Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 13th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

If you continue on, I'm moving on to the next speaker.

You may continue. That's the last warning.

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

A point of order.

Chair, just on your ruling right now—and this is a new point or order—absolutely, we finished with the amendment and the subamendment. But the date June 21 has another significance. That is when the 60 days run out; that's why we're seeking an extension. I don't think it's appropriate to rule out mentioning June 21. If you're talking about an extension, you're talking about an extension from June 21 onward. We're not talking about when it should be reported in the House, etc.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Carry on, Madame Groguhé.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Chair, I won't get into anything other than the matter in hand, and that is the 30-day extension. Without trying to debate it further, I was merely referring to the request that is to take place on June 21. In all cases, this 30-day extension is objectionable. We will not support it. It sets a precedent.

The idea is to rework the schedule. But why do that other than to ensure that the bill doesn't die, as our government colleagues mentioned this morning? If the reason is to keep Bill C-425 alive—that is indeed the piece of legislation we're talking about, and I hope I'll be able to discuss it a bit, since the extension concerns the debate on that bill—we're in a very unusual situation. The 30-day request restricts us, blatantly limits our debate and very patently hurts our reflection on Bill C-425.

It goes without saying, Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Do you have a point of order, Mr. Dykstra?

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

Yes, Ms. Groguhé continues to repeat and repeat the arguments she made, almost word for word. Here's what she said last week.

Of course, Madam Chair, the expansion of this bill greatly concerned us because in fact it will cause a radical change to the original bill. As we have already mentioned, this original bill deserves to be reviewed, corrected, and [we could] obviously fix some limitations with regard to its content. We started to work for several committee sessions in order to eventually develop amendments.

It's exactly the same argument she's making now. I don't know whether she has the same speech, but she's certainly making the same points that she made last week. Every five minutes, or three or two or one, I'm going to jump in now, because for eight and a half hours to nine and a half hours she made this speech. I congratulate her for the amount of time she spent in giving that speech, because it's not an easy thing to do to speak that long, and she did a great job. No two ways about it. But the fact is, she's already made her argument, and I don't think it's fair to everyone sitting here to have to listen to that argument once more.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

There you see, Madam Groguhé, you've done it. He's starting to read the blues.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

May I continue?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

So one more chance and then we're going to move on. You can't repeat what you've said before, or indeed what anyone else has said before. You can't repeat it.

You have the floor, but there are no more warnings.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Fine, Mr. Chair. Obviously, you are the supreme authority over this committee meeting.

That said, we are still talking about a 30-day extension, and we can't exactly invent new words to satisfy a government that doesn't want to hear certain things. That's not possible.

Regardless, any member on this committee who opens their mouth to speak to this motion will have to use the same words. We would have to invent new ones to express our thoughts and criticisms regarding the 30-day extension to consider Bill C-425. I don't see how—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Dykstra has a point of order.

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

I heard that same argument before from the member. I know exactly how she feels about the bill. In fact, I can get you another 30 or so pages of exactly how she feels about the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

No, don't do that.

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

The thesis upon which she built this argument is one she is repeating right now. So if there is something new, I wouldn't be happy to hear it, but I'd be forced to hear, and I will listen to it. But I am not going to listen to an argument repeated time and time and time again. It's unfair to her and it's unfair to the members of this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

This is from page 622 of O’Brien and Bosc. I read it this morning, but here we go again:

Repetition is prohibited in order to safeguard the right of the House to arrive at a decision and to make efficient use of its time. Although the principle is clear and sensible, it has not always been easy to apply and the Speaker enjoys considerable discretion—

—and I emphasize those words this morning, that indeed the chair has considerable discretion——in this regard.

I'm moving on to Ms. Freeman.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I want to talk about the fact that it is unreasonable for us to be.... I assume that we are back to the original motion moved by Mr. Dykstra. I'm looking for confirmation based on the fact that it has been very confusing.

I was looking for confirmation, Chair—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Dykstra made the motion.

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

—that we were back on that motion, that there were no standing points of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I hope so. I hope we're back on the motion.

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

Chair, I would like to argue that it is unreasonable for us to be asking for 30 days. We know that this House will be adjourning soon. The date currently before us is Friday, June 21.

I, as many of the Quebec MPs, hope it will be the 21st, given that we have Saint-Jean events to get to on the weekend, which is a really important thing for us to be doing. We are glad for the guarantee that we can leave the House on that day. Hopefully, we can get through all of this and all be home for the holiday.

That being said—

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

Point of order.

I want to emphasize that while Ms. Freeman may be going on a holiday, I'm going home to work in the riding. I suspect most of the people around the table are too.

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

Mr. Chair, I believe Mr. Dykstra misunderstood my word “holiday” as “vacation”. What I mean by “holiday” is that it is a day off in Quebec, just as Canada Day is a national holiday.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay, ladies and gentlemen....

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

Chair, I'm sorry, but I was making a point.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Well, I'm about to speak, so you'll have to wait.

I did interrupt. I think we're all getting a little testy here. I think I'll suspend until tomorrow morning at 9:45.

The meeting is suspended.