Evidence of meeting #43 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 witnesses.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:45 p.m.
An hon. member
Is he coming?
12:45 p.m.
NDP
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Okay.
And if Mr. Komarnicki wants to add one other witness and we have a panel of the two witnesses the government wants to put forward, along with the officials from the department in that first meeting, I'd be happy to support that.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Okay. I detect support for your recommendation, Mr. Komarnicki.
I would ask now for a motion to adopt the sixth report. All in favour?
(Motion agreed to)
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Okay. We will now move to the next item on the agenda, which is a notice of the motion from the Honourable Jim Karygiannis:
That the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration ask the Minister, the Deputy Minister, and other appropriate officials from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to appear before the Committee to further discuss the issue of Lost Canadians and the measures the Government is taking to notify potentially affected Canadians of the retention rule, with regard to the letter from Deputy Minister Richard B. Fadden, dated February 23, 2007, which reads:
Mr. Karygiannis, I'm told by the committee clerk that the motion is out of order. I'm told that the motion is inadmissible in its current form because of the letter that is included in the text, so I have to rule that the motion is inadmissible.
Quoting from Marleau and Montpetit, chapter 12, pages 449 and 450:
A motion should not contain any objectionable or irregular wording. It should not be argumentative or written in the style of a speech.
Further on it says:
As a general rule, every question that is debatable is amendable. ... They are amendable and must be drafted in such a way as to enable the House to express agreement or disagreement with what is proposed.
In short, a motion should be decidable and amendable by the committee.
However, the letter is not a decision of the committee, and its inclusion in the motion is irrelevant to the decision to invite the minister and others from the department, because the letter is attached.
Can you resubmit?
12:45 p.m.
A voice
He doesn't have to resubmit.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Blair Wilson Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I wonder if you could specify exactly where in Marleau and Montpetit, what section, you are referring to. You read the whole—
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Blair Wilson Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
What specific sentence in that allows you to say that this is inadmissible?
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
It's where it says:
A motion should not contain any objectionable or irregular wording. It should not be argumentative or written in the style of a speech.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
Mr. Chair, would you point out where it's argumentative?
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Well, I'm only quoting what I've been given here by Marleau and Montpetit, which is that it should not be “written in the style of a speech”.
It says:
They are amendable and must be drafted in such a way as to enable the House to express agreement or disagreement with what is proposed.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
All right. I would like to amend it and drop the letter, please, instead of saying “dated February 23, 2007, which reads”, and it's attached.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
With regard to the letter, no, I don't think you can do it that way, can you?
12:45 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee
You have the option of “dated February 23, 2007, and that the letter be appended to the committee evidence”.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Mr. Karygiannis is resubmitting the motion.
Do you want debate on that motion? Of course you do.
Mr. Karygiannis, do you have something to add to it?
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
Mr. Chair, I want to thank you.
The minister was invited to come. The minister was escorted by officials. The question was put straightforwardly: had they advertised? They said they had. The question, again, went back to them, in what major newspapers? They assured us that it was done widely. A couple of days later we received a letter that said no advertising had been done except through some posters.
A judge reading our minutes, or somebody presenting, certainly needs to know the facts and what has happened, and we need to make sure we get to the bottom of the comments that were made by the deputy minister on record, in order to make sure that we ask the department to aggressively go after advertising, should there be any other Canadians out there who are lost Canadians and who don't know about it.
We've seen the pain and suffering that people have gone through. We've seen children being separated from their parents because they don't have the right to stay in Canada. We've heard from witnesses around this table who certainly had some heartbreaking testimony. And I think it's incumbent upon the minister and this government to do the right thing and not sweep it under the carpet, so it can be seen as having been done. We need to practise due diligence, and the minister and the deputy minister have to be held accountable in order to make sure it reaches all the affected Canadians.
