Evidence of meeting #49 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 board.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Well, I called for discussion on it and nobody raised a hand at the time.
Mr. Wilson, I'm reluctant to do it, but—
Liberal
Blair Wilson Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just had a question for discussion. The original wording was that the committee would summon the former chair. Now one of the amendments is to say that we are going to invite him, and if he refuses, we'll summon him. How much of a difference is there between asking someone to appear and saying we're going to invite him, and if he says no, he'll be summoned? What choice does the individual have?
Liberal
Conservative
Liberal
Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
Mr. Chair, I have discussion on that. I think it also gives the opportunity to the individual to come willingly versus being forced to come. On second thought, if he notices that he's forced to come, then he accepts the invitation. I think for an individual who's been there serving the country, it's due diligence to give him that opportunity.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
I think Mr. Wilson makes a good point. If we're going to invite him, we should invite him and then summon him.
Liberal
Blair Wilson Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
If we invite him and he denies or says he doesn't want to come, then we have the opportunity to discuss again if we should summon him.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Exactly. I agree.
Is there any further discussion?
We'll go to Mr. Siksay.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Mr. Chair, my understanding—and I could be wrong about this, and maybe the clerk or the analyst could confirm for us—is that the meaning of summons has particular legal implications that involve a legal process and forcing an appearance here. From my perspective, I believe that Monsieur Fleury has important information to add to the discussion we've been having about the IRB, the situation there, and the Harrison report.
I know he declined our original invitation, but I think we should give him the opportunity to accept our invitation again and make it clear to him that it's very important that he come. I think we shouldn't quibble about, or we shouldn't hide, our intention to get him here one way or the other. So I like the amendment that's been proposed by Madame Faille, and I will support it.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
I believe the main motion says that he be summoned, and I would like to say that he be re-invited by direct invitation by the chair.
Conservative
Liberal
Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
Mr. Chair, we asked for an amendment, took a vote on it, and you went back to the main motion. The main motion clearly says “that we summons”.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
I broke the tie on that. There was a tie on the original motion, which was broken by the chair.
Liberal
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Let's vote on the motion as amended by Mr. Siksay.
And that was, “That the Committee”—
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Samy Agha
It reads:
That the Committee re-invite Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury, former Chair of the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB), to testify on April 24, 2007 in regards to the Committee's study on the IRB appointment process.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Sorry, Chair, it was re-invite “by direct invitation from the Chair”.
