Evidence of meeting #44 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.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
I move that Bill C-31 in clause 27 be amended by (a) replacing line 31 on page 14 with the following:
58.1(1) The Minister may, on request of a
(b) replacing lines 37 to 41 on page 14 with the following:
warrant the release.
(2) The Minister may, on the Minister's own initiative, order the release of a designated foreign national who is 16 years of age or older on the day of the arrival, that is the subject of the designation in question, if, in the Minister's opinion, the reasons for the detention no longer exist.
(3) If the Minister orders the release of a designated foreign national, the Minister may impose any conditions, including the payment of a deposit or the posting of a guarantee for compliance with the conditions, that he or she considers necessary.
Just speaking briefly to this amendment, Chair, one of the concerns that was brought forward from both witnesses, and obviously Ms. Sims and three or four members of the opposition at committee, was that there was no place that the minister's responsibility in this regard was going to be stated except potentially in regulation.
By moving this amendment into the legislation, it acknowledges that there is at the minister's discretion the ability to release an individual who has met the key criteria in terms of their identity, the safety issue, their background, and it puts the minister in a position to allow for the release from detention of one of the irregular arrivals. By putting it in the legislation, it shows there's a further method upon which detention can be lifted from an individual who arrives in the country through irregular means.
11:25 a.m.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Chair, I would like to try a subamendment, if I may. The amendment would read as is—
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
You're allowed to say “Yes, we hear it.”
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
11:25 a.m.
NDP
Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
I just want to say that the people at the back don't have a copy.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
11:25 a.m.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Yes, we will. Okay, Chair.
So (a) and (b) remain the same, those two lines. Then when you get to (2), where it says “may”, “The Minister may”, change that word to “shall”. Delete “on the Minister's own initiative”. Change 16 to 18. Delete “in the Minister's opinion” and insert at the end of that sentence “as set out in paragraphs 58.1(a) to (c) and (e).”
Did people want me to go over it again?
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
The chairman is satisfied, unless someone else wants it printed out.
Go ahead.
11:25 a.m.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Once again, I do want to acknowledge the movement made by the minister and my colleagues across the way, and the fact that they heard not only from the opposition but from the expert witnesses, the myriad number of them, the concerns that were raised here.
The attempt with this is to actually assist the minister to be able to carry out his role in this so that it is absolutely explicit; it's not just left to his opinion. For example, I never like the word “may” in many situations, because what we're saying is, really, that people are released when no grounds for detention exist, and we've acknowledged that there are in 58.1(a) to (c) and (e), which has already passed, that those are the reasons why you would detain people. But once those reasons don't exist, then you're released. Therefore, in that third sentence “in the Minister's opinion” is not really needed, because what's really needed is to refer back to the reasons they were kept in detention. I think that's a much better way to write language when we're working on a bill.
The other one right at the beginning, to go from “may” to “shall”...I can say that if were a minister, I would want that to read “shall”, because if we've said the only reasons we're going to keep people in detention are these four reasons, then it's my responsibility to make sure that they are released. I think the word “shall” captures what I believe was the intent, which is not to detain people once the reasons as stipulated in 58.1(a) to (c) and (e) no longer exist.
Once again, Chair, we are supporting this amendment, though we are fundamentally opposed to the motivation and also to the reasons behind this piece of legislation, and we are opposed to designating foreign nationals into two tiers, and we are also opposed to mandatory detentions. However, we do realize and acknowledge that when people arrive without identity, there is the need to establish identity, to verify and to ensure that 58.1(a) to (c) and (e) are met.
So those are the changes we're seeking. I would really like to go for lunch with my colleagues across the way having supported at least one of our amendments unanimously, as we have been so generous and supported theirs. When they make a move in the right direction, we want to acknowledge that. I'm hoping my colleagues will do the same.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
I just want to acknowledge my colleague's acknowledgement.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
I think the important thing here is that you have the minister, who stands for people like Aung San Suu Kyi, who stands for Chinese dissidents, and who has been an advocate of the Office of Religious Freedom, hearing the issue on detention and making sure that the bill reflects his need to do so.
That was my point, in fact, before my colleague raised her subamendment.
Thank you.