Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 10th, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You go ahead.

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

Chair, I'm not talking about a long-term study. We've got a budget going before the House that has significant sections in it that pertain to the work of this committee. I'm not saying that the whole budget bill should come here. The only bit I want us to be able to examine in a relaxed manner...and I agree with Mr. Dykstra, this is the place where we get to do some of the real work, where we get to explore and see where there are problems and try to find solutions together.

This is not something I can leave for another week or two or three because of the way time allocation has been moved on the budget. So what I'm looking for is not that we should stop everything today, but when we come back into this meeting Monday or Tuesday, we could start taking a look at the parts of the budget that are directly related to immigration, to our work.

I have no time to be saying let's bring the whole budget here. That belongs somewhere else. There's a finance committee to take a look at that side of the budget. But in that budget, even on my very brief reading, there are elements that I feel are the purview of this committee to discuss. All I'm asking is for some time to do that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Chair, I think we're walking into a dangerous area. If you take a—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I've got Mr. Menegakis and then you.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Chair, if I may, of course the ultimate decision on how we proceed in this committee is yours, but we are here discussing Bill C-31. I concur with your comments that we have a job to do here today.

I've also been in agreement with the practice of the committee: the subcommittee meets and discusses what's to be studied next. We are studying security. We've met with a lot of witnesses. I'm sure much more work needs to be done on that. To leave that study now and do something else will be discussed in the subcommittee. But to continue to have this discussion today on what should happen next, without finishing the job we have at hand....

We're on clause 36 of some 85 clauses. I think we should continue doing this job right now to finish our task today, and then by all means, the honourable member's suggestion can be reviewed by the subcommittee and discussed among.... We have confidence in the subcommittee. As a committee, we've demonstrated that. The subcommittee can decide on how we proceed, bring it to us, and then we'll go forward.

But to interrupt this meeting now.... I'm sure that wasn't Ms. Sims's intention, by any stretch of the imagination. I don't think she wanted to interrupt it, but that's the result. We're in the middle of something. We should be finishing the job at hand right now before we go to the next thing. The minute we start talking about time allocation and the budget, we would have to say all kinds of things about that as well, and we're going to go on forever with that. For sure we're in total disagreement with some of the tactics being used by the opposition, but this meeting is not the place or the time for it.

We are at the end of a marathon discussion on Bill C-31, having heard a plethora of witnesses. I admit a lot of work has been done by all parties here, with the amendments that have been put forth. We're going through clause-by-clause consideration.

Just to finish up, without being repetitive, I think we should finish our task at hand, and then the subcommittee can evaluate what we do, if they want to change the process of how we proceed.

That's my point. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Lamoureux.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Chair, I suggest in good faith that after we've dealt with Bill C-31—and we might be able to deal with it relatively quickly—maybe the steering committee could have an in camera meeting to address the concerns of not only the NDP but the Liberal Party and I'm sure even the government members.

I wouldn't necessarily want to jump to any conclusions. For example, Mr. Chair, we in the Liberal Party believe we should have seen a separate, stand-alone piece of legislation, as opposed to our dealing with this issue through the budget. That's why I think it's probably better if we have that discussion immediately following Bill C-31, if possible, depending on what time we finish.

I don't think there's a need for any sort of a vote now. Let's just deal with Bill C-31. After that, let's have this discussion, and maybe the steering committee could get together. Things seem to be moving along quite nicely right now.

That would be my recommendation.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. James.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Lamoureux, I think that's the first time I've agreed with you.

I was just going to remind everyone on this committee that we have several guests here, officials, who are here for the purpose of Bill C-31, and we still have a lot of amendments and clauses to go through before the end of the day.

I know we're scheduled right up until, I believe, midnight tonight. I would suggest that perhaps we could postpone it until that point in time, and I'm sure we could go in camera and decide if we want to discuss that any further, once this committee has finished at midnight.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

There's a motion on the floor. All in favour of the motion?

(Motion negatived)

(Clause 37 agreed to on division)

(On clause 38)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Dykstra, you have government amendment number 5.

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

Yes, thank you, Chair.

We have another clarifying amendment to make, and basically as was submitted, the amendment to 112(2)(b.1) provides that a person may not submit a PRRA application if less than 12 months, or 36 months for those persons from a designated country of origin, have passed since their claim for refugee protection was last rejected or determined to be withdrawn or abandoned by either the Refugee Protection Division or the Refugee Appeal Division.

Ostensibly, Mr. Chair, we're just adding the “or 36 months” for persons from a designated country of origin. I would like to have staff briefly comment on the change we're submitting here.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Irish.

[Jennifer Irish, Director, Asylum Policy and Programs, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

Thank you, Chair.

The intent of the amendment is to provide that designated countries of origin not be eligible for a subsequent PRRA risk decision for 36 months following their last risk decision.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Have you concluded, Mr. Dykstra?

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

I have.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Sims.

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

As you know, we don't believe the minister should have the power centralized for him to be able to designate countries, but here in this particular section we're very concerned that for those who are from designated countries, the bar has been raised for them to 36 months.

It took the NDP a lot, I would say, in the last great compromise to agree to what exists in Bill C-31 right now, which is a 12-month period. But this 36 months is just way over the top and not acceptable to us as well. We do not buy the rationale that this is actually going to do anything for our policy or our image in the world right now.

Canada is a very compassionate country, a very caring country, and here we are now raising the bar higher and higher for certain types of asylum seekers. These are the people we would have already accepted as refugees under the Geneva Convention, and even after accepting them that way we're going to continue to have a two-tiered approach: you're wearing a white shirt today, so you will get this kind of a treatment; you're wearing a yellow shirt, you'll get that kind of a treatment. It's as arbitrary as that.

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

That's so not true.

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

Really?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Order, Mr. Dykstra.

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

When you really take a look, it's the minister who will determine.... We know that even within designated countries, or what you would say are designated countries, there are cases for legitimate asylum seekers and refugee claimants. We know that because we've had them from countries that the minister has indicated would be considered safe.

What we're really talking about is that we have to do a really serious risk assessment before we remove people. That is not involved here. When you listen to the quote from Ezat Mossallanejad, policy analyst and researcher at the Canadian Centre for Victims of Torture, he says:

Also, we are concerned about the limitation of pre-removal risk assessment and coming up with some limitation on applying on humanitarian and compassionate grounds after one year of rejection.

Here it moves it to three for some asylum seekers. By the way, I want to remind you they will have met all of the five criteria. Before they are released from detention they will have met the criteria you get to stipulate.

We have to be very cognizant of the fact that we are putting people in some very dangerous situations and not showing the sensitivity we have historically shown.

Dr. Furio De Angelis, the representative in the Canada office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, says they support efforts by government authorities to decide applications in a timely manner. We all do. I don't think anyone sitting in this room is saying we need to slow down the process. However, states need to balance efficiency with the fairness of the procedure. Overly restrictive timeframes in the context of a sophisticated asylum process can lead to increased rates of abandonment and the rise of a number of unrepresented claimants. This is nothing new. We have heard this from witnesses over and over again. Asylum claimants do not ordinarily have the knowledge to navigate the legal system.

Once again, we are very concerned and would ask the government to reconsider raising the bar to 36 months. As much as 12 months is not great, the opposition here could support 12 months, but we won't be supporting 36 months.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Weston.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

I'll just take 10 seconds to reply to my colleague, Ms. Sims. After listening to hours and hours of testimony, we know categorically it's not an arbitrary distinction between those who are wearing white shirts and others. There's a distinction based on qualitative and quantitative grounds. The minister will be acting in the interests of not only Canadians but of refugees by designated countries, so the whole process may move more fluidly for the betterment of everyone.

Thank you.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clauses 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, and 44 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 45)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We are at clause 45, amendment G-6.

Mr. Dykstra.