Evidence of meeting #42 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Jennifer Irish  Director, Asylum Policy and Programs, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Monique Frison  Director, Identity Management and Information Sharing, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Warren Woods  Manager, Asylum Policy and Programs, Department of Citizenship and Immigration

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

On a point of order, I'll hear Mr. Menegakis.

May 9th, 2012 / 12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Costas Menegakis Conservative Richmond Hill, ON

Mr. Chair, initially Mr. Lamoureux asked whether we had some time for brief opening remarks. Is there a time limit on this?

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

No.

Thank you, Mr. Menegakis.

Mr. Lamoureux, please continue.

12:35 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I didn't mean to be too extended in my comments. I just thought I would take advantage of the opportunity to express myself, because on many of those presentations I only had five minutes. This allows me to air a little bit of frustration, and I'm sure my colleague from across the way can sympathize with why it is that we are so concerned about Bill C-31.

The point is, Mr. Chairperson, that in trying to address the legislation and in listening to all of the presenters who made presentations, I have had the opportunity to discuss with members of my own Liberal caucus. There are a number of concerns that we have raised in regard to the bill. What I did was highlight some of the major concerns.

I have before me a series of amendments. I don't necessarily want to go through all of the amendments, because as we go clause by clause we'll be afforded the opportunity to talk about those amendments. But the concern is.....

To the credit of the NDP, I think Ms. Sims recognized it right up front by saying that we need to set aside some additional time so that we can ensure that we are afforded ample opportunity to thoroughly discuss each amendment. I think that would have been a very good motion, had it been allowed to go ahead, Mr. Chair. It's not necessarily a reflection upon your particular ruling—I abstained from that particular vote, I must say—but I think there would have been some merit to it.

There was one in particular that, when I was looking through the bill late last night—

12:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Mr. Lamoureux, I have no problem with your speaking generally about the bill. I think when we get into specific amendments you should wait until that clause is called before you start commenting on that particular clause or that particular amendment. The purpose of what you're doing now is to make some introductory comments. Those comments are in order. But you're now moving into amendments, and I don't think that's appropriate at this time.

12:40 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Okay. Let me just wind up, then, Mr. Chairperson, on a point.

In going through the amendments that I did, as I pointed out, I noticed there were some amendments where there seemed to be a general consensus between two parties. I think there was even a consensus I had noted with all three political parties.

I want to approach the committee and the clause-by-clause with an open mind. There will be some that we'll want to withdraw in terms of some of the amendments that we had put forward. There might be one or two that we would like to add to it, only because of timing we weren't able to quite get those in. I'm hoping I'll still be afforded the opportunity to be able to put those in.

I look forward to being able to get into the clause-by-clause, but I would encourage all members to seriously look at any sorts of limitations we might have put in, especially given that we understand the minister is prepared to make some changes to the legislation.

I look forward to the dialogue and other opening remarks that might be there.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

12:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Thank you, Mr. Lamoureux.

Ms. Sims.

12:40 p.m.

NDP

Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC

Thank you very much.

It's not going to come as a surprise to anybody around this table that the NDP is very, very concerned with the kind of speed with which we're going through this legislation. I don't know about the rest of my colleagues, but after hearing the hours and hours and days and days of testimony, there is a lot for us to review. It's not only the verbal testimony we heard, but the very thick briefs that were submitted. To read and digest all of that before we get into clause-by-clause, as you can imagine, all our brain cells need a little bit more time. That is why I brought that motion forward, or tried to, to say that we should suspend. It was not to say that we should never come back to it; it was to suspend.

New Democrats are concerned about the lack of time we're going to have. This was also eloquently stated by other witnesses, such as Peter Edelmann, from the National Immigration Law Section of the Canadian Bar Association. On May 1 he said: “What is of particular concern is the speed with which this complex legislation is being passed without the time to properly study it.” I really want to stress that: “without the time to properly study it”.

We're being asked to pass a bill on a very short timeline, and we don't know how many more unintentional consequences there will be. And they are in this bill. No one that I'm aware of has been able to study this bill in depth in terms of all of the unintended consequences. We simply haven't had time to study in depth this piece of legislation. Never mind not having studied the legislation, we've had witnesses—legal, community groups, refugees—who have come to present to us, and I don't think we've had adequate time to give all of that testimony due consideration either.

Notwithstanding that, there are key areas in this bill we have major concerns with, but as the official opposition we want to make things work. We are not here to try to slow things down. As a matter of fact, we can't wait to get to clause-by-clause, so I'm planning to keep my comments fairly brief. We do want to make things work. That's why we have submitted 20-plus amendments. We will be looking forward to seeing the amendments. We've seen them, actually, but we look forward to hearing the rationale. And if there are additional amendments from either the Liberals or the Conservatives, we will give them due consideration. We want to make this work for some of the most vulnerable people who are going to be arriving on our doorstep, and we want to ensure that they are granted due process.

Some of our key concerns have been highlighted and corroborated by many, many witnesses. I wish I had the time to read into the record all that they said, but we don't. These concerns include:

—The provision that gives the minister the power to hand-pick those countries he thinks are safe. This would do away with an independent panel of experts.

—The ability to detain refugee claimants for a year without review. Once again, that causes us major, major concern, because not only are we looking at contraventions of our international obligations, but of our own charter and constitution and habeas corpus.

—Measures to deny some refugees access to the new refugee appeal division, which, once again, is simply an anathema.

—A five-year mandatory wait for bona fide refugees to become permanent residents and reunite with their families.

Once again, I want to stress that one of the things we've often heard is about the security of Canadians, about protecting Canadians. Bill C-11, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, agreed to by the parties and praised by the current minister, actually addresses those concerns, because current legislation allows for identification and security checks to be done before people are released.

With all of that in mind, one of the things we are very, very committed to and want to appreciate is that there has been some movement from the minister. We saw a little bit of it in the clause, and from what he said today we're looking forward to more. We will be looking at his proposals closely at committee and taking them very seriously.

That said, we've also heard overwhelmingly from witnesses in the past two weeks that this bill is fundamentally flawed. Tweaking it is not going to fix it. This bill does nothing to prevent human smuggling, since our punitive measures for smuggling are already there. What it does is punish yet again the most vulnerable people arriving on our doorstep.

We have a bill in place that could actually become operational. We could take a look at Bill C-11 over a longer period, study it, and make sure that we do it right. It's in all our interests to make sure that we do all our legislation right. We will be looking at all of the measures. My colleague from the Liberal Party clearly articulated the concerns that we have expressed, and that witnesses have expressed as well. On this piece of legislation, we need to take a break. We need to suspend and make sure that we do it right.

I want to appeal to my colleagues across the way. Let's take a suspension, let's operationalize Bill C-11, and let's do this right.

12:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Thank you.

Mr. Dykstra.

12:45 p.m.

Conservative

Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON

We will enjoy the opportunity to get to clause-by-clause and work through this process. We spent hours and hours listening to witnesses. It's time we start to act.

12:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

We will start.

Clause 1 of the bill is postponed until the end, pursuant to Standing Order 75(1).

We will move to clause 2.

Mr. Lamoureux.

(On clause 2)

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

In my opening remarks I made reference to one or two amendments that I would like to submit. This is a fairly straightforward amendment. I would move that Bill C-31, in clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 9 and 10 on page 1 with the following:

“designated foreign national”--

12:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Hold on just a second. Do you have that in writing?

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Yes, I do. I'll provide a copy.

12:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Mr. Lamoureux, I don't know how often this is going to happen.

Mr. Dykstra, I haven't forgotten you.

I expect other members of the committee are going to want to see this in writing before we go anywhere. We're going to suspend while we do that.

12:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Okay, we'll reconvene.

Mr. Lamoureux's amendment is perfectly in order. It is perfectly in order to make amendments from the floor. In the future, so that this doesn't happen again, I just ask my colleagues to make available 25 copies to the clerk, if you decide to do that.

Mr. Dykstra, on a point of order.

12:55 p.m.

Conservative

Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON

I have heard from Mr. Lamoureux, but I just want to confirm that this will be the only additional non-submitted amendment that will be moved.

12:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

I just chair the meetings. It's perfectly in order.

Mr. Lamoureux, you have the floor.

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

To answer the question Mr. Dykstra has put forward, this is the only one I anticipate. I don't know what else the government might be introducing, and I don't know quite how the party would respond to it, but this is the only one that's actually planned, and it was planned on purpose, Mr. Chairperson, at this particular point.

Do you need me to read it into the record?

12:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Please do.

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Chair, I move that Bill C-31 in clause 2 be amended by replacing lines 9 and 10 on page 1 with the following:

“designated foreign national” means an individual who arrives in Canada as part of a group of 5,000 persons or more and who becomes a designated foreign national in accordance with subsection 20.1(2).

May I speak to the motion?

12:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

You may, sir.

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

I guess the reason for this particular motion is to clearly illustrate, by picking 5,000—because even when I made reference to 5,000, you could hear a little bit of a gasp, I guess—that there are those in Canada, and in particular the Liberal Party, who just do not support the establishment of two tiers of refugees.

We believe that the whole idea of designating is wrong—two people come into the country and they can be designated, and that sets them into a totally different stream; they will be treated differently. We believe that is wrong. There is only one refugee.

If by chance we get a boatload of 5,000 people arriving, well, one can make that determination at that point, I guess. Here it's more just to illustrate for us by making this amendment that from the Liberal Party's perspective there is only one class of refugee.

Presenter after presenter made it very clear that this is in Canada's best interest.

That's the essence of the motion. If you support Canada having one level of refugee, then I suggest you vote in favour of it.

1 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Is there further debate?

Mr. Dykstra and then Ms. Sims.

1 p.m.

Conservative

Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON

I will let the committee know that we on the government side do not intend to speak to every single amendment the opposition has put forward. They've for the most part provided all of those amendments in advance, as per the agreement, so we will not need to speak to all of the amendments.

I do have to comment to Mr. Lamoureux, though, that the official position of the Liberal Party of Canada is to encourage would-be refugees, or those seeking asylum, to gather together 5,000 individuals to get on these dangerous, decrepit ships to come to Canada. That is shocking.

I now understand why you took so long in your opening remarks, sir. I cannot believe that you would encourage those seeking asylum to gather together in the thousands to come across to Canada. That's shocking.