Evidence of meeting #119 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was students.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
Thank you.
All in favour of the amendment brought forward by MP Chiang?
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now we are back to the motion as amended.
I have two speakers, MP Chiang and MP Kwan.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
At this juncture, I would like to move an amendment to the motion. This was shared previously, and I'm going to move this amendment now. I will highlight the parts to which the changes are taking place, Mr. Chair.
The motion reads: That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study on the implications for Canada—adding in these new words—“and for undocumented people and people with temporary status in the United States”—then going back to the original language—of the measures announced by Donald Trump during the U.S. presidential campaign regarding the deportation of— adding a new word—“undocumented”—then going back to original language—persons. Then it's adding new language—“and their family members including children who are U.S. citizens;”—going back to the original language—who are in the United States—then striking out the word “illegally”.
Then it's adding in new language—“Examine the proposal by U.S. president-elect Donald Trump to carry out the 'largest deportation program in American history' of millions of undocumented residents of the U.S., including his stated intentions to declare a national emergency and deploy the U.S. military to carry out mass deportations to determine if the U.S. still qualifies as a safe third country for refugees;”
Then, “Request”—a change here, and then going back to the original language—the Canadian federal government—adding the new language—“to table their”—going back to the original language—“plan to ensure border security and compliance with federal immigration statutes and policies”—then adding new language—“and to examine that it's in compliance with Canada's obligations under the Charter and international law, including the 1951 Refugees Convention to which Canada is a signatory of for 55 years;”
It's adding new language—“And that the study take into account this committee's report on Asylum Seekers at Canada's Border that recommended [safe third country] exemptions for gender-based claims and claims from moratorium countries in recognition of the risk of harm these claimants face in the U.S. prior to the current deportation issues.”
Mr. Chair—
Liberal
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Chair, this substantive amendment has the same problem as the subamendment that was attempted before, which you ruled out of order. On page 541, under “The Process of Debate” in chapter 12, it says distinctly, “An amendment should be so framed that, if agreed to, it will leave the main motion intelligible and internally consistent.” It says what's out of order. I would say that this amendment makes this motion that we've been debating not consistent anymore. It introduces a whole bunch of new ideas and entirely new subject matters for consideration, some of which, I would submit to you, Chair, are out of order, because they are out of the scope of the committee's work.
I would also draw your attention to the three bullets on page 541. Some of the substance of this “is irrelevant to the main motion” and “it deals with a matter foreign to the main motion, exceeds its scope, or introduces a new proposition, which should properly be the subject of a separate substantive motion with notice”.
I submit to you, Chair, that is the case with this amendment.
I also would raise this question. It's substantially the same one that we have dealt with—a subamendment that you ruled out of order as well. I think it's contrary in some parts to the main motion, which was to invite two ministers to talk about the Canadian experience.
I would also submit to you that it also violates chapter 20 under the committee's work sections on what is an allowable amendment that can be submitted through the process. This is an entirely new motion. It can't be ruled in order, Chair.
I would like a ruling from you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
Thank you. I'll give the ruling as soon as MP Kwan finishes her amendment.
MP Kwan, have you finished the amendment and the wording of the motion?
Liberal
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
I finished the wording of the motion, Mr. Chair.
In the ruling that you're about to make on whether or not this is in order, I would argue that this is exactly the nature of the issue we're dealing with.
As you can see by the original motion, it actually says, “the committee undertake a study on the implications for Canada of the measures announced by Donald Trump during the U.S. presidential campaign regarding the deportation of persons who are in the United States”, and “the Canadian federal government's plan to ensure border security and compliance with...immigration statutes and policies.”
My amendment to this deals with the United States and its immigration policy. It expands on it by adding some additional components to it, but it is consistent with the thrust of this motion, which, centrally, is about the U.S. presidential campaign plan to massively deport people in the United States and the Canadian government's plan for how it's going to deal with it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
I'm going to suspend for a few minutes and I'm going to come up with the ruling momentarily.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
I call the meeting back to order.
I heard the arguments from both Mr. Kmiec and MP Kwan.
My ruling goes along with Mr. Kmiec. This goes beyond the scope of the original motion, so we are back to the motion as amended.
You can challenge the chair, MP Kwan, but that's what—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
Okay, the chair is challenged. There's no debate.
I'll take a vote on this one.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
I would remind everyone to consider the health and safety of the interpreters. We have to wait for the chair to recognize us and for the microphones to be turned on.
Need I remind you that our interpreters do an exceptional job and that they are the best in the world?
Liberal
Arielle Kayabaga Liberal London West, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I apologize to my colleagues. I thought this was going to be a really quick thing.
You're about to call a vote and we're going to have to say yes or no. I'm just trying to figure out if we are voting yes or no to sustain the ruling of the chair.
Can you make the language plain and understandable?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
It is to sustain the ruling of the chair.
I would ask the clerk to say one more time what we are voting on.
The Clerk
The question is, shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 11; nays 1)