Evidence of meeting #12 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was karygiannis.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Conservative
Dave Batters Conservative Palliser, SK
Mr. Chair, I agree in principle with what Mr. Carrier, Madam Chow, and Mr. Telegdi said. I think it's very important to have a clearer indication from the department.
Mr. Davidson, with all due respect, sir, there's a big difference between.... You said you hope it could be implemented within 365 days, but you wouldn't want to tie yourself to that in case it wasn't quite ready, and then you'd have this target. The next example you used was “five years is inconceivable”. There's a lot of time, though, in between those times.
I think what we could go forward with in this committee is—we have the blues and we have Hansard—your saying something along the lines that “this department is going to endeavour to bring this into force within one year; we're going to all due diligence; this is a priority for the department and for the government, and we're going to do all we can to implement it within one year”. Then the war brides do have an answer, and they recognize that if it gets to be 14 months, then the department's blowing it.
When we come to this committee and say, as the minister's instructions are, that we have a great bill in front of us and that with the time allotments in this Parliament it either goes through or, if there are amendments, it could be delayed again and we could get absolutely nothing....
Mr. Telegdi, your point is well taken. This minister is committed. This minister wants to get this done. We can all get it done today and go through all the clauses. But if we start getting into amendments, the life of this Parliament could expire, and we could again end up with absolutely nothing.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Okay. Those are good points as well.
I want to try to bring things back to order, please. Mr. Karygiannis is next. Then we're gong to wrap it up with Mr. St-Cyr. Then if there's any subamendment to the amendment....
Mr. Karygiannis.
Liberal
Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
Mr. Chair, we hear that the minister is committed. We hear that if it's not this way it's the highway. I don't see where the problem lies, if we give this department 365 days and they come back to us and say, this is what we've done; we've succeeded. I don't see that at all as being a problem. If my Conservative colleagues see it as a problem, then I will only summarize that this minister is not committed, that they're not committed, and that we're only doing a PR exercise.
I would say, in fairness to Mr. Telegdi's motion, that I would like to add an amendment that says that in 365 days they also have to come back and tell us what they have done and report to us.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I must say that I am a little surprised by the reaction to my amendment. I had said in committee that I did not want to move any substantive amendments. I really did feel that I was being respectful of the Bloc's position. I am truly surprised by how things are going, since I considered this to be a purely technical amendment. The Governor in Council would not need to adopt any regulations in order for this act to take effect. All that would be required is an order.
Naturally, it could take a little longer to let people know who the act works, but there is no reason why the act could not come into force before that happens. At least those who have been made aware of the act's provisions will be protected. As for the others, we will find a way of getting the information to them later.
In my opinion, this debate is not quite rooted in reality. As parliamentarians, all we want to do is ensure that if the Governor in Council does not issue an order within 365 days, the act will in fact come into force. Quite simply, this is an amendment of a purely technical nature, and nothing more. I think government members will agree with me that Cabinet can easily meet and adopt an order within 365 days.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Thank you.
Did you have a comment, Mr. Komarnicki, that you wanted to make?
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Yes, just briefly.
I've been recognized here, Jim.
It's just to indicate that—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
There might be a solution here, and I want to take advantage of it, please.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
We started this process by saying there's a unanimous report. The bill came forward. It is not unusual for bills to say that it would come into effect at the time we've claimed by the Governor in Council. We're not presuming what the department needs or doesn't need. They know the urgency of the situation, and we're going to start to superimpose something on them and put some obligations on them.
We said this: the bill as is will get unanimous support and approval from all of us, and it will go forward for sure. If you impose some other condition, regardless of what it is, on the department, you will not have unanimity from this side of the House. Do what you want, but if this bill is to get passed without amendment, it will go forward on a most expedited basis.
If it doesn't go through unanimously...you're entitled to make the amendment. Just know that we will not be supporting it, and that's fairly significant. So I would say weigh it carefully, because we've come this far, and we don't need that amendment. We have the assurance of the minister; we have the assurance of the department that they will put this through as soon as reasonably possible. Take that into consideration. But this side will not be supporting a timeframe.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Everyone has had a good kick at this, and I think it's time to fish or cut bait on it. We can listen to all the interventions for the next hour and still not get anywhere.
I think we should get back on track here now. We have an amendment....
Order, please.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Order, please.
I'm almost inclined to let these little side meetings take place at a time like this, because we're trying to get something through here.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
That's a good idea.
I'm going to suspend for ten minutes maximum.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
We're reconvening our meeting. I apologize for going overtime on the recess.
We will deal with the subamendment by Mr. Telegdi. Do you want to repeat the subamendment?
Liberal
Marc Toupin Procedural Clerk
In English it would read:
or at the latest, 365 days after this act has received royal assent
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Would you just hang on a minute, Mr. Karygiannis? I have a subamendment here from Mr. Telegdi—
Liberal
Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
And you have another subamendment from me, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Well, would you mind if I dealt with Mr. Telegdi's subamendment first? Then if we need to deal with yours, we will.
I want the legislative clerk to make it clear to us how the subamendment reads. Could we please give some attention to the legislative clerk?
Procedural Clerk
I think what I'll do, Mr. Chair, is read it in French, because the amendment is before me in French. It would read:
“but no later than 365 days after the day on which the Act receives royal assent”.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Okay. There's no translation of that, so it's all Scotch to me. We've essentially changed 180 days to read 365 days.
