Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 26th, 2012

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

A parrot.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

A parrot.

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

I thought you said “parent”.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I think she said “parrot”.

Sorry about that. Carry on.

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

I assume all can hear me now. Should I project a little bit more?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

That would be good.

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

Okay. It might help if you put the earpiece on too.

I want to underline some of what we've heard from witnesses during the course of the study on this bill.

We heard from a number of witnesses who said the net is being cast too widely and they addressed sections 34, 35, and 37. Section 34 of IRPA is on security and inadmissibility. Section 35 is on human or international rights violations, and section 37 is on organized criminality. Sections 34, 35, and 37 are too broad in IRPA and may unintentionally and unjustly exclude people who would present no threat or danger if they were to come to Canada.

I want to go back to an example that the Canadian Council for Refugees provided in their briefing to the committee. The example was an Iranian girl who was involved with an opposition group when she was a teenager. She attended meetings and went to demonstrations and handed out flyers. Because of her political activity, she was arrested and imprisoned for five years in the Evin prison in Iran where she was tortured. She later fled and came to Canada. She has been found to be inadmissible on security grounds because of her association between the ages of 14 and 16 with the banned group.

This young woman, who was really just fighting for her rights, fighting for her ability to exist as a person, and was giving out flyers, was tortured in a prison and escaped and came to Canada, and now we're deeming her inadmissible. I think she's a great example of somebody who really wouldn't pose a threat to Canadian citizens or the Canadian community if she came here. We know from legal experts that this net is being cast too broadly.

Once again, I am going to defer to the expertise of the lawyers and the people on the ground who have been dealing with these cases day in and day out, who have again and again said that this net is being cast too widely and that we should make adjustments to it.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. Dykstra.

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

First, I want to be clear. The example that you're citing, is that the one the Canadian Council for Refugees brought forward who was actually a failed refugee claimant?

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

Yes, from their briefing itself.

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

Right.

They used a failed refugee claimant as an example of why the legislation doesn't work under criminals with permanent residency in Canada. I want to be clear, because I remember going at this and the example put forward was not about someone who was actually successful in achieving refugee status in Canada, so she didn't have the type of status that.... I don't even know why they ended up in the examples; it was a little ridiculous in my opinion. It was someone who they believe should have been granted status, didn't qualify under our very fair refugee process and wasn't able to achieve refugee status, so I don't know why that would enter into the discussion around the legislation.

I will say, though, when it comes to talking about clause 9, proposed subsection 25(1), it is so clear. I'm a little unsure. I'm starting to understand, I think, the misinterpretation Ms. Sims may have with this proposed subsection. If you read it, it's very clear:

25(1) The Minister must, on request of a foreign national in Canada who is inadmissible — other than under section 34, 35 or 37 — or who does not meet the requirements of this Act, and may, on request of a foreign national outside Canada — other than a foreign national who is inadmissible under section 34, 35 or 37 —, 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 is of the opinion that it is justified by humanitarian and compassionate considerations relating to the foreign national, taking into account the best interests of a child directly affected.

It's already there. That's what is going into the legislation. We are ensuring that the minister will be taking into account the best interests of a child. The only change that this makes, basically, is that the minister will not examine a request for humanitarian and compassionate considerations pursuant to section 25 from a foreign national who is inadmissible on security grounds for human or international rights violations or organized criminality.

I'm not interested in amendments that would allow those involved in organized crime, or those who seek to oppress human rights, the opportunity for humanitarian and compassionate appeal. What we're doing is ensuring that a very select and a named group of individuals do not have access to humanitarian and compassionate, H and C, consideration. If you take a very close look at proposed section 25, the last part of the section actually takes into account the best interests of a child directly affected. It's right there.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Sims.

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

I will reiterate that we believe that the legislation should not relieve the minister of his obligation to consider humanitarian and compassionate circumstances, including the best interests of children.

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

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Weston.

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

I'm listening very closely. I simply don't understand why any member would be striving to avail someone of consideration on humanitarian and compassionate grounds who fell into the category of a war criminal or organized crime figure. I'm not getting that, so I won't be voting in favour of the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay.

Shall amendment NDP-5 carry?

[An hon. member]

I would like a recorded vote, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

Shall clause 9 carry?

[An hon. member]

I would like a recorded vote, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

(Clause 9 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

(On clause 10)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We're moving to clause 10 on which we have proposed amendment NDP-6.

Ms. Sims.

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

Mr. Chair, I move that Bill C-43, in clause 10, be amended by replacing lines 26 to 31 on page 3 with the following:

or who does not meet the requirements of this Act 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 is justified.

Similar to our amendment to clause 9, this amendment seeks to restore the minister's ability to consider humanitarian and compassionate grounds, including the best interests of children involved.

I want to point out that the TCRI, which represents 142 community organizations in Quebec, which assists immigrants and refugees, submitted that the complete exclusion of humanitarian and compassionate considerations in these contexts is contrary to Canada's international obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which, among other things, provides protections of family rights and security of the person, and as well violates Canada's obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

While we may agree that dangerous, violent criminals should be removed from Canada as quickly as possible, we hope that committee members would also recognize that it is important to make sure the minister can still consider the protection of children in these cases.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Is there any debate?

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

A recorded vote, please.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)