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
The motion we're debating, Mr. Chair, actually does ask for a.... It is a motion of instruction from the House of Commons for this committee to expand the scope of this—
Conservative
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
It's in the second paragraph. The first paragraph is the 30 days, and the second paragraph is on expanding the scope.
Mr. Chair, maybe the government side members and the opposition side members have been given two different copies of the motion. The motion we were given clearly stipulates that we are debating expansion of scope, and that's part of the motion of instruction: that we are requesting to the House of Commons to give us that motion of instruction.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Yes, and I've read this in a few times. It actually doesn't speak to the scope. It actually speaks to the fact “that it be granted the power during its consideration...to expand the scope”. The specific issue is the power to expand the scope, not the expansion of the scope itself.
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
So now we can vote, yes?
Conservative
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Thank you.
I want to thank my honourable colleague, Mr. Dykstra, for mentioning that. Again I go back to the fact that the actual text in this motion reads, “On Tuesday, April 23”—that's past tense—“the Committee recommended to the House”, so we've already recommended it. We're not debating what that recommendation was. The actual motion before us is whether to extend 30 sitting days, and that's it, period. The other is just a preamble. It's already been done. It's already been said. It's not relevant to the discussion right now.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Just give me a minute.
Looking at the motion, Ms. James, I'm actually going to support what you're saying. The issue that's been read is that the committee be granted the power during its consideration of Bill C-425 to expand the scope of the bill, and that's why we went to the House. That's why there's a concurrence motion. There's going to be a time for you to debate that—not here but in the House.
Quite frankly, the issue before us is whether the House should give the committee an additional 30 days to deal with this bill.
I'm going to rule that Ms. James and others are correct; that the statement of expanding the scope of the bill, which you want to read O'Brien on, is not in order because its effect is what we're going to be dealing with in the House, not in this committee.
Have you finished, Ms. James?
Conservative
NDP
Mylène Freeman NDP Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Mr. Chair, I understand you have ruled. That said, I have not had an opportunity to speak on this point, and so I do appreciate your giving me the opportunity at this moment. This motion would not exist were it not for the fact—
Conservative
NDP
Mylène Freeman NDP Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
On this point of order.
The committee needs to extend in order to have the ability to expand the scope of this bill. We would not have this motion before us asking for an extension of 30 days if it were not for—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Ms. Freeman, I have already made a ruling on this. You may not like it. You can challenge the chair, but that's the ruling I have made. I will repeat it: this business about expanding the scope of the bill is a fact and is going to be dealt with sometime, if it ever reaches it, in the concurrence matter.
NDP
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We're finished with that point of order.
On a new point of order, Ms. Freeman.
NDP
Mylène Freeman NDP Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Chair, several times today when I have raised my hand to speak on a point of order, you have recognized me on your list as one of the people who are to speak on a point of order. You have then made rulings before I have been able to speak and I have not been able to make my points.
My points have not been repetitive. I really believe I am bringing a different perspective when I am speaking, and you have made rulings before I was able to speak. Then, when I tried to speak, you have cut me off and told me I was no longer able to speak because you had already ruled. But I had been recognized, and I believe that I have spent this entire morning essentially being cut off after speaking one or two sentences. I am getting a little frustrated by it, frankly.
So I would ask that when you recognize me as a speaker on a point of order that you at least get to me before you then rule. Thank you.
Conservative
Conservative
NDP
Mylène Freeman NDP Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
No, I am absolutely okay with that, but I do not know how we got to that.
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
On a point of order, did I just lose my spot because everybody decided to raise points of order?
NDP
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Ms. Freeman, I misunderstood the list that was before me. You are absolutely correct on what you've just said: you are on the list for speaking on the point of order. You happen to be on the same list to speak to the main motion. It's a coincidence, but you are.
You're free to speak on the point of order. If you have anything to add, I have made a ruling, but I'm open if someone can change my mind on this. You are free to speak. I do apologize to you. It was a misunderstanding on my part. I have four lists in front of me. You are free to speak on the point of order, as is Mr. Weston, Mr. Dykstra, Ms. Sims, and Mr. Menegakis.