Oh, I know that, Madam Chair.
Evidence of meeting #84 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #84 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
8:45 p.m.
NDP
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims) NDP Jinny Sims
—but because we had our break, I want everybody to know what we are debating.
Right now, before the committee is the motion to extend by 30 days; also that gives the government the chance to go to the House of Commons to get an expanded scope. The amendment is at the end of the second paragraph, “and that this request is to take place in the House on June 21, 2013”.
That's the amendment, and of course, you know the rest.
8:45 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Yes.
It's interesting that you point that out, Madam Chair, because I have right in front of me exactly what it is, and I had anticipated—
8:45 p.m.
NDP
8:45 p.m.
Conservative
Costas Menegakis Conservative Richmond Hill, ON
This is a point of order just to see whether I can understand. Really, it's not.... I don't want to interrupt or get into that whole thing.
8:45 p.m.
Conservative
Costas Menegakis Conservative Richmond Hill, ON
It is the amendment we're discussing now. We have to decide whether we accept the amendment, and then we go back to discussing the motion itself, whether it is amended or not. Is that right?
8:45 p.m.
NDP
8:45 p.m.
Conservative
8:45 p.m.
NDP
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims) NDP Jinny Sims
It's just the amendment, but in order to discuss the amendment, as I explained previously, it's very hard to just discuss the end words, such as “yes” or “no”, without linking them back. But we're not expecting a full-fledged discussion of the whole motion.
8:50 p.m.
Conservative
8:50 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
I anticipate, even though my name is on that list, Madam Chair, that it could be quite a while before my name is called. That's why I'm somewhat glad—
8:50 p.m.
NDP
8:50 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Absolutely. That's one of the reasons why I was glad that there was an amendment to move.
What just happened actually proves my point. Again, you'll never see me deny members the opportunity to stand or to sit in their place and raise a hand on a point of order. I won't discourage it because that's all part of the process and I respect the process. Relevancy is critically important too, and that's why I highlighted the fact, in my few minutes that I already had to talk, that if any member feels that I'm getting a little too far off, you won't offend me by rising on a point of order and expressing why it is you think I'm not being relevant. I'll be more than happy to make that direct link because I don't want, in any fashion, Madam Chair, to be irrelevant to what I think is a very important discussion that we are having.
It was interesting, Madam Chair. As you had initially interrupted you made reference to the motion itself, and to the amendment. I actually have it right in front of me. At some point I was figuring that I would take the time to read through it—not right now, because I don't think it's necessary. But we will get to that point where I'll want to do that and especially if it's deemed necessary for me to try to make some sort of a connection.
What we're really talking about is process. We have an amendment before us that was trying to get something sped through or set through a time so that this bill would in fact be reported. I wanted to be able to talk about process and the importance of it. I think far too often legislators, or parliamentarians, take things for granted. I think that is a big mistake because when we take things for granted, quite often you'll see some individuals might choose to abuse or look for ways around the system, or even possibly the rules, or use the rules in certain ways that would limit people from being able to participate.
I want to give a few examples of that, Madam Chair. I had my assistant, just a few hours back, go and do a quick search in terms of bills and time allocation. Members of the committee will be very much aware of to what degree I've had the opportunity to stand up inside the House and talk about the time allocations. Time allocations are all about process, and that's what it is that we're talking about here.
We're talking about trying to set something into the calendar, and it's very important for us to recognize the role that the calendar plays in all of our lives in a very profound way. There is a huge difference, for example, when we are in session versus outside of session. When we have roughly nine months of the year that the House is actually sitting, there are typically three weeks of that month where there is an expectation that members of Parliament would be here in Ottawa. That other week is not a week off, as I'm often reminded.
I know that members across the way or on this side of the committee room use that opportunity to be able to connect with their constituents, for the most part. I know I do. Whenever I get the opportunity, I want to be able to connect with the residents of Winnipeg North. I appreciate the trust that they've given me, and I hope to be able to perform to the degree to which they will appreciate my efforts, and ultimately assist me in re-election.
When you are in session, the expectation is that there's a legislative agenda, and that's what this bill is really all about, part of the legislative agenda—in a very unique way, I must say. If you take a look at the amount of time that's being dedicated to this particular piece of legislation, especially in terms of committee time, I suspect—and Mr. Shory might even have a better sense of it because it's his private member's bill—that there are very few private members' bills that get as much attention as this particular bill has been able to get.
Now one could speculate, and I'd like to speculate as to why that is. But before I do, I want to continue along the line of this whole process. We talk about “in session”, “out of session”. We talk about the importance, while we're in session, of what we're doing and how the calendar actually works. What we're really talking about is the government House leader working in cooperation with the opposition parties' House leaders in trying to come up with a timely agenda, so that both the government's agenda and the opposition's agenda can actually be met. There's a balancing—
8:55 p.m.
NDP
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims) NDP Jinny Sims
I know we've had a bit of a break, and sometimes at this time of night our memories are a bit shrunken, as I would say. I would urge our colleagues to please keep the chatter down so that Mr. Lamoureux who, as he said, has waited so patiently, is not interrupted and he can have his say. It's the same as we would want for ourselves when we are speaking. Let's make sure we do not interfere with him.
Carry on, Mr. Lamoureux.
8:55 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
As I say, it is a bit of a fine art in terms of some of these negotiations that take place, but I could imagine House leaders coming together or maybe even the respective caucus leadership staff coming together and saying here are all of the bills and here's all of the legislation that we have before us. They have a responsibility on the government side to meet with the ministers, on the opposition side they'll meet with the critics, and they kind of get a sense in terms of the real value of what is an important bill, what type of bill should be getting what kind of debate inside the chamber or inside the House of Commons, versus how much time we want to allocate out for committee stage. It really varies.
Mr. Shory's bill is no different than that. If there was a great deal of good faith in terms of negotiations that were taking place, I suspect that we probably wouldn't be here right now, that there would have been an agreement that would have dealt with Mr. Shory's private member's bill.
8:55 p.m.
An hon. member
Hear, hear!
8:55 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
I don't say that lightly because as a number of members might know, I have been a parliamentarian for just over 20 years. I have had the opportunity to work as a House leader and as a deputy House leader—the House leader in the smaller jurisdiction of the province of Manitoba. But I tell you I've worked in majority governments as a House leader and in minority governments, and I know how critically important that relationship is for that House leadership team to get together in good faith and do the negotiating. If they're prepared to do that, Madam Chair, then you will see a more orderly fashion in terms of what is taking place, whether it's in the House of Commons or it's in the committee rooms.
So let's talk about Mr. Shory's bill as one of the examples, because I know people want to make sure that we give fair treatment to Mr. Shory's bill this evening. If I were Mr. Shory, I would have been inclined to sit down with the deputy House leader or the House leader or members from the House leadership team in terms of where we are going with this bill. After all, it's a unique bill. It's not like the government's bill we're talking about. Private members' bills are very unique. We don't even have anything like that in terms of the province of Manitoba.
I was actually quite impressed with the number of private members' bills that are brought forward. It's an amazing number of private members' bills. You have some members who have a litany—a dozen or so private members' bills. You might have some private members who have none.
I happen to have one, a very good private member's bill. If I can give a bit of a sales pitch tonight on it, I probably will. The essence of it and I would think that everyone would want to support it.... I voted for Mr. Shory's bill to come to committee. I'm hoping that I'll get a reciprocal type of support for my good idea because it is a good bill. But you know what I've already done? I've already talked it out—I shouldn't say talked it out—I've already had discussions within my own caucus. My House leader has a good sense of what I would like to see happen with this particular bill and I've explained it.
I remember Mr. Shory's presentation. He talked about how he went into his constituency, how proud he was of being able to sponsor this. He made reference to his family. He talked about how important this bill was not only to him, but also to the community, and the type of message, and if you read his speech.... I know I have it somewhere here, Madam Chair, and maybe what I'll do is I'll go through some of that a bit later, but at the end of the day, if you just read the speech that Mr. Shory gave, I'm sure members will understand why it is that Mr. Shory has taken such a huge interest in wanting to be here at this committee as we go through his bill. Obviously he is concerned about the future fate of his private member's bill and I don't blame him for that, Madam Chair. I wish him the best. At the end of the day there do need to be some amendments to it.
I would caution that this whole issue of scope could ultimately cause the bill to fail. As private members we have to be cognizant of the process that we enter into when we select and say this is our bill, this is the bill I like, and this is the bill I'm going to put in priority. Now he has the opportunity. He allows it to come to the chamber. It has two hours of debate and then it goes to committee.
My concern for the private member, Madam Chair, is that he might be being used as a pawn by the Minister of Immigration. I'm speculating. I want to make sure that Mr. Shory understands how he might be being manipulated here.
You have the Minister of Immigration, and I'm going to assume that the Prime Minister's Office was aware of this. I would be surprised if the House leadership team was not made aware it, Madam Chair. I would be willing to bet, and I'm not a gambling man, that the House leadership team knew about it. So that means the House leader, the deputy House leader, the whip, the party whip, the PMO, and Mr. Shory would have been informed of the discussions, and obviously the Minister of Immigration.
Their agenda is nowhere near the same sort of an agenda that Mr. Shory would have had. Why do I say that, Madam Chair? If you listen to many of the comments that came from the Minister of Immigration, and even look at some of the presenters who came before the committee, you will find a great deal of contradiction. On the one hand we have a minister who seems to be so happy to tell the Canadian public what he wants to do with Mr. Shory's bill.
The problem is that he would have known that by proposing what he was proposing to do to Mr. Shory's bill, two things would have happened. One is that he would have changed the scope of the legislation. That's why we're here right now, Madam Chair, because of that particular issue. The minister would have known that, Madam Chair.
The other issue is that the minister, if successful—and it's hard to say if he will be successful as we'll have to wait and see what kind of amendments might come forward. We have to wait and see how this bill will ultimately look. But if he is successful, I don't see that as a positive thing. I see that as a negative thing, and this is the reason I believe it's a negative thing, Madam Chair. You have a minister who identifies a private member's bill and says he doesn't need any form of time allocation. He just taps into that bill, and it has a built-in time allocation mechanism.
All of us know the rules of process and procedure. When a government minister introduces a bill, what is the procedure? You have first reading. After first reading you have second reading. Quite often if there are substantial amendments prior to second reading there are certain things you can do to make some of those substantial amendments prior to second reading. But here's where it really starts to change, Madam Chair, on the issue of time for second reading in the House.
As all of us know, there's a limit on the amount of time for a private member's bill. That means once you're in second reading for a private member's bill there's a maximum of two hours for debate. So what takes place in that two hours? The member whose bill it is will stand in his or her place. They will introduce the bill for second reading. Then they will be given 10 minutes to make their case as to why it is that the bill is an important thing for them personally and how they believe it would be in Canada's best interest to ultimately see that legislation pass. Quite often when there's a presentation of that nature, you will find that there are members of different caucuses who will have questions directly for the member.
I happened to be in the chamber, or in the House of Commons, when Mr. Shory introduced his bill. In listening to the bill, and being a member of the Canadian Forces, I was quite interested in terms of what was actually being said. That's something I really haven't commented on, of course, that is, what it is that the bill really is, what it is proposing to do. It does a couple of things, but the one area that I focused in on—and you'll find, if you take a look at all of the comments on the bill in second reading—is that it seemed to me that most of the comments, most of the speeches, were based on the Canadian Forces and the idea of two years. That seemed to be the real focus of the attention.
I'll provide a little bit of feedback in terms of what it is I would have said in second reading. But first let me continue on with this whole 10 minutes thing, because in second reading Mr. Shory would have talked about it for 10 minutes and then if people had questions, or members had questions, they would be able to go ahead and ask their questions. I was more than happy to ask a question of the member. I listened to his speech.
While he was speaking I happened to have my laptop out and I was thinking, I'm going to key in this whole Canadian citizenship issue with the Canadian Forces. Imagine my surprise, Madam Chair, when I found out that on the website of the Canadian Forces it actually says, are you interested in becoming a member of the forces? This isn't word for word obviously, but it said on their website, are you interested in being a member of the Canadian Forces? This is how you qualify, you kind of pre-qualify, if you want to be able to be a member of the Canadian Forces.
On one of the points it said that you had to be a Canadian citizen. So you step back because that doesn't make any sense. If I'm a landed resident, or a permanent resident here in Canada, and I read that front page or that second page, that second link, that's all it's going to take for me to say, I guess not. I don't qualify. That concerned me, and that came up right away. Remember, the bill says that if you are a member of the Canadian Forces as opposed to having to wait for three years in order to qualify for your citizenship you'd only have to wait two years. After that two years you would be granted your citizenship. Every so often I think it's important, Madam Chair, that I go back to the reason as to why it is that it's quite relevant to the motion before us. We need to remember it is in fact about the process, the timing, and the manner in which we are trying to rush through this bill, and the scope. That's 100% in terms of what it is that I'm referring to.
In reading that website—getting back to my website—a red flag came up. Now, right offhand I can't recall exactly what it is that I had asked Mr. Shory. But I know that after I had spoken I had also talked to Mr. Shory. So it might have been in the question or it might have been after I had made my comments that he came over and we chatted about it. I would have showed it to him. I would have said, this is a real concern of mine. Shortly after that—I can't remember if it was an hour or two hours, I really don't remember offhand—but he was able to provide me with a document. In that document, apparently if you click here, click there, and do a real good search, there is a document that's located somewhere on that website that gives a better definition of a Canadian citizen. It would appear that, in fact, maybe you don't have to be a Canadian citizen. If it weren't for that second reading, Madam Chair, I would not have had the opportunity to gain that experience.
So a person with an idea introduces a private member's bill, there is a five-minute question and answer, and then representatives from other political entities, and private members or members in general, will stand up. Now, that's only given one hour, and it's 15 minutes for the one, which means you have 40 minutes and maybe another four speakers, depending on how long they speak.
If you follow the debate on a private member's bill, you'll find that the first hour is quite interesting. It's probably one of the better hours to tap into, especially if you follow on CPAC. You get a good sense of a wide variety of issues. What's really kind of nice about it is that there are free votes, more often than not. Some parties are more open to free votes than others, but I'm not going to say which particular party tends not to have those free votes—that's another issue for another day.
Mr. Dykstra has pointed at the New Democrats. It was he who pointed, not me. Having said that, Madam Chairperson, I think it's important.
Then, after that first hour of debate, what happens? It goes back—and I'm not too sure of the exact period of time—but generally speaking, it will come back on the order paper in a reasonable time. That's what happened, again, for Mr. Shory's bill.
Once again, it's up for the second go-round. Remember, the first round is limited to only one hour. When the second round comes by, you're not going to have more than six people speak unless, of course, each one is a little short, in which case you might get the bonus of a seventh person. Quite often in that second hour you have three people speak, and after those three have spoken, that's it. The question is called and it doesn't even fill the full two hours, and then it's agreed that we will see the clock an extra half hour, and then we go on to some form of government business or whatever it might be.
It's an interesting process, Madam Chairperson, but it means that at the end of those two hours, the private member can know, and feel comfortable in knowing, that the member is going to have the opportunity to have his bill voted on.
That's what took place here. Quite often when you think about that vote, what you're really talking about is that a lot of members.... I don't know if others have witnessed this—as I’ve said, I do enjoy private members' hour—but I've witnessed many occasions where everyone supports the bill.
Personally, Madam Chairperson, I think we should change the rule.
There is a bit of a trick. Someone has to say “No”. If someone doesn't say “No”, then the bill goes on. Quite often the private member says, “No, I want a vote”, and you'll see one of the member's colleagues kind of cover his or her mouth and yell out “No”. The Speaker will say, “Someone said no”, will call for the yeas and nays, and then five members will stand up, and then there will be a vote. Don't blame them.
Personally, on my private member's bill, I want to see a vote too. I want to see if there is anyone who would vote against a leader’s taking responsibility for political advertising that they're ultimately authorizing. I'd like to think that our leaders want to be accountable and transparent, but that's another bill.
Going back to Mr. Shory's bill, in this particular case, there was a recorded vote. I know there were some concerns within my caucus, and many of my caucus colleagues asked what I would suggest because we do support having free votes on private members' bills. You'll often see members of the Liberal caucus go to a critic or someone else within the party, or even talk to the sponsor to get a better sense of what the bill is, and I like to think that's a good thing to do.
I was thinking, “For now, I think it's okay. Let's see it go to committee and see what happens to it at the committee stage.” That's what I was suggesting and would have recommended to my caucus. I was very pleased with my caucus colleagues after being solicited for my thoughts and ideas that the decision, I believe from virtually all my caucus members, was to give me, the critic of the bill, the opportunity to see it go to committee.
I don't think any Liberal MP has voted against it coming to the committee stage, which says a lot for Mr. Shory's bill going to committee. I think we were very much open to it. I must admit I was a little embarrassed when we found out the Minister of Immigration had some other plans for Mr. Shory's bill. I think it made a number of my caucus colleagues a little concerned, because now we've already passed this bill through second reading and it would appear as if something unethical—“unofficial” is probably a better word for it—has taken place.
Having said that, I'm an optimist, my glass is more than half full and at the end of the day I wanted to see if we would be able to do something, make some amendments to the legislation, make it a little healthier, a little more acceptable to Canadians. I had some questions and concerns in committee.
So we go through that committee process, and what took place in committee? Because I'm very biased, I have a trust issue with the current Minister of Immigration, to be honest, so you have to factor out that one. When it went to committee—and here I'm thinking about how can we make this bill potentially better—I listened to the presenters, and some interesting presentations were made.
Many members here tonight were at that particular committee meeting when we had members of the Canadian Forces come forward. You'll recall, I think it was a colonel or maybe a lieutenant colonel, who said something to the effect that in the Canadian Forces.... We had asked how many people in the Canadian Forces today are landed immigrants. In other words, how many would it apply to? Good question.
I don't necessarily want to take credit for the question, but it was a good question and I was quite surprised to hear the response. Remember, we have tens of thousands of members in the regular force and tens of thousands more in the reserves. Both Mr. Opitz and I are very proud of our military history. He has a longer reputation with the forces than I do, and I appreciated every day I was in the forces.
But having said that, I think he said 14 people who are permanent residents would be taken in, in any given year. What astounded me was the fact that it's not as if you have these 14 people coming to the forces. It's more like the forces looking to identify 14 types of specialists and getting them to join the force. A whole litany of issues came to my mind on that issue, because I'm a strong advocate of multiculturalism. I believe our greatest strength as a nation is our diversity and if we can capitalize on that, we will be the best country in the world to live in well into the future. We need to capitalize on it.
I was quite surprised with the number and it made me start thinking about maybe there might be a bigger issue there that needs to be dealt with. So in that sense I was glad. Imagine, we went from second reading into the committee stage and at that committee stage we found out information that I don't believe anyone around that table had any idea was the case, Madam Chair.
So then you have individuals such as I who looked at some of the facts that were being presented, and I believe we could ultimately see a change, whether it was a political party, a partisan policy being influenced, or a reinforcement of policy.
It depends in terms of what spectrum, I guess, one might be on. But it is an issue that needs to be talked about. I learned that from that particular committee meeting. I wouldn't have learned that had it not been for Mr. Shory's private member's bill, and the limitations, those time allocations, in terms of process, right? That was of great benefit.
I had many other ideas, but then all of a sudden we start to hear about—uh, oh—the Minister of Immigration is talking about his own amendments and they're pretty substantial amendments. Then the types of presenters, I thought, were starting to change a little bit. Here we're getting more presenters talking about potential amendments than Mr. Shory's bill. I was a bit taken aback by that because I wanted to be able to continue to see more discussion strictly about Mr. Shory's bill.
One of the issues, and I'll give you an example—and that's why it's dangerous when you start looking at changing the scope, and that's what this motion is all about. It's about putting in a date so that ultimately the legislation will be reported back in some...whether it's going to be in scope or out of scope. There are many issues that I believe we should have focused attention on while we were at the table dealing with Mr. Shory's bill, without having to change the scope.
But we'll all recall in terms of what took place that there wasn't any exchange. What would normally happen? Well under a normal process, after a private member brings a bill to committee—because I have had the opportunity to sit in those situations also, you know—you get the presenters, you call witnesses, you often get witnesses who will come from all different regions of our country and they'll give their thoughts and ideas and so forth, on a private member's bill. I think that's great. We need to continue to do that, encourage it, support it, and so forth.
Then after that's done and the formal witness aspect is done, then what takes place? At the end of the day or the end of those presentations you will get individuals who will come forward and now start talking about the clause-by-clause. Quite often you will get introductions. That didn't happen here with Mr. Shory's bill. What happened with Mr. Shory's bill was kind of like an admission right up front. I remember the admission. I shouldn't say I was surprised, but I was disappointed that the Minister of Immigration felt it so necessary to want to make profound changes to Mr. Shory's bill. I thought that he was exploiting a private member's bill. So that disappointed me.
I was pleasantly surprised when Mr. Dykstra at the beginning of the meeting confessed that this was going to be changing the scope of the bill. So as opposed to putting on some sort of facade or trying to put pressure on us to deal with amendments that we know will change the scope of the bill, the government did the right thing in a twisted fashion and said it was going to change the scope.
Madam Chair, that's when, for me, this 20-plus years of being a parliamentarian started to say, “Oh, no, just wait a minute here. We can't do this. It's wrong on many fronts.” It's not acceptable for us to just agree to change the scope of a bill.
So let's be a little bit hypothetical here, and let's just assume that we wouldn't have changed the scope and Mr. Dykstra did not introduce that motion. What would most likely have happened, Madam Chair?
I would suggest to you there would have been more dialogue between the members and we would be getting ready to go through the bill, and—
9:25 p.m.
NDP
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims) NDP Jinny Sims
Excuse me, Mr. Lamoureux. I just want to make sure that the question you asked was rhetorical and you were—
9:25 p.m.
The Chair Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims
Okay, I just didn't want you to think I wasn't listening to you.
9:25 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Carry on.
Now being somewhat hypothetical here and looking forward, what would have happened had Mr. Dykstra not moved that motion?
Well, I have a good sense of what would have happened and I'll just quickly made reference to it. What would have happened is that members would have had dialogue about the content of Mr. Shory's bill. We wouldn't have had to have this whole discussion about what it is that the Minister of Immigration was attempting to do, and I think that this would have been a positive thing, Madam Chair.
I'll give you a sense. When I think in terms of scope, or not changing the scope, and important questions that need to be answered.... I'm not sure if I mentioned it in my second reading comments, but I know I've raised it with many others. I'd have to read my second reading comments...but I probably did. I do have a copy of it here somewhere and maybe I can go back to that, but one of the first thoughts that came to my mind was yes. As I say I'm a proud former member of the Canadian Forces. I enjoyed my service. My last posting was in Edmonton, Namao, or Lancaster Park, home at the time of the 435 squadron, which was responsible for search and rescue. I sat in the tower for a couple of years. Ultimately I wanted to work radar.
But at the end of the day, I was open to the idea that two years, three years...we want to encourage. You know, I had a number of questions. Does that mean we're going to see a recruitment office at the airport so as people come in...? But those were more tongue-in-cheek comments that were being made. Then there were some serious things, such as, what about RCMP officers? Should RCMP officers not get some form of recognition also?
I believe we had representation to the committee from RCMP officers, Madam Chair, and we even have former RCMP officers. I think we have, I heard in the chamber earlier because I did get an opportunity to speak a little bit in the chamber because I couldn't speak here, but I did get an opportunity to speak in the chamber and one of the things that I heard was that the Conservative backbench has 14 police officers or something like that. Thirteen? The person who spoke in the House misspoke then. I'm pretty sure I heard 14.
So I don't know how many of those are RCMP officers but I can tell you—three?—I can tell you that there's a special relationship between the Canadian Forces and the RCMP officers. I have flown on many Hercules aircraft. Beautiful wonderful aircraft, the C-130s. I must say right up front, Madam Chair, that none of them are painted blue—yet.
But having said that, there was a special relationship between RCMP officers and military personnel. In fact, when I was a member of the force, you would often see RCMP officers on aircraft, military aircraft, because there were extended benefits that were given to members of our Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I think that there was a sense of mutual feelings in terms of respect of service to our country and what it is that we did.
So it got me thinking that if we are going to do this for our Canadian Forces personnel, why wouldn't we allow it for RCMP personnel? In fact, if memory serves me correctly—and this might not be 100% accurate Madam Chair—I do believe that I might have asked a question in regard to the number of RCMP officers who are, in fact, landed immigrants, or I might have even been beaten to that particular question. I just can't recall right offhand. But I do know that there was a response and the response was not overly encouraging. It might have even been discouraging to a certain degree.
At the end of the day, I think it raises other issues that it would be great to see parliamentarians talk more about, or maybe even political entities look into a little bit more—members of the Canadian Forces, members of the RCMP, and the degree to which we want to see landed or permanent residents be a part of those forces. To what degree do you want to have some sort of expedited citizenship?
I think there is a valid argument. One could ultimately ask why just the Canadian Forces rather than the two of them? Well, now I open up a can of worms. If you say RCMP officers, and then you have the Canadian Forces, what about first responders? First responders would include such things as ambulances, fire trucks. There is an immense amount of respect for our firemen.