Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 1st, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Excuse me. On a point of order, Ms. Sims.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

When a witness has been asked a question, we should give them the courtesy to hear the full answer. There were a number of questions I heard in the statements that were being made.

What we are here to do is to hear from our witnesses.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

That is a valid point of order.

Mr. Dykstra, Mr. Goldberg can finish.

On a point of order, Ms. James.

Stop the clock, please.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

While I do agree that there was a question, I think that our member, Mr. Dykstra, has the right to counteract what this witness has said, because not everything he has said is necessarily correct. I think for the record that we need to make sure that my colleague on this side has the right within the time limit provided, within the five or seven minutes, to be able to state what is actually correct and the correct facts. I would like to make sure that my point of order is registered and that my colleague has the opportunity to counteract what was said and to state the actual fact.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

On a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Is this on the same issue, or is it another point of order?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

It is absolutely on the same issue. I agree that each side has the right to put another point of view on the table, but it has to be within the time restraint that we have and not beyond it. It's open to anybody else to put whatever the government side wants to put on the table as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Start the clock.

Mr. Goldberg, you can finish—

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

This is great. We haven't had one for quite a while.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

There is precedent here. The members opposite have oftentimes done that, asked the question saying they didn't have a lot of time, stopped on that line of questioning, and moved to another. The precedent has been set, and Mr. Dykstra should have the same courtesy.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm going to let Mr. Goldberg finish his answer in a concise manner, sir.

Thank you.

[Mitchell Goldberg]

With all these points of orders I would have thought I was at the Quebec Bar right now with other lawyers.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We're glad you're here, sir.

[Mitchell Goldberg]

Thank you.

The other part of the question I wanted to respond to was the notion of the criteria for the safe countries of origin. It's true that there are some loose criteria about the numbers of people who are accepted. However, it also says “or”. The first thing you learn in law school is that when a law says one thing and also says “or” something else, you have to look at both parts. The “or” part here is that if someone is supposedly from a democratic country, they can bypass the criteria you just mentioned. So, if the minister is of the opinion that so-and-so arriving in Canada from Syria is from a safe country, from a democratic country, that minister's opinion is what counts.

I think, for example, there is nothing to stop the minister from saying China is a safe country for commercial reasons, and if people say it's not democratic, then good luck. There is no recourse. There is no judicial recourse.

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

Under the current legislation, that's actually also true. The minister can overturn a decision by the IRB if he or she so wishes.

My point is that there is a process that we have looked to implement under Bill C-31. You argued in your submission that it was ill-conceived or ill-defined. I asked why, and you didn't define it; you didn't give me the answer to that. You responded by saying you liked what Bill C-11 had to say.

My point was that your submission suggests that it's ill-defined. I would submit, obviously, that you may not like it, but it's actually very well-defined.

I come back to the point about right of appeal, and categorically—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We're over the time, I'm sorry.

Ms. Sims, please go ahead.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you very much.

When we're talking about legislation and things that have happened in the past, being a social studies teacher, I always like to talk to students about things we have learned from our past. History is a great teacher, so I want to turn to part of our history.

The minister has stated that we have actually learned from our past mistakes, such as turning away the S.S. St. Louis in 1939. That was the boat that was carrying German Jewish refugees.

In light of Bill C-31, do you think we have learned from our history?

[Mitchell Goldberg]

No. I think it's important to be who we are. All our parents, grandparents, have come from other countries. I'd like to answer that question as the grandson of Jewish refugees from Europe. I think it's important to ask what would have happened to the German Jews who were on the S.S. St. Louis in 1939. You may remember that Canada turned them away during the era of “none is too many”, when no Jewish refugees were too many, according to the Mackenzie King government of the day. What would have happened if Bill C-31 had been in effect in 1939? Well, those German-Jewish refugees would have been declared irregular arrivals, because they arrived by boat. They would have been subject to one-year warrantless mandatory detention. If they were recognized as refugees, they would not have been allowed to sponsor their children and their spouses who were in concentration camps in Europe before 1944, by which time the final solution was in full effect. So I do not think we've learned from history.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We have to stop the clock.

I have a point of order by Mr. Menegakis.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Chair, we're discussing Bill C-31. I believe Mr. Goldberg is making a very hypothetical situation about what would have happened, how it would have been interpreted or applied in 1939.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I don't know. I think he's answering the question. The question was raised about this—

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

I find the question inappropriate.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Menegakis, I think the question was asked about this boat that arrived and tried to get to our shores in 1939, and the comparison was made to the current law. I think it's a relevant question and a relevant answer.

Do you still have more, sir, or are you finished?