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
I would just point out to you that Canada already is part of a system of digital fingerprints. The Automated Fingerprint Identification System is managed by the RCMP, but the RCMP is just Interpol's eyes and ears in Canada. It is the link between all Canadian police forces and Interpol. It is the way Interpol gets in and out.
We were told about one situation. I remind you about the testimony we have heard; I am sure you remember it. The Australians told us that, when they put this legislation into effect, they found themselves in a horrendous situation. Refugees were coming with women and children in boats that were getting more and more decrepit. They were being victimized by coyotes, as the smugglers are often called. The refugees were victimized even more by those people because, in order to avoid being separated for five years, they had to bring the women and children with them.
In Italy, the situation was even more tragic. They had a policy of interceptions at sea and a ban on bringing in women and children for a certain number of years. So then, unfortunately, there was a collision at sea that resulted in 40 casualties, basically women and children who could not swim. That is the kind of situation that we will be encouraging, if we are not careful.
The Australians have had the advantage of going through the situation before us. They have suffered through it more than we have. We are just talking about two boats in 10 years. They get almost two boats per month. Their population is not as big as ours. They have confronted the situation and they have experienced the effects. We should recognize that and understand the dangers in the situation. The irony of the consequences is particularly undesirable in that we are now encouraging refugees to get into dangerous boats with their women and children. That makes them even easier prey for the coyotes.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We are on clause 81, and there's been a request for a recorded vote.
(Clause 81 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Chair, I have a request from one of the committee members.
Could we take five minutes while they get a bite to eat? The food has been here for awhile and it's getting cold.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
(Clauses 82 and 83 agreed to on division)
Members can get up and I'll try to be lenient for voting back and forth.
We have a new clause, 83.1, which is government amendment 9, on page 98.
Mr. Dykstra.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Chair, this simply follows up on the previous two amendments that were made, although this does become a new clause within the bill, 83.1, and it provides the authority, upon royal assent, to terminate the pre-removal risk assessment applications if an application was made before 12 months or earlier since the last rejection or determination that an application for protection was withdrawn or abandoned.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
We will be opposing this amendment. This is a retroactive application of the bill. What it does is it terminates the pre-removal risk assessment requests that were made quite legitimately by people who were playing with the rules that existed at the time they made their application. We believe this kind of retroactive application is unfair and treats people very shabbily.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Debate?
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceeding])
(On clause 84)
Conservative
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Chair, the basic two changes here, as outlined, actually are not deemed a technical amendment; we're calling them a coordinating amendment.
First, it enables the bar to access a pre-removal risk assessment and exemptions to the bar to come into force at exactly the same time. For greater clarity, it prohibits a pre-removal risk assessment applicant from designated countries of origin from accessing another pre-removal risk assessment for a period of 36 months since their last pre-removal risk assessment was rejected. Although I know it's not supported by the opposition, it's consistent with the previous amendments we've made.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
We will be opposing this.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceeding])
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
It's consistent with what I've just stated, Chair. I won't repeat myself, other than to say it is consistent with what we have entertained and passed as amendments previously.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
We will be opposing this because once again it raises the bar on pre-removal risk assessment applications for people in designated countries, and we believe this is grossly unfair and unkind.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Chair, whether it's amendment G-9, G-10, G-11, or G-12, in principle we do not support these amendments.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceeding])
(Clause 84 as amended agreed to on division)
(On clause 85—Order in council—same day)
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Chair, we're not quite done, but we're getting close to the end. I see and hear that you're losing your voice, so it's fit that we're coming to a close here.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
In the changes as are stated here, the government's amendment to the coming into force, which is clause 85...this amendment we're making, which everyone received a copy of, was made so that subsections 38(1) and 38(2) would come into force on a day or days to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council. It's a very technical amendment, in other words.