Thank you, Chair.
If I'm understanding my colleagues correctly here, what has happened is that we have now extended the time to review this bill before it's reported back to the House. We have added another 30 days.
What I'm trying to read between the lines here from all of my colleagues is that, one, we have extended the time for the review of this bill significantly, which means there may be significant delays in getting this bill passed, and, two, if we're opening up the scope of the bill beyond what its tight and narrow focus was, there are two significant risks. First, if things are put into the bill that are beyond the scope of the bill, there may be procedural issues in the House, but also more importantly, if it is referred back to the Senate, it might stall in the Senate again. I don't think anyone here wants to see the original intent of this bill be stalled in any way. To my colleagues in the governing party, I think that's problematic.
Second, if I'm reading between the lines of what my colleague is saying, do we really want to have the immigration committee all of a sudden drop into a broader review of the Citizenship Act? If we are opening up this bill beyond the scope of what is here right now, I will propose amendments that are well beyond the scope of this bill. There are a lot of things I would like to see changed in the Citizenship Act. I will come prepared with those things, and we will be debating them.
I would prefer not to do that, out of respect for what my colleagues have just argued. I believe Senator Martin put this bill forward in good faith. She negotiated the terms with her colleagues in the Senate. If others in this room want to put forward amendments that are well beyond the scope of this bill, they have the opportunity to table private members' bills themselves. The government also has the ability to table its own legislation.
I would just say to my colleagues in the governing party that, if we are proceeding down this path, we will come with other amendments. I would love to talk about citizenship ceremonies being online now instead of being in person. I think we could devote several meetings to that. I don't know. I think that sounds like a good amendment to the Citizenship Act. There are many things we could amend.
Do we want to do this with a bill, the intent of which is somewhat non-partisan? That's what is on the table here. Think carefully about how you vote. I will not be voting in favour of this motion for all of the reasons just given.