On division.
Evidence of meeting #64 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was division.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #64 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was division.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:15 p.m.
An hon. member
On division.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
On division.
(Clause 28 agreed to on division)
(On clause 29—Humanitarian and compassionate considerations)
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
I would like to restate for the record, and this is not going to come as a surprise for my colleagues across the way, that the New Democrats oppose the blanket removal of humanitarian and compassionate considerations. The minister should not be relieved of the duty to consider the best interests of children involved in these cases.
I would like a recorded vote.
(Clause 29 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
On division.
(Clause 30 agreed to on division)
(On clause 31—Imposition of conditions by Immigration Division)
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
It is not clear to us why the minister would need the power to override a decision when the minister already has the power to set out the conditions in regulations. This seems to be like a double whammy. The NDP will be voting no to this clause and would request a recorded vote.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Is there further debate?
(Clause 31 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 32—Appeal)
We are on clause 32 and amendment LIB-13.
Mr. Lamoureux, you have the floor.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Chair, I move that Bill C-43, in Clause 32, be amended by replacing lines 34 to 36 on page 10 with the following:
respect of a person charged with an offence before the day on which section 24 comes into force.
This ensures that the provisions in Bill C-43 apply only to those charged after the bill takes effect. It would be unfair for Bill C-43 to apply to those charged before the bill even comes into effect.
We had as a witness, Mr. Kurland, whom we all know. He said, “Imposing, with retroactive effect, the penalty of removal from Canada is incompatible with some of the tenets of our criminal justice system. The sentencing judge did not have the opportunity at the time of sentencing to deal with the individuals, so, ironically, rather than expedite the removal of criminals from Canada, it may well retard that effort, given the legal issues that are raised by the issue of retroactivity.”
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Yes, Mr. Lamoureux.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Shall clause 32 carry?
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
On division.
(Clause 32 agreed to on division)
(On clause 33—Appeal)
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
I move that Bill C-43, in clause 33, be amended by replacing line 40 on page 10 to line 3 on page 11 with the following:
respect of a person who is convicted or charged with an offence before the day on which section 24 comes into force.
The intent of this amendment, Mr. Chair, is to ensure that the elimination of due process with respect to access to an appeal is not retroactive but instead can only apply to convictions issued after the day on which Bill C-43 comes into force.
This is a very, very moderate amendment. It puts into practice a fundamental rule of law, and that is that you don't reach retroactively to inflict pain.
Last week the Conservative side called immigration lawyer Richard Kurland to testify. Mr. Kurland is generally supportive of the government's approach with C-43, but he did offer this criticism: “Imposing with retroactive effect the penalty of removal from Canada is incompatible with some of the tenets of our criminal justice system. The sentencing judge did not have the opportunity at the time of sentencing to deal with the individuals, and so, ironically, rather than expedite the removal of criminals from Canada, it may well retard that effort given the legal issues that are raised by the issue of retroactivity.”
Our amendment could expedite the process, which we've heard the need for so many times.
I would respectfully ask that committee members support this very reasonable amendment to clause 34.