Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 20th, 2020

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have a question about what may be a friendly amendment for Ms. Normandin, but before that, I'd like to ask the clerk a procedure question.

I was looking through the motions that were submitted to us prior to the meeting. I can't see the amendment there, and I know that the clerk mentioned that he'll get in touch with Madam Normandin's office and then circulate it by email, but in person, in the House—I'm not sure about the rules or procedures these days—can we get a copy here physically, or...?

I just want to make sure of what we're reading. That's one part, but there's another component.

Ms. Normandin, you said you were open to changes. If you're willing to remove just the part about two to four meetings, and we keep in the member's motion—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Mr. Serré, on the floor right now we have the subamendment proposed by Mr. Dhaliwal.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Could we just remove that part?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

No. First we have to deal with that subamendment before we go into the amendment proposed by Ms. Normandin.

Right now, we have the subamendment proposed by Mr. Dhaliwal on the floor.

Next on the speakers list is Ms. Dancho.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Chair, I think Mr. Serré's plan suits Mr. Dhaliwal's quite well; I think they're a little bit two of the same.

I appreciate Madame Normandin's suggestion on the start date. It's very important that we nail that down today. I see no problem with that.

Also, bringing forward evidence we learn from this study and future studies makes good sense. Why reinvent the wheel every time?

I believe that eight meetings would be good. I know that in my motion I said “at least eight”. I would be willing to say “a maximum of eight”. I think that's fine.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Next is Ms. Martinez Ferrada.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Like my fellow committee members, I support the member's subamendment. As I was saying earlier, I think we'll need that many meetings to deal with all of the issues covered by the motion.

I agree with Ms. Normandin about using the evidence in subsequent studies and about the start date.

The part of the member's amendment I had trouble with was the number of meetings, so I'm in favour of Mr. Dhaliwal's subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Ms. Normandin is next.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

I just want to clarify what my thinking was.

The reason I proposed two to four meetings initially wasn't to wrap up the debate after four meetings. It was actually to give us time afterwards for specific studies on those three issues. The benefit of an omnibus study is that it lays the groundwork, but there seems to be a consensus among the committee members that we should take a deep dive into the three issues right away. I have no objection, then, to amending my amendment so that it refers to a maximum of eight meetings. That is what you suggested, is it not Mr. Dhaliwal?

If so, I'm happy to support the subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Ms. Normandin.

We have the subamendment proposed by Mr. Dhaliwal that we start the study mentioned in the motion moved by Ms. Dancho not later than October 27 and that we have at least eight meetings.

I don't have the text.

Mr. Dhaliwal, is this the subamendment that you are proposing?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Okay.

Seeing no one on the speakers list, can we have a recorded vote on the subamendment proposed by Mr. Dhaliwal?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

On a point of order, Madam Chair, I wonder if we need a recorded vote, because in the event that we're all agreed, we do not need a recorded vote, I believe.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I will pass it to the clerk to clarify.

Do we?

[The Clerk]

Yes, all votes must be recorded except when the committee is unanimously agreed or on division.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Okay.

Do we have unanimous consent on the subamendment proposed by Mr. Dhaliwal?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

We have unanimous consent.

(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We are now back on the amendment proposed by Ms. Normandin, as amended by the subamendment proposed by Mr. Dhaliwal.

We have Ms. Normandin on the list.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

I just wanted to let you know that it should now be in your mailboxes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Have you sent the amendment?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

The clerks sent it out.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Okay. Just one second. I will read it.

I have not received the amendment, so I would ask Ms. Normandin to please read her amendment as amended by the subamendment proposed by Mr. Dhaliwal.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

With the subamendment, it would read as follows:

That this study begin no later than October 27, 2020, and that the committee hold no more than eight meetings to hear from witnesses; that the witnesses called as part of this study be allowed to testify on one or more of the issues in this motion; that the evidence gathered during this study be deemed to have also been given during subsequent studies to be held during this Parliament, provided that the subsequent studies deal with issues similar to those in this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Go ahead, Ms. Martinez Ferrada.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

I'd like some clarification on the subamendment we just adopted. It's about the wording “at least eight meetings”. That's not what Ms. Normandin said when she read it in French. Could I get some clarification on that, please?