Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 27th, 2010

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

Yes, I just think it's backwards, so I understand why the clerk wants to have something sooner.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

She wants to prepare a package.

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

I totally agree with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I guess the question is that I need guidance--

Could we have some order here? We haven't adjourned yet.

I have Mr. Dykstra and then Monsieur St-Cyr.

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

I know there's some discussion around the Monday. There may not be time, once we see whatever the minister is going to be tabling, if you think you would like us to submit amendments to that.

I think we need to have a little bit of flexibility on that from all sides. The purpose of the Tuesday morning meeting of the steering committee was to address issues such as this.

But I want to clarify something that Ms. Chow said, which was that we were going to be negotiating amendments on Tuesday with each other. If that's what she said, that's not what the Tuesday morning meeting is about. The Tuesday--

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

If it's a meeting between critics, that's fine, but none of you have decided to tell the chair and the staff about a subcommittee meeting.

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

Sorry--it's an unofficial subcommittee meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

An unofficial subcommittee meeting...?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I have no idea what that means, but I'm sure you'll tell me in due course.

Go ahead sir.

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

Well, all it is, it's a meeting of the three critics and the parliamentary secretary. It's not an official meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

So we don't need to be here...?

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

No. The purpose of the meeting was so that we could all make sure, from an amendment perspective, if you're going to be submitting amendments, to at least understand those amendments as to what they're going to be, and not decide amongst ourselves whether they're going to be supported or not, but simply presented so that we understood them, so that the process of clause-by-clause would move forward in a constructive way, based on the fact that we want to try to move it in a manner that has all of us working together against that 11:59 deadline on June 3, versus anyone trying to take advantage of that deadline in a way that is not constructive.

Ms. Chow, if that's your understanding, I certainly want to make it clear that we're going to be presenting amendments. We'll look at amendments, but the purpose of the meeting is not to come to a consensus on amendments. It's to understand each other's amendments.

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

No--

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

Okay. That's what I understood from your comments.

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

I understand that, Mr. Chair, but I still can't square the round circle. Because if we are to submit all recommendations and amendments on Monday--

He's not listening. I'll wait.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Excuse me just a moment. I'm sorry, Ms. Chow.

I'm going to introduce you to the legislative clerk, Lucie Tardif-Carpentier.

I have a feeling that we're moving towards having amendments presented to the clerk on Tuesday. I have a feeling that this is where you're moving. If this unofficial subcommittee is going to meet Tuesday morning... Ms. Tardif-Carpentier is saying okay, you can do that; we can move that from Monday at 3:30 to Tuesday morning. But she's just saying that it's going to be very difficult for her to prepare an appropriate package of amendments.

I have no idea whether you're going to have one amendment or 100 amendments. She's just emphasizing that it's going to be very difficult if you choose Tuesday morning.

Ms. Chow.

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

I have a suggestion. I already have a lot of the amendments written out. I could send them tomorrow, or even this afternoon. I could do that, but at the same time, there may be other ones after Tuesday. So perhaps once we go to clause-by-clause, you as chair could provide the flexibility for us to add some or withdraw some. Because in the past, it sometimes was quite straight; if there were new ones you wouldn't let us deal with them until the end.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I don't think there's any problem with making amendments as we're discussing clause-by-clause.

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

Perfect.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm just trying to make this deal work. That's all I'm trying to do.

Monsieur St-Cyr.

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

Like a number of you, I have a good idea of where we're headed. Amendments are already drafted and it's not a problem for me if we deal with them on Monday, a little ahead of time, so that we can have the time to prepare and be more effective. However, I want us to agree and for everyone to understand clearly—and not once we've come to the clause-by-clause consideration—that in no case will an amendment be negatived or ruled inadmissible on the ground that it has been submitted later in the process. In my view, what is ultimately important is that we have the best possible act.

Obviously, I would point out to you that witnesses will be coming to appear on Monday evening, after the time scheduled for the tabling of our amendments. It would therefore be a bit futile to have them appear if we leave ourselves no flexibility in case someone has a brilliant idea that we would like to adopt but are unable to do so. The same is true for the regulations we'll be receiving and examining in 24 hours. I want some flexibility on the following day, Tuesday, to delete or amend amendments if there is something in the minister's regulations that I don't like or have misunderstood.

Once again, I find we're conducting a somewhat philosophical discussion because the majority of you know where we're headed and 95% of our amendments are drafted and ready to be submitted. I don't want us to wind up in the clause-by-clause consideration with a debate on the fact that the amendment was submitted at 9:01 on such and such a date, so it's rejected. If everyone agrees on this subject, there's no problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Unless I'm overruled, I have no problem with amendments being made as we move along, I really don't. I can't believe that the different parties don't have a pretty good idea, as Ms. Chow says, of what your amendments are. I can't believe that you don't know that right now. You may think of more, but I'm hopeful... That's why I'm picking...I didn't want to make as big a deal of this as it has turned out to be.

For all four parties, notwithstanding this unofficial meeting on Monday at 3:30, which you're not inviting me to, if you could file with the clerk the amendments you have, it doesn't stop you from adding more, and it doesn't stop you from changing them. I'm just trying to help Madame Tardif-Carpentier prepare a package for us to work with when we get into clause-by-clause.

Agreed?

Agreed.

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

Mr. Chair, I do--

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Oh, you know what? I have a list and I didn't know I had a list.

Monsieur Coderre?