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.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the consideration the Liberals and the NDP have given to this. As everyone around this table is aware, we did move from a perspective that anyone under the age of 16 is exempt from the legislation, and the determination is made by the parents, obviously, what will happen to the children, if there are parents available to make those decisions. Obviously, if they are children under the age of 16, the state will have the responsibility to determine what should happen. That was a huge change from the previous Bill C-49 on human smuggling, in that it did not have an age exclusion with respect to detention.

On that side, the first point, Mr. Chair, is that I think we've moved a great deal from Bill C-49, representing the former human smuggling bill, to our current Bill C-31.

The second point is that the government is of the opinion, and there is a lot of evidence on the justice and legal side to show this, that the age of 16 is appropriate; it is an age when those individuals are at least able to make a decision and determine on their own what may or may not—or at least have some input into their outcomes. So we've determined that they can make an independent decision on whether they want to (a) use the services of a human smuggler, and (b) make decisions here when and if they arrive in Canada. It's our determination that the age of 16 is fair and it's appropriate, so we will not be supporting the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Good morning. We will convene the meeting.

This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting number 44, on Thursday, May 10, 2012. This meeting is televised.

The orders of the day, pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, April 23, 2012, are Bill C-31, 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.

We voted on clause 19 as amended, so we will proceed with clause 20.

Shall clauses 20, 21, and 22 carry?

Mr. Lamoureux.

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

I move that Bill C-31 in clause 19 be amended by replacing line 17, on page 11, with the following:

ceased for any of the reasons described in paragraphs 108(1)(a) or (d); or when the final determination is made within one year after the date on which refugee protection is conferred;

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

It is moved that Bill C-31 in clause 19 be amended by replacing line 17, on page 11, with the following:

ceased for any of the reasons described in paragraphs 108(1)(a) or (d),—

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for giving me the opportunity to speak on this important issue.

Let me be clear in outlining the circumstances that would lead to someone being detained when the person arrives in Canada. First, if officials suspect that someone is a criminal, has committed crimes against humanity, is a war criminal, or otherwise poses a threat to the safety and security of Canadians, that person will be detained.

Second, under Bill C-31, protecting Canada's immigration system act, anyone who arrives as part of a human smuggling event will be detained once that person arrives in Canada, except for anyone under the age of 16, who is exempt from detention. The reason is that they often do not have correct documentation.

It is important to also point out that the architects of the human smuggling events are also on the boats, among everyone else. Accordingly, it is important to detain these individuals until their identity is discovered and verified and their risk to the safety and security of Canadians is verified.

I think detaining foreign nationals for these reasons is what any responsible government would do. I know my constituents sleep better at night knowing that these people are detained and that our Conservative government takes the safety of their families seriously.

Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for the NDP. Surely the NDP is not saying that it wants these people to be let free into our communities, among our constituents and theirs, before we know if they pose a threat. The NDP claims it wants people to be released more quickly, but yet again the NDP has shown that it says one thing and does another.

Under Bill C-31, the refugee determination process will be streamlined, resulting in genuine refugees receiving Canada's protection more quickly while criminals and refugee claimants will be removed faster.

The current refugee determination process takes almost two years for the first hearing. Under Bill C-31, it will take only two to three months for a first hearing. This means that anyone who is detained as part of a human smuggling event and found not to be a risk will not have to wait two years to have their claim heard and be released. Instead, anyone who arrives and is found not to be risk and found to be a bona fide refugee will be released in a few short months.

In addition, in response to the concerns raised by this NDP member's colleagues and experts, our government has acted in good faith and agreed to provisions to add additional detention reviews to Bill C-31. This means even more opportunity for those who have come as part of a human smuggling event.

Unfortunately, the NDP has criticized these important amendments. Instead of working collaboratively and being practical, the NDP has decided to oppose and be ideological. This is very unfortunate, but it is not surprising, because the NDP has a habit of complaining; then, when the government acts to work with the NDP to fix a problem, the NDP does not support it.

I urge the member for take her own advice, work with our government to improve the detention provisions in Bill C-31 and support this very important piece of legislation.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on February 8, 2012, I rose in the House to ask the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism about the very worrisome situation at the Laval immigration holding centre, which is in my riding of Alfred-Pellan.

I was not satisfied with the answer and therefore I thank you for giving me the opportunity to again speak about this matter in the House today.

Things have happened since the last time we discussed this matter. In fact, Bill C-4, the subject of my question, has now been replaced by Bill C-31, 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.

There are three immigration holding centres in Canada: one in Toronto, one in Vancouver and one in Laval, in my riding. Refugees who cannot prove their identity are incarcerated in this facility, which looks like a prison. In fact, in Laval, the centre is located in a former penitentiary. Detainees are put in chains when they are moved and they are separated from their families.

The centre tells the refugees that the process for verifying their identity will take just a few days, but some will spend weeks, even months, at a place that operates as a medium security prison. It is terrible because, contrary to what the government believes, newcomers and refugees are not criminals and should not be treated as such.

Studies show that such prison stays will have adverse psychological effects on these individuals. Newcomers in these refugee centres are not entitled to access to psychotherapists or consultations with social workers. In fact, individuals with behavioural problems or suicidal individuals are transferred to a maximum security prison or are simply separated from the others.

This brings me to a number of questions. Is this the federal government's roundabout way of limiting immigration and the number of refugees in Canada?

We are talking about individuals who have left everything behind in their country of origin, in order to find refuge and to emigrate to Canada, a welcoming and developed country. I would like the government to put itself in their shoes for a minute. It must be awful to leave one's country for safety reasons and arrive at a place thinking it will be a welcoming land, only to quickly realize that you are given the same status as a criminal.

Some people prefer to suffer and put up with the pain rather than go to a hospital in chains.

Allow me to ask you a question: is there an emotion that hurts more than physical pain? The answer, Mr. Speaker, is humiliation. No one should be humiliated. However, that is what happens to new immigrants in these immigration detention centres. That is simply unacceptable.

We have learned that the government plans to make cuts of $84.3 million, or 5.3%, by 2015, and that includes a 13.1% cut to the Immigration and Refugee Board. We wonder how the government plans to remedy this situation. Passing bills such as Bill C-31 and making these types of cuts will stretch immigration processing from a few months to several years.

Why is the government doing nothing to remedy this situation, which is unbearable for newcomers? When will the government get down to work and suggest some real solutions?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Chair, I would move that Bill C-31 in clause 14 be amended by replacing line 8 on page 10 with the following:

or a designated foreign national, or a claimant from a designated country of origin who is inadmissible or who does not meet the

Mr. Chairperson, in essence, this allows the minister to make exemptions in individual cases. In one sense, it provides some further clarity in regard to it not being just foreign nationals. That's the purpose of the amendment.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Chair, I would move that Bill C-31 in clause 12 be amended by deleting.... I can't quite make this out, but I have “line 30 on page 6 to line 3 on page 7”. I think you might have some other number, as opposed to 30. Is it 29?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I would move that Bill C-31 in clause 10 be amended by replacing line 30 on page 4 with the following:

conducted within 48 hours of their arrival; or

As to whether it's 48 hours or 96 hours, we're very much open to either. Forty-eight hours just happened to be the number of hours we put in. When people come in, in a boat situation or a more-than-two situation, there should a reasonable time before the minister can designate them as irregular arrivals. There could be situations where the individuals in question might be able to provide appropriate identification and background information so that they could avoid that designation. At least that was the intent. I trust that's what the amendment is reflecting.

I would welcome opinions and thoughts on this.

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

I move that Bill C-31 in clause 6 be amended by replacing line 16 on page 3 with the following:

prescribed biometric information, which may be collected and disclosed only if it is necessary for the purpose of verifying the foreign national's identity or for the purposes of national security and, in the case of a disclosure to be made to the government of a foreign state, the disclosure may be made only if there is an agreement or arrangement with that govemment that it may use the biometric information only for the purpose of verifying the foreign national's identity and that the information shall be destroyed as soon as the verification process is completed.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

In my opening remarks I made reference to one or two amendments that I would like to submit. This is a fairly straightforward amendment. I would move that Bill C-31, in clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 9 and 10 on page 1 with the following:

“designated foreign national”--

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I didn't mean to be too extended in my comments. I just thought I would take advantage of the opportunity to express myself, because on many of those presentations I only had five minutes. This allows me to air a little bit of frustration, and I'm sure my colleague from across the way can sympathize with why it is that we are so concerned about Bill C-31.

The point is, Mr. Chairperson, that in trying to address the legislation and in listening to all of the presenters who made presentations, I have had the opportunity to discuss with members of my own Liberal caucus. There are a number of concerns that we have raised in regard to the bill. What I did was highlight some of the major concerns.

I have before me a series of amendments. I don't necessarily want to go through all of the amendments, because as we go clause by clause we'll be afforded the opportunity to talk about those amendments. But the concern is.....

To the credit of the NDP, I think Ms. Sims recognized it right up front by saying that we need to set aside some additional time so that we can ensure that we are afforded ample opportunity to thoroughly discuss each amendment. I think that would have been a very good motion, had it been allowed to go ahead, Mr. Chair. It's not necessarily a reflection upon your particular ruling—I abstained from that particular vote, I must say—but I think there would have been some merit to it.

There was one in particular that, when I was looking through the bill late last night—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm not going to allow it to be debated. I will need unanimous consent to allow it to be debated. I'm going to take the position that this time was set for Bill C-31. That's the motion.

We just went through that exercise a few seconds ago on whether we would come back tonight, and that required unanimous consent. Unanimous consent has been given on terms.

I take the position that this motion is out of order until we have disposed of Bill C-31, which was made pursuant to an order of this committee, and to change that—

Citizenship and Immigration

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

Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration has heard from dozens of witnesses in a very short period of time, because the Conservatives want to pass Bill C-31 very quickly, but the bill does not correspond to any of the fundamental principles of Canadian justice.

In fact, too much power is concentrated in the minister's hands. He even has the right to remove permanent residents who have been living here for years.

This bill will foster intolerance of refugees and xenophobia. Deport, control, remove, incarcerate: Conservatives like to use these terms. They do not hesitate to promote a bill that, according to the Canadian Bar Association and the Barreau du Québec, violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This bill goes against too many of our principles.

I will leave the fearmongering up to them.

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

Thank you kindly, Mr. Chair.

Clause 19 of Bill C-31 introduces a concept that is radically different, in other words, giving refugees conditional permanent residence. A person who has been recognized as a legitimate refugee and who has obtained permanent resident status can have that status revoked at the minister's discretion if, at any point, he feels that the refugee's country of origin has become safe. Does that not violate refugee status rules allowing an individual to truly make a new life for themselves?