Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 26th, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Lamoureux, go ahead.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Chair, we agree that if the government is going to use public policy considerations in order to deny entry, the criteria should be well defined in the legislation, but we also want to ensure the framework is one which is carefully reviewed and discussed in its own committee study.

We heard very little of what should be considered or included specifically in the framework in clause 8. As such, we'll be voting against this NDP amendment as well as the clause in Bill C-43 itself.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, sir.

Ms. Sitsabaiesan, go ahead.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Chair, to follow what my colleague mentioned, we're really trying to make proposals that are actually valid to strengthen the legislation that is before us today. This amendment actually does strengthen the proposed legislation, Bill C-43 by including criteria which the minister himself spoke about. As my colleague, Jinny, mentioned, when the minister came to this committee, he introduced those suggested guidelines and even hinted to us that, as the committee, maybe we should look at putting it into the legislation.

We're taking his lead on this really when he suggested that maybe the committee would want to put it in the legislation. Rather than leaving it to the arbitrary discretion of the minister and broad-based public policy considerations that are still not really defined, I think it makes sense to put these into the legislation itself. It allows it to be more clear and transparent, and it moves us away from a precarious path of giving the minister more arbitrary power. Once again, it's one minister with an extremely high amount of arbitrary power. I do hope that our colleagues in the Conservative Party would support this amendment. It is a very reasonable amendment that looks to make this legislation work. It would strengthen this piece of legislation which is what we're all working towards.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Dykstra, go ahead.

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

Mr. Chair, I do admire the fact that the official opposition has brought forward some of the suggestions—well, actually some of the recommendations—that the minister is going to be using at least in making his judgment.

First off, I think it's important to note that we're talking about an extremely small number of cases here, but in any event, it is a piece of legislation, so we should be having this discussion. The minister deposed how he's going to make his decisions on this related clause. In fact, they're on the CIC website as we speak, just to ensure that everyone's aware of how he will be interpreting and using his responsibilities under negative discretion.

If we move forward on this, it would fetter the opportunity to reflect both from the ministry's and the minister's perspective. It would weaken the potential discretion if we were to include everything that the opposition has mentioned. I would appreciate it if staff could respond to that in terms of why it is necessary to maintain the discretion that is currently in the legislation.

[Karen Clarke, Deputy Director, Migration Control and Horizontal Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

To respond to that comment specifically, keeping the guidelines outside the legislation allows the minister to react to situations that may be unanticipated or unexpected. It's a way to react more quickly than if it were codified within the legislation. One of the aspects is that it would lose the flexibility.

Also, it is an authority that is similar to those that we find within our five country conference partners, most notably, the U.K.

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

Thank you very much, Ms. Clarke.

I know that part of this stems from the transparency with respect to Bill C-31, when we talked about safe country of origin and how we moved it from being a regulatory piece attached to the bill and included that transparency right within the bill itself, but those are exceptions to the rule. I credit the opposition and Ms. Sims for pushing on when we dealt with this issue in Bill C-31, agreeing in a convincing way that it was important to have that transparency.

That is not the regular process upon which we build legislation and, as indicated, the framework that will be utilized on negative discretion will be built into regulation. In fact, it's already public. Ms. Sims is correct. She read from the document itself, and that is a document which will be the guiding lamppost in terms of decision-making for the minister.

The fact that we need to maintain some discretion beyond that is critical. I hope the opposition understands that there are circumstances which would elude the information brought forward. If we were to put it in the legislation, it would prevent us in certain circumstances from being able to make a decision that would be necessary.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Sims.

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

I cannot stress how important this particular amendment is for us. As my colleague across the way just said, we actually took what the minister put forward. I was tempted to amend it greatly before putting it in an amendment, but we took the minister at his word when he said that the committee may want to do that. We thought we had a better chance of getting it into the legislation if we left it fairly close to what the minister had put before us.

We are very concerned about this sort of limitless power in the hands of the minister. Yet all our amendment does is to put into legislation the very guidelines, the lamppost, as my colleague said, that the minister talked about, so that they would be right here, clear and explicit. Everybody would know they are here and that they cannot be changed on a whim.

Also, for us, public policy consideration is such a huge umbrella that it covers the globe and not just Canada. I want to say we were appreciative that the minister had given this some thought and heard our concerns. I was quite impressed when he said in front of us that we may decide to stick it in the legislation. I'm hoping that his colleague across the way will remember what the minister said. Based on that, I didn't think the minister had any problems with putting it in legislation. He was inviting us to do that, or at least to consider it.

I want to stress to my colleagues across the way that we're very interested in working on a piece of legislation that will lead to the quick removal of serious criminals. However, we are not prepared to give the minister an umbrella of this size and this kind of discretion without it being codified in legislation. I want to stress the importance of our addressing this issue here at this stage.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Ms. Sims.

Mr. Weston.

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

I thank my colleagues from the opposition for bringing up these issues. We all know that whatever party is in power, there may be another party in power another day, and whatever discretion is to be limited ought to be limited in accordance with good democratic values. I see where Ms. Sims is coming from.

I have some questions for the departmental representatives here today.

This may be a bit repetitive, but I would like to know what type of report the minister now needs to submit to the House. What is the difference between what my colleagues are requesting in this amendment and what the minister's responsibility is with respect to a report?

[Karen Clarke]

Mr. Chair, if I may, section 94 of the act already provides a requirement to report to Parliament. There are a few instances where it codifies what types of things the minister must report on. For instance, gender-based analysis is one.

In the proposed amendment is a requirement to add this as another item which the minister would be required to report on. It's something that's not currently in Bill C-43, but we do have the flexibility that we could report on and include the instances where this authority is used within that annual report.

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

I'm sorry, I didn't understand that response.

[Karen Clarke]

If I may clarify, the question was regarding what the minister is required to report on currently.

Section 94 of the act outlines what the current requirements are. There are only certain things listed there in terms of what must absolutely be included in that annual report. The response is that although there is no reporting requirement associated with this provision, we are suggesting to include the instances where it is used in the report.

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

What is the difference between what is being proposed by my friends in their amendment and what exists already?

[Karen Clarke]

The amendment would create a reporting requirement more specific than what's currently provided in the annual report. We're suggesting that there's flexibility to include, to report on, the use of the authority, but it's not as itemized.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

How would you do that if it's not itemized?

[Karen Clarke]

There's flexibility to include other things within that report.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Where's that?

[Karen Clarke]

Excuse me for jumping ahead a bit.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We have another player. The analyst is going to speak.

[Jillan Sadek, Director, Case Review, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

I'm sorry, I think you're on the next amendment, which talks about reporting requirements. We're still on the previous NDP amendment. I think we have it as NDP-3.

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

I think you're right. Sorry to confuse you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You're fine?