Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to speak to the Group No. 3 amendments to Bill C-16, the citizenship bill.
Motion No. 6 refers to the review committee and the appointment by the governor in council of retired judges. The amendment asks that opposition parties have a real say. In other words, the opposition parties should have the chance to consent, not simply for the government to consult them, as happens most of the time. We hear about what is going on, but in the end it ends up being a partisan appointment, hopefully of a qualified person, but that is not always the case.
Granted this position will be rarely used, since it would only be in the case where the review committee cannot come to a decision. I will be supporting this motion.
Motion No. 7, concerning clause 31, is an amendment that is totally logical. It states:
“(1.1) The Governor in Council shall not appoint a person who has been convicted of an offence under section 39 or 40 as a Citizenship Commissioner.”
It seems so logical that I wonder why it has to be there. However, with the cases we have seen in the past it is probably a good idea.
Motion No. 8, referring to clause 32, is again an amendment that would give some input to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. In a good democracy that is the way it should be.
Motions Nos. 15 to 20, referring to clause 43, would bring the work on regulations back to the committee and the House. I agree, and that should be adopted also.
Motion No. 21 comes back to what all opposition parties have been saying probably forever, that the committees concerned should have a real and positive input, especially after all the time that is spent in committees reviewing, interviewing witnesses and doing their best to get the views of ordinary Canadians. The committees have to be more involved.
I will be supporting all of the motions in Group No. 3.