Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 26th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

We can now go to a vote on the amendment proposed by Mr. Genuis.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

The amendment is defeated, so we are now on the main motion proposed by Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

Ms. Kwan, go ahead.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to move an amendment, “that pursuant to Standing Order 109, the government table a comprehensive response to the report.” I'd like to add that to the motion.

Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe just raised the concern, though, that the government will have 120 days to make that response and, therefore, the action might be delayed. I recognize that. Of course, the government can take action even now and not necessarily wait for a response.

From my perspective, I think it's important to get the government's response on record, to get a written response from them. These are the kinds of things that the government will talk about for a very long time and then doesn't do anything. This will compel the government to provide a written response, which I would like to see. Requesting the written response does not stop the government from taking action prior to that response, because in that response they can say that they already took action, which would be fantastic.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

We have an amendment proposed by Ms. Kwan.

Mr. Genuis.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to propose a subamendment to Ms. Kwan's amendment. I'll just get that on the record and then explain the rationale.

It would be to revise her response to say, “that the government be asked to provide a comprehensive response by letter.”

This is a mechanism that we've seen in past committees, and I think it achieves the best of both worlds. It expects a government response, but it allows the House of Commons to proceed to take action in the meantime. I've read a lot of committee responses from government. There's a lot of “We take note of, we take note of, we take note of”.

The government is going to have to respond in one way or the other, but I think seeking that more timely response from the government by letter to this committee, and also allowing for parliamentary action to proceed in the meantime, is the best way to go forward.

I'll propose that subamendment that I think, again, gets at the best of both worlds.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis.

Can you please repeat the wording of what you're proposing?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

What I'm proposing is the following: “that the government be asked to provide a comprehensive response by letter”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

We have a subamendment proposed by Mr. Genuis.

Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

You know how much I love it when we have a consensus. It's proof that we're able to work together to take everyone's ideas into account.

We had a motion, then an amendment was introduced, then a subamendment. I support all three of them. I would strongly suggest to everyone on this committee that they do the same. We have people watching us right now, including representatives of the Uighur defence. I'm sure that if we speak with one voice, not only will we give them hope, but they will know that we're working with them and for them, and that we're on their side. That's what I suggest to all members of the committee.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

Seeing no further debate, we will vote on the subamendment proposed by Mr. Genuis.

Ms. Lalonde.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Can the clerk provide a little bit of the procedural element around the subamendment by Mr. Genuis? What does it mean in terms of the proposed amendment from Ms. Kwan versus what Mr. Genuis is asking us?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Ms. Lalonde.

The clerk will provide a clarification in regard to Ms. Lalonde's question.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Stephanie Bond]

What I heard from the subamendment is that it's in addition to Standing Order 109. It's not replacing the obligation to report back to the House. Mr. Genuis is asking to add—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

That's not correct. I'm proposing to revise the language that she had. She's proposed one response mechanism. I'm proposing to amend it to provide a revised response mechanism.

[The Clerk]

So no reference to Standing Order 109...?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

That's correct.

Just to be clear, the reference to 109, a tabled response, means that there could be no debate on this in Parliament or concurrence in the issue for a substantial amount of time, which means that there would be no way for Parliament to act on this report until almost the end of the year. I think a requirement for the government to respond by letter to this committee prevents us from having that four-month delay.

Just in hearing some of the conversation, my understanding is that it's a number of sitting days, not just.... Maybe the clerk can clarify Standing Order 109 and how that applies. I just think that we can give ourselves the greatest possible opportunity to move this forward at a parliamentary level, while also requiring a government response by letter. I think that's the best way to proceed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Just to clarify this in regard to Standing Order 109, it says:

Government response to committee reports.

Within 120 days of the presentation of a report from a standing or special committee, the government shall, upon the request of the committee, table a comprehensive response thereto, and when such a response has been requested, no motion for the concurrence in the report may be proposed until the comprehensive response has been tabled or the expiration of the said period of 120 days.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Chair, to clarify, is that 120 calendar days, not sitting days?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Yes.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Okay. It's not as far off as I thought, but it still does—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

It's “Within 120 days of the presentation of a report from a standing...committee”.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Yes. I maintain the point that any delay isn't desirable, but I appreciate the clarification. Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Can I have the attention of all the members just to clarify one thing? I have consulted the clerk of the committee.

Ms. Kwan moved to add that the government provide a response to the report based on 109. What Mr. Genuis is proposing is changing that.

You are proposing a subamendment and you are changing that. I don't think that's the right thing, to change what she has done, so if you think the letter has to be issued, maybe that can be an amendment after we deal with the amendment that Ms. Kwan has proposed. That can be separate, because you will be changing what she has said, based on 109.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

On a point of order, Madam Chair, I need some clarification from the clerk.

Can we not ask for both so that we actually ask for a comprehensive report? Then, in addition, for a speedier response, can we also ask for a response by letter?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Chair, on a point of order, can I propose that we suspend for five minutes to confer privately? That actually might speed up the process a little.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Yes. We can suspend the meeting for five minutes.