Evidence of meeting #62 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 cases.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
It says the sub judice rule is necessary, not only to preserve proper relations between courts and Parliament, but to ensure the trials are not prejudiced. I acknowledge that it is frustrating for members when the sub judice rule restricts comments in the House more stringently than comments in the media, but that is unavoidable.
Of course, we go through Marleau and Montpetit. It talks about the same sub judice convention, and it talks about why it exists: “to maintain a separation and mutual respect between legislative and judicial branches of government. Thus, the perception and reality of independence of the judiciary must be jealously guarded”, and on they go.
And then, of course, a member of your own party, the Liberal Party, the Honourable Mauril Bélanger, from Ottawa--Vanier, said in the House when he was speaking on an issue,
I, too, have taken note of your admonition.
—when he was talking to the Speaker—
However, we should be aware that until the matter is before the courts, the sub judice rule does not apply. As far as I understand, one of the groups here might have petitioned the courts, but that petition has not yet been responded to or accepted, so technically it is not even before the courts right now, so the sub judice does not apply.
Now, having said that, this matter is before the courts. It is an individual file, and I don't think it would be appropriate for us to review the case or to make any comments or even to be seen as coming to a conclusion on any aspect of the case while it's under litigation. It's certainly before the Federal Court of Appeal. They are certainly looking at the specifics of this case, and Parliament itself has noted that the principle of sub judice does apply, and it clarifies that members are to refrain from discussing matters that are before the courts or under judicial consideration. It's an important—
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Andrew Telegdi
I'm going to freeze the clock at one o'clock. The committee is fine with that?
Are you going to be wrapping this up soon?
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
I am.
I think it's an important convention that is bigger than us and bigger than this case and ought to be preserved and respected into the future. You have to wonder if this committee needs to consider this information in a specific case when we're looking at more general objectives. Any of the information that the committee is already aware of is something that has come through the public domain. So I don't think we should proceed to delve into the privacy of the file itself, and I certainly would object to it. I think that from a point of order, it's not an appropriate motion that should be entertained by the chair.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Andrew Telegdi
Thank you very much, Mr. Komarnicki.
It just seems to me that the Joe Taylor case is holding up all sorts of other cases. Bear with me—there's a policy question involved here. And the policy question is should we continue to discriminate against people who are born out of wedlock before a certain date? That's one question. And the other question is should the fact that you fail to apply to retain citizenship mean that you're not going to get your citizenship?
That's a policy question, and I think it's fair game for us on the committee to say to the government, “you're on the wrong track, because you should not have that policy and you should reverse or change that policy”. Then we'd get a resolution to all the problems that are being caused by the Joe Taylor case.
1 p.m.
An hon. member
But you don't need to look at the specifics of the Joe Taylor case. That's another conversation, Mr. Chair.
1 p.m.
The Chair
Yes, that's another conversation. That's right.
1 p.m.
Liberal
Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
Mr. Chair, I would point this out. Mr. Komarnicki calls this motion out of order. I don't think this is out of order, and I'll state why. This committee has looked at individual cases of people who have been held right now, or held--
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Andrew Telegdi
I'm ruling the question in order for the reasons that I stated. So unless you're going to add something new, we can probably go to a vote.
1 p.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
I want to ask that Mr. Karygiannis, or maybe you, Chair, to table the documents from Mr. Taylor giving his permission for the committee to look at this. I hope they can be available to all of us.
Chair, this is a very important case, and one that I think determines a lot of other people's situations. It is important that the committee members understand the application that has been made.
The way I read the motion is that we're talking about the application, and Mr. Taylor's case specifically, as a way of fully understanding what his circumstances are and how that has been treated under the existing law. I don't see that as necessarily interfering with the case that's before the courts at this time. I think it's very important that the committee have a full understanding of the Taylor case, so that's why I'll be supporting the motion.
1 p.m.
Liberal
Alan Tonks Liberal York South—Weston, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I enter the discussion at my peril with respect to the substantive issue, but I would avail the committee of my experience with respect to the public accounts committee. During the committee's inquiry with respect to those who had been involved in aspects of the allegations that were made on the sponsorship issue, Mr. Walsh was called in and, in a generic way, was able to satisfy the committee with respect to the policy issue that has been cited without implicating the court proceedings.
As a result of that, the chair was able to direct the witnesses in a manner that did not in any way conflict with the court proceedings. My suggestion would be that members should avail themselves of similar input from Mr. Walsh, who is the legal advice to Parliament. I don't know what the procedures would be, but I certainly think the issue of natural justice is interesting. In discussion with the staff who were here, the concept of natural justice was one that was used to balance the frustration of those who are coming under the lost citizens that committee members were attempting to focus on. It's a similar issue here.
I would suggest that Mr. Walsh be called in, Mr. Chair, and when you proceed with the motion, it can be framed in such a way that the chair would be able to satisfy the court issues that would be implicated. That would be my suggestion.
If it was necessary to put that in a motion, I would take your direction, to that extent.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
Mr. Chair, I appreciate what my colleague Mr. Tonks is saying. However, the committee has been working six months on this. About 300, 250, 400 cases are in abeyance. We're about to break for the summer. I would say we pass the motion.
Should the chair get more information that this needs to be changed, then if we need to bring in Mr. Walsh, that's fine, but I would recommend we vote on that motion. At least call the question.
1:05 p.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Chair, I'd like to make a motion in light of Mr. Tonks' suggestion, and I think it's a helpful suggestion. I'd just like to add the phrase that we request a briefing from Mr. Walsh--I don't know his exact title--prior to any committee meeting on the Taylor case.
And Chair, I have another point to make, but I think we should perhaps deal with that first.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
Just to get a clarification, Mr. Chair, is Mr. Siksay saying we add this at the bottom?
1:05 p.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Or at the top, so that we make sure we request the parliamentary legal counsel, Mr. Walsh, to brief us on issues that arise from this request prior to hearing from anyone in the department on the case.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
If I may add, should we find at that time that this motion is appropriate, we don't proceed with it but the motion stands.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Andrew Telegdi
All he is saying is that we get some advice from Mr. Walsh within what boundaries.
1:05 p.m.
An hon. member
Call the question, Mr. Chair.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Andrew Telegdi
The question is on the amendment. Could you read it please, Samy?
1:05 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Samy Agha
To insert the words, “and that Mr. Walsh, legal counsel”—his exact title to be added later—“provide a briefing to the committee prior to hearing from the department”.