Evidence of meeting #64 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
If members like, I will suspend the meeting so members can have a look at the amendment moved by Mr. Redekopp.
The meeting is suspended.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
I call the meeting to order.
We have the amendment that has been proposed by Mr. Redekopp on the floor.
Go ahead, Ms. Kayabaga.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Arielle Kayabaga Liberal London West, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just want to put on the record that I think the purpose of this motion is to hear the witness at committee to make a decision. We would like to keep the two motions separate, so we will vote down the amendment, and then they can move the motion if they like.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK
I have a question. If this gets voted down....
Okay, that's fine.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Mr. Clerk, please take a vote on the amendment proposed by Mr. Redekopp.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)
The amendment is defeated, so we're back to the motion moved by Mr. Dhaliwal.
Go ahead, Mr. Redekopp.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK
Madam Chair, I have another amendment. I would like to add at the end of this “at the next meeting”. I think it's important that we get him here as soon as possible.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK
At the end of the motion, add the words “at the next meeting”.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Mr. Redekopp has moved an amendment to the motion proposed by Mr. Dhaliwal.
Go ahead, Ms. Rempel Garner.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
I think this amendment, with what my colleague is doing, states something that procedurally would have to happen anyway. My understanding is that the appearance of this person is related to the matter of privilege. Otherwise, Mr. Dhaliwal's motion would not have been ruled in order. It's very uncommon for motions to be moved during a clause-by-clause reading, but because it's a matter of privilege, it takes precedence.
My assumption is that because the appearance of the witness is related to the matter of privilege, we can't move forward on clause-by-clause—which we want to do—until he appears and privilege is disposed of.
I think what I'm saying to colleagues is that the amendment states the obvious, and I support it for that reason.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Ms. Rempel Garner, the motion moved by Mr. Dhaliwal relates to the issue we have and the issue on which I have given my ruling. That's why we are dealing with it.
If we finish and vote on this motion today, we can deal with the clause-by-clause and invite the individual in the next meeting. That's what I've been advised by the clerk. If we have to deal with the clause-by-clause, we can deal with the clause-by-clause after we are done with this motion.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Surrey—Newton, BC
Madam Chair, you have already clarified this. Off record, I was talking to one of my friends on the other side about this being an important bill. The amendments have been made, so let's do the clause-by-clause, because we should not interrupt the movement of the bill. Senator Martin has brought it forward, and so much work has been done.
You have already given the ruling, so we should proceed with the clause-by-clause, but at the same time, we should bring in the witness ASAP.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Again, just to put it on the record for my colleagues opposite, I believe the point of my colleague's amendment to the original motion was to try to codify what we just said, which was to get this all disposed with so we can expedite the clause-by-clause of the bill.
Unfortunately, because it was voted down, we will now have to vote on a separate motion and dispose of that motion ahead of this one. What we were trying to do was what Mr. Dhaliwal said, but because they voted it down, we now have to address everything separately, which creates more blockages.
I just want to put on the record that what we were trying to do was give us more time and be expeditious, but here we are.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
My understanding from the last meeting we had was that.... I appreciate your ruling, Madam Chair. From that, I felt that, procedurally, we would not be able to proceed until the witness had actually appeared here before us. Of course, without any knowledge of your ruling or the witness being notified, which we couldn't do until now, I thought we wouldn't be able to proceed today at all.
I think the amendments that have been brought in may clarify that a bit, but I am concerned. I understand from what you just said that we have a ruling that indicates we can proceed. I wonder if you could just clarify that.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
First of all, it's good to be back at this committee. I'm sorry that it's under some less than ideal circumstances, given that we're talking about a privilege issue.
I was just going to say that parliamentary privilege refers to the privileges that allow members of Parliament to do their jobs. If there has been a violation of privilege, then that violation of privilege is impeding members' ability to do their jobs. That's what we're considering in the context of this privilege debate.
It would seem odd to me to go on with the item of business in which the violation of privilege occurred and put aside the privilege violation, because that violation of privilege materially impacted, or could have materially impacted, the proceedings that were happening. That's why it's a breach of privilege. If it is a breach of privilege, then it matters to the considerations under way. If it matters to the considerations under way, then you have to deal with the privilege issue. You can't just revert back to the considerations under way as if nothing had happened.
That said, I think we're probably all agreeing on this amendment. I just want to make the broader point in the context of the discussion. I support the amendment to have the witness come right away.
The point is that, based on your ruling, it seems to me it's a given that there has been an impact, or there could have been an impact, on the clause-by-clause proceedings. That means we have to attend to the privilege issue as a priority because that will help us contextualize other steps the committee needs to take on the issue from which the privilege point arose.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Thank you.
Just for colleagues, I'd like to explain that the reason a motion related to privilege supersedes the course of proceedings for a clause-by-clause is that the point of privilege relates to the clause-by-clause study. Because the finding of privilege relates to the clause-by-clause study, we have to dispose of it before we move forward with the clause-by-clause study. It actually impacts the proceedings of the clause-by-clause. Otherwise, it wouldn't precede this. Procedurally, we have to dispose of this and dispose of it quickly.
I wanted to point out that procedural matter for my colleagues; that's all. We have to dispose of this so we can go on to that. Our intention is to do that quickly, but we have to understand what happened here because it materially impacts how we're reviewing amendments.