Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Feb. 13th, 2008

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I also think that the unanimous report we adopted contained a number of recommendations calling, among other things, for Citizenship and Immigration Canada to take steps to increase public awareness of existing mechanisms. The department is set to respond to these recommendations at a later date.

The committee will have the chance to check and see if the department did its job properly. Personally, I do not think we need to incorporate follow-up mechanisms into the framework of the legislation. This should be part of our parliamentary work. If Mr. Karygiannis wants this incorporated into the legislation, then he can table an amendment to that effect during the clause by clause stage.

We agree with the content and current wording of the bill and we intend to vote in favour of it. We hope that it will quickly be sent back to the House for third and final reading, and then sent to the Senate.

As mentioned, we were not able to hear from representatives of the Canadian Council for Refugees. However, I have personally taken the initiative of calling them to discuss a number of issues of concern to them. I would imagine each one of you did likewise. I am ready to proceed to the clause by clause stage.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I'm still prepared to hear a few more interventions before we get on to our bill.

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

I absolutely want to go on with this. I think a lot of lobbying has been done. However, I am sure that everybody around this table needs to know how these children will be approached. Failing to hear a specific plan as to how this is going to be done—“we're going to work with this department”, “we're going to do this”, and “we're going to do that”.... And looking at the track record of this department when it comes to providing answers as to how they've reached out—twice, Mr. Chair—I would move that we either put a review clause in or sunset clause to review how this department has done outreach three years down the road.

Let me ask this question. Would Mr. Davidson have any objection to that, or does he have any difficulties with it? I think that will hold their feet to the fire.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

If any such motion is going to be put forward, hang on to it until we get into clause-by-clause. It was my understanding that we were moving through clause-by-clause fairly quickly. I don't know where I got that impression—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Anyway, I think I'll go to Mr. Komarnicki, then Mr. Telegdi, and then I'll go to you.

Did you have a comment about this?

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

Just to say this. We've been around this bend for a long time. Many stakeholders are saying that the bill as it is is a bill they're prepared to accept, and they want us to get it through both Houses as soon as possible without amendment.

Mr. Karygiannis had all kinds of objections or things he wanted to see different in the bill, but we came through with a unanimous report and we're at this place where we have to decide: do we want this bill to go forward and be passed and become law for the many thousands who are affected, or do we want to play games and make amendments that will change this legislation, which will not have that effect? It won't, and we'll see where it goes. If you're prepared to risk and deal with the thousands or hundreds because you want to see something in this bill that can be dealt with outside the bill, then do it at your own peril, if you wish.

My sense is that this bill, if it's going to succeed, will have to succeed without any substantive amendments. There may be clerical stuff or whatever—fine. But to start dealing with, “If I can't get this amendment, I want that amendment”.... We're past that stage. If we do that, and we can, don't expect it to get through the House in the fashion we're talking about.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I'm going to Mr. Telegdi. He's been quite patient.

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

As I've said before, this could certainly have been a better bill. But the fact of the matter is that by passing this bill the way it is now, we'll get it through the House and we'll get it through the Senate, which will mean that it will have a direct positive impact on possibly hundreds of thousands of people who have been wrongfully denied citizenship.

On the day this bill becomes law, we're going to have what I will call “Davidson stateless people” and “Conservative stateless people” created each and every day. Every day that this is law we're going to have more stateless people. The numbers are not necessarily that big, but they will grow.

We as a committee can haul in the officials—not necessarily Mr. Davidson, because we have deep throats in the department—and we will find out where the problems are. We'll have them in and we'll swear them in and we will deal with the problem at that point in time.

But for the immediate situation right now, Jim, I think we want to put it through to deal with all those people who have been suffering because of a bad piece of legislation. We can take comfort in that.

But then we're going to have to be very vigilant, because we are creating another problem. The only sad part for me is that it didn't have to be that way. We could have made a relatively simple amendment, but we're getting a push-back from the bureaucracy.

So we'll take this now, but we will be back very quickly and will make those demands.

So fair notice is served that this department had better come back with a good plan, because it's going to be grilled.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Briefly—

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

I'm just wondering whether Mr. Komarnicki is saying “my way or the highway” and putting Russian roulette in our heads, saying “blow your brains out”. If this is the way he wants to do this, he certainly is not reacting to objections that are coming. One, his department, with the minister right here, misled us the first time, and we got a letter of apology. Two, his department did not give us the figures. Three, what is the difficulty, if we either have a review clause in there for three years, so that we can make sure we have no new lost Canadians, or have a sunset clause? What is the difficulty here?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

We'll have a brief comment from Mr. Batters, and then I'm going to wrap it up with Mr. Bevilacqua.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to be somewhat conciliatory. I agree with what Mr. Telegdi had to say, excluding some of the political rhetoric. I actually support what Mr. Karygiannis says, in that there should be some follow-up for people like his daughter, some notification.

But with all due respect to my colleague Mr. Karygiannis, I think he knows, and Mr. Telegdi knows, and members opposite know that we have a pretty good bill here. It may not be 100% what they want, but it's going to be a great relief to a great number of people.

I think that outside this bill.... In our opinion there's no room for amendments, with the timelines we face, in this bill. But I believe what Mr. Karygiannis says: that outside this bill we have to seek some assurances from the department and the minister that there is a plan to communicate to people the ramifications, should they choose to or by happenstance have a child abroad—people in the exact situation of your daughter, Jim. I think we should be asking the department those questions: what type of advertising is going to go out and what type of communication?

But I think that's something for tomorrow and another day, Jim.

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

Can I just offer something—

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Very briefly.

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

Can we have a parliamentary review of this bill in four years, or three years?

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

We can't put it in the bill.

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

Why not? What's the problem? What is the problem with a parliamentary review of the bill?

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

I think we've said enough. It's time to get to clause-by-clause. That's where we're going.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I'm going to Mr. Bevilacqua first, and then we'll try to wrap it up.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I think the officials from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration have heard the message. One of the great benefits you have as officials is that although we spend a great deal of time writing the laws of the land, you also have the great privilege of implementing those laws. I know that you all take that responsibility quite seriously, but we are talking here about an important issue, an important issue related to loss of citizenship. There's no greater concern to a person's life than to lose citizenship as it relates to one's participation in one's country.

So I hope you are taking these messages extremely seriously. At the end of the day, we can call you back at any time, as you know; a committee can call back officials to get updates whenever we like and whenever we decide. That is also a way we could proceed, but at this point, since the history of this report is that it's a unanimous report, I think we should proceed to clause by clause.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Mr. Bevilacqua.

I think officials have been given direction here, and I think the parliamentary secretary has as well. I'm sure the minister will be hearing about it in short order.

Mr. Davidson, you had a comment you wanted to make.

[Mark Davidson]

In response to Mr. Bevilacqua's question, we have heard loud and clear. I can assure you that the minister will be aware of these comments today. The deputy minister will be aware of these comments. We've heard the message from the committee loud and clear, so there's no question. We entirely agree with you: this is a very serious matter and an exercise in good communication that is essential, not only as the bill is getting ready for implementation but also afterward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you very much. I appreciate all the interventions.

Now I think I'm getting an indication from the committee that we should go to clause-by-clause consideration.

(On clause 1)

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

Can you read clause 1, please?