Citizenship and Immigration Committee on March 21st, 2013

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I'm wondering where this is going, because this bill talks about revocation or renunciation of citizenship due to a specific—

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

I'll be getting to the question.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

As long as it's not a question regarding citizenship processing times, because that's really irrelevant at this point on this particular bill.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

If I could speak to the point of order, then, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay. I'll put this on the point of order.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Bill C-425 is a bill that speaks to accelerating access to citizenship, so I think wait times are quite pertinent. The question I was going to ask was simply—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I think you're getting away from the bill. It's a nice opportunity to talk to the minister about wait times, but I don't think at this particular time this is a forum to talk about wait times. We're here to talk about the revocation or—what's the word—renunciation of citizenship.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

The bill is in fact about accessing citizenship.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm not going to argue with you. I'm simply going to tell you that you're out of order. Please refer to the bill when you're asking your questions. Wait times are completely irrelevant.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Bill C-425 is an attempt to fast track access to citizenship to about 15—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Sir, you and I aren't going to argue. I'm going to start the clock again, right now.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Very good.

Bill C-425 seems to be making a hollow promise to those residents making applications. I'd like the minister, if you could, to speak to the question of whether this bill is an attempt to deal with mismanagement in the department. It's possible that people who are trying to access citizenship need this bill in order to break through that backlog.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Chairman, the answer is no. We receive well over 200,000 citizenship applications a year. I think the total number of people who might either benefit from this bill, in terms of accelerated treatment, or face renunciation would probably be less than 100 here. We're talking about a tiny fraction of the overall volume of citizenship applicants.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. Lamoureux.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do find it somewhat surprising, probably not really surprising, that Mr. Minister, you find the time to be able to come to committee to make a presentation on this bill, but it has been quite difficult to get you to appear before supply to talk about the estimates.

Having said that, I would like to ask questions in regard to this. You're proposing to bring forward amendments to the legislation. I think going through the normal process, as the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, you have the opportunity to bring in your own legislation.

Here we have a private member's bill. In a private member's bill, such as we're dealing with today, there are a lot of restrictions in terms of the abilities of members of Parliament to be able to contribute to the debate. In fact, the number of witnesses who are being called to present on this particular bill is limited because it is a private member's bill.

It seems to me that you're trying to deny members of Parliament the opportunity to get fully engaged in what it is you are proposing as a minister of the government, and it just seems to be rather odd and unfair, and many would argue ultimately undemocratic, that you're not being respectful of the House, when in fact the types of changes you're talking about will have fairly significant, even though symbolic.... And that's really what it is, because when you talk about the amendments you're proposing, even though we haven't seen them yet...we're expected to see these amendments and then it will pass because you have a majority on the committee, and then it will go in for third reading and report stage. There will be no real debate on it and then it will be passed, as opposed to the minister bringing forward his own legislation and it coming in to second reading, where every member of Parliament, not limited to two hours, is afforded the opportunity to express their thoughts about the renunciation of citizenship. This is something that I believe a good number of MPs would like to be able to talk about.

So you're hijacking a private member's bill in order to—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Stop the clock. A point of order, please.

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

Yes, thank you, Chair.

I understand that members of the opposition like to question the minister while he's here on issues that are unrelated to the bill. I would point out that you chaired a subcommittee meeting, a steering committee meeting, in which we laid out the process by which this bill was going to move forward, and we gave consideration to this and duly passed it. Included in that calendar of events is the opportunity leading up to clause-by-clause for any member of this committee to introduce amendments to the bill.

It has not been the practice in the four and a half years I've sat on this committee that individuals have in fact moved these amendments two to three to four weeks prior to that opportunity. We are actually talking about potential amendments to the bill. There is a time for those amendments to be introduced, and if any member of this committee, from the government side or from the opposition side, wishes to introduce amendments, they will. There will be an opportunity to debate those amendments.

So I'm not sure why we have a question to the minister related to a process that we have here at committee, when in fact he could use his time I think to ask the minister points related directly to the content of the bill and the presentation he made this morning, which makes evidence to a number of changes—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay, I've got your point, Mr. Dykstra.

Do you have a response, Mr. Lamoureux?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Yes, I do, Mr. Chair.

I could have sworn that I heard the minister indicate that he does have amendments. I do believe he even scrummed with the media indicating that he plans on bringing forward amendments, albeit through the back door, using you as the parliamentary secretary.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I don't want to talk about this any more.

Mr. Lamoureux, it's your dime and you can pretty well talk about almost anything you like, so I don't think you're out of order. I've learned that the minister is perfectly capable of defending himself, but you are getting rather antagonistic with him and I don't like that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Periodically I have been accused of that, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You be good, Mr. Lamoureux.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I'll be on good behaviour. I'm sure you can understand the frustration, in the sense that I think this is an important issue. All we know is that the minister is talking about amendments. We haven't even seen the amendments, and we don't know the context, other than a few statements he made. Ultimately, we believe there's a due process for a minister to follow.

My question to the minister is, why have you chosen to hijack Mr. Shory's bill and bring in amendments through the back door, as opposed to, as a minister of the crown, bringing in your own legislation? We would be afforded the due process that would have enabled us to have a healthy second reading and more witnesses.

I could talk about the war brides, the citizenship, Don Chapman, individuals of that nature. There's a lot of interest in citizenship and in renouncing one's citizenship. There is a high level of interest. Why didn't you do it through the normal process as every other minister has?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Chairman, I reject the premise of this loaded and inaccurate question.

I don't write the Standing Orders that outline the manner in which private members legislation is considered by the houses of Parliament or by standing committees. I was invited to come and appear before the committee and provide the government's perspective on the bill, which I've done. I have outlined various areas in which we think the bill can be improved, and I'm being very transparent about that.

If the member objects to the introduction of the bill, he should take that up with its sponsor, Mr. Shory, who is with us. This is not a government bill; it's a private member's bill, and we've made a good faith effort to suggest ways in which it could be improved.

Mr. Lamoureux should know that when members frame a private member's bill they don't have the benefit of drawing on the enormous policy expertise that exists in departments. Often, when departments review bills, they see lacunae, or unintended consequences, that could be addressed through amendments, and that's precisely what I'm doing through my presence here today.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. Menegakis.