Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Jan. 30th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mrs. Rempel Garner.

Mrs. Rempel Garner has moved an amendment to the motion moved by Mr. Redekopp. We are on that amendment.

I have a speaking list.

Mr. Dhaliwal.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to continue with Madam Kwan's suggestion about the ministers. I agree with her. In fact every member on the Liberal side agrees with her that these meetings are important. The Afghanistan study is very important as well. Some of us worked together on that committee, which is not sitting anymore. This is the committee the ministers should come to.

In fact, Madam Chair, I would like you and the clerk to put some time into that thought process. Go to these ministers together and find out the dates they're available, even if we have to make a bit of a change in our schedule, as Mr. Redekopp said. He's very gracious, and I'm sure his members on that side will be. On this side, we will probably co-operate with that as well, so we get that important study out of the way.

Madam Chair, that is what I wanted to stress.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Dhaliwal.

We are on the amendment to the motion moved by Mr. Redekopp.

We will now proceed to Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Actually, there are two conversations. In the beginning, before Mr. Redekopp moved his motion, we were talking about the calendar and the ministers who should come before the committee. I am first going to talk about the motion and the amendment that were proposed by the Conservatives.

I agree with everything my colleague Ms. Rempel Garner said about the importance of these documents. For us as parliamentarians, it is important to know that we are working for the people who elected us, the taxpayers, those who give 50% of their taxes to Ottawa. In any case, Quebeckers do.

When she spoke, my colleague asked how we would get the documents if we, as parliamentarians, did not ask for them. However, parliamentarians have already requested these documents from the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. A motion was proposed in that committee that is a carbon copy of the one we are talking about right now, with the exception of Ms. Rempel Garner's amendment.

I think this motion is important, but parliamentarians have already tackled this issue in another committee. I would not want us to do the same work twice. I understand that it is important for our committee to have access to these documents, but, as they will be produced for another committee, we will have access to them in some way.

On the other hand, if we are not satisfied with what happens in the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, then the Conservative motion will become very important, and we can propose it again. At that point, we can revisit our motion.

So I would suggest to the committee that we keep this motion alive by adjourning debate on it, in case we really need to vote on the motion. According to what I am hearing today, if we vote on this motion right away, it may be defeated. I want to keep it alive until we know the outcome of the work on the same motion that has already been started by the parliamentarians who sit on the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. I repeat: the wording is exactly the same. If we are not satisfied with the result, at least the motion will still be alive. It will still be in our binder and, having adjourned debate on it, we will be able to proceed. So I move to adjourn debate on the amendment and the motion that have been proposed.

Now, Madam Chair, can I go back to the discussion we had on Afghanistan? We had not finished it, according to the schedule. Maybe the clerk can tell me. Since I have the floor, logically, I should be able to get back to it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe. Just to be clear, to make sure the translation is clear, what I am getting is that you're proposing to adjourn the debate.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Could we have a recorded vote?

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

As I have said on multiple occasions, I move to adjourn debate on the Conservative motion, while keeping the motion alive until we find out what will happen in the committee that has adopted an identical motion and is looking at this. I certainly don't want us to lose a vote on this important motion.

After that, will I be able to resume the debate on the schedule of meetings set aside for the study on the situation in Afghanistan?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe has moved to adjourn the debate. That's a non-debatable motion, so now we will have to go to the vote.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

Thank you. The debate on the motion is now adjourned.

We are back on committee business.

Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

I would like to go back to the schedule and the ministers' attendance.

Since we have had several refusals and it is critically important that the ministers come and testify on the issue before the committee, I very candidly suggest the following to the committee. I am echoing a bit of the idea put forward by my colleague Mr. Kmiec.

If, by Friday, we have received no confirmation that the ministers will appear before the committee, we will make sure that we summon them to appear before the committee. If they do not give us a response by Friday and do not confirm their attendance, we will compel their appearance.

That is my proposal to the committee. Maybe one of my colleagues could rephrase that, to make it a formal motion, but I think it's common sense. Most importantly, we would waste less time; we have a lot to say.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

We have Ms. Kwan, then Ms. Lalonde.

Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I have just a quick comment on the issue. First, around the importance of the McKinsey contracts, there is no doubt that we need to get to the bottom of it. The New Democrats support that, and of course, that work is under way at the OGGO committee. From what I understand, another committee, public accounts, is also looking into this as well. From what I understand, because some $25 million of the contract is related to immigration, we have a vested interest in seeing what happened with those contracts.

That said, because essentially the same documents have been requested at these other committees, we should wait for that material to appear, and because that ongoing work is being done at OGGO and other committees, we should see what happens. If the answers are deficient or the actions are deficient, no doubt we will come back to this committee.

I thank my colleagues for moving it and putting this on the table, and I thank my colleague for also saying that we should not vote against this motion but rather wait and see what the results are.

That said, on the schedule here today, I am frustrated, Madam Chair, with the lack of response or prioritization of key ministers on the Afghanistan file. I don't know why the ministers who were invited on four occasions prior to the holidays have said no, they can't come because they are too busy. Then, in the new year, they were also extended invitations to come, and they again said they were too busy. I am in agreement with saying that we need to move this forward and to compel the ministers to come.

It is important to note that the only minister who has accepted our invitation is the Minister of Immigration, but because this is a whole-of-government response, all the relevant ministers need to come as well. We are inviting only four of them, by the way, not all the cabinet ministers. It's only the four who are most relevant to the issues at hand.

To that end, Madam Chair, I would like to move the following motion:

That the committee invite the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to appear before the committee for two hours with their officials consistent with the Afghan motion passed on October 7, 2022, by the committee; and if the ministers do not accept the invitation by Friday, February 3, 2023, the committee undertake to summon the ministers to appear before the committee based on the committee's schedule.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Ms. Kwan has moved the motion. I just need to clarify something with the clerk.

Just to clarify, in regard to the motion that has been moved by Ms. Kwan, I will read from chapter 20 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, page 982. It reads:

There is no specific rule governing voluntary appearances by Members of the House of Commons before parliamentary committees. They may appear before a committee if they wish and have been invited. If a Member of the House refuses an invitation to appear before a standing committee and the committee decides that such an appearance is necessary, it may so report to the House, and it will be up to the House to decide what measures should be taken.

Based on that, I will rule Ms. Kwan's motion inadmissible.

Members, please speak through the chair and do not have direct conversations.

Based on this part of chapter 20, which I read, I will rule that motion inadmissible.

Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much.

I'll move a new motion, Madam Chair.

I will move that the committee invite the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to appear before the committee for two hours with their officials, consistent with the Afghan motion passed on October 7, 2022, by the committee; and if the ministers do not accept the invitation by Friday, February 3, 2023, that the matter be reported to the House.

I'm sorry. I don't have the language that you read out from the section.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I will read it again. It says:

If a Member of the House refuses an invitation to appear before a standing committee and the committee decides that such an appearance is necessary, it may so report to the House, and it will be up to the House to decide what measures should be taken.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

We will then just say, “report the matter to the House consistent with section....”

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

This is chapter 20, page 982. I think that based on what the clerk is recommending, you would just say “report...to the House”.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

All right, we'll just report the matter to the House and then we'll see whether or not the House deems it important enough for the ministers to appear before the committee for the matters to be addressed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

We have a motion on the floor, moved by Ms. Kwan.

Mr. Dhaliwal.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

I think this is reasonably doable. I'm sure the ministers, along with the clerk and the chair of the committee, should be able to make that schedule work for them, because we work together.

Madam Chair, I earlier sat on the Afghanistan committee. I tell you, every minister and every witness that we asked for was able to appear there. If we had to make minor changes, we did it at that time. We are willing to do that.

We should make sure that, instead of going through all these hoops like going to the House.... Between you, the clerk and the ministers, you should be able to figure out which days work for them. We as members will be willing to accommodate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Dhaliwal.

Mr. Ali and then Ms. Lalonde.

[Shafqat Ali, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The committee said just one date; some ministers are not available and one minister is available. That doesn't mean they don't want to appear before the committee. I don't think we should go to the House saying a minister will not show up. I think if we give them an opportunity, a minister would be willing to come before the committee, and then we wouldn't need that summons or to send those suggestions to the House. I think we should give them an opportunity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Ali.

Ms. Lalonde and then Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

That is exactly what we are doing through this motion, Madam Chair.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

It is my turn to speak.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

It's Ms. Lalonde and then Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

I said Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe after Ms. Lalonde.

Ms. Lalonde.