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.
Conservative
Liberal
Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
Mr. Chair, I'm sort of taken back. The government is to respond to what? This is a motion. It's going to go to the House to be debated. The government already has the response, because if they wanted to do something like this, they would have done it already. We know the government response.
So the words “allow the government to respond” are just stalling tactics by the government members. The government has the opportunity to respond. This will go to the House, and let's debate it in the House.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Every other one of Ms. Chow's motions has that in there. This is the only one that doesn't have it in there. So there's no reason not to just--
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Please, don't get into a chat. Remember I'm up here.
Monsieur St-Cyr.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
I would like to remind the committee that this motion was introduced and passed in the last Parliament. The government has had ample time to respond to it. I do not feel that it is necessary to give the government more time to respond.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Just to respond to Thierry's point, we haven't had a chance to respond to it. The motion's being put on and we'd like a chance to respond to it, so that's the purpose of it.
In the previous motion that Ms. Chow actually tabled, it says very clearly, “the government table a comprehensive response to the report”. That's all we're asking for the ability to do, and we will do that. This is not a delay tactic; this is simply acknowledging that the government has the opportunity to respond. The process will follow itself through.
Liberal
Maurizio Bevilacqua Liberal Vaughan, ON
If we can get clarification as to the time required by the government to respond, then it will give us a better sense of whether we can support the amendment in the House.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
I was going to amend the amendment and say “within 30 days”. So it would now read “and allow the government to respond within 30 days”. That's a lot of time.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I'm sorry, Ms. Chow, I was just getting counsel from the clerk, and you can proceed. So you're proposing a subamendment?
Liberal
Maurizio Bevilacqua Liberal Vaughan, ON
Either you give them a chance to respond and be reasonable or you don't. You can't have it both ways.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
I want to give the benefit of the doubt to the new minister and the new parliamentary secretary. If I allow that, I hope I will get a unanimous vote, in the spirit of cooperation. Now, if they then vote against it, then it will be clear that the 30 days is a clear stalling tactic. But I always like to give people the benefit of the doubt, so I'm moving that amendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We have a subamendment on the floor.
We'll have Mr. Shory and then Mr. Karygiannis.
Conservative
Devinder Shory Conservative Calgary Northeast, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, to me it seems as though this motion is not as simple as it seems. It will have complications when the word “first“ is added here to say “first in-Canada spousal or common law sponsorship application”. Are we discriminating against people who have, for any reason, been divorced before? Maybe Ms. Chow would like to elaborate on the logic of having the word “first” in here?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Hold it. You can't just jump in when you feel like it here.
Go ahead, Mr. Shory.
Conservative
Devinder Shory Conservative Calgary Northeast, AB
Why should it be “first in-Canada” application only? Why would it not be for a second? Maybe somebody wants to address this.
