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.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Peter Kent Conservative Thornhill, ON
To answer Mr. Regan's question, it is a proposal to commit to hold a study. The detail of the content of such a study, the length of such a study and the timing of the study would be for the subcommittee to determine on availability, but it is appropriate to bring these motions to the floor today, and I wish to bring them and have them voted on.
Thank you.
9:35 a.m.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
My comments are somewhat along the same lines as Ms. Ferrada's comments. Given that the committee is always free to determine the mandates that it wishes to fulfill, I wonder whether it's a bit premature to present these proposals now, when we haven't had time to consider them or to assess their merits. At first glance, the motions seem particularly well founded. However, perhaps some advance notice of a discussion on the motions would give us the chance to amend them and maybe even clarify them. This isn't in any way a judgment on the merits of these motions.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Given that the election was almost four months ago and the committee is just meeting now for the first time, I think it's important that we hit the ground running and that we have substantive studies the committee can start to work forward on. I don't think the motions being brought forward are exceptionally complicated, and I think we can all agree, yes or no, if we want to study these issues.
I think these issues that are being raised are very important and that we should have some work for the committee to do right away.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
We just adopted a motion on notices of motion requiring 48 hours' notice for any substantive motion to be considered, unless the substantive motion relates directly to the business under consideration. The business under consideration, according to the agenda of this meeting, is the election of the chair.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
It was right after the election of the chair, before the routine motions were presented.
Ms. Martinez Ferrada.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Soraya Martinez Ferrada Liberal Hochelaga, QC
The process may seem a little complicated, but I think that, in the spirit of collaboration, we can all agree to look at the issues that are really important. In that spirit of collaboration, it would be useful to take the time to read the motions and amend them, not to block them, but to make them even better.
This could be done in a committee or subcommittee.
I don't know what the word is in French, I'm sorry.
It's “sous-comité”? Thank you.
Let's take the time to look at it and discuss it. Let's give notice of all the motions the members want to make today and let's talk about these motions in a subcommittee and bring them back, maybe with amendments or not, and vote on them at the next meeting.
9:35 a.m.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
I don't think that we're going to suffer as a result of a two-day extension to gather more information, or even to add content. I'm thinking, for example, of the lottery system for the family reunification program. This system isn't the only one that has been used in the past. Many other systems may be worth reviewing. This issue could be subject to a subamendment.
In my opinion, two days to reflect on these issues would benefit everyone. It wouldn't prevent us from discussing the substance of the issues. I don't intend to delay things. However, I think that everyone would benefit from a little time—I'm not talking about months—to see whether any improvements to the motions can be proposed.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
Marwan Tabbara Liberal Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I agree with my Bloc colleague. I also want to point out that we just passed a motion to have the minister come in with his officials and discuss his mandate and discuss probably the vision of immigration and where the department wants to be in the future and the minister's vision.
I think out of that meeting we can get a good outlook on where the minister lies and his vision, the department's vision, and we can ask detailed questions about the mandate, about where we want to go. I think from there a lot of us have many motions we want to bring forward and some questions we want to have. Once we have this first official meeting with the minister, I think we should then go into a subcommittee or another committee and discuss an array of topics. I think, first and foremost, the first motion that we passed is a good way to start this committee. I think for the next motions we should discuss them all in a group.
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
I was actually just thinking about the point that Mr. Regan had raised. That is on the passing of the routine motions. When the committee first considered the motion for the minister to come before us, that motion was raised before the routine motion on notices of motion was passed. Then since that time, we passed the motion about requiring notice of motion. Therefore one would assume, going forward with the rest of the committee, that the motions that are tabled would require sufficient notices per the routine motions that we just passed governing this committee. I'm just needing some further clarification with respect to that.
As I said, I don't have a problem having topics to be tabled at the committee, for us to entertain those topics to be included in studies for this committee. I just think we should make sure we follow the procedures that we have set out governing this committee.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
9:40 a.m.
The Clerk
For the information of the members of the committee, right after we elected the chair the committee went into committee business to discuss any matter, so the floor at that point was open to anything. The routine motion that was adopted says 48 hours notice “unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration”. Under committee business, any motion can be moved without the 48 hours' notice because it's related to the committee business that's going on.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
My understanding, from the discussion we've already had today, is that we're not meeting on Thursday, and then we may or may not have the minister coming next week. I don't know. Why would we not move forward with studies, so that we can at least have the subcommittee start to look at which studies and when those studies should be brought forward? I know all of my colleagues came here to work on behalf of their constituents. Suggesting that we don't deal with matters for another few weeks, when we haven't dealt with anything in four months, to me seems like a great waste of time. These are not overly complicated motions. I think we should proceed to voting on whether we're going to move forward with these motions or not do anything for another few weeks.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
Soraya Martinez Ferrada Liberal Hochelaga, QC
Can I move an amendment to the effect that the motion be referred immediately to a subcommittee and that the subcommittee meet on Thursday?
There is nothing that prevents us to do a subcommittee meeting on Thursday and come back next week. It's just a suggestion.
Can I amend the motion to send it in to discussion to a subcommittee?
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Just one second.
That's outside the scope of the motion on the floor for what we are debating right now.
Next on the list is Ms. Kwan.