Evidence of meeting #154 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 finance.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
No, it hasn't. I'm talking on the amendment.
To have four meetings per division was defeated. Now we're talking about three per division, which would be six meetings. I'm just curious as to when we would do that and be able to report back by May 17.
Does anybody have any bright ideas?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
If the committee wills to fit in six meetings on this issue and have it completed by May 17, we will schedule those meetings and the committee will get its work done—if that's the will of the committee.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Well, we could be sitting every day of the week.
I have another question for Mr. Whalen—just so I'm clear, through you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment is conditional upon the approval of the finance committee. If the finance committee doesn't approve it, then we won't do it. Is my understanding correct?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
No. I can clarify that for the committee.
First of all, the Speaker ruled this afternoon that the provisions around omnibus bills do not apply to this bill because it is a budget implementation bill. The Speaker has ruled that this is an appropriate bill. The second is that even though the finance committee has requested us to study division 15, if this committee chooses to study both divisions 15 and 16, a report can be made on each of those divisions and go to finance. Any amendments that we would be proposing would be deemed notice having been given by the time that Bill C-97 reaches clause-by-clause in committee.
We don't need a request from the finance committee to do this. It could have done so. It requested that we do division 15. We are now telling them that we are also doing division 16—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
—and you're asking me to inform the committee of that immediately, so we don't double the effort and have it done in two places. They can still choose to do it in two places, but I believe I have been successful in suggesting to them that this is the appropriate committee for these two divisions to be heard and they will allow us to do that work. I can only assume that they will take our report and put it in as an appropriate part of their deliberation of the full bill.
The clerk confirms that they still have the right not to deem those amendments proposed for division 16. They've already given us that right for division 15. I will write a letter to them immediately saying that this committee has requested that we do this, that we're requesting that they would then also deem them as having been given notice, so we don't hold up that process.
What we've tried to do is work out Ms. Kwan's motion for the committee to do the work that you should be doing as a committee. It is my strong belief that the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, IRPA—and I will go on record about this—belongs in this committee. This is the place that it should be studied. I have been very clear to anybody who would listen that it belongs here. That's why I was glad to hear the amendments from Mr. Whalen to get us to the position where we could get to work.
I need to tell the committee that in terms of scheduling, we still need to do our migration study, our settlement services study and we need to hear from the minister on the main estimates. Those are all things that I don't think this committee should give up. It's work that we've done.
Between now and when we rise in June, I'm trying to schedule all of that work to be done so that we can say we have fulfilled what we intended to do: study both divisions of the bill, finish both studies and ensure the minister appears for the main estimates.
I'm genuinely trying to get this to our committee and get it done in a way that honours the work you should be doing on these two parts, divisions 15 and 16.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Thank you. I guess I'm still getting back to how we're going to do that.
Is a meeting an hour? What's a meeting?
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Generally it's a two-hour meeting. However, I've talked to the clerk today about the possibility of doing a long.... They will not be less than two hours. They will be at least two-hour meetings.
I do need to warn you that they may be—
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Mr. Chair, that's what I'm trying to say. Is a meeting one hour or two hours?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
—but in this case, I am giving you a little notice that with the number of people I suspect you're going to want to hear from, it may be longer than a two-hour meeting.
To warn you, I am worried about making sure we get this done and get it done with integrity. I suspect that by the time we add up the hours, it may equal what Ms. Kwan had in mind. However, I don't want to do something artificial, finishing off a meeting and then starting a meeting right afterwards. We might go longer.
I need to give you notice that you're going to go longer than two hours—
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
That's important, Mr. Chairman, because we all have other responsibilities in different respects, and with set meetings it might be difficult for members to honour other commitments they've already made.
I guess that's an issue, but you have answered some of my questions. I think Ms. Kwan has given an excellent summary of what this is all about and the concerns that arise from this being rammed into a budget bill. To repeat, it is ironic that this is being done by the very party that said not to do it. They told us not to put in pieces of legislation that have nothing to do with the budget. Now this very thing is happening. It is something they have pointed out in the past and that we're pointing out now—insufficient time will be given to having an adequate debate.
I appreciate that you're purposely being very vague. We may set a meeting at such and such a time, but God knows when it will end. And I understand that, because if we're going to do a thorough job, that's exactly what will happen. That's not to say it shouldn't be done. I guess my concern is that we all have other commitments and there will be conflicts. We've already made those commitments, and this could create some problems.
Those are my concerns, Mr. Chairman.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
My understanding of the way that the amendment is worded right now is that by adding “at the request of the Standing Committee on Finance” we're still leaving to the finance committee the decision to refer division 16 to us.
Perhaps I'll just ask you a question, if I may, Chair. If we accept the wording Mr. Whalen has proposed, does that mean we are ceding responsibility to the finance committee to refer it to us?
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Right, it's at the request of the Standing Committee on Finance. So if we pass this, essentially what the committee is doing is asking the Standing Committee on Finance to refer division 16, which—
Liberal
Liberal
Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL
Ms. Rempel, when I say “at the request of the Standing Committee on Finance” in the first part of the amendment, that's because they've asked us. If we're doing this one, division 15, at their request, the next part is that we're doing division 16 on our own initiative, and then there's a third part of the amendment, which says that we're going to send them the stuff now. All of the stuff on division 15 is deemed reported, because that's what they've already said in their letter to us. The stuff related to division 16 is not deemed reported, but we're asking that they consider it to be deemed reported because we've given them this immediate notice that we intend to do it.