Evidence of meeting #1 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was subcommittee.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
I think I'm okay with that amendment. I'm trying to think of an example where that would occur. I wonder whether Mr. Regan could provide an example so we can conceptualize the content in reference to the amendment.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
I think we can imagine that when we speak about consular issues, there are times when there are matters that ought not to be disclosed publicly in the interest of the people we're dealing with.
9:25 a.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
I'm fine with that, Madam speaker. In a way I guess that could potentially also fall into the national security component. When I say “national security”, I mean it in the broadest sense in that context, but I'm fine with that further clarification.
9:25 a.m.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
I just want to make sure that the next part makes sense. Could you reread the preamble and paragraph (d) together?
9:25 a.m.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
I would like you to read the preamble and paragraph (d) so that we can check for consistency.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
The motion as proposed by Ms. Kwan reads as follows:
That any motion to go in camera should be debatable and amendable, and that the committee may only meet in camera for the following purposes:
(a) to discuss administrative matters of the committee
(b) a draft report
(c) briefings concerning national security;
The amendment proposed by Mr. Regan would add:
and (d) to discuss matters involving an individual's private information.
The motion would then continue as was:
Furthermore, minutes of in camera meeting should reflect on the results of all votes taken by the committee while in camera, including how each member voted when a recorded vote is requested.
All those in favour of the amendment proposed by Mr. Regan?
(Amendment agreed to)
(Motion as amended agreed to)
Mr. Tabbara.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Marwan Tabbara Liberal Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON
On notice of motions, I move:
That a forty-eight (48) hours notice, interpreted as two (2) nights, shall be required for any substantive motion to be considered by the Committee, unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration, provided that (1) the notice be filed with the Clerk of the Committee no later than 4:00 p.m. from Monday to Friday; that (2) the motion be distributed to Members in both official languages by the Clerk on the same day the said notice was transmitted if it was received no later than the deadline hour; and that (3) notices received after the deadline hour or on a non-business days be deemed to have been received during the next business day and that when the committee is travelling on official business, no substantive motions may be moved
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Peter Kent Conservative Thornhill, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
As I said, I have three other motions that I would like to propose.
The first of these reads:
That the Committee begin a study on the impacts of the unfair delays in processing times for irregular border crossers on the minister's resources, the applicants that are applying through traditional methods and the irregular crossers themselves
Again, I think this is an issue that is front of mind, certainly for parliamentarians but also for our constituents across the country, particularly in those communities on whom the burden of support falls most heavily during long processing delays.
I'm sure this will be of importance and would have municipalities, regional governments and provincial governments following it with great interest.
9:25 a.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
In terms of studies, I suspect that we have a variety of different studies that we would like to entertain. My understanding of the purpose of this meeting today was to deal with routine proceedings, but now we're heading into studies.
I would like to propose that perhaps studies could be considered at a subcommittee whereby we could all bring our proposed study topics to the table and then we can arrange a schedule accordingly.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Peter Kent Conservative Thornhill, ON
I appreciate my colleague's response and suggestion.
However, I think it's appropriate, certainly after at least agreeing or not on study proposals today—and I have two more motions to propose—that a subcommittee could then consider the priorities for the agenda in the days, weeks and months going forward. Again, that depends on the amount of time we would want to allocate to each study.
I wish to continue to have this motion considered today, and the two other motions that I have with me as well.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
9:30 a.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
During that little break we had, I had clarification from Mr. Kent. The purpose of his motion is simply to raise the topics for discussion, as opposed to specifying the details around when to do the study and so on.
In light of that, I'm fine with supporting the motion proposing this topic.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Can I ask whether that would mean that, when the subcommittee meets, this would be among the topics discussed? I presume you'd have a broad discussion on various things, because I'm sure others will want to bring forward ideas about what we should be studying as well.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Soraya Martinez Ferrada Liberal Hochelaga, QC
As I said earlier, I'm sitting on the committee for the first time. As Mr. Regan just said, a number of committee members want to move motions for discussion, and I want to ask you a few questions.
So I wonder if it's possible to give them notice today and have a subcommittee talk about prioritizing the subjects that we want to study, how long we want to study them for, and have that discussion at subcommittee.
Is that something that could be done?
