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.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
And then we'll try to deal with both of them simultaneously, in view of the fact that the same dates are involved.
12:55 p.m.
Bloc
Meili Faille Bloc Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
I hesitate to accept this motion because the work we did last time we dealt with the bill was very disappointing. The clerk told me that no amendments to Bill C-280 had been tabled and that no motion had been introduced last Tuesday for us to hear new witnesses on this bill. From what I could understand, the meeting was interrupted and the witnesses who were to appear at that meeting were not summoned to a subsequent meeting. So I don't see the need to adopt this amendment, in view of the fact that no amendment has been introduced. In my view, it should be possible to do the clause-by-clause consideration in five minutes, since no amendments have been tabled.
12:55 p.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Chair, maybe the clerk can help, but I believe we have witnesses arranged for next Tuesday already, and I believe there are also international witnesses, someone who is coming from outside of Canada as well. So I think it is a huge problem—to delay—and I do support Madam Faille's original motion. I don't support the amendment in light of that.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Yes.
It seems unusual to go into clause-by-clause before finishing hearing the witnesses. We had agreed to hear them. They were scheduled to go. We're short-circuiting that, and I think that's inappropriate.
12:55 p.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Mr. Chair, I'd just like to say that indeed, perhaps the full hearing of witnesses was short-circuited, but it did not happen because of any action of Madam Faille or the Bloc or the New Democrat members on this committee, and we want to get on with this important piece of legislation. As Madam Faille says, there have been no amendments proposed. There has been no hint of an amendment being proposed, and I think we need to get on with that important work.
1 p.m.
Liberal
Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON
Yes, I would include the Liberals in that category as well, Mr. Siksay.
1 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Thank you.
So the question would be on the amendment.
(Amendment negatived)
1 p.m.
A voice
It's important that we speak on the motion.
1 p.m.
Liberal
Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
Mr. Chair, can I ask that the clock be stopped at one o'clock?
1 p.m.
Conservative
1 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
April 19th, 2007 / 1 p.m.
Conservative
Barry Devolin Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
I don't agree with the decision of the committee that because of unusual circumstances we didn't get a chance to hear the witnesses we wanted to hear on this bill. I think we should hear them, and I've said this in the past, that this is a very unusual situation with the RAD, that it's a piece of legislation that was passed, and for some reason the government of the day chose not to proclaim the one part of the bill. That is unusual.
Secondly, when Bill C-280 went before the House of Commons a few weeks ago, I have said there is one current minister for this portfolio and four former ministers for the portfolio in the House. None of them voted to support it, and in fact, in terms of the three former Liberal ministers, one voted against it and two abstained, which is in some ways maybe even a stronger statement than voting against it.
I have said this in the past, and I accept the fact that some of my colleagues believe the RAD should be proclaimed and implemented and this is the right part of the process, but with all due respect to that point of view, I also find it interesting that people who are more familiar with the department and are familiar with processes and ought to have a good sense of what it will mean obviously have some problem with it. That's why, quite frankly, I found it irresponsible that we decided not to call some of the former ministers before us and just ask them: “You're familiar with this. It was your government that passed it. Why do you even today still not support implementing it?”
Secondly, if there are actually people from outside government, who are outside witnesses, who also have reservations about the RAD...this morning we heard so many compelling stories about how long it takes to get stuff done. There seems an incongruency to me between us wanting to make the system better and fairer, which is the argument for the RAD, but at the same time we want to make it faster, and the way we're going to do that is by introducing another layer and that somehow that's supposed to solve either of those problems.
It's 1:05 p.m. now. To try to jam this through in the next few minutes is irresponsible on the part of this committee.
1 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
I have quite a number of people who want to speak on this.
Thank you, Mr. Devolin.
Mr. Telegdi.