Citizenship and Immigration Committee on March 29th, 2007

[Rahim Jaffer, Conservative, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

You have unlimited time.

[An hon. member]

Are you just trying to eat up the clock?

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I have to allow him to discuss the motion.

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

Let me say this. I take exception to the fact that any member of this committee would try to ram a significant bill through this committee in one sitting, where we have witnesses called, where those witnesses aren't able to fully present their testimony on all of the issues that concern the members, and where we want to move forward to clause-by-clause consideration without taking into account what the witnesses have to say. There's something wrong with that process.

On the issue of lost Canadians, for instance, we have previously had four meetings with various witnesses on the same issue as Mr. Telegdi wished to have, and we're trying to limit debate. The department officials—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

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

I'm not finished yet, Mr. Telegdi.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I can hear a point of order and then come back to you, I'm told.

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

Mr. Chair, can we move on to the orders of the day? We are taking away time from other witnesses. We are already staying on until two o'clock today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

That's not a valid point of order.

I have to hear Mr. Komarnicki out on his motion, please.

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

My view is that it would be only reasonable that we be given a reasonable opportunity to examine witnesses until the process is finished.

To give an example, on various issues before this committee, we have had a round of seven minutes, followed by a round of five minutes, followed by a further round of five minutes, until people had no further significant questions on the issue.

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, could you please just call for the vote? We've heard his arguments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

You're out of order, Mr. Wilson.

I'm going back to Mr. Komarnicki, to continue his motion.

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

For how long?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I'm told by the clerk that there's no limit on the time.

Mr. Komarnicki.

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

In fairness, I'm making a point, and I think it's a valid point. It's a point that as members of this committee, we should not be limited in our questioning of department officials—or any witnesses, for that matter—on an issue as significant and as important as the refugee appeal division.

[An hon. member]

Hear, hear!

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

That will change the course of how we do business. It will change the course after a number of years and significant circumstances have come into play that had not been taken into account when the issue was first proposed. Four ministers have spoken and have said that they've looked at this thing and don't think it should be implemented in the fashion that it is.

It should not be implemented in the fashion that it is, because circumstances have changed. There are better ways to do it. We must look at it from a whole-system perspective. It wouldn't being appropriate for us to proceed without taking the due diligence. I would suggest the due diligence for this committee would be to look at what the shortcomings are, to look at how those shortcomings may be addressed—

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

You are the shortcoming.

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

We should look at the shortcomings and at how those shortcomings may be addressed in this bill by way of amendment. I think it would only be reasonable. There was some issue that was presented here before this committee, saying that we need transitional provisions because five years have passed. Is it unreasonable to take that into account and ask how we might address that in the bill, or how we might address it in terms of this piece of legislation?

You're asking about going forward, about implementation, about the cost it may take to implement this. Depending on whether you're going to create a backlog or not create a backlog, that will have some significance, so you have to have some kind of staging, some kind of plan that will take this into account on a go-forward basis. We haven't done that, and it doesn't appear the committee is interested in doing that. That's irresponsible, and it's not being properly diligent. I don't think it takes the whole system into account, as it should, for the benefit of either government or anyone else.

When we look at the bill as it now reads, it—

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I came to Ottawa as a member of Parliament to work in this minority government and to get things done. Obviously the parliamentary secretary on the other side is filibustering during this process in order to tie up witnesses. We have witnesses here who are being paid and are waiting for this committee.

We've heard his argument. He has talked for five or six minutes now. That's more time than anybody has had to talk. In the interest of working together and having a Parliament that is getting things done, I would just ask that he please wrap it up in the next thirty seconds so that we can have a vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I know members would like me to write a new set of rules for every situation that pops up here at committee, but the rules are the rules. I have no choice but to adhere to the rules that govern this committee.

I'm told by the clerks that Mr. Komarnicki is free to move a motion. He has unlimited time, and I cannot change the rules in that regard. If we don't like the rules, let's go to Parliament and change them, but they won't be changed here at this table.

I have to go back to Mr. Komarnicki, under the rules.

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

The point I'm making is that we're not prepared to take the time to address legitimate issues, but we can procedurally take the time to talk about why that's wrong. I think this committee ought to take the appropriate time to be sure every member on this committee has asked the questions that they think are pertinent and relevant to the implementation of this bill. That opportunity should be given.

There may be an excess of that request, but there has to be a measure of reasonableness in there somewhere. I can tell you that one round of seven minutes on an issue as big as this, for one person, is hardly reasonable. If the committee wants to be reasonable, then it should be, but it should not try to jam this thing through—

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I am challenging your ruling on allowing the parliamentary secretary to filibuster.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

You can challenge, yes. It's the appropriate manner in which to do that, so you're challenging the ruling.