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.
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
I was just going to say that I've played basketball for many years, and in basketball, there are many fouls.
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
With fouls, there are five personal fouls before someone gets thrown out. That's all I'm about to say, Mr. Chair. I've played basketball for years, but not baseball, so...[Inaudible—Editor]
Conservative
NDP
Mylène Freeman NDP Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Chair, thank you very much for recognizing me. I'm just going to finish with this water. I tried to get it before you passed on to me, but I was not able to. I am going to be responding directly—
NDP
Mylène Freeman NDP Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
It's disruptive.
Chair, I think there were three colleagues on the government side who addressed this point. As a result, I believe I will be able to address it fully without being interrupted.
I believe it was Messrs. Opitz, Weston, and Menegakis who talked about “the right of a member”—in this case, Mr. Devinder Shory, who has put forward this bill—to have this debated in the House. They spoke about this very much as a right.
This is what I am going to take issue with and talk about here at this moment, because it is absolutely in no way an actual right. They really argued that this was something.... Oh, yes: they were arguing specifically that the member had the right to have his private member's bill go to report stage. Now, just for context, I want to talk about what a private member's bill is—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
No, I don't want to hear that. I want to know whether we should or should not give an extension of 30 sitting days for Bill C-425 to continue. I don't want to hear about anything else.
NDP
Mylène Freeman NDP Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Chair, I believe that I cannot be ruled out of order on this, given that the reasoning of three of my colleagues on the government side, who said they would be voting in favour of extending for 30 days, was that they believed that our colleague, Devinder Shory, had a right to get his bill to—
NDP
NDP
Mylène Freeman NDP Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Perhaps I'm mistaking which member was arguing that, but at least several members argued that and gave it as a specific reason. If I am incorrect in that, then I would like to see it, but that is absolutely what I was hearing as a reason given by my government colleagues prior to our having a debate as to whether we could talk about the scope of the bill.
Also, I don't think this has to do with the scope of the bill. Otherwise, they would be contradicting themselves in saying that this was part of what they believed to be a reason and then going back on that end—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Ms. Freeman, I made a ruling after the break that the only issue that's before us is the issue of whether or not this committee can ask the House to grant an extension of 30 sitting days to review Bill C-425—nothing else. I made it quite clear in the ruling. You can talk about anything you like, but I'm going to rule it out of order because that's what I have already ruled. It's as if you didn't hear what my ruling was.
NDP
Mylène Freeman NDP Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Chair, I did absolutely hear your ruling. I am not talking about anything other than the 30-day extension.
Conservative
NDP
Mylène Freeman NDP Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
The 30-day extension is for us to be able to fulfill a supposed right of a private member's bill to reach the House at report stage, which it absolutely has no right to do. Members have the right to have their private members' bills read for the first two hours, that is, to second reading, and to be voted on once, and they have the right to present one piece of legislation in doing so. I have plenty of information that supports that. They absolutely do not have the right basically to say that this has to get through this committee and, therefore, that this committee needs a 30-day extension.
Actually, in O'Brien and Bosc it says that a committee absolutely has the right to abandon a bill that is in the House and reported to committee and—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Ms. Freeman, I think everybody here knows what the procedure is; we're all aware of that. What we'd like to hear from you is what your arguments are as to whether or not this extension should be given. That's all I want to hear.
We'll give you one more chance, and then we're going to move on from you, too. I've made the ruling as to what's relevant. That one point is relevant. Nothing else is relevant, and I won't allow you to get into anything else.
NDP
Mylène Freeman NDP Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Chair, with respect, given that my own personal reasons for voting against this motion have to do with the scope, I am now addressing the arguments that were set forward by my government colleagues. I think I have the right to do that, especially as they are the ones who tried to call us out of order for talking about our reasons. I am now trying to make it understood, given my extremely limited ability to speak on this issue, how I have come to a decision to vote against the motion to extend for 30 days in a way that does not contravene your ruling. Your ruling, if I am not mistaken, was that I cannot speak about expanding the scope of the bill.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I'm not going to repeat what I've said over and over.
Mr. Lamoureux, it's your turn.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I did want to maybe approach it from a different perspective, in wanting to express why it's so important that, as we go through this debate on the motion, that we recognize what it is that the—