Evidence of meeting #13 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC
I'm sorry, excuse me.
Mr. Komarnicki, I want to say something, and I know you want to say something.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Obviously, I'm not going to debate the chair on his ruling, but I will want to appeal his ruling to this committee, to think about it further. I think the dollar issue may be a fair point, yes or no, and I haven't thought that through very clearly, but I do know this: the amendment we're proposing goes nowhere. If we want it to actually effect what you're wanting it to effect, it has to go somewhere. It has to amend another act, and it doesn't do that. If it were to do that, it would be out of order.
So either amend it and make it out of order, or don't pass it because it won't go anywhere.
I'm suggesting that this chair's ruling.... I would ask that it be appealed, that this committee as a whole overrule the chair on this issue, because it's getting us nowhere. So I'm asking that the--
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
The member appeals the ruling by requesting that the committee vote on the motion that the chair's ruling be sustained.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
I'm asking that the chair's ruling be sustained, and that we vote on that motion before we rule on the amendment.
Maybe somebody wants to speak to that.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
It's not a debatable motion.
All in favour that the chair's ruling be sustained? Against?
The motion carries--
4:50 p.m.
An hon. member
People are voting both ways, Mr. Chair.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Okay, all in favour that the chair's ruling be sustained? Against?
(Motion agreed to)
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
The amendment goes forward.
Is there debate on the amendment?
Madame Folco.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC
I would like to add that from my experience as chair of a previous committee, I understood....
I had understood that an amendment entailing an additional expenditure on the part of the department and, therefore, governor in council authorization, would be inadmissible. Am I mistaken?
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
If additional funds are required for a new expenditure, not an already authorized expenditure.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
4:50 p.m.
Director, Citizenship (Registrar), Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Perhaps, Mr. Chair, I can clarify that the Immigration Appeal Division does indeed currently look at--
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Are we talking about admissibility here of the...? It has already been ruled on. Admissibility has already been ruled on.
We'll just leave that where it is, and we'll move along to further debate on the amendment.
Mr. Komarnicki.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rahim Jaffer Conservative Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Maybe I'm the only one here who's a little confused with what's been happening.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Rahim Jaffer Conservative Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I know Mr. Siksay is a reasonable fellow. He's putting forward an amendment that I think is a well-intentioned amendment. The only thing I fail to understand is if this amendment.... I think Ed touched on it, but I lost some of the things he was saying because I was not clear. Maybe I can refer to the officials. Even though this may be a well-intentioned amendment, by putting this in the current bill you were telling us it's not going to make any difference in the end how you guys approach it.
What I need to understand is whether it's going to make a difference if we amend it now and just move on from this thing. Or should it be rejected because it's not going to achieve...? I think we need some clarification. I don't know if l'm making myself clear. I'm just so confused now after everything that's happened. Maybe you can give us an indication, if we do pass this amendment, can something be followed up on? From what I was hearing, I was led to understand that whether we pass it or not, in the end it's not going to make any difference to the way you approach it as officials.
4:55 p.m.
Director, Citizenship (Registrar), Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Perhaps I can explain a little bit more of the context of the Immigration Appeal Division in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. There are multiple clauses in that piece of legislation, and a number of provisions in the immigration and refugee protection regulations spell out the role of the IAD, what their responsibilities are, how they handle cases, in what context their decisions are made, who are called as witnesses, etc. Those provisions are quite lengthy and quite expressive about the context of those decisions.
This provision as a stand-alone leaves unclear whether they would have the jurisdiction to pick up these cases and actually proceed with them in the same way they would under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and regulations.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
I want to ask one question of the witnesses, Mr. Chair.
Is this something that can be accomplished through the regulations by either IRPA or the Citizenship Act?
4:55 p.m.
Director, Citizenship (Registrar), Department of Citizenship and Immigration
The authority for the Governor in Council to make regulations under the citizenship regulations flows from section 27 of the Citizenship Act, and there would be no regulatory-making authority. Likewise, IRPA includes a number of different regulatory-making provisions, but none of those refer directly to the grant of citizenship for adoptees.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
I'd like to ask Mr. Davidson as well, if we were going to make an effective appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division, you could spell it out clearly, but it would then have to amend either a regulation or the act as it now exists. The reason it's not doing that now is because it's ineffective. If it were to be effective, we'd need to touch upon those other pieces of legislation, and the moment we did, we'd be doing some kind of an expansion or an amendment to it. Am I right?