Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 27th, 2018

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

I have the floor with respect to this point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

He has the floor. When he's finished with the floor then I can hear a point.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

On this point, since there are no changes in supplementary estimates (A) with respect to whether members' allocation of time is allowed or not.... That's the first category of things I'd like to talk to.

The second category I'd like to speak to is whether the existing oath and affirmation we all take as MPs is already applicable and whether it's appropriate in any circumstances to ask an existing member of Parliament to breech their privilege by taking some additional oath. That's the second category.

The third thing is that each minister has his or her own oath that they take. There's also the standard expectation that when people are before committee they're going to come with candour.

The fourth part of the analysis on the allegations that Ms. Rempel brought earlier is as to whether there is some type of dishonesty. That's the point. Unless there is some form of dishonesty that is expected, or there is some reason to believe that someone isn't acting with candour, that's the point at which those types of motions are brought. It was quite insulting to everyone in the room and to the process and the institution to bring that type of a motion before there would be any type of allegation of impropriety at all.

Then it brings us back to a another category of things that I'd like to talk about, which is whether it's appropriate to get into the individual line items of members of Parliament when the minister has already said that he's prepared to answer the question.

I think that if I went through all those things, we wouldn't get time for the member of the NDP to ask her questions, so I will stop talking now because I know she's well prepared for the meeting.

I think in the future all members should be cognizant of the fact that we can all play these theatrical games, and no work can get done here. It's not just the opposite side that can do these foolish things.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you.

Mr. Maguire.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

I wasn't going to say anything. I would just say to my colleague that I back her in her efforts to do this. I happen to not think these are foolish things. That kind of language adds to the problem that may arise in the future with the types of questions that need to be answered in this case.

The oath request is certainly a rule of the House. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, but we're just asking questions. I'll leave it at that, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Mr. Baylis.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

The concept of asking someone to go under oath has been used when there's a suspicion of misleading someone. That being said, the expectation that a minister would know the individual files of 338 members of Parliament over a past period of time is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

I don't know how many times I've spoken to the minister on a particular case for me, so if I were to be asked just how many times I have interpellated a minister on a particular case, I wouldn't be able to answer that.

If I simply can't answer it, putting me under oath does not give me some extra superpowers to answer it. The gamesmanship here—pretending that we're going to put someone under oath to get to the truth—is defamatory and part of some political game intended to suggest that the minister is hiding information, which is not true.

If the member is truly interested in getting this information, there's a process. You can file a paper called an access to information. You don't expect a minister to come to committee knowing the files of 338 people off the top of his head. That's ridiculous.

Normally, when I speak in other committees, I don't have to deal with other members. I did not interrupt Ms. Rempel. I did not interrupt Mr. Tilson. I did not interrupt Mr. Maguire. I find it quite annoying, Chair, that he feels it's his right to speak over me every time I say something.

I don't see how you have that right.

If you want to take my time, go ahead and do it, and I'll come back. If you have something to say, I'm going to cede my time so you can say it, Mr. Tilson, but then I want my time back.

I'm not going to speak over him, though, Chair. I'll wait.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

It won't work quite like that. If you'd like to be on the list—

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

I'll be back on the speakers list after Mr. Tilson has spoken, but I will continue to speak, and I will not speak over him. I will wait my turn. If he feels he has something more important to say than I do, he's welcome to say it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I have Ms. Kwan, Ms. Rempel and then maybe Mr. Baylis.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

If Mr. Tilson, Mr. Maguire or Ms. Rempel feel they have to say something over me, they'll let me know, but if not, I want to speak when they're done talking over me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you.

We'll cede the time. You can stop, but it goes to Ms. Kwan now.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'll be brief. I know you have indicated to the committee that you're ready to rule on this question, so I'm not even sure why we're going around in circles. As far as I can understand, what's going on here is that Ms. Rempel has actually put a question on the record, asking for the minister to provide numbers in the aggregate of how many inquiries have occurred within the group of people to which she has referred. It does not breach any confidential information. I think it's a fair question to ask, and I believe the minister has said he will undertake to provide that information.

I think we can get on with it, because there are a whole lot of theatrics going on here, on all sides of the House. Maybe we can just get on with the work we need to do, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I have Ms. Rempel, and then if either Mr. Maguire or Mr. Tilson would like to speak, they're next. First is Ms. Rempel.

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

Chair, since my colleague, Mr. Baylis, raised the relevancy or the issue of points in time when people are sworn in, I would refer him to chapter 20 of Bosc and Gagnon, under reference 687, where it says:

At various times, committees have sworn in the Prime Minister, Ministers, the Auditor General, senior public servants, and members of the Privy Council. See, for example, Special Committee on Certain Charges and Allegations made by George N. Gordon, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, March 3, 1932, Issue No. 1; Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, January 28, 1987, Issue No. 20, pp. 3-4, 9-14; Speaker Fraser's ruling (Debates, March 17, 1987...); Standing Committee on Public Accounts, Minutes of Proceedings, May 3, 2004, Meeting No. 39; Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, Minutes of Proceedings, February 5, 2008, Meeting No. 13; Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, Minutes of Proceedings, June 2, 2010, Meeting No. 21.

The reference further states:

A committee may also decide to swear in all witnesses appearing before it in connection with a particular study. See, for example, Standing Committee on Public Accounts, Minutes of Proceedings, April 14, 2004, Meeting No. 25.

I would just like to refute the aspersion put forward in my colleague's comments, given that it's very well established in precedent that this is something that occurs and is routine.

Again, Mr. Chair, I would just re-emphasize my further point. We are talking about the use of taxpayer resources to assist members of Parliament with their work. At the same time, we have a colleague who it was my understanding had resigned, although I just read, Mr. Chair, that Elections Canada says he has not resigned.

I would like to know how many cases he referred to the minister's office and the list of other people that I have put forward, and how many times the minister used his authority under section 24(3) of IRPA based on requests of this member of Parliament. I believe we should determine—

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Please speak to the point.

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

The point is relevancy, so I am speaking to that. The point is that this is very much in order.

I'm sure the government doesn't like that I am asking these questions, Mr. Chair, but I would suggest that this is something that would be of interest to every single one of my colleagues, and I would like to see that information. I just wonder why none of them would want us to see that put forward.

It seems odd, Chair. That is all.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

This being so-called “giving Tuesday”, Mr. Baylis offered time to either Mr. Tilson or Mr. Maguire, if you would like to comment.

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

I wasn't speaking to Mr. Baylis. If he wants to get into a debate with me, I'd be pleased to do that.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

I don't want to get into a debate, I—

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

Mr. Baylis, you're now interrupting me, my good friend.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Out of respect for the interpreters, could we have one person speaking at a time?

I think that was a no, and is that another no from Mr. Maguire?

Now we go to Mr. Tabbara.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

As my colleague across the way just mentioned, she was talking about all the related issues of wrongdoing. In this particular case, we don't have a case of wrongdoing. She has been asking the minister about specific cases, and he has already pointed out that there are privacy laws that prevent him from talking about them.

As my colleague said, I have approached the minister on certain cases that I have needed to....

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I need you just to speak to the point of order. I don't want to get into debate on the topic. The point of order was about whether Ms. Rempel had strayed from relevancy, so I would like members to speak just on relevancy.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

She has strayed from relevancy. There is no sign of wrongdoing here, and she is asking the minister to go under oath even though he has already taken an oath.