Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Feb. 13th, 2008

[Mark Davidson]

No. It will only apply to them once the coming into force has passed. Royal assent does not--

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay.

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

I wouldn't feel so bad if you said two years or three years—some kind of date. But now I'm just sitting here.... Surely to God you guys must have thought of something; you can't be that naive about this. Give me some comfort that this is going to be in place before I die.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Well, having said that....

I'm going to go to Mr. Komarnicki, and then over to Mr. Karygiannis, and then to Mr. Bevilacqua.

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

I think we should put the question to a vote very quickly, but having said that, I think obviously the department knows the sentiment that we want them to move along with this thing in an expeditious fashion. But they want to get it right, they want to do the appropriate communications, and Mr. Karygiannis has indicated as much.

You also have to remember that no one loses citizenship under this bill. In fact, there will be some who are benefited as this thing goes forward. And when the act goes into place, it's going to make the citizenship retroactive to the date of the loss, which goes back many years, or to the date of birth, as I understand it.

So this is not the average kind of bill that we deal with in many cases. This one already has built into it some things that will take care of the situation on a retroactive basis, regardless of when it's put into effect. I think we should give the department the appropriate time they need to get the job done right. As it sits here, it says it will come into force at a time that the Governor in Council determines. That's not an unusual process for this bill.

I would ask that the motion for 180 days be defeated.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I'm going to go to Mr. Karygiannis, Mr. Bevilacqua, and Mr. Carrier.

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

Chair, what I think we're hearing is that the department needs time—be it 180 days, be it a year, be it two years—for communications packages and all that stuff. I'm going to go back to saying I think we need to call the department back in. If they want an open-ended 180 days or a year, I think we need to do a review, and they must undertake to come back to this committee. It should be written in stone that two years from now, they come back and apprise us of what is happening.

You cannot let the department open-end it. We have let this department many times before run open-ended, and we've seen what the changes are, be it with IRPA, be it with the 80 points going back to six to seven points, and everything else.

Therefore, I would like to move that we enclose in here a parliamentary review, for this department to come back to the committee mandatorily two years from today to brief us on what's happening. That's not very difficult to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

We've already had that motion, and it was defeated.

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

But we did not know they wanted an open-ended day for—

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay, we'll finish discussion on this with Mr. Bevilacqua and Mr. Karygiannis and Madam Chow.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

I think it's a valid question that members of this committee are asking in relation to a timeframe.

I know a little about how departments work and I can tell you that you have a list of priorities. I guess the immigration department would have a list of priorities. The question I have is, within the work plan that all departments have, within the allocation of resources that all departments have, where does this fit?

In the work plan, you usually have a timeline which you operate within; at least that's the way it was when I was in a department. We used to lay out more or less when the bill was going to come in, when it was going to be implemented, and the type of resources to be applied.

Usually that's a big hint. If there aren't that many resources allocated towards the bill, then you know it's not a priority. We've done the best we could in a very bipartisan way to arrive at this conclusion, but I must say that we need a little more assurance from the department that in fact this is as important to the department as it is to this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

If we were to put in there one year, could we not put in a year and have the department come back in a year and say they're still not ready on this, that they need an extra three months, or what have you?

Is that a reasonable thing to request, Mr. Davidson?

[Mark Davidson]

Let me respond to that and to the other comments.

This is a priority for the minister and certainly a priority for the government and for the department. Frankly, the fact that the department is here around the table is evidence of that. Implementing this bill is absolutely a priority for the department.

In terms of your question, Mr. Chair, if the bill is amended to say that it will come into effect in 365 days, then if we came back to you in 365 days minus 30—in other words 30 days before—saying we have a challenge here, the only way it would not come into effect would be through a new piece of legislation. We would have to have a piece of legislation that would change that hard date. It would then have to go through the House, the committee, and the Senate. This is the challenge with a hard date in an implementation.

But I can assure you that implementing this bill is very much a priority for the government and for the department.

I hear questions about what a reasonable date is, and I understand where committee members are coming from. At the moment, what I can say is, six months...? I cannot conceive how the department could be ready, with all of the regulatory requirements and all of the communication requirements there are. I cannot conceive how that could happen. Likewise, would we be ready in five years? Absolutely; it's equally inconceivable that we would take that long.

I can assure you that we certainly will be implementing this bill as an important priority of the department.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I have to give people a chance to speak in the order they give it to me here. I just can't go skipping over people, even though your interventions might be appropriate to what Mr. Davidson has to say.

Mr. Carrier, Madam Chow, Mr. Telegdi, Mr. Batters.

Are you on the list too, Mr. Karygiannis?

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

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I want to go to Mr. Carrier.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you.

I am nonetheless surprised to see just how long it takes before an act comes into force.

We wanted to cooperate with the government because it was anxious to pass this bill. In addition to all of the work and preliminary studies we do here, once the bill is adopted on third reading, it still needs to be passed by the other house. People must not forget this stage in the process. We never know when the other house, the Senate, will send the bill back to us.

We are congratulating ourselves on doing our job and passing a bill, when in fact we have no idea of how long it will take before the legislation comes into force. The purpose of our amendment is to set a deadline so that if the government is the least bit serious about matters, it will appoint a special team to oversee the implementation of the legislation without delay. I believe the opposition parties truly want the same thing.

Regardless of what transpires, if the government is serious, it must move immediately to appoint a team to oversee coordination efforts with other acts. It must not wait until the Governor General has given royal assent before getting down to work. All of these stages will require some time.

In my view, we are almost misleading people into thinking that we have adopted an act. Given everything that must be done, we have no way of knowing when an enactment order can in fact be issued. We need to set a target date. Six months is a long time. The act must come into force now.

The government is not short of funds. If it is short on resources, then it needs to find qualified people who can devote themselves exclusively to communicating with other departments or who can make the linkage with other acts so that the legislation can come into force quickly. Clearly, if no timetable is set, the process will be drawn out and the next legislature will find itself discussing the same problem.

For that reason, I support my colleague's proposed amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

That's a very good point, Mr. Carrier.

Madam Chow.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

I spoke to Madame Faille and Mr. Siksay before I came here today. They described to me how long this committee—and you know how long—has studied this issue.

At the end of the day, I believe that Parliament is supreme. If we say “within 365 days”, that's a whole year. I sense a consensus that this is a priority for all of us. I understand that some of the war brides and others are getting on in age. Let's try.... I would support an amendment to say within 365 days.

Two days ago I asked the department whether there was a budget allocation from the department on this issue. “We aren't sure.” Do they have a public communication plan? “We are not sure.”

Well, the committee has studied this issue for two years, and the bill came forward on December 10. You just heard from me how long this issue has been around.

I'm hearing that there's a willingness to extend from six months to a year, which is totally reasonable.

Mr. Chair, if there is some reason the department cannot get it done within a year, I say there is no reason Parliament—the next Parliament, or this Parliament—can't put something through, if that's the case. But let's have a deadline.

I urge people to put in a deadline. At least then there's a sense of hope. If we don't do it, the people who are watching this will ask us when this issue will actually be implemented. We'll say soon. What is soon? It will be eventually. When?

I would much rather give an answer. It's better for the minister and it's better for the government to say “within 365 days”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

That's a very good point as well, Madam Chow. Thank you.

I have four more, and then I think we really need to move along on this.

I'm going to hear Mr. Telegdi, Mr. Batters, Mr. Karygiannis, and Mr. St-Cyr.

Mr. Telegdi, let's try to not repeat the same stuff over again.

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

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, Mr. Davidson said that the minister is committed. I have listened to Lucienne Robillard, and she was committed. I have listened to Elinor Caplan, who sat on this committee, and she was committed. I listened to Denis Coderre; he was on this committee and he was committed. I listened to Judy Sgro; she was on this committee, she was a minister, and she was committed. I listened to Mr. Volpe, and he was a minister, and he was committed. I listened to Monty Solberg, and—no, scratch him, he was not committed. He didn't believe in a citizenship...in doing it. Now I'm listening to another minister, Finley, and she is committed.

I really get the impression that all these commitments are coming from the bureaucracy. I want to make sure the bureaucracy has that line, and I very much support the “within 365 days”. If they have problems, then let them understand that their feet are going to be held to the fire. They'll have a pretty good reason as to why that should be done. I've seen too many ministers who have been committed and I haven't seen any legislation.

Should I move the subamendment, “within 365 days”? Okay, I move the subamendment: “within 365 days”.

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

Mr. Chair, may I add to that subamendment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I was going to entertain that subamendment from you, Mr. Telegdi, but we only have three more people. I want to give everyone a chance to have a word or two on this, and then we will entertain your subamendment. Some people have been very patient on this. I want to go to Mr. Batters, Mr. Karygiannis, and Mr. St-Cyr.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Chair, can you give me 15 seconds before I start?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay. I'll probably go to somebody else and come back to you, Mr. Batters.