Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 13th, 2013

[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.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Sims, it's very interesting. We've already dealt with this whole issue of scope. I don't want to go there anymore.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

When I look at the request here, it is a request to the House seeking an extension of 30 sitting days. If my understanding is right, this request has to be delivered to the House after this committee has passed it and before the House adjourns, if it adjourns on June 21.

Mr. Chair, it's very difficult to make your point unless you can make reference to what it is you're trying to do.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Probably my going to the button annoys you, and I don't mean to annoy you, but we have dealt with all of that, too.

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

I have a slightly different opinion, but I respect the chair; therefore, I will move on. Basically, what I'm hearing is that I can't question the scope of the bill.

I just want some clarity around here. I can't get into talking about what is actually in the motion, which is about Bill C-425. The only thing I can talk to is an extension in a vacuum. I would say that the chair has put me in a very difficult position in which I'm having to say, once again, that I feel I'm being asked to make vacuous arguments when I want to make substantive ones.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Sims, just to remind you, the scope and the way it could be broadened is in the report of this committee, which was tabled in the House on April 23. I'm not restricting you; that has already been dealt with. I went through all of this with Mr. Harris.

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

On a point of clarification, and I'm not trying to be awkward or irritate the chair in any way—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I understand.

I'm sorry, Mr. Weston, do you have a point of order?

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I apologize for missing the past hour. However, two hours ago, I asked if you would establish a rule prohibiting someone who had already spoken during the meeting from speaking again. I'm not sure when you're going to make a decision on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm doing my best, Mr. Weston.

You can continue, Ms. Sims.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Keep in mind what I've said. Don't make remarks such as that I'm putting you in a vacuum. We have dealt with the issue of scope, which is why I made my comments to you. That has already been decided; we decided way back on April 23.

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

I'm going to ask whether I could get a copy of what was decided on April 23.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

It's in the report. I don't have it here. It's on the website.

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

Okay, I'll make sure that I get it from the website.

Oh, good, there's a copy; I will get a chance to read it.

I may come back—I have that right anyway—to make further points based on what I read in there, but right now I will get back to the calling for an extension.

I'm going to oppose it, and we will be here for a long time opposing it. As you know, this is not action we're taking lightly. We feel that a piece of private members' business is—was—here at committee stage, and after having ample opportunity, we did not manage to address it. That's just the way the cookie crumbles, sometimes. I do not feel at this time any compunction to support giving the government an extension so that they can—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Ms. Sims.

Mr. Harris, you have the floor.

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

Chair, could you put me back on the list, please?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wish to expand on my rationale as to why this committee ought not to ask for this extension. It's the duty of all parliamentarians, I believe, to give the Charter of Rights and Freedoms the broadest possible consideration and support. Countries rarely have the kinds of protection from laws that violate these fundamental rights and freedoms that are set out in the charter. It is something that is above legislation; in fact, it prevents legislation from derogating from those rights and freedoms. We have processes in place with respect to that. We as parliamentarians are sworn to uphold the law, and part of that law—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Harris, I don't see how this is even remotely close to this motion. I really don't.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

If I may explain.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

It's a very interesting point, but I don't think it's appropriate to raise it for this particular matter, which is a motion, for the umpteenth time, simply on whether the committee should be asking for an extension of 30 days.

You are talking about a charter issue. You did that when you were last on the list and you're doing it again. It may be a valid argument, or it may not be a valid argument, but I don't think it's relevant at this particular juncture.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

If I may, with respect, sir, I would attempt to persuade you. First of all, part of the argument is an attempt to persuade our colleagues here that this is a bad move.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

It may be, sir, but it has nothing to do with the motion. It may be a valid argument as to whether or not Bill C-425 should be voted yea or nay, but it has nothing to do with the motion.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

It does in this way, sir, because it's not about whether or not the bill itself violates the charter. The issue is that it bypasses the process whereby significant legislation has to be vetted by the Department of Justice if it's brought as a government bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I know, and you made that point in your last round. I heard that.