Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 26th, 2012

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

I could never do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I know.

We are on clause 5. There's an amendment by the New Democratic Party. Mr. Lamoureux is debating that and his amendment, which is identical to the NDP amendment.

There should have been a package all members of the committee received, Mr. Weston.

Mr. Lamoureux, you have the floor.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Chair, before speaking to the amendment itself, much like the official opposition critic, I would like to take some latitude to provide some brief comments. I will keep my comments within a minute or a minute and a half.

I did want to express some disappointment in that as you are aware, the Liberal Party opposed sending this bill to committee, because we believe there are significant flaws in the legislation. We're not happy with the manner in which the government has proceeded. It has not listened, not only to what the Liberal Party has been suggesting, but also to a number of people who made presentations in regard to the need for amendments. In that sense we're quite disappointed.

We have brought forward a number of amendments. As the chair has pointed out, some of them are quite similar to the New Democratic Party amendments. It's a positive reflection when we have two opposition parties thinking alike in two different locations, recognizing the importance of some of the amendments that we're bringing forward.

The issue at hand with this particular amendment is to ensure that for those who are obligated to attend and answer questions, it is limited to the information reasonably required for that application. That, in a nutshell, is the purpose of bringing forward this particular amendment.

I would pose a question to you, Mr. Chair. As we go through this, when you say there are two amendments of a similar nature, are you going to be dealing with them both as one vote?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Lamoureux, you'll notice that your amendment, which is on page 3 of the package, is identical to the New Democratic Party amendment. I think there are several cases throughout the clause-by-clause study where that occurs. I will try to remember to let whoever is going first...and the New Democratic Party's amendments came first, so they have precedence. I will try to remember that they're the same. You can debate yours and hers at the same time, but we'll be voting on the New Democratic Party's amendment.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

We wouldn't be voting on—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

No, we would not vote on yours.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you. That's what I wanted to know.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Have you concluded your comments?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Yes, I have, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Madam Groguhé.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to remind everyone of the importance of the support we gave this bill to have it referred to committee to be studied. At the outset, we thought it needed to be improved. That is why we are here, why we have these discussions and exchanges in committee.

As for the proposed amendment, my colleague and I are pointing out the importance of limiting the information disclosed and not go beyond that information. Therefore, I would like to give my support to what my colleague just stated in the context of this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Is there further debate?

Mr. Dykstra.

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

Mr. Chair, I do have a question for the officials who are here.

It is somewhat problematic on two grounds. Ms. Groguhé said the difficulty is that we should limit the amount of information the individual would be required to provide. I have great difficulty around that, because it suggests the individual can do what we're hoping to prevent, and that is to hold back information, information that is necessary to the interview or to determine whether or not the individual who would be interviewed has done something that is contrary to the act.

That part concerns me off the top, and it's part of the reason we wouldn't support the amendment.

The other is the issue around what is currently required versus saying what is relevant. Perhaps we could get staff to find out what the intention is in terms of the interview process. Currently, when the CBSA has the opportunity to interview individuals, I understand or hope, to get clarification, the information is, generally speaking, relevant to the case that they're hearing versus their trying to find out information about other cases.

I can't see how an amendment such as this is actually suggesting that this is what's currently happening, and I would like to get some clarification on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Dykstra.

First of all, I was remiss in not welcoming the four members from the department.

We thank you for coming and helping us out with these amendments, as well as the other clauses in the bill.

Mr. Desmarais, do you have some comments on that?

[Emmanuelle Deault-Bonin, Manager, National Security Policy Directorate, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

I'll take that one, if I may.

To answer the question that was raised, indeed as it currently stands and as would continue to happen, the CSIS Act ensures that the information collected during the interview is focused on what's required to provide advice to the immigration officials in order to assess the application at hand. This is the case right now, and that's found, again, in the CSIS Act.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Sims.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

When you look at the actual wording that has been presented here, “must answer truthfully all questions relevant to the application put to them”, if that is the current practice, then there is no harm in codifying it. That's what I heard my honourable colleague across the way say.

We're not saying that questions should not be asked, but the questions should be relevant to the application that is right there.

I was delighted to hear from the staff that this is already the practice. I think the practice needs to be codified. This would give us the kind of security we're looking for so that it's not a wide open area for fishing.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Dykstra.

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

The legislative process that we fall under requires that a change is needed to address an issue which, in the government's opinion, is deficient. If the issue at hand is not deficient, then there is no need to replace or reinforce what is already taking place.

The government won't be supporting the amendment, and in fact, understands what Ms. Sims is concerned about. I certainly share the same concerns. It is already being addressed within the act.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Lamoureux.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I have a very quick question for Mr. Dykstra.

What would happen if the legislation that currently addresses it were to change at some point in the future? Would that not dictate that you would have to reintroduce a change to the current legislation in order to get the will?

Ultimately, if you're saying that, yes, you agree that the amendments that both the New Democrats and I are proposing are valid but not necessary because of other legislation, there's no way of knowing whether that legislation might change in the future. By allowing this amendment to proceed, what we're really doing is protecting the interests of what could be a very vulnerable individual.

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

I understand the point, I think, but you don't change legislation or make amendments to legislation for what may or may not potentially happen in the future.

Unless either of the representatives here from Public Safety are going to confirm what Mr. Lamoureux suspects, that there is going to be some form of change in the act related to CSIS on this issue, should we be reinforcing something that may change? Sorry, that's a redundant question. I apologize.

There currently is no change in the works. If there were, we could revisit this issue, no doubt, if that were to occur.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

They probably don't know.

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

They do not know. It was a rhetorical question, and I shouldn't have asked it.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Sims.