Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 20th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Well, if I recall correctly, there was a problem in that particular meeting. I'm not going to get into it, but it was one of keeping order. It was impossible to keep order at that meeting, so the chair adjourned the meeting.

I think that is what you're referring to.

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

[Inaudible--Editor]...if the chair had adjourned, as you're saying, sir, then the main estimates would have fallen off.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay, well, that's a discussion for another time. We'll move along.

Are there any amendments to that? No.

Okay, passed.

We're on the motion entitled “Chapter of a Report of the Auditor General”. Are there any amendments?

Passed.

Now to questioning of witnesses. We've gone through three different scenarios, and this is the one that we settled on at one of our many meetings when this was brought up. Is there any need to go into this again?

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

I have one minor explanation, an amendment, I'd like to bring forward, just to bring it in line with our practice. Just to explain where I'm going with this amendment, the motion now reads, “after which, this schedule will repeat with a (5) five time limit for each round, and that no individual member be allowed to participate more than once in each round”.

That is the way we normally proceed, excepting that another individual can give up his time so the other person can continue. This would prohibit that, but we've done it time after time.

So I would like to amend this by adding, at the end of that phrase, “unless another member gives up his allotted speaking time”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay, it is that no individual member be allowed to participate more than once in each round unless another member gives up his allotted speaking time.

Is there any discussion on that? Does that sound fair?

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Could you repeat the amendment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Well, if you go to the very end, there's a five-minute time limit for each round, and no individual member is allowed to participate more than once in each round, unless--and this is the addition--a particular member should wish to relinquish his speaking time to another individual.

Okay?

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Mr. Komarnicki.

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

There are two other amendments I want to make to this by adding another two subheadings. One is dealing with priority of legislation.

It doesn't say it here, but I would like to move an amendment that would add a subsection called “Priority of Legislation”:

That the consideration and examination of any Bill (Government or Private Member's Bill) which falls within the express mandate of the committee shall take precedence over any study or non-legislative examination, and in such circumstances the non-legislative study shall be deferred until such time as the Bill is reported back to the House.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Do you have a copy of that?

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

I do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Would you distribute it, please.

Is there any discussion on this from the mover? If not, I'll go to Ms. Chow.

Is there any discussion on it, or have you made it clear?

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

I would just add the fact that if there is a government bill or a private member's bill, we should deal with it when it comes to this committee, defer everything else until it's done, and then continue with our agenda.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I would ask members to make every effort from now on to have it distributed in both official languages. It's not fair to the French members.

I think we've had a lot of amendments that have gone through and been discussed, so I think we'll discuss this one as well.

I'll repeat the amendment:

That the consideration and examination of any Bill (Government or Private Member's Bill) which falls within the express mandate of the committee shall take precedence over any study or non-legislative examination, and in such circumstances the non-legislative study shall be deferred until such time as the Bill is reported back to the House.

So I would imagine what it does is give priority to a bill.

I have Mr. Telegdi and Madam Chow.

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

Mr. Chair, I do not agree with that, for various reasons. The committee is master of its own agenda. The committee has acted very responsibly. We have actually wanted legislation that hasn't been forthcoming. So I don't see where the issue lies here.

Ultimately it's going to have to be a decision made by the steering committee and the committee itself as to what our agenda is going to be. I don't want to tie the committee's hands in any way to make that happen.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Madam Chow? No?

Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Are we still speaking to the--

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Yes, to the amendment.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As a fill-in member today, I don't know what the history of this particular committee is, but given my parliamentary experience so far, I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment that the committee must be the master of its own destiny. It certainly has to be.

But according to our parliamentary operations, every bill must be sent to committee and reported back from committee, so the committee does have an obligation, in my opinion, to deal with legislation as it comes through. If the legislation could bypass the committee and not hold up Parliament...otherwise, I think the committee is in a position where it could be in contempt of what Parliament is trying to do. And ultimately all parliamentarians are there to pass legislation and speak to the matters at the national level.

It would seem out of context for a committee, for example, to stall legislation. I fully support this addition to the routine proceedings.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

Madame Faille, and Mr. Karygiannis.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My comments are along the same lines as those of my colleague Mr. Telegdi. As for the different bills that have been tabled by the government, the committee has always carefully considered each proposal and piece of draft legislation put forward. Only rarely has an extension been requested. In some cases, the committee has even given priority to the study to allow more people to benefit from legislative changes.

Consequently, as far as the smooth running of this committee goes, we feel this motion is unnecessary.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Madame Faille.

Mr. Karygiannis.

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

I agree with Madame Faille. This committee has acted with due diligence. We looked at the legislation that has come through the House, and certainly if we need to work on it, additional meetings could be held.

I don't think this is needed. This is pretty much telling grown-up individuals how to act and how to behave and how to move things forward, when this committee has collegially worked together and functioned pretty well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Are you ready for the question on the amendment by Mr. Komarnicki?

(Amendment negatived)

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

You have one more amendment, Mr. Komarnicki?