Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Dec. 12th, 2006

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Chair, once you are asked to call the vote, Robert's Rules of Order says you have to call the vote, so let's—

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

We called for discussion on the motion, and I think, in the spirit of cooperation—

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

If the question is put, Mr. Chair, Robert's Rules of Order dictate that you must put the vote. It's futile--who's what, who, where, and whatever.

[Norman Doyle, Conservative, St. John's East, NL]

You can't do that on a point of order, I'm told by the clerk.

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

Let me finish. I want to say this for the record. I think there's no question that gay and lesbian couples should be treated absolutely no differently from heterosexual couples when it comes to immigration matters, and that in the end there should not be any discrimination. Any policies in violation of that would need to be brought up to line and should reflect that. So I think, in principle, we agree that those marriages should not be treated any differently in any respect.

Having said that, there is no question that the department would need to instruct people in the field regarding the policy. They would have to rework that and it would take some time. I should also say that we're accepting all the “whereas” clauses in terms of the various countries that recognize marriages, but we haven't had anybody from the department come before us and indicate what the policy is, what need there is for change, and how it might be changed to reflect it.

Let me raise something for Mr. Siksay. For instance, the way the motion now reads, you would “recognize legal marriages of gay and lesbian couples performed in jurisdictions outside Canada for purposes of immigration in exactly the same way as the legal marriages of heterosexual couples are recognized”--and, I would like to say, provided they are also legally recognizable in Canada, because some jurisdictions recognize marriages that are not recognized in Canada, whether they be polygamous relationships or inter-family relationships.

I think we ought to hear about the issues and determine whether there is a better motion that can be put forward, provided the principle is that heterosexual couples and gay and lesbian couples, or same-sex couples, should not be treated any differently in any respect. We need to come up with a policy that actually makes some sense, and there's no rush on it.

I think we can reaffirm in principle that that's so. I would perhaps ask that this motion be tabled until we get back, and that there be some movement on the department's part and on the minister's part to come back with a proper policy for this committee to consider for approval, as opposed to just passing the motion as it now is. If we're intending to do that, if we want to deal with it today, I would move a friendly amendment to this one. But I would first ask that we just delay this to get the minister and the department to come back to us as to what they have done with respect to ensuring that principle is respected, that the heterosexual and the same-sex marriages are treated the same.

The other thing I might say is there are some cases in process and some cases perhaps in appeal that the department would have to review in light of whatever decision we make, and it would take some time.

So I'm saying that in principle, I don't think you'll find any argument from this side of the table with what you're saying, but let's be rationale and logical about it and give it some time to happen, because there are cases in process. There are cases probably in some areas of litigation--I don't know that. But at least the department should appear before us and respond or come back with the principle that's acceptable.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Do I detect any desire around the table to accommodate Mr. Komarnicki's request? No?

Okay, I have a list of people who wish to speak. I have to go to Mr. Jaffer, and then back to you, Mr. Karygiannis.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Chair, I need to speak to that, to what Mr. Komarnicki said.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay, you will after Mr. Jaffer.

[Rahim Jaffer, Conservative, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

My question is just a technical one, and I don't know if Bill can answer it or whether it would have to be a CIC official.

One thing I'm concerned about, because I think Ed basically said that he didn't think there was any opposition to what this motion's trying to do, is that, obviously, there are only some jurisdictions around the world that recognize same-sex marriages. As you know, currently, we often get problems with abuse in the representation of certain marriages; namely, I think of my original country, India, and others, where people engage in a marriage of convenience, so to speak, to try to come forward to get into the country. Is this motion going to limit it to those jurisdictions that recognize those same-sex marriages?

What I'm afraid of is that unless we can have some control on that, we're going to get people who are going to try to get into this country on the basis of abusing that relationship. I don't know if someone can clarify that for me. That's the only concern I had.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

That's a fair question.

Can you clarify that, Mr. Siksay, for Mr. Jaffer?

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

Thank you, Chair.

The motion does clearly say “recognizing legal marriages”, so we're not talking about civil unions. We're not talking about any other form, other than a legal marriage in those jurisdictions that perform legal marriages.

While I'm responding, I would just respond to Mr. Komarnicki's point. There already is a process in the department for dealing with the question of legal marriages. We don't need to set up a new structure. We have a process that examines legal marriage already, and that's all we're asking to happen in this case.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Mr. Karygiannis and then Mr. Telegdi.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Picking up on what Mr. Komarnicki said, maybe we can rework the motion to instruct the minister to come to us with specific details vis-à-vis polygamous and/or other situations. This committee would instruct the minister to update the website and come to this committee and clearly define what we need to go on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

That would involve a change in the motion.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

A friendly amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

A friendly amendment to the motion. Are you willing to accommodate that?

Anyone can move an amendment. We can vote on it. Did you wish to move an amendment?

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

I move that this committee instruct the minister to take into account what Parliament's wishes are—

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

The clerk says it has to be in writing and signed, so I'm sorry about that, Mr. Karygiannis. You would have to write it up.

I guess we'll have to move on.

You can write the motion up for the clerk, if you wish.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

I will withdraw my amendment, Mr. Chair.

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

I would like to move that we call the question. I want to go to the vote and get this done, and if necessary, we can vote on it. I don't want a debate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

No, this is not debate.

You can move an amendment if you want and you'll have to have it in writing.

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

I will do that.

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

Mr. Chairman, I think when I called the question on the motion, which is what I did, without debate, then we vote on the motion in front of us.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

You called it.

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

I called it. I didn't call for debate or whatever.