Evidence of meeting #47 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 problem.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
I'll call the question, then, if there is no further discussion.
Mr. Komarnicki.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
I would probably take the comments that Andrew made in respect to Mr. Jaffer's motion and have him apply them to this one too. There is always useful information you can get from somebody. But we've had the minister here, and the deputy minister, and certainly any information that's required can be provided.
We've also had an expert, Mr. Edmondston, testify before this committee. In fairness, the minister indicated the number of calls that are coming into the ministry with respect to this issue, not identifying the specific numbers of people who might be affected. Mr. Edmondston, whose job it is...and I understand he was tendered by Mr. Telegdi as an expert. He gave the types of people who might be in this category, and then when it was drilled down to how many would be affected, he was not able to put specific numbers on that.
So we've had witnesses on this very issue. You're talking about reconciling, but I'm wondering; there is nothing to reconcile between Mr. Edmondston and of course the witness who talked about the Mennonite situation and who provided numbers. There is no reconciling that needs to be done.
We understand that there is an issue and a problem. We understand that there are categories of people affected. Even the experts can't give a specific number. This calling of various levels of individuals from the department probably has little to do with that. It perhaps will involve some political theatre, and perhaps some mischief, but even so, I don't know that all of these witnesses would be necessary. So we would oppose that motion.
I'm wondering if Mr. Telegdi would be prepared to go witness by witness and indicate the purpose of their testimony and what the testimony will be when they're called, especially where there might be duplication. Again, for someone who wanted to have this done sooner rather than later, and with the availability of the deputy minister and the minister, I have to wonder about Mr. Telegdi's purpose in having these additional witnesses. I would like him to indicate the purpose of each, if he could, before we vote.
Liberal
Lui Temelkovski Liberal Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's nice to be back once again to this committee. I see some recognizable faces and items that you're still dealing with.
I would like to know from Mr. Telegdi how much of the committee's time it will take. I think what's most important is that we table the report with some good recommendations, because this has been worked on for many years. I'm familiar with the issues. It's nice to see some of my old colleagues from the past.
Liberal
Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON
Thank you very much. It's certainly good having you back to the committee, Lui. If I may say so to members of the committee--and Mr. Jaffer and Nina will attest to this--he used to keep the parliamentary secretary in line. He was of great assistance in that.
I think we'll probably need about two meetings.
I think one of the problems we have, and we have had over the years, is that you have a minister and you have a deputy minister. The deputy minister has a short tenure, and so does the minister. Essentially I don't think they are capable of providing the kinds of answers you might be looking for.
I want to see the department officials who make the decision to reject somebody's citizenship on the basis that they are born out of wedlock or have not applied before a certain date to retain citizenship. I want to see those folks, and the policy folks in the department, and the legal advisers in the department who come up with the decision that we're going to take one of the Clark children and try to revoke their citizenship.
Quite frankly, I don't know why the parliamentary secretary is offering up the minister as a sacrificial lamb in this, because quite frankly she had nothing to do with creating the problem. It's a problem that she inherited, and it's a problem, unfortunately, that successive governments have inherited.
I think we have a right to have the folks who actually are making these decisions in front of us. This is the best list that I was able to come up with. May I say that, to the credit of people in the department, my office has had communications from people in the department who are rather upset going to work every day and seeing the injustices that occur. These were the names I was provided with, names of people who are most likely to help us find answers to the problems. If you want to go beyond the source, I'm not going to name any sources.
Meili Faille Bloc Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
I would like to add to Mr. Telegdi's comments with regard to having the people who are closer to the operations, appear to answer some questions.
For example, as I mentioned earlier, Newfoundland became a Canadian province and the act was in effect in 1947. Then what happened between 1947 and 1949? Why have those people lost their citizenship, when, Newfoundland became part of Canada in 1949, they were told that they were Canadian citizens. Therefore, when it comes to operations, they might be able to give us their interpretation.
Often, those are technical questions which the deputy minister cannot answer. In a very recent past, the deputy minister actually misled us on a matter as simple as the department's effort, in terms of advertising, to inform people. Should we have much more specific and detailed questions, who will be able to answer them? Who will be able to give us a correct answer? I think therefore that it is quite appropriate to have someone who is still closer to operations and decisions, appear before the committee.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Maybe we're ready for the question on the amendment. The amendment was from Madam Faille, that we include in the list of people who will come before our committee a representative from the national citizenship institute.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
The question is now on the main motion, that the committee receive testimony from the individuals whom you have before you, Mr. Telegdi's motion.
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Can I ask a question?
Chair, will you be presenting, in the tabling in the House, the report on the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre today, or when do you plan to do that?
Conservative