It seems to me, if there are relevant questions to be asked about RAD, we should be able to ask them in this particular forum. If we do have to change the time slightly, I think there should be at least the goodwill on behalf of committee members to be able to do this.
I don't usually move motions like this, nor do I speak on particular motions of this nature, but I must admit I was offended in the first round of questioning, as I mentioned. When we did have the ability to ask further questions, we were looking at changing the format according to the schedule. I know we've done that many times.
I sit on the steering committee with a number of members on the other side, and often what's determined at the steering committee is changed here at a particular committee if the majority of members don't agree with it. I know that in this particular case, to ask for slightly more time of witnesses, even though I know we have a very packed committee, there's no reason why we shouldn't be able to look over even potentially delaying witnesses. At the last meeting, I remember that we were going through the detention certificates report, and there were witnesses waiting, Mr. Chair. I felt sorry for them, yet our committee decided that we were going to send them home in order to continue on with the study of our report.
All my motion is speaking to is the particular fact that right now, if we want the ability to ask further questions, I don't think there should be any reason not to. There were legitimate efforts on behalf of members to find out, as we talked about, what sort of backlog is going to exist with this RAD if it's implemented and what sort of timeline will exist with the RAD if we are going to pass it.
Just because the opposition says so, and although they may have the majority on this committee and pass this bill here and later in the House, it doesn't make it so magically. There are going to be implementation issues that the government has to take into consideration, including the cost. We were just informed by Mr. Aterman that in fact it's going to be 7% of the current budget, which is clearly going to have an impact on the backlog position.
Of course, being the Government of Canada, we have to take this into consideration. The opposition doesn't necessarily have to worry about those implementation issues. They can pass anything they like and then simply say it's our problem to put it into effect. For these reasons, it's clear that we must have time to ask further questions. Again, my friendly amendment to the motion is simply suggesting that. Why wouldn't we have the ability to do so?
I know that even the last time around when we had the officials here, I wanted to ask what the minister would do in an appeal decision to RAD, and why the bill would include a provision for the minister to seek judicial review of RAD decisions. I wasn't able to put the questions to the previous witnesses. We would, in the spirit of this amendment that I'm moving, have the ability to actually bring back those witnesses in order for us to get the proper questions in. I think that's something the committee should really take into consideration.
On this refugee appeal division I think we've heard from a number of speakers around the table, including most recently my colleague Barry, who was asking a particular question that I think is a valid one. In the last opportunity I had to actually move a motion here at the committee--and I think it was the last time the committee met--I asked specifically that as a follow-up the committee consider what Barry had asked current witnesses. That was the question of why the previous ministers of immigration, in opposition, had not supported this new Bill C-280. When it comes to RAD, it was obvious to me there were huge splits, huge problems.
