Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 8th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Order, please.

Here we are, to consider notices of motions. We have four notices of motion, the first one submitted by Mr. Karygiannis on May 3, 2007.

I'll go directly to Mr. Karygiannis to do his motion for us.

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

Which one do you want me to deal with?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

“That the CIC officials...” is the first page I have here. Do you want to go to that one first, the one submitted on May 3?

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

Mr. Chair, when we met with CIC officials, there were a lot of questions left lingering. One of the individuals said they were instructed to delay citizenship cases, and when she was asked by whom, there was no forthcoming answer. I'd like to get the officials back here to get to the bottom of this.

The other thing is that they said the RCMP has been asked to expedite citizenship cases for lost Canadians. After checking with the RCMP and some of the lost Canadians who are affected, I don't see that this is the case.

I'd like to get answers to those questions. As well, the bureaucrats did not finish testifying before us and giving us the complete picture.

One thing is that we were told by the minister that there are 467 cases. When the bureaucrats were here, they said that 400 cases were held behind to see what would happen with the Joe Taylor decision. Clearly, that's not the picture the minister or the deputy minister gave us, so we need to get clarification of that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Mr. Karygiannis.

Are there any further comments on Mr. Karygiannis' motion? Mr. Siksay.

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

Chair, this may be just a question to Jim.

Given what you've just said, Jim, would it not be more appropriate to put those questions to the minister and the deputy minister, given that we weren't successful in getting those answers from the officials? If they aren't providing the appropriate information, then it seems to me we'd go back to their boss and ask the questions of that person.

The minister is coming to the committee, I believe, on May 29, and we could put those kinds of questions.

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

The minister is coming, I believe, on May 29, and she's splitting her time. She's here for two hours and she's splitting her time, an hour for estimates and an hour on lost Canadians.

As a result of the performance we got from the minister and the deputy minister last time, on the advertising question in one case and in the other on the question of how many, we didn't get to the bottom of this. I think we need to question the bureaucrats more, if you want to call them that—the people who are specifically involved with that particular department—in order to find out what things are happening, before we question the minister and the deputy minister.

We didn't get clear information. The minister and the deputy minister will only give us part of the picture that the people below them are giving them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Madame Faille.

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

I would simply like to indicate to members of the committee that since the appearance of the officials, our offices have been inundated with letters from Quebec citizens about the Taylor case. I believe that the officials must give us some answers, because when they last appeared, they gave vague answers concerning the procedures that were being followed. I find it quite surprising that we have been receiving letters since their appearance.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay, that's it. Did anyone else have a hand up? Mr. Komarnicki. Oh, I'm sorry, and Andrew.

We'll hear Mr. Komarnicki first, then Andrew.

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

If we had a raft of department officials here.... There was an opportunity to ask questions, and I would think that if there are further questions one wants to put to a particular person or to the minister, that's fine, but I don't think that, as a minimum, we should get all of the people back. I don't see the utility in that.

Secondly, dealing with the specific comments relating to the motion, we have Mr. Karygiannis indicating something that the RCMP may have indicated to him. If he's interested in putting that before the committee, then we should be calling somebody from the RCMP who would specifically contradict the comments, but not call the witness back because of a phone call Mr. Karygiannis may have made. I don't think it's appropriate to call that witness back on that specific purpose, in that regard.

Then with respect to the number of cases being held pending the Taylor appeal, the fact is that the witness was clear that there were some cases pending, in terms of decision-making, on the basis that the appeal from Taylor was not in. How many numbers we have there isn't a particular issue. If he wants to pursue that with the minister when she's here, that's fair enough, but I don't think it's worthwhile for us to call all these people back, or even the two particular people, for that small, narrow reason.

First of all, if you want to call at least Rosemarie Redden, I think you would first call somebody from the RCMP or put something before this committee to show specifically that this would be contradicted.

I would be opposed to the motion for those reasons.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I have my speaking list here, but do you want to address that one directly, Jim?

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

Yes, I would like to address that issue.

The RCMP will only act upon the request of CIC that they expedite files. I did not get any sense--I did not even get any reassurance--that this has been done.

In order for RCMP to expedite matters, CIC will have to write to them and ask them to segregate these files and expedite them. There has to be a protocol set between CIC and RCMP that states the following: you put a marking on the envelope that says you're a lost Canadian before we expedite.

I did not get any reassurance that the protocol has been set. I did not get any reassurance that CIC has approached RCMP. RCMP will only act if CIC instructs them or asks them to do that.

So I'd like to find out from officials what protocol they've set in place in order for the RCMP to expedite things. And I want to see the letter that went over there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay, two more--Andrew and Barry--and then we will vote on the motion.

Andrew.

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

Thank you very much.

It's important for us to do a little more digging. I found the last meeting quite unsatisfactory. Some of the witnesses we asked to appear did not appear. A number of witnesses, including Melba--I can't remember her last name--who we asked specifically to appear did not appear. Melba was one of them; a lot of questions went to her from the lost Canadians. They were kept away. I would suggest that we get those people back.

Also, if we want to get down more to the level of where decisions are actually made, I suggest that Davidson not be asked to come back. We don't want him answering the questions; we want to be talking to some of the policy analysts and some of the people who make the initial decisions and recommendations. I think that would allow us to get a better feeling for what's going on in a situation where the results have been more than unsatisfactory.

So I would suggest, Jim, as a friendly amendment--if you would take it as such--that you take out Davidson. We have had him here many times, and it's hard to....

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

Fine.

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

As another friendly amendment--this could be voted on separately--I think we really should be swearing in the witnesses, because we have not been getting fulsome answers. Quite frankly, Davidson was very combative at the committee when he came.

So I would make that as a friendly amendment. Or would that be a friendly amendment?

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

Definitely.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Barry, are you still on? No?

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

Mr. Chair, I think what Mr. Telegdi was saying was that he wants the individuals who are in the unit making these decisions, or the individual who heads the unit, in CPC Sydney to also appear before us.

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

Yes, I wanted the witnesses we asked to appear and who did not appear.

I also want to drop Davidson from the witness list. We don't want Davidson back.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I've kind of gotten thrown off here. Do we have two amendments?

We do. Okay.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Samy Agha]

So in the first one, we would insert the words “except Mark Davidson” after “Committee”.

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

The other one is that the people who were asked to come, and who didn't come, be invited.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

How about we say that these were officials “that were invited” instead of officials “that appeared”?