Evidence of meeting #89 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 chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
The Clerk
The decision that was made was to overturn the chair's decision, which allowed, then, the motion, which is before us now, to be moved. That motion was moved. It was debated. It was then adjourned during that meeting, and now it has been resumed today.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
It is exactly the same wording.
I had three options. I chose the option of members deciding whether they wanted to resume. The members decided to resume, and we're going to continue.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
I appreciate that. This is good clarification for all members, not only for you.
Thank you for your intervention.
I will go to Mr. Chiang, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe and then Ms. Kwan, three of the speakers. Then I'll go to the other list.
Mr. Chiang, go ahead, please.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Paul Chiang Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As the newest member on this committee, I wasn't here when this debate happened and when this motion was moved. I wasn't here, and unfortunately, the previous chair is not here to speak on this.
I'm open to most suggestions. If the member across has a solution for what she would like to do or if she can propose a solution to rectify this issue, I would be happy to listen to what she has to offer.
Thank you.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
I can't take a vote because there are members on the list.
Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, the floor is yours.
5:05 p.m.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I can actually help my colleagues because I was here and I remember what happened. We had in fact planned to include something in the press release, but it was amended without informing the committee members, specifically Ms. Kwan. Whether that was done deliberately or inadvertently is not the issue. The result is what counts. Our trust was broken and our privilege breached.
I sometimes get the feeling that my Liberal colleagues forget what it's like to be in opposition and to have to work with a chairperson who is not a member of their party. If the Liberals were in this position and had experienced this kind of thing, they would probably be the first to move this kind of motion. So I am simply appealing to the goodwill of my Liberal colleagues and their way of looking at politics, and inviting them to reflect on why they entered politics.
When something like this happens, it has to be remedied. I think this motion is important in the interest of democracy. When the privilege of committee members is breached, a motion like the one moved by Ms. Kwan is needed. It is very simple. Sometimes you have to get back to basics and reflect on why you entered politics. In my opinion, once my Liberal colleagues find the answer, it will be fairly easy for them to vote.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
Thank you, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.
Ms. Kwan, you were on the speaking list. Do you want to speak or skip?
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I think much has already been said. If people cast their minds back to what occurred, I've already talked about that on the record. The clerk is correct to outline the history behind this in terms of where we're at.
This is unfinished business. I think we need to move on with a vote one way or the other and move forward with it.
I think it is important for all of us to understand the importance of this place and how much trust we put into the work that we do. I, for one, take my work very seriously. I know committee members know that. I put a lot of effort into it.
As MP Brunelle-Duceppe has indicated, the outcome matters. It is not to be toyed with. When we do our work, the words that we use are very specific and they're there for a specific reason.
Accordingly, I think this motion needs to be voted on so we can have finality and a conclusion with respect to this. I think it's important for all members of Parliament.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
Thank you.
I have the speaking list. I have Mr. Ali, Mr. Drouin, Mr. El-Khoury, Ms. Kayabaga and Mr. McLean.
I'll go to Mr. Ali.
Go ahead, please.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Shafqat Ali Liberal Brampton Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair.
It's surprising to see that the matter came before the committee in June. After almost six months, it's been brought back to the committee by my honourable colleague, who is saying that this is unfinished business.
I'd like to see the intent here. Last week, she didn't like how we worded it. She was disturbed. I'd like to see her rationale in bringing back that unfinished business. Is it really on the content of this motion or does she have something else? I just want to have—
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Shafqat Ali Liberal Brampton Centre, ON
I just wanted to understand. I think today is the last meeting we have for 2023 and it's the last hour. It's a six-month-old issue. If we're voting on something, we need to jog our memories, understand the issue, debate, look at the rationale and then vote on it. That's what I'm trying to understand a bit. I need to see a bit more clarity on this motion before I vote.
The clerk has given the background and we have the motion before us, but I'm not sure if that press release was presented in the House. Where did the breach happen? Was it on the chair's side or was it an analyst who wrote that press release? There are so many dots to connect and so much missing information. I'd like to see those facts before I can come to a conclusion on how to vote on this motion. That's why I wanted to bring that up.
Thank you for your patience.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
Thank you, Mr. Ali.
I explained earlier that every member has a right to bring in a motion. For myself, as the chair, and Mr. Buck, as the clerk, our job is to make sure that the committee is well informed. We follow certain procedures. That procedure is why I brought it to the committee to resume the debate, instead of making that decision at my discretion. The committee was in unanimous support of resuming that debate, and here we are.
We'll continue to provide you support if needed.
Now we will go to Mr. Drouin.
Mr. Drouin, I sense you know everything about immigration when it comes to the farm workers in agriculture and whatnot, so here we go.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I have heard the pleas of my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois and the NDP. I want to reiterate that we are talking about a press release. Unless the motion stated that the committee had to draft the press release or edit or approve it after drafting, I think we are wasting time right now.
One possible solution would be to instruct the analysts to draft another press release. Calling it a breach of privilege is overstating the case. I have never seen this in a committee. It makes no sense. We are meeting in camera and now we are meeting in public to discuss this. Is it because some people want to grandstand? I have no idea, but I have to wonder what is motivating my opposition colleagues, for whom I have a lot of respect.
Let me say again that we are talking about a press release. Has the content of the report tabled in the House changed? No, absolutely not. Was the press release tabled in the House? No, absolutely not. So it is an exaggeration to call it a breach of privilege.
Let's be reasonable and propose a sensible solution. My colleagues are saying that the press release does not reflect the will of the committee. Yet the committee never approved the final version of the press release. I know that because we never do. That being the case, I do not even know why this motion is in order as part of the committee's work. It is a waste of time, in my opinion.
Let's instruct the analysts to draft a new press release and then we can move forward. There is no point in taking this back to the House of Commons since the press release was never tabled there. Only the report was tabled there. The committee suddenly says that a press release will be issued, but it is not tabled in the House.
I know I am getting worked up, Mr. Chair. Let's stop turning around in circles and find a reasonable solution for all committee members. You were not even in your current role when the press release was issued, Mr. Chair, and yet this is being put to you and you have to react. It is ridiculous.
I suggest we give the analysts new instructions to draft a press release that clearly reflects the will of the committee, which is what Ms. Kwan wants. That's it.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
Thank you, Mr. Drouin.
Is it just a suggestion, or do you want to bring in an amendment? We already have a motion on the floor.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Chair, I don't think I can bring an amendment to a call of a breach of privilege. What I would ask is that Ms. Kwan remove her motion and that we give drafting instructions for the new press release—to be approved by all committee members—final version.
We know the analysts do a very good job. They do this every day in all the committees they serve on. I know if there was some intent that somehow didn't reflect the exact word, comma or period.... Obviously, if Ms. Kwan is amicable to this solution, I would ask her to remove this.
As I said, I'm not a regular member, but perhaps she could provide drafting instructions for a new press release. That would be a reasonable solution to what we're facing right now, as opposed to having this matter brought to the House.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
Even though you're not a regular member, you have the right to have an intervention.
Mr. El-Khoury, go ahead, please.
December 12th, 2023 / 5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Fayçal El-Khoury Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I totally agree with my colleague, Mr. Drouin.
Here, Mr. Chair, the situation is as follows: With what Ms. Kwan has proposed, it's pointing fingers at both the former chair, Ms. Salma Zahid, and the analysts. I do believe that, in all ways, the analysts were doing a perfect job, and here we have a doubt of probably bad intentions, which is very serious. When we talk about a breach of privilege, that's something very serious. We're pointing fingers at the former chair and the analysts.
Due to the fact that this letter was not tabled, what is wrong if Ms. Kwan comes with a friendly proposal to rectify and adjust it according to her satisfaction? I'm not seeing anything wrong with that if we're going to be very honest in our intentions in order to bring what Ms. Kwan wants to be on the report. This is what I will say, and this leads me to believe that this should be out of order at this time, unless we solve it and rectify it on a friendly basis.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
Thank you, Mr. El-Khoury.
The motion is in order. I will carry on with the speaking list.
Mr. Kayabaga.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
