Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 21st, 2006

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Is that okay?

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

I'm not accepting anything yet, Mr. Komarnicki.

I'm reading the text in French, and quite frankly, I really do not understand it. I wonder whether, from either our legislative clerk or our clerk, I could have some understanding. I certainly don't understand it. Perhaps other members of this committee understand it.

Could I could have a copy in English, as well, of why it's inadmissible?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

It seeks to amend section 19 of the act. The amendment is inadmissible if it amends a statute that is not before a committee, and that particular section of the Citizenship Act is not before the committee. So it cannot be amended if it's not before the committee.

So on that ground, I'm told by the legislative clerks that it is inadmissible, and the same would apply to amendments 4, 5, and 1, 2, and 3.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Excuse me, but I understood that Bill C-14 is called “An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (adoption)”, so could someone explain to me why the Citizenship Act is not before the committee?

[Margaret Young, Committee Researcher]

The bill does amend the Citizenship Act. Bill C-14 amends the Citizenship Act only in certain sections of the act. In clause 1, we find an amendment to subsection 3(1) of the act. Clause 2 provides a new section to go into the Citizenship Act. Clause 3 amends section 27 of the act, and clause 4 is a coming-into-force provision.

The amendments in question seek to amend sections of the Citizenship Act that the bill itself is not amending. This is the reason they have been found inadmissible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

So they seek to amend sections the bill itself is not amending. Okay, Madam Folco?

Mr. Telegdi, you have a question?

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Chair, I guess what I--

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I think the proper question here would be since it has been ruled by the legislative clerks that the amendments are inadmissible, are you challenging the ruling of the chair that they're inadmissible?

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Yes, I'd like to challenge it for the time being to give me more time to study this question, Mr. Chair. This is new to me, so I would like more time to study it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

We have to vote on your challenge to the ruling of the chair. A member appeals a ruling by requesting that the committee vote on the motion that the chair's ruling be sustained. So you're challenging the ruling of the chair.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Can I just explain why, in a few words?

The reason why I am challenging...

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Point of order, Mr. Chair. Motions to sustain the chair aren't debatable.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

I'm not debating it; I'm explaining.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

We have to move on. You're appealing the ruling. In the interests of time, the ruling has been appealed, so we will vote on that.

The motion is that the chair's ruling be sustained. All in favour?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Chair, hold it a second. There's a point there, and I wanted to ask a point of order.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

I want to ask a question. If we're talking about amending an act, we have a situation that right now regarding the security requirements for certain people entering the country--

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I have to interrupt here.

You're entering into debate here, and it has already been ruled that these particular amendments are inadmissible. The chair's ruling has been challenged, so now we have to vote on whether the ruling of the chair should be sustained. That's what we're going to do right now. We're voting on the chair's ruling.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Point of order, Mr. Chair.

It's simply this, and the clerk, I'm sure, can answer. When Madam Folco appeals the chair's decision to this committee, and the motion is to sustain the chair's ruling, which we will have to vote on, is the clerk saying that neither Ms. Folco nor anyone around this table can speak to the motion overruling or sustaining the chair and the reasons why we, as a committee, might or might not want to support the chair's ruling?

Is there no opportunity to debate the motion, not the ruling, but the motion presented to overturn? You're saying there's no debate on that at all and that it's a simple vote?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

We've already ruled that there's no debate on the ruling of the chair on that; when it's inadmissible, there is no debate on that. The chair's ruling has been appealed, so then you have to vote on the chair's ruling of whether or not it should be sustained, which is not debatable. I'm going to the vote now.

Shall the chair's ruling be sustained?

(Motion agreed to)

We move on to page 9, which is Madame Faille's amendment.

Madame Faille, do you want to go to your amendment and speak to it?

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

This amendment is to proposed section 5.1. We want it to be stipulated that once the Minister has granted citizenship to an adoptee, the certificate be delivered within 30 days. This would conform to the practice that is presently in place in Quebec, where official documents are provided within 30 days. This rule applies in the case of adoptions.

The reason we would like to see this enforced is that there are a good many parents who, after having begun the first adoption procedure, wish to launch the second one. They are however prevented from doing so until the document is provided. If the document only arrives a year later, the process is delayed by that much again.

I would therefore like it to be stipulated that the document should be issued within 30 days of the granting of citizenship.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Bad news: the same applies to your amendment.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice states on page 654:

For a bill referred to a committee after second reading, an amendment is inadmissible if it amends a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act unless it is being specifically amended by a clause of the bill.

Section 12 of the act is not being amended by Bill C-14. It is inadmissible to propose such an amendment. Therefore, BQ-3 is inadmissible.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

You read it, but the interpreters did not have the text.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Madame Faille, are you asking if the inadmissibility is debatable?

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

The intent here is to refine the granting of citizenship. In the beginning, when I spoke with the legislative clerk, I wished to change the text. Let me give you an example. We wanted to include this in proposed subsection 5.1(1), where it is stated that the Minister shall grant citizenship...

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

You can't do that.