Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 10th, 2012

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

Thank you very much.

In light of the answers I have received, I am going to urge my colleagues across the way to support our amendment so that the biometric information is destroyed as soon as verification has been done and the person does not pose a national security risk.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Dykstra.

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

I'm trying to understand the purpose of the amendment, because I think Monique just did a good job of describing something that's critical to this process and part of the reason why they'll be kept that long.

We actually grant visas, one-year or temporary visas, or five-year visas, or even the new 10-year super visa. One of the advantages that visitors to this country have under the new strategy with respect to biometrics is that they would have to pay the fee once, and at least their record, if they're legitimate and confirmed travellers.... They would not have to continually go through the process.

I understand the issue of privacy. Whether or not we happen to agree on this particular part of the bill is one thing, but one of the aspects that's very important to the members on this side is the issue of privacy and how that privacy is respected.

I think it's a useful vehicle, not just for the safety and all the other reasons I have argued or presented over the past couple of days on this biometrics issue. The fact is that it actually gives those who are travelling here to this country a confidence that if they have qualified once under the new system—unless something happens to them, from a security perspective—they're going to be approved to travel again and again into the country.

So it's an actual advantage to travellers coming into the country. It's obviously an advantage to Canada in terms of the nature of its safety.

One more point I would make—and please confirm this, staff, in case I'm wrong—is that if an individual has gone through the biometrics process and then has been granted the honour of Canadian citizenship, those documents and records will in fact be destroyed.

[Monique Frison]

Yes, that's right.

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

Thank you very much for that clarification.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We are dealing with New Democratic Party amendment 22.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clauses 78 to 80 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 81—Designation under section 20.1)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Sims, on New Democratic Party amendment 23, on clause 81, you have the floor.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

As we said earlier, we are not for a two-tier refugee system. We believe that our most vulnerable need to be treated with compassion and with the appropriate steps that currently exist. At the same time, we heard from our colleagues across the way that we need to have a different process in place should we get large groups arriving at any given time.

Our proposal is that if the group is 50 persons or more, only then could the minister designate irregular arrivals. The rest of the arguments I've made throughout the day, so I won't repeat them.

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

Consistently, I might add.

(Amendment negatived)

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I want to speak on clause 81.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Go ahead, sir.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We have a concern on clause 81, and I look to the staff to provide some information on it. Part of the concern we have is, again, the retroactive approach that's being taken when we're saying “March 31, 2009”. There is concern that through this particular clause we're saying this legislation will affect those who would have arrived on the two ships, the Sun Sea and the Ocean Lady.

I wonder if you can confirm whether or not the Sun Sea and the Ocean Lady will be directly affected if this clause is to pass as is.

[Allan Kagedan, Director, National Security Operations, Public Safety Canada]

Thank you.

It's up to the minister to make a determination on that point. Hypothetically, if those arrivals were to be designated, then yes, the individuals on those arrivals could be subject to some of the designation scheme.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

So if we pass this clause, those 500-plus individuals who arrived a couple of years ago could then be told they're not going to be able to sponsor their family members for the next five years, if the minister wants to make that determination. Correct?

[Allan Kagedan]

As you mentioned, the legislation provides a number of disincentives to human smuggling, including not being able to file for permanent residency for over five years. Whether or not any decision would be made with respect to them is in the future and is not known at this stage.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Chair, my concern in wanting to raise the issue at this point is to make sure that committee members are fully aware that if this clause passes, we're empowering the minister to be able to look at the Sun Sea and the Ocean Lady and those who were aboard those two vessels and say that they will not be able to sponsor their spouses and children for at least five years. We're allowing the minister to be able to make that determination. I believe that's wrong. I think this should not be allowed.

We heard presenters talk about the impact on families. I've made reference to mental issues, the psychological impact it'll have on people. I'm expecting a high percentage of these individuals will be classified as refugees, and I think it's terrible for us to be doing something of this nature that's going to become retroactive and deny those members who came in on those two vessels the opportunity to be reunited with their families.

Without further comment, I would hope members will agree to delete this or vote against this particular clause, because it's wrong.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, sir.

We're dealing with clause 81.

Ms. Sims.

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

Chair, the NDP's position, on this side of the table, is that we are opposed to the retroactivity, which is built in, and we have said that a number of times.

Also, our attempt at the amendment was basically to mitigate the concerns that have been expressed. Absolutely, we have very serious concerns about families that are going to be, or could be, separated now for five years, and more, actually, because they can only apply after five years and there could be one, two, three, four, or five years of processing time, depending on the country they come from.

I don't know about Mr. Dykstra's office, but people are lined up at my office, people for whom even getting a visa is turning out to be a real problem, even to attend family functions—a tourist visa to come and view the beautiful country we have and to reunite with family for a short period of time. Surely that's what we want.

There are many parts of this bill that give us serious concern, but overall, we're concerned with the way the so-called “transformation” of immigration is going.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Sitsabaiesan.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Especially after learning from the ministry officials that this would, at the discretion of the minister, retroactively apply to the 500-plus migrants who came on both the Ocean Lady and the MV Sun Sea.... The NDP's position was already against this, but now our position is that much stronger that we need to speak out against this.

I reach out to the government members to not push forward with this, because of the retroactive nature of it. I know the legal counsel we had here earlier was defining the difference between the retroactive nature of legislation and the retrospective nature of legislation, but I'm not going to try to talk about the differences.

In my understanding of the language, it's retroactive to the people who came here, and by the minister's motivation, when this bill came in a previous iteration, it was because of the migrant vessels. The migrants who came from Sri Lanka were the motivation behind this type of bill. Understanding that, I think it's safe to make a leap to these people who came, who fled the conflict in Sri Lanka, who risked their lives spending two months in a rickety cargo ship coming here—and we know that one of the people, one of the migrants on that vessel, perished on the journey to Canada. I've met many of these people. Quite a few live in my riding now, and they're still scared. Every time I speak to them, there's fear in their eyes, Mr. Chair, and a huge sadness because they're alone. Most of them are alone here and they're already separated from their families. Some of them have distant relatives, but they've lost their immediate families in the war or they're separated from them.

So these people are going to be dealing with the effect of war, a lifetime of war, compounded by their experience of detention that they've already gone through. They're now going through routine reporting with Immigration or CBSA officials, whoever they're reporting to, and now we're going to ensure they're not able to be reunited with their families. We're telling them, “Oh, well, you can't.”

That's absolutely not right, Mr. Chair. These people, the people I have met who live in my community in Scarborough—Rouge River, are already contributing to the well-being of the community. They're active members of the community. Many of them volunteer at the tree plantings. Two weekends ago I had an organ donor clinic. One of them was volunteering with me at the organ donor clinic. They're contributing a lot to the benefit of our community and our country here already, and if they're not able to be reunited with their families, not able to have a real way to connect, to attach to this country, we're eroding the settlement process here in our country.

We know the conflict continues.

Sorry, I didn't hear.

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

I said we're protecting...[Inaudible—Editor]

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

I think it clearly erodes the settlement process in this country. We know that the conflict continues.

For people to know that, for instance, they won't be able to sponsor their child left behind in their home country for at least five years is a scary feeling, after everything these people have been through and continue to go through.

I reach out to all members of this committee to not support this clause and to move forward without it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Lamoureux.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Chair, I raised the issue because I thought it was important that committee members were aware of it.

I would request that we have a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We're not quite there yet.