Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Feb. 12th, 2009

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

No, there's no agreement on the timeframe.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay.

Mr. Karygiannis.

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

Chair, I want to thank Mr. Calandra for going over the minutes of the committee and, certainly, for trying to go through all of that; but unfortunately, he wasn't here and didn't see the passion of the people we heard from. Certainly it's been a year since this bill passed this committee. It was in the House. The department has done some work on it. Some people have already received their citizenship.

What I'm specifically asking for is to get an overview of the work that has been done in the last year, with departmental officials coming in to tell us their success stories and certainly to hear from some of the stakeholders. I don't see this as a problem, unless the department and the members of the government know something else that we don't know and they want to hide something. This is a clear case where we should be asking people to come in, be it for a day, a day and a half, or two days. We would invite two or three stakeholders to come in and we would invite government officials and get an update as to what's happening. This is not something that is extraordinary; I don't see the controversy in this. There was an agreement that we review it in a year's time. It's here.

So what is the problem with listening to a success story that the government should claim, and maybe step forward for, unless there's something hidden, unless the facts and the figures are not all there, and we're hiding something?

So you can go back to Hansard until the cows come home, but this is very simple. Let's get an overview of what has happened from the department, and let's hear from a couple of stakeholders; and if everybody's happy, we will move on and congratulate the government and pat them on the back for what they have done—unless you're hiding something and you don't want us to hear about it. The work you've done on subsection 5(2), and whatever else, certainly has nothing to do with getting an update on something that is crucial and affects the lives of thousands of people. If your government has done this and it has done it correctly, then fine, congratulations. Or are you hiding something? What is the difficulty here of getting the departmental officials to give us an overview of what has happened? Unfortunately, they couldn't do it today. And what is the difficulty with getting stakeholders to see how the department has worked with them? Is that a problem, or are you hiding something? If you are, I think we should put it on the table. If you are not, it's clear-cut: congratulations for doing it and for maybe being the first people to have done it. If you want to hear that, then support this. If you don't want to hear that and you're hiding something, don't support it.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Monsieur St-Cyr, and then Ms. Mendes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Time is the key factor here. It's important for us to manage the committee's agenda. During the previous Parliament, the committee adopted a substantial number of motions of this nature relating to studies and reports that were never started because there was no time for this. We can always pull the figures.

I don't know if it's possible to move a motion of this nature or how we could go about it, but perhaps this motion should be referred to the subcommittee for review along with all of the other items it might want to consider. The same goes for motions 1 and 4 from Mr. Karygiannis that deal with some interesting topics. If the committee sat 24 hours a day, seven days a week, it might then have enough time to deal with everything. But eventually, we will need to make some choices or, at the very least, set some priorities.

As far as the committee is concerned, it would make more sense and it would be more efficient for us to refer all of these motions to the subcommittee, along with all of the other priorities that have been set and the other items selected by each party for discussion. We could combine all of these elements and move a motion as to what we plan to study, and when, and then adopt the motions. We could adopt hundreds of motions, but it wouldn't get us anywhere.

I'd like Mr. Karygiannis to agree either to wait until the committee has spoken, or to refer the motion to the subcommittee. Perhaps the clerk could help us out with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

The chair agrees with your comments. I'm having a hard time following the committee's plan because the plan seems to change from day to day. But I'm just up here trying to keep order, and it's up to the committee, really, and we have some motions. Mr. Karygiannis is quite within his rights to bring motions, as is any other member, and before it gets to the subcommittee it seems to me the motion has to be voted on.

Have you finished, Monsieur St-Cyr?

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

I disagree that it needs to be voted on first. Once the motion has passed and the decision has been made to examine the issue, we will not have any kind of leeway as to which issue we would like to examine first.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We have a report here that we have to deal with. It's on the agenda to be dealt with. That has priority. The minister is coming next Tuesday. We're already completely out of whack, but I don't want to get into a debate with you. I'm trying to agree with you that there should be some process here and we seem to have veered from it.

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

May I move that motions 1, 4 and 5 be referred to the subcommittee for consideration?

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

On a point of order, Chair, we're dealing with this particular motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We are indeed. And his motion is out of order, you're absolutely right.

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

This is the motion, and for anything to do--

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

Then, quite simply, we will defeat it.

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

--with this subcommittee, it has to pass through this.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

I just want to ask the chair to seek a little leave on his decision. A motion to defer supersedes the motion on the table.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I guess he's right.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

So if Mr. St-Cyr is asking or requesting for this motion to be deferred to committee--

[An hon. member]

Not defer, refer.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

You'd rather have a “refer” than a “defer”. That's fine. Either one, it actually does supersede.

So I don't understand why, Mr. Chair. I'd just ask you to reconsider this.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You're assumption is correct and you're absolutely right.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Monsieur St-Cyr, a motion to refer is in order. Are you moving that?

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

To the subcommittee, a motion that this motion, or all of Mr. Karygiannis' motions.... It's unclear what your motion is.

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

Motions 1, 4 and 5 should, in my opinion, be referred to the subcommittee. Since we are considering motion 5, I don't know if I can request that motions 1, 4 and 5 be referred, or whether I need to move separate motions to that effect.