Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 13th, 2013

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

The chair would remind Mr. Dykstra that this is not a point of order.

There has been some question as to what's being debated on the floor. To add clarity for everybody who is at the meeting, I am going to read the motion. I'm going to ask everybody to keep that in mind when they speak and when they bring up their points of order. The motion reads:

Pursuant to Standing Order 97.1(1), your Committee is requesting an extension of thirty sitting days to consider Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces), referred to the Committee on Wednesday, February 27, 2013.

That is what we are here to debate. There were different pathways that this could have taken. This is the one we are here to debate. When people are debating, as goes the experience of this committee ever since I've been here and it was ruled on by the regular chair, when somebody is speaking on an issue, they must be able to link back the comments they make to the motion that's there. In other words, they can't go off on an isolated topic.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Chair, based on what you just said—and I appreciate your reading the motion again so that it's clear to everyone—Ms. Groguhé spoke since about 8:30 this morning. She had about, if I read correctly here, six to seven, almost eight hours, to speak. We didn't interrupt her. We allowed her to speak to many spokes that have a little bit to do with the issue relevant to the bill itself. Virtually none of what she spoke about was about the extension. I let that go. I didn't say anything.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

We are not here to discuss what Madam Groguhé said, because she's gone.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Let me make my point.

Well, she's gone. Actually, we're not supposed to say whether a member is here or not.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

Okay. My apologies.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

What I am saying is that we allowed it to go and we didn't say anything. But now, when it comes specifically to this motion, I expect that the next speaker is going to speak specifically to the motion on the floor that you read today and that we aren't going to go into the same speech that we heard from Madam Groguhé. It has to be specifically to the motion on the floor today.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

The chair would remind all members that we have a motion on the floor. The motion has been read to each and every person, and I'm sure you've all heard it. When you're speaking, please make sure that the comments you make are related to and have a connection with the wording I have read out.

We're not going to say that the only words that can be said are those that are printed in the motion because otherwise there would be no reason to have a committee or to have a debate. We are here to debate this issue. What I am going to say is that I'll be listening very carefully. If I find somebody veering too far off and not connecting back to the motion, I will then urge them not to do that.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Shall I continue, Madam Chair?

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

We'll go back to you, Ms. Sitsabaiesan.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you.

Madam Chair, some of the issues that I've identified are reasons why I will not be supporting this motion to extend the time for another 30 days. I don't want to vote blindly one way or the other without explaining myself. That's why I'd like to justify my vote for you and for the rest of the committee.

Here goes why—

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

I just want to explain that there would be no reason to have a committee meeting and to have a debate if the only reason people were here was to say yes or no. That wouldn't require debate. People could just vote. We have debate for a reason.

My only advice to members of this committee is to make sure when you are speaking that you link whatever points you are making back to the motion and that you don't go off into a different sphere. The chair does not want to say to people that it's either yea or nay. That is not what we're here to do. It is a legitimate debate that is going to take place, and I'm going to give people the space they need to debate.

I'm hoping I'm not going to get the same point of order over and over again, because this chair could get to overlooking points of order as well.

Back to you, Ms. Sitsabaiesan. Go ahead please.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I've put the concept of acts of war to bed for now.

I'd like to speak about pathways of integration, because the presenting member said the bill would actually offer pathways of integration for newer immigrants to Canada and permanent residents.

Some of the problems that were identified with this is that very few permanent residents are able to get into the armed forces. Experts said the impacts of this bill would be extremely minimal. If you look on the website of the forces' recruiting page, the first requirement is to be a Canadian citizen.

When they identify the first requirement as needing to be a Canadian citizen, it's unlikely that people who are permanent residents would even consider applying for such positions within the armed forces.

When we spoke with witnesses, there were two colonels here with us, Colonel Bariteau and Colonel Gibson. I believe they were the ones who spoke about this, but I don't remember off the top of my head, Madam Chair. They said it's actually not used very much. Very few people who have permanent residency are recruited to serve, and I forget the exact number.

My question is, if our government is telling us that people who serve in our armed forces are putting their lives on the line in the course of duty to serve and protect our country and its people, are we saying that other people in other professions who put their lives on the line, for example, RCMP officers and doctors who are not members of the armed forces, are not deserving?

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

On a point of order, Madam Chair.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

Ms. Sitsabaiesan, I have a point of order.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

You read the motion out so everybody would understand, Madam Chair. Again, we have a situation where the member is speaking about something that may have happened or have been said during the debates that occurred when the bill was before this committee. The bill is not before the committee any more. What is before the committee at the current time is this extension request. So what is the relevance of quoting witnesses when we've already determined that is out of order?

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

On the same point of order, Mr. Harris.

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

To the point of order, Madam Chair, I've heard your ruling and I've heard the member explain why she doesn't support the motion and why she doesn't support the extension. She's doing it by making reference to the legislation itself and to the concerns that were raised during study of the legislation. She hasn't reached the point of explaining how it ties in with the motion itself. She's referring to what happened here.

The member has the right to state facts and then tie them to the motion and relevance. Mr. Dykstra is preventing the member from even saying why or how it is relevant to the motion, so I don't think the point of order is well founded. You can't jump on a member before she even gets a chance to finish the point she's making. She has a right to make that relevance before she's ruled out of order.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

Mr. Dykstra.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Harris may want to make his point, but it's incorrect actually because the relevance that you're going to need to rule on my point of order is whether or not the member is speaking to the motion that is on the table, which you read. We've already heard from the previous speaker almost all the same arguments which are being presented by this speaker. So relevance has already been established, Mr. Harris. What we want now is to understand why the NDP will not vote on the issue of a 30-day extension that will allow a private member's bill to actually move forward. That's what is relevant here.

If they don't like the private member's bill--

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

Do you think it's relevant?

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

That's what I know is relevant and that's what I'm asking the chair to rule on.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

I would urge colleagues not to have a two-way conversation and to conduct themselves through the chair.

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

Sorry, Madam Chair. My apologies.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

Are you done?

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Yes, I'm waiting for your ruling.