Citizenship and Immigration Committee on March 31st, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Excuse me. I've got to have order here.

Ms. Chow is trying to speak, and we have people talking all over the place. Let's give her some courtesy.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Thank you.

The other one is that the recent motion passed by this committee be withdrawn. I don't think we can do so. It's now in front of Parliament, and I believe there will probably be reports and a discussion in Parliament about whether Parliament supports or does not support that motion. At that point, perhaps Mr. Calandra can raise some of those issues. Had the earlier motion said that those who have been convicted should continue to be deported, that would be a different story. To come in and say they may have serious criminality.... Who is going to make that decision?

I have a problem with this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Bevilacqua.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the clerk and you for bringing to light the consequences of giving a positive result to this particular motion. I also think that Mr. Calandra may consider reviewing and rewriting his motion. A democratic committee like this one cannot accept words like, as Ms. Chow has already pointed out, “may have serious”--what does “may have” mean--or “may have participated in war crimes”.

You're talking about people's lives here. I know that you care about people's lives, I'm not questioning that at all. I probably understand the spirit in which you have presented this.

When you consider the consequences of the actions that we would be taking, plus the lack of precision in the wording of the motion, then personally you haven't convinced me that I have to support this. It's not a personal issue; I hope you're very clear about that.

I won't be supporting this motion as it stands, for whatever that's worth to you, but I want to be clear to you and I want to say it straight to your face, because I think that when we present motions, we have to do our due diligence in the preparation, but also understand that the actions we take as individual members here have consequences. If you read between the lines of what the chairman said, with the guidance that the clerk provided--if we clearly listen to it--it's not just your motion you're talking about; you're talking about the credibility of any future report that we provide as the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. If we head down this road, what the House will do is look at this committee as a committee that has reports du jour.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

Today the committee wants to do this, but tomorrow it may change its mind. It's a pattern that you may want to avoid, because quite frankly, we work really hard in this committee and I think we provide great work, thanks to our input but also thanks to the excellent staff who serve us, like the researchers and others. You don't want to jeopardize that in the House of Commons; you really don't. I think it's far too important to maintain the credibility of the committee over this motion.

I can't even endorse this motion, because quite frankly, it's not even well written. I want to say these things in a very public way to you. You have my support on any future motions that you may present that are perhaps clearer and have substance behind them.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We have a list.

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj--I've always called him Borys. You know, it took me a year to pronounce Lukiwski, so I don't know how long it's going to take me to learn your name. I apologize.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

It's a few consonants longer than Lukiwski.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Welcome to the committee. You have the floor.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you.

My colleague has made all the points quite succinctly. If I could, I would like to add another nuance. I take it that the spirit of this motion is self-evident, and the member is looking to address serious issues, but that is all the more reason to approach carefully and meticulously the structure and wording of a motion, aside from the jeopardy into which it puts the committee's reputation and the chair's reputation.

There are fundamental principles upon which our judicial systems are based. The presumption of innocence is one of those. We know that deportation to a country such as Sri Lanka would entail significant hardship and punishment. To have punishment meted out just on an assumption that someone may have, whether it's criminality.... Once criminality is established, we have a court system that does that. We also have a penal system that metes out punishment, but it is even more so in the case of war crimes.

We know that in a war situation it is very difficult to establish facts. Typically there are two sides. You often have people who have gone through wars who will have their own particular agendas, so the justice system has always been very careful in establishing the facts in cases of war crimes. They are probably the best-resourced cases in terms of court proceedings. If we look back in history, we've always been extremely careful. If we were to just sloppily say that someone may have participated in something, well, what is the standard? Someone may have seen or may have heard, and it's truly unfortunate, because this is an incredibly serious issue.

The final point is that Canada is always very careful not to inadvertently do things against the will of society here in Canada. For one thing, we're very careful not to deport people to countries where there is capital punishment and where court systems aren't as careful and as clearly evidence-based as our court systems are. I would like to underline all those very important issues that are raised procedurally here in the House in terms of establishing criminality in the case of war crimes and also in terms of deportation to countries to which Canada would normally not deport because of the situation of their justice system.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Go ahead, Mr. Calandra.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It would appear that if I were to modify the motion a little, there might be unanimous support for it. I won't prejudge how the vote would be, but I am willing to bring an amendment.

Before I do, I just want to suggest that it would be the IRB that would be making decisions on whether somebody would be staying in Canada or not staying in Canada. Having said that, Mr. Chair, I would offer the following amendment to the motion--

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm just getting direction from the clerk as to whether you can amend your own motion, and apparently you can't. You cannot, unless there is some consensus as to your slightly changing the words. Whether the members agree with your motion or not, they may or may not agree with your changing the motion. There would have to be some sort of consensus on that, unless someone else moves the amendment.

Mr. Dykstra is going to move something. What are you going to move?

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

Mr. Calandra is going to explain what a potential amendment might look like and then I'm going to--

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Calandra, tell us what you want to do.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

It would read as follows: that in the opinion of the committee, the Government of Canada, with respect to Canadian law, should continue to deport individuals to Sri Lanka who have been convicted of serious criminality issues or who have been convicted of participating in war crimes, and that the recent motion passed by the committee be withdrawn. Then it would be the same motion after that point.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

So you're proposing an amendment that the word “may” be deleted twice.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Yes, deleted twice, and “have been convicted” be inserted.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

On a point of order, Madam Bonsant.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

You just said that unanimity was required in committee for Mr. Calandra to amend his motion. I do not recall that you have asked for unanimous consent.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

No, that's all changed. Mr. Calandra is making suggestions. I suppose he's musing as to what the proposed amendments are going to be, and Mr. Dykstra has indicated that he is going to move those amendments.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Why do you not give the floor to Mr. Dykstra?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm just listening to Mr. Calandra. That's not a point of order.

Mr. Calandra.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

That would be it. Those amendments are what I would propose. I hope that my colleague Mr. Dykstra will move them.

[An hon. member]

Some of them.