Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 9th, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

All those in favour of the amendment?

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

Perhaps we could get a recorded vote. I think it's pretty good that we have everyone here together on this clause.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0)

(Clause 18 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 19)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We're on the New Democratic Party amendment number 12. It is on page 36.

Ms. Sims.

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment would in fact limit the minister's power under subsection 108(2) to apply for the cessation of refugee protection for the purpose of revoking permanent residency to those in circumstances set out in paragraph 108(1)(a):

the person has voluntarily reavailed themself of the protection of their country of nationality;

—and paragraph 108(1)(d)—

the person has voluntarily become re-established in the country that the person left

—thereby excluding the possibility that a change in country circumstances can lead to automatic revocation of permanent residency.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Before we proceed, just so you are all aware, if amendment NDP-12 is adopted, then amendments G-4 and LIB-11.2 cannot be moved.

Ms. Sims, do you have further debate?

(Amendment negatived)

We're on amendment G-4.

Again, Mr. Lamoureux, if amendment G-4 is adopted, amendment LIB-11.2 cannot be moved.

Mr. Dykstra.

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

Chair, the amendment clarifies that automatic loss of permanent resident status may only result from a final determination of cessation made pursuant to—and we just went through these—paragraphs 108(1)(a) to (d), such as in the cases of individuals who re-avail themselves to their country of origin for a lengthy period of residence.

Again, this really does clarify the issue of cessation.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Sims.

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

Once again, we realize that clauses 18 and 19 go together. I want to reiterate that we do appreciate that the minister did realize there were unintended consequences that would have caused great pain to a great number of people, and that has been addressed.

However, we feel that the government's amendment does not go far enough, so we are moving a subamendment to the amendment, which is being handed out right now. Because it's not in French, I would beg the indulgence of the committee so I can read it into the minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Ms. Sims. You may proceed.

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

It is moved that Bill C-31 in clause 19 be amended by replacing line 17, on page 11, with the following:

ceased for any of the reasons described in paragraphs 108(1)(a) or (d),—

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

Mr. Chair, there is no translation.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Monsieur Giguère.

What happened?

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

Will I do it all again?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm afraid so.

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

I move that Bill C-31 in clause 19 be amended by replacing line 17, on page 11, with the following:

ceased for any of the reasons described in paragraphs 108(1)(a) or (d); or when the final determination is made within one year after the date on which refugee protection is conferred;

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

On the subamendment to the amendment, is there any further debate?

Ms. Sims.

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

As you know, we feel very, very strongly that the amendment put forward by the government, even though it's a step in the right direction—I would call it a good step—does not go far enough.

We are very concerned that paragraphs (b) and (c), which I articulated earlier—and I'm not going to go over that again—are compelling reasons for many Canadians, and we should not be using those to revoke somebody's permanent residency.

On Wednesday, May 2, Ms. Carole Dahan said the following:

That's a good question. I know there has been, or will be, other groups speaking specifically about clause 19 and the changes to clause 19, but as it stands right now, I think it would put fear in almost every single refugee and immigrant community throughout Canada.

Even though the government amendment mitigates that somewhat, we believe it does not go far enough. It will not jeopardize Canadians for us to delete paragraphs (b) and (c) as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Dykstra.

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

I do understand that it's difficult to say that the government has gone far enough if you're in opposition. I understand that needs to get on the record from an opposition perspective.

But when you look at the text we have put forward in terms of dealing with the cessation issue, we have eliminated the concern that was brought forward. It specifically eliminates the broad and huge concern that organizations, the legal community, families, and refugees who have been successful already or will be successful in terms of their hearings and their claims being heard, and being positive....

Any step further than that does cause us concern, because there are times when paragraphs (a), (b), and (d) are going to be absolutely necessary for officials and the IRB to utilize.

We won't be supporting the subamendment, but we appreciate the acknowledgement that the government has taken steps in the right direction.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Do you have a further comment?

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

I do.

When I look at (b) and (c) and read the wording, I don't believe that deleting those actually gives the government any more ammunition to protect Canadians. It's quite accepted in Canada that many of us have nationalities from more than one country. We're Canadian, but we still carry nationalities from other countries. I think to deny people, 10 or 15 years after they have gained permanent residency, the ability to regain their nationality is a little over the top.

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

Rather than responding directly, I'd be happy to have Ms. Irish respond to the importance of keeping these two points in the bill.

[Jennifer Irish]

As cessation criteria, it's recognized that if you have acquired your permanent residency through the refugee determination system, and you have since acquired another nationality, that is a recognized ground for cessation under UN conventions. That's reflected in Canadian legislation as well. This just means that if you meet the grounds for cessation as a permanent resident, then you would have your permanent residency revoked at the same time.

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

Thank you very much. That clarifies what it says, but my arguments were more about the reasons for removing it.

I understand what it says right now. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We are going to vote on the subamendment to the amendment.

(Subamendment negatived)

Is there debate on the amendment?

We'll go to Mr. Lamoureux.