Mr. Lamoureux.
Evidence of meeting #42 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #42 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Chair, I support the amendment. Having said that, let me explain why.
You'll recall that biometrics is something that is fairly recent in terms of an issue for the House of Commons. In fact, our own committee was debating that particular issue prior to the minister making this announcement. So we're still having committee meetings trying to better understand the role that biometrics plays for refugees, visiting visas, student visas—the whole nine yards—working visas, and so forth. Given that there are concerns with regard to disclosure and disposal of information, issues related to regulations, for all of those reasons and more, this whole aspect of the bill is one of the reasons why we feel that we're trying to ram a bill through without giving it due diligence.
When I look at this particular amendment, at least it's trying to go a little bit more on the side of caution. All in all, it's better to err on the side of safety than it is to plow ahead when in fact the government really hasn't done its due diligence in the whole spectrum of biometrics. At the very least, the government doesn't seem to think that our committee is worthy of participating in that discussion, or hearing our conclusions contained in our upcoming report.
That's the reason why I'll be in support of the amendment.
1:20 p.m.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Thank you very much.
The Privacy Commissioner has been very clear that there seem to be very few concerns around identity purposes and verification of identity. We haven't really seen that much further comment from the Privacy Commissioner on the true impact on privacy issues of the extension my colleague across the way wants to read into this. For us, we think it's perfectly legitimate, understanding that the Privacy Commissioner has addressed identification and verification of identification.
(Amendment negatived)
(Clause 6 agreed to on division)
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Simply a question. For the sake of time and in consideration of the opposition's wish to speak to their amendments, when we reach areas like this in the bill where we have three or more clauses that do not have amendments, may I suggest that you ask for those series of clauses to be passed at the same time, so we can expedite the process?
(Clauses 7 to 9 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 10)
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
1:25 p.m.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Thank you.
This amendment is very clear. We are opposed to the two-tiered system. However, in order to mitigate some of the harm, this amendment would require that the minister could only make a designation for groups that are 50 persons or more.
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Very simply, Chair, the difficulty with this amendment is that it actually suggests to those who are in the business of smuggling that as long as it's 49 they'll be just fine. I don't really like that kind of poetry. I think the best thing to do is leave the responsibilities to the Minister of Public Safety and the ministry itself, in consultation with the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration, to determine when an irregular arrival occurs. A number is very problematic.
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
For the record, Mr. Lamoureux, we will not need to vote on your amendment.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
That was what I was going to note right at the beginning—they're identical votes, which goes to show that at least two of the three political parties around the table have seen the merit of changing it. This one might be seen as a little more favourable than the 5,000 one—it's been reduced to 50 persons. You'll notice the 50 is intentionally taken. The Sun Sea and the Ocean Lady would both have been subjected to this law.
I think 50 is a more reasonable number. But I want to make it perfectly clear that we do not support mandatory detention. I do believe 50 is more of a reasonable number. I support this amendment, and I'm sure my NDP colleague would support my amendment, which is identical.
1:25 p.m.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
I want to stress that we are opposed to the two-tiered designations. We heard some of the concerns that were expressed by my colleagues across the way to the effect that when you get a large group coming in and you don't know too much about them, once you designate them as irregular, it is a different process.
We're trying to avoid capturing families. The current language as proposed in the legislation would affect any groupings of more than two. This is just ridiculous. I know that our system could easily process 50. We could have made it 100, which is where many of us wanted to go. But once again, because we want to work with the government to address some of these issues, we came up with the very reasonable number of 50. I'm disappointed that my colleague across the way could not see the huge olive branch we reached out with.
(Amendment negatived)
1:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Liberal amendment 2.1 will not be voted on, Mr. Lamoureux, but you may speak to Liberal 2.2.
1:30 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
I would move that Bill C-31 in clause 10 be amended by replacing line 30 on page 4 with the following:
conducted within 48 hours of their arrival; or
As to whether it's 48 hours or 96 hours, we're very much open to either. Forty-eight hours just happened to be the number of hours we put in. When people come in, in a boat situation or a more-than-two situation, there should a reasonable time before the minister can designate them as irregular arrivals. There could be situations where the individuals in question might be able to provide appropriate identification and background information so that they could avoid that designation. At least that was the intent. I trust that's what the amendment is reflecting.
I would welcome opinions and thoughts on this.
1:30 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
There isn't any policy rationale for changing the reference in the bill from “in a timely manner” to “within 48 hours”. It's critical that we maintain the discretion of the Minister of Public Safety and allow the ministry itself to make these determinations.
1:30 p.m.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
We're against designations. We're definitely against the mandatory detention. I think that a review occurring within 48 hours is very reasonable, so we'll be supporting this amendment.
(Amendment negatived)
1:30 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Chair, I would move that Bill C-31 in clause 10 be amended by replacing line 31 on page 4 with the following:
(b) has reasonable grounds to believe that, in
To speak to it very briefly, Mr. Chairperson, what we're trying to do is replace the word “suspect” with “believe”. The reason for that is that there is a much lower standard. It was pointed out by one of our presenters that we are lowering the standard by using the word “suspect”, which causes concern. To replace that word with “believe” is the purpose of the amendment.
(Amendment negatived)