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
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Actually, it's not. You're not speaking to the subamendment. You're talking about something entirely different. I want to hear what your comments are, whether you're for or against the subamendment. I don't want to hear about anything else.
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
What I'd like to demonstrate to you, Mr. Chair, is that the subamendment is the entire wording, starting from “Pursuant to Standing Order 97.1” to the end, where it says “tabled in the House not earlier than June 21, 2013”. The subamendment is not just the five words or the 10 words that are changed at the end, but includes the entire wording of the motion that is before us.
Truthfully, Mr. Chair, and respectfully, I must say that the subamendment includes the entire wording that's in front of us under the heading “Sub-amendment of Costas Menegakis”. If I speak to the fact that there's the requesting of the 30 sitting days to consider Bill C-425, that is part of the subamendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
That's not quite true, Ms. Sitsabaiesan. The subamendment repeats the amendment. It only changes the words “that this request is to be tabled in the House not earlier than June 21, 2013”. That is the subamendment.
I don't want to hear debate on the amendment. I want to hear debate on the subamendment.
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I've mentioned how the change of the timeline from the amendment to the subamendment would make it more of a frivolous case, really, because we're just ensuring that Bill C-425 can be debated until perpetuity. To be honest, that's basically what's being proposed by the subamendment because it is to be tabled in the House not earlier than June 21.
I find it quite reckless when such an amendment is proposed to the amendment because what I tried to do with the amendment was to make it more timely and ensure that we were doing what we were supposed to be doing, and reporting back as quickly as possible. But the subamendment actually reverses that and makes it so that we are not reporting back as quickly as possible. It makes it so that we're reporting back at any later date. That's actually not responsible.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
You can report it back now. If it's too long, we can do it today. We could if she would like to.
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In my understanding this is clearly looking for a motion of instruction from the House to the committee to extend our study. If we're looking for that extension of time from the House, then we should report it back to the House as quickly as possible, so that the House can provide us that latitude with the extension and with the instruction from the House itself.
We know that the committee—
Conservative
Ted Opitz Conservative Etobicoke Centre, ON
Mr. Chair, I seem to have heard a lot of this before on this argument. It seems to be going rather circular right now.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I agree.
Remember the little section I read about repetition? You are getting into repetition. If you have anything new to tell us, I think the committee would be pleased to hear that. Again, your comments should be restricted to why this request “is to be tabled in the House not earlier than June 21, 2013”. Either you are opposed to that or you are in favour of that. We don't need to hear anything else.
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
In case it wasn't clear, I will say that I am opposed to the subamendment.
I was just about to get into motions of instructions and the powers that committees have with respect to the scope of changing the bill.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I don't think so. I think we have a date in the amendment and we have a different date in the subamendment. We don't need to get into that. That may be very relevant with respect to the main motion but nothing with respect to the subamendment.
I don't want to hear anything about powers. You are quite free to debate that when we're talking about the motion but not the subamendment. If you're prepared to the conclude, we will move on to the next speaker.
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
I'll make a note to myself to bring up the motions of instruction when I do get back on the speakers list for the main motion.
Mr. Chair, I will conclude my remarks with respect to the subamendment. I think it's pretty clear that the goal of this subamendment is to open up the floodgates as to never, or taking as much time as government members want to report on the study of this bill from committee. I don't think it should be opened up to whenever at any later date. I feel it should be a set date when we do respond back to the House.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'll be opposing the subamendment to the amendment and I'm going to take my time to explain why in detail.
Right now, as you know, the rules for private members' bills are that this particular bill, Bill C-425, would deem to be reported on June 21st, as is. What is now happening is that the government is seeking a 30-day extension to that. Then an amendment went on the floor to say that this request takes place before June 21st.
What we're dealing with right now is a subamendment to that.
Conservative
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
On June 21st.
The subamendment changes that to say that this request is to be tabled in the House not earlier than June 21, 2013. I am opposed to this because I believe it changes the intent of the amendment that was proposed and of the rules that govern the original motion as well.
As we know, according to the rules we operate under, a private member's bill comes to committee, it goes through all the rinse cycles that it's supposed to, as this one did. Then there was a request for an extension. If an extension is not given on the 21st, this bill is deemed to be reported, which means it goes to the House as is, without the government amendment that was ruled out of order, out of scope.
Through this subamendment, the government is trying to put those rules aside, to change those rules and to open this legislation, this private member's bill, up so that the request for an extension could be put in the House any time after the 21st of June. We have a great deal of concern with that.
Chair, in order to motivate why one is opposed to the specific words of the amendment, if you could only speak to those three words it would only require a yes or no. But you have to have a rationale, and the rationale has many linkages. So I'm going to put forward my rationale as to why we are opposed to this subamendment, which would change the rules to such a degree that it would make it open-ended from this committee.
Once again, I remind that we're not dealing with a government bill here. We are dealing with private members' business, and when it is private members' business it does come under different rules.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I'm warning you, you're not. You're getting into an area that goes beyond what this subamendment says. I'm going to repeat, for I don't know how many times, that the subamendment says, “that this request is to be tabled in the House not earlier than June 21, 2013.” That isn't what you're debating.