Evidence of meeting #67 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 immigrants.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

James Ted McDonald  Professor of Economics, University of New Brunswick
Kevin Lacey  Director, Atlantic, Canadian Taxpayers Federation
Craig Mackie  Executive Director, Prince Edward Island Association for Newcomers to Canada
Alex LeBlanc  Executive Director, New Brunswick Multicultural Council
Sarah Parisio  Coordinator, Fédération des francophones de Terre-Neuve et du Labrador

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj

Thank you.

Ms. Rempel.

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Thank you.

All right, here we are, and I'm looking at my colleagues and their staff from a point of wanting to do something that resembles work.

What I've found in my time as opposition critic for immigration is that the immigration file involves some legislative and macro-level things that we need to look at, such as the study that's before us today, but it's also really process heavy.

A lot of the things that come before us in terms of problems.... If we all agree that it's not a matter of if Canada does immigration but a question of how, then we need to look at process issues when they come up.

I don't think anyone here could argue that this year, we've seen some pretty challenging situations involving process, in terms of immigration policy in Canada. Without getting into partisan rhetoric one way or the other on how we think process should go, there is a legitimate need for study on some of these issues.

On the motion that my colleague, Jenny Kwan, raised with regard to border crossings—I don't have the exact wording—the reality is that while we might differ on how that process should look, a woman froze to death trying to cross into our country this year, and we've had no study on the process by which that happened. I think the border crossing issue is probably one of the top public policy issues that we've seen in Canada this year. Ms. Kwan moved a motion on this, and debate was adjourned. I'd like us to have an opportunity to see that voted on.

Similarly, we spent a lot of time on Bill C-6 this week, with regard to the appeals process for citizenship revocation in cases of fraud. I moved a motion to have study on that in committee, and the best way to do that. That was not voted on either. Debate was adjourned.

The minister has only appeared before the committee once. He hasn't even appeared before committee on this.

When all of these process issues happen, we have to ask ourselves, as opposition members what our avenues and ways are of being able to address these issues to do what we're tasked to do by the Canadian public. The answer is to question the government's management of these types of processes and policies.

While there was unanimous consent in the House to—

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

Alaina Lockhart Liberal Fundy Royal, NB

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj

Please state your point of order, Ms. Lockhart.

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

Alaina Lockhart Liberal Fundy Royal, NB

I just want to read the definition of “filibuster”, which is, “an action such as a prolonged speech that obstructs progress in a legislative assembly—

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

I have a point of order.

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

Alaina Lockhart Liberal Fundy Royal, NB

—while not technically contravening the required procedures.”

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj

Ms. Lockhart, yes, you've gained the floor. You're engaging in debate and not a point of order, but thank you for attempting to be helpful.

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

Alaina Lockhart Liberal Fundy Royal, NB

Thank you.

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj

Ms. Rempel, the floor is yours.

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Let's move on to the matter at hand, the Atlantic Canadian immigration study. This, to me, is a matter of.... It's a longitudinal study. We unanimously supported in the House of Commons the motion that my colleague, Ms. Lockhart, brought, to bring this study to committee, but we didn't unanimously support the length of the study, and we didn't unanimously support having the study happen at the expense of not studying other issues that could be of equal or greater import to the immediacy of the study.

My experience in Parliament has been that when you have a longitudinal study like this, typically it can be interrupted by things like the minister appearing to testify on supplementary estimates. The minister did not do so this time, so we're actually going to be voting on supplementary estimates without the minister appearing before committee to be questioned on them. That's not transparent.

The government does have a majority on this committee, and they can do with it what they will. I would like to say that the government campaigned on greater transparency and greater effectiveness. My argument has always been, why can't we intersperse even short studies on these issues with what's going on here?

I think what my colleague, Mr. Tilson, has proposed is a very elegant solution. It recognizes that this study is important, but it also recognizes the fact that we have two outstanding reports in front of this committee.

I think we have near unanimous support across party lines to do something on one, and that's the immigration consultants study. We all heard very harrowing testimony on the need to change the status quo, yet we haven't been able to table that report.

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

I think the length of the study was discussed in camera and in subcommittee. I believe that disclosing that conversation is—

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

I didn't disclose anything that happened in camera.

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

Randeep Sarai Liberal Surrey Centre, BC

—wrong, so we should be careful.

June 14th, 2017 / 4:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj

Thank you.

That is a point of order, and that is a serious issue. Let me just consult to clarify.

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

May I comment?

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj

Yes.

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

All I said was that the length of the study was not unanimously consented to in the motion that was brought before the House of Commons. I believe that the actual wording of that motion didn't have a length attached to it, nor did it have wording that said it could not be interrupted. Is that correct?

That's the point I'm trying to make in support of Mr. Tilson's motion.

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I would ask that the blues be consulted as to exactly what she said, because the way she just characterized her earlier remarks was not consistent with what I heard.

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj

Thank you.

I will take a moment to consult with the clerk to verify what everyone heard.

Thank you. I will reserve judgment on this serious matter for now. We will consult the blues, both for the previous meeting as well as exactly what was said during this meeting. I will then get back to the committee with my judgment on this issue.

5 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Just in terms of that, to re-emphasize the point I just made—because we're talking about a motion where we're talking about the scheduling of this study—my intent was to show that in the original motion that was before the House of Commons, no length was given to it. Without looking at the blues, I think that's what I said. If I misspoke, my intent was to say that we have the ability as a committee to say, “Look, let's take this.... Since we weren't prescribed by that motion”—

5 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj

Thank you for that explanation of that particular point. We will take that into account.

I would also like to caution members to be very careful when they reference decisions made by the committee in camera.

5 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Understood.

I also haven't referred to the length of the study, in terms of precision. The point is that we can take this study to Atlantic Canada, do a little bit of overtime this summer, consider this matter in situ, and then also take the time we have remaining here to finish the two reports that are very important to this committee. I would like to see our committee, hopefully, table those reports as soon as possible. In particular, my colleague, Mr. Tilson, made a really good point: it's Pride Month. I'd love to see the LGBTQ refugee study tabled in the House of Commons.

I think this is a very elegant solution, and I'm saying this from a point of genuineness to my colleagues opposite. We get to have the Atlantic Canadian study. Yes, we're going to do a little bit of overtime this summer. I'm okay with that, and I think most people here probably are, but my hope is that we'll vote on the motions. We don't have to agree on what the outcome is going to be, but we can vote on the motions that are before committee. That allows the opposition to do their job, and then we can also try to finish those reports before the House rises.

I think this is a very elegant solution. There's no partisan malice here; it's just I'd like to have our cake and eat it, too.

5 p.m.

Conservative

David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON

It's common sense.

5 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

To be perfectly clear, the only opportunity opposition members get to raise criticism on government decisions or process is through procedural mechanisms at committee and in the House of Commons. It's important for us to put things on the record.

I'm putting forward a motion here—or Mr. Tilson did—that I think will resolve all issues. I'm speaking in support of it and I hope that my colleagues here will too. Again, just to be clear, I think the structure gives the government a lot of latitude and freedom in terms of scheduling the meetings itself and having input on the length of time.

The motion itself also isn't prescriptive in terms of what the next two meetings are doing. It's just saying, let's close off our business before we rise for the summer. This makes a lot of sense, and it's coming from a spirit of co-operation, so I hope my government colleagues will.... Even if we need to break for two or three minutes so they can consult with staff, or whatever needs to be done, hopefully we can have a positive decision on this, and again in the spirit of doing something that resembles work.