Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 19th, 2012

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

Thanks, Chair.

This has been a really engaging discussion. As someone who as an Osgoode Hall student worked in the Parkdale legal aid clinic, I served many of the people, or at least the genre of people, whom you're serving today, and I understand where you're coming from. I appreciate what both of you are saying about public education, that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Given that we're dealing with a minister who was so proactive in promoting his citizenship guide, I think he will be very interested in the suggestion that both of you make.

I want to point out some things, especially, Francisco and Amy, in response to your presentation. Then I need to get to a question for you, Jacques.

Our government has tripled settlement funding. Many of the people we're talking about here, those who you feel are more at risk, have been helped to integrate into Canadian society, for instance, with the free language classes that they're getting. I think we should take that into account.

Also, we will abide by the Geneva Convention. No person will be left stateless. In addition, persons will get access to pre-removal risk assessment to ensure that we're not sending people back to torture. That's our goal, and our government will be committed to implementing that goal.

Certainly when it appears that someone is going to be harmed, that person will be allowed to stay, at least temporarily, while the risk is assessed.

I was very interested, Jacques, in your suggestions about clarifying the criteria that would guide the minister. You mentioned that there would be three benefits from doing this. Could you be a little more specific on this?

Also, I share the concern that my colleague, Mr. Lamoureux, brought up, with respect to people who make misrepresentations and whether there is going to be a disproportionate kind of response to their doing so.

Do you see any remedy that might come in the clarifying of the discretion you have referred to?

[Jacques Shore]

Thank you very much, Mr. Weston.

With regard to the issue of the guidelines, I believe there would be an added benefit if the minister were to decide along with parliamentarians to include specific guidelines described as well as possible in the legislation. There would be an advantage for one thing because, if we look at the way they are written right now, public policy can be extremely broad, but it could also be regarded as vague in the way in which it's implemented. I could see someone going to court and basically saying that it's too vague. There is also a concept of “void for vagueness” that one might try to apply because of its element of vagueness.

There's also the added benefit that with this clarity, you're not going to ultimately have.... While I have enormous respect for the judiciary and our courts, I could see a judge not really understanding what the government might want to do in a particular instance and limiting it. Usually, cases of this kind happen very quickly. For example, there's a speaker coming to a university or an individual coming to a community centre, and within two days you must try to decide whether someone will get the permit to come. As we've seen in some of those circumstances with individuals, they clearly did not respect our values.

I would probably say that with the inclusion of that, there is a guarantee that we would be able to at least know with clarity what the issues are and what the government's intentions are. I think there would be a benefit for Canadians from this.

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

I've noted that. I want to reiterate something that we've all heard. I think everyone in this room takes pride in Canada's record in settling refugees. Per capita we settle more than any other country in the world, and we continue to embark on that generous refugee resettlement program.

My hope, and I think the hope of my colleagues, is that by ensuring that criminals are deported more quickly and are not unnecessarily or unfairly clogging up our legal system, we will continue to have the public support we need for a very generous refugee program, so that the people I met at Parkdale and the people you're serving will continue to come to Canada for safe haven.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I can't believe you guys are going to quit.

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

I'm going to share with—

[Jacques Shore]

Mr. Weston, may I just add to that?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Sure, Mr. Shore.

[Jacques Shore]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

There was also a point with respect to making sure that our classrooms have the benefit of understanding good citizenship. I had the good fortune of being the chair of Carleton University for a number of years, and I look at how we don't use our universities nearly enough to address these kinds of issues. How wonderful it would be if the minister could call in the presidents of universities and ask them how we should address this.

How do we get every principal in the nation focused on this? How can we get our provinces to understand good citizenship and that the risks—and they are risks, because how unusual it is that in the same exact set of circumstances, for a child who is an immigrant, not a Canadian citizen, and a child who is a citizen, one could be deported and one cannot, but that is the way the system works.

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

Well, even our elementary schools—

[Jacques Shore]

Precisely, and that's why it should be included in the classrooms.

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

I am so glad you added that. Thank you.

Chair, do we have more time?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You have a minute and a half.

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

I'm going to share my time with Mr. Dykstra.

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

Thanks.

Mr. Shore, you've touched on this issue a couple of times, including in your opening remarks. We've had a number of witnesses talk about “serious criminality” as currently defined in IRPA, and how this changes, both under clause 24, as you noted, and also within the context of the lowering from two years to six months, and what kinds of implication that has had.

We have what I find to be extreme examples. One is of an underage student who goes to the United States, is found to be underage, and therefore is convicted, and somehow that is going to mean that the individual, if they're a permanent resident, is going to be deported to their country of origin. Of course I'd like to get your thoughts on that from a legal perspective.

We look at how the bill is laid out in terms of subsection 36(1) all the way from (a) to (c), and the whole aspect of what this means. For example, paragraph 36(1)(b) refers to “having been convicted outside Canada of an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence under an Act of Parliament, or of two offences not arising out of a single occurrence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute offences under an Act of Parliament...”.

We're having some struggles here. I'd really like to get your opinion on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm afraid we're out of time.

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

That's fine. I have the next five minutes, so I'll just let you answer.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

No, actually, Madame Groguhé does.

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

I have the following five after her.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I think it is important to mention that we all agree—and that includes the official opposition—on the need to process more quickly the files of foreign nationals who have committed serious offences in Canada. However, Bill C-43 does raise some questions and concerns. These involve the issue you referred to, Francisco, as well as you, Mr. Shore, which is the situation of youngsters who arrived very young in Canada. You also talked about the potential for rehabilitation. In my opinion, that is particularly relevant when youngsters are involved.

Until 1999 in Australia, there was a law which protected permanent residents who had settled in the country 10 or more years before from deportation. It guaranteed that people who arrived in that host country at a very young age and had grown up there and started a family were protected from being returned to a country they had never known.

Should we not include in this bill a provision recognizing the common law marriages of those who arrived in Canada at a very young age, in particular? What do you think of that?

[Francisco Rico-Martinez]

That's one of the possibilities that you can have, particularly for young people. We have many cases in our agencies where the young start having problems during their adolescence. They have depression, mental issues, many things. They run away from home. They become a problem. Then they realize they are not citizens of Canada, maybe 10 or 15 years after the fact, when sometimes they have already committed mistakes. Some of them have serious mental issues, and we have to deal with the situation.

If you put a period of time for a person to not be sent to areas or countries where they haven't been before, or where they left when they were very young, there will be the possibility of protecting people. That could also be in the appeal situation, because if they have the right to appeal, they can go with their medical records, with many things, to explain why the situation happened. Sometimes it's not the fault of the parents; it's the fault of the situation and that young people make mistakes.

We want to protect the person. We know they've made a mistake, but the circumstances have to be known first. One is to put a period of time, five years, ten years, it's up to you. That would a good way to deal with the situation for young people.

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

Mr. Shore, do you have a comment?

[Jacques Shore]

Thank you very much, madam.

My sense, again, is that the way the words are now included in the proposed legislation, Bill C-43 does, under section 25(1) and subsection 25.1(1), provide for a minister to be able to make the decision to not have that person leave the country. I do think that safety valve is there, except for in very exceptional circumstances, such as if it's under espionage or under certain criminal behaviour, criminal organizational behaviour, and also with regard to crimes against humanity.

I do specifically believe that without the right to the immigration appeal division, there still is that safety valve. Otherwise, I'm not quite sure what the main change in this legislation would be. We'd be basically back to the current system. That's the frustration I spoke of earlier, that unfortunately, too many people have been taking advantage of it.

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

Francisco, you recommended that the right of appeal be maintained. However, several of our witnesses stated that Bill C-43 would have too broad an application, in the sense that it could apply to “real criminals”, but also to young people who arrived here very young, as we were saying earlier. Several witnesses expressed the fear that this bill could have a disproportionate scope.

Is the right of appeal not a fundamental principle in our judicial process? What do you think?

[Francisco Rico-Martinez]

The right of appeal is a fundamental component in every single area of law that I would want to have in the country where I am living, of which I am a citizen. Having no access to appeal is an anti-democratic measure.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. Dykstra, you have until the end of the half hour.