Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 13th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

How many times are you going to say that?

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

On a point of order, Mr. Menegakis.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Chair, when the microphone of the chair is on and the chair is speaking, I don't think there should be any interruptions by members.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Harris, I'm trying to be fair to you and I'm trying to listen to what your argument is. You're not persuading me, but we'll give you more of a chance.

I'm interested as to how relevant this is to the motion. I don't think it is, but I'm open to hearing you say why it is relevant.

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

First of all, this is not an argument about whether or not Bill C-425 is or is not contrary to the charter. It has to do with the process whereby legislation that is introduced by the government is required to go to the Department of Justice for a decision. They're not permitted to bring legislation to the House of Commons if they have a ruling from the Department of Justice or an opinion that this is contrary to the charter.

That matter is under debate. It is subject of debate right now, but that's a different question.

But in this case—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

For all I know, Mr. Harris, that may be the reason, or one of the reasons, another reason, it's not in the motion, but there may be other reasons why the government wants more time.

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

I hear that and it may be, but I'm saying that this committee ought not to seek to bypass that protection of the charter, and that members of Parliament, all of us on this committee, are in a position here to prevent that from happening by refusing to follow this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Sir, I still stick to my guns on this. This is a matter with respect to debate on the bill, not with respect to the motion. I don't recall anyone ever asking whether or not the Department of Justice had been advised on that issue. I don't recall that. If it has, I don't recall it, but it doesn't matter whether I recall it or not. I am sticking to the position and you haven't been able to persuade me that this argument, which you have spent some time on and I've allowed you to go on with to a certain degree, is relevant to the motion. I'm going to stick to that.

If you have another point to raise I'd be pleased to hear it.

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

The point is the logic of what I'm saying is related to the decision of this committee to seek this extension. The logic is that this extension is not debatable in the House and it's going to go to a vote immediately. Nobody can debate these points, but the effect of it is to advance this legislation without having the protection that's there if it was government legislation.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

If it was relevant to the motion and I'm stopping you, you're right. But I'm saying it's not relevant to the motion.

I'm going to proceed to Ms. Sims. You have the floor.

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

I ask that my name be put back on the list.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Harris is back on the list.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order, if I may.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

On a point of order, Mr. Lamoureux.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Chair, we have listened at great length to a lot of the proceedings earlier today, and question period begins in about 15 minutes. Yesterday you determined that we would suspend at 2:30 p.m. The issue that I'd like to raise is whether there might be some benefit to suspending for question period, given its importance to the legislative agenda.

SI would ask if there would be a willingness for you to canvass members and see if we can have a suspension for question period.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We'll hear Ms. James and then Ms. Sims.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

On that point, I think that we should continue working through. The majority of the members on this side have sat through over a week of debate. I'm afraid that if we leave for QP, the NDP or the opposition might come up with a new point and we might miss it. I'm prepared to sit right through. If I have to go right to the very last sitting day, I'm prepared to do it.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Sims, did you want to add something?

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

Yes, I do. There are going to be votes at 3 p.m.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

On the point of adjourning, I find it shocking—

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

It's suspension we're talking about.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes, on suspending for question period, I can't believe that we aren't adjourning right at 2:15 p.m. Question period is arguably the main focal point, like it or not, of the day. To have this committee running at the same time doesn't make any sense. We don't normally do that. It's a question of right. The government wants to ram something through and the price to be paid is our rights.

We are asking that we suspend during question period, which is to be followed by votes. The government is putting on brass knuckles and doing everything they can to deny us our rights, because they want to ram this through. Having a suspension to attend question period, where we hold the government accountable, seems to me to be pretty darned important.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I have a point of order. It's on relevance to the bill.