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.
NDP
Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
My question is for the technical advisor.
Can you give some examples of situations where Canada has voted on laws retroactively, and provide some background on how this has been handled by the courts? We're talking about a quasi-criminal sanction here.
Director, Asylum Policy and Programs, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Chair, I'm asking our counsel, Matthew Oommen, to reply.
Matthew Oommen Senior Counsel, Legal Services , Department of Citizenship and Immigration
There are a few points I'd like to make. First of all, I'm not sure we're actually talking about a retroactive application; it's more accurately described as retrospective, moving forward in time. That's one technical clarification.
Second, whether we're speaking of retroactive or retrospective, legislation is able to do that, the only caveat being that the legislative provision must clearly do so.
The third point would be that this provision is in no way quasi-criminal, as the honourable member seemed to refer to it. It confers a benefit, the privilege of yet a further risk assessment to an applicant.
Thank you.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Just to clarify, Chair, for me, it was not the criminal aspect. I was talking about the risk to the person's life if they should go back, if the assessment is not done.
NDP
Sadia Groguhé NDP Saint-Lambert, QC
I would like to insist on one point, which is that it is an additional safeguard that is being taken away from refugee claimants, and that's not right. That's the position we're defending.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We are going to vote on amendment G-7.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 68 agreed to on division)
(On clause 69)
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
It's before those here, Mr. Chair, and again it's a technical amendment. The clause was amended to provide that only subsection 15(3) of the BRRA would come into force on royal assent of Bill C-31.
Basically, it means that the 12-month bar on assessing a pre-removal risk assessment would be in effect upon royal assent of the proposed legislation. It's just a follow-up to the previous section.
NDP
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
I'm shocked to hear that. I thought you might be supportive, since the other one passed.
Is that not the case? No? Not at all? Not a chance?
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
No.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 69 as amended agreed to on division)
(Clauses 70 to 77 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 78)
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I know that we've been going at this at breakneck speed. We have spent many, many hours together in each other's company, probably more hours with each other than with our loved ones.
I might have missed this, so I just want to make sure. I know we had requested the privacy impact assessment. It was going to be brought to the committee. Unless I'm having a senior moment, I have not seen it yet.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
I realize that, Mr. Chair.
Never say “just a chairman”. Every person is special in his or her own way.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
You're right. Someone hasn't seen her loved ones in a while.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
I just want to put on the record that it would be really critical. I'm sorry that we have not received the privacy impact assessments. I realize that we don't have them, and I also realize that we have these very tight timelines. I don't want to belabour the point, but I do want to say that it would have been good to have had them here.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
I'm now going to speak to amendment 22.
The reason I stopped to ask for the privacy impact assessment of the biometrics was that it would help to inform my decision as we go along with this.
I think I've heard many people say that biometrics is the way to go, we're just catching up, etc. But one thing I will tell you is that Canadians care very deeply about their privacy.
We know that this is actually going to biometrics. We're trying them out first on visitors who come to this country. They are not Canadian citizens. But we respect other people's right to privacy, just as we respect our own.
I also acknowledge that in this legislation, as the minister explained it to us, we're talking about photographs and we're talking about fingerprints.
I also heard, when we questioned the minister at a subsequent meeting, that our attempt to collect biometrics is for verification of identification. It is for verification purposes and/or for purposes of national security. I think we live in a world in which we can see that there may be a need for that. If that's there, it's really important that such information be destroyed once verification is complete.
There are two things. One is that we have identified the person, and the second is that we know that the person is not a national security risk to us. Once we know those two things, we destroy that data.
I have serious concerns about the protection of that kind of data bias. I don't think we've had anything presented to us as to how it will be looked after.
We have put this amendment in after a great deal of thought and upon hearing the government's concerns and the minister's direct response that the only purpose of collecting this data is identification verification and national security.
In this amendment, we're also saying that once those two have been established, once verification has taken place, we need to destroy that data.
I have made it very easy for Mr. Dykstra to support this amendment because, as he knows, it reflects very truly what the minister said when he was before the committee.