Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 5th, 2023

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I want to bring a perspective, maybe. I certainly hear my colleague from the Conservatives on this issue.

I believe, though, that we will all agree that the victims of the fraud need to have a pathway to permanent residency. They surely shouldn't have additional barriers just because they were tricked.

I was asking the honourable member so I could better understand, because I actually don't see a real difference from the motion of Ms. Kwan. Within the news release it would say, “a pathway to apply or reapply”, or “an alternative pathway”. I see this as being the same.

I don't want to go on and on, but I would feel strongly that we keep the wording the way it is, because I don't think it makes any difference. I think that collectively we just agree that we want only the best thing for those students. We want to give them an alternative pathway.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mrs. Lalonde.

Mr. El-Khoury.

[Fayçal El-Khoury, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have a very diverse riding. I think we have to be fair. I totally feel for these students, and we should find a way...but when I receive people and I receive deportations for people who have similar issues.... They came here and they were advised, coming here as tourists, to apply to become permanent residents. They believed that. They stayed for three, four or five years, and then they were refused, deported.

What can I tell those people when they come to me and ask, “Why don't you prefer to talk about this? You work hard to settle the issues of those people, those students, but not our issues”? This is what I'm feeling, and I wonder how I can face those people.

However, after saying that, I can tell you, looking very logically at what Ms. Kwan commented on, I am ready to support her proposal as it's presented. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. El-Khoury.

Go ahead, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

I have no comments to add.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Okay.

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

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

Go ahead, Mr. Kmiec.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Chair, because you mentioned that this committee has passed a motion ordering the business that we do, I have an amendment to make sure that this is the next business we undertake. It would add a comma after the words “and that”, and then “notwithstanding any usual practice or previous motion adopted by this committee,”

That would be the amendment, and it goes back to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Can you repeat that? Would it be after the last regularization program?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

It would be after, “and that”, at the bottom. That's the part that Mr. Dhaliwal added. He added, “and that the committee invite the Minister of [IRCC]”.

It would be “and that, notwithstanding any usual practice or previous motion adopted by this committee, the committee invite the Minister of [IRCC]...the Minister of...”.

This is to make sure that this is the next business that this committee undertakes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Can you please fully repeat your amendment?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

My amendment would be, after the words “and that” but before the words “the committee invite”—hopefully, it's clear now—“and that, notwithstanding any usual practice or previous motion adopted by this committee, the committee invite the Minister of [IRCC]...”, and then it goes on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I need a minute to get the amendment proposed by Mr. Kmiec into the motion.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

We can do something else before the invitations. Even if we were to adopt the motion, we will continue to review the report drafts, because we still have several to complete.

Is that the plan?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I will have the clerk read the motion so that it is clear for everyone.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Keelan Buck]

The amendment proposed is to add, after the words “and that” in the last section of the motion, “notwithstanding any usual practice or previous motion adopted by this committee”.

In French, we need to add, after the words “et que” in the final part of the main motion, “et nonobstant toute pratique habituelle ou motion antérieure adoptée par ce comité”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Okay, we have an amendment that is proposed by Mr. Kmiec on the floor.

Mr. Redekopp.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

To be very clear, our intention in doing this is that we get to this immediately so that there's no other business that will supersede this. That's the intention, and I would hope that's the intention of all the committee members.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Go ahead, Mr. Ali.

[Shafqat Ali, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think it was Ms. Kwan who put forward that motion. It's crystal clear. It deals with the issue. I think we should move on, instead of wasting time bringing forward amendments to that motion.

It is clear and it deals with the issue. I agree with it. I wanted to put that on the record.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Ms. Rempel Garner.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Briefly, Chair, this is to your comment earlier about how we were dispensing with Bill S-245 and that's why we weren't dealing with Mr. Redekopp's earlier motion, which I believe precipitated this debate on this issue. Not to challenge your ruling, but to be fair, the Standing Orders do allow committees to essentially control their own destinies. Motions can supersede business, as we saw with the motion on Bill S-245 that changed the scope of the amendments that were delivered.

I think what Mr. Redekopp's motion does is it clarifies that there will be no delay. There will be no other business that will precede this particular issue. We're enshrining that so things don't accidentally get scheduled instead of this particular study, particularly since we've agreed to add more time for study on this issue.

I support this amendment because it clearly says that this is the next order of business. This is the direction that the committee is giving to you, Chair. I would urge my colleagues to support it for that reason.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I have Ms. Kwan and then Mr. Dhaliwal.

Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I don't think the amendment is necessary.

The order of precedence we have is actually on bills. Bill S-245 was before us, so we had to deal with that. Now that it has been dealt with, it is my full intention that this be our next study. I think there is commitment from committee members here to do that. I don't think this is necessary, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Mr. Dhaliwal.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, as far as I see, to me, this should be the next priority as well. I personally see that everyone is on board.

Why don't you suspend the meeting for a few minutes, Madam Chair? Let them talk among themselves to come up with.... Whether we vote no to Mr. Redekopp's motion or we agree with Madam Kwan, it's the same thing.

I just want, for the sake of this committee, to suspend for a few minutes to let them talk. If it's the same thing, let's move forward and this should be the next priority for this committee.