I'd like to make a point of order on this particular motion. I'll try to put it in the context of where I'm coming from and be more particular as to why I think it's out of order.
What it plans to do--if not directly then certainly indirectly--is put in a provision for an appeal to any refusal of citizenship, and the appeal would be to the Immigration Appeal Division, which is provided for under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Presently, if you go to that act, there is no provision for an appeal, so that act would have to be at least incidentally amended to give any kind of credence to this.
It would be like me saying that the body that has authority under a particular statute also has to consider things I'm interested in, and the only way it can have jurisdiction to consider those things I'm interested in or that I'm saying under this statute is by amending the other statute to allow for hearings to come from these types of decisions under the foreign adoptions act to the Immigration Appeal Division.
It would absolutely require an amendment to that act. The rules and procedures are quite clear that at the second reading of a bill you can't have either an amendment of the parent act, or an amendment of another statute.
Now, this would at least contemplate an amendment of IRPA. It would need to do that--