Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Feb. 12th, 2009

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond, BC]

Yes, and then colon.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay, we have an amendment on the floor.

Mr. Karygiannis.

[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.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Then what's the problem?

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Why do you need the wording--

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Wait a minute.

Mr. Dykstra.

[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--

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

I didn't see that in any other motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Please, don't get into a chat. Remember I'm up here.

Monsieur St-Cyr.

[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.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Further debate?

Mr. Dykstra.

[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.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Bevilacqua.

[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.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Chow.

[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.

[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?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

We think 30 days is appropriate, reasonable.

[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.

[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.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We have a subamendment on the floor.

We'll have Mr. Shory and then Mr. Karygiannis.

[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?

[An hon. member]

But there's a reason.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Hold it. You can't just jump in when you feel like it here.

Go ahead, Mr. Shory.

[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.