Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 13th, 2013

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

Can I finish my last quote?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Dykstra, I was under the impression you were finished.

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

I had one more.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

That was why I recognized Ms. Freeman.

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

I had one more to read to Ms. Freeman's point.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

All right.

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

This is from Ms. Groguhé again. She said, “This study, Madam Chair, was marred by the desire of the government to significantly change the content and scope of the bill, all orchestrated by the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, who came to dictate amendments in committee”.

She said it twice actually.

What's your ruling, sir?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Have you finished?

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay, you're on.

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

Chair, I appreciate Mr. Dykstra's attempt. I believe that last comment was referring.... When I tried to speak about this in one of my last speaking times yesterday I was cut off because, in fact, we had spoken about it. That was when the minister actually came to testify to committee and was reading out what it was he wanted us to do and testifying that he was then going to work with the parliamentary secretary to write amendments.

I think that's what my colleague, Ms. Groguhé, was talking about in that citation. We're not actually talking about the events that transpired last week where the minister was physically present on the government side rather than being here as a witness talking about what it was he wanted from the amendments and how he would be working to essentially do that.

He also did that in the media, so these are different elements of what has happened. We're talking about a different occurrence that happened in a completely different time period because the minister's coming to testify happened in—I can't even remember. It was the 21st of March, so that was quite a while ago. So these are not at all the same elements, and if Mr. Dykstra can find it then we'd be happy to respect it.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Sims, on the same point of order.

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

Mr. Chair, I'm appealing to you in your experience and wisdom as a chair. You have occupied this position for a considerable length of time. I would say that if you were to look back in history, you would see this being the first sign that a motion was being limited to the extent it is, and the debate is being limited so that now even when somebody talks about the minister when they were at committee is construed to have been.... Now we've talked about the extension of the—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I've made a ruling and it's been challenged, Ms. Sims, and now we're going back to that again.

We're going to move on to Mr. Menegakis.

You had a point of order.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

I was going to speak on the same point of order, but if you're done with it, then I'll—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

No, her comments.... I had made a ruling in the past. In fact, indeed it was challenged and sustained.

Do you have the same point of order?

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

I don't have a new point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

All right, we have Mr. Dykstra.

We have Mr. Christopherson.

On the same point of order, Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'm not on a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Then we'll return to the debate. As you can see this is....

God bless you, Mr. Christopherson. We have some controversy going here, and I am concerned about repetition. I'm going to give you some leeway. I've tried to give everyone leeway, but there comes a point when my patience is strained.

You may proceed on the understanding that I will move on if you start to repeat. I respect the fact that you may not have heard what has been discussed in the past, but that's my ruling. I can't help that you need to be briefed on that. I will permit you to continue with your debate on this motion.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

While you have the ministers being involved, you're skewing the whole process of private members' business. That's the whole idea.

I understand and accept that ministers can legally sit on committees—the rules will allow that—but I can't think of a time when it's happened. Normally what happens, particularly in smaller legislatures across the country, is that it's almost impossible to have structured committees and reach quorum if they don't involve ministers.

There are exceptions to that concept, even here within our own confederation—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

On a point of order, Mr. Opitz.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Relevance, Mr. Chair.

What does this have to do with the 30-day extension?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm waiting. I'm sure he'll get to his point.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

It has to do with the fact that the 30-day extension is tied to the government wanting to expand the scope. The proof of that is the fact that the ministers were here. I'm explaining that those ministers were there and how wrong that was, and it's one of the reason we're opposing this.

To continue, I was pointing out that in the Canadian context, this is—