Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 13th, 2013

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to remind Mr. Christopherson that we're not in the House of Commons. We're in committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. James, is it on the same point?

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I am just going to say what really is outrageous is the fact—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Order. Order, Mr. Calandra.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

What really is outrageous is that another 10 minutes have gone by. In light of the fact we again have delayed this debate, I request the chair reconsider his suspension at 2:30 and push it back another 10 minutes so that we can actually get back to the heart of the issue, which is a motion that should have been passed a week ago, or at least voted on.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Yes, Ms. Sims.

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

Chair, it is one thing for you to rule somebody out, and then move on to the next speaker, which you've done quite a number of times.

When somebody sitting on the committee is trying, through a point of order, to get the chair to change the time that the chair has said he will be suspending, I find that a bit over the top.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

All right. For the fourth or fifth time, for the benefit of Ms. Sims and for the benefit of Mr. Christopherson, O'Brien and Bosc, page 620:

When enforcing the rules against irrelevance and repetition, the Speaker can call a Member to order and, if necessary, warn the Member that he or she risks being directed to discontinue his or her speech. Such warnings are usually sufficient. However, should the Member persist, the Speaker can proceed to recognize another Member....

Therefore, I am moving to Mr. Nicholls.

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

Before I get to my point of order, Mr. Chair, I believe Ms. James asked the chair if he would extend the meeting by 10 minutes, and I didn't hear his answer. I'm talking about Ms. James's point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm sorry, Mr. Nicholls, my position of 2:30 stands.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Further to Ms. Sims' comments—I am not sure if it was two rounds ago—the chair said we could refer to the proceedings of April 23, 2013 for the definition of the expression “expand the scope” as regards a private member's bill.

I'd like to know whether other details were provided or whether it came from Mr. Dykstra, when he said, and I quote:

I believe it's imperative to ensure that every single amendment the government has moved plays a role in this piece of legislation, which I think is timely, which I think is correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Point of order, Mr. Calandra.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Again, it sounds like repetition to me, Mr. Chair. I've reviewed a lot of the testimony that has come before.

Is Hansard working? Mr. Chair, can I just confirm that Hansard for this committee is working, or am I the only one who was able to read Hansard before I came here?

Is it working? It is working. Okay, I was just checking. So everybody has had the opportunity to review the transcript before coming here and repeating the same things over and over.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Nicholls, you may proceed.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to check whether it was indeed the passage that reads as follows:

I believe it's imperative to ensure that every single amendment the government has moved plays a role in this piece of legislation, which I think is timely, which I think is correct. It needs to ensure that every single one of our amendments is included in it. I cannot stress strongly enough that no words or actions can be ill-defined, and the bill cannot be either. As such, Mr. Chair, I would like to move the following motion: that the committee recommend to the House that it be granted the power during its consideration of Bill C-425, An act to amend the Citizenship Act, honouring the Canadian Armed Forces, to expand the scope of the bill such that the provisions of the bill be not limited to the Canadian Armed Forces.

Could you please confirm that is where the definition of the expression “expand the scope” came from, or does it appear elsewhere in the evidence of the April 23rd proceedings?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I believe it is, but please bear with us for a minute.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'll suspend for a couple of minutes to try to answer your question.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We need some clarification, Mr. Nicholls.

I believe what you read was from Hansard, a quote from Mr. Dykstra, third paragraph starting “I cannot stress correctly enough”. Then I think you proceeded to read the next two or three paragraphs. Is that what you read to us?

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

Yes, I think so. It's in French, unfortunately.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Yes, and your question is whether that is what we're referring to.

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

Is that the source of the debate on the definition of “expand the scope of the bill”? I'd like to know, so that I don't repeat any of my colleague's previous arguments.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'll try to explain it to you, sir, if you'll bear with me.

This was a motion that was made on April 23 by Mr. Dykstra, as you've said:

That the Committee recommend to the House that it be granted the power during its consideration of Bill C-425...to expand the scope of the Bill such that the provisions of the bill be not limited to the Canadian Armed Forces.

That was a motion that was carried in the committee. There was a report made, which I presented to the House as chairman of the committee. That was tabled in the House. It was the eighth report.

Now we have a motion asking for an extension of 30 sitting days. That motion—I've gone over it a number of times, and you may or may not have been present, but I've gone over it a number of times—is completely different from what happened on April 23. When we talk about what happened on April 23, what you read is correct, but those proceedings are completely different from what is going on now.

You still have the floor, sir, for about three minutes.

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

Thank you for making that clear, Mr. Chair.

In my view, what Mr. Dykstra said that day still applies today. I completely agree with what he said. Our words and actions cannot be ill-defined. We must choose our words and actions carefully, particularly given that the reasons cited for the extension are questionable, as I see them.