Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 19th, 2007

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Just for the record, we have already dealt with the motion to bring in the former ministers and it was defeated.

I do take exception with you saying that the previous ministers were more familiar with the issue than members of the committee—if I quoted right, more familiar with the department. I can tell you that you have greater minds around this table to consult on the issue, if you want to consult on this particular issue.

The other issue is that Parliament passed an act, and we have been after this and after this to get it implemented. The time for implementation is now, and we have heard all sorts of evidence that this would indeed expedite the system.

I might also refer members of the committee to the letter we received from the Canadian Bar Association, where it points out that the quality of decision, just by the very nature of not having the RAD, has really been devalued.

Surely to God, all members want to make sure there's an integrity to the decision-making process, but be that as it may, we dealt with the issue about inviting the former ministers in and that was defeated.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Mr. Karygiannis.

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

Mr. Chair, with all due respect, this thing has come to an impasse. There is a motion on the floor. I think overwhelmingly you will find that there is a lot of support for Mrs. Faille's motion, and trying to introduce or reinvent the wheel in order to sidebar this and invite this or that....

This government has been in power for a year plus. Whether they want to call themselves the new Government of Canada or the Conservative Government of Canada is immaterial. Certainly we heard witnesses today who stated irrevocably that there is a failure here, and we have to move on in order to make sure we put the RAD.

We have had speakers on both sides. I propose that you call the question now, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Mr. Siksay.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I just wanted to respond to the notion that somehow we're not doing due diligence to this issue of the RAD by proceeding in this way. I don't think anything could be further from the truth. If Mr. Devolin is interested in finding out why former ministers don't support the RAD, the reasons are clearly on the public record any number of times. In fact, probably every single time one of those ministers appeared before this committee they were questioned by at least one member, if not more than one, of the committee.

This committee itself in this Parliament has also held hearings on refugee issues and specifically on the RAD. We've heard from a number of witnesses, and all parties had the opportunity to present witnesses as part of that discussion in our study of refugee issues in this Parliament. I remind you that we've completed the process of hearing witnesses on that and are now working on the draft report on refugee issues. So I don't accept the fact that somehow we've not done due diligence on the issue of RAD.

That information is clearly on the public record. If you want to do the research, it's there. I'm sure the analyst could help you track it down if you're having trouble doing that. There is no question about the issues that have come forward. They haven't changed. The new government makes the same arguments that we've heard for years on this issue.

I, for one, am frustrated with the delay on this particular issue and would like to see us move forward as quickly as possible on the motion of Madam Faille and on consideration of the private member's bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Mr. Wilson.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm just trying to understand why the parliamentary secretary is trying so hard to stonewall us on this issue. The RAD has been discussed ad infinitum, and I agree with Mr. Siksay--you can go back and do the research and see the comments from all the former ministers and from former members of this committee, many of whom are his own colleagues who go on for pages and pages on why they want the RAD introduced, why they want the government to say, “Look, we have this law. It's on the books. We're not even introducing any new legislation. We're just trying to compel the government to live up to the commitment of what Parliament has already said it wants and wishes to have.”

It is unfortunate for the parliamentary secretary that he could not be briefed by the former Liberal cabinet ministers, but if he needs to be briefed on other files as well, be they on the environment or be they on the military, we have a lot of former cabinet ministers who have a lot of knowledge as well who could impart some wisdom to the parliamentary secretary.

I would say let's get moving forward. Let's put the question forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

We have two more people. I'm going to hear these people and then we will call the question.

Madam Faille.

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

Mr. Chairman, would it be possible to move on to the vote? I think we've heard witnesses from each side. What concerns me right now is the fact that animosity is creeping into the committee. It would be unfortunate for us to find ourselves in a situation like the one prevailing the last time we studied the bill. The question of the appeal section has been largely studied. I'd like to propose that we vote on this motion immediately. I think we've covered the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I have one more person and then I'm calling the question.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, if the person who puts the motion forward calls for the question—

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

No, that's out of order. That's not true. The chair is free to hear as many points of order as it wishes and then it will call the motion.

Mr. Komarnicki.

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

I just want to make a couple of remarks.

One, we're talking about a few days, and in fairness, this committee did authorize a witness to be called. It's now saying we don't need to call the witness, even though we thought it was the right thing to do at one point.

The second point, which Mr. Devolin has indicated, is that as recently as within the last two or three weeks, we had three former ministers who either didn't vote to support the bill or opposed it. We do have their comments from the past on the record, which state that when the RAD was envisioned there was a backlog. The backlog went down. They were concerned about the fact that adding another layer—ust as was indicated today—would add additional time to a system that's not functioning as well as it should. The reason they didn't implement, they said in the past, was because of the very issue that had concerned them: passing it without regard to the rest of the system.

There may be other reasons, but certainly people who were in the department saw how it worked and went through the history of it. It is not inappropriate to have one of them, at least, who opposed the bill indicate why they would oppose RAD when some of your members are supporting it. They may have some valid reasons that are recent. I appreciate the history of it, but the history of it would indicate an opposition. Presently they are opposing it, as we speak. It would not be out of order to have them appear at this committee and ask them why they oppose it at this late date, given their past positions.

I would certainly amend the motion to allow for any one or three of those previous ministers to appear before this committee to deal specifically with why they voted as they did on this particular bill in either abstention or opposition.

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

Mr. Chair, haven't we dealt with that matter?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

It would be a new amendment.

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

That would be the amendment. This is a different one. This has to do with the current tense, not the past tense.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Are you proposing another amendment here?

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

Yes.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, at this point in time I would like, besides the point of order, to also challenge the chair, because his rulings today have certainly been out whack.

We dealt with this subamendment that Mr. Komarnicki wants to add. You have a motion on the floor. You are asking for people to go back and forth on this motion; you are not asking for new motions. So either call the question or I will challenge you, and then we will hear the challenge.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

You can challenge—

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

Fine. I would like to challenge the credibility of the chair, as well as the competence of the chair. Put that to a vote, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I'm not putting that to a vote until I hear the amendment again, and then we will go to the main motion and we will—

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

Mr. Chair, you are duty-bound, once somebody challenges your credibility, sir, as a motion you are ruling—You are duty-bound to ask for a vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

No.

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

Yes, you are.