<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<Hansard xml:lang="EN" id="2063014">
	<StartPageNumber>1</StartPageNumber>
	<DocumentTitle>
		<DocumentName>EVIDENCE</DocumentName>
	</DocumentTitle>
	<ExtractedInformation>
		<ExtractedItem Name="InstitutionDebate">Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration</ExtractedItem>
		<ExtractedItem Name="Number">NUMBER 056</ExtractedItem>
		<ExtractedItem Name="Session">1st SESSION</ExtractedItem>
		<ExtractedItem Name="Parliament">39th PARLIAMENT</ExtractedItem>
		<ExtractedItem Name="Date">Tuesday, May 8, 2007</ExtractedItem>
		<ExtractedItem Name="DateOtherLang">Le mardi 8 mai 2007</ExtractedItem>
		<ExtractedItem Name="Institution">Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration</ExtractedItem>
		<ExtractedItem Name="Country">CANADA</ExtractedItem>
		<ExtractedItem Name="RecordingNote">[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]</ExtractedItem>
		<ExtractedItem Name="HeaderTitle">EVIDENCE</ExtractedItem>
		<ExtractedItem Name="HeaderDate">May 8, 2007</ExtractedItem>
		<ExtractedItem Name="MetaDocumentCategory">Committee</ExtractedItem>
		<ExtractedItem Name="MetaTitle">Edited Evidence * Table of Contents * Number 056 (Official Version)</ExtractedItem>
		<ExtractedItem Name="MetaTitleEn">Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 056 (Official Version)</ExtractedItem>
		<ExtractedItem Name="MetaTitleFr">Témoignages * Table des matières * Numéro 056 (Version officielle)</ExtractedItem>
		<ExtractedItem Name="MetaNumberNumber">56</ExtractedItem>
		<ExtractedItem Name="MetaDateNumDay">08</ExtractedItem>
		<ExtractedItem Name="MetaDateNumMonth">05</ExtractedItem>
		<ExtractedItem Name="MetaDateNumYear">2007</ExtractedItem>
		<ExtractedItem Name="MetaCreationTime">2007/05/08 11:05:00</ExtractedItem>
		<ExtractedItem Name="MetaInstitution">House of Commons</ExtractedItem>
		<ExtractedItem Name="InstitutionDebateFr">Comité permanent de la citoyenneté et de l'immigration</ExtractedItem>
		<ExtractedItem Name="InstitutionDebateEn">Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration</ExtractedItem>
		<ExtractedItem Name="Acronyme">CIMM</ExtractedItem>
		<ExtractedItem Name="SpeakerTitle">Chair</ExtractedItem>
		<ExtractedItem Name="SpeakerName">Mr. Norman Doyle</ExtractedItem>
		<ExtractedItem Name="ParliamentNumber">39</ExtractedItem>
		<ExtractedItem Name="SessionNumber">1</ExtractedItem>
		<ExtractedItem Name="InCameraNote">PUBLIC PART ONLY - PARTIE PUBLIQUE SEULEMENT</ExtractedItem></ExtractedInformation>
	<HansardBody>
		<OrderOfBusiness><CatchLine></CatchLine><SubjectOfBusiness><SubjectOfBusinessContent><Timestamp Hr="12" Mn="10">(1210)</Timestamp><FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="2064491" ToCText=""><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102624" Type="35">The Chair (Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, CPC))</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619082">Order, please.</ParaText><ParaText id="619083">Here we are, to consider notices of motions. We have four notices of motion, the first one submitted by Mr. Karygiannis on May 3, 2007. </ParaText><ParaText id="619084">I'll go directly to Mr. Karygiannis to do his motion for us.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="2064498" ToCText=""><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="99845" Type="47">Hon. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.)</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619085">Which one do you want me to deal with?</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064499"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102624" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619086">“That the CIC officials...” is the first page I have here. Do you want to go to that one first, the one submitted on May 3?</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064501"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="99845" Type="47">Hon. Jim Karygiannis</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619087">Mr. Chair, when we met with CIC officials, there were a lot of questions left lingering. One of the individuals said they were instructed to delay citizenship cases, and when she was asked by whom, there was no forthcoming answer. I'd like to get the officials back here to get to the bottom of this.</ParaText><ParaText id="619088">The other thing is that they said the RCMP has been asked to expedite citizenship cases for lost Canadians. After checking with the RCMP and some of the lost Canadians who are affected, I don't see that this is the case. </ParaText><ParaText id="619089">I'd like to get answers to those questions. As well, the bureaucrats did not finish testifying before us and giving us the complete picture.</ParaText><ParaText id="619090">One thing is that we were told by the minister that there are 467 cases. When the bureaucrats were here, they said that 400 cases were held behind to see what would happen with the Joe Taylor decision. Clearly, that's not the picture the minister or the deputy minister gave us, so we need to get clarification of that.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064522"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102624" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619091">Thank you, Mr. Karygiannis.</ParaText><ParaText id="619092">Are there any further comments on Mr. Karygiannis' motion? Mr. Siksay.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="2064527" ToCText=""><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="99638" Type="47">Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP)</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619093">Chair, this may be just a question to Jim. </ParaText><ParaText id="619094">Given what you've just said, Jim, would it not be more appropriate to put those questions to the minister and the deputy minister, given that we weren't successful in getting those answers from the officials? If they aren't providing the appropriate information, then it seems to me we'd go back to their boss and ask the questions of that person. </ParaText><ParaText id="619095">The minister is coming to the committee, I believe, on May 29, and we could put those kinds of questions.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064535"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="99845" Type="47">Hon. Jim Karygiannis</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619096">The minister is coming, I believe, on May 29, and she's splitting her time. She's here for two hours and she's splitting her time, an hour for estimates and an hour on lost Canadians. </ParaText><ParaText id="619097">As a result of the performance we got from the minister and the deputy minister last time, on the advertising question in one case and in the other on the question of how many, we didn't get to the bottom of this. I think we need to question the bureaucrats more, if you want to call them that—the people who are specifically involved with that particular department—in order to find out what things are happening, before we question the minister and the deputy minister.</ParaText><ParaText id="619098">We didn't get clear information. The minister and the deputy minister will only give us part of the picture that the people below them are giving them.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064549"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102624" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619099">Madame Faille.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="2064550"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102626" Type="40">Ms. Meili Faille (Vaudreuil-Soulanges, BQ)</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619100"> I would simply like to indicate to members of the committee that since the appearance of the officials, our offices have been inundated with letters from Quebec citizens about the Taylor case. I believe that the officials must give us some answers, because when they last appeared, they gave vague answers concerning the procedures that were being followed. I find it quite surprising that we have been receiving letters since their appearance.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064560"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102624" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619101">Okay, that's it. Did anyone else have a hand up? Mr. Komarnicki. Oh, I'm sorry, and Andrew. </ParaText><ParaText id="619102">We'll hear Mr. Komarnicki first, then Andrew.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="2064568" ToCText=""><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="101812" Type="47">Mr. Ed Komarnicki (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC)</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619103">If we had a raft of department officials here.... There was an opportunity to ask questions, and I would think that if there are further questions one wants to put to a particular person or to the minister, that's fine, but I don't think that, as a minimum, we should get all of the people back. I don't see the utility in that.</ParaText><ParaText id="619104">Secondly, dealing with the specific comments relating to the motion, we have Mr. Karygiannis indicating something that the RCMP may have indicated to him. If he's interested in putting that before the committee, then we should be calling somebody from the RCMP who would specifically contradict the comments, but not call the witness back because of a phone call Mr. Karygiannis may have made. I don't think it's appropriate to call that witness back on that specific purpose, in that regard.</ParaText><ParaText id="619105">Then with respect to the number of cases being held pending the Taylor appeal, the fact is that the witness was clear that there were some cases pending, in terms of decision-making, on the basis that the appeal from Taylor was not in. How many numbers we have there isn't a particular issue. If he wants to pursue that with the minister when she's here, that's fair enough, but I don't think it's worthwhile for us to call all these people back, or even the two particular people, for that small, narrow reason. </ParaText><ParaText id="619106">First of all, if you want to call at least Rosemarie Redden, I think you would first call somebody from the RCMP or put something before this committee to show specifically that this would be contradicted. </ParaText><ParaText id="619107">I would be opposed to the motion for those reasons.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064590"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102624" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619108">I have my speaking list here, but do you want to address that one directly, Jim?</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064596"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="99845" Type="47">Hon. Jim Karygiannis</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619109">Yes, I would like to address that issue.</ParaText><ParaText id="619110">The RCMP will only act upon the request of CIC that they expedite files. I did not get any sense--I did not even get any reassurance--that this has been done. </ParaText><ParaText id="619111">In order for RCMP to expedite matters, CIC will have to write to them and ask them to segregate these files and expedite them. There has to be a protocol set between CIC and RCMP that states the following: you put a marking on the envelope that says you're a lost Canadian before we expedite. </ParaText><ParaText id="619112">I did not get any reassurance that the protocol has been set. I did not get any reassurance that CIC has approached RCMP. RCMP will only act if CIC instructs them or asks them to do that. </ParaText><ParaText id="619113">So I'd like to find out from officials what protocol they've set in place in order for the RCMP to expedite things. And I want to see the letter that went over there.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Timestamp Hr="12" Mn="15">(1215)</Timestamp><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064611"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102624" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619114">Okay, two more--Andrew and Barry--and then we will vote on the motion.</ParaText><ParaText id="619115">Andrew.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="2065969" ToCText=""><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102625" Type="40">Hon. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.)</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619116">Thank you very much. </ParaText><ParaText id="619117">It's important for us to do a little more digging. I found the last meeting quite unsatisfactory. Some of the witnesses we asked to appear did not appear. A number of witnesses, including Melba--I can't remember her last name--who we asked specifically to appear did not appear. Melba was one of them; a lot of questions went to her from the lost Canadians. They were kept away. I would suggest that we get those people back.</ParaText><ParaText id="619118"> Also, if we want to get down more to the level of where decisions are actually made, I suggest that Davidson not be asked to come back. We don't want him answering the questions; we want to be talking to some of the policy analysts and some of the people who make the initial decisions and recommendations. I think that would allow us to get a better feeling for what's going on in a situation where the results have been more than unsatisfactory.</ParaText><ParaText id="619119">So I would suggest, Jim, as a friendly amendment--if you would take it as such--that you take out Davidson. We have had him here many times, and it's hard to....</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Debate" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2065970"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="99845" Type="47">Hon. Jim Karygiannis</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619120">Fine.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Debate" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064616"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102625" Type="40">Hon. Andrew Telegdi</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619121">As another friendly amendment--this could be voted on separately--I think we really should be swearing in the witnesses, because we have not been getting fulsome answers. Quite frankly, Davidson was very combative at the committee when he came. </ParaText><ParaText id="619122">So I would make that as a friendly amendment. Or would that be a friendly amendment?</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064658"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="99845" Type="47">Hon. Jim Karygiannis</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619123">Definitely. </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064664"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102624" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619124">Barry, are you still on? No?</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064667"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="99845" Type="47">Hon. Jim Karygiannis</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619125">Mr. Chair, I think what Mr. Telegdi was saying was that he wants the individuals who are in the unit making these decisions, or the individual who heads the unit, in CPC Sydney to also appear before us. </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064671"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102625" Type="40">Hon. Andrew Telegdi</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619126">Yes, I wanted the witnesses we asked to appear and who did not appear. </ParaText><ParaText id="619127">I also want to drop Davidson from the witness list. We don't want Davidson back.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064672"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102624" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619128">I've kind of gotten thrown off here. Do we have two amendments? </ParaText><ParaText id="619129">We do. Okay.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="2064675" ToCText=""><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="106281" Type="27">The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Samy Agha)</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619130">So in the first one, we would insert the words “except Mark Davidson” after “Committee”.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064682"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102625" Type="40">Hon. Andrew Telegdi</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619131">The other one is that the people who were asked to come, and who didn't come, be invited.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="2064695" ToCText=""><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="106193" Type="47">Mr. Omar Alghabra (Mississauga—Erindale, Lib.)</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619132">How about we say that these were officials “that were invited” instead of officials “that appeared”?</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064696"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102625" Type="40">Hon. Andrew Telegdi</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619133">Okay, the ones that were invited. </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064701"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="106193" Type="47">Mr. Omar Alghabra</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619134">Yes, invited initially. </ParaText><ParaText id="619135">Does that make sense?</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Debate" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2066125"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102625" Type="47">Hon. Andrew Telegdi</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619136">Yes.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064704"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102624" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619137">Are we ready for the question...?</ParaText><ParaText id="619138">Okay, Barry.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="2064705" ToCText=""><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="101809" Type="47">Mr. Barry Devolin (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, CPC)</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619139">I have a question on the swearing in.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064709"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102625" Type="40">Hon. Andrew Telegdi</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619140">We're dealing with this one first.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064710"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="101809" Type="47">Mr. Barry Devolin</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619141">Okay, I can hold this until later.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064713"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102624" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619142">They're separate amendments.</ParaText><ParaText id="619143">Are we ready to vote on this?</ParaText><ParaText id="619144"><B>An hon. member:</B> What's the amendment?</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064716"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="106281" Type="27">The Clerk</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619145">Mr. Chair, I'll read it out: “That the CIC officials that were invited to the meeting of Wednesday, May 2, 2007, be reinvited to appear before the Committee, except Mark Davidson, specifically regarding”, etc. </ParaText><ParaText id="619146">(Amendment agreed to)</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064722"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102624" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619147">Okay, the second one.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064723"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="106281" Type="27">The Clerk</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619148">The second one is to add at the end, “and that the witnesses be sworn in”.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064724"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102625" Type="40">Hon. Andrew Telegdi</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619149">And, “and they be so notified”.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064726"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="106281" Type="27">The Clerk</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619150">Yes, “and they be so notified”.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064729"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102624" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619151">We have a question.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Timestamp Hr="12" Mn="20">(1220)</Timestamp><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064730"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="101809" Type="47">Mr. Barry Devolin</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619152">On the swearing in, I've only been here for three years and on the committees I've been on I haven't seen people sworn in before. Do you think the people who were here were saying things that weren't true? Is that...?</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064732"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="99845" Type="47">Hon. Jim Karygiannis</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619153">You've got it.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064733"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="101809" Type="47">Mr. Barry Devolin</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619154">Because what you said is that you thought they weren't directly answering your questions, or they were being vague. But swearing in doesn't fix that, does it?</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064739"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102625" Type="40">Hon. Andrew Telegdi</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619155">I think if you look at the public accounts, where we have the top leadership in the RCMP sworn in on a regular basis, plus all the witnesses who are appearing, we would undertake a similar process. So it's not something that doesn't get done. It gets done.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064746"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="101809" Type="47">Mr. Barry Devolin</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619156">No, I appreciate it gets done. I was just curious if you had a particular.... You could swear in all the witnesses every time. You must have some particular reason why you want to swear these ones in.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064747"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102625" Type="40">Hon. Andrew Telegdi</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619157">I think it adds some more urgency to what we're doing, and I think it also gives some cover to the witnesses who end up saying things that their superiors might not like.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064756"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="101809" Type="47">Mr. Barry Devolin</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619158">It was a very specific list of people you had here from different places. Did you pick them for some particular reason? Did you have some particular reason that they weren't going to tell the truth?</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064760"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="101812" Type="47">Mr. Ed Komarnicki</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619159">Where did you get that list from, Andrew?</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064762"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102625" Type="40">Hon. Andrew Telegdi</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619160">A lot of the list came from input from the lost Canadians who have been dealing with those people over time.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064765"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102624" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619161">Mr. Karygiannis.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064766"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="99845" Type="47">Hon. Jim Karygiannis</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619162">Mr. Chair, just for clarification, in the first amendment did we state that we will invite people from the unit at CPC Sydney, as I stated? I'm not sure if that made it in.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064769"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102625" Type="40">Hon. Andrew Telegdi</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619163">We have had them in for the--</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064770"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="99845" Type="47">Hon. Jim Karygiannis</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619164">No, but there were people who were actually missing.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064771"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102625" Type="40">Hon. Andrew Telegdi</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619165">I know.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064772"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="99845" Type="47">Hon. Jim Karygiannis</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619166">Besides the people who were missing, also the director of CPC Sydney, Ernest Smith, wasn't here last time.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064773"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102624" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619167">Yes.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064778"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="106281" Type="27">The Clerk</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619168">He wasn't invited.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064779"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102625" Type="40">Hon. Andrew Telegdi</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619169">No, he wasn't invited, but as for the other ones, we have plenty there to invite.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064780"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102624" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619170">Okay, the question is on the second amendment, to have witnesses sworn in.</ParaText><ParaText id="619171">(Amendment agreed to)</ParaText><ParaText id="619172">(Motion as amended agreed to [See <I>Minutes of Proceedings</I>])</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064795"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102624" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619173">The second motion, in the name of <Affiliation DbId="99845" Type="47">Mr. Karygiannis</Affiliation>, reads: “That the Committee on Citizenship and Immigration invite Ken Sandhu and Lois Delia Figg to appear before the Committee regarding their appointments to the Immigration and Refugee Board.”</ParaText><ParaText id="619174">Mr. Karygiannis.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064807"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="99845" Type="47">Hon. Jim Karygiannis</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619175">Mr. Chair, we have invited people who were appointed to citizenship on IRB before. In keeping with that practice, I think that it's due diligence for this committee to invite these two individuals and put questions in front of them.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064811"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102624" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619176">Okay.</ParaText><ParaText id="619177">Barry.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064812"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="101809" Type="47">Mr. Barry Devolin</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619178">Why these two in particular? Is there some—</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064813"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="99845" Type="47">Hon. Jim Karygiannis</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619179">They were just appointed.</ParaText><ParaText id="619180">(Motion agreed to)</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064817"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102624" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619181">Now, the next one on the list here is a motion by Mr. Alghabra.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064822"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="106193" Type="47">Mr. Omar Alghabra</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619182">Thank you, Mr. Chair.</ParaText><ParaText id="619183">I'd like to move the motion. Do you want me to read it into the record?</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064828"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102624" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619184">I think people have read it. Maybe you can just explain it or talk to it or whatever.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064832"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="106193" Type="47">Mr. Omar Alghabra</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619185">The purpose of this motion is to basically reach a conclusion. The committee makes a conclusion based on the evidence that we heard on the recent discussion and debate of the so-called Harrison report, and the witnesses' and the stakeholders' feedback. I think it's appropriate that the committee express its opinion on this Harrison report, especially as the minister is examining it and considering adopting it; and also refer to the crisis situation in IRB and stress the point that the minister should move on in appointing vacancies.</ParaText><ParaText id="619186">So I think it's appropriate that the committee express itself on these two matters.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064841"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102624" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619187"> Mr. Komarnicki.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Timestamp Hr="12" Mn="25">(1225)</Timestamp><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064848"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="101812" Type="47">Mr. Ed Komarnicki</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619188">I think these precise issues Mr. Alghabra speaks of were raised by the committee as a whole in dealing with the report, so this would be like a pre-report report. It seems to me that if the committee is already dealing with these issues in what will potentially be a report, there would be no need to have this additional motion.</ParaText><ParaText id="619189"> For that reason, certainly, I would oppose it. It's going to be dealt with.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064864"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102624" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619190">Mr. Siksay.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064869"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="99638" Type="47">Mr. Bill Siksay</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619191">Chair, given Mr. Komarnicki's comment, I think the crisis is such that we should do this motion and our report. This will get completed and reported to the House before our report is finished. Given the urgency, I think we should go ahead with this as well.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064873"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102624" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619192">Mr. Wilson and Madame Faille.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="2064874" ToCText=""><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="99846" Type="47">Mr. Blair Wilson (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, Lib.)</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619193">Is there any requirement that the minister of the department report back to us once this is passed or once this is tabled? Do we want to add something to the effect that the minister would report back to the committee? Will there be something in our report that the minister or the department will have to report back?</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064882"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102624" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619194">Not that I'm aware of.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="2064883" ToCText=""><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="99295" Type="26">Mr. Andrew Kitching (Committee Researcher)</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619195">Usually they do. I'm not quite sure about the House procedure on that, Samy, but to all the reports I've seen, they have to give a response.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064888"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102624" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619196">It seems appropriate.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064891"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="99846" Type="47">Mr. Blair Wilson</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619197">Perhaps I could move a friendly amendment, then, to ask that the minister report back to the committee updating us as to her progress.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064897"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="101812" Type="47">Mr. Ed Komarnicki</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619198">There's a standing order, actually, dealing with reporting back. I think it would not be to report back on the progress, but it's a report back to the committee of the report that's filed. So whatever the standing order allows for is what it would be, if that's the amendment.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="2064903"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102624" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619199">Ms. Faille.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064904"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102626" Type="40">Ms. Meili Faille</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619200">As a follow up to Mr. Wilson's comment, I believe that when we pass a motion, according to our rules and procedures, the minister has 45 days to let the committee know whether he or she accepts or rejects the committee's opinion. Perhaps the clerk could tell us whether this must be specified in the motion. Previously, we had done so for the Appeal Division and we had received an answer from the minister.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064912"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="106281" Type="27">The Clerk</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619201">There are two ways to proceed. The first is under Standing Order 109.</ParaText>
							<FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage><ParaText id="619202">Standing Order 109 stipulates that the government must respond to a committee report within 120 days.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064921"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102626" Type="40">Ms. Meili Faille</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619203">Okay.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064922"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="106281" Type="27">The Clerk</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619204">That's one option that I'm not sure Mr. Wilson clarified. </ParaText><ParaText id="619205">The second option is to state, as you said, that the minister report back to the committee with a response. It's up to the committee to decide what they want to do.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064932"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102624" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619206">Does the first option satisfy you?</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064938"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="99846" Type="47">Mr. Blair Wilson</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619207">No, I'd like to put a friendly amendment, to add in there a request that the minister--</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064939"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="106193" Type="47">Mr. Omar Alghabra</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619208">Do you want to put a date, a response within 30 days?</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064940"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102626" Type="40">Ms. Meili Faille</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619209">Okay. Perhaps we could grant her 30 days to answer.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064950"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102624" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619210">Andrew.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064951"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102625" Type="40">Hon. Andrew Telegdi</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619211">I have a certain amount of discomfort, because we're working on a report. This thing essentially mirrors some of the conclusions of the report. Mind you, the report has stronger language because it talks about crisis. It would seem to me that we'd want to go through the report, because we're still collectively working on it and we haven't dealt with it. You have the whole issue of confidentiality, of not leaking the report, because we don't want to undercut the conclusions; we all want it to be released at the same time. I think it would be proper to wait for the report to be completed and have that tabled in the committee.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064963"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="99845" Type="47">Hon. Jim Karygiannis</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619212">Mr. Chair, in view of what Mr. Telegdi is saying, that we were in camera dealing with this report, right now we're in public and everything that we're saying is public. I would recommend two things: one, that everything we've said on this particular motion be back in camera, because we're dealing with the report itself; and two, until we finish the report, I think doing something like this would be premature.</ParaText><ParaText id="619213"> We're working on a report; I can understand some members of this committee wanting to move forward because of the trouble we're having, but this is why the report was undertaken. For everything that we have said on this particular item, I would urge the chair to get unanimous consent that it goes in camera. There's nobody in here right now; it should go in camera.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Timestamp Hr="12" Mn="30">(1230)</Timestamp><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064981"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102624" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619214">Well, maybe—</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="2064982" ToCText=""><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="99845" Type="47">Hon. Jim Karygiannis</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619215">If you want to consider this a motion and seek unanimous consent that everything we said on this be in camera, then I'm prepared to move it. </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064988"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102624" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619216">We could do that, or we could just deal with the motion. There seems to be consensus that the motion should be defeated.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064989"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="99845" Type="47">Hon. Jim Karygiannis</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619217">Mr. Chair, I would say again that before we continue the conversation, things were said when we thought we were in camera. I'm seeking the chair's consent and the members' consent that everything that was said on this matter be dealt with in camera.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2064990"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102624" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619218">Do you want to go in camera on this?</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2065020"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="99638" Type="47">Mr. Bill Siksay</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619219">No. Chair, I don't see how we can backtrack, because it's been broadcast for one thing. It's out there, and other people are here who have been hearing the discussion. I don't think there's any secret that the crisis at the IRB is something we were working on towards our report. We had hearings on it, and we've been telling people that it's going to be part of our report. </ParaText><ParaText id="619220">I don't think there's any crisis of confidentiality. We're also considering this motion because of the urgency of the issue and the time it will take us to finalize our report. Again, I think it emphasizes the work that we've been doing as a committee, and I still strongly support dealing with this motion today.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2065036"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102624" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619221">We'll have a final comment from Mr. Alghabra and Madame Faille. We'll see if we can deal first with the amendment and then the main motion.</ParaText><ParaText id="619222">Mr. Alghabra.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2065043"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="106193" Type="47">Mr. Omar Alghabra</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619223">I hear some people saying this is something that's being dealt with in the report. I understand what they're saying. The report is dealing with various issues and various files, not only the IRB issue. </ParaText><ParaText id="619224">The committee has the opportunity now to express its opinion on the Harrison recommendation to the report specifically...nothing else that the report we're working on deals with. It directly responds and sends recommendations to the minister, based on recommendation 5 in the report.</ParaText><ParaText id="619225"> The committee now has the opportunity to choose if they agree or not with recommendation 5. If they vote against it, basically that will say that the committee is okay with recommendation 5 and the Harrison report.</ParaText><ParaText id="619226">Thanks.</ParaText><ParaText id="619227"><B>An hon. member:</B> No, it doesn't say that at all.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2065062"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102624" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619228">Madam Faille.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2065063"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102626" Type="40">Ms. Meili Faille</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619229">I was wondering whether Mr. Alghabra would accept to wait for the next meeting, which I understand will be on Thursday, to discuss this motion, given that the report will most probably be passed at this meeting.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2065071"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102624" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619230">I don't think Mr. Alghabra is in favour of doing that.</ParaText><ParaText id="619231">Are you in favour of that, Mr. Alghabra?</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2065076"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="106193" Type="47">Mr. Omar Alghabra</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619232">Yes, that's fine.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2065077"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="99845" Type="47">Hon. Jim Karygiannis</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619233">Are you withdrawing the motion?</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2065078"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="106193" Type="47">Mr. Omar Alghabra</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619234">I'm not withdrawing the motion, but delaying it until Thursday.</ParaText><ParaText id="619235">(Motion allowed to stand)</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2065088"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102624" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619236">Where is the other motion?</ParaText><ParaText id="619237">I'll go to Mr. Siksay.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2065099"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="99638" Type="47">Mr. Bill Siksay</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619238"> Thank you, Chair.</ParaText><ParaText id="619239">Yes, I have tabled a motion to call the <Affiliation DbId="78755" Type="4">Minister of Public Safety</Affiliation> before the committee to discuss the ever-increasing urgency of the situation at KIHC and the hunger strike that Hassan Almrei is engaging in. I believe today is day 153 of his hunger strike. </ParaText><ParaText id="619240">I know all members of the committee are aware that Mr. Almrei has never been charged and never been convicted. He's indefinitely detained under provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Almost all of the conditions of his detention, which we've done a report on, for the most part are still unresolved, and those are the reasons he began this hunger strike 153 days ago. </ParaText><ParaText id="619241">Chair, members will be aware that there are different kinds of hunger strikes. There's a dry hunger strike, they call it, where people don't eat or drink any water, and that's not the kind that Mr. Almrei has been on. There's a total hunger strike where they drink nothing but water. Again, that's not the kind he's on. A partial hunger strike, which he has engaged in, where he's drinking nothing but orange juice and water at this point, is extremely dangerous at the time of 150 days. I guess the closest examples are from hunger strikers in the Turkish prison system, where many hunger strikers who were on a similar diet of lemon juice and water, and some salt as well, began to die at around day 150. So it is a very, very serious juncture in that.</ParaText><ParaText id="619242">The issue we raised in our report around solitary confinement is also an acute issue at this point, given that Mr. Almrei is the only prisoner detained at KIHC. There is a lot of research on the effects of solitary confinement, whether that be punitive solitary confinement--and I think we would agree that isn't, in some sense, what Mr. Almrei is facing--or administrative solitary confinement, which happens for reasons other than discipline of the detainee. No matter what kind of solitary confinement it is, the psychological effects of that are extremely acute, particularly in the situation where the detainee doesn't know the charge against him, doesn't know the length of detention. Certainly that's the situation Mr. Almrei is in at the current time.</ParaText><ParaText id="619243">I think it's a matter of extreme urgency that we have the minister before us to put questions about this.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Timestamp Hr="12" Mn="35">(1235)</Timestamp><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2065152"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102624" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619244">Okay. Thank you, Mr. Siksay.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2065153"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="78557" Type="2">Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.)</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619245">I have a point of order, Chair. I just want to put on the record that I'm filling in for Mr. Telegdi, who unexpectedly had to leave, so I can participate as well, officially. Thank you. </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2065154"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102624" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619246">Thank you. Okay.</ParaText><ParaText id="619247">Mr. Karygiannis.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2065155"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="99845" Type="47">Hon. Jim Karygiannis</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619248">I'm prepared to support it, but I'm just wondering if the clerk can find out what the latest is on Mr. Almrei's condition, or maybe we can ask that four members from each of the four parties do visit Mr. Almrei and get an update from him on what he's going through.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2065165"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102624" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619249">Was that question to Mr. Siksay?</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2065166"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="99845" Type="47">Hon. Jim Karygiannis</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619250">Yes. </ParaText><ParaText id="619251">Bill, would you...?</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2065167"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="99638" Type="47">Mr. Bill Siksay</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619252">I've been in regular contact with Mr. Almrei.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2065168"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="99845" Type="47">Hon. Jim Karygiannis</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619253">Would you entertain a friendly amendment that the committee send four members to speak to--</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2065173"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="99638" Type="47">Mr. Bill Siksay</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619254">I think that's a separate issue, Chair. If Mr. Karygiannis wants to entertain another visit there, we could discuss that, but I'd like to focus on getting the minister here about the issues right now.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2065180"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102624" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619255">Okay. Is there any further comment on the motion? </ParaText><ParaText id="619256"> Mr. Komarnicki.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2065181"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="101812" Type="47">Mr. Ed Komarnicki</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619257">I understand, of course, it's the <Affiliation DbId="78755" Type="4">public safety minister</Affiliation> who's responsible for the issues there. I understand he is appearing before the public safety committee next week, and certainly questions could be put to him there if that's what needs to happen. </ParaText><ParaText id="619258">We have obviously visited this issue on a number of occasions and we have various matters on our agenda. I think that with the minister already appearing before another committee in short order, and we won't get him before this committee sooner than that, if <Affiliation DbId="78519" Type="2">Mr. Siksay</Affiliation> wishes to put the question to him, he should then use one of his members on that committee to put the very question he wants to bring before this group. Certainly we won't get it done any quicker, and I think our agenda would remain intact.</ParaText><ParaText id="619259">So I would say that this motion be opposed, but that <Affiliation DbId="78519" Type="2">Mr. Siksay</Affiliation> be entitled to pursue the matter at the minister's appearance in the other committee. It really is a matter of public safety jurisdiction.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="2065207"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102624" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619260"> Ms. Faille.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2065208"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102626" Type="40">Ms. Meili Faille</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619261">Has the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration already written letters, for example to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development or to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights? Given that the minister will appear before the Standing Committee on National and Public Security, would it be possible to ask her to answer this question? Perhaps we could send her the question and ask her to answer it at that time?</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Timestamp Hr="12" Mn="40">(1240)</Timestamp><FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2065225"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102624" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619262">Well, we could, but I don't believe that's the wish of Mr. Siksay. I mean, his motion is here before the committee, and I think we have to deal with that.</ParaText><ParaText id="619263">Mr. Karygiannis and Mr. Siksay.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2065227"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="99845" Type="47">Hon. Jim Karygiannis</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619264">Mr. Chair, I was wondering if Mr. Siksay would fill in for the NDP member on that committee where the minister is appearing and pose the question. If there's no satisfactory answer, maybe he can reintroduce the motion next week.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2065232"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102624" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619265">Okay.</ParaText><ParaText id="619266">Mr. Siksay.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2065233"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="99638" Type="47">Mr. Bill Siksay</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619267">Mr. Chair, I don't agree to those suggestions. I believe that we can't abandon our responsibility and the work that we've done on this issue already. </ParaText><ParaText id="619268">Clearly, the security certificate process under which Mr. Almrei is detained is in the jurisdiction of this committee, given that it's a piece of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. This committee has done excellent work, I believe, on this issue. We're familiar with the situation at KIHC, unlike any other committee of this Parliament, because we are the ones who visited there on two occasions. I think that for us to say these questions should be raised in other committees and not here would represent dropping the ball in our case.</ParaText><ParaText id="619269">They should be raised at the public safety committee. I agree 100% that the <Affiliation DbId="78755" Type="4">minister</Affiliation> should be grilled thoroughly on these issues when he gets there, but I also believe he needs to come to this committee and answer important questions about the situation there and the circumstances of Mr. Almrei. I don't think there's any excuse for us not pursuing this further, given the stand we have taken as a committee on this and the work we have already done.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2065256"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102624" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619270">Mr. Alghabra.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2065257"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="106193" Type="47">Mr. Omar Alghabra</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619271">Thank you, Mr. Chair.</ParaText><ParaText id="619272">I want to agree with Mr. Siksay. This committee has done extensive work on this issue. We just tabled the report last month. I think there's an interest on behalf of this committee to hear from the minister not only on Almrei's case but about his feedback or his response to the report that we tabled last month. We can ask him various questions about this issue. So I think it's a good opportunity for the committee to ask the minister those questions based on the study that we've extensively conducted.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2065268"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102624" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619273">After Madame Faille, I'm going to call the question.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2065269"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102626" Type="40">Ms. Meili Faille</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619274">I have a question for the clerk.</ParaText><ParaText id="619275">The report that we tabled was directed to the MInister of Citizenship and Immigration. Was it sent as well to the Minister of Public Security?</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2065284"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="106281" Type="27">The Clerk</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619276">I honestly don't know.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2065285"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102626" Type="40">Ms. Meili Faille</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619277">So the Minister of Public Security will not give any answer to our report.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2065286"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="106281" Type="27">The Clerk</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619278">Under Standing Order 109, there was no request for an answer. </ParaText>
							<FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage><ParaText id="619279">There was not a formal request for a response from the government pursuant to Standing Order 109.</ParaText>
							<FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage><ParaText id="619280">I know that there was a reference to the Minister of Public Security, Mr. Day, in our report, but it was sent to the House and not to a minister in particular.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2065294"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102626" Type="40">Ms. Meili Faille</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619281">So neither the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration nor the Minister of Public Security have a responsibility to give us an answer. Did I understand correctly?</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2065297"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="106281" Type="27">The Clerk</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619282">That's it.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2065298"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102626" Type="40">Ms. Meili Faille</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619283">For this reason, I believe that the minister should appear before us, before our committee.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2065304"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102624" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619284">We'll vote on the motion now.</ParaText><ParaText id="619285">(Motion agreed to [See <I>Minutes of Proceedings</I>])</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="2065310"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="102624" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="619286">That completes our meeting for today.</ParaText><ParaText id="619287">The meeting stands adjourned.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
				</SubjectOfBusinessContent></SubjectOfBusiness></OrderOfBusiness></HansardBody></Hansard>
