Evidence of meeting #33 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 consultants.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Justin Trudeau Liberal Papineau, QC
My original comments were about the difficulty of passing a bill at the same time as we're in the process of regulation and the conflicts and complexities around that stance, but I accept the withdrawal.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Number 18.01 is the Liberal one. We've already dealt with it.
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
Oh, okay. It was motion 18.02, but my motion is 18.01. Okay, I've got you. Sorry.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
The motion will now read that Bill C-35 in clause 2 be amended by adding after line 11 on page 3 the following:
The Minister may
I thought “may” rather than “shall” would give it a bit more latitude.
at the request of a foreign national in Canada who is subject to a removal order, stay the order if the Minister is of the opinion that the foreign national received services from a person who is alleged to have committed an offence under subsection 91(1); the stay may remain in effect until a decision is made with respect to that offence.
What I've--
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Before you get into debate, Ms. Chow, now that you've made the motion, it is inadmissible, from the chair's perspective. It's beyond the scope of the bill. If you wish me to elaborate, I will, but that is the ruling.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
All right, I'll proceed.
Bill C-35 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act by providing the minister with the power to designate a body whose members may represent or advise a person and to require the body to provide information to the minister.
This amendment attempts to require the minister to stay a removal order under certain circumstances. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states at page 766 that “[a]n amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill”.
It's my opinion, as chairman, that the requirement to stay a removal order is a new concept that is beyond the scope of Bill C-35 and is therefore inadmissible.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
Yes, I am.
I move that Bill C-35 be amended by adding after line 11 on page 3 the following new clause:
Section 117 of the act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1):
(1.1) Evidence that 40 or more passengers of a vessel each possess a document in contravention of paragraph 122(1)(a) is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof that any individual serving as a crew member of the vessel knowingly organized, induced, aided or abetted the coming into Canada of one or more persons in contravention of subsection (1).
That deals with the smugglers. It is reversing the onus of proof.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I will be ruling as chairman, Ms. Chow, that the proposed amendment is beyond the scope of the bill.
I'm sorry to go through this exercise, but until you make the motion, I have to wait and see what you're going to say.
That is the end of the proposed new clause 2.1.
(Clause 3 agreed to)
(On clause 4)
We are now on to clause 4 and NDP-9. I'll just advise members, particularly the government, that if NDP-9 is adopted, G-4 cannot be moved, as a result of a line conflict.
Go ahead, Ms. Chow.
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
This is to amend clause 4 by replacing line 19 on page 3 with the following: “time after”.
So basically there would be no limitation period. I know there are other suggestions in there, that it should be five years or ten years. I don't understand why there should be a limited period, because if somebody commits a crime, then we should go after them. Sometimes it might take more than five years to prove it.
3:45 p.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Mr. Chair, I will be brief. I would like to make a comment. I completely understand the decisions you have made about the admissibility of some of the amendments before us. I also understand that the procedure requires it.
Since this session is being recorded, I would just like to share my frustration as a parliamentarian. The committee is hearing a great deal of testimony and it is difficult to introduce amendments because the scope of the bill is very narrow. It is difficult to deal with. We are certainly not going to be able to solve the problem at this committee. I just wanted to say how concerned I am.
Coming back to the amendment before us, I am opposed to it for two reasons. First, in my opinion, the French version says the opposite of the English version. Second, and this is very important, having no limitation period goes too far. The clause is talking about summary offences, the less serious ones. Anyway, it is unlikely that any police force is going to wait 10, 15 or 20 years to investigate an offence of which there will likely be no trace left, let alone evidence, and which no one is interested in any more. So I am going to vote against the amendment.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Just to respond to your first comment, I have no response. I'm not bound by, but I listen very carefully to, the recommendations of the clerk, and I generally follow those recommendations--not always, but generally.
Mr. Dykstra.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Again, I certainly applaud Ms. Chow's intent, in terms of how she wants to move forward and put in an indefinite period of time.
I would say to the committee that there is no precedence anywhere in our federal legislation for an indefinite period of time to be put forward on a summary conviction. There are, in fact, a number of other ministries that do, under summary conviction, stipulate a period of time following the act or the injustice, if you will. They include the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which says up to two years; the Competition Act, which says up to two years after the subject matter arose; the Export and Import of Rough Diamonds Act, which actually says three years. This one's quite interesting: the Canadian Human Rights Act actually says one year after the subject matter of the proceedings arose. I can go on. There are a few more in here, Mr. Chairman.
I would suggest that whatever timeframe we put on this, we'll be setting a precedent in the legislation. We would be prepared to submit a subamendment giving a period of 10 years. I think, from a summary conviction perspective, a period of a decade would be more than enough time to pursue the matter, but I do think we need to differentiate between indictable offence and summary offence. Indictable has no time limit; summary convictions have always moved within a timeframe of somewhere between six months and a couple of years. So I would ask if she would consider a subamendment to say a period of 10 years.
I don't know whether Ms. MacNeil or Ms. Ménard would want to—