Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 9th, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Sims.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

The NDP's position is that we are not supportive of two categories of refugees. We believe the current legislation, which was Bill C-11, allows for the government to identify and do security checks. We feel that is adequate.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Lamoureux.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

To respond to the concerns expressed by the Conservative Party, Mr. Chairperson, we don't believe that a boatload of 150 people, which might occur twice in a decade or whatever, should be treated any differently from a refugee who would come in via a plane, in the sense that the current system has worked, and Canada Border Services Agency has made it very clear that the current system to be able to detain an individual, whether they come in as two or 500, or whatever the number might be, has proven itself to be very effective.

This highlights the fact that it is clearly a Conservative government opinion that they need to actually bring in this whole mandatory detention concept and ability to designate those people, which then in essence establishes two types of refugees.

I appreciate the member's comments.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 5)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Clause 5 is the first of the amendments. Just so you understand it, the clerk has put down the order. You'll see there's an NDP amendment and then a Liberal amendment, which cover the same item. We take them in the order they arrived to the table, so the NDP is first. The Liberal motion would not proceed if it's defeated.

Ms. Sims, you have the floor.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Chair, this amendment removes the restriction—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Could you read the amendment for the record, please?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

A point of order, Monsieur Giguère.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Could the interpreters be given a copy of the amendments?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

All right.

Sorry, Ms. Sims. Could you start again, please?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

I move that Bill C-31 in clause 5 be amended by replacing lines 3 to 17 on page 2 with the following:

(1.1) A designated foreign national whose identity has not been established or in respect of whom the minister has reasonable grounds to suspect that in relation to the arrival in Canada of that foreign national there has been, or will be, a contravention of subsection 117(1) for profit, or for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization or terrorist group may not make an application for permanent residence under subsection (1).

Mr. Chair, this amendment removes the restriction on designated irregular arrivals from applying for permanent residence on application before entering Canada, and therefore from sponsoring their families for five years, by limiting that restriction to those who are not yet identified or for whom the minister had reasonable grounds to believe that there may be security problems.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Debate?

Mr. Dykstra and then Monsieur Giguère.

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

Chair, I was actually rather shocked to see this amendment. I'll explain a couple of reasons why.

First, one of the issues the NDP and the Liberals in concert had argued was that the legislation we're proposing under Bill C-31 would somehow give a Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism unfettered access or unfettered power to make decisions, which of course it does not do.

That's exactly what this amendment does, if you read the first part of it, where it says “a designated foreign national whose identity has not been established or in respect of whom the minister has reasonable grounds to suspect”. That's “reasonable grounds to suspect”. So under this amendment we would basically give the minister the ability, virtually without exception, to rule on each one of these individuals who is attempting to come to Canada vis-à-vis asylum. He or she could designate.

It's too far-reaching in terms of the authority it actually gives the minister. I find it ironic that I'm suggesting here that the NDP is pretty much giving the Minister of Immigration.... I'm actually tempted to convince my colleagues in government to support this, because you basically give the minister uniform authority to make a decision on almost every single person who comes into the country, at his or her discretion. All you're establishing under this amendment is reasonable grounds and suspicion, which is much stronger in the clause the way we have it set out.

Furthermore, if you go to the final part, where it says that “in relation to the arrival in Canada of that foreign national, there has been, or will be, a contravention of subsection 117(1) for profit,”--now listen to this--“or for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization”.... Each one of these individuals or families that is on a ship that is coming to Canada will have been in association with a criminal organization. In fact, some of those criminals may actually be on the ship, so they would be deemed to be in association with them.

I would strongly recommend that the NDP withdraw this amendment. I'm happy to ask ministry officials to comment. What we're doing in terms of the five-year ban is absolutely nothing in comparison with what this amendment would actually do.

You want to talk about setting two tiers, Mr. Chairman. We will not be setting two tiers here. We'll be setting two cliffs, one where 99.5% of the refugee applications come through, and the other will be so far down from that in terms of equality that....

It's fascinating, after hearing everything the NDP has said on this issue, that they would reach to this extent to use words like “suspect” and “reasonable grounds” and “in association with a criminal organization”.

Perhaps I'll ask Ms. Irish to comment on the amendment, if she could.

[Jennifer Irish, Director, Asylum Policy and Programs, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

We'd be pleased to answer any technical questions related to the amendment. We do find it a little bit confusing the way it's worded, but we'd be prepared to answer any questions if there should be particular technical issues that need to be brought forward.

We would like clarification through you, Chair, of some of the intentions of the bill, as it seems to imply that anyone who is designated on arrival would have the penalty of no permanent residence forever.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Ms. Irish.

I think it's unfair to ask members of the department to comment on whether any amendment from either side is right or wrong. I think it's fair to ask the department to perhaps explain the effect of an amendment for either the government or the opposition, but I don't think we should be putting the department members in the position of suggesting an amendment is good or bad.

I think that's what you were doing, Mr. Dykstra.

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

That certainly was not my intent. My question to Ms. Irish was simply to comment on the bill, not to determine whether what I said was correct or not. Those are my feelings. I respect, in fact, that the answer she gave was not in relation to my comments but was referring to the NDP.

The only other point I would make here, Mr. Chair, is that under the current legislation, criminals are already inadmissible into the country. So the only thing I did not speak to was that not only is this a very controversial amendment, which is completely out of line with what the government is trying to accomplish—and to be honest, I believe what the NDP should actually acknowledge they don't agree with—but in fact criminals are not admissible into the country under the current legislation.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Monsieur Giguère.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Chair, our amendment essentially aims to eliminate the safeguard clause regarding foreigners who arrive irregularly. Mr. Dykstra talked about national security requirements, but those requirements are practically a throwback to the War Measures Act of 1970. You have the power to punish people, to incarcerate them, to diminish their rights, based exclusively on national security requirements, which you yourselves establish.

We think that, if those people are recognized refugees, they should have the same rights as all other recognized refugees. Even UNICEF, which can certainly not be accused of supporting terrorism, basically says that your safeguards—in other words, the creation of two refugee categories—are unacceptable. That is what our amendment addresses. We certainly do not want the War Measures Act to make a comeback.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Lamoureux.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I pass.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Sims.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

I want to once again state our opposition to designating asylum seekers or refugees who come into the country. When you look at this amendment, it's “a contravention of subsection 117(1) for profit, or for the benefit of”, and I think it stands on its own.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Is there any further debate? No?

(Amendment negatived)

Mr. Lamoureux, your amendment is slightly different, so you may proceed.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Did you want me to read the entire thing, Mr. Chair, or can I just consider it taken as read?