Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 10th, 2012

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

I understand what Mr. Dykstra has just been saying. If there is a legal opinion that would help, we would be prepared to go in camera to receive it. We want to ensure that it has that kind of privacy shroud, so that we don't get into any issues.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Well, it's never happened, and I doubt if it ever will happen under my observation. Most lawyers would go ballistic if they found that out.

Are there any other questions on Liberal amendment 17?

(Amendment negatived)

Liberal 17.1 is withdrawn, Mr. Lamoureux?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Yes, we're withdrawing it.

(Clause 24 agreed to on division)

(On clause 25)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay, we're moving right along.

New Democratic Party amendment 14.

Ms. Sims.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

We are moving this amendment at this time to address some of the concerns we've had about this mandatory detention. As you can see, we have proposed two amendments. One of them was that if we should end up with a designated group, like a minimum number—and we have suggested 50—that would lead to the designation of irregular arrivals. But as we did not get that, we're introducing a periodic review of the detention regime for designated foreign nationals, consistent with that which exists for permanent residents and foreign nationals under section 57 of IRPA, to ensure that the initial review occurs within 48 hours, then within 7 days, and once every 30 days thereafter. So it would occur every 30 days. In this we are also hoping we can raise the age of detention from 16 to 18.

They say you never give up, you keep trying in different ways, and we will, because this is what we believe in.

Mr. Chair, we don't move these amendments very lightly or to be obstructionist; we're moving these amendments because we have some serious concerns around the charter and constitutional challenges, and also international conventions.

In my previous life, my experience has been that two or three lawyers can sit down in the same room and you're not always going to get the same interpretation of the language before you. In this room we heard lawyer after lawyer, and even, I would say, witnesses who were more pro-government, saying that this could create a problem.

I think it is really imperative. I am very sensitive to the fact that my colleagues across the way and the minister heard the concern and they have put forward an amendment as well, which will come later. I want to acknowledge that we realize you have heard that. However, we believe this is the right way to go. Within 48 hours we should be able to do that first review. You know what? If we're worried about large groups, we've offered the government a solution for that, and that is to designate what a large group is; we put the number at 50. Of course, there was no will for that, so our position is that nobody should be detained without a review within 48 hours, and then another review within 7 days, and another review 30 days thereafter.

When you look at it, we're not trying to create new language here; we've gone into IRPA and lifted the language out of there to reflect it here.

If the concern is that this does not work with larger groups, I want to assure my colleagues across the way that I am willing, and I'm sure everybody on this side of the table is, and I'm hoping my colleague at the end of the line is as well, to reopen that clause where we were looking for a number of, let's say, 50 that would lead to irregular designations, and then we had suggested a different timeline for those designations. Because my colleagues across the way are not prepared to accept a number for those irregular arrivals when they arrive in large numbers, it leads me to believe we have to go back to living with the processes we have, and those are the timelines we are supporting here.

I could spend the next hour and a half reading into the record the testimony of witness after witness, from every party, who said the imperative nature of the government addressing this.... But you will all be relieved to know that I'm not going to do that. What I am going to stress very strongly is for my colleagues across the way to support this.

As you know, it is not a secret that we're opposed to many aspects of this legislation. We believe it's fundamentally flawed. We don't believe in a two-tiered refugee system. We believe everybody who arrives on our shore as a refugee or as an asylum seeker, no matter how they arrive here, should be treated exactly the same. We are willing to admit and to acknowledge, and to actually celebrate, the fact that our current system, including the much-appraised Bill C-11, already has in it the ability to detain until identity and security checks have been done. There's a review built in there. So for us, this review on a regular, prompt, and timely basis.... Before we put anybody in prison, we really have to justify it and we have to be able to review it. That person who is being detained has the right to that review.

By the way, we're not saying release the person if they are a national security risk or if they have criminality that puts Canadians at risk or if we don't know their identity.

We have been very reasonable here, once again, because this opposition wants to make things work. We've heard the government's concerns and we've worked very hard to try to address those. At the same time, we also have to protect the public purse. That's our job, too, to help you protect the public purse. The way we do that is to prevent you from leaving yourselves open to horrendous litigation and all the costs that go with it.

Mr. Dykstra, I know you're going to support this, and I look forward to hearing your response.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Ms. Sims.

Mr. Weston.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you.

I appreciate your comments, because it really gives rise to a discussion on the human rights aspects of members of the Conservative Party, who really care about these things.

As a lawyer who's been in the human rights field for a long time, I'm thinking about several things you said. First, you did mention that where there are different lawyers, there will be different opinions. My opinion differs from the lawyer who's speaking to you, I would suggest.

You mentioned the timeframe required to do the work. Well, you know that we acknowledged the Supreme Court of Canada's decision, and we know that the charter applies and we know that the Charter of Rights is subject to exceptions that may be reasonable in a free and democratic society. What's reasonable is to make sure that true, legitimate refugee claimants get processed quickly.

My second comment to Ms. Sims is that we heard in New Zealand that they process claims in 15% of the time that we're presently doing that. We need to do some catch-up here. The colouring of that as a two-tiered system, which suggests there's some unfair inequality being visited upon certain applicants, is completely wrong. If “two-tiered” means that real, legitimate applicants get processed within 20% of the time, then, yes, I'm all for that. I think most Canadians would be as well. It's about time we understood what we're doing is to respect the human rights of people who really need to be protected.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Sims, again.

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

Mr. Chair, I had decided I would only speak once on this, but Mr. Weston leaves me no choice but to respond to some of the comments he made.

To talk about people who arrive by the so-called newly designated irregular mode, or the irregular arrivals, as not legitimate refugees, I find it very difficult. Even the two boats that came from Sri Lanka had very high acceptance rates for refugees under the Geneva Convention. Surely, we are not saying at this table that your mode of arrival determines whether or not you're a refugee under the Geneva Convention.

We are creating two tiers because we're saying that if you arrive in a grouping of two or more, you could actually end up being detained. All we're suggesting now in this amendment—because I want to get back to the amendment—is that while we do identification, verification checks, and all of that, and while we do security checks to ensure Canadians are safe, surely during that time it is not too much for a person who's being held in prison to expect that within 48 hours, and then 7 days and then 30 days thereafter, there will be a chance for them to appear before a panel or a review to have it explained to them why they're being detained and for their case to be reviewed.

We are not saying that everybody who arrives without identification should just be released. We're also not saying that everybody who arrives should not have a security check. We're saying all that should happen.

To assist the government, we were willing to take a look at—even though we're against designations of irregular arrivals—a number that would kick that into operation, simply because our feeling was that if you've got this huge volume, then we could take a look at different timelines. But the government didn't see the need for that, and because it didn't see the need for that, I want to go for this.

You know, New Zealand has a very quick turnaround time for a very simple reason. We heard the number of people who want to go to their country. We know the size of the country and all of that as well. We also heard from Australia about the devastating impacts of detentions.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Monsieur Giguère.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Chair, I call for a recorded vote.

In addition, I have a legal question. The previous Bill C-11 talked about timeframes of 48 hours, 7 days, and 30 days. If memory serves, that was included in Bill C-11 to accommodate the decision in the Charkaoui case, where the Supreme Court had made the timeframes quite clear. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Are you having a nice day, Mr. Nesbitt?

[Scott Nesbitt]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The 48-hour, 7-day, 30-day timeline that I think the member is referring to has been in IRPA since IRPA was enacted in 2002. That's well before the Supreme Court of Canada decision. It's the timeline for detention reviews before the immigration division for people who are detained pursuant to division 6 of IRPA. The Charkaoui decision dealt with a different detention regime that applies to those people who are subject to security certificates and it had different timelines. It wasn't the 48-, 7-, 30-day timeline.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. James.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I was actually going to raise a point of order, because in this particular committee we're discussing Bill C-31, and I think asking questions about another bill that's not before this committee is inappropriate. We really need to address what is in this bill that is before the committee today.

Since the question has now finished, my point of order is no longer valid.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Dykstra.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate Mr. Weston's comments. I suppose if I were an extremely hopeful individual on this, I would ask that all of the amendments pertaining to the issue of detention be withdrawn and that we be allowed to move our amendment on this. But we have a process, and we'll follow that process.

I will say a few things about what Ms. Sims has indicated.

Mr. Weston has addressed very clearly and succinctly the issue of human rights, which I think is extremely relevant to what we're discussing here.

I would also indicate that we are not in agreement. In fact, one of the witnesses, a professor from the University of British Columbia, who is very much opposed to this legislation, confirmed and supported the fact that a queue exists. There is a refugee queue, and there is an order. There are a finite number of individuals we accept on a yearly basis. We have an obligation, a human rights obligation, to fulfill our mandate in terms of what those refugee numbers look like and who we accept on a yearly basis.

It is our opinion, and the opposition does not have to share this opinion, which they've made clear time after time after time, that allowing individuals to simply jump to the front of the line because of how they were able to achieve their arrival in Canada is simply not fair. If there's one principle Canadians understand very clearly and expect from their leaders, whether it be at the municipal, provincial or federal level, it is the issue of fairness. We think we have struck a balance in terms of how to approach the intercessions or the arrivals of these ships. And let's face it; they don't happen very often. We had a couple of witnesses who described the event of a ship arrival as something that happens once, twice, or perhaps three times a decade. It represents less than 1% of a decade of refugees who have been accepted into this country. So we need to put this whole issue in context in terms of how we have put forward the legislation.

I will say that we have listened. We've heard, whether it be from advocates from a human rights perspective, whether it be those who work directly with refugees in settlement services, or whether it be from the legal profession, and we have acknowledged that an amendment to this clause is necessary. We don't have to move any amendments. We certainly could just charge forward. But there has to be an acknowledgement, I think, whether it be tacit or otherwise, that listening was part of this process.

While I accept that the opposition has a job and a responsibility as Her Majesty's loyal opposition, there has to be an understanding that this is a government that listens. This is a committee of individuals who have decided and determined that an amendment to this clause is necessary. At the proper time, Chair, I'm going to move that amendment. And I'm hopeful that we have, as we did yesterday a couple of times, unanimous support to deal with an issue that definitely needs to be addressed.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Chairman, given that there has been a recorded vote on the issue—and some of the comments—I thought it best to say a few words.

First, in addressing Mr. Weston's point in regard to.... He seemed to take some exception to the idea of two tiers of refugees. We do need to be fairly clear on that particular point. Even with what I understand are the amendments that are coming onside from the government, there are still going to be two types of refugees here in Canada.

If you arrive via plane because you might have the economic means as an individual, make a refugee claim as a legitimate refugee, work through the system, and are given that refugee status, you as a refugee are treated quite differently from someone who might not necessarily have the same mode of travel available, or the same financial resources, and who ultimately comes in as part of a larger group of people via a boat.

As Mr. Dykstra points out quite well, in the last 10 years we might have had 150,000 to 200,000 refugees come in. Out of that, you're talking about a relatively small percentage that would be coming in via boat. We're talking about two sea vessels combined, the Sun Sea and the Ocean Lady, with fewer than 560 people. But because of that mode of arrival, the government has made the determination that it's important that Canada establish these two tiers for refugees and the whole concept of mandatory detention.

Yes, we're glad to see that the government appeared to be listening to some of the concerns in committee, but it hasn't gone anywhere near far enough in acknowledging the many flaws within Bill C-31, which would include, as an example, getting rid of mandatory detention, period. What we do know is that the current system actually works, and it has worked and served Canadians well in regard to detention. We heard that from the Canada border people.

So we support the amendment, and we look forward to ultimately hearing all of the government amendments related to this particular issue.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Lamoureux.

Mr. Weston.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be brief.

There was a series of ads on TV from the defence department. They said something like “resist chaos” or “fight against chaos”.

Our refugee system isn't effective in snatching the lives of tortured or beleaguered people from their torturers because we invite chaos to our shores. It's not effective because we just open our doors to everybody who gets here willy-nilly, by any means. Our refugee system will be more effective if we do in fact make sure there's some order in the way people are processed.

So call it two-tier or call it whatever you want. What we cannot have is people coming willy-nilly to our shores by any means of transportation, spilling through the gates unidentified and unknown, for their security level or anything else.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We are dealing with amendment NDP-14. There has been a request for a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

It fails.

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

Mr. Chair, at an appropriate time, would it be possible to have a comfort break for five minutes?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Done—we'll suspend for a few moments.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay, we will reconvene.

We just voted on NDP-14. We are now on NDP-15.

Ms. Sims, you have the floor.

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

We will not be moving this amendment as we did not get the designations we were looking for earlier.