Evidence of meeting #32 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:52 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Ask Mr. St-Cyr; he'll straighten it out.
Is there anything else, Mr. Trudeau?
4:52 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
I'd like a little further clarification of some of the potential difficulties that this presents.
You referred to agencies such as the UNHCR. Could you expand on that? What sort of advice are they engaged in providing through their offices? What sorts of understandings does the federal government have with UN agencies when it comes to providing this sort of advice?
November 15th, 2010 / 4:52 p.m.
Director, Social Policy and Programs, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Could I take a minute to converse with my colleagues, who might have more information?
5:04 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Okay, we'll resume.
Ms. MacNeil, are you prepared to make any comment?
5:04 p.m.
Director, Social Policy and Programs, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Yes.
I hope I can provide a little bit more clarity with respect to the work of the UNHCR. I will preface it by saying that I am not a refugee expert, but I am aware that in the process of their work overseas they do make recommendations with respect to the determination of cases. They interview potential refugee claimants, and in that process of making a recommendation to the government with respect to the case, it may be interpreted or it may happen that they may provide some advice, or it may be interpreted as representation with respect to whether or not the refugee stream is an appropriate stream for the individual. This, then, may capture that activity. It also limits any future scenario with respect to greater involvement with respect to the UNHCR and greater activities on their part.
I'll also turn to Ms. Ménard to speak to another matter.
5:04 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I wish to speak to the matter regarding the situation in Afghanistan, actually, and my concern with regard to the broad term “entity”. This is because the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration created a public policy a while ago to enable Afghan interpreters and other Afghans--who are risking their lives over there to assist Canadian Forces--to come to Canada. They're not coming necessarily as refugees as a public policy under section 25 of the act. Because of the danger over there, we do not have visa officers processing applications, and we've entered into a contract with the IOM, the International Organization of Migration. So they're the entity that will advise and assist the Afghan nationals in Afghanistan who are assisting our forces. I'm concerned that we would not have the flexibility to enter into arrangements with organizations such as this in tenuous or difficult war-like situations, or other situations, should this proposal or amendment be passed.
5:04 p.m.
NDP
5:04 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Well, we're moving right along.
We're now at NDP-3. NDP-2 is withdrawn.
I draw to the attention of members that if NDP-3 is adopted, because there would be a line conflict, G-2.3 cannot be moved.
5:04 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Yes, which is what Mr. Dykstra has been dying to proceed with.
You have a point of order?
5:04 p.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
I have two questions, Mr. Chairman.
It seems to me that the Committee had unanimously consented, at the beginning of this process, to the idea of members being able to express their views twice on the same lines, if the subjects were different—simply to facilitate our work. In my opinion, that consensus is still in place.
Furthermore, this amendment is similar to amendment LIB-1, which is based on the same philosophy, even though it's a little different. I would like to know whether this amendment will be dealt with later, or whether we should deal with them together.
5:04 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
No. We will not be dealing with that a little bit later, and I don't agree that it's similar. I will acknowledge that we did unanimously agree to one issue. But, you know what, this whole thing is getting so complicated, I'm going to agree with you that there's unanimous consent that we can deal with this at the same time.
5:04 p.m.
NDP
5:04 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
And we are also dealing with motion 9, which is Liberal-1, because it is also dealing with the same thing--
5:04 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
--so could we start with motion 9? I'll table mine to pull out number 9, which is Liberal-1. It deals with line 32 on page 2.
5:04 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I'll tell you what I'm going to do, Ms. Chow, to make things more complicated, or it might make things more interesting. It hasn't been moved, but I actually have told the Liberal caucus in the past that Liberal-1 is inadmissible because it is beyond the scope of the bill, and I am so ruling.
So we're back to you.
