Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 13th, 2013

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

[Inaudible—Editor]

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

That is cause for debate.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Are you on the list, Mr. Menegakis?

Ms. Sims.

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

Before debating the privilege motion, I'm really glad today that we're actually debating it because that is part of the process. Whether I agree or disagree with that is not up to me. The chair will make some kind of a determination and the speaker will decide. But out of respect for the person who has moved a privilege motion, for me, as a committee member, to be able to participate in a debate, which I am entitled to, I would like to see a copy. I'm willing to forgo the bilingual translation in order to be able to read it. Some people just don't need to hear things, they need to actually read things as well, and I don't have it in front of me, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Menegakis.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Chair, we know the motion that we have been discussing and debating here for over the better part of a week now. To bring a question of privilege to the committee about something a member of the media has written, I have already stated it is absolutely within their right. The media has a right to interpret and to report in any way, shape, or form their assessment of a situation. It is certainly not the prerogative or the privilege or the right of a parliamentary committee, or any committee, to sanction the words that the media write or speak. To introduce that now as somehow being relevant to the point before us, the extension of 30 days that we're asking for in this motion, is totally irrelevant. It is not relevant to the discussion. It's another tactic, if you will, and, I might add, a very weak tactic. It's not based on any fundamental principles of the freedom of speech that we have in our country. To now say let's start translating newspaper articles or reported articles in the media so that we can discuss them is totally out of the scope of this motion and what we're discussing here at this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Nicholls.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

I want to continue on that point.

Mr. Chair, Mr. Proussalidis' article is out there. The public has read it. I agree that he has the right to write whatever he wants. People can buy his newspaper. The work of this committee, though, has an important obligation. It has an obligation to the House of Commons and an obligation to the Canadian people. Through my question of privilege in asking for censure, not censor, of Mr. Proussalidis' article it sends a message to the public that we as members of this House don't agree with the cynicism that is being fed to the Canadian people.

Given the fact that this committee's work is being cast in a negative light, we could send a message by saying we don't agree with that. We have confidence in the chair. We believe that the chair is measured. He's not frustrated by the process because that's his role as chair, to uphold the integrity of this committee. He has not snapped at members. He has ruled justly. He has not cut off people from debate. He has followed procedure.

By sending a message, by addressing this article, which in my belief is feeding the cynicism of the Canadian electorate, we send a message that we can also react to the way we are being portrayed, which is affecting our privilege as members. The more cynical the Canadian people become about our political process whether it be our work in the House of Commons, the work in the Senate, the other place, the work we do in committees, the more the cynicism of the Canadian electorate is fed, the less confidence they have in this process.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I have a point of order.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

There's no point of order on a question of privilege, Mr. Opitz.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Go ahead.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

By feeding the cynicism of the Canadian electorate, they lose trust in the public institutions that represent them such as the work that we're doing here at committee. So when we go back to our ridings—if we go back to our ridings, considering that this could go on for quite a long time especially with the time extension—when we go back to our constituents and we talk to them, if more and more of them are telling us, “What you guys are doing is going around in circles, you're cutting off debate”, that does affect your privilege in the long run.

Those people whom you represent, those constituents, no longer will give their confidence to you as your representative if they believe that you're frustrated by the process, that you're snapping at other members, that you're cutting off debate. If they believe those things, such as how Mr. Proussalidis has cast the chair of this committee, then they start to lose confidence in the process, and that does affect your privilege in a serious way.

Therefore, we have the chance through the chair's ruling to show that we don't necessarily agree with the light that we've been cast in through media sources. Mr. Proussalidis has all rights to write whatever he wants. That's the freedom of the press. I support freedom of the press. I would not want him to stop his work.

But as a committee in our work we have the right to protect our privilege and the privilege of all members in this House and to set a precedent by saying that perhaps we respectfully disagree with the way that Mr. Proussalidis is casting us, that it is not an accurate depiction. It doesn't mean we are going to try to remove his articles from a newspaper. It just means we're sending a message that we respectfully disagree with his portrayal of the work of this committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Nicholls.

Mr. Opitz.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'm a little disturbed by the member's comments. I had mentioned the other day that in my military time I commanded troops, and now I have 113,000 or so constituents that I answer to each and every day. If we are in the media, that is the media's prerogative to write about us. Often things are good and often things are bad, and we've just got to deal with that. As public figures and politicians, and leaders in our community, we are subject to and open to critique, and that is the right of the electorate. That is the right of the media to publicly look in on us and see what we are doing.

That side can't talk about transparency and not practise it. If they don't like what somebody's saying about them, they can't try to shield it because their feelings are hurt or because this particular journalist has written something that casts them in a negative light. Well, he's been here for the same length of time I've been here, and I think I've become quite accustomed to that at this point. I would recommend to my honourable friend that he should too because the media, constituents, the public all have a right to know what we are doing in this committee, and this committee is public. The only ones holding us up here with circular arguments are on the other side, Mr. Chair. It's not this side. In fact, if you look at the statistics of the amount of speaking time on this committee, it is far outweighed by those on the other side, the NDP members and a Liberal member.

We are seeking reasonable accommodation, reasonable compromise. My friend, Mr. Shory, is having his ability to put his private member's bill through compromised. What else is being compromised is the safety of the Canadian public. This bill defends, first of all, my former comrades in the Canadian Forces, and anybody who perpetrates an act of violence against them in any way could have their citizenship stripped. Any terrorist who perpetrates an act against Canada, against its citizens, against our sovereignty, against our freedom, against our way of life, against the way we choose to conduct ourselves and our democracy, could have their citizenship stripped if they happen to be a Canadian citizen or a dual citizen, and in full accordance with the UN charter on making sure that people do not end up stateless.

Canada abides by those rules. Additionally, it allows those permanent residents who are in the Canadian Forces serving there, or those who will serve in the Canadian Forces because they have particular skills that the Canadian Forces need, to achieve citizenship one year faster. I think that is a very reasonable accommodation for those willing to put themselves in harm's way on behalf of Canada and their fellow Canadians.

Mr. Chair, I'm offended that the member opposite is worried that he's not going to look good in the media because of the fact that they continue to filibuster, block important legislation, block an important private member's bill, and block a member from being able to have his voice and the voice of his constituents heard in this place.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I think you're going beyond the issues before us.

Mr. Menegakis.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is inconceivable. In fact, it really raises a serious question as to the intent of this question of privilege brought forth by Mr. Nicholls. Mr. Nicholls, in my opinion, has the audacity to bring before this committee a question of privilege on something that a member of the media has written.

Mr. Proussalidis, like all members of the media, like all media outlets, has the absolute right, as part of the responsibilities of his job, to comment on the news and to give his opinion on matters. He has the absolute right to question, sometimes to speculate, depending on how they feel. At no time do we have any right to question what the media says or does not say. This is not a question of privilege.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We're getting into repetition, Mr. Menegakis.

Mr. Harris.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I found it rather startling to hear Mr. Opitz say that in relation to the fact that a member brought a question of privilege, really what was said about the chair and the committee was that the member is worried about himself looking good in the media. That's a very far stretch.

For someone to raise the question, to bring it to the committee as to whether or not there has been a question of privilege, that's an absolute right of members of the House. It's not about him looking good. It's about whether or not the committee or the committee chair is receiving the respect they deserve. Whether you agree with the question of privilege or not is a totally different matter. To then go on to suggest that this legislation that's being delayed is going to ensure that anybody who does violence to a member of the Canadian Forces is going to lose their citizenship, that's outrageous. It's not even true. That's not part of any bill that's before the House.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Harris.

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

We heard Mr. Opitz talk about the bill, why this is before the House, and people are delaying—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I have the right to cut this off, but I'm allowing members to go on. We're getting into debating other things.

Ms. Sims.

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

Chair, I just want to say that it has been interesting for me that as we debate a question of privilege raised by one member, which is debatable at this committee, members from the government side have brought in actual contents of the bill and have been given quite a bit of liberty to make comments that go way beyond the motion that we are debating.

So I'm hoping that the chair will bear with me in a similar way because it's not bad—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I know you're wrong. I just cut off Mr. Harris for going beyond.

Ms. James, you have the final say.

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

Chair, if I may—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Well, you know....