Evidence of meeting #3 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was application.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:15 a.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
They are two separate ones. They should never have been connected. I had no intention of connecting them.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I take the view that the motion is as she has read it to the committee.
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
Mr. Chair, it's a two-part motion, part one and part two. Part one, if I'm not mistaken, talks about war resisters.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
9:15 a.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
Mr. Chair, a point of order. When I submitted those motions, I submitted them separately. The clerk chose to connect them. I don't need to.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Just give me a minute.
It doesn't matter. We're getting into procedure. What are you suggesting, Mr. Karygiannis?
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
Mr. Chair, the difficulty I have, and certainly it's a point for clarification if the committee wants to split them.... Point number one talks about war resisters. I am just wondering if point number two is a continuation of point number one, because if you are a war resister in Canada and you are married, then it could be that we're dealing with the war resisters and a spousal application versus two separate applications.
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Maurizio Bevilacqua Liberal Vaughan, ON
Mr. Chair, if I may, it's obvious to me that Ms. Chow's intention was to have two different motions, so the committee should deal with them like that accordingly.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Okay, Ms. Chow, carry on with your words of advice here with respect to that motion.
9:15 a.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
Mr. Chair, whatever you deem appropriate.
Coming back to the content, for those of you who are new to this committee, in the past few years we have seen quite a few cases where couples have been married in Canada, and the Canadian spouse has sponsored the new husband or new wife. The application supposedly takes six months, and it is all done in Canada. Unfortunately, in some cases, for some reason the application has taken longer than six months. Sometimes it takes a year, two years, sometimes even longer. In the meantime, the wife becomes pregnant and the couple has kids. The family establishes roots in Canada just like any new family. What is tragic about this situation is that in the meantime, Canada Border Services Agency says that because the person is out of status, it will proceed to deport the spouse that is being sponsored. When department officials came to talk to us, we said, “Wait a second. It does not make sense for you to deport the spouse. You have not proved that it's a marriage of convenience. If you have proven it's a marriage of convenience, by all means deport the person, but you haven't made that determination. So perhaps you could not deport these inland-sponsored applicants until after that determination has been made.”
This motion is saying that the applicants be given a work permit and that they not be deported until a decision is made. Sometimes the applicants are pregnant, or they have kids, or they could be the breadwinner of the family. What happens if they are deported is that the family is thrown into total chaos and financial and emotional hardship.
In the meantime--let's say the person is from China--once the person is deported, the application to sponsor such a person has to start all over again, and it is another six months, a year, sometimes even two years before the person gets back into the country. That's a really difficult separation for the family.
This is a common-sense motion. It saves Canadian taxpayers' money, in that the application process does not have to start all over again overseas. It saves money for CBSA, as it would not have to deport the person. Some inland applicants end up appealing the decision to the Federal Court. They do all this legal manoeuvring in order to stay in Canada as long as possible while their CIC application is being processed. It's a lose-lose situation for the applicants and their families, and for CBSA, CIC, and the overseas visa office.
That's why I brought this motion back into this committee. We approved it at this committee last term, but in the meantime, I've experienced quite a few more cases where the spouses are facing deportation. In one case the woman was three or four months pregnant. She already had a six-month-old baby here. She was facing deportation around Christmas and New Year's. It made no sense. Thank goodness she got a minister's permit to stay, because it was really hard for the family.
That's why I'm putting that motion in front of you. I would hope the government would draft a response and that it would agree and would enact some legislative change.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
Mr. Chair, I certainly would have no problem supporting such a motion, but I'm just wondering if we need a point of clarification from Ms. Chow.
Although it's a first-time sponsorship application when they address the situation, if the spouse previously was a refugee claimant, or a failed refugee claimant, and had applied for an H and C, does that also mean that the first application to the agency was to take precedence over the sponsorship?
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
I don't want to complicate this, because there are many shades here. Let's say I'm a sponsor with a track record of sponsoring spouses and then divorcing, with shades of marriage of convenience. That we should not tolerate, and that's why the word “first” sponsorship was added by the committee. As I recall, we didn't want to have to tolerate people who abused our system. It's a small percentage, but that is why this reads the way it does.
A lot of committee members provided their wisdom in fine-tuning the original motion. That's why it reads “first” in-Canada sponsorship, and so on.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
That still does not answer my question. It's very simple: if the spouse is a previous failed refugee claimant and all of a sudden he gets married, but there is a first spousal sponsorship, and he still has an H and C in the system....
Does the member understand what I'm talking about?
9:25 a.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
Yes, I know exactly. I just don't think they should be excluded from being considered in this motion. People fall in love and get married, and whether they have previously filed or not--
9:25 a.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
Oh, it happens to us, especially close to Valentine's Day. It's coming up.
So whether there is an H and C application or previous refugee claim, it doesn't matter; I just don't think they should be deported.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
Fair enough, Mr. Chair, but if somebody has an H and C application, how can they file a sponsorship application when the first H and C application is already in?
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Is there any further debate on this Valentine's Day motion?
Mr. Shory.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Do you want to suspend for a minute, members? What do you want to do?
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I don't know. I'm just sitting here looking for people to tell me what to do.
Mr. Shory has the floor.
