Evidence of meeting #98 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clerk.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Brad Redekopp
I bring this meeting back to order.
Ms. Kwan, please go ahead.
11:20 a.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
At this juncture, I would like to move the following motion:
That the committee request that Global Affairs (GAC) provide the unredacted findings of the internal investigation regarding the issuance of “inauthentic” facilitation letters to third parties to the law clerk and parliamentary counsel for redaction according to his discretion before being sent to the committee, and further that GAC provide to the community the unredacted name and title of the official(s) within GAC who provided the “inauthentic” facilitation letter to George Young, acknowledged receipt of Senator McPhedran's email and shared the names of the vulnerable Afghans with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada no later than 30 days following the adoption of the motion.
Mr. Chair, I'm moving this motion today because we heard on August 25, 2021, from Senator McPhedran. In her testimony, she said, “the facilitation template in question was sent to me by George Young”. That's a quote from her testimony. She went on further to say, “Mr. Young received this facilitation template from Global Affairs Canada, and he told me this in writing.” She then further stated:
Names for the rolling list were sent frequently to George Young and Mr. Oz Jungic, a senior policy adviser to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Jungic confirmed receipt of the names to me on August 24, with an assurance that they would do everything they could to try to help get these people out.
Senator McPhedran went on to say, “Mr. Young stated that he had put these names 'into the system'.” She also said:
When George Young sent me the facilitation templates on August 25, he wrote, with the first one, “I have received this from a colleague at GAC...try it. George.”
What we need to get to is who from GAC provided that “inauthentic” facilitation letter to George Young.
Mr. Chair, to that end, I am moving this motion so that we can get that information.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Brad Redekopp
Thank you, Ms. Kwan. I believe the motion is in order.
I have a speaking list: Ms. Kayabaga and Mrs. Zahid.
Ms. Kayabaga, please go ahead.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
Arielle Kayabaga Liberal London West, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I wanted to wait to hear Ms. Kwan's comments before I asked for a point of order.
Perhaps, through you, Mr. Chair, I would ask the clerk to tell us what the procedure is after a member puts forward the same motion that they have put forward before, and if this is an acceptable motion or not.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Brad Redekopp
Madam Kayabaga, there are just two things to consider.
This is a new motion as far as we're concerned, and—
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
Arielle Kayabaga Liberal London West, ON
Can we perhaps then see the language of the motion through email and in both languages?
Maybe we could suspend to see the language of the motion.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
I call the meeting back to order.
I want to thank Mr. Redekopp for chairing the first portion of the meeting.
I also would love to welcome Madame Bérubé, Mr. Zuberi and Mr. Iacono to the committee. Welcome.
The motion is on the floor, and I have a speaking list. It's Madam Kayabaga, Madam Zahid, Mr. Kmiec and then Mr. Maguire.
Madam Kayabaga, please go ahead.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Arielle Kayabaga Liberal London West, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome back.
I wasn't speaking to this. I think I already spoke, and my question was whether this was a similar motion to a previous motion moved by the member. I have received the copy as we requested to receive—
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
Madam Kayabaga, excuse me.
We are in public, so we cannot say anything directly or indirectly that might relate to our proceedings that were in camera. Please make sure when you speak....
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Arielle Kayabaga Liberal London West, ON
Mr. Chair, I will remove myself from the speaking list for now. I'll put up my hand if I have other questions.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Salma Zahid Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair.
In regard to this motion that was just moved by Ms. Kwan, I need just a little clarification, and maybe the clerk can add to that.
This email that was sent by the clerk to all the members of the committee mentioned that information to be redacted, like personal information, is normally specified in the motion when we request production of documents. I'm talking about the email that was sent by the clerk on April 17 to the members of the committee.
I think it is important to make sure we have some sort of criteria later on if we are requesting that documents be redacted, and that we let the law clerk know about the parameters or the types of information that should be redacted.
Maybe the clerk can specify a bit in regard to some clarification on what was meant by the email sent on April 17 to the members.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
Yes, I'll give the floor to the clerk.
I'll suspend at the request of our clerk.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
I call the meeting back to order.
Madam Zahid, the comments you made.... I have had an extensive discussion with the clerk. The information that was distributed to the honourable member, and to all members, was in confidence.
Personally, I see that it is not the place now for Mr. Clerk to comment. I will give you the floor to continue. If you still insist that the clerk should speak, he's willing to speak.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Salma Zahid Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair, for the clarification.
Based on the rules, without giving.... I'm just talking about the procedure. I'm not talking about the content of the motion or anything.
I want to bring to your attention that the rules state, “the motion is not a substantive motion or a subsidiary motion where such a motion is already being debated (a committee—”
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Salma Zahid Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON
No. I'm not talking about the content of the motion. I'm just talking about the procedure that—
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Salma Zahid Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON
Based on what the.... I'm not saying anything about the content of the motion from the in camera meeting. I am saying that where a motion has already been debated, a motion cannot be brought.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
Basically, you're telling me this is not a substantive motion. Is that right?
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Salma Zahid Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON
Yes. Basically, what I am saying is that the committee has already debated a motion of similar substance, so this motion is out of order.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
Madam Zahid, as far as I see it, this motion has not been debated. This is a new motion. I don't recall this motion being debated earlier at all.
Do the members feel the same way?
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Arielle Kayabaga Liberal London West, ON
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
I disagree with you. I believe that the rules of committee procedures are that if a motion is being discussed or debated elsewhere, a committee is required to deal with only one motion at a time. Therefore, this motion is not a substantive motion. We cannot discuss this motion, as it is being debated elsewhere, whether or not we are allowed to discuss where it's being debated.
I would like to challenge your point on that, because this is a motion that's being debated elsewhere, and as our committee procedures clearly outline, we cannot be discussing this motion.