Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 30th, 2018

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move:

That, pursuant to the Order of Reference of Wednesday, October 24, 2018, the Committee consider the Supplementary Estimates (A), 2018-19, before the reporting deadline set out in Standing Order 81(5); and that the Committee invite the Minister of Immigration to appear in view of this study. Debate arose thereon.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Before we do that, are you going to bring a second motion, too?

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

Let's deal with this one first, perhaps.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I was going to give time for the other side to discuss both motions.

Could I just check to see whether there's unanimous consent to invite the minister to come for supplementary estimates?

(Motion agreed to)

Thank you.

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

Excellent.

I'll go on to the next motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I suspected.

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

We chatted. It happens.

I move:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee conduct a study of the United Nations’ Global Compact on Migration; that this study examine the degree to which Canada was consulted; that the study also determine how the compact will affect Canada, including but not limited to potential impacts on immigration levels, resettlement cost supports, potential cost impact on social programs (such as social welfare systems, affordable housing stock, regional homeless shelters and food banks), sovereignty on decision making regarding immigration policy; that departmental officials be in attendance for at least one meeting; that this study consist of no fewer than two meetings; that the study be completed prior to Canada making a final decision to ratify the United Nations’ Global Compact on Migration; that the Committee report its findings to the House; and that pursuant to Standing Order 109, the government table a comprehensive response thereto.

We're about to enter into this agreement, and there hasn't been a lot of discussion about it within the context of Parliament yet. I've had a lot of questions about the agreement in my office, and I'm assuming that colleagues of all political stripes have as well. I think it's incumbent upon us as parliamentarians to show the public, to get a better understanding of the intent of the agreement, and then, frankly, to discuss the agreement in the context of Canada's current immigration situation.

I moved the supplementary estimates motion first because there has been a considerable amount of taxpayer dollars spent on unplanned expenditures related to the situation at Roxham Road. As a parliamentarian, I feel, and I would hope everyone here does, too, that it's incumbent upon us to understand the full impacts of this agreement and perhaps also the global compact on refugees prior to ratification so that we can evaluate this in the context of the upcoming immigration levels plan, as well as in the context of the budget.

Frankly, I am a little tired of evaluating budgetary impacts related to the immigration system at this point in time after the fact. I'm also becoming frustrated about evaluating changes to policy related to immigration levels without looking at a broader context.

I do believe that this motion is in order, given the fact that we have moved similar rules in our routine motions. It's also related to the scope of this study. I think it is incumbent upon us to get this done prior to ratification in December.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I'm going to suggest that strictly speaking, the motion is not admissible because it did not have 48 hours' notice. However, if we can find a way to weave it into our ongoing work, I think it would be acceptable.

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

Okay. I have a point of order on that, just for clarification.

In our routine motions, it does say that 48 hours' notice is required “for any substantive motion to be considered by [a] Committee, unless the substantive motion relates directly to [the] business then under consideration”. I would note that the business under consideration is a study entitled “Migration Challenges and Opportunities for Canada in the 21st Century” and, indeed, the preamble to the global compact on migration is something that directly relates to the study.

What I would not like to see happen is to have this study specifically on the global compact on migration be punted and have the committee report its findings or recommendations to the House post-ratification of the compact.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I'm just going to say that we have a problem there, because it can't be both. It is either a part of the study under which we are engaged and doing that, or it's a separate study, which would come later and which I think is problematic because it would be coming after the ratification of the agreement.

I am trying to work with you on this. If we can work for a way to have it in this study, it would be an allowable motion, which I think we can do.

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

On a point of order for clarification, the routine motions don't state that the study has to be part of a different study. It has to be that the content of the substantive motion is relevant to the subject matter at hand. Mr. Chair, I believe it would be incumbent upon you as chair to tell the committee, in ruling that it's out of order, how the ratification of the global compact on migration is irrelevant to the business the committee is currently studying, given the breadth and scope of current study.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Yes, it does relate to the study, but a separate study would be different.

This is my exact issue. The way the wording is right now, it is to conduct a study of something which is outside the current study. If we want to keep that wording that it's a study outside the current study, I will require 48 hours' notice. If we're able to find a way to have the study within this study, which I'm very amenable to, then it would be acceptable.

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

Just as a point of clarification, Mr. Chair, on the record, you just stated that the global compact on migration or the study of that is relevant to the business at hand—

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Absolutely.

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

—so I've asked you to clarify how a study on the global compact on migration is not part of the business at hand. I ask this because the routine motion that we passed on February 16, 2016, states, again, that “the substantive motion relates directly to [the] business then under consideration”. It is incumbent upon you to inform the committee on your decision on how the global compact on migration would not be relevant to the migration challenges and opportunities for Canada in the 21st century.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I would argue and I will rule.... I don't argue as the chair—you'll hear in a minute—that a study of something is outside the scope of this study; however, the topic of this discussion would be ruled within the scope of the study. It's slightly nuanced.

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

Just for—

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I won't recognize you yet, because I have other speakers.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

I think I'm first.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

No, you're third, and then fourth....

I will rule that on the issue of this, if we can phrase it as “the issue” and if you're acceptable with that, we would put it in the study and we would get it within the time frame of the December 10 ratification; however, a separate study outside this study would not be allowed.

I'm kind of giving you a little option there to say that if you want to just change that to “include in this study the topic of”, then we can do it. It will get your work done, I think.

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

If I may, Mr. Chair, as a point of clarification on what you're proposing today, would that allow for two meetings specifically on the topic of the global compact on migration as well as a report presented to Parliament with recommendations prior to the ratification of the agreement?

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I would say that it would be impossible to have that done before December 10; however, the committee could direct an interim report on this topic before that date. We could report, but the report would be an interim report, which could be done.

Am I correct?

[A voice]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Yes, an interim report. We would send it to the House before December 10, but it would be an interim report on the study with one narrow focus, which would be the global compact.

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

Okay, just so I don't have to argue this again down the road, would the motion need to be amended to make that formal?