Evidence of meeting #116 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was plan.
A video is available from Parliament.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL
If Ms. Rempel wants to move another motion, I guess we can debate it at another meeting.
2:45 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
We have lots of time, Mr. Whalen. We have a free 15 minutes.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
I think I know the answer on this, but I always like to check with the clerk. Just one moment, please.
My instinct was that because this is still on the topic of the meeting called under Standing Order 106(4), I would allow it, but I'd just like you to repeat the motion that you would like to have made.
2:45 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Sure.
Mr. Chair, just as a preamble to this, given the scope of information that this committee is going to require and the scope of information each of these ministers will cover, as would be the norm with estimates, we would usually give an hour block to each minister. I would move that an hour block be allocated to each minister, separately, rather than having them all appear at one one-hour meeting.
I'm just thinking out loud here about how to word this. I would move, at your discretion in terms of scheduling, that each of the ministers that we have invited to appear be given a one-hour block each in order to maximize the amount of time available for questions.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
I have a speakers list with Mr. Tilson so far. Is there anybody else?
Mr. Tilson.
2:45 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Mr. Chairman, you may recall that when Mr. Hussen and Mr. Goodale appeared, it was for one hour. I don't know what everybody else thought, but I found it very inadequate to divide one hour. That was with two ministers, so I shudder to think what it would be like with three ministers. We might get a question for each minister. I am exaggerating, but if they each spoke for five or 10 or eight minutes, or whatever your ruling deems it would be, that wouldn't leave much time to ask questions of those ministers, when the whole purpose of the meeting would be to have them clarify what their plan is for this issue.
Hopefully members will agree with Ms. Rempel's motion that one hour for three is inadequate, and that preferably there should be one hour for each minister.
2:45 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I think that was my intent when I said we should turn our meeting into a three-hour meeting so that we could accommodate the three ministers and their officials accordingly.
I am happy to support formalizing this motion, but at the same time I want to ensure that you have some flexibility to ensure that the ministers can appear before our committee.
2:45 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Again, if we are going to go through the time and effort of having a study on this issue, it is incumbent upon us, and I would just ask government members.... I think the optics of voting down this request—especially since we're giving the chair the authority to schedule this at his discretion—would be pretty poor for the government side. There are a lot of questions to answer, and having three government statements at 10 minutes a pop really won't leave a lot of time for questions by the opposition. I don't imagine the government members being particularly hard hitting on this, so I would like to have more than one round with each minister. That's really what this amounts to.
I would ask that they put the issue of optics aside, and, if we are going through the expense and effort of this study, to support this motion.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
Mr. Chair, I know it's customary when you have more than one minister to reduce the time slots. I know typically, if I'm not mistaken, that we're in a 10-minute time slot. Other committees have done this by reducing the time from 10 minutes to seven minutes, or to six minutes, with a written statement. Most ministers do have written remarks, so I do believe that could be done. Oftentimes there is quite a bit of follow-up, as I indicated earlier, from these engagements as well, so I'm sure the ministers' offices will be able to follow up after that with written responses.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL
I'm happy to leave this to the chair's discretion when he schedules the meetings. I think that's the most appropriate way to deal with it, for all the reasons that have already been provided.
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Just for folks who might be watching, what we're talking about here, Mr. Chair, is that when you have three ministers come, and especially given the scope of the ministers' responsibilities—you have the Minister of Immigration responsible for processing and coming up with policies on how many people are coming into the country and under what circumstances; the Minister of Public Safety, who would be looking at the security of Canada's borders and screening; as well as the Minister of Employment, who deals essentially with all of the social programs in government—to allocate in one-hour block approximately seven minutes for the opposition to ask questions of all three of those ministers in one meeting would be wholly inadequate. I firmly believe that the optics on this would be that there was an effort by the government to not allow transparency on this issue, which is wrong.
I also believe that the comment my colleague opposite just made, “Don't worry, the ministers will follow up with you”, is particularly unbelievable given the debacle that happened with the immigration minister in Winnipeg on Friday. I don't think anyone believes they would just follow up with us after we've almost had to move motions on parliamentary privilege to get dribs and drabs of information out of the departments, often months later. Thanks but no thanks on that line of questioning.
Mr. Chair, I know that your intent will be to schedule this as efficiently as possible. Again, just for people who are watching, if the government votes against this motion, what it would essentially say is that it would prefer to have three ministers give protracted statements, advertising government talking points, so that opposition members can't ask questions of them. Thank you.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
I'm just following the argument here. The Liberal side made an amendment to include a broader study with other ministers. It was voted against by the other side, but you want more time with them. I just want to clarify.
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Chair, as a point of clarification, you ascribed a motive to my rejection of the amendment that is not supported by my arguments.
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
I argued against the amendment because I believe that the argument put forward by Mr. Anandasangaree was predicated on his assertion that the government had a plan. I'd ask you to retract that particular statement.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
I'm trying to sort out how we're trying to work this. I like to get the intent of the committee so that I can make sure we follow through exactly, as closely to the will of the committee as possible.
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
There was a slight....
Well, I would find it somewhat out of character for a chair in a neutral position to ascribe motives.