Citizenship and Immigration Committee on March 20th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Is it the will of the committee to resume debate?

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

We should take a vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

We will take a vote on that, because some members are requesting it.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Pardon me, Madam Chair, but I've been on many committees now and I have never yet seen a vote on resuming debate on a motion that is live and that has been duly put on notice and debated several times by a committee. I've never seen that at any other parliamentary committee. The motion was not voted down prior at committee. The procedures for committee business are that, if a motion has been duly put on notice as per the rules this committee has set, then any member may move or resume debate on a motion that has yet to be resolved by the committee. Now we have an amendment to that motion. There's no vote to be had, Madam Chair.

The way I understand it, the procedures are done. We are supposed to be debating it. If there are no speakers, then we would proceed to a vote on the amendment and then on the main motion. I'm not going to say anything else because I don't want to prolong the meeting. I do want to go in camera to deal with Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe's point about the meeting of a delegation.

I believe, Madam Chair, that procedurally there would be no vote on whether you can resume debate on a motion that's been duly put on notice and that is live before a committee because it has not been resolved yet.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Kmiec.

I have consulted the clerk, and she has said that, if there is no objection then we can proceed, but if there is an objection and some members are pointing out that there should be a vote, then we have to have a vote because the debate on this motion was adjourned and now we are bringing it back. As per the clerk's advice, if the members are objecting, we will go to a vote. We will vote whether we want to resume the debate on the motion.

Madam Clerk, could you please take the vote?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

On a point of order, Madam Chair, can the clerk please provide the committee the exact page where this rule is in place? I'm looking to other members of the opposition here, but I have never seen something like this happen before in a parliamentary committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Go ahead, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

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

I completely agree with Mr. Kmiec. I think he is right in every way. His whole explanation is true. I don't understand why there is a vote on a possible debate.

There. Mr. Kmiec is right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I will ask the clerk to clarify.

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

If the committee gives its implicit consent to resume debate, then we may resume debate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Do we have the consent?

Mr. Ali.

[Shafqat Ali, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would ask my colleagues. I don't see any harm in resuming the debate because it was adjourned and it was a live motion. I would request that my colleagues allow debate to be resumed.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

If all of the members are saying they are in favour, we will proceed. We have the amendment on the floor.

Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you.

I would like to move a subamendment, but before I go to that, there was a lot of talking going on and I didn't quite hear exactly what the amendment was. I apologize. Can we just hear again what the amendment is?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Mr. Redekopp, could you please repeat it?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

I move that we replace every instance of “March 31” with “April 30”, and that we add the word “former” in front of the reference to MP Garneau. Effectively we're moving it by a month.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Redekopp.

Ms. Kwan, are you clear now?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Yes. Thank you for this.

I guess I'm technically supposed to speak to the amendment. I don't have trouble amending the timeline as proposed, but I would like to move some subamendments to the motion. I would like to move that we delete paragraph (c), which calls for Dr. Lauryn Oates of the Canadian Women for Women in Afghanistan group—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Can I have silence in the room so everyone can understand what subamendment she's proposing?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I'm moving, Madam Chair, a subamendment to delete “(c) Dr. Lauryn Oates, of the Canadian Women for Women in Afghanistan group, be invited to appear individually before the Committee prior to March 31, 2023, for one hour, to discuss matters related to the current study”. I would like to move to delete item (d) as well. Finally, I would like to move a subamendment to change, in item (e), the word “summonses” to “invite”.

Let me just explain why I have moved these subamendments, Madam Chair.

First off, Dr. Lauryn Oates is a representative of the NGO doing incredible work in very difficult times in Afghanistan. I know that she also has staff who work in her organization who are actually in jeopardy at the moment. They need to get to safety but are unable to do so. Of course, I have a lot of questions for the government about its inability to bring these individuals to safety. On this question, she is the only person from an NGO who has been asked to come.

I think, at this point, given the situation that we're dealing with, it would be appropriate to have these various people listed under item (b) come before the committee. I think it is entirely appropriate for that to happen. However, I don't think that Lauryn Oates should be required to come unless she wants to come. I would move that we actually strike that item out. The clerk can invite Dr. Lauryn Oates to send in a submission, if she wishes to do so, in terms of her perspective and views on the matter for the committee's consideration.

With regard to item (d), I'm generally not opposed to having former ministers—or ministers, for that matter—come before the committee. In fact, I think accountability rests with ministers. If it is a former minister and the matter was related to them at the time they were minister, then they should come before the committee to answer these questions.

In the case of former minister Maryam Monsef, it is my understanding that she just had a baby. Being a new mom can be a difficult time in so far as it is so new. It's a happy time as well. Having been a new mom so many years ago now—it was 19 years ago, to be more precise—I remember those days. There were days when I could barely get up. Literally, all of the day would go by, and I would not have brushed my teeth yet. I was just scrambling, trying to do all of the stuff that I was supposed to do as a new mom.

Anyway, it's a bit of a thing. I want to just extend that courtesy to her because I think it could be difficult for her to be away from her baby. I know it's a short period, perhaps, even saying that it's just for two hours. Still, maybe there's another time we can invite her that would be more convenient for her. We can certainly entertain that.

With respect to former staffers Laura Robinson and George Young, I will say this at this time: There may be times when I think former staffers would be appropriate to speak. We're hearing that, in fact—although not a former staffer but a current staffer from the PMO—on the foreign interference question. The NDP actually supports a move.... My colleague Peter Julian actually did move to have Katie Telford come to that committee on the foreign interference issue.

In this instance with these former staffers, what I would like to do first is to have their former bosses come before us. That is, the ministers should come before us to answer pertinent questions. After that, if there's a determination that it is deemed to be necessary or appropriate, then we can call and invite these former staffers to come before us. I think we still have an opportunity to do that. That's why at this point I'm suggesting, Madam Chair, for us to remove clause (d).

Finally, on the words around “summonses” in clause (e), I don't know. I think we had this discussion at some other time with respect to having individuals come before the committee, including ministers. I was told that we're not really able to summon them and rather it's really for the House if the matter is such that they don't come. In this instance, I'm talking about the ministers on the Afghan file. We were frustrated as a committee that those ministers were consistently unavailable and never offering a date. We were frustrated with that process.

I wanted to summon them, and I was pretty well told, no, you can't summon them. You can ask them to come and if they don't by a certain date, then the committee can report the matter to the House, and then the House can take further action, including summoning them to come before the committee. In the spirit of that, that's why I'm proposing that we, instead of using the word “summonses”, use the word “invite”.

That's my thinking behind this, Madam Chair. Otherwise, I'm fine with the change to April 30. I'm fine with the “former” MP Marc Garneau piece as well because that just reflects the current reality of things. I'm looking forward to having these witnesses come before the committee, because the Afghan file is an important one and people's lives are at risk at the moment. It's something that I really want to have our committee work on.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

You mentioned it's like a subamendment, but it is not related to the amendment that was proposed by Mr. Redekopp in regard to changing dates. Therefore, I would seek the committee members' consent as to whether we should deal with what Ms. Kwan is proposing first, and then go on to changing the dates, which Mr. Redekopp proposed. If that's the will of the committee, we can proceed that way.

Ms. Kwan has moved some amendments, so that's what we will get into.

Ms. Rempel Garner.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you.

On the subamendment, I would agree with my colleague on her assessment of paragraph (c). The reason why Dr. Oates was included in the original motion is that Dr. Oates is referenced in an article from, I believe, November 2021, where she speaks about an unnamed senator essentially assisting her organization, people who were affiliated with her organization, with documentation, which is the subject of this. I think it would have been material to know if she had received some of these documents from the senator, because that does say that the process was circumvented for some groups and not for others.

I understand her hesitance, though, in not wanting to be here. On the other hand, in that article, I will point out to my colleague and put on the record that she is cited as saying that—it was either her or someone else in the article—they knew this senator went too far. It bothers me that we potentially had people who were probably very well intentioned and do great work right now working on a process that they may have had suspicions was not legitimate. That's not how we do business in Canada. We should be working to change policy, not circumvent policy, even in the toughest of situations, because that's how we keep processes fair and equitable for everyone.

I do have to take issue with my colleague's suggestion for point (d), and I want her to listen why. I refer her attention, through you, Chair, to an article published by The Globe and Mail on February 17, 2023. The headline of the article is “Sajjan unclear on whether top adviser told him he was sharing Canadian government travel documents with senator”. This article refers to Mr. George Young. Mr. George Young is at the centre of this entire matter. This is the former defence minister's former chief of staff.

This entire article talks about how Minister Sajjan couldn't recall or maybe recalled giving this person a potential document. I'm going to read from the article for my colleague, through you, Chair. This is from an interaction that Mr. Sajjan had with the reporter:

Mr. Sajjan further confused the matter on Thursday. In a brief interview with The Globe, he dodged 10 different questions about whether he knew Mr. Young provided what are called visa facilitation letters to Ms. McPhedran.

I would argue that Mr. Young is material to the committee's study of this matter, given that Minister Sajjan has already had a long interaction with the press wherein he has tried to obfuscate on whether or not he knew or had given permission to Mr. Young for the use of these facilitation letters. I would also point out to my colleague that Mr. Young has used the excuse that he might be invited to this committee as a rationale for not commenting to the press or providing further public comment on this matter.

For me, the most important person out of anybody to attend this committee hearing.... Frankly, the two people are Senator McPhedran and then George Young, as our first starting place, because my understanding, based on everything that has come out in the press and on my understanding of the files, is that Mr. Young is at the heart of this. We need to know whether or not the former minister of defence authorized a workaround process through his chief of staff. If, in the media, Minister Sajjan is already dancing around the issue, then it behooves us as a committee to have Mr. Young here to give his side of the story.

I would argue that any attempts to delete Mr. Young from this, I would say.... I don't want to ascribe motive to my colleague, but I would look to her to seek to amend her motion again to include Mr. Young. Any concerns otherwise, I would say, are trying to perhaps gloss over or perhaps brush the involvement of Mr. Young under the rug, given that there are several media articles, including the one I cited from the Globe, wherein Mr. Sajjan already danced around the press on what he knew when. I just want to get to the bottom of this so that this doesn't happen again.

We're looking at major humanitarian crises around the world right now. We need to make sure this doesn't happen again right now, so that other people aren't impacted by that.

I wish she had separated her subamendment out. I can't support it without having Mr. Young here. I think what will happen without that is that we'll have these ministers maybe come or maybe not, and they will dance around the issue. I'm sure Senator McPhedran will come, though. That will be interesting, but not having Mr. Young here will actually materially change the committee's ability to investigate this matter and I would ask her to consider that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Since the comments from my colleague were put to me directly, I'm happy to offer my thoughts with respect to them.

First off, I want to be very clear and say that I'm not here to try to protect anyone or slip anything under the rug for anyone. Those who know me will definitely realize that's not what I'm made of. That is an aside.

In general, I will say this. It is my view that elected members—when we're talking about government—and ministers and former ministers need to be held accountable. They need to be open and transparent and they need to take responsibility, because that is their job.

Regarding the potential involvement of George Young, I don't know the details of this case, to be honest with you, other than what I've read in the newspaper. The matter is also—as far as I know, unless something has changed—under police investigation. Maybe that's concluded. I don't know. No one has informed me. Again, all I know is what I've read in the newspaper, but the first order of accountability rests with the ministers and former ministers. They need to be held to account, and they need to explain to this committee and the public what has transpired.

We've seen it over and over again that ministers come before us and they talk as though they have marbles in their mouths, and nothing comes out. It may be that we need to move in another direction to find the truth. If that's necessary, I'm absolutely willing to entertain that, but we don't know at this point what will happen.

Maybe I should know better, but I'd like to give that opportunity to these former ministers to come before this committee to answer the questions of committee members. If they refuse to come—as has been the case with current ministers on the Afghanistan situation including, for example, the Minister of DND, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, etc.—we have moved the motion and passed the motion for them to come by a certain date. If that does not happen we will seek other means to try to summon them to come. That option is still available to us. If we invite these ministers to come by this date, which if amended successfully would be April 30, and they don't come by then, I would absolutely be happy to come back and say, “Look, they are refusing to co-operate, and we need to escalate things.”

If these ministers come and offer nothing, if, for example, important questions are put to them and the answer is “I don't know. I can't remember. The dog ate my breakfast and my paper and my homework and all the rest of it” kind of thing, then I think that would warrant further consideration as to what action needs to be taken to get at the truth. I'm open to all of that, but following the steps and procedures that are before us, I think we should move forward as per the way I have subamended the item.

I want to take a moment to talk about Dr. Lauryn Oates. I had the opportunity to speak with Dr. Lauryn Oates after this motion was first moved and—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Ms. Kwan, if I can interrupt you for a second, I want to let the officials go. I see a speaking list, so I don't think there will be an opportunity to go back to Bill S-245. After you, I have two other members who would like to speak.

On behalf of the members of the committee, I would like to thank you for coming today. I'm really sorry we were not able to utilize your time well and that we had to get into the discussion of other motions. If you want to leave, you can. Again, on behalf of all the members, thank you for taking the time to appear before the committee on important legislation.

I'll give the witnesses a second to leave, and then—