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.
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
That's a good point. You all have copies of them. Do we require that the amendments be read? It will take up time if we do this for each and every amendment, but I'm in your hands.
I hear silence, so we will not. We all have copies.
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This particular amendment allows for a refugee to apply for permanent residence once they have actually been cleared and approved as a refugee. The first amendment dealt with the mandatory detention, which penalized refugees. This is another area in which the refugee is once again being penalized.
Under the current legislation, if a refugee is designated, unfortunately they are not going to be able to sponsor a family member from abroad for at least five years. The purpose or the intent of this particular amendment is to deal with that particular issue, so that the individual does not have to wait the five years before they are able to sponsor someone.
That's the essence of the amendment, as I understand it.
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Is there any debate?
(Amendment negatived)
Mr. Lamoureux, you have a second amendment on clause 5?
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I think it's understood we don't need to read any of these, unless someone specifically asks for it.
(Clause 5 agreed to on division)
(On clause 6)
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
1:15 p.m.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Yes. We have a substitute amendment, and I have the printed documents here.
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
1:15 p.m.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Chair, I'm reading it in only because we've put in new wording.
1:15 p.m.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
I move that Bill C-31 in clause 6 be amended by replacing line 16 on page 3 with the following:
prescribed biometric information, which may be collected and disclosed only if it is necessary for the purpose of verifying the foreign national's identity or for the purposes of national security and, in the case of a disclosure to be made to the government of a foreign state, the disclosure may be made only if there is an agreement or arrangement with that govemment that it may use the biometric information only for the purpose of verifying the foreign national's identity and that the information shall be destroyed as soon as the verification process is completed.
1:15 p.m.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
This amendment restricts the collection of biometric information and the disclosure of it to circumstances where it is necessary for verifying identity or national security purposes, and, where disclosure is made to another government, only where there is an agreement in place that limits its use to verification of identification and where it sets out that the information will be destroyed once that verification occurs.
So we're not opposed to the collection of the biometric data, but we do want limitations as to how it's used and how it's disclosed.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
From a government perspective, we proceeded very cautiously in terms of the issue of privacy. By and large, I think those who witnessed at and came to committee expressed a similar concern of the government. To be quite honest, I can't think of a witness who didn't support the biometrics as a part of this bill and as part of moving forward.
The difficulty with this amendment is twofold. First, it actually waters down the biometric provisions in and of themselves. Second, and probably most importantly, by specifying that biometrics are to be collected to verify identity only, it actually prevents the government from doing what is one of the most important purposes of this part of the legislation, and that is to check for criminal background. So the amendment actually waters down entirely the purpose of the biometrics.
Let's not forget that this is our step into the process moving forward, and the government has approached this in a very responsible manner. If we're going to move an amendment that actually doesn't allow the government to do background.... I'll ask government officials to comment on this to verify that what I am saying is correct, in that the ability to only verify identity and to not be able to do a criminal background check prevents a very important part of the biometrics provision, because that is in fact one of the major reasons we want to move this forward.
I would ask the officials to comment.
1:20 p.m.
Director, Asylum Policy and Programs, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I'll ask Monique Frison to speak for the department.
May 9th, 2012 / 1:20 p.m.
Monique Frison Director, Identity Management and Information Sharing, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
With the references to verifying identity and national security, the reasons we would use and disclose biometric information are narrowed. We collect biometric information to support the two aspects of immigration decision-making. One is identity and the other is risk assessment. Any visa or border officer deciding whether to admit somebody to Canada would look at who a person is and what risk they pose to Canada.
For identity, yes, we will use biometrics to verify identity. On the risk side, there are many reasons aside from national security why we would decide not to admit somebody to Canada. Criminal history, war crimes, and crimes against humanity are all listed separately from national security in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The amendment would have the effect of narrowing the uses we would make of the biometric information that we might collect.