Evidence of meeting #16 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was removal.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Can we make representation on that? I'd like to make representation on that.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
Mr. Chair, the ruling has been challenged. There's no debate. Call the vote.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
The question has to be put.
Shall the chair's ruling be sustained?
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
An hon. member
No.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
The ruling of the chair is that we have a valid point of order here.
5:15 p.m.
An hon. member
No, no, we're challenging the ruling.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
The ruling is that it's a valid point of order. The question has been put by Mr. Telegdi.
(Ruling of the chair overturned)
The chair has been challenged and the ruling has not been sustained; therefore, we will now put the motion.
Is there any debate on the motion?
Mr. St-Cyr.
5:15 p.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to propose an amendment to Ms. Chow's motion. I would like to add “for the first time in their life” or “their first-ever application” to “who has filed an in-Canada spousal or common law sponsorship application”, to avoid cases in which the individual files several applications. We spoke about that earlier. It could be worded more appropriately by someone else at the table.
Regardless, I would like to include the idea that the automatic stay would apply only when the first sponsorship application is filed, and that if an individual files subsequent sponsorship applications, this stay would not automatically be applied.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON
No, no, I'm speaking on the motion. I was on before you, way before you. I was on the list. He has a list.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
I have a list of speakers. I'm going to Mr. Telegdi, and then Mr. Komarnicki.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON
Look, we're not talking about huge numbers here, but we're talking about people who are impacted. If you go back to the 11% figure that they said it was, then you're talking about something like 1,500 people. But that includes all sorts of other categories.
The issue we are dealing with--the Conservatives should like this--is called family values. You do not split up families. You do not split up spouses. You do not split up parents and children.
What the motion speaks to is that an application is made...and we hear that 90% of the ones who are dealt with are legitimate, so I could make the conclusion that maybe similar numbers of those who get booted out are legitimate as well.
At any rate, what this speaks to is that the department does not deport somebody, does not take away a child from their mother or father, does not take a husband and wife away from each other, does not separate spouses. It's family values. This is the time to walk the talk. And that's what this motion is about. If an application is not legitimate, then removal can take place. But don't do removals of people who have not had their applications ruled on.
It's very simple: family values.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
I think that any motion, including the amendment, is inappropriate--I'm surprised the Bloc would not wait--until all the information is in. I don't understand that. Either Mr. Telegdi and Mr. Karygiannis had a question of some relevance or it shouldn't have been asked.
If we agree that it was relevant enough for him to ask it, and for the department officials to answer it, it impinges upon what we're deciding. To decide it without that is inappropriate. We're talking about democracy here. We're not talking about what's good....
No, it's a fact. You either do a report or you don't do a report.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Once you do a report, you ought to do it the way reports are normally done in a democracy: you wait until all the evidence is in. You don't go to the court, present half your evidence, and have the judge decide. If you're going to do that, don't do any evidence; just decide.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
The fact of the matter is that you're making an amendment before you've heard all the evidence--
