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.
Conservative
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
When I look at making arguments for seeking an extension of 30 sitting days, what I can refer to has been limited in an extraordinary way, I would say. But in order to put forward my arguments, I would argue, Mr. Chair, that I do have to refer to the contents of Bill C-425.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I don't think so. I don't want to hear any debate on Bill C-425.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
I did not.... Chair, could you let me finish my thought?
At no time do I mean to debate what's in Bill C-425, but I do believe, when you look at the motion, that in order for me to speak for or against an extension, if I do not reference in some way what's in Bill C-425—the key elements in it—but not debate it, then it is very difficult for me to say why I'm opposed to this.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Okay. Try me. I quite frankly can't believe you can do that, but we'll start, and if we feel it's getting into Bill C-425, I will tell you.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
In reference to the extension of 30 sitting days, the reason that the NDP and I, as the critic for immigration, citizenship, and multiculturalism, am opposed to this so vehemently has a lot to do with the processes for the bill before us.
I'm not talking about the future. I have to refer back to some of the things that have already occurred. I have not referenced these before. I know colleagues across the way keep referring to when I've spoken before, but I want to remind my colleagues that there are rules that govern what happens and what we can say in committee. They keep referencing a time when I spoke in camera, which I believe is very different from what you say in public. Even at that time, I did not make this argument. I know what I said.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
I know what I said, but I'm not going to repeat it, because it was in camera.
Here we are. I am vehemently opposed to this extension of the timeline. I am opposed to it both as critic for my party and as a member of Parliament for one of the most diverse ridings in the country. It has a lot to do with the process that we have seen play out with Bill C-425. It has now been three months since we finished with all the witnesses.
We heard testimony, and I'm not going to get into reading the testimony, although I would like to do so, from both government witnesses and from witnesses put forward by the opposition parties. That's a very extensive time.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Ms. Sims, I made extensive notes on your first representations. We don't need Mr. Dykstra to refer to the blues, because what you're saying I have written down. You are repeating what you said earlier today. I'm not going to allow it. You started talking about 60 days being the number of days for private members' bills. That's what you just referred to. You started talking about extra treatment for private members, and so on and so forth. I don't want to hear that again. That was you, not another member.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
With due respect, I do not believe I referenced the witnesses we heard from. Hearing witnesses is part of the process. I was just trying to reference the fact that we've had ample time with witnesses. I was not trying to make the point about the 60 days all over again. I'm having to walk on a tightrope across a snakepit. You have to do a bit of a balancing act. I'm trying to do that balancing act by referring to—
Conservative
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Absolutely not. It's a situation where the motion has been narrowed in debate in a way that I have not seen since I've been in the House. I think, Chair, you would have to agree with that.
Conservative
Conservative
Costas Menegakis Conservative Richmond Hill, ON
I take major exception to that. This debate has not been narrowed in any way. The only ruling you have made, Mr. Chair, is one on repetitiveness and relevance. Repeating over and over doesn't narrow the scope. We started this process last Tuesday. It's now this Tuesday. We've had a week. Ms. Sims has taken the microphone and spoken at least—I'm going to go out on a limb—20 times on this very motion before us. We are discussing the extension, not the bill. She keeps wanting to delve into other things that have already been talked about extensively. It is a question of repetitiveness.
I don't see how she can continue doing that, and implying that somehow her parliamentary responsibilities have been narrowed in some way. I don't think they've been narrowed in any way, shape, or form. I want Canadians who are watching this to know that this debate has been going on for a full week. For four of those days, I remind honourable members, Ms. Sims was actually in the chair listening and keeping order in the committee. To suggest or to imply that somehow the debate has been narrowed is grossly unfair and somewhat disingenuous.
Conservative
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
Yes, Mr. Chair.
I would like to narrow that point somewhat. I'm going to refer you to two portions before I ask for a specific order on your part. The first is from the standing orders. You're familiar with it; you quoted it yourself. It's 11(2) and it says, “the Chair of Committees of the Whole, after having called the attention of the House—
Conservative
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
It's page seven.
May I proceed, Mr. Chair?
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Could you give me a moment? I'm not as fast as you. I'm sorry, I borrowed your book. I'm willing to share.
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
I'm speaking from the top of the page.
The Speaker or the Chair of Committees of the Whole, after having called the attention of the House, or of the Committee, to the conduct of a Member who persists in irrelevance, or repetition, may direct the Member to discontinue his or her speech.... Then it goes on to talk about the consequence.
...if then the Member still continues to speak, the Speaker shall name the Member or, if in Committee of the Whole, the Chair shall report the Member to the House.
In a similar vein, Mr. Chair, referring to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, I'm looking at page 620. We hear something that has been said in various ways throughout the past week, as Mr. Menegakis said, commencing last Wednesday, it says:
The rules of relevance and repetition are intertwined and mutually reinforcing. The requirement that speeches remain relevant to the question before the House flows from the latter's right to reach decisions without undue obstruction and to exclude from debate any discussion not conducive to that end. The rule against repetition helps to ensure the expeditious conduct of debate by prohibiting the repetition of arguments already made.
Mr. Chair, this is the key point.
To neglect either rule would seriously impair the ability of the House to manage its time efficiently.
Mr. Chair, I'm going to ask you to contemplate the various things you've said and to narrow this down to a place where we can ask a new speaker to proceed if that speaker is saying something relevant and if it's a person who has already spoken, to assume that person has already expressed his or her comments. Otherwise, we're in a never-ending story that offends these rules against repetition and irrelevance.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
If I could ask the indulgence of the committee for a minute.
I will get to you, Mr. Harris.
I'm not making a ruling, Ms. Sims, but some more words have jumped out that you just read and that is:
In practice, the Speaker allows some latitude—if the rules are applied too rigidly, they have the potential for severely curtailing debate....
These are the words that jump out: “If they are neglected”. In other words, it may get to the point where I'm allowing too much leeway.
...if they are neglected, the resultant loss of debating time may prevent other Members from participating in debate.
I appreciate your giving me those words. It seems to me possible that I can give too much leeway. In my opinion, and members can challenge me on that, I have been giving a lot of leeway to members to speak, even though I believe there's been repetition and irrelevance. I appreciate your drawing those words to my attention, and I will keep those in mind.
Mr. Harris.
