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
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
—and right now, when this came up again, I introduced new evidence, which makes the point that I am making not the same point, because there's new evidence.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Quite the contrary. I've dealt with the new evidence that you've put forward and have said that those aren't amendments. Those are references to proposed amendments by unknown witnesses.
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Right, but Mr. Chair, your practice was to allow for the discussion to take place in this very committee on those proposed amendments—
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
—so I'm asking that you be consistent with your practice.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
This is the end. We're moving on.
Ms. Freeman has a new point of order.
NDP
Mylène Freeman NDP Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Thank you.
I would like to argue that the amendments were part of the way this committee studied this particular bill and that as a result we are allowed to consider them, even though they were not formally moved.
This is a separate point. I would like to read into the record, from the same day, March 21, from our Minister of Immigration Jason Kenny—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I've already ruled, and we're going to proceed to the next speaker.
Actually, the next speaker—we interrupted her—is Madame Groguhé.
You may continue with your debate on the main motion, Madame Groguhé.
NDP
Sadia Groguhé NDP Saint-Lambert, QC
Mr. Chair, before I go on, I wanted to say something about the 30-day extension. It should be noted that the proposed motion could be split in two. There is indeed a cause and effect relationship between the 30-day extension and the possibility of expanding the scope of the said bill.
We can therefore consider the motion in its entirety because it does not in any way challenge your ruling as regards the discussion of the 30-day extension. That extension is being sought to allow for the possible expansion of the bill's scope. If those 30 days were not proposed or granted, it would clearly be impossible to expand the scope of Bill C-425.
Mr. Chair, aside from the fact that we are against the—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Madame Groguhé, before we get into that, I have been very nice to you. I have ruled on this several times. I allowed it to come again. If you're substituting in or out—and I address this to all members of the committee—you need to be briefed as to rulings I have already made. If you come in and start talking on something I have already ruled on, I'm going to cut you off.
Madame Groguhé, you are now getting—in fact, you are disregarding what I just said. We are not going to talk about amendments or about the scope of the bill. We're going to talk about whether this committee will have an extension of 30 sitting days.
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Did you forget me and my point of order again?
Mr. Chair, I was going to raise that it's getting really loud in here. I couldn't hear the translation of what my colleague was saying. Could you get some order in this room when we continue so that I can actually hear the translation?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
All right. We're looking for some order.
Madame Groguhé, go ahead.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
I know there's a lot of movement, and people have the right to come and go and sit where they please, but I'm finding it difficult to know who is here on the committee and who is here observing.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I know and the clerk knows.
You're perfectly free to challenge if someone hasn't been properly substituted in. If you wish to do that, we will advise you, but everybody who is here is properly substituted in.
Madame Groguhé, you have the floor.
NDP
Sadia Groguhé NDP Saint-Lambert, QC
Mr. Chair, I wasn't trying to challenge what you made clear about the discussion on this motion. In my comments on the 30-day extension, I have no intention of mentioning the amendments or referring to them. I am simply trying to establish the link to the request for a 30-day extension. It is clear to me that a causal link exists and is at the heart of the motion, which seeks a 30-day extension to provide for the possibility of expanding the scope of the bill. I have no intention of discussing matters that pertain to the amendments as far as expanding the bill's scope goes. That isn't my intention.
That said, we are against the idea of extending the period set aside to consider this bill by 30 days, because that extension would set a precedent in this matter. Why try to rework the schedule to allow for—I repeat and stress—the possibility of expanding the bill's scope?
The 30-day extension has nothing to do with Mr. Shory's initial bill. The actual reason behind the extension is to make it possible to override the bill using other considerations that would, as a result, amend—forgive me for using the word you don't like—the bill. If those considerations are at play, the real question is why not simply use a more direct approach and put forward a separate bill containing everything the government would like. That would put an end to our debate.
It is clear to us that the extension is being used as a procedural tactic to make us reconsider a bill we have already discussed in committee and heard witnesses speak to. As regards Bill C-425—