No.
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.
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.
7:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
That's repetition.
Mr. Dykstra, I'm in the middle of a conversation here.
Madame Groguhé, we're going to proceed, but if Mr. Dykstra thinks you're repeating, not necessarily word for word, but the topics, we're all in for it because he's going to start reading pages. I don't want that to happen. So you're quite free to continue with your debate on the main motion—
7:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
—but I want you to try not to repeat what you may have already said, or what anybody else may have already said.
You have the floor.
June 17th, 2013 / 7:10 p.m.
NDP
Sadia Groguhé NDP Saint-Lambert, QC
Mr. Chair, this is truly an all-out attack against our ability to speak. I repeat, I wasn't going into the details of what I had said previously in any way.
Let us, however, turn back to the 30-day extension. Inevitably, I won't be supporting this motion because the extension isn't necessarily tied to the content of Bill C-425. It is quite clearly tied to a procedural notion. It is a procedural tactic that has nothing to do with the discussion we should be having here, in this committee.
That said, I want to get to the bottom of this 30-day extension, given that the scope of the bill is going to be amended. In light of that, I don't think we are able to proceed or to truly base our discussion on anything real or concrete, as far as this bill goes.
Before the House makes its decision on this bill, the process that would see the committee adopt a motion seeking a 30-day extension could lead us to fast-track the processes and procedures that govern the discussion of a private member's bill. At the same time, this bill could be referred sine qua non, and we would have to vote on this motion. At that point, we would once again be forced to limit our speaking time and debate. What we would prefer is for this bill to be used when it is necessary, in a manner that builds on what we have discussed so far. For that reason, we insist that this request take place in the House on June 21, 2013, no later.
Turning back to the matter in hand—
7:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
No, we've been through that. We voted on that. We're now onto the main motion. We're not talking about June 21.
7:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
This is a gavel. Madame Groguhé, we have done that in the amendment and subamendment. We're now on to the main motion. I don't want to hear anything about June 21.
7:10 p.m.
NDP
Sadia Groguhé NDP Saint-Lambert, QC
Mr. Chair, I don't think using your gavel to interrupt us every time we open our mouths to speak is a way to—
7:10 p.m.
Conservative
7:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
You see? I just read something. Did you hear that? I read something that I have the right to interrupt you if I think that you're being irrelevant, or if—
7:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Madame Groguhé, please give the chair some courtesy. I just read a section out of O'Brien and Bosc that said I have the right to interrupt speakers if I think that the speaker is repeating him or herself, or if they're talking about something that's completely irrelevant. I have just done that.
So when I speak, I'm telling you that we've already dealt with the amendment and subamendment.