Bill C-31 (Historical)

Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act

An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, the Marine Transportation Security Act and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act

This enactment amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Balanced Refugee Reform Act to, among other things, provide for the expediting of the processing of refugee protection claims.
The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is also amended to authorize the Minister, in certain circumstances, to designate as an irregular arrival the arrival in Canada of a group of persons and to provide for the effects of such a designation in respect of those persons, including in relation to detention, conditions of release from detention and applications for permanent resident status. In addition, the enactment amends certain enforcement provisions of that Act, notably to expand the scope of the offence of human smuggling and to provide for minimum punishments in relation to that offence. Furthermore, the enactment amends that Act to expand sponsorship options in respect of foreign nationals and to require the provision of biometric information when an application for a temporary resident visa, study permit or work permit is made.
In addition, the enactment amends the Marine Transportation Security Act to increase the penalties for persons who fail to provide information that is required to be reported before a vessel enters Canadian waters or to comply with ministerial directions and for persons who provide false or misleading information. It creates a new offence in respect of vessels that fail to comply with ministerial directions and authorizes the making of regulations respecting the disclosure of certain information for the purpose of protecting the safety or security of Canada or Canadians.
Finally, the enactment amends the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act to enhance the authority for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to enter into agreements and arrangements with foreign governments, and to provide services to the Canada Border Services Agency.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Chair, before any other motions are put in regard to Bill C-31, I want to get on the record the amendment we're now talking about. In the past, we, as a political entity, have expressed our concern that refugees, or people applying to become refugees, even if they're from a safe country, be provided some reasonable opportunity of appeal.

What the government is proposing to do, in essence, is to say that technically a refugee’s only appeal is the Federal Court, which raises a great deal of concern with a wide variety, if not all, stakeholders. For that reason, I think the government would be making a mistake by going into an area where an individual’s only recourse for a decision made is to take it to the Federal Court. We know that at times the Federal Court, in itself, can be a fairly lengthy process, anywhere from three months to over a year. Unless we amend the current legislation, Mr. Chairperson, the individuals seeking an appeal will not even be in the country at the time their appeal is being heard.

I'm sure members can appreciate the concerns stakeholders would have, for the simple reason that there's always been this sense of justice that someone going through an appeal have the opportunity to be in the country, at least until that final determination is read or given. It's a serious concern we have.

With that in mind, whether it's the NDP amendment or amendments from the Liberal Party attempting to deal with that issue, those are my comments for committee members.

Thank you.

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

Chair, as my colleague has just articulated, this particular bill, Bill C-31, denies access to an appeal to the RAD for negative refugee decisions for a very lengthy number of groups, and I just want to read those into the record: claimants from a designated country of origin; designated foreign nationals; those who have withdrawn or been found to have abandoned their claims; claims that the RPD determines have no credible basis or to be manifestly unfounded; claimants who entered Canada from a safe third country but who could claim refugee status because they fit an exception to, let's say, the Canada-U.S. agreement; and claimants whose refugee status was revoked after vacation or cessation hearings.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting number 45, on Thursday, May 11, 2012. This meeting is televised.

The orders of the day, pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, April 23, 2012, are for study of Bill C-31, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other acts.

We are in the midst of debating amendment NDP-16. Ms. Sitsabaiesan has asked for the floor, and she has it.

(On clause 36)

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, our government's priority is, of course, the economy. We are committed to job creation and economic growth.

As a result, this afternoon we will continue debate on Bill C-38, the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act. This bill implements the budget, Canada's economic action plan 2012, to ensure certainty for the economy.

For the benefit of Canadians and parliamentarians, when we introduced the bill, we said we would vote on it on May 14. The second reading vote on the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act will be on May 14.

After tomorrow, which will be the final day of debate on this bill, we will have had the longest second reading debate on a budget bill in at least the last two decades.

On Monday and Tuesday we will continue with another bill that will support the Canadian economy and job creation, especially in the digital and creative sectors.

We will have report stage and third reading debate on Bill C-11, the Copyright Modernization Act.

This bill puts forth a balanced, common sense plan to modernize our copyright laws. Committees have met for over 60 hours and heard from almost 200 witnesses. All of this is in addition to the second reading debate on Bill C-11 of 10 sitting days.

After all that debate and study, it is time for the measures to be fully implemented so Canadians can take advantage of the updated rules and create new high-quality digital jobs.

Should the opposition agree that we have already had ample debate on Bill C-11, we will debate Bill C-25, the pooled registered pension plans act; Bill C-23, the Canada–Jordan free trade act; and Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act in the remaining time on Monday and Tuesday.

Wednesday, May 16, will be the next allotted day.

On Thursday morning, May 17, we will debate the pooled registered pension plans act. This bill will help Canadians who are self-employed or who work for a small business to secure a stable retirement.

In the last election, we committed to Canadians that we would implement these plans as soon as possible. This is what Canadians voted for and this is what we will do.

If it has been reported back from committee, we will call Bill C-31, the protecting Canada's immigration system act, for report stage debate on Thursday afternoon.

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

I just want to confirm that I recall that testimony very clearly. It's a haunting story.

It's indeed why we have to make sure that there are appeal procedures. This approach that is reflected in Bill C-31 does allow for internal review and at the same time accords the human rights that those who are legitimate applicants need, by speeding up the whole system. I acknowledge the concern raised by my colleague in that very haunting story and say that we have balanced those concerns against others in the bill.

[Scott Nesbitt]

I'll make two points that I hope will help clarify the wording a little bit and why those particular words are used, Mr. Chair.

The first is that the wording of the proposed amendment is, you'll notice, almost verbatim the same as the wording of the existing section 56 in IRPA. Section 56 of IRPA gives authority to an officer, rather than the minister, to release somebody from detention before the immigration division starts its detention reviews for the normal run—the normal detention scheme, not the Bill C-31 detention scheme.

The same wording there is used: an officer may order the release of an individual where the officer is of the opinion that the reasons for the detention no longer exist. The reasons for detention—that wording is understood to be the reasons for which the person was first detained. One of the reasons is in 58(1)(a) to (d), as we've referred to before.

The particular “of the opinion” wording is used throughout IRPA where there's a legislative intention to ensure that the minister's decision is given a greater degree of deference than perhaps may otherwise be the case.

So it is not that a tribunal or a court reviewing that decision objectively decides for itself whether those reasons for detention exist, but rather looks at whether the opinion of the minister is reasonable. It's a slight difference, and it really has to do with the deference to the minister's view when that decision is being reviewed by a subsequent body.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I move that Bill C-31 in clause 27 be amended by replacing line 32 on page 14 with the following:

designated foreign national who is 18 years

(Amendment negatived)

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

I move that Bill C-31 in clause 26 be amended by adding after line 20 on page 14 the following:

(1.1) Despite subsection (1), on the conclusion of a review under subsection 57.1(1), the Immigration Division shall order the continued detention of the designated foreign national if it is satisfied that any of the grounds described in paragraphs 1(a) to (c) and (e) exist, and it may not consider any other factors.

Basically, what the amendment does, Chair, is clarify that the immigration division must order the continued detention of a foreign national if any of the factors in paragraphs 58(1) to (c) or (e) exist, and this amendment actually removes from consideration (d), which explicitly excludes designated foreign nationals.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have taken note of Mr. Dykstra's comments. I would basically say to him that Bill C-11 became a good act. You passed that legislation. You even supported, approved and encouraged it. It was the legislation that could solve all problems. The shortcomings that you have raised do not exist, which means that terrorists and thugs who come here are screened out.

Those people have been detained. They have been separated from the refugees. So claiming that our national security is in danger and that we don't want those people to be our neighbours is not realistic; it is not happening and it will not happen, even with the former legislation and, especially, with C-11.

The problem with Bill C-31 is that you are going to punish those who came here as irregular arrivals. That is punishment. It is not detention because they have already been detained. It is imposing a penalty under difficult material conditions.

I am not sure whether anyone can answer the question, Mr. Chair. In terms of detention centres, will there be material changes? Will new detention centres be built? Will buildings be transferred from the Canadian prison system to the Department of Immigration? What will you do to improve the situation? Spending a year in a provincial prison is no picnic.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's an interesting dilemma. On the one hand, the system currently in place has clearly been demonstrated to be effective. It has actually worked. We have the capability to detain individuals that government would be concerned with in regard to safety or any other issues. The system is there.

Then the minister comes up with this Bill C-31, mandatory detention. Opposition and lawyers from coast to coast, many average Canadians, and plenty of refugees start running up the red flag saying that it is not right for this government to be bringing in mandatory detention. There was a fairly significant backlash to this minister's decision to bring in mandatory detention.

Then we come to committee stage and presenter after presenter makes the case that mandatory detention is a bad thing.

The minister, in his wisdom, through the committee here, has now said that we're going to succumb to the pressure. We're going to acknowledge that, yes, we made a mistake. I acknowledge the courage it would have taken for the minister to recognize he did make a mistake here.

We're now putting in something that at least allows for judicial oversight. That is, in fact, a positive thing. The idea that it's 14 days versus seven days.... Sure, it would be great to have it at seven days. I think in the one amendment that we were looking at we had 20 days, which was based on one of the presenters. The fewer the days, the better it is. The amendment that's being put forward is something that would make the legislation better, if in fact the 14 days were to pass.

But you know, had the minister brought in legislation originally where it talked about putting in this restriction, where it said we were going to be having 14 days, and we were going to have six months after that, we in the opposition would have been voting no. The reason why we would have been voting no is because we would be arguing that the system currently works and this makes the issue worse. That's the reason why we would be voting against it.

In acknowledgement that the minister has made a substantial change, I think there is value in terms of saying yes to the amendment only because it improves the original legislation. But in no way should it be taken, Mr. Chairperson, as an endorsement of what it is the minister is actual doing, because we need to recognize that the current system is better even with the subamendment that has been proposed to the amendment itself.

That is the reason why we would support the subamendment. I anticipate, given the numbers, that it will likely not pass and then we'll go on to the amendment itself.

I did want to make it very clear that the minister, yes, has recognized he has made a mistake, but he hasn't gone far enough. That, we would argue, is most unfortunate, Mr. Chairperson, because imagine if you're that refugee and you don't quite make the 14 days. After 14 days, you haven't been cleared. You're waiting six months before you're going to get the next opportunity to be released from the detention centre.

That's the reason why we believe, at the very least, we should be looking at...one presenter said 25 days. This particular amendment suggests 30 days. The fewer the better, quite frankly. I'd feel most comfortable with 25 days. If we had 25 days, at least then it would better reflect the current system.

In that sense, then, I would have nowhere near as much reservation in terms of voting in favour of it. I just wouldn't want my vote to be misinterpreted, and that's the reason why I thought, Mr. Chairperson, I would express what my feelings are and what the Liberal Party's position is on this whole issue.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[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.

[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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Chairperson, I would move that Bill C-31 in clause 24 be amended by replacing lines 6 to 8 on page 13 with the following:

(a) they are released as a result of an officer ordering their release because the officer is of the opinion that the reasons for their detention no longer exist.

Mr. Chairperson, in short, this allows a person out of the mandatory 12-month detention if there is merit and they have been granted status. This is an important amendment. I would look to the government to possibly provide comment on this amendment, if they so choose.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

I would move that Bill C-31 in clause 24 be amended by replacing line 3 on page 13 with the following:

Division and who was 18 years of age or older

As you've already pointed out, Mr. Chair, it shows that the NDP and Liberals are in sync on this particular idea of 18 versus 16.

(Amendment negatived)

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Our Liberal colleague is proposing this amendment, and we are proposing the same thing with subsection 12(1). Witnesses who have appeared before the committee have stressed the devastating impact of detention. Aside from the refugees, for whom the consequences of adopting this bill will be devastating, we must think very seriously about our responsibilities and our role as parliamentarians.

As part of our study, this committee has heard from some very qualified people who drew our attention to the anticonstitutional nature of a number of provisions of Bill C-31, including provisions relating to mandatory detention, particularly of children. But we are continuing to be deaf to the experts' observations.

I'm wondering what the experts we heard from, the front-line workers who presented studies and the refugees who told their stories are going to think of us, the MPs that we are.

To come back to clause 23 of the bill, which amends the mandatory detention of designated foreign nationals 16 years of age or older, I would like to remind everyone once again that these provisions are anticonstitutional and violate international conventions, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees prohibits the arbitrary detention of asylum seekers, except for security or identification purposes. The Convention on the Rights of the Child prohibits the detention of children. The convention states, and I'm clarifying, that a child is a human being below the age of 18 years.

We are asking that the age of the child be harmonized with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Furthermore, the experts we've heard from reminded us that mandatory detention is prohibited, except for the reasons set out in the IRPA.

Lastly, they stressed to us that the detention of children is also prohibited because it is devastating for them and for society. For children, this detention has devastating effects, both psychologically and mentally, and on their development. The separation of children from their parents, or even just seeing them detained, has an inhuman impact on them.

To conclude, we know what the 1951 Geneva Convention and the Convention on the Rights of the Child say about this. Experts from UNICEF and the other experts have also told us that the detention of asylum seekers is an exceptional measure that can only be considered as a last resort. The detention of children is inhuman and devastating. Canada should not introduce it into the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Having said that, the purpose of the amendment that the NDP is proposing here is, once again, to make Bill C-31 consistent with the Convention on the RIghts of the Child with respect to the age to be considered in deciding whether to release children who may be detained, or shouldn't be detained at all. A person stops being a child upon reaching age 18. That's what the conventions we've signed say.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.