Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 26th, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Shall amendment NDP-7 carry?

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

I would like a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Next is Mr. Lamoureux on LIB-7.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First off, if I may, with the unanimous support of the committee, I'd like to change “three years” to read “five years”. That was what I had initially meant, but I understand I probably need unanimous support of the committee to do so.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Just give me a second.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Where it says “three”, it should read “five”.

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

Just change his “three” to “five”.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Proceed, Mr. Lamoureux.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I would assume I had unanimous support there, Mr. Chairperson.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I haven't heard any objection, so it's now five.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Okay, thank you.

I move that Bill C-43 in clause 16 be amended by replacing line 39 on page 4 with the following: "unintentional misrepresentation for a period of two years, or for a period of five years if the misrepresentation is found to be clearly fraudulent,"

I appreciate we have had a fairly lengthy discussion on this issue already, Mr. Chairperson, but I just wanted to use this amendment as an opportunity to distinguish the difference between intentional and unintentional misrepresentation, and that even when you look at unintentional misrepresentation, you could further break it down into two. That is the reason I used the example earlier.

There is unintentional misrepresentation that occurs, for example, with an individual who might say he is coming as a couple with a couple of children, but the father might have had another child outside of wedlock whom he's not prepared to declare for what could be obvious reasons. There could be an individual who comes as part of a family, an older child, now a young adult, who got married, came to Canada. The daughter told mom and dad that just before they left she had married her boyfriend, or the son had married his girlfriend. The problems and issues surrounding that are quite significant. There are reasons, and as a compassionate society, we need to recognize those types of reasons.

The other example I gave earlier was something I had run into. In that case there was a college of sorts providing a program at what would have been the equivalent to a community facility. An individual took a course at that facility in the 1990s and was given a certificate for taking the course. When filling out the application the individual, being completely honest, submitted the certificate along with many other certificates. Had he not submitted the certificate, he still would have qualified under the package, but because he was told to submit everything, that's what he did. Ultimately it ended up slowing down the process for over two years because they could not locate that facility. I wasn't too sure with regard to what degree common sense was being used. That is why I think it's important.

Mr. Chairperson, I know there are a number of ideas for agenda items going forward for our committee. Number one on the list is the health care cuts for the refugee, and I won't change that. Number two is the provincial nominee. I would suggest to you that number three could be the whole issue of misrepresentation. If we look at the amendments that are being presented, I think there would be a good, healthy debate on that issue. I can tell you that it's not only immigrants or potential immigrants who might fall victim to misrepresentation, but I've also seen government policies that encourage misrepresentation. I would love to have that sort of discussion at the committee level.

Having said that, I trust that we will have a recorded vote on this amendment.

That's it for my comments.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

My Dykstra, go ahead.

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

I have two questions. The first is your request that “Bill C-43 in clause 16 be amended by replacing line 39 on page 4 with the following...”.

Page 4, line 39 is actually part of clause 16, so you're replacing part of the introduction. I'm not quite sure what you mean by line 39 and where you want the amendment to be put in. I can't find where it actually fits in. It would end up reading: “16(1) Paragraph 40(2)(a) of the Act is replaced by the following:” and then on that line we would have “unintentional misrepresentation”. There is some sort of error as to where the actual amendment goes.

The second problem I have is the actual wording of this. It suggests that if you make unintentional misrepresentation for a period of two years. I just don't understand the amendment. It's not very clear. It actually looks like you want to penalize people who make unintentional misrepresentation.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

The Chair thinks that your first comment is okay, that Mr. Lamoureux is correct. You can comment on the second one unless someone wants to debate it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I believe the amendment is in order as to where it applies. It's on page 4 in clause 16.

With respect to your comment on unintentional misrepresentation for a period of two years that recognizes the importance of our seeing that unintentional misrepresentation occurs. This is consistent with what a number of presenters have brought forward to the committee.

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

I am still confused by it. Having said that, I am going to go back to my original point. I would like some clarification from one of the analysts or our legal clerk. I would like to know where this new line is going to fit in. I am still not quite sure. In a couple of sentences, tell me what you are trying to say.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

There are individuals who unintentionally misrepresent themselves. For those individuals, we should have the discretion to give them two years as opposed to five.

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

You might be able to do that in regulation. I don't know that you can do it in legislation. You are asking someone to determine the level of misrepresentation. It either is or isn't misrepresentation. You're saying there would be a sort of bad misrepresentation, where you would only get two years, and then there would be really bad misrepresentation, where you'd get more. To me, you're either being open and honest, or you are trying to misrepresent your position.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Or you open up the process in which regulations would provide a more definitive answer.

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

Then your concern is at the regulatory level and not the legislative level.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

If you don't allow for the two years, it's going to automatically be five years. What we're doing is allowing for the two years as a possibility.

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

You are giving discretion in legislation. You don't give judges discretion in legislation except for minimum sentences. You don't say what they have to give someone. You can say that you have to give them a minimum. I don't know anywhere in legislation where this occurs, unless I'm wrong. I can certainly be proven wrong.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

In this legislation, we're saying five years.

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

You are saying you want to give discretion to a staff person to say whether it's two years or five years.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

No, we're saying the legislation would acknowledge the need to have both two years and five years for misrepresentation. It would be five years where it's clearly fraudulent. The regulations would determine what is unintentional.