Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 3rd, 2016

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Chair, by that logic my colleague opposite has negated the Minister of Health in saying that Bill C-14 requires a five-year review, which is part of the bill we're debating in the Commons today, so there's a bit of a dichotomy there, or a lapse in logic.

I would direct a question to the department officials, and perhaps if they can inform the committee of the commonality of five-year reviews in terms of legislation, as well elaborate on whether a parliamentary review would constitute a sunset clause of this particular piece of legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Ms. Dikranian.

[Teny Dikranian]

Mr. Chair, I'm not sure I can elaborate on how common a five-year review is in legislation. I don't have that information.

Our understanding is this would create a requirement for a review in five years, but not a requirement as a sunset clause.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you for that clarification.

Mr. Tilson.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Chen is correct, and I misspoke when I said it was a sunset clause. You're absolutely right, Mr. Chairman. It is not a sunset clause, but what I'm asking for is that in five years' time there would be a review of all that is going on. There may be other things, as well. I think if it's on the record that we are to review it, then that's a good thing.

Immigration is a continually evolving issue in this country. We're perhaps one of the most generous jurisdictions on the planet as far as encouraging new Canadians to come to this country and become citizens, but I think it's appropriate that we have a review in five years.

I do apologize, Mr. Chen.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Mr. Tilson.

Mr. Virani.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Chen has offered me some of his time.

In respect to this issue, it's critical to understand this committee is the master of its own process. Apropos of what Mr. Chen has indicated, the matters the committee wishes to study can be determined by the subcommittee on procedure here at this committee earlier than a five-year period or later than a five-year period.

In terms of the point made by Ms. Rempel, as to whether there's an inconsistency by not implementing a mandatory review in this legislation with what is transpiring with the Bill C-14 issue, there is absolutely no inconsistency. That undermines the notion that somehow what is applied for with one piece of legislation under a different minister, and under their mandate, must therefore be applied to every single piece of government legislation that is being enacted by the Government of Canada.

That is clearly not the way this government operates, nor is that the way that any government has operated. Decisions made with respect to whether mandatory reviews are required are made in consultation with ministerial or departmental officials relevant to that ministry, relevant to that minister's own decision-making, and also germane to the issues that are at issue within that specific legislative context.

The position being articulated by Mr. Chen is that in the context of this legislation it does not meet that threshold requiring a mandatory review, particularly when you have a standing committee populated by members of all three parties that can initiate such a review on their own volition.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Mr. Virani.

Ms. Rempel.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Chair, I would respectfully disagree with my colleague. My colleagues who sit on the government committee here are solely using the point that this legislation does not require a five-year review because the committee is master of its own domain. By the same logic, the health committee should be able to look at the issue contained in Bill C-14, yet the government has stated that it is material enough to require a review in five years. I respect the fact that the government.... I'm not sure what they would have to hide, or why they would vote against a five-year review, especially in light of the Auditor General report that we saw today on instances of fraud being not detected within the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.

I find my colleague is perhaps grasping at straws to justify his logic.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Can I speak to that, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Ms. Kwan is next on the list.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

On this amendment, I would actually support it. To do a review five years hence is not a bad thing. In my understanding, it does not mean that the changes made in Bill C-6 would come to an end, so that is to say it is not a sunset clause at all. The laws that have been passed accordingly after receiving third reading in the House will continue to be the law. It only means that it should come back as a bill to be reviewed by the committee and to determine or have an evaluation of how the changes have been.

This is the reason I support this. For example, I raised a number of amendments, though few of them were within scope, and the majority of them were defeated by the government members. The government members' argument is that we already have provisions in place. The ministers already have those authorities, and this is not an issue, and so on. But in reality is it going to turn out like that to say really, it's not an issue?

From my perspective, it is worth looking into it to see five years hence am I right, or are the government members right? If my concerns are not valid, it would be really good after five years to come back to indicate that, and then I could say that I didn't have to worry about that and it was all going to be okay and those issues were in fact addressed through different provisions, etc.

To that end, I would support this review, which is all it is. It's just a review and it does not create a sunset clause for the act itself, nor does it preclude the government from bringing forward additional amendments that we talked about at this committee meeting, which I suspect and hope will be forthcoming in the fall.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you.

Mr. Virani.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, it's past 2 o'clock. It's almost 10 after 2 o'clock. The agenda stated this meeting would end at 2 o'clock. Most, if not all of us, are required to attend question period, which started 10 minutes ago. I would suggest we adjourn the meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

I've been advised you cannot move a motion to adjourn on a point of order, so it's just a suggestion.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

I was making a request to you, as the chairman. You set the agenda. You said the meeting would end at 2 o'clock. If you require a motion you, sir, set the agenda of this committee and the committee was to end at 2 o'clock, so I would suggest that by your own terminology the meeting be adjourned.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Is it the will of the committee to adjourn at this time?

[An hon. member]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

I don't see consensus on that.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

What is consensus? Is it that the government decides?

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Mr. Tabbara.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

I think we should just finish with the agenda. We have a couple more, which we could get through really quickly and be on our way.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

We will definitely miss question period, Mr. Tabbara.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

No, we won't.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Yes, we will.