Evidence of meeting #118 for Public Safety and National Security in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was immigration.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thank you. I was just making sure everyone was caught up.
The rationale, Mr. Chair, is the fact that throughout this meeting, in the context of the original motion, the minister was asked questions about this third alleged terror plot. He answered those questions. There were two rounds by Conservatives. All parties had a chance to ask on that. There were no objections raised by us, although it was outside, technically, the scope of the meeting. However, these are important questions that Canadians want answers to. We have all of the agencies listed in the original motion here now. Had the member not interrupted the meeting, they would have had the opportunity to ask those very questions.
We have absolutely no issue with expanding the scope, but all of those questions can be posed to the individuals who have been listed and to the responsible agencies. Therefore, I would hope that there is support around the table for this amendment to just ensure that the scope is expanded. However, the Conservatives, if they want to just take over the committee, to not allow us to actually conduct our business and ensure that all parties have the opportunity to ask appropriate questions, if they just want to filibuster the rest of the meeting, that's going to be on them, but we are certainly supportive of expanding the scope as we already have in the previous panel.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I'll ask for a recorded vote on my amendment.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Before we continue the debate on the amendment or proceed to the vote, could we have a version of the amendment in both languages, either by email or on paper? I didn't quite catch it.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
I just amended it on my paper, so I'll have to just—
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I call this meeting back to order.
Ms. O'Connell spoke.
Madame Michaud was next.
Go ahead, Ms. Michaud.
Bloc
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The reason I wanted to speak at the outset was to get the French version, but now I have it.
In addition, during the break, there were discussions among the parties. I'll let my colleagues go first. I'll speak afterwards.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Yes, similar to what Ms. Michaud just said, we've had some conversations. I think one of my concerns is that, number one, officials are operating.... They can't tell us everything about these cases. They also don't want to impede the prosecution's ability in the court case. We are also awaiting an interim report. With all those factors in mind, I think we've come to an agreement.
I'll also cede my time, so we can progress to the next speakers.
Liberal
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Thank you, Chair.
There are a few things. We have had discussions. I'll propose it to our Liberal colleagues shortly.
First of all, I would say that this amendment by Ms. O'Connell does change the scope of the motion that we put forward. My understanding is that it's not admissible, then. If you're changing the scope of the motion with an amendment, it doesn't work. It's just not how this works is my understanding. It just changes it.
I just wanted to point that out. I'm not going to stick to it, but the amendment fundamentally changes what we were asking for. My understanding is that's not appropriate for amendments. I will leave it there, but the next time there is an amendment to a motion, we should just make sure that that is being followed.
We do have an alternative proposal, but I don't believe I can make an amendment to an amendment.
Is that correct?
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
That's right. You are correct. Thank you very much to both of you for confirming that. It's been about a year, so I'm a little rusty.
I would like to propose, I suppose, a subamendment, but first I'll just discuss it, and then I'll move the subamendment.
I recognize that we have had officials' time to come, and we very much appreciate that. Also, the minister has made quite clear—and Minister LeBlanc alluded to this as well, of course, and it's been public—that there are ongoing investigations in Immigration, CSIS and the RCMP, and CBSA are also involved in that. According to what the minister said today, he made it sound like in quite short order, a number of weeks, I believe was the quote, that would be concluded. He several times alluded to how we may have answers by then. I appreciate that there's an investigation, and Canadians expect that.
To give that a little bit of time, I think what we would propose is—since we've already agreed as a committee to have three additional meetings outside this current one, so three extra was already agreed to—rather than ask for more, we would amend the original motion, or this one, whatever works best, to say that both the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Immigration would come respectively for two hours each, plus officials. That's what would be included in those remaining three meetings. The ministers would each come for two hours themselves, plus officials. That way we can ask them questions in response to the investigation.
It is a bit like we're hitting a wall, and I think the Jewish community and others deserve answers on this. We've been hitting that “it's under investigation” wall. I would like to give the minister an opportunity to respond once he can tell us more about the findings, and I would like the Minister of Public Safety—I believe he would agree to it—to come back and answer once he has more information as well.
Our proposal is that. I could amend this motion or I could amend the original one, whatever you think would be better.
Liberal
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
I can move a subamendment. That's what I'm asking about. I just want to make sure that's what you would prefer logistically.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
You want to add to that amendment as one option that we invite both ministers individually to appear for two hours each in the remaining three meetings.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
It's once we have more information. I would include in that in a couple weeks. If months go by, just in the spirit of this, and if it's taking a long time.... I'm sure it may, but again, he said weeks, and I'd like us to stick to that.