Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 26th, 2012

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

I'm not sure about the last part of Mr. Lamoureux's comments about how changes to a regulation actually would impact reporting back to the House.

I want to make the same points I made on Ms. Sims' amendment.

First, the minister is accountable to Parliament, which I think needs to be recognized. Second, when it comes to negative and positive discretion, those are decisions and responsibilities that will be solely the minister's. It will not give him or her the opportunity to hold staff or ministry officials accountable. Therefore, we know that whoever is the minister is going to make these decisions with a great deal of consideration, based on the fact that he or she will, in fact, be responsible.

The other part, as I indicated with respect to the previous amendment, is that we have a process in place. As Ms. Clarke mentioned, it is a process that will include reporting back to Parliament within the annual report. It covers a 12-month period. Save and except, and I'm glad Ms. Clarke pointed this out, the fact that we need to ensure that we're following the Privacy Act, this will be fully reported.

Starting to put timeframes on these types of reporting mechanisms and measures could inhibit a report coming to Parliament, or one that is substandard, incorrect, or inconclusive because ministry officials wouldn't have the time to put together the report within that 30-day period.

Part of the reason Parliament anticipates and expects annual reports is that citizens, organizations, companies, opposition members and government members of Parliament are able to review the decisions made by a ministry and by the minister during a given year. I know that we are providing it within the act as we speak. I know that the minister is going to have to report back to Parliament on a yearly basis with respect to this decision-making process.

I'd ask officials if I have missed any of the pertinent points in terms of making sure that we deliver this to Parliament on an annual basis.

[Karen Clarke]

No, I don't have anything to add. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Is there any debate?

Shall Liberal amendment LIB-4 carry?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Could I have a recorded vote?

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We'll go on to Liberal amendment LIB-5, Mr. Lamoureux.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move that Bill C-43 in clause 8 be amended by adding after line 2 on page 3, the following:

(4) The Minister must, within 30 days of making a declaration under subsection (1) that a foreign national may not become a temporary resident, table in each House of Parliament a report on the reasons for the declaration.

To keep it short, Mr. Chair, in essence the minister would have 30 days to report to the House when an individual is denied entry based on public policy considerations.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Is there any debate?

Mr. Dykstra.

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

Because we received the amendments fairly late in the day today, and I know that's the way the process worked out over the weekend, I would ask that we return to this Liberal amendment LIB-5 at the end. We would continue the process, but this would allow us to do a little more background work on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Is that agreed?

[An hon. member]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Weston.

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

Mr. Chair, I take it that even with this agreement, we can still ask a question on this specific clause while we're on it, or do you not want to do that?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Why don't we wait until the end. I don't know what the government is going to do. It will be a surprise. Let's wait until that comes. We will not vote on clause 8 or Liberal amendment LIB-5 until some future time.

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

I had a question that I thought Mr. Lamoureux might be able to answer while we're on it, but if you want, we can wait.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I would prefer that you leave it until then.

(Clause 8 allowed to stand)

(On clause 9)

We're on clause 9, amendment NDP-5.

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

I move that Bill C-43 in clause 9 be amended by replacing lines 7 to 16 on page 3 with the following:

or who does not meet the requirements of this Act, and may, on request of a foreign national outside Canada, examine the circumstances concerning the foreign national and may grant the foreign national permanent resident status or an exemption from any applicable criteria or obligations of this Act if the Minister has reasonable grounds to believe that it.

Mr. Chair, we believe we need to address an issue here that gives us considerable concern. Both clauses 9 and 10 cause us great concern as they remove the possibility of humanitarian and compassionate consideration from the minister. The consequences of the best interests of an implicated child would no longer be considered.

In their brief to this committee, Amnesty International put their concern this way: “Eliminating the possibility of humanitarian relief for these types of people runs afoul of international law. Denying individuals access to this process might result in them being sent to torture...or persecution...”.

The Canadian Council for Refugees points out that these inadmissibility sections are extremely broad and catch people who have neither been charged with nor convicted of any crime and who represent no security threat or danger to the public.

New Democrats believe that the minister should not be relieved of the obligation to consider humanitarian and compassionate circumstances, including the best interests of children. Therefore, we are moving this amendment that restores the minister's ability to consider these factors with the caveat that the minister has reasonable grounds to believe it is justified.

We think this amendment will help dull one of the sharper and more mean-spirited edges of this bill and at the same time will constrain the minister's duty to consider humanitarian grounds generally.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Debate.

Mr. Lamoureux, and then Ms. Sitsabaiesan.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Chair, I'm going to attempt to deal with this amendment and the NDP's next amendment by making the one statement.

I would say that we do support—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Have I got a promise, because are you talking about clause 10?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Yes, I'm going to make reference to both clause 9 and clause 10, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

All right, if you phrase it like that, that's fine.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We do support the amendment, but I want to highlight that we are against the removal of access to the House of Commons for those found to be inadmissible under sections 34, 35, and 37. Many witnesses testified that those sections are very broadly interpreted by the courts. In particular, I'd like to quote from Mr. Andrew Brouwer's testimony:

The inadmissibility provisions that are already in IRPA are extremely broad and catch people who have committed no crime and represent no danger to safety or security. Among those who are affected already are people who are inadmissible simply because they worked against a repressive regime or an undemocratic government in their own country. It is by now a cliché to observe that the anti-apartheid hero Nelson Mandela—Nobel Prize winner, honorary Canadian citizen—could be caught up by the revised section 34, as it is drafted.

Mr. Chair, there were other presenters who made some fairly sound arguments. That's the reason we're prepared to support clause 9, the amendment the member has brought forward, and her next one on clause 10.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Sitsabaiesan, please.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Chair, I don't want to sound like a parrot but I want to echo—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

A what?