Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 10th, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We can't, because it's inadmissible. I'm going to rule it inadmissible, so we can't even discuss it. But I am willing to make the ruling, if you wish.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Well, then, I would like to hear the ruling on it, Mr. Chairperson.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

This would be the same ruling I'd be giving for NDP—

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

I want to say my two words.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We'll give you two words, but right now we're dealing with the Liberal amendment.

I only want to read this once, because my voice probably won't last for twice.

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

I will remember.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Bill C-31 provides for the minister to designate countries of origin. The amendment seeks to amend the bill so that the minister must appoint an advisory panel to assist in making the designations.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states at pages 767 and 768:

Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.

Mr. Lamoureux, in my opinion, the amendment proposes a new scheme that seeks to alter the terms and conditions of the royal recommendation, and I therefore rule the amendment inadmissible.

I don't think we can debate my ruling. You can challenge it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I won't challenge the ruling of the chair.

Suffice it to say that the intent of the motion was just to highlight the importance of having an advisory committee determine what would be a safe country and what would not be.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

God bless you for getting it in anyway.

Okay. We have amendment NDP-19.

Go ahead, Ms. Sims.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Our intention, once again, is to try to reinstate something that existed in Bill C-11, which is an advisory panel that would be looking at designating countries or safe countries. That was our only intent, and I'm hoping you will now let this amendment stand.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We're on amendment NDP-19, which is in order.

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

I thought you said you were not going to admit it.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

That was NDP-20.

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

I spoke to NDP-20 now.

Okay, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm sorry, I shouldn't have said that.

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

I thought you were doing both of them together, so I did go over—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

NDP-19, on page 84, is in order.

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

I'm trying to get to it as fast as I can.

Thank you very much, Chair.

This amendment would ensure that qualitative criteria are also considered in the designating countries, because we would like to see something that would look at the human rights record of the country.

Factors set out include, in section 96, a “well-founded fear of persecution”, and in section 97, risk of torture, risk to a person's life, or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. These are all references to IRPA.

Relevant international human rights regulations set out the availability in the country in question of mechanisms for seeking protection and anything else set out through regulations.

What we are trying to do is build a little bit of a framework. As I said, it's very difficult to sit here and keep passing clause after clause without knowing how it's going to be operationalized. What this does is provide guidance. It is not limiting, because the minister can add to these ad nauseam and we would not object. It actually provides for a minimum of the kind of qualitative criteria that should be considered.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Lamoureux.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Chairperson, I'm not going to take a pass on being able to provide comment on this particular amendment because, quite frankly, it allows me also to reflect on what was a fairly unanimous consensus, or whatever you want to call it, from the old Bill C-11. I think this amendment picks up a good portion of that, but not the essence of it.

The essence of it was in regard to the safe country list and how that safe country list is going to be developed. There are differing opinions on it.

In this amendment we see that we want to put something more in legislation, because it's more of a cautionary note. To what degree do we really want this particular minister or any future minister to have the power to designate a country as a safe country?

We, as a political party, have made it very clear that we don't believe the minister should be deciding what is a safe country and what is not a safe country.

This amendment, as proposed, could have been even better—but then it would likely have been ruled out of order, I suspect—by incorporating the idea of returning to having an advisory council, something that did receive unanimous support from a previous House.

I just want to emphasize that point and look to the government to recognize the past achievement of this committee. I wasn't a part of it back then. Mr. Dykstra was a part of that committee. We are taking a significant backwards step by not acknowledging what was agreed to in the past.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Madame Groguhé.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If the minister designates the safe countries, his discretionary power will obviously increase. At any rate, Bill C-11 talked about having a panel of experts. But we have completely moved away from that idea. As the HCR said, the practice of designating safe countries of origin is only a tool used for a procedure. Since it is a tool, we need to have basic qualitative criteria to be able to make decisions on designating safe countries.

As Ms. Sims pointed out and as some witnesses reported to this committee, we also have to consider that some so-called democratic countries do not protect certain segments of their populations, such as transgendered people, lesbians and gays. We also heard Gina's testimony. She belongs to the Roma community and she spoke at great length about how persecuted those people are.

So we are asking the government to support our amendment. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Sims.

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

I missed the presentation by Gina, but I have read the script, and it's very moving testimony. I think it goes to one of the key reasons why we brought this amendment here.

I want to read you a quote from Angela Martini, from Monday, May 7, at 11:26 a.m. She said that “any country on earth is capable of producing a refugee”.

That's our position. We are concerned about making sure that even those who come from safe countries have their rights respected.

She goes on to focus a bit on the Roma, and my colleague already talked about that. That's why we have said that not only parts of countries but certain specific groups of nationals within a specific country could also feel unsafe.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Go ahead.