Thanks, Chair.
I want to perhaps outline what exactly happens within the centre and why I think that removing the Minister of Immigration helps us to scope this motion effectively. IRCC, or Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, is responsible for accommodating claimants who arrive there until they're transferred to the province, including the 14-day isolation period, which was then mandatory for claimants without a suitable quarantine plan, for example. In addition, IRCC supports the CBSA's eligibility determination processing.
Given that IRCC is playing more of a supporting role with respect to the functioning of this centre, I believe it would be outside the scope of our mandate. Imagine if we brought in a minister responsible for this specific file, what kinds of questions we would be asking the minister. Would we be asking them about how they process, how they support, how many files they go through on a daily basis, what their day to day looks like? I think that would fall completely out of the purview of our committee—looking at the scope of what it is we're trying to do here—and take it into a rabbit hole that would overlap with work that other committees would be doing.
That's why, again, I ask my colleagues to support my amendment to remove the Minister of Immigration from this list of witnesses. As I said, I have no problems with other witnesses as they're listed; I think that having the Minister of Immigration within this motion would broaden the study to a point where it would fall outside the scope of the work this committee is mandated with and should be doing.
I'll leave it at that, Chair. Thanks.