We have—
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.
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.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
We have rules, and I am happy to read the statement that I made to the committee several months ago that if people continue on a point of order during their seven minutes, I will keep the clock running.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
I have a point of order, Chair.
I believe there was a challenge to your ruling on the table that you did not address and that would typically be addressed—
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
It wasn't a ruling. It was a challenge to my comment, but I hadn't made a ruling, so I will confer with the clerk for a moment with respect to this. I'm suspending.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Chair, I would just note that it was the Conservatives' point of order that used up my time.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
I'm suspending. I am going to confer with the clerk on whether or not a comment can be challenged or only a ruling can be challenged. That I do not know.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
I'm going to call the meeting back to order.
On November 29 I reminded the committee that we would keep the clock running through that time if we needed to discuss these things.
I did not make a ruling; I made a comment. It was a comment related to decorum, which is also my right and my responsibility as a chairperson to ensure that we have decorum in the committee. Decorum includes the way we treat our public officials who appear before us to present evidence.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
You can expect a question of privilege in the House on that, Mr. Chair. You're running this like a quasi-dictatorship.
Thank you.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
I challenge the application of that decision you announced unilaterally in today's committee meeting.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
I don't think I announced anything new today in the committee meeting. However, if you would like to have three more minutes, you may have them.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
That's how it should be. I appreciate that.
I just want to close with this, so that there is no miscommunication or misinterpretation by anyone on this committee. I do not take issue with officials. It has never been with officials. My frustration's been with the government and the way in which they have worked on this program, the way they have not implemented what the caregivers themselves have asked for, which is the recognition of the principle that, if they're good enough to work, they're good enough to stay and, therefore, they should be granted landed status on arrival. That is not being implemented.
Now with these pilot programs, there are some basic questions that matter to the caregivers. Why do they matter? It's because they come here and they work so hard for their families and then they are still going to be penalized. That's the net result of it. Yes, they get a pre-approval in two years, but at the end of the day they will still be under all sorts of other implications that negatively impact them. By the government's own admission, it is actually saying that they are valued. It wants them here. It recognizes that we need them here, but still they cannot get landed status on arrival. As a result, they face these penalties.
Mr. Chair, that is my point and that is a question that I would love for the minister to come to this committee and answer. He should answer these questions to us and to the caregivers.
With that, Mr. Chair, I'm going to move on to a different subject. It's not that this is an unimportant issue, but clearly the officials will not have the answers. It's not because they don't want to give them, but because they haven't been given the information by the minister and this government to provide answers to the caregivers and committee members.
At this point, I'd like to move a motion, Mr. Chair:
That, pursuant to Standing Orders 108(2), the Committee immediately undertake a study on the subject matter of the following provisions of Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget, tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019, and other measures: Part 4, Division 15 and Part 4, Division 16. That, recommendations, including amendments be submitted to the Standing Committee on Finance in a letter to the Chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, in both official languages; that, amendments provided by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration to the Standing Committee on Finance are deemed proposed during the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-97; that this study be comprised of no fewer than 8 meetings and; that the Minister of Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship, the Minister for Border Security, and Departmental Officials be in attendance for at least one meeting.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
You're going to have the floor. I just want to let our witnesses know that if they would like to stay, they're welcome to stay.
You were invited on a motion to come to this committee to brief us. Unfortunately, we had to postpone the first meeting because of votes, and now we will not be able to continue this briefing because this motion will take precedence. I want to let you know that you can be excused if you would like to be excused, or you're always welcome to stay. It's a public meeting.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL
On a point of information, Mr. Chair, does this mean that they'll be coming back that so other members of the committee can continue to ask them the questions we've prepared? What's going to happen with that?
