Evidence of meeting #45 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.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
On that point, Mr. Chair, you could say this was fairly new legislation coming in back in 2002. I'm sure, given that the Liberals tend to be much more open-minded than Conservatives, we would have been able to see some movement in this area in the years that followed.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
If we had just had one more year, that would have happened, right?
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We're voting on LIB-27.2.
(Amendment negatived)
LIB-27.3.
Mr. Lamoureux.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Chair, I would move that Bill C-31 in clause 36 be amended by replacing line 20 on page 18 with the following:
Division, and must accept documentary evidence
The essence of it, Mr. Chair, is just to allow for new evidence that would be acceptable in the appeal process.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We're voting on LIB-27.3.
(Amendment negatived)
NDP-17.
Ms. Sims.
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Thank you, Chair.
I think you might have heard some of these words before. This amendment allows for additional evidence to be presented on appeal so that people can have their cases reviewed in a very thorough manner. It expands the evidence that is admissible on appeal from evidence that arose after the rejection of their claim. You've got to look at it that when a lot of these people first come in, the new asylum seekers, they're not going to have everything with them straightaway. For some of them, it's going to take time to gather all the evidence, all the materials, even identity.
On the risk issues, I was talking recently to a couple of people from a gay and lesbian community who have been granted refugee status here from Mexico, and they told me how long it took them to get all their evidence together before they could present it. This actually allows for that kind of admissibility.
A person could not have reasonably had time to make the presentation at the time of the rejection because they weren't able to get things from the country they were escaping from. Many of our asylum seekers who come here may not necessarily come directly from their home country. They might already have been in camps or in other situations in other countries at the time. It also allows them to present additional evidence that was not before the decision-maker at the time of the rejection of the claim. It's like taking another look.
This is a little bit broader than I know the original was, but that is the intent, and I'm really hoping this will be accepted. It's a very reasonable amendment we're putting forward, in light of the fact that here we are talking about the asylum seekers who will be designated as irregular arrivals—not that we believe in the designation. The very fact that they may not have identity on them and the fact that it will take time to verify...this is why we need to at least give them this opportunity to be able to present the new information they have gathered.
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
This section puts things in place. If you want to appeal, you need new evidence, something that can reverse a ruling. If we don't give people the material opportunity to present evidence, any right of appeal is meaningless. It would simply be a repeat of the first decision. You need new elements.
I don't think I need to tell you that, in Canada, it is difficult to find a medical expert to determine the nature of psychological injuries or to establish whether physical injuries are the result of torture. That can take a long time, and we need to provide that time.
We are talking about the right to appeal. An appeal means that a court of first instance has already ruled on the evidence. You appeal because the ruling was not in your favour or because the evidence was not deemed satisfactory. So you have to give more teeth to the evidence. The sole purpose of this amendment is to give people a real opportunity to present that evidence. Those people have to appear before a judge with evidence that is different from the evidence in the first trial. Otherwise, the ruling would end up being the same, and that is not what you want. We are not trying to get rid of a hot potato, but we want to listen to what people have to say and to what has not been heard in the first trial. That is the principle of an appeal.
Many of my colleagues have a background in law. An appeal quite often has to do with introducing new evidence. Without the material resources and the time to produce that evidence, the right to appeal rings hollow. That is basically what is happening. We don't want to come back in September with the same bill on our hands because a judge deemed it ultra vires since it was infringing on the rights and freedoms to such a great extent. Unfortunately, there is a danger of that happening.
The Canadian and Quebec bar associations, the most prominent legal experts and even some of your witnesses have told us that, although the spirit of this legislation might seem interesting at times, it would be deemed unconstitutional. Pretty much everyone said so. So we are going to pass a bill that might suit your needs from an ideological point of view, but its lifespan is going to be very short from a legal point of view. One of the factors affecting the lifespan of the bill is the right of appeal that ends up being meaningless because the witnesses and the main claimants are not provided with sufficient time to gather their evidence.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Chair, before you put the next clause on the floor, I have a motion that I have given notice of.
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Chair, I have a motion. It has been given to the clerk.
I move that the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration immediately commence a study on the subject matter of sections of Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012, and other measures that directly fall within the mandate of this committee, namely part 4, division 54, of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
May I open? As you know, Chair, the House of Commons is facing an extraordinary situation—
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Ms. Sims, the only problem is that the order before us now says we're debating Bill C-31. The order is quite specific on what we're doing. The hours we're spending—every second—are supposed to be spent on Bill C-31. That motion you have just introduced says that we start on this immediately, which would contradict the motions before this committee now.
I'm interested in hearing comments from other sides, but it just seems to me that it's contradicting the motion that is before the committee now, which says not only must we deal with Bill C-31 now, but it spells out the hours during which we are supposed to deal with Bill C-31.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
I may be able to help clarify that, Chair.
Our intention was to finish doing what we are committed to doing today. But when we reconvene next week, we would start that.
Our intention was not to interrupt the clause-by-clause today, because that's critical work we have to get done.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I'm reluctant to deal with this motion now.
You're interrupting. We have people from the department here. We've been doing this for six hours a day for the last two weeks, and out of the blue you come up with a motion to deal with another bill.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
We gave 72 hours' notice, Chair. It did not come out of the blue.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Chair, on the government side, we will not be speaking to this motion, but we will be voting no. That may give you a little more discretion as to how long we'll be talking about this.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Chair, if it helps, once I've made all the points, we'll have just me speaking.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Well, you know, now that Mr. Dykstra has said that....
I will say that you have spent a great deal of time saying that you don't have enough time to deal with Bill C-31, and all of a sudden, you're interrupting the proceedings to deal with an entirely different bill.
Mr. Lamoureux.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Chairperson, I'm inclined to be sympathetic to what it is you're saying. Normally I might not say this, but the concern I have is that we had an agreement that this bill, Bill C-31, would pass today. That's the mindset I had come into committee with.
Having said that, I share many of the concerns the NDP have with regard to the budget debate. I suspect that this is where this is coming from.
I could also say that had I known we were able to make these types of motions today, there are many other issues.... For example, I'd love to cease and desist the current study the immigration committee is doing on biometrics and then explain why. We should be having that discussion about what we replace it with. This is a legitimate concern. There are legitimate concerns with regard to the crisis situation in the provincial nominee program. We have serious issues related to visitor visas not being approved.
It's a fairly lengthy agenda we could have. I would love the opportunity to welcome into the debate all those issues.
My concern is that if the member starts to itemize the reasons we should be making this a priority, I would feel somewhat obligated to itemize what I believe, on behalf of our party, are priorities for this committee to be looking at.
What we might want to do is deal with Bill C-31. If there is some time at the end of that discussion, and the committee is open to it, I too would like to introduce some motions for us to look at as a committee.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I can tell you what this committee has normally done in the past and what I plan in the future.
When we finish one project, we generally meet as a subcommittee and plan what we're going to do in the future. There are all kinds of things. We debate what items we're going to.... It could be those items. The government may have some suggestions. The official opposition may have some suggestions. They have one now.
We were going to meet next week, as a subcommittee, to plan where we're going in the future. So I'm at a little bit of a loss.
You are, in a way, contradicting your whole approach to Bill C-31. You have complained that we're not having enough time, and now you appear to want to debate a motion on Bill C-38.
The government has indicated that it's not going to support your motion.
Quite frankly, I would prefer that the topic be left until we meet as a subcommittee. I first of all want to meet with the analysts and the clerk to hear what they have to say about the report we've been working on and to prepare a report for the subcommittee on their suggestions and some of the topics that have been raised in the past. That would take place next week, as opposed to now, in the middle of the time scheduled for dealing with Bill C-31.