CITI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 4, 1999

• 1541

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.)): I would like to call to order the meeting of this committee, pursuant to an order of reference of the House dated March 1, 1999, consideration of Bill C-63, an act respecting Canadian citizenship. Our agenda today is to go to clause-by-clause consideration.

We would ask that the witnesses from Citizenship and Immigration Canada.... But before I proceed, the clerk has handed me a motion from the Reform Party, from the immigration critic. Let me read the motion:

That the committee's consideration of Bill C-63, An Act Respecting Canadian Citizenship, do now adjourn sine die.

I have asked the committee clerk what this means. It means that this motion is debatable because of the phrase “sine die”, so the chair is presenting this motion for debate.

Can you read the motion again, Madam Clerk?

The Clerk of the Committee: It's moved by Mr. Benoit that the committee's consideration of Bill C-63, an act respecting Canadian citizenship, do now adjourn sine die.

The Chair: Mr. Benoit, you have the floor.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm moving that debate on Bill C-63 be adjourned until such time that the bill is substantially amended and brought before the committee. Bill C-63 is far too vague to be brought before the House of Commons. We've heard testimony to that effect from various witnesses and even from members of the Liberal Party.

I would just like to discuss this in three parts.

First, dealing specifically with the vagueness of the legislation, the fact is that it is so unclear it would take a major rewrite of the legislation to clarify it to the extent that you would want this to go to clause-by-clause. The second point that I want to debate it on is the process at committee. In that regard, I have some quotes from some witnesses, which I would like to bring forth. The third issue that I would like to debate this on is the timing of the legislation. I'll explain that a bit when I get to it.

First of all, in terms of the vagueness, just taking a single committee meeting as an example, and that's meeting 59, which was, I believe, on April 22, it's evident that the witnesses have a real problem with interpretation of this legislation and its comment. I'll give you some examples.

• 1545

Ms. Sungee John, president and co-ordinator of a third world resource centre, Windsor Women Working with Immigrant Women, referenced clause 16, the revocation of citizenship, and said this:

...the proposed changes, we feel, will provide the minister with the power to revoke citizenship, but with this power there's no recourse for the individual to appeal that revocation. Under the current act, if there is reason for revocation, it's clearly stated that it would be revoked if there is an intent to commit fraud or conceal information. Under the proposed act, intent is not stated. It has removed the term “knowingly” and has left it very vague.

The witness in that case expressed her concern with the vagueness of that clause 16.

Section 21 allows cabinet to refuse citizenship based on national interest, yet it is not defined. It could even lead to political bias being grounds for determining national interest, and that certainly has to be a concern.

Ms. John, again, at the same committee, said:

We feel strongly that we have areas of concerns that can only be addressed if committees come to Windsor to see the impact of immigration, and the potential impact that changes to citizenship will have on immigrants and permanent residents.

Again, this witness said that the only way that you can determine whether this legislation is acceptable is if the committee travels to Windsor.

This witness, by the way, was not invited by members of the Reform Party. In fact, I believe they were invited by members of the Liberal Party.

With regard to clause 43, we heard from Peter Jervis and Ian Benson, again during that same meeting, meeting 59—I believe it was April 22—that they expressed valid concerns that departmental officials will be defining spouse for the purpose of citizenship legislation.

Mr. Jervis has a law firm in Toronto. These two lawyers, Mr. Chair, acted in the Egan decision, in the M. and H. decision, and in the Rosenberg decision, that one before the Ontario Court of Appeal. Mr. Jervis said this at that meeting:

In this particular legislation, Parliament has essentially delegated the responsibility for defining spouse to the regulation section, which essentially means delegating it to the Governor in Council. I think any astute person knows that if the Governor in Council is doing it, then essentially it's not being done in Parliament; it's not being done with democratic scrutiny.

Mr. Jervis said later on:

...I think the problem is the very one you've identified. That is, on this particular issue of spousal definition, we don't know what definition the regulations will utilize. Quite frankly, if the regulations use a particular definition of spouse that groups in society might think is unconstitutional, underinclusive, or overinclusive, there could be a constitutional challenge, and it's impossible to say whether that would withstand judicial scrutiny, because, first, we don't know what it is, and secondly, we don't know the extent to which it properly reflects a proportional balance of competing interests and considerations.

So those witnesses said that this in fact could face a constitutional challenge the way it has been presented, and they went on to say, and I quote, again from Mr. Jervis:

So the bottom line is, who knows until you see it? That's why Parliament should be defining these issues and they should be debated thoroughly, letting all of the various groups in society have their say.

Again, this indicates that this committee certainly hasn't properly heard from members of society on this issue.

Now from some of the members opposite at same committee meeting...Mr. Bryden said:

I have two observations and two questions. Are you saying that we need to amend this legislation and define spouse?

Jervis said, “I think you should....” Mr. Bryden said okay. Jervis said:

...or you will likely find an indefensible position if there's any inequality in the definition that's promulgated in the regulations.

Mr. Bryden said:

Is there anything to be said for simply eliminating paragraph 43(i) and not making reference to the spouse at all in this particular section?

Mr. Jervis said:

The problem is that you then have legislation that refers to spouse, but it's not defined. Then you leave it up to the courts to define it, so again you're delegating to the courts.

Mr. Jervis, again in the same presentation, said:

If Parliament just ducks the issue because it is a difficult issue and because the legal interpretation is evolving, essentially Parliament isn't doing its job.

• 1550

In another meeting, Norman Sabourin, referring to clause 8—and again, I'm referring to the witnesses and including members opposite and what they have said in terms of vagueness of the legislation—said,

...I think that in discussion with our legal advisers we are certainly looking at and considering proposing to this committee that perhaps there should be some reaching back into time for people who were adopted in the past by citizens abroad.

We heard several comments throughout various committees, Mr. Chair.

I can see you're becoming a little bit impatient, and I have other quotes from other people, including the chair, actually, regarding the vagueness of this legislation.

But when we were talking about clauses 23 to 27—

The Chair: Mr. Benoit, I hate to interrupt you, but let me just give some caution. What I am seeing here is that we are debating the motion—and of course you have to use your arguments—and the agenda for today is the clause-by-clause.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes.

The Chair: By your approach, you are able to discuss clauses under the guise of a motion. I will allow you to continue, but please let it not be that you are to debate every single clause under the guise of a motion.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, in fact, Mr. Chair, I have such a concern about this legislation, about the vagueness and the other two points I'm going to talk about, that I frankly don't want to be a part of the clause-by-clause process. But I'll go through this motion because I wouldn't want my name to be attached to what I believe will be the result.

We had, I believe, Mr. Mahoney, on Thursday, who actually set an end date of this Friday for when this will be reported to the House. Clearly it's been decided what's going to happen with this, and I don't think anything is going to change that. That's in terms of process and I think that's wrong. That's my second point. I'll just maybe get into that one a little more, Mr. Chair.

Again, the second aspect that's of concern to me is the lack of time this bill has had before committee. It's become clear that this process at committee was planned from the outset as merely providing an appearance, a review, an inspection. From virtually the very first meeting, the date when we would finish hearing from witnesses was established as April 23. Rather than being concerned with dealing with issues and clauses thoroughly, we in committee here have been working along the timelines of the government.

On a number of occasions, we were made aware that certain witnesses were concerned that they did not have time to prepare their presentations between the notification period and their scheduled appearances. We personally heard this and others said this at committee, Mr. Chair. I hope all of these have been dealt with, but I'm by no means confident that all groups and individuals who wished to appear have had the opportunity.

In support of that, I again bring your attention to a quote from Ms. Sungee John, from the meeting on April 22, when she said:

...we want to raise our concerns about the lack of consultation that was set aside for such a major change in legislation.

The immigrant women's centre found about the hearings only within the last week and a half from our contacts and networks within the metro Toronto area, and we also received information about Bill C-63 only recently. As a result, we didn't have the time to prepare as in-depth a report as we would have wanted to.

Also, we have a motion put forth this past Thursday by Mr. Mahoney, which I mentioned and which set an end date of this Friday, so I am concerned about the process in committee.

The third point, Mr. Chair, is the timing of the legislation relative to major changes—which the minister has announced—to the Immigration Act. My concern is—and this is one that I brought up before—that the changes to the immigration legislation should have been tabled and passed through this House before proposed changes to the Citizenship Act. This was supported by several different witnesses, Mr. Chair. Many sections of Bill C-63 are anticipating what the immigration legislation will contain when the minister brings it forth. I don't think it's a healthy thing when we have one piece of legislation that will be passed before the broader piece of legislation and has to anticipate what will be in the broader piece of legislation.

More comments, again from Ms. Sungee John...I'm just referring to the one meeting. I could refer to several other meetings but I think these make the point:

We feel strongly that we have areas of concerns that can only be addressed if committees come to Windsor and see the impact of immigration....

I've used that in another area, but it also makes the point for the timing of the legislation.

• 1555

Joan Atkinson, the DG of the selection branch of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, at meeting number 61 on April 29, referenced humanitarian, compassionate consideration with regard to statelessness, and said this:

...when we have someone in Canada, who has lost Canadian citizenship and is physically in Canada, there is no relief for them under this.... There may be no relief for them under the citizenship legislation, but there may be some relief for them under the immigration legislation.

Again, this is making immigration legislation and passing a new Citizenship Act, in fact, before the immigration legislation has been dealt with by this House, and of course the minister has announced that will happen this year.

The chair said,

...for greater clarity, is there wisdom in putting a provision to that effect in Bill C-63 itself for greater clarity?

That was in response to the statement made by Joan Atkinson. Joan Atkinson said:

Bill C-63 would deal with the status of an individual, up to the point where they lost citizenship in the situation that we're describing. How they may be able to become citizens again...they have to revert to the immigration process, and the remedies for that are correctly found in the immigration legislation.

I took most of these quotes from the one committee meeting, a few from the other, Mr. Chair, and I could refer to other meetings, but I do understand your time constraints.

I think the point has been made.

I just want it to be noted, Mr. Chair, that I feel so strongly about this, that this legislation is so vague that it's not suitable to put to clause-by-clause, that in fact I won't take part in clause-by-clause, Mr. Chair, because I wouldn't want to be attached to the result, which will certainly be the passing of this legislation with only a few amendments. We know the process. We've see this before.

However, Mr. Chair, just for clarity, I will present several amendments at report stage. I will carry through on my responsibility as official opposition immigration critic and I will present amendments at report stage. At least then we have more public attention brought to the issues, and the public will become much more involved than they have been at the committee.

I thank you, Mr. Chair, for hearing my arguments on this motion, and I'm counting on the support of all members for the sake of this Citizenship Act so that we end up with a good act down the road. Let's send it back. Let's have more meat put to the legislation so that we really know what's meant with the various clauses. As it is now, the regulation will in fact determine what is and isn't in this legislation.

I'm asking for the support of all members so that we can send it back and deal with it again when it's been filled out, when we do know, in fact, with clarity, what we're voting on.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Before I call on Mr. Mahoney, just to review this for the record, of course the timeline for the witnesses was set as agreed to by the committee. Second, at any time during the deliberation of this committee amendments may be made. Third, the end date set last week was a duly approved motion by this committee. Fourth, of course you cited witnesses to table your argument, but we also have to agree that there were witnesses on the other side, and it is the duty of this committee to weigh the body of evidence.

Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, just to speak to the issue of responsibility of members of this committee, be they critics or government members, it seems to me that we have a responsibility to ensure that any piece of legislation that comes before the House, subsequently to this committee, and then back into the House, does have the opportunity to be fully examined.

To say that people don't get their way on amendments or changes to a piece of legislation is not to say that the bill was not examined. To quote people's concerns is not to say that there was not due process followed in due course.

I believe it has been followed, and I believe this committee has even gone to the extent of having video conferencing for groups to speak to this committee. In spite of the attempts of the opposition to turn it into some kind of a travelling road show or circus so that they could simply grandstand, we did reach out to people and we allowed for people from coast to coast in this country to have input into this process.

• 1600

Having said that, following the adage that not only must justice be done but it must appear to be done, there may be an argument that we could show some understanding of, if the opposition parties were prepared to put forth a serious effort to bring in amendments on a clause-by-clause basis instead of taking the time of this committee—which has been done in the past—to cross-examine witnesses about immigration matters and matters of criminality having nothing whatsoever to do with the citizenship bill, and instead of totally trying to abrogate the responsibilities of this committee with that kind of obstreperous debate that adds nothing in any way to be a positive amendment to the bill.

An hon. member: [Inaudible—Editor].

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Well, you had your day in the sun, Monsieur Benoit, so if you don't mind, I'll have mine.

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): They want you to spell “obstreperous”.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I'm sure they want me to spell it. They probably want me to explain it, but I don't have that much time and I'm out of crayons.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Steve Mahoney: The compromise to all of this, Mr. Chair...and I'm prepared, having moved the motion successfully last week to try to put some kind of a schedule together on this, to agree to some additional time if the opposition parties are prepared not to just simply introduce amendments at report stage so that once again they can grandstand when the television cameras are on in the House of Commons. If they want to take another few days or the better part of a week or whatever is fair, I am prepared to do that, but I am not prepared, as a member of the government side of this committee, to simply allow them to trash a bill that has many good values in its content.

As a result of that, and in a spirit which might surprise some, I will attempt to propose a compromise to say that the motion before us should be amended, that after sine die the amendment would read “to be reconvened with three days' notice at the call of the chair”. That would then give the opposition party and, indeed, anyone who feels they were not properly heard, an opportunity to submit additional information to individual members, to the chair, to the government, to the opposition, and to the committee, so that those issues could be put on the table.

That would give us the time, without a gun to anyone's head, to seriously consider the types of changes that Mr. Benoit has said he's prepared to bring into report stage in the House. The motion would read: that the committee's consideration of Bill C-63, an act respecting Canadian Citizenship, do now adjourn sine die, to be reconvened with three days' notice at the call of the chair.

I would look for your direction, Mr. Chair, as to whether or not that should be “at the call of the chair” or “at the call of the clerk”. It seems to me it should be the chair, with notice to be sent by the clerk.

The Chair: Let me just have a little conference with the clerk.

Mr. Leon Benoit: [Inaudible—Editor]...on the amendment?

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): On a point of order—

The Chair: Yes?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I see two problems here. First, you did not ask whether the motion by our colleague was seconded. Secondly, you will have to check whether it is in order and we cannot debate two motions at the same time. I don't see what our objective is this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and I have a feeling that we might waste a lot of time. I hope that either of the two sponsors will explain the fundamental objective they want to achieve because I don't intend to waste two hours discussing technical details.

I don't understand why Mr. Benoit is sponsoring such a motion. We had witnesses and people can give their opinion. If we don't agree with the bill, we are allowed to move amendments. I will remind Mr. Mahoney that opposition parties may move amendments at the report stage in the House. That is the place to do it; we are members of Parliament and our role is not to grandstand in front of the cameras. There seems to be a negative attitude on both sides which the Bloc Québécois never had since we'd rather have a perfectly balanced approach. I hope, with due respect to the witnesses and to the members of Parliament we are, that we will not waste all the afternoon discussing technical details.

• 1605

[English]

The Chair: On your point of order, I think I can see that you wanted to be sure of whether another motion is being considered over another motion. The chair will not allow that, but will allow, however, an amendment to the motion.

Mr. Mahoney indicated that it would be an amendment, and I think he reread the whole thing if only to be clear as to where he would like to place his amendment. That is how I heard his submission. I'm just conferring with the clerk because I want to be clear that the members truly understand the intended amendment.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, could we ask the sponsor of the motion to explain us why he thinks the committee should adjourn? Does he not recognize that it is the prerogative of government to table bills and that it is the prerogative of the opposition to move amendments? Where does that take us if the government says that we must adjourn? I would like to understand the reasoning behind it from the sponsor of the motion.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Do you think I am rushing you, Mr. Chairman?

[English]

The Chair: Yes, I will rule on that.

What you have just done, Mr. Benoit, is to debate the very motion itself introduced by the Reform Party.

That is a point for consideration by the committee at large, Mr. Ménard, in trying to make a decision on the particular motion, but there is a procedural process that I have to follow.

Mr. Mahoney is intending to introduce a motion, and I think they have removed the.... The phrase sine die in the amendment means to postpone it indefinitely, according to the clerk—sort of hanging in limbo—whereas your amendment is to put a particular definite period of time based on the circumstances. The chair would advise, then, that were you to proceed with your amendment, your amendment would be properly considered if in fact the phrase sine die is deleted and substituted for the phrase you have just indicated.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: No, you can't have—

Mr. Leon Benoit: Could I propose an altered...a slight change to the amendment?

An hon. member: It's illegal—

Mr. Leon Benoit: I would suggest—

The Chair: Before we do that, first I would like the amendment to be put forward. Let's do this one by one.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I take your point, as they could be seen as contrary, I suppose.

An hon. member: There's no problem.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Pardon?

An hon. member: There is no conflict.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: There is no conflict?

An hon. member: The chair is wrong.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: The chair is wrong?

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): The chair is wrong, with the greatest respect, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: We're getting leaked.... We have more lawyers on this side than—

Mr. Réal Ménard: Qui est...[Inaudible—Editor].

Mr. Steve Mahoney: What it means is without a day, right? That's what I'm told...subject to being reconvened with three days' notice.

The Chair: Okay. I have a second submission, either from the colleague.... Although the intention is to postpone indefinitely, because the amendment is at the call of the chair, therefore, Mr. Mahoney, your thing seems to be in order and the chair is persuaded by the latter opinions.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Okay.

The Chair: I will rule that the amendment is in order.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Thank you.

The Chair: Okay. Debate on the amendment.

Mr. Ménard, first.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: On a point of order again. So that our proceedings go smoothly, Mr. Chairman, could you ask the lawyers to leave the room? Maybe we could... [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[English]

The Chair: I would like the lawyers for the department to stay.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: The lawyers for the department may very well stay.

[English]

The Chair: Very seriously, debate on the amendment, Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, the mover of the amendment is normally reasonable with a few exceptions. Is the intent that we have ample time to review the submissions and that you reconvene the committee within three days so that we can go to the clause-by- clause consideration? Is that the intent of the amendment?

[English]

Mr. Steve Mahoney: That was a question for me, was it not?

Mr. Réal Ménard: It's a question for you.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Could I answer it?

The Chair: You may reply directly.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, having listened to the rationale put forward by Mr. Benoit regarding the motion that he brought in, I am simply trying to say that we on the government side are prepared to try to co-operate more, in a spirit of reasonableness, to allow for time to either review the submissions or to draft amendments that would be brought in here.

• 1610

With respect to my reference, by the way, as my colleagues would know, there are few members in the Liberal caucus who enjoy performing in front of the cameras more than I—

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Steve Mahoney: —so my reference to that was that I think the issue should be fought out in committee and then taken into the House. I would fully expect, having served five years in opposition myself in another place.... I know the role, and I would certainly not expect you to go in and not stand up and put your case forward. I just think a lot of the work, the rolling up of the sleeves, should be done at committee. That's what the process is for, hence my reference to that.

I'm just simply trying to say.... Call it an olive branch, if you will, call it a willingness to co-operate. Maybe the motion to close clause-by-clause by Thursday was a little bit harsh. Let's take some more time and see if we can't accommodate the concerns. We're not going to agree—I'm absolutely sure of that—and Mr. Benoit's not going to be happy when we vote down some of his amendments, but at least that's the process. Let him have the time to put them forward. That's my rationale.

The Chair: Mr. McNally, then Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): I want to talk on the main motion, not the amendments. Mr. Benoit wants to talk to the amendments.

The Chair: Mr. Benoit, on the amendments.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you again, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Mahoney, I want to say that I really do appreciate your—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Spirit of loveliness.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Leon Benoit: —spirit of really trying to have the committee do some meaningful work on this legislation. I do appreciate that.

As I expressed in my presentation, this legislation is really so vague in so many places that what I would like to do is present to the government these clauses that I feel need to be fleshed out so that we really know what the intent is. I think that's what you're saying: let's have some real work done on this. Then, I trust, the government would flesh it out and come back to committee with legislation that has enough detail and enough clarity so that you really know what the intent is.

At that time, then, I would be happy to go through clause-by-clause. I would propose, though, that instead of three days we just change that to a week. To me, that would just give enough time for us—when you decide that you want to have it come back to committee—to make sure that we're ready, considering whatever changes may have been made by the government before that time. If you could change it to a week, it would certainly be something that I would be happy to support—in the spirit in which it was presented.

The Chair: Mr. McKay, you have the floor.

Mr. John McKay: On the point of a week or three days, my suggestion was for three days for the simple reason that it precluded it coming back for this week. Bear in mind that it's three days' notice.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, I understand that.

Mr. John McKay: Okay. Three days' notice could be as early as next week, but three days' notice could mean several weeks from now. That way, you keep everybody's feet to the fire. If, in fact, your party is committed to the notion that it wishes to put forward amendments about your deeply held reservations about this bill, then you have an adequate amount of time to put them there. I assume that there's been a lot of thinking going on in the Reform Party. Maybe that's not an assumption I should make, but—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. John McKay: —nevertheless, I'm willing to believe—I'm not necessarily easily persuaded—that you may well be close to being in a position to present amendments and suggestions on this bill, in which case you have well into next week to do it, and it may well be further on than that, because it is at the call of the chair on three days' notice. If he doesn't call until, say, Monday or Tuesday, that means you can't have a committee hearing until Thursday or Friday of next week. If he doesn't call until Wednesday, then it's on to the following week. There's a lot of time in here.

The Chair: Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Again, Mr. Chair, if I may, let me say that based on what Mr. McKay has said, I would hope that he would just accept extending the notice period to a week. It just really does give us a more reasonable length of time to deal with. Maybe we can make some real progress on further defining some of these clauses.

• 1615

In that case, we're going to have to change our approach to some of them. Frankly, three days isn't enough time. If you could just make it a week's notice I'd be happy to support that, and I am trusting that we really can work together on improving this legislation.

The Chair: Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, just for clarification, is the week you're looking for that the committee not be reconvened for a week or that it be—

Mr. Leon Benoit: Notice.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: But there's a difference. Let's assume, for argument's sake, that the chair decides to send the notice out next Wednesday. Then it would be a week Wednesday. What I'm trying to get at is this: if you're given a week to do what it is you want to do, can you accomplish it in that period? You really don't need to answer that, but that's sort of what I'm thinking of, so that the flexibility is with the chair. If you like, he can sit and meet with you to discuss whatever you want to do on this. Perhaps the chair once again would have the discretion of making that call. If you leave it at three days, it leaves him the flexibility.

The Chair: I'd like to inform the committee that the clerk has just advised me that the House is not sitting during the week of May 17. The clerk just reminded that the House is not sitting after next week.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: So maybe this would solve the problem. Mr. McKay just twigged on something: we say “in any event”—

Mr. John McKay: “But in no event....”

Mr. Steve Mahoney: We say that in no event would the committee meet before one week. Maybe that's the compromise. That gives you the week. If the chair decides to give the notice for next Wednesday or Tuesday or whatever, he would back up the three days, but if he's not ready to give it, then whatever....

Mr. Leon Benoit: Then three days' notice....

Mr. Steve Mahoney: No. It's “would not meet before” that. It's up to the chair to give the notice.

Mr. Leon Benoit: We would still need the three days' notice as well.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Yes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: If we could have an assurance, that would be acceptable.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I don't know if we're clear.

Ms. Jean Augustine: It's not clear.

An hon. member: We're not talking about seven days plus three.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Not seven plus three.

Mr. John McKay: Three days' notice, but in no event prior to—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: But in no event prior to....

Mr. John McKay: That's seven days guaranteed on three days' notice.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Before Tuesday—

The Chair: Because the chair will receive the honour of making that very serious decision at the call of the chair—and I take that task very seriously—I would like to seek some advice from you in clarity.

First, John, since you've proposed the thing to Mr. Mahoney, say “no earlier than Tuesday”. In other words, no meeting can be called for Tuesday. I cannot call it for Thursday.

Mr. John McKay: No: “but in no event shall there be a meeting prior to Tuesday, May 11”.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. John McKay: Okay, but just so we're clear here, that doesn't mean that Sunday night the clerk couldn't issue a notice at the direction of the chair and have the three days start running Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, or, if you want clear days, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday.

The Clerk: Are we moving a subamendment to the amendment?

Mr. John McKay: Yes.

The Clerk: Okay. Could I have the wording again, please?

Mr. John McKay: An amendment on the amendment: “but in no event shall any meeting be held prior to Tuesday, May 11”.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It's a friendly amendment, so you don't need to do separate votes on that.

The Chair: Okay. So we've included them as part of the original amendment. Unanimous consent? Okay.

So now we have the one major amendment. The two have been consolidated by unanimous consent. So now we will vote on that amendment as unanimously agreed to, the two amendments—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Well, being that we're having such a love-in here, maybe Mr. Benoit will accept my amendment as a friendly amendment to his motion and we'll just wrap the whole thing.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Absolutely.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: That makes me nervous.

The Chair: Okay. So now there will be one motion. Is that unanimous consent? In other words, the whole statement will be treated as one motion by Mr. Benoit with unanimous consent. It's a love-in motion.

The Clerk: Okay. Moved by Mr. Benoit.

• 1620

The Chair: The subamendment has been incorporated as part of the amendment. They have moved by a second unanimous consent that the amended subamendment has not been moved as part of the original motion. So now we will take a vote on that consensus.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Just to make sure we don't get into something, I think the clerk should read the entire motion by Mr. Benoit with the two amendments included.

The Clerk: That the committee's consideration of the Bill C-63, an act respecting Canadian citizenship do now adjourn sine die, to be reconvened within three days' notice at the call of the chair, but in no event shall any meeting be held prior to Tuesday, May 11.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: The words “within three days”' should be “with three days”', I think.

The Clerk: Of course.

The Chair: With three days' notice.

The Clerk: Okay.

The Chair: Okay. I shall put the motion to a vote, which means we will immediately adjourn, but before I do that, with your unanimous consent, the research staff has asked me to ask you what my guide will be. What kind of study shall we do? What indications will I have as chair to put forward the call of the meeting when I am satisfied there are movements on both sides? Can you give me an indication?

An hon. member: It's at your discretion.

An hon. member: You're the chair.

The Chair: So you will leave it to my discretion. Unanimous consent?

Some hon. members: Yes.

The Chair: You agree that I will use judgment.

Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I just want to remind you, Mr. Chairman, that May 13 is my birthday and I would appreciate having the day off.

[English]

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Okay. The motion is ready.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Unanimously adopted.

The meeting is adjourned to the call of the chair.