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
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
My specific request, Mr. Chair, was to consider preventing someone from speaking who has already spoken on the assumption that the person, with the latitude you're giving, will have already expressed his or her comments.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Thank you, Chair.
I appreciate Mr. Weston reading out the standing orders, but it seems to me that the Standing Order 11(2) as to the role that you've been playing is exactly what you've been doing. You've asked people to discontinue. For example, Mr. Christopherson, when he was asked to discontinue, he discontinued. It's only if he persists in speaking and speaking, after you say no, that you can name him. I don't know why he referred that to you, other than to try to suggest you should do something more than what you've already been doing.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We're back to Ms. Sims.
Ms. Sims, I've tried to be very lenient with you—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I know. I don't want to hear any more. I'm going to allow Ms. Sims to continue, which is what this is all about.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Is it the right of the chair to say you don't want to hear any more?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I'm saying that I don’t agree with the point of order. I'm allowing Ms. Sims to proceed—unless you don't want me to do that.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
You may continue, Ms. Sims, but please listen to what I've been saying.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Mr. Chair, as I've told you before, I have a great deal of respect for your experience and the very difficult task you have ahead of you, having sat in that chair for a few days, trying to conduct this meeting. I also have a great deal of respect for the fact that you are not trying to narrow it down to the point where a debate is not possible. I really appreciate that.
By the way, Chair, I don't have any intention of debating the bill here. This is not the right place to be debating it, because this committee has finished with the bill, as far as it could go. The government still has three more days until the 21st to start those discussions about the bill itself, to bring forward amendments, do clause-by-clause, and get on with it. But that's not what we're here to debate. We're here to debate an extension of 30 days, so when I give my arguments on why I'm opposed to the extension, I will have to....
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I need order.
You know, I can hear Ms. Sims, but I am having trouble concentrating on hearing Ms. Sims. I'd like members to respect that.
Proceed.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Thank you, Chair.
I have that type of hearing. I even hear things I don't want to at times. It's incredibly good, so I always remind people of that, because I don't want them to be surprised by that.
I appreciate when people pay attention because I really try to give that courtesy when my colleagues are talking, and from both sides of the House, both sides of the table, I should say.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Thank you very much.
When I'm talking about the extension and my reasons opposed to it, I have to reference Bill C-425. I've already covered in detail the timelines allowed for the bill, but I specifically want to talk about one component of that process, and I will link it directly to why I speak against this extension, Mr. Chair, if you give me an opportunity.
We heard witness after witness—and I've made a commitment to you that I'm going to read all that testimony into the record—say that the bill had some flaws that needed to be addressed. This is why it comes to committee, because committee is an opportunity for both the government and the opposition to get a chance to change, amend, give ideas to each other, co-opt each other's ideas. We do all of those things. That's what the committee stage is about, and you know what? We've had that opportunity, and the government still has another regularly scheduled meeting—I believe it's scheduled for Thursday from 8:45 a.m. to 10:45 a.m.—to complete the process with that bill, do the clause-by-clause, and allow a vote to be taken. We would welcome that.
When I look at this bill and the seeking of the extension for it, notwithstanding that there are elements in the bill that the opposition had no objection to in principle, though there was some wording and technical changes we would have suggested, we still are of the opinion that the government has had the opportunity to use the time allocated for PMB—that is for private members' business—and it is because of that we are going to be opposing this.
I want to thank the Chair for your consideration.
I will get myself back on the speakers list because I have some new points to be made, but I don't want to keep the floor from other members who want to speak. I heard that in the bit you read out. At no time do I want the government side to feel that they are not free to get on this list.
Please speak and take part in the debate. I welcome that.
Conservative
NDP
Jamie Nicholls NDP Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
Mr. Tilson, I'd like to raise a question of privilege.
Considering the work of Mr. Daniel Proussalidis of the QMI Agency, I'm sure this information hasn't been provided to the committee. Mr. Proussalidis wrote a piece on June 17 and submitted it at 4:57 p.m. to the public. The piece of Daniel Proussalidis casts the work of this committee in a negative light—and the chair as well.
As you know, Chair, the integrity of this committee is very important. The work of all the committees of the House should be cast in a fair light by the media, as they are the ones who directly impart ideas of the committee to the public, and the public learns of our work from media sources. Now, in the view that this integrity is important, Mr. Proussalidis has stated such things as the committee's work is “frustrating” you, Mr. Chair; that you have “snapped” at committee members; and that you have “cut off” debate.
NDP
Jamie Nicholls NDP Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
You can't raise a point of order on a question of privilege, Ms. James.
He has cast you, the chair, as being frustrated. He has said that you have snapped at certain members of this committee, and that you have cut off debate.
I would respectfully say, from my experience here at the committee today, that you have been measured and patient with members. You have not become frustrated with us, you have not snapped—or what I would interpret as having snapped—and you are attempting to work within the rules of committee as outlined by the House of Commons Procedure and Practice.
Therefore, I respectfully submit to you that, in this committee, we censure the work of Mr. Proussalidis as casting the work of this committee in a negative light and giving the wrong impression to Canadians about the democratic process, which you are protecting through your chairmanship of this committee and doing in quite a dignified manner, Mr. Chair.
I respectfully ask for your ruling on this question of privilege.
Conservative
