Evidence of meeting #30 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was citizenship.
A video is available from Parliament.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
It's to finish this amendment.
Do I have unanimous consent? I have to have it to proceed.
3:55 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Costas Menegakis Conservative Richmond Hill, ON
I was a little perplexed with the explanation of the members from the NDP, particularly Ms. Blanchette-Lamothe, because I don't think she was describing this particular amendment.
As I read amendment NDP-2 before me, Mr. Chair, the amendment would allow time spent outside of the country by permanent residents for professional reasons to count towards residency requirements. That's the amendment NDP-2 I have before me. If that's the amendment we're discussing here and not the explanation I heard, the government will not be supporting the amendment.
We believe that a six-year window to accumulate four years of physical presence provides flexibility to accommodate applicants whose work or personal circumstances from time to time require them to travel outside of the country. All applicants will be able to accumulate absences of up to two years within the qualifying period. We believe the bill provides enough flexibility for that, and therefore, we will not be supporting amendment NDP-2.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe NDP Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
As my colleague mentioned, I was talking about the wrong amendment. There are so many I got confused. My apologies.
The amendment currently before the committee would amend how the amount of time spent in Canada is calculated for individuals who travel outside the country for professional reasons. That would include airplane pilots or salespeople who travel abroad for work.
Many permanent residents have to travel for work, and it is extremely beneficial to Canadians for them to do so, especially in the case of airplane pilots. But, in its current form, Bill C-24 would penalize these individuals for time spent outside Canada, even for professional reasons. The NDP finds that unacceptable and believes the situation has to be rectified. These are working individuals who are doing what is expected of them as future citizens, and they shouldn't be penalized for that.
Thank you for giving me a chance to correct myself.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I enjoyed both presentations.
Is there any further debate?
Madame Clerk, could we have a recorded vote on New Democratic Party amendment number NDP-2.
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
When we return, we will proceed with Mr. McCallum's Liberal amendment LIB-3.
We will suspend.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Ladies and gentlemen, we're back at it again.
We finished with the New Democratic Party amendment NDP-2, and we now have Liberal amendment LIB-3.
Mr. McCallum has the floor.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Mr. Chair, this is the one area where I think the government might conceivably give a little bit of ground, but we shall soon find out.
This amendment has to do with the time put towards becoming citizens that is credited to international students or temporary foreign workers before they become permanent residents.
Up until now they have been given 50% credit. I think this law would take away all of that credit. I think we could agree that international students in particular represent very good prospects for Canadian citizenship in the sense that they're well educated; they've been in Canada for a while; they have often worked in Canada; and there are many other countries competing for them. This becomes a competitive disadvantage if we make them less welcome.
Our proposal is to keep the status quo, whereby they get 50% credit for their time in Canada as pre-permanent residents as a partial credit to their time before they can become citizens.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
I believe that's the same as NDP amendment NDP-2, but if you want to vote on it, I'll just repeat it and say it's the same as amendment NDP-2.
I don't know if we are there. Are we?
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
I believe, Mr. Chair, that Liberal amendment LIB-4 is the same as NDP amendment NDP-2, which has to do with people outside Canada employed by a Canadian company being credited with time towards permanent residency. The government has already voted against amendment NDP-2, and this is effectively the same thing.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Okay.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Ms. May, you have an amendment, private member's amendment PV-2.
4:45 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Yes.
Actually, the PV, interestingly enough, stands for Parti vert. There is a lot of confusion about my status, and I love to clarify it for people, that—
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
Green
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Well, I'm going to say that I've looked at your amendment, and I'll call you whatever you want me to call you.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Green Party it is.
We're talking about Green Party amendments PV-2 and PV-3. I've looked at them and I'm going to rule them inadmissible. I believe, Mr. Méla, the legislative clerk, has spoken to you.
For the record, I happen to agree with the legislative clerk. One of the goals of clause 3 of Bill C-24 is to provide faster access to Canadian citizenship for permanent residents who are enrolled in or attached to or seconded by the Canadian Armed Forces. The amendment speaks about permanent residents who are not part of the Canadian Armed Forces, and therefore it goes beyond the scope of the bill. In that case, we refer to the procedure book of O'Brien and Bosc, page 766, which says:
An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.
I make the same ruling for Green Party amendment PV-3, and therefore I declare that the Green Party amendments PV-2 and PV-3 are inadmissible.
We now move to Liberal amendment LIB-5.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe NDP Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I have an amendment, which you don't have in your hands now, that might go before the Liberal amendment. It's for page 14, lines 5 to 14. I wonder if I should present it now or if you want me to wait until later on.