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
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We've heard this argument before, Mr. Harris. Do you have a new point?
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
I don't think so. I don't think that's the case.
We may have heard the case about it being a government bill versus a private member's bill, but one of the consequences of that is that the Charter of Rights.... This is legislation, by the way, that has been criticized on the basis of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and we don't have an opinion from the Department of Justice on it because we're seeking to bypass that obligation of law that sits with government bills. That's what is happening here, sir.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
You know, Mr. Harris, you're right. It has been raised in this committee before. The issue has been raised in this committee but not on this particular motion, so you're quite right. You may proceed.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Thank you, sir.
The issue has to do with the legislation. If it was brought by the government, the legislation is required to go through the Department of Justice and an opinion must be sought and given that the legislation is complying with the charter. So, seeking to have this extension to facilitate the amendment of this legislation bypassing that process is something this committee ought not to be doing.
The Charter of Rights is there for a reason. We're dealing with legislation that involves the taking away of citizenship of Canadians or preventing citizenship from taking place, and citizenship is something people value very highly, as we heard from Mr. Nicholls concerning his own personal circumstances. It's a very high issue of concern in the law and in people's rights.
This is unprecedented legislation in this country and, as has been pointed out, we don't know of the countries to which we compare ourselves doing this. By achieving this or attempting to bypass this process by.... Well, it's part of the increasing in scope, obviously, but the point is that the new legislation that's being requested to be made available would not have been given that official consideration by the Department of Justice lawyers, and we suggest that it would be a very good reason why this committee ought not to request this extension, because it ought not to do anything to facilitate that process.
Sir, I'd leave that with you and have myself put back on the speakers list for the next round.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Thank you very much, Chair.
I really appreciated my colleague's raising one of the major concerns that I have felt all along, and that is regarding what is in the bill, its applications, and its implications not only for this committee, but for work that is done in other areas as well.
Getting back to the extension that we are here to seek today, an extension, if I could be so bold as to mention, which has been portrayed by many as a protection of private members' business. I would argue it's because I believe in protecting private member's business, that I am actually going to be speaking against it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I heard this argument earlier in the day from you, Ms. Sims, this morning, in fact.
NDP
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Getting on to why I'm opposed to this, and without entering into the scope that is sought, one thing I'm left to say is that there is a reason given in this motion for the extension that is very explicit. It's to seek an expansion of the scope, but unless we can get some clarification of what that expansion of scope is, it's very difficult for me as a parliamentarian to give an extension, because that's like giving an extension on a blank sheet of paper.
Conservative
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
I must be having one of those senior moments I get occasionally nowadays, Chair. It must be something to do with age, because I could not recollect our having raised what is meant by the scope here.
I have heard the chair rule over and over again that we know the reason the extension is being sought, and the reason is to get an expanded scope.
I would impress on you, Chair, that the question I ask, justifiably, is what does that mean? This is why I will raise the issue that taking part in a parliamentary debate means that you debate with the government side as well as other members of the opposition. But the government side has been so quiet all morning—sorry, I'm not supposed to mention who is quiet and who is not.
Conservative
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Okay, I will move away from that line then. I was really hoping today that I would hear more from the government side and that they could expand on what they mean by scope. I would still invite them to participate and to please clarify that for us, although it is every member's right to choose whether to speak or not to speak, because that's a right that's given to us in the orders.