Evidence of meeting #54 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clause.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Members, Bloc amendment BQ-14 has been withdrawn, and Bloc amendment BQ-15 is withdrawn.
(Clause 377 as amended agreed to on division)
We now are at new clause 377.1, and we have NDP new amendment NDP-6.
Go ahead, MP Blaikie.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Thank you very much.
I am very happy to motivate this amendment. However, having just read the lion's share of it, I think committee members are well aware of its content, so I will leave it at that, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
We have the new clause 377.1. For new clause 377.1, there is an amendment from the NDP. It's the new NDP-6, which is what we are voting on.
Liberal
Yvan Baker Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Could we have a recorded vote?
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Members, there are no amendments submitted to clauses 378 to 455. Clauses 378 to 455 are all in part 5 of the bill.
Do we have unanimous consent to group them for the vote?
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
Mr. Chair, we adopted the new NDP amendment 6, but we haven't adopted the new clause 377.1, if I'm not mistaken.
I therefore move that it be adopted on division.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, Mr. Ste‑Marie.
The clarification from the legislative clerk is that the amendment is the clause itself, so it is all captured.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
My apologies, Mr. Chair. You learn something every day.
Thank you.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
I think we could group the clauses up to clause 378, but there will be some discussion around clause 379, as well as clause 381.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Okay. Clause 378 is the first one.
(Clause 378 agreed to on division)
(On clause 379)
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Again, with tribute to the work of my colleague Jenny Kwan, my plan is to oppose this particular clause. The reason for that is that the government projects certain service standards within Citizenship and Immigration. One of the few accountability mechanisms that there are.... I won't belabour the point too much, but all anyone has to do is to tune in to question period, and they don't even have to do that. They could probably just go to the local coffee shop, hockey rink or wherever, and they're going to hear people talking about some of the very real frustrations they've had with getting timely service from the immigration department, whether it's for their permanent residency, citizenship, travel visas or whatever it happens to be.
One of the few modicums of accountability for the government—which is clearly insufficient already—is that there is an obligation for the government to reimburse some of the fees that people pay to IRCC under certain circumstances and when service standards aren't met. My understanding of clause 379 and, consequently, clause 381 is that they would absolve the government of its obligation to reimburse people when there have been extraordinary delays in processing their immigration request. We simply feel that's not appropriate.
That's why, if members look at clauses 379 and 381, what they'll see is that the coming into force date, if I am not mistaken, is 2017. That's because it is deliberately going back in order to retroactively absolve the government of its responsibilities.
That's why I intend to vote no on this clause and would encourage other members of the committee to consider doing the same. Thank you.
Liberal
Liberal
Terry Beech Liberal Burnaby North—Seymour, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I have a question for the officials. I'm wondering if they could describe what the impact of deleting this clause would be.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
MP Beech, can you perhaps repeat what you're looking for from the officials?
Liberal
Terry Beech Liberal Burnaby North—Seymour, BC
No problem. Based off of the intention that Mr. Blaikie just described, I'm wondering if the officials could describe for us the impact of deleting this particular clause.
Julie Chassé Director General, Financial Strategy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Chair, I'm sorry. I was having some issues.
The four fees in question are related to four services for which an exemption is being sought today from the Service Fees Act. These four services are very exceptional in nature. They mostly address a situation of inadmissibility or criminal record for an applicant.
These four fees are usually, as I said, exceptional. Processing times for these applications may vary from a month to up to 92 months, or even 120 months, in processing, because they require public servants to obtain information from various countries in terms of criminal records and to assess the applications accordingly. It's also highly dependent on applicants providing this information to us in terms of being able to process the application in processing times. The issue at play is our inability to provide meaningful service standards and predictable service standards for these four specific fees.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, Ms. Chassé.
MP Beech, you now have the information.
Go ahead, MP Albas.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We will be voting with the NDP on this. I think Mr. Blaikie has laid out the argument.
Liberal
Liberal
Terry Beech Liberal Burnaby North—Seymour, BC
Actually, I think I just got my answer.
This is a little bit of a surprise for me. Could I just ask the committee's indulgence for a two-minute suspension?