Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 13th, 2013

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

Thank you.

We appreciated the fact that Mr. Shory thought of those men who served in our armed forces.

[An hon. member]

And women.

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

And women.

We also wanted to say that there are other front-line service providers—for example, RCMP, firefighters, and I would go so far as to say social workers, teachers, and other groups—that we might want to look to add to that list.

On its own, when you look at the idea of trying to increase diversity to reflect the population of Canada in all our institutions, it's not just in the military. Even when I look around the House, when I look around at different appointments, and when I look at our teaching force, the RCMP, and all of our institutions, we would want to see that diversity.

It was with that, and also with understanding the incredible job that our armed forces do for us and on our behalf, that I actually stood in the House, Mr. Chair....

I'm willing to come here and read that speech into the blues, if it's needed again—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'd rather you not.

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

—to show you that we did support in principle Mr. Shory's bill at that stage.

However, as with any piece of legislation—this is part of the legislative process—we get the bill introduced in the House. Then it gets sent to committee.

So this bill came to committee. We heard from a wide range of witnesses. I'm not going to start reading into the record all of the witness testimony that was presented to us, though there is a little bit of a penchant to do that, because that would be unique, especially much of it, and at this stage I'm not planning to do that.

For me, I want to get back to the idea here, that we're here to deal with a private member's business. That private member had the business go through the House, and it's now right here.

It went to committee. The committee actually came to a resolution: it said that what is before us is outside of the scope, so therefore a greater power than us has to make a decision on that.

So I cannot say, and I will not have it said, that we're trying to prevent private members' business from being duly discussed and debated, because we participated in that, with goodwill and at great length, as you know.

We had a number of witnesses. I can't remember exactly how many. There were witnesses from all sides.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Sims, this is the final warning. I have it written down here that you spent some time saying that what you're saying is not to circumvent private members' business, particularly Mr. Shory's private member's business, and you're doing just that.

If it happens again, I'm moving on.

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

It is in order to allow the private members' business to be completed within the guidelines we have that we are speaking against the extension. And the extension, as you know, is here for a reason, and I have already said that, so I will not repeat it.

Once again, Mr. Chair, I am at a loss—not too many people have heard me say this—for words sometimes and at a loss for comprehension of the kind of restraints that speakers are being made to feel. But you have made your ruling, and I respect that.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Do you have a point of order, Ms. Freeman?

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

I notice it is 1:15. I am wondering if the will of this committee is to go to question period today, and I ask for your direction on that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I am informed that there will be votes at 3 o'clock, so I will suspend at 2:30. If there are votes at 3 o'clock or shortly thereafter, we will return to this committee right after the votes. If there are no votes—I am told there are, but if there are none—we'll return when we find out, shortly after 3 that there are no votes. But I am told there are votes; therefore, my intention is to suspend the meeting at 2:30.

Ms. Sims has the floor.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

As I was saying, the processes we have before us and the different tools we have before us are all there for a reason. The Westminster parliamentary convention goes way out of its way to protect private members' business, and it's because we want to protect private members' business—the bills that private members bring forward and the integrity of those—that I am not going to be voting in favour of 30 sitting days.

I will go on to say that I actually tried to look back to see whether we have any precedence for anything like this. The whole of last week has been a matter of precedent-setting and precedent-making. As I was saying earlier, I will be intrigued by—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I wasn't here then, Ms. Sims. You were here.

I'm telling you that you're going beyond what this debate is all about, and I'm going to move on to Ms. Sitsabaiesan.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The motion before us is requesting an extension of 30 days of further study of and debate on Bill C-425. I believe that this is not necessary at this time, given that we have given this bill its requisite 60 days, and it was the government.... This is what I was saying earlier. You specifically told me that I need to speak about this when I'm debating the main motion and not the amendment or the subamendment, so thank you for reminding me of that, Mr. Chair.

Clearly, the process in this committee is that the government members generally set the schedule because they have a majority, like they do in the House of Commons. They have a majority here, and they basically control the proceedings. If they wanted more debate on this bill, they had the ability to make sure the committee studied only this bill for the last 60 sitting days. But they chose, and they decided that it didn't need more than the number.... I don't remember the exact number of hours that we've put towards this bill. But they chose that it wasn't necessary. They set the schedule.

Now, all of a sudden, because the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has said that he wants to make some changes and see some changes happen, what we're seeing is that the government members on this bill are saying, “Whoa, hold it, we want more study now, we want more time, we want to be able to debate this.” The exact quote from one of the members today is that they want “an opportunity to review it, to debate it” further. But they've had that time. They've had the opportunity. It's not necessary at this point to extend the study period another 30 days to move forward.

That's one reason, Mr. Chair. They've had the time; they've had the opportunity.

The second piece is the second half of the motion, where they're asking to expand the scope of this bill. Another reason to not continue to study—

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. James, on a point of order.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

—nowhere does it say in this motion that we are seeking to expand. It was actually a statement. It actually reads, “On Tuesday, April 23”, so it's in the past tense. We're not seeking to expand. It's in the past tense. It reads: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 Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Yes. Don't read it. We've read it.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

This motion doesn't actually seek to expand the scope. The actual motion is only that there be an extension of 30 sitting days. I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. James, we've heard this. Different people have read it. We don't need to hear it again.

Ms. Sitsabaiesan, I assume you're just using different words. She may or may not be correct, so try to stick to the motion.

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

Mr. Chair, do you need me to go through O'Brien and Bosc about motions of instruction?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

No, I don't want to hear that. I want you to debate the motion.

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

Oh, this is very pertinent to the motion, Mr. Chair, because expanding the scope of a motion is only done through a motion of instruction.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

No, we're not talking about expanding the motion. We're talking about extending it for 30 days.

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

My apologies.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I don't want to hear about expanding the motion.