Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 5th, 2007

[Janet Siddall]

I cannot speak to the motivation of the minister; I can speak to my own motivation. My own motivation in dealing with this—and I am the lead ADM—is because we are very sympathetic with the issue for these individuals. We want to help them. We feel that they certainly deserve the extra attention we are giving them.

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

Ms. Siddall, what changed between September and December of last year, and January? It's the same people, the same motivation, the same need to look after them. Why was it January, all of a sudden?

[Janet Siddall]

We have always been addressing the issue for these individuals. It was a renewed emphasis. It was our minister's wish. She publicly directed us to renew our efforts in this regard.

The question, I suggest to you, Mr. Chair, is for the minister.

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

When did the minister get sworn in as a minister? When did she take over the department?

[Janet Siddall]

I'm sorry, I don't have the exact date.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Andrew Telegdi]

It was in January.

Can we wrap it up?

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

The previous minister, Minister Solberg, said to the committee that he was going to look into dual citizenship and he was going to have the immigration officials investigate. Was it part and parcel of Minister's Solberg's wish to do away with dual citizenship that triggered your looking at this?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Andrew Telegdi]

Mr. Karygiannis, you're asking questions that officials cannot answer.

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

Why don't you let them take a stab at it, Mr. Chair?

[Janet Siddall]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have been asked a question that I cannot answer, as a civil servant.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Andrew Telegdi]

Mr. Wilson.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a quick question for the two lawyers who haven't had much of an opportunity to speak, which is unusual.

Has the department asked you to take a look at the proposed new legislation and comment on its charter compliance? It says it will affect people after 1947, but it discriminates against anybody born before that date. Have you looked at any of legislation? Can you comment with respect to the type of legal ramifications that may come forward?

[Eric Stevens, Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

The process that will be followed for this legislation will be as is the case for any other legislation. There will be a memorandum to cabinet going forward. At that point there's always charter advice provided and a charter analysis of the legislative proposal.

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

The only thing I'll add is we're dealing here with war babies, and they were born prior to 1947. So if we're looking for a comprehensive solution we will have to move that date and make it universally acceptable.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Andrew Telegdi]

Thank you very much.

I thank the officials for coming. We're going to give you a chance to depart, and then we'll get on with the rest of our business. We look forward to the legislation coming forward.

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

This motion certainly has to deal with the department, so some officials from the department might want to stick around to listen to what we have to discuss.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Andrew Telegdi]

If some officials want to stay and listen in the audience to what the motion has to say, that would be good.

Just as a general comment, we put this issue on the agenda as a committee and we can all take some pride in it. While previous ministers said they were not going to come forward with legislation, it is now happening. We will have a real opportunity in the fall to hopefully make some meaningful legislation. The differences in dynamics are interesting when we have lost Canadians in and when we have the officials in. But committee members picked up the cause of the lost Canadians and we will have good solutions.

I might say to Mr. Komarnicki that he didn't ask any questions and we had such an easy meeting.

[An hon. member]

It's just because you're in the chair and not sitting on this side of the table.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Andrew Telegdi]

No, I think it has more to do with Mr. Komarnicki not being here.

So we can look forward to legislation. I really hope that those of you on the government side will push the government to include the other people who are being left out. I don't think the committee can really rationalize why we're leaving them out. There are some other things that they could fix up. But I think we could have major legislation, and it would be really good if you could get that done.

We have a notice of motion from Mr. Karygiannis, and I guess the officials all took off.

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

It's up to them.

Do you want me to speak to it, Mr. Chair?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Andrew Telegdi]

Sure, go ahead.

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

On the whole thing regarding lost Canadians, Mr. Goodman said there are about 250 Canadians whose cases are in abeyance, and the minister spoke of 400. We certainly have not been given exact numbers. All these cases are in abeyance because of the decision on Joe Taylor. We have not had an opportunity as a committee to look very carefully at the file of Mr. Taylor.

Before we proceed to make recommendations in the fall and come up with proposed legislation, I'm asking that we ask the officials to give us a complete copy of the report within 30 days. We may need to go in camera to get advice and see what is happening. I realize that this case is before the courts, but certainly the file is available to members of Parliament and officials who can come in and guide us through it. We don't need to ask officials why they made such decisions. But I think it's up to the committee—and I certainly encourage everybody here—that this particular file be brought forward and discussed. If we need to go in camera we can.

One of the committee members asked if we had permission from Mr. Taylor to do that. I think Mr. Chair is in receipt of an email that was sent to him today by Mr. Taylor saying he agrees totally with Jim and we have his permission to ask for his files to be brought to the committee in camera.

Mr. Chair, I think you have a copy of that report. I have given the department a signed authorization from Mr. Taylor for us to proceed on that matter.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Andrew Telegdi]

Mr. Komarnicki.

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

I would certainly oppose this kind of a motion on a couple of grounds, and a procedural one as well, from a point of order.

I don't think we should, as a committee, get into specific files and start looking into an individual's files at a committee level. That's something that would be better left to others. We may instruct, give general directions, and give instruction as to what the policy should be and how they should proceed. I think we should refrain from becoming involved in a specific case. I think that's probably not a good practice for us to use, regardless of the situation. The case, whether it's Mr. Taylor's or someone else's, is just not where we should go.

I think the other part of it is—and Mr. Karygiannis mentioned it himself—that the case is before the courts. I think that while the case is before the courts, it would be inappropriate for us, as parliamentarians, to interfere in that process. I know there's a rule of Parliament and a rule that has been recognized by various parliaments that is called a sub judice rule, which exactly deals with the issue of the matter being before the court.

I looked at Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. We're referring to that. They said,

Rightly, we have absolute privilege for anything that we say in Parliament. The courts cannot interfere with what we say or do in the course of proceedings in Parliament. That absolute privilege must not be abused, and the sub judice rule is a means to prevent abuse. As the joint committee said, “the rule provides that matters awaiting adjudication in a court of law should not be brought forward on motions, debates, questions or supplementary questions...”—

[An hon. member]

Just a point of order.