Evidence of meeting #63 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was report.
A video is available from Parliament.
NDP
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
To request a recorded vote, can you request it before the vote is finished, or is it before the vote has commenced? How does it work?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I take it that as soon as I call the vote, the request must be made.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
It's a recorded vote, Madam Clerk.
Ms. James has a point of order.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
I'm not sure whether it's a point of order or a point of clarification.
Is it standard practice that after the vote has taken place, we can go back and do a recorded vote afterwards? I'm just wondering why you're making an exception.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
You know, you are right. I am breaking some rule, but I do that from time to time. I am allowing Ms. Sims to have a recorded vote. You are absolutely right, Ms. James, but we're going to have a recorded vote anyway.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)
Mr. Lamoureux, next is amendment LIB-3.
This is on page 5 of the package, ladies and gentlemen.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Chair, I move that Bill C-43 in clause 5 be amended by adding after line 15 on page 2 the following:
(2.2) The following conditions apply in respect of any interview conducted in accordance with subsection (2.1):
(a) the foreign national has a right to counsel;
(b) any information procured and used to impair the liberty or security of the foreign national, or any third party, is subject to a fair and impartial review process, including requirements for the retention of interview notes; and
(c) the interview is conducted in a fair and impartial manner that promotes accountability.
Conservative
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This amendment takes into consideration the amendment we just finished voting on. It adds to it to give it a little more strength, in essence to ensure that the person being interviewed would have the right to counsel, that the interview would be recorded, and that there would be oversight mechanisms in place to ensure that the interviews are done in a fair manner.
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)
Shall clause 5 carry?
(Clause 5 agreed to)
Shall clauses 6 and 7 carry?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I would prefer that you say that it's on division, because you may want to speak on something. You may want to speak to one of the clauses. If you say it's on division, then that's fine.
(Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to on division)
(On clause 8)
The New Democratic Party has a proposed amendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Do we all know what she's doing here? Does she need to read the whole amendment? Do you all have the New Democratic amendment in front of you? Unless someone says something, I'm going to have her read the whole thing.
Do you agree that she can dispense with the reading of it?
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Mr. Speaker, with this amendment, we are proposing to do two very important things to limit the overly broad ministerial power to declare a foreign national inadmissible based on public policy considerations.
First, we suggest codifying word for word in the legislation the minister's own guidelines that he presented to this committee. When Minister Jason Kenney visited us on October 24, he suggested this approach when he said, “The committee may recommend that we codify these guidelines in the bill...”. We hope that committee members will agree to do just that.
Second, and perhaps more important, this amendment introduces a new threshold for the exercise of this power. Specifically, the minister must have reason to believe that a foreign national meets one of the listed requirements in the guidelines.
There were many witnesses who raised serious concerns about this part of Bill C-43 , but I would like to highlight the concerns set out in the submission by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association who said:
The Minister would be granted broad authority to deny entry to a high profile speaker on purely ideological or political grounds. Such a decision would engage the Charter protected freedom of expression and freedom of association of all Canadians.… In our view this provision has serious procedural flaws which undermine the rule of law, the cornerstone of a free and democratic society.
We concur with some of these criticisms and suggest that the current language is too broad and discretionary. Therefore, we would ask members to consider this very reasonable amendment to curb this overly broad ministerial power.
