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.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We're probably getting ahead of ourselves, Mr. Dykstra, because I notice that's what you're suggesting in amendment G-4.1. If you don't like Ms. Chow's amendment—
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
—you should vote against it, and we would then vote for or against amendment G-4.1.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Alice Wong Conservative Richmond, BC
I agree with what Mr. Dykstra just said.
I'm asking if Ms. Chow can table her amendment and let the government one go through first. Then, if it's approved, there is no need to look at hers.
3:50 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
I move that Bill C-35 in clause 4 be amended by replacing line 19 on page 3 with the following:
time within, but not later than, 10 years after
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
You've made your presentation. Is there further debate?
Ms. Chow, and then Mr. Trudeau.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
I support that. The reason I want to extend it beyond five years is that I know, for example, some of the applications to sponsor a parent sometimes take five to eight years. If you found out some crooked consultant had cheated you and you didn't file your complaint early enough because you didn't know they cheated you...because it takes five to eight years to process the sponsorship, I was worried. Ten years would be better than five, so I would support that.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Justin Trudeau Liberal Papineau, QC
My question is for the legal and the analysts. Are we setting a precedent by setting it to 10 years, and in what direction are we going? I certainly take Monsieur St-Cyr's comment that in terms of summary convictions we are usually talking about minor offences that are brushed aside or dealt with, with alacrity. I think the difference between five or 10 years, in practical terms, won't have much of an impact, and I therefore worry about the changes we're making to our habits, as legislators.
November 22nd, 2010 / 3:50 p.m.
Director, Social Policy and Programs, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
To follow up on what Mr. Dykstra mentioned, it is extraordinary to have such a time limit. The examples we uncovered did not go into a period of 10 years. In the examples that were uncovered, the period was three years; many of them were in that range.
These are exceptions to a generalized example under the Criminal Code, where many charges have a six-month period for summary convictions. It is quite extraordinary to have a 10-year period for a summary conviction.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
I would imagine, for example, if a consultant said, “I'll put in the application for you to sponsor your parents and your younger brother to come to Canada”, and then subsequently the consultant didn't, that would not be a serious offence. However, if you waited long enough, that brother could become an adult and he would never be able to be sponsored under the family class application. It may take years for the applicant to find out the application didn't even go in. By that time, five years could have passed, because sometimes the wait times for sponsoring a parent can take five years. They may not realize that.
Am I correct, though, that not putting in an application is not a serious offence? It actually has huge implications for the brother, or for the Canadian whose brother is never going to be able to come into Canada because he is over age. He is permanently separated because this consultant didn't put in the application, as he said he would. That's a small offence, but it would sometimes take more than five years for the applicant to know. That would be a summary.... It's not a huge offence. Am I correct on that?
3:55 p.m.
Director, Social Policy and Programs, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
It would of course depend on the specifics of the case as to when it would be determined that the subject matter arose, for when the crime is deemed to have been committed. It would depend on the subject matter or the specifics of the case. But it is possible that there would be those serious consequences, or similar serious consequences, in an immigration matter.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
But this would not be an indictable offence, by not putting in an application, for example.
3:55 p.m.
Elaine Ménard Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Chair, I think Ms. Chow has a very valid concern. It may be an indictable offence; it may be a summary conviction. I really can't say. It would depend upon the facts of the case.
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
I have three questions.
This is a technical question, but choosing to proceed against someone by summary conviction rather than by...the French for “indictment” escapes me.
3:55 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
It's “mise en accusation” .