Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Feb. 13th, 2007

[An hon. member]

One that was called by the Conservatives.

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

Let me say to the member that Diane Ablonczy, who used to sit over here, was a very able critic for the committee, and a very good lawyer at that. I might also mention that Mr. Komarnicki, as well as all the Conservative members, were in support of the report.

We have five members of this committee who served on the last citizenship and immigration committee: Ms. Grewal, Mr. Jaffer, Ms. Faille, Mr. Siksay, and me. I might point out that any division that existed on that committee was on the Liberal side, even though the majority of the Liberals were in favour of both those reports.

The other point I would like to make to the parliamentary secretary is that this was a very expensive process. We travelled across the country. We hit every capital. We hit Montreal, Vancouver, and, for the very first time, we also went to Kitchener–Waterloo as a parliamentary committee, and we also heard many witnesses. This follows on the work of this committee that goes back a number of parliaments. There was a really strong feeling that we need to update the Citizenship Act, which right now is at its six-year anniversary.

Going back to the 10th report, which Mr. Komarnicki was referring to, I might mention that it received the concurrence of the House, without debate. That means it was unanimously adopted by the House, and certainly Mr. Komarnicki was a member of that House. So I really see no problem in accepting that report, and I think it can enhance the work that we want to carry forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

We have other people who want to speak on this.

Mr. Devolin, then Mr. Siksay.

[Barry Devolin, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

I'm not addressing the specifics or the value of this report. From a process point of view, could we draw a report that was tabled in the 31st Parliament and table that again? If the argument is being made that it's appropriate to draw any report that was ever produced in any previous Parliament, if there's nothing inappropriate about doing that....

The fact is that some or all of the members weren't around at that time, and the facts may have changed and the world may have changed. Notwithstanding those things, if it's still theoretically appropriate to do that, I guess he can make that argument.

As someone who wasn't a member of the committee and who wasn't a part of this process, certainly using the line of rationale that I understand is being used, then this could be drawn from a Parliament ten or fifteen years ago. Are we to somehow rubber-stamp that?

This is not a case of putting something on the public record. This is already on the public record because it was tabled in the last Parliament. I think this is different from committee work that started and was unfinished, and which we would risk losing if we didn't pursue it. That was the argument the last time, but I think it's a different argument from this argument.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

We really need to have everyone speak on this before we go to a vote on it, okay?

I have Mr. Siksay, and lastly Madame Faille, and then we'll call for the vote.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I want to make it very clear at the beginning that I unequivocally support the two reports that are mentioned in this motion, but I do have difficulty with the process. I don't think there's anything out of order about the motion, but to hoist those reports from the last Parliament and ask this committee to approve them and submit them as reports of this committee without even having had the opportunity to discuss them is I think very unfair to the members who are new to the committee.

It's a very different circumstance to take evidence that was heard by the committee in previous parliaments and submit that, because then the members can review that evidence and make judgments on that evidence. But to actually take the report and the recommendations and, without an appropriate or thorough discussion of them, present those to this Parliament as the work of this committee could misrepresent the committee.

At this point, I wouldn't be able to support this motion as it stands.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Last, but not least, we have Madame Faille, and then we will vote on the motion.

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

Having been on the committee when these reports were adopted, I can say that nothing has changed in the Citizenship Act. I do not think anything has changed regarding the testimony either; on the contrary, we have learned even more. I think that these reports can be important for the study that we are doing on the citizenship issue.

Since the procedure is very much in order, the motion is not a problem. However, I agree with the content of these reports and I would like them to be reused in the committee's work.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I said Madame Faille would be our last speaker on that, so I'm going to call for the vote.

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

I'm going to challenge the chair if he calls for a vote on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Do you have another submission?

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

I do. If the issue is that we want to have some time to debate the conclusion of the report, I will put the motion on the table until we have the opportunity to do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Will you say that again?

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

Get the report and put it on the table. I'll table the motion until we have such time to have an opportunity to discuss the report. We can do it in conjunction with the—

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

So you want to stand the motion.

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

Yes, until we deal with the citizenship issues and the testimony, and we'll introduce that for debate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

We need consent to stand the motion.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

Mr. Chair, I had my hand up to speak on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

No, we're not playing games here. The motion has been allowed to stand.

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

I'd like to challenge the chair on that.

[An hon. member]

The committee made the decision, not the chair. You can't challenge the chair on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Let's go to the next motion. Mr. Karygiannis is giving notice of his motion.

Would you like to speak to that, please?

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

Mr. Chair, last week we heard from a variety of folks, especially on the third safe country agreement. Certainly, it doesn't seem to have been working.

One of the things we can do as a country is go forward to the UNHCR and have the minister speak to it, to set up precedents and set up guidelines for the rest of the world to look at and follow, and also to have an ombudsman to monitor the cases and provide guidance to the rest of the countries.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

That's your motion, and you're moving that motion.

Is there further discussion on the motion? No?

I'll call the question on the motion.

(Motion negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])