Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 13th, 2013

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

Yes, absolutely.

Mr. Chair, the parliamentary secretary said I am repeating what I said last week. But those aren't the same things I am talking about today.

Since you interrupted me to point out that Mr. Giguère had discussed it, I will carry on without referring to Standing Order 97.1.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

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

But, with regard to the 30-day extension, it is imperative that we be given some clarification on why it is warranted. We need a clear and specific explanation of the reasons behind the extension. I'm being told that my comments are repetitive, but the fact remains that we were never clearly provided with the official reasons for the extension request.

It was pointed out that Bill C-425 remained very limited, but no statement was made—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Madame Groguhé, I'm not going to read it, because it has been read, I don't know how many times. I will just refer you to the second paragraph of the motion, which gives the reasons.

We've been through this. We were through this a number of times yesterday, and you're starting to be repetitive. It's quite clear why this application is being made. It's in the second paragraph; those are the reasons.

We've been through this; you're getting into repetition. I'm going to move on, if you continue to repeat. I don't want to hear Mr. Dykstra reading me pages of the blues. I don't want that to happen, and you don't either.

With due respect, I will move on if you continue to repeat.

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

Mr. Chair, you mentioned the second paragraph of the motion, which isn't at all addressed as far as this extension goes. There is an indication that the 30 additional days are needed to put forward amendments, but the government has not provided an explanation as to why the extension is warranted. That is what I was referring to.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I've told you that they have. It's in the second paragraph. This is clearly repetition, Madam Groguhé. We discussed all of this yesterday and I expect, if I let Mr. Dykstra go on, it would be clear that it was discussed last week.

You're getting into repetition. Reasons have been given; indeed, they've been given in the very motion.

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

Mr. Chair, we talked about the extension, which, as the clerk explained would begin now or on June 21. Is it possible to get the exact date that this extension would take us to if the House did break for the summer on Friday June 21?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

All right. The clerk advises me, Madam Groguhé, that if it's business as usual, it would be November 1. In other words, it's if things unfold the way they should—but we all know that things sometimes don't unfold the way they should.

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

That's true.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Do you know what I'm talking about, that things could change.

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

Yes, indeed, Mr. Chair. That's quite clear. We have a specific date for those 30 additional days.

But as we mentioned, Mr. Chair, not everything is clear. Things are still rather murky. The NDP will not support the 30-day extension. Without having debated the bill in question, we are now talking about a motion that involves an extension, one that will not produce any of the results we feel it should. The 30 additional days requested will merely draw out the process without producing any meaningful results as far as Bill C-425's content is concerned. When this bill was agreed to at second reading and referred to the committee, we undertook our study without anticipating an extension of that study. We did not need the 30-day extension. For that reason, we will not be supporting the extension.

The fact remains that, in our view, this motion suggests that the government is trying to keep this bill alive. The arguments to support the extension do not add up and are not acceptable, in light of what we know from all the meetings allotted to this study. On June 21, we will no doubt hit the 60 sitting day deadline initially set out. We don't want the government to corner us into approving a 30-day extension. We sincerely hope that the government will change its mind and withdraw its motion. It is our position that more time is not necessary. And since there are certain things I cannot say, words that have been as good as banned in this committee, I won't mention them.

Still on the matter of the extension, I must say that we are quite obviously of the view that it should not happen. In every case, the limits of this bill—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Point of order, Mr. Opitz.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, there's virtually nothing new that's being said, and the honourable member is going around in circles. That side, quite frankly, is bereft of anything new to say, and I would urge calling the question, because I don't know where they're going to go, speaker after speaker.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Are you calling the question?

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Yes, I'd like to.

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

What we heard was a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Could I have a moment to confer?

Mr. Opitz has called the question. It's out of order for a number of reasons; you can't do it here. Second, you can't do it on a point of order.

Ms. Sims has a point of order.

But you're free, as has been done, to challenge the chair.

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

I appreciate the ruling you have made, Chair, and that was the point I was trying to make.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay.

Madame Groguhé, fresh notes from behind. That's improper. I apologize; I shouldn't have said that, but it was so tempting. I apologize.

Mr. Opitz is correct. You have been going over areas that we have gone over before. I'll give you some leeway, but just keep in mind that this'll be the third warning, and you know what happens in the third warning; it's a strikeout. I'll let you continue.

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

It's really not—

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

I have a point of order before my colleague starts. I don't know if it's a point of order or clarification, Mr. Chair, but you will tell me.

I know that yesterday we sat for a very long time, and our regular meeting times, as you know, are two hours, but we're into an endless meeting, and because of that, I would really urge you to give us some guidance as to whether comfort breaks are going to be built in during the day. I'm not asking for lunch breaks, but when you have a meeting that goes on for more than three hours, and for up to nine, I think it would be very reasonable for members to have a comfort break. I'm not talking about each person having to sneak out and run back to their chair; I'm talking about a proper comfort break, and I would urge the chair to consider that.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'll consider it.

Madam Groguhé, you have the floor.

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

Mr. Chair, I'm going to touch up my notes, so I will turn the floor over to my colleague.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Sims.

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

Thank you very much.

It is my pleasure to speak on this motion again about an extension of 30 sitting days. If I am right, if everything plays out according to the rules of the House and we don't adjourn till June 21, it will actually give us an extension to November 1.

This means—and these are new points, Mr. Chair—that it will stop this committee from dealing with any other business and that we will devote our time to private members' business well into next year. I'm not talking about a couple of meetings, but about coming back in September and working through October, right into and including November 1.

I have to vehemently speak against an extension of 30 days. I believe that the committee has had more than ample time. But who is to judge “ample”? That's a subjective word. But the committee has had a chance to use the 60 days, and they're working days, if I remember correctly, sitting days. They've had an opportunity to use those 60 days.

If we grant this extension, or if we pass this extension and it goes to the House and the House grants us the extension, that will interfere with the ongoing, imperative work of this committee. I'm not talking about work that we have already done. I'm not even talking about old studies. I'm taking about imperative work that constituents and interest groups out in the larger community want to see addressed. I hear about citizenship wait lists that could be dealt with during that time. That's why I would argue that it is appropriate for me to speak to this at this time.

Immigration has gone through transformational changes in the last little while. This is related to why I believe this extension would interfere with the work of this committee, which is to address some of the impacts that those transformational changes are having on our “not so nation-building” immigration policies.

I have to say that I am trying to be very careful to introduce new points and I am looking at—