Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 26th, 2012

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

Okay, we're not going to support the amendment. I appreciate understanding it more clearly now. It may have been confusing because of how it was drafted. If someone has committed a misrepresentation, it's fraud, whether it's serious and obvious, or whether it's been a lot more devious in how it's been put into the application process. We won't be supporting the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Sims.

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

Mr. Chair, I'm glad I heard that exchange. Everything's as clear as mud right now.

I'm having difficulty with this amendment, so therefore I can't support it. I believe it lacks clarity. It also puts in a minimum sentence, even for people for whom it was totally unintentional. It says that if it was totally not their intention, they must be excluded for a period of two years. It takes away the kind of discretion I was told the officers have right now occasionally. If they were doing it out of fear for their life, or if they just had a senior moment, but it didn't make them a threat to the country or anything and didn't really change any of those things, then I don't see why they would be excluded for two years. That's why I'm finding it difficult to support this.

I could support the second half. Three years is obviously better than five years, but combined, noting that it lacks clarity, it's very difficult to support the current wording. I do want to give my colleague credit for his intentions of what he wanted to do, but I don't feel it's clear to me and it's not as explicit as I would like to see it in wording.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. James.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would like to go back to the previous amendment, when we talked about what misrepresentation was. It's intentional and it must be significant. Throwing in this whole unintended misrepresentation, I agree with my colleague, Mr. Dykstra, that it's pretty hard to determine if someone did not intend to misrepresent themselves to a degree that it's significant with the intent to mislead.

I agree that the clause is worded strangely, as though if someone accidentally does something incorrectly on the form, they're going to be penalized for two years regardless.

I think the officials of the department here indicated that if someone makes a mistake that is not significant or fraudulently done, there are methods of recourse to resolve that fairly quickly. I don't think that this particular amendment is really necessary. I agree with my colleague on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Lamoureux.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Chairperson, this is one of the reasons I think that as a committee we really do need to deal with the issue of misrepresentation. We need to recognize, and that's the reason I asked the question of the staff earlier, that there is misrepresentation that's completely 100% unintentional, and it's important that the staff overseas have the ability to say that it makes sense that it was absolutely unintentional. We'd like to think they're using discretion in order to make sure that this law that we're in the process of passing is not going to actually apply.

I think a vast majority of, if not all, Canadians, would recognize that this sort of misrepresentation does occur, and it's important that there be some form of discretion at our immigration offices around the world.

Then there are other immigrations cases, and I'll use the example of a family of four that comes to Canada. The young daughter or son did not declare that they had eloped with their boyfriend or girlfriend just prior to coming to Canada. The consequences of that are exceptionally significant. If you push the envelope on that, it becomes more significant. This is something we need to recognize does happen. To say that it doesn't happen is to put your head in the sand.

Then you have someone who might put on the form that they don't have a criminal past, but when it is looked into, they have a criminal past. They intentionally tried to deceive the Government of Canada through the immigration offices and the five years would apply. This is what the government is proposing, and we're quite comfortable with that.

We just need to recognize there are different types of misrepresentation that occur. This amendment is a reflection of that fact. That's the reason we're suggesting that it pass.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Shall Liberal amendment LIB-7 carry?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Could we have a recorded vote, please.

(Amendment negatived: nays 10, yeas 1)

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

Chair, what time are we adjourning today?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Any second. I'm trying to squeeze a few more in. Why, have you had enough?

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

No. I would ask unanimous consent to extend for an extra five minutes for two reasons. First, I think we can get through clauses 16 and 17, and second, I want to get committee approval for when the minister can come here. I have an offer to make.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We have unanimous consent to continue for a few moments.

(Clauses 16 and 17 agreed to on division)

(On clause 18)

We are now on clause 18, which has a Liberal amendment. Mr. Dykstra, do you have something else you want to say?

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

Thank you, Chair.

I want to acknowledge that over the last few days and the weekend we've tried to come up with a timeframe to have the minister appear on estimates. I would suggest the following timeframe. I think we have made some excellent progress today, so I'm not sure we need to meet tomorrow. I think we could probably work through this on Wednesday.

Let me propose that from 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Wednesday we meet to continue clause-by-clause review and that from 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. the minister would attend and make a presentation on estimates. We would have an opportunity to question those estimates and do our due diligence and what we're supposed to do in terms of those responsibilities.

If any remaining clauses are left to work through on Wednesday at 5:30, we would continue to meet from 5:30 until 6:00 or 6:30, whatever might be necessary to conclude clause-by-clause consideration.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I don't know whether they are going to agree or not. I'm interested in what is meant by "whatever might be necessary".

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

I think at 11:59 they are going forward anyway.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

So 11:59 is necessary.

Ms. Sims.

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

That is the point I wanted to make. I didn't want a limitation for us to be rushed for our amendments, so as long as it's with the understanding that we're going to go through until midnight, if needed, I think we're okay with that. It is critical that we have the minister and we go over the estimates and do our due diligence.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Do we have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

The minister can appear at 4:30 on Wednesday.

This meeting is adjourned.