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
There's no unanimous consent.
We'll come back 10 minutes after the vote is done. Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
I call the meeting back to order.
MP Kwan, you have the floor. Please go ahead.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Just before the vote, I was talking about the history of what happened in the last administration. It was only one story, that of Mr. Seidu Mohammed. There are other instances that I can talk about and bring to the committee's attention.
At this juncture, though, I'd like to move an amendment to the motion. I will get my staff to send it in both French and English to the clerk for distribution. In the meantime, I'll read it into the record.
The motion reads—
Liberal
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Yes.
I will highlight the parts of the motion where I am amending. The language is as follows:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study on the implications for Canada
I'm adding “and for undocumented people and people with temporary status in the United States”. That's the change.
The original motion goes on to say:
of the measures announced by Donald Trump during the U.S. presidential campaign regarding the deportation of
Here I add in new language, “undocumented”. Then it's back to the original language:
persons
Then I'm adding new language, “and their family members, including children, who are U.S. citizens”. Then it goes on with the original language:
who are in the United States
My amendment would be to strike the word “illegally”. Then I add further 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 country for refugees.”
Then, in the next clause, add a new word, “request”. Then it's the original language:
the Canadian federal government
Add new language, “to table their”. Then it's the original language:
plan to ensure border security and compliance with federal immigration statutes and policies;
Add new language “and to examine its implication in compliance with Canada's obligations under the charter and international law, including the 1951 Refugees Convention, to which Canada is a signatory for 55 years, and that the study take into account this committee's report on asylum seekers at Canada's border that recommended the Safe Third Country Agreement exemptions for gender-based claims and claims from moratorium countries in recognition of the risk of harms these claimants face in the U.S. prior to the current deportation issues.”
Those would be my amendments.
Liberal
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Chair, having heard what the motion is doing and amending, I don't believe that this amendment is in order. It changes the substance of the original motion. It's a subamendment, but it doesn't amend the amendment. It's like an entirely new thing that changes the total substance of it. I don't believe it's in order, and I'd like the chair's ruling on it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
Thank you, Mr. Kmiec, for raising the point of order.
I'm reading from chapter 12 about subamendments.
Most of what applies to amendments applies equally to subamendments. Each subamendment must be strictly relevant to, and not at variance with the sense of, the corresponding amendment and must seek to modify the amendment and not the original question. A subamendment cannot enlarge upon the amendment, introduce new matters foreign to it or differ in substance from it. A subamendment cannot strike out all of the words in an amendment, thereby nullifying it; the Speaker has ruled that the proper course in such a case would be for the House to defeat the amendment. Debate on a subamendment is restricted to the words added to or omitted from the original motion by amendment. Since subamendments cannot be further amended, a Member wishing to change one under debate must wait until it is defeated and then propose a new subamendment.
According to this, my interpretation is that this is out of order, and we have to deal with Mr. Chiang's amendment first. Then, if MP Kwan wants to bring it forward, she has the right.
I'll give the floor to MP Kwan.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for that clarification.
As I understand your ruling, this will not be deemed to be in order as a subamendment. However, when the amendment by Mr. Chiang is dealt with, I will be able to come back and move this as an amendment, separate and apart.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
I'm okay with that.
In that case, I'll take it as giving notice on the amendment that will be brought about at the appropriate time. I think that those elements expand the study and take in crucial information that is important for the committee to evaluate if we're going to undertake such a study.
Mr. Chair, I'm fine with that ruling. I will not challenge your ruling from that perspective.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Chair, I'm going to seek your guidance in terms of process with respect to the next steps. I could go on with my deliberation on the matter and could offer my comments. However, I think that you wanted to ask a question of the committee.
I will cede the floor to you, at this point, with respect to that. I have much more to say about this, but perhaps we can come back to it after you have your intervention.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
Thank you, MP Kwan.
Honourable members, my thought process is this. We have postponed the witnesses. Monday, we already have business planned. There is only a handful of meetings left, if we can get this business, the ones that we have on the schedule, out of the way.
If we continue with this debate, I know that MP Kwan has tremendous knowledge and background, and she could keep going on this, so we might be doing this for a few days. My thought process is that we could adjourn this meeting and then go back to our regular business on Monday. That is my suggestion to you. Again, the committee decides its own work process.
Next, I have Mr. Redekopp.
Conservative
Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK
Thank you, Chair.
I guess to aid in that discussion, could you please tell us what the plan is for next week?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
Certainly.
I would like to inform you that there is an absence of response from both ministers. I have requested that the clerk invite officials to appear on Monday, December 9, regarding the study of the issuance of passports to human smugglers.
CBSA and Public Safety have concluded that their involvement in this matter related to passports and human smuggling is limited. Additionally, the RCMP is unable to provide information at this time due to the ongoing nature of the investigation. As a result, Public Safety, the RCMP and CBSA are declining the invitation. Only people from IRCC and from the passport program can appear, and they will be invited on Monday.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. Could you repeat that part? Did you say CBSA declined the invitation? Did I hear that correctly?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
The RCMP and CBSA are declining the invitation, as CBSA and Public Safety have concluded that their involvement in matters related to passports and human smuggling is limited.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Oh, my goodness.
Could you clarify, Mr. Chair, that the minister has also declined?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
That is correct. They did not decline, but they are not available on that day.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Did they say when they might be available? Did we seek that information from them?
Liberal
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
I'm sorry, but I was asking those questions for clarification.
I think Mr. Redekopp has the floor, and then I would like to have the floor after.