Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 14th, 2020

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I need some clarification, please.

First, I'm new to Parliament and to the committee, so there's something I don't understand. I sent my motion to the committee's general mailbox well before my fellow member asked for a vote. I feel that my privilege as a member has been violated because members voted on a motion they weren't even able to receive. I sent the email at least 45 minutes before Ms. Dancho sent hers.

Second, if we are discussing Ms. Dancho's motion, I'd like to address each of the points and propose amendments so it takes into account changes we think are necessary. I'm not sure how you'd like to proceed, but I'd like to discuss amendments to each of the points in the motion.

Third, I have a question for the other members, especially those from the Bloc Québécois and the NDP. It's about all of these motions. I'd like to hear their thoughts on how much time should be allocated to a study like this and which issues should be prioritized. It's pretty clear to me that there's enough content to take us into next year.

I gather that Ms. Dancho bundled all of the motions that the previous committee had voted on into a single package. That was very generous of her, but I don't think we'll be able to make progress on immigration issues if we can't take a deeper dive into those we feel are more important. We agree on many of them. I just think we need to talk it over and fine-tune a few things, such as figuring out a list of priorities and a time frame.

Last, I'd like some clarification from the clerk on procedure. Can a motion be voted on before it has even been received and read by members? They voted solely on the basis of a discussion, without having the actual document, which had already been sent out quite a few minutes before.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Ms. Martinez Ferrada.

I have Ms. Dhillon next on the list, followed by Mr. Regan and Ms. Dancho.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

I agree with my colleague, Soraya, that we should meet some time to study this motion. We only got the French version a few minutes ago. There are very detailed things in it. Some clarification is necessary. As Mr. Dhaliwal said, we have other obligations as well. I can't stay past one o'clock, so I don't know what I'm going to do. We should postpone this to another meeting.

Furthermore, I see several points here that make no sense. Should I get into that or not?

Point 7 doesn't fall under CIMM at all.

Point 9 is so broad and open. It says “that all testimonies received during a study pursuant to this motion be deemed included and further studies.” What does that mean? Does that mean you pick and choose, and select what parts of the present study are going to go into future studies? Which future, which studies? Can things be picked and chosen, if this is passed without any clarification?

There are a number of points here that require a lot of clarification. I don't think we can do that today, and I don't think it's fair to ask people to stay beyond one o'clock when we have other obligations. I really hope we can put this aside for another time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Mr. Regan, you are next.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

While I agree with the comments of Madam Martinez Ferrada and Ms. Dhillon on the motion, I would like to move to amend point four in the motion, deleting the words “to expedite and facilitate the”, and replacing them with “the facilitation and”. I also move to delete the words “the difficulties encountered by certain groups of”, and to replace them “with special attention to the experience of groups of”.

In this way I think that we would not be prejudging the answers we're going to get. We want to have an open examination to hear the experiences of people, and the experience with international students is an important issue and matter of concern. I come from a city—Halifax—where we have a large number of universities, in a province where international students play a very important role economically as well as academically, so I think that broadening the wording of this would be valuable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Regan.

We have an amendment on the floor.

Ms. Dancho, then Mr. Dhaliwal.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

I move to vote on Mr. Regan's amendment.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Chair, on a point of order, I think what Madam Dancho has essentially tried to do a few times now is to move the previous question when she uses the phrase “move to vote”. I think the clerk will confirm that you can't do that in a committee in this situation. I don't think you can in any situation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Regan for clarifying that.

I will repeat that when we have either an amendment or a motion on the floor and we have a speaking list, we cannot move to vote on that amendment or motion until the debate collapses.

We have Mr. Dhaliwal on the list.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to amend paragraph one of the motion, when it comes to family reunification—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Mr. Dhaliwal, I'm sorry for interrupting. We have an amendment on the floor proposed by Mr. Regan, so we are dealing with that amendment now.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Madam Chair, I would also like to propose an amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Are you proposing a subamendment to Mr. Regan's amendment?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

No, it will be to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Right now, we have an amendment proposed by Mr. Regan on the floor, so we are dealing with that amendment.

Seeing that there is no one to speak on that, can we—

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Chair, I just want to mention that I did not give consent to end the meeting, and that we should have a vote on whether we should extend it or not.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Once again, we are now dealing with the amendment proposed by Mr. Regan.

We will go to a vote on the amendment proposed by Mr. Regan.

(Amendment agreed to)

Mr. Dhaliwal.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Can I propose an amendment as well to paragraph one when it comes to family reunification? It's a very important point in the area I come from. I want to give a bit of background information as well before I move the amendment about what we have done when it comes to family reunification.

We all know the government moved quickly to introduce a process to reunite many families last June, but many families are still navigating the immigration system. It will be—

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Chair, I have a point of order. The Liberals are trying to run down the clock, and we have not given consent to adjourn the meeting at one o'clock, so I suggest that we extend the meeting. I believe it is a majority vote for that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Ms. Dancho, but we have Mr. Dhaliwal speaking.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Chair, I move that we vote to extend the meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Just one second.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Madam Chair, I have the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Mr. Dhaliwal, just one second.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Chair, I have a point of order. Can we—