Debate?
Ms. Sims.
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.
1:45 p.m.
Conservative
1:45 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
We don't support the amendment. I've made that clear, but I want to clarify.
It's fine to point to comments or submissions made by witnesses, but I recall this very directly, because I asked a number of questions to our UNHCR representative who came here. When I continued to ask point-blank about other countries and how they compare to what we were doing on this specific issue, his response was that he could give me a direct answer, or he could do as he did, in that he ended up giving me an answer and saying that, well, just because we're making recommendations doesn't mean that you're not meeting the criteria.
So while I have no difficulty whatsoever with hearing what the recommendations might be from the UNHCR, when we did have the witness here, he indicated that they weren't basing their recommendations on minimum thresholds or on what other countries were doing. In his responses he acknowledged that other countries were not doing as much as we are going to do under this legislation. It didn't mean they were pursuing them because they were not compliant with—as you've referred to so many times—the convention of 1951.
I should point out that you can use the material—no problem—but understand that his response was somewhat different in nature in terms of what you're suggesting.
(Amendment negatived)
1:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Mr. Lamoureux, are you withdrawing Liberal amendment 6? My notes say you are.
1:50 p.m.
Conservative
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Chair, I would move that Bill C-31 in clause 12 be amended by deleting.... I can't quite make this out, but I have “line 30 on page 6 to line 3 on page 7”. I think you might have some other number, as opposed to 30. Is it 29?
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Okay. I can just reread it. I move that Bill C-31 in clause 12 be amended by deleting from line 29 on page 6 to line 3 on page 7.
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
I'm sorry, Mr. Chairperson, it was supposed to be concurrent with the other amendment, which was just defeated. Because that amendment was defeated, I guess this one is no longer valid.
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Yes. Sorry.
(Clause 12 agreed to on division)
(On clause 13)
1:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
On clause 13, we have amendment NDP-6.
Ms. Sims, you have the floor.
1:50 p.m.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Thank you.
This amendment once again ensures that the bar for humanitarian and compassionate applications is limited only to those designated foreign nationals who have not been identified or where there are reasonable grounds to have security concerns about them.
I just want to read a little quote here from Barbara Jackman, on April 30:
Secondly, we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. You as parliamentarians are responsible for ensuring that the legislation complies with the charter. Thirdly, every time you put an absolute bar in legislation you make it open to challenge, because absolutes often don't comply with the charter.
For example, persons who are excluded from the system may have a good reason to have their refugee claim determined. Or, for example, for a person who has lost their pre-removal risk assessment, there's a 12-month bar on making another application. It may be that conditions in the country change before they're moved, but by making an absolute and prohibiting them from being able to make a second provision if the conditions warrant, you are forcing them into court on a constitutional challenge. That's the problem with the absolutes. That's why we are placing this amendment on the floor.
1:50 p.m.
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We've always said and have always believed and reaffirmed that no country is completely free of persecution. We know that even here in Canada there are people who are.... To this end, I feel that it's very important that we remove the bar for application for permanent residency on the basis of humanitarian and compassionate grounds, except, of course, for circumstances where identification has not yet been established and where there are reasonable grounds to have security concerns about the applicant. The humanitarian and compassionate grounds are just an extra safeguard.
As my colleague Ms. Sims mentioned in the quote from legal expert Barbara Jackman, it's an extra safeguard that's there. We should not remove the bar for applications for permanent residency.
Mr. Chair, I feel it's extremely important that we allow due process, except for those circumstances that I mentioned earlier.
Thank you.
(Amendment negatived)