have those multiple tiers of citizenship, but Canada doesn't have that. We don't want to go there, and we've discussed this in our committee. We've heard evidence on this. That's why, Madam Chair, I think that we've had enough discussion on this in our committee. I'll continue to provide evidence that we've had enough discussion on Bill C-425 in our committee and that we don't need to have another 30 days of discussion on this same bill, because we've had much debate. I will continue to give you examples of the debate that we have had in our committee to clearly demonstrate to you and all of the members of this committee that we don't need another 30 days of study on this bill. We just don't.

Let me continue. I almost want to continue with statelessness. I could go into each country's example, but I won't do that right now.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Please do.

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

You'd like me to. Okay then, I will. There are so many examples that have already been put forward before our committee, and I can give you all those examples, Madam Chair.

If we're going to look at countries and examples, maybe I should...let's look at the United Kingdom.

In the British Nationality Act of 1981, and the Immigration, Asylum, and Nationality Act, 2006, which is where some of these citations are coming from for anybody who's following, for their edification and ability to follow. On the topic of renunciation of citizenship, renunciation being, of course, voluntary relinquishment, it reads in article 12(1):

If any British citizen of full age and capacity makes in the prescribed manner a declaration of renunciation of British citizenship, then, subject to subsections (3) and (4), the Secretary of State shall cause the declaration to be registered.

That's somebody volunteering to give up their citizenship.

Another example is in article 12(2):

On the registration of a declaration made in pursuance of this section the person who made it shall cease to be a British citizen.

The secretary of state declares it registered and then accepts that renunciation. The prescribed manner consists of completing a declaration form, which will be registered by the home secretary and renunciation is only through that application process.

So in the U.K. it's a formal application process. Once a person has voluntarily requested to relinquish their citizenship and put in their application, the Secretary of State will accept it and register it, and then they lose their British citizenship because they chose to. Of their own volition, they are losing their citizenship.

However, the safeguard in the British legislation that prevents statelessness is subsection 12(3), which reads:

A declaration made by a person in pursuance of this section shall not be registered unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person who made it will after the registration have or acquire some citizenship or nationality other than British citizenship; and if that person does not have any such citizenship or nationality on the date of registration and does not acquire some such citizenship or nationality within six months from that date, he shall be, and be deemed to have remained, a British citizen notwithstanding the registration.

So their legislation ensures there are safeguards in the legislation to prevent people from becoming stateless, and Bill C-425 will do the opposite. That's what our witnesses have already demonstrated to us in the committee, so we don't need to discuss this further. We don't need this extra 30 days of discussion and study and debate on this bill, because this has already been made clear to the committee members.

Of course, because my honourable colleague wanted to learn more about what's happening with immigration in the UK legal system, I'll continue. With respect to wartime measures, subsection 12(4) continues and says:

The Secretary of State may withhold registration of any declaration made in pursuance of this section if it is made during any war in which Her Majesty may be engaged in right of Her Majesty's government in the United Kingdom.

This makes sense because you don't want people to say they're not British citizens anymore just because they don't want to fight in a war. So that was a nice protection measure for the United Kingdom to ensure that people aren't just upping and leaving because they don't want to participate in a war.

So far I've only been talking about the subject of statelessness with respect to the presentation made to us by the UNHCR, and with respect to the United Kingdom and the topic of deprivation of citizenship. We just spoke of renunciation and how renunciation can be stopped by the safeguard against statelessness, or in view of wartime measures, but the deprivation of citizenship is what is being presented to us in Bill C-425. Let's look at some of the parallels with the U.K. system.

In subsection 40(2) of the British Nationality Act, on the topic of deprivation of citizenship, it reads, and I'm not reading all of it, just part of it:

The Secretary of State may by order deprive a person of a citizenship status if the Secretary of State is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good.

The safeguard against statelessness there is subsection 40(4), which says:

The Secretary of State may not make an order under subsection (2) if he is satisfied that the order would make a person stateless.

Even in the case of depriving somebody of their citizenship because the deprivation is conducive to the public good in the U.K., they ensure that a person will not be made stateless. This was already articulated to us in committee.

Canada right now is a signatory to the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Our laws right now don't create a situation of statelessness for people. It would be we, as parliamentarians, who are required to do the due diligence and it would be our responsibility, in breach of our fiduciary duty to our constituents and Canadians as a whole, if we were to create a situation where we were in contravention of the convention to which we are signatories.

This has been made clear to us by witnesses in the last 60 days' study period that we've had on Bill C-425. This is why we don't need another 30 days of study time of this bill in committee. We have studied this bill thoroughly and we've heard many examples of why we have studied this bill thoroughly already and why we don't need to continue the debate and the study of this Bill C-425 in committee.

I'll continue because I know my colleague wanted to hear of the other countries that we generally like to compare ourselves to. I've only spoken to you so far about one, so I still have New Zealand, Australia, and the United States to get through as well to show how those countries are ensuring that people are not becoming stateless persons and how we need to make sure as Canadians that we are not going to create stateless people in our country.

Let's look at the case of New Zealand. With respect to New Zealand, I will be quoting you pieces from the New Zealand Citizenship Act 1977. Madam Chair, I will adopt the same style and speak of the renunciation of citizenship and how statelessness is being guarded against. Then I will speak of the deprivation of citizenship and how statelessness is being guarded against there.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

I will just remind the speaker that you will keep it relevant to the motion.

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

Absolutely, Madam Chair. I think I have been keeping it very relevant. Thank you for the reminders. Gentle, kind reminders are always appreciated. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Article 15(1) of the New Zealand Citizenship Act 1977 reads:

A New Zealand citizen who has attained the age of 18 years and is of full capacity and who is recognised by the law of another country as a citizen of that country may, at any time, make a declaration of renunciation of his New Zealand citizenship in the prescribed manner.

Of course they have their official, formal methods of applying for renunciation. I don't want to read article 2. It's very similar to the United Kingdom's such that the minister will register it and then declare that person is not a citizen of New Zealand anymore. What is important is how the safeguards are put in place to prevent statelessness.

Continuing with the procedure for renunciation and the safeguards, the renunciation is once again through application only—that's a voluntary request to lose one's citizenship—and a copy of the declaration is proof of the renunciation. Making an oath of allegiance has no effect in New Zealand, and a declarant must provide evidence from another country showing that he or she is already recognized as a citizen in that country.

In New Zealand's Citizenship Act and its practices, the person has proof of renunciation, which is a copy of the declaration, but the emphasis is given to the person already having been recognized as a citizen of another country. The difference between these two countries, so far, is that the United Kingdom allows for another six months before that renunciation is 100% guaranteed. If you can't prove within six months that you do have citizenship of another country then you automatically go back to being a UK citizen, whereas in New Zealand you cannot voluntarily relinquish your New Zealand citizenship without proving that you already are recognized as a citizen of another country.

So once again that is a clear example of another country that we like to compare ourselves to on a regular basis with respect to immigration law. In our committee we speak to bureaucrats of New Zealand and Australia—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

The chair is going to remind people on both sides of the chair, to the left and the right, that the volume of noise has escalated up, and I would really appreciate it if it could be quietened down on both sides. Thank you.

Back to you, and once again, apologies for the interruption. I just wanted to make sure you were heard.

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

Thank you. I very much appreciate you, Madam Chair. You have been following the rule of the law, the rule of procedures in this place, and have been extremely respectful to the speakers. So I appreciate you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair, for your fair chairing of this meeting.

The point that I was just about to end there.... You just made your point where, when a speaker is interrupted, they lose their train of thought.

I think where I was at was that we regularly speak with bureaucrats in New Zealand, Australia, the U.K., and the U.S. about their experiences with immigration policy and how they do business in immigration, to try to make sure our laws are on par, or better, because we want to make sure we are doing the best and making the best legislation that we possibly can.

On the topic of voluntary renunciation of citizenship in New Zealand, I think the case has already been made very clear, and I don't believe we need further study on this topic, Madam Chair. That's why I don't believe that we need further time to study BillC-425. This is yet another reason that we don't need further time to study this bill, another reason why we don't need to extend the study period for another 30 days, and another reason why I will not be supporting this motion that is before us today, Madam Chair.

Because my colleague wanted to hear about our countries, I'll speak of the deprivation of citizenship in New Zealand—I'm still speaking about New Zealand—particularly to demonstrate to you that it has actually been made clear already, by the witnesses who have already appeared before the committee, so we don't need further extension of time again.

In New Zealand, once again, section 16 of the Citizenship Act reads that:

...the Minister may, by order, deprive a person of his New Zealand citizenship if he is satisfied that the person has, while a New Zealand citizen and while of or over the age of 18 years and of full capacity,—

(a) acquired the nationality or citizenship of another country by any voluntary and formal act, and acted in a manner that is contrary to the interests of New Zealand; or

(b) voluntarily exercised any of the privileges or performed any of the duties of another nationality or citizenship possessed by him in a manner that is contrary to the interests of New Zealand.

So here we know, it's clear. It has been presented to us by witnesses to this committee, that there are ways in the New Zealand Citizenship Act to deprive a New Zealand citizen of their citizenship if they have citizenship of another country and they have done something contrary to the act, to the interests of New Zealand. So we know that's there already.

They were one of the countries that made a declaration when they signed the convention. Under article 8 of the convention, and that, of course, is the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. New Zealand made a declaration, and their declaration reads as such:

...in accordance with paragraph 3 of article 8 of the Convention New Zealand retains the right to deprive a person of his New Zealand citizenship on the following grounds, being grounds existing in New Zealand law at the present time: the person has, while a New Zealand citizen and while of—

I don't want to read it again because it's the same piece of the New Zealand Citizenship Act of 1977. That doesn't make any sense because 1977 is the newer version. So let me read what they actually wrote in the declaration:

...the person has, while a New Zealand citizen and while of or over the age of 18 years and of full capacity,

(a) Acquired the nationality or citizenship of another country by any voluntary and formal act, and acted in a manner that is contrary to the interests of New Zealand; or

(b) Voluntarily exercised any of the privileges or performed any of the duties of another nationality or citizenship possessed by him in a manner that is contrary to the interests of New Zealand.

Truthfully, with regard to the New Zealand law, when they wrote the declaration under article 8 of the convention, this article is actually the same. It is what I mentioned earlier. They ensured that a New Zealand citizen wouldn't become stateless, when they signed the declaration. When they were signatories to the declaration, they made sure people wouldn't become stateless. That's pretty clear from this testimony. I have further testimony that I can provide to you, Madam Chair.

We have already heard enough from the witnesses. We don't need to extend the study for another 30 days to hear more of the same testimony from witnesses saying, “We, in Canada, will be creating a situation of statelessness. Oh look, New Zealand has ensured that they have created safeguard mechanisms, and we should make sure we have safeguards.”

We already know this, Madam Chair. We don't need to study Bill C-425 for another 30 days. We don't need that. This New Zealand case proved that to us.

I'll continue, Madam Chair. Let's talk about Australia and how the evidence already shows what we have heard about Australia—another country we like to compare ourselves to. The pieces I will be quoting are from the Australian Citizenship Act 2007. Once again, Madam Chair, I will be breaking it down into the voluntary renunciation and then the deprivation of citizenship.

Let's look at the voluntary renunciation in Australia. Subsection 33(1) reads, “A person may make an application to the Minister to renounce the person's Australian citizenship.” Of course, this renunciation is only through application—the formal procedure that Australia has set up. The person can make an application using a specific form to renounce their citizenship. I don't want to go through the exact details. Neither you nor the members of the committee need to hear me go through the exact details of that legislation.

I would like to move a motion, if I may, Madam Chair.

At this point I move that the committee do now adjourn.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

I will put forward the motion forthwith. The motion is to adjourn. It is not debatable.

(Motion negatived)

We will not be adjourning.

It goes back to you, Ms. Sitsabaiesan.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Let's continue on the subject of Australia, with the voluntary renunciation. Let's talk about some of the safeguards they have with respect to statelessness.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

On a point of order, Mr. Dykstra....

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

We've listened to Rathika's presentation over the last number of minutes, close to an hour now, and I haven't objected to any of the presentation that she's made. In some respects she's gone off topic, but in a lot of respects she's tried to take this back to the motion at hand.

Speaking about the situation in Australia, or whatever their rules may or may not be with respect to the issues of citizenship, has absolutely nothing to do with an extension of time related to our ability to further the work on this private member's bill.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

I just want to remind people of the motion that is before us.

The second part I did not read, and I want to read that now:

On Tuesday, April 23, 2013, the Committee recommended to the House that it be granted the power during its consideration of Bill C-425 to expand the scope of the Bill. The Committee is awaiting for a decision of the House before further considering the Bill. Therefore, your Committee requests an extension of thirty sitting days.

So when you look at that, and when you look at the scope of the bill within it.... I would now turn to Ms. Sitsabaiesan and urge her to make sure that the comments she makes relate to what is before us.

Please make sure it is relevant. If it's not, make sure you do not say it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Chairperson, I appreciate the ruling.

I have a point of order—if I may raise something about myself—in regard to a discussion I had earlier about the possibility of my replacing...or being bumped up on the speaking list.

If we were to canvass members here, I'm wondering if I would in fact be able to follow Mr. Dykstra after he is done speaking.