Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 13th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Well, that debate is going to be.... Is it two hours? You've said two, but I think it's three hours. Is it three?

The clerk has reminded me that it's three hours for the concurrence.

That's in the House now. That's what we're waiting for. That's what I'm pointing out to you. The submissions you're making should be made at that time, I believe, not here. We're past that. We're into another area.

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

So we're waiting for the concurrence debate in the House on Bill C-425?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Indeed.

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

Well, I appreciate what you're saying now, sir, and on that point, I guess what I'm wondering now is that if this motion has been on the go for so long, surely that debate could have taken place. Because any member at any time—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Harris, you know that a committee has no control over what the House does or doesn't do. We can't explain.... Neither the opposition nor the government members can explain why it's taking so long for this to take place. I don't even want to get into that debate, because the opposition could say it's the government's fault, and the government could say it's the opposition's fault. I don't want to go there.

I'm just responding to your comments and saying that you're getting into an area that we're past, because it should be in the House. I will repeat that I'm more interested in the very restrictive issue as to whether or not this extension of 30 days...as to whether the committee should be asking for that.

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

Well, I don't think the committee should be asking for that, sir. I think what should have been happening, done by members of the committee who were anxious to have this matter brought forward.... The rules of the House allow any member to get up at any time and seek a concurrence debate. The business of the House shuts down for that debate to take place. Because that's what we do when we seek a concurrence debate—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Harris, we have a point of order.

Mr. Dykstra.

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

Yes. I made the point yesterday that the NDP prevented me from introducing a concurrence motion. If he's suggesting that it is a way to get out of the dilemma we are in now, I would be happy to go to the House and do that. Is he telling me that we'll be allowed to move concurrence? Is he saying that the NDP will let us?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I think you're both out of order.

Mr. Harris, proceed with your debate.

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

Thank you, sir.

I don't think we should be facilitating this process. By requesting an extension of 30 days, we would be facilitating a process that has the effect of shutting down the second reading debate on an important matter of principle that ought to be argued by the government—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Harris, you're getting into repetition.

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

That's the purpose of this request, and it's the reason why, on a fundamental level, I'm opposed to this. I may have other arguments later on.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We're going to move on to Ms. Sims.

Thank you, Mr. Harris.

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

Thank you, Chair.

On a point of order, we have now been sitting for three hours, and I'm asking if maybe it is time for us to take a comfort break of five minutes.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

No. We're on a point of order. Unless it's the same point...?

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

It is the same point. We've done this again and again. Every member of this committee knows that if they need to get up and use the facilities, they're more than welcome to do so. We don't need to do mass bathroom breaks. We'd like to continue with debate while she's—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

The chairman is interested in having a suspension for five minutes.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We're going to reconvene the meeting.

Ms. Sims has advised me that she has a point of order.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I'm going to respectfully request that you suspend the meeting from 2:15 p.m. until after the votes—I believe the votes are taking place straight after QP—so that we can carry out our parliamentary duties in the House.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

That's not a point of order.

You are up for debate on the main motion, Ms. Sims.

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

Thank you very much.

It is my pleasure to speak on this amendment...not on the amendment. Sorry, Chair, we've been here so long it's sometimes difficult to remember. But we're here dealing with the main motion, which asks for an extension of 30 sitting days in order to give the government time to get a concurrence motion in the House, which would give them an expanded scope.

I am opposed to the extension for a number of reasons, the very first being that there is a reason why there are a number of days allocated for private members' business, which, simply to remind us all, is 60 days. The committee will have had 60 days on June 21. Therefore, the request for an extension at this time would give extraordinary treatment to one private member's bill and would not be fair to all the other private members. As I have said previously, this is not a comment on the actual bill, because there are elements in this bill.... I will not get into too much detail here, but to get to the point as to why the 30 days.... There are elements of this bill we do support.

We're actually looking forward to an opportunity to vote on this bill in the House, because this committee, due to a decision made by a government majority, has not done clause-by-clause. Therefore, the bill will actually be up for a vote unless this extension is given, as is, without any amendments. We are quite prepared to go into the House.

This extension would actually give extraordinary privilege to one particular private member's bill. I believe we, as the opposition—and I can't speak for the other opposition party or for the independent—are certainly ready and willing to go to the House, because the bill has been reported there, debate the bill, and go through the three-hour.... Is it a two-hour debate or three-hour debate in the House?