Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 19th, 2012

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

I will go on to say that while I have sat on this committee, I have heard committee members across the way talk about immigrants as “bogus“, “queue jumpers”, “fraudsters” and “terrorists”. Those are quotes. Let me tell you—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Stop the clock.

On a point of order, Mr. Menegakis.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

In line with the intervention you made, Mr. Chair, no one has ever referred to immigrants as “bogus”. That is a false statement. It's inflammatory, and Ms. Sims is going down the wrong path here.

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

When you talk about asylum seekers, they are immigrants as well. They come into this country, and I'm quoting words that have been used in previous committee.

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

What you're doing is out of context. We all—

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

I was quiet while Ms. James did her thing, and I would really appreciate the same thing.

Here we are. As you probably know—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Carry on. Start the clock.

Ms. James has a point of order.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I just take a little bit of offence being referred to as “doing my thing” over here. I'm actually a member of Parliament in a committee trying to go through this particular bill with witnesses, so I would prefer that you actually don't speak to me in that context.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

That's true. We have to be respectful. As I've said many times, we're all honourable ladies and gentlemen, and I hope that we will act accordingly.

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

Honourable ladies and gentlemen of the committee, as you well know, one of our biggest concerns with this legislation is that this bill will concentrate even more power in the hands of the minister, and that is actually what is in the bill.

My first question, Francisco or Amy, is can you talk to us about how these new powers will affect the people you work with on a daily basis?

[Francisco Rico-Martinez]

We are here to talk about the specific situation of no access to appeals for persons who make a mistake, and we are talking about youth. You can make an exception for youth, and you can indicate an age or whatever, but the person has to have access. We are not asking for a pardon for the people who make a mistake. We are asking for the chance to explain the situation, because that situation for the person who we send back could be horrendous and the future of that young person could be destroyed totally by a mistake. We understand there has been a mistake made and we are not asking that you forget the mistake. We're asking that the person have a chance to justify and explain the circumstances of what happened.

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

Thank you very much for providing that clarification. I don't think any of us are saying...sometimes somebody can commit a crime that is so heinous that even with a six-month sentence you want them deported. Right? There are such cases out there.

What we're really talking about here is not the act of deportation itself. What we're talking about is the right to appeal, which in our system we consider part of our due process. We pride ourselves on being a country that is governed by the rule of law.

When you looked at this legislation, did you have a chance to look at amendments that could be made to this legislation that could help to protect due process and limit the increasingly arbitrary power of the minister?

[Francisco Rico-Martinez]

We are focusing on the amendment in clause 24. We are asking to remove it in order that persons have access to an appeal before the Immigration and Refugee Board.

The second thing we're asking is if there can be a campaign to explain the consequences of the implementation of the bill for the racialized communities, and specifically young people, because we don't have that in the curricula in high schools or wherever. We are asking you to also include something that is going to explain the implications of the bill to the young people of Canada, permanent residents and otherwise.

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

My understanding, from what you have just said, is that you would ask that the appeal process be reinstated.

[Francisco Rico-Martinez]

Exactly.

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

Right now we have an appeal process for sentencing above two years. Now that we have lowered the bar to six months, or raised the bar, whichever way you want to look at it, that appeal should be there for everyone. If this legislation should pass without any appeal, there should be education done to raise people's awareness of these issues.

[Francisco Rico-Martinez]

Even if the bill is passed with the amendment on the appeal, I think the campaign and the changes to the curriculum have to be suggested so that youth and children know about the implications of this bill.

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

Thank you very much.

As you know, filing an application to immigrate to Canada can be a lengthy and challenging process. I actually looked at the forms when I was in my riding last week. Somebody came in to ask for help. The person was struggling with it. When you look at it, there is the potential for honest mistakes to be made on an application. Do you think five-year inadmissibility is an overly punitive measure for what could be an honest mistake?

[Francisco Rico-Martinez]

It is, particularly because that affects many people who are now obligated to make a mistake. Let me give you an example.

Some women are in very abusive or violent relationships. The husband fills out all of the applications and forces the woman to leave children behind, for instance. There are no names, because the husband doesn't want to name them. They come here. That could be a mistake that could have serious implications. The woman didn't have anything to decide or say at that particular moment. In that case, it has to be explored in a particular way under humanitarian circumstances, for instance.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. Lamoureux.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to approach this from a different perspective. The bill actually affects one and a half million people, permanent residents who call Canada home. This means that we should all be very much concerned about the content of the legislation itself. The government, in introducing it, listed its five reasons. Of course, they are those extreme cases.

I would like to mention a case that has been talked about and which I have had the opportunity to raise in the past.

Imagine, if you will, that you are a 19-year-old graduate living in Windsor, Vancouver, or Montreal, and you decide that you are going to go stateside to celebrate your graduation. The drinking age there is 21, so you use some false identification to get your bottle of wine or alcohol. In that situation, you would, in fact, be deported, and you would not have the right to appeal. One of the presenters put it quite well and provided a document. This is the reason you would ultimately lose the right to appeal. Using a false or fraudulent document is an offence under section 368 of the Criminal Code of Canada and carries a maximum potential penalty of 10 years. A 20-year-old permanent resident who is convicted of using fake identification to get into a bar while visiting the U.S. is inadmissible under IRPA because of a foreign conviction. It doesn't matter that the U.S. court punishment might be only a $200 fine.

The point is that this legislation is so encompassing of that 1.5 million permanent residents who live in Canada that a 20- or 19-year-old youth who happens to use poor judgment by using false identification is ultimately not going to have the right to appeal and is going to be deported. The rest of the family will stay here, but that person is going to be deported.

I'm wondering if you feel, when you think of that sort of an example, that maybe the government has gone a little overboard and that we need to improve the legislation before it leaves this committee. That would be a big for sure. Would you agree, Mr. Shore, Francisco, or whoever would like to respond?

[Francisco Rico-Martinez]

Those are exactly the examples we are thinking of. You can go on and on with the examples we consider.

We understand that the person was at fault. It's prescribed in the law. On the other hand, we understand that it was a mistake. That person is going to learn very quickly that this is something he or she is not going to do again. We try to explain it to everybody. That's when peer pressure comes in. Why? Many other Canadian-born children have that situation as well, and they will make the same mistake. In a group of people, one will be targeted and deported, and the other one will stay, even though both of them made the same mistake. That's why youth need to have a way to explain the circumstances and be given a second chance.

What we are asking is to give the young person a second chance and to consider that it was a mistake. Consider the human being you have in front of you.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Shore, if you don't mind, think in terms of misrepresentation. Now we're increasing from two years to five years the time needed to seek a pardon.

I ask you in particular, Mr. Shore, whether you have heard of unintentional misrepresentation that has occurred. If so, do you think it would be appropriate to be extending the granting of a pardon from two years to five years?

You may want to comment on the earlier question as well.

[Jacques Shore]

I haven't actually heard of it and I don't know how it would necessarily be addressed, but I do think that we have safety valves in our legal system that would allow an individual to seek judicial review in circumstances in which we see grave circumstances developing.

As well, in the particular instance that you have shared, I believe there is an opportunity to seek, under humanitarian and compassionate grounds, the minister's leave to exclude this from happening, in respect to a situation such as you described.

I would want us to go back, though, to what I shared earlier, and I think my colleagues did as well, which is the importance of education, the importance of ensuring that we create good citizenship. The vast majority, 95%, 99%.... I'm a first-generation Canadian. I think of those immigrants, the 1.5 million whom I think you referred to. There needs to be a better appreciation of good citizenship in the context of not allowing young individuals to get into these sets of circumstances.

I want to repeat that even in the context of the court process, I do not think our system would allow someone to be deported and sent back to a country that he or she does not know, in a situation like this, one in which it's as a result of a misrepresentation, in this instance.

I believe we—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm sorry, Mr. Lamoureux, we're over your time.

Mr. Weston.