Evidence of meeting #1 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was subcommittee.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:45 a.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I was going to suggest that, in light of the fact that likely this committee won't meet on Thursday, it would make sense for the Thursday timeslot to be a subcommittee so that we can actually get on with making a schedule for the studies we will undertake for this committee.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
That will be another motion.
Right now the motion on the floor for debate is as presented by Mr. Kent, and that's what we are debating right now.
Is there any further discussion on the motion presented by Mr. Kent?
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
Soraya Martinez Ferrada Liberal Hochelaga, QC
Can I ask for a vote on this motion right now? Is that possible?
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Okay, we'll have a recorded vote.
(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)
Mr. Kent.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Peter Kent Conservative Thornhill, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
My third motion is as follows:
That the Committee begin a study to review the failed lottery system for the family reunification program.
As the documents are presented, let me say that we have the analysts at the table now. We have their resources available to begin considering how such studies would be conducted.
With regard to the tabling of motions at this committee, which the clerk has made quite clear is appropriate to do, I don't believe the decision on motions should be made at subcommittee. A motion passed at committee can certainly be crafted, and time allocation and witnesses can be discussed at subcommittee, but I think that for the motions themselves, it's appropriate that they be considered here.
I would think that every member at this table is well aware of the priority concerns with regard to this committee's responsibilities and can certainly commit to making studies on priority issues before Canadians, with later decision-making as to the timing, length, and the witnesses as required.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
Marwan Tabbara Liberal Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON
I'll speak to this motion.
Previously we talked a little bit about family reunification. Our past government did a lot of work to reduce the backlog of a previous government that had a very long backlog. Yes, we always need to look at how to improve family reunification for Canadians so that they're reuniting with their families, ensuring that they're together and work well together. We know that families who are together often succeed much more in our societies. However, I want an opportunity for other members in other committees to bring forward their motions so that we can all have a fruitful discussion—from all different parties, including ours. I want to get into the routine motions. Once we get into that, maybe we can hear other motions, but I know we have to deal with this on the floor.
That's what I have to say for now.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
I certainly recall, in 2015, when the Liberal Party campaigned on making family reunification the centrepiece of immigration. Fast forward to 2020. Family reunification is closed—no new applicants—with no explanation and no solution being proposed at this point.
This committee is uniquely positioned to study the issue. It's an incredibly important issue—I know that. Family reunification is important for so many Canadians, and especially many new Canadians. I don't know why we would not consider studying how the lottery system didn't work. We can always be looking at what systems might be better; that can certainly be part of the study. Why we wouldn't be voting for this, I do not understand. This is a very important issue to many people in my riding, and I'm sure to those of many other members who sit at this committee, so I think we should approve this motion.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Just this morning we adopted a motion that says the following:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be established and be composed of five members; the chair, one member from each party; and that the subcommittee work in the spirit of collaboration.
It seems to me that we've set up something where we're asking the subcommittee to discuss what our agenda should be, what things we ought to study. Obviously, yes, decisions by that subcommittee can always be overturned, or other decisions can be made at the full committee, but we've asked that subcommittee to work in a spirit of collaboration.
It doesn't seem to me that a motion that includes a word like “failed” is really coming in the spirit of collaboration that we're talking about here. I would urge members to consider that there is a role for the subcommittee to work in that spirit and to talk about issues that are, yes, of concern to all Canadians, but I'm sure there are lots of topics this subcommittee will want to address. I look forward to working with the committee on whatever we decide to study.
9:50 a.m.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
As I said earlier, I agree with the substance of the motion, but it seems incomplete. When we talk about the lottery, we're specifically referring to the reunification of families, meaning parents and grandparents. There's no mention of processing times, which vary depending on the country of origin, the number of applicants and certain issues. These factors should be included in the motion.
It would be worthwhile to talk about the regular sponsorship system—spouses, common-law partners and children—and processing times. The motion could be improved in that area. If we decide to table a motion in a subcommittee, I don't think that a time frame of one week, or even two days, justifies the hasty adoption of the motion when we could improve the content.
I urge the committee to vote against the motion, not based on the substance, but on how it's being moved.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
February 18th, 2020 / 9:50 a.m.
Liberal
Marwan Tabbara Liberal Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON
I'd like to move the following motion on independent members and clause-by-clause at committee:
That, in relation to Orders of Reference from the House respecting Bills,
(a) the Clerk of the Committee shall, upon the Committee receiving such an Order of Reference, write to each Member who is not a member of the caucus represented on the Committee to invite those Members to file with the Clerk of the Committee, in both official languages, any amendments to the Bill, which is the subject of the said Order, which they would suggest that the Committee consider;
(b) suggested amendments filed, pursuant to paragraph (a) at least 48 hours prior to the start of clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill to which the amendments relate shall be deemed to be proposed during the said consideration, provided that the Committee may, by motion, vary this deadline in respect of a given Bill; and
(c) during the clause-by-clause consideration of a Bill, the Chair shall allow a Member who filed suggested amendments, pursuant to paragraph (a), an opportunity to make brief representations in support of them.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Peter Kent Conservative Thornhill, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I think the adjournment of the debate on the previous motion has set an unfortunate precedent, but I would like to table my fourth motion today, please, for circulation:
That the Committee begin a comparative study to review any differential in acceptance rates of visitor visas and spousal sponsorships by country of origin of the application.
Again, to my colleague from the Bloc, these motions are made for studies of a general topic. Again, the specifics of how a study would be conducted would, on the one hand, be on the advice of the analysts; secondly, on the input of the individual members of the committee; and again in consideration of witnesses dealing with the different regions of our country who sometimes see these issues in very different lights.
Again, this is an appropriate motion, as the clerk has said, just as the others were as well. I would hope that we would at least have a vote on this motion as well.
Thank you.
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
Marwan Tabbara Liberal Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON
I want to get some clarification on this motion, just for my personal clarification.
Mr. Kent, would you be looking at comparisons between certain countries that have higher acceptance rates?
I'm just going to throw out some examples—for example, central Europe compared with Algeria—to see if the acceptance rate may be higher in one place than in the other, or look at places where there is a lot of volume; for example, India, China, the Philippines.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Peter Kent Conservative Thornhill, ON
All of that, exactly. There is a very stark difference in acceptance rates from different countries, from different regions of the world, and there are apparent reasons attached to that. Certainly there has been opinion offered from a variety of sources in recent years, and this study would explore the full spectrum of the disparity in acceptance rates.
