CIMM Committee Meeting

The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration met in a televised session at 3:30 p.m. this day, in Room C-110, 1 Wellington Street, the Chair, David Tilson, presiding.

The Committee resumed its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.

Jennifer Irish, Monique Frison and Matthew Oommen answered questions.

(a) by replacing line 9 on page 17 with the following:

“110. (1) Subject to subsection (1.1),”

(b) by deleting line 21 on page 17 to line 13 on page 18.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jinny Jogindera Sims and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

“110. (1) Subject to subsection (2), a person or the Minister may appeal, in accordance with the rules of the Board, on a question of law, of fact or of mixed law and fact, to the Refugee Appeal Division against

(a) a decision of the Refugee Protection Division allowing or rejecting the person’s claim for refugee protection;

(b) a decision of the Refugee Protection Division allowing or rejecting an application by the Minister for a determination that refugee protection has ceased; or

(c) a decision of the Refugee Protection Division allowing or rejecting an application by the Minister to vacate a decision to allow a claim for refugee protection.

(2) No appeal may be made in respect of a determination that a refugee protection claim has been withdrawn or abandoned.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Kevin Lamoureux and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

“or on the basis of humanitarian and compassionate grounds, to the Refugee Appeal Division against a”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Kevin Lamoureux and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

“Division, and must accept documentary evi-”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Kevin Lamoureux and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

“(3) Subsection 110(4) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(4) On appeal, the person who is the subject of the appeal and the Minister may present additional evidence that was not before the decision-maker at the time the claim was rejected.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jinny Jogindera Sims and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Clause 36 carried on division.

Jinny Jogindera Sims moved, — That, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration immediately commence a study on the subject matter of sections of Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, which directly fall within the mandate of this committee, namely Part 4, Division 54, Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Debate arose thereon.

The question was put on the motion and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 6.

Clause 37 carried on division.

On Clause 38,

38. (1) Paragraph 112(2)(b.1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(b.1) subject to subsection (2.1), less than 12 months, or, in the case of a person who is a national of a country that is designated under subsection 109.1(1), less than 36 months, have passed since their claim for refugee protection was last rejected — unless it was deemed to be rejected under subsection 109(3) or was rejected on the basis of section E or F of Article 1 of the Refugee Convention — or determined to be withdrawn or abandoned by the Refugee Protection Division or the Refugee Appeal Division;

(1.1) Paragraphs 112(2)(c) and (d) of the”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Rick Dykstra and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

Clause 38, as amended, carried on division.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 39 to 44 inclusive carried on division severally.

On Clause 45,

de la commettre; l’auteur est passible,

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Rick Dykstra and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.

Clause 45, as amended, carried on division.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 46 to 57 inclusive carried on division severally.

On Clause 58,

“ignate a country or part of a country or a class of nationals of a country, for the purposes of subsection”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jinny Jogindera Sims and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

“110(2) and section 111.1 if that country is recommended for designation by the advisory committee referred to in subsection (3.4).

(2) The Minister may make a designation only if

(a) the number of claims for refugee protection made in Canada by nationals of the country in question is equal to or greater than the maximum number set out in the regulations; and

(b) the rate of acceptance by the Refugee Protection Division of claims made by nationals of the country in question is equal to or lower than the rate set out in the regulations.

(3) In making a designation, the Minister must take the following criteria into account:

(a) the human rights record of the country in question as it relates to

(i) the factors set out in sections 96 and 97, and

(ii) the international human rights agreements specified in the regulations and any other international agreement that the Minister considers relevant;

(b) the availability in the country in question of mechanisms for seeking protection and redress;

(c) the number of claims for refugee protection made in Canada by nationals of the country in question;

(d) the rate of acceptance by the Refugee Protection Division of claims made by nationals of the country in question and the rate of appeals allowed by the Refugee Appeal Division in respect of appeals made by nationals of the country in question; and

(e) any other criteria set out in the regulations.

(3.1) A country shall not be designated under this section unless the number of claims by nationals of the country exceeds, in the three-month period before the designation, ten percent of the total number of claims referred to the Refugee Protection Division during that period.

(3.2) A country shall cease to be designated under subsection (1) one year after the day on which it was designated, unless the Minister again designates the country in accordance with this section.

(3.3) Before designating a country under this section, the Minister must provide notice of his or her intention to do so and must allow all interested parties to make representations regarding the designation.

(3.4) For the purpose of determining whether or not a country ought to be designated under this section, the Minister must establish an advisory committee, which is to include at least two independent human rights experts, appointed in consultation with non-governmental immigrant organizations, and at least two employees of the federal government with expertise and experience in human rights law. The advisory committee must take into account all representations made under subsection (3.3) before making a recommendation for designation.”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it infringed on the financial initiative of the Crown, as provided on pages 767-768 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.

“(2.1) In making a designation, the Minister must take the following criteria into account:

(a) the human rights record of the country in question as it relates to

(i) the factors set out in sections 96 and 97, and

(ii) the international human rights instruments specified in the regulations and any other international instrument that the Minister considers relevant;

(b) the availability in the country in question of mechanisms for seeking protection; and

(c) any other criteria set out in the regulations.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jinny Jogindera Sims and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Clause 58 carried on division.

On Clause 59,

(a) by replacing line 16 on page 28 with the following:

“99(3.1) or 100(4), which, in the case of subsection 99(3.1), shall not be less than 30 days from the date on which the claim is referred under subsection 100(1);”

(b) by replacing line 22 on page 28 with the following:

“an appeal under subsection 110(2.1), which shall not be less than 45 days from the date on which the appeal is filed; and”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jinny Jogindera Sims and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

“(3) The regulations referred to in subsection (1) must provide, in respect of all claims for refugee protection, that the documents and information respecting the basis of the claim do not have to be submitted by the claimant to the Refugee Protection Division until at least 28 days after the day on which the claim was submitted.

(4) The regulations referred to in subsection (1) must provide

(a) in respect of claims made by a national from a designated country of origin, that a hearing to determine the claim is not to take place until at least 90 days after the day on which the claim was submitted; and

(b) in respect of all other claims, that a hearing to determine the claim is not to take place until at least 150 days after the day on which the claim was submitted.

(5) The regulations referred to in subsection (1) must provide, in respect of all claims for refugee protection, that an appeal from a decision of the Refugee Protection Division does not have to be filed with the Refugee Appeal Division until at least 45 days after the day on which a copy of the decision and a transcript of the proceedings is provided to the claimant.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Kevin Lamoureux and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Clause 59 carried on division.

On Clause 60,

“(b.1) subject to subsection (2.1), less than three days have passed since their claim for”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Kevin Lamoureux and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

Clause 60 carried on division.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 61 to 67 inclusive carried on division severally.

On Clause 68,

(2) An application made under subsection 112(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act before the day on which this section comes into force is terminated if it was made before the expiry of the 12-month period referred to in paragraph 112(2)(b.1) of that Act, as enacted by subsection 15(3).”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Rick Dykstra and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

Clause 68, as amended, carried on division.

On Clause 69,

(a) replacing lines 6 and 7 on page 32 with the following:

42. (1) The provisions of this Act, except sections 3 to 6, 9, 13 and 14, subsection 15(3) and sections 28, 31, 32, 39 and”

(b) adding after line 9 on page 32 the following:

(2) Subsection 15(3) comes into force on the day on which the Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act receives royal assent.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Rick Dykstra and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

Clause 69, as amended, carried on division.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 70 to 77 inclusive carried on division severally.

On Clause 78,

“(4) An agreement or arrangement entered into with a foreign government for the provision of services in relation to the collection, use and disclosure of biometric information under subsection (1) or (2) shall include the following conditions:

(a) any biometric information of a foreign national may be disclosed to the foreign government only for the purpose of verifying the identity of the foreign national or for the purposes of national security and may be used only for that purpose by the foreign government; and

(b) any disclosed biometric information shall be destroyed as soon as the verification process is completed.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jinny Jogindera Sims and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 6.

Clause 78 carried on division.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 79 and 80 carried on division severally.

On Clause 81,

“group of 50 persons or more.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jinny Jogindera Sims and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 6.

After further debate, Clause 81 carried on the following recorded division: YEAS: Rick Dykstra, Roxanne James, Chungsen Leung, Costas Menegakis, Ted Opitz, John Weston — 6; NAYS: Alain Giguère, Sadia Groguhé, Kevin Lamoureux, Jinny Jogindera Sims, Rathika Sitsabaiesan — 5.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 82 and 83 carried on division severally.

On new Clause 83.1,

83.1 An application made under subsection 112(1) of the Act before the day on which this section comes into force is terminated if it was made before the expiry of the 12-month period referred to in paragraph 112(2)(c) of the Act, as enacted by subsection 38(1.1).”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Rick Dykstra and it was agreed to on division.

On Clause 84,

“tion 38(1.1) of this Act are in force, paragraph”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Rick Dykstra and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

“months, or, in the case of a person who is a national of a country that is designated under subsection 109.1(1), less than 36 months, have passed since their last applica- ”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Rick Dykstra and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 4.

Clause 84, as amended, carried on division.

On Clause 85,

“11(1), sections 17 to 22, subsection 23(1), sections 29, 31, 33 to 35, subsections 38(1) and (2) and sections 39 to 46, 49 to 51, 53,”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Rick Dykstra and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 5.

Clause 85, as amended, carried on division.

On Clause 1,

“1. This Act may be cited as the Punishing Refugees Act.”

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend the title of the Bill that, as provided on pages 770-771 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, may only be amended if necessitated by other amendments made to the Bill.

After further debate, Clause 1 carried on division.

The Title carried on division.

The Bill, as amended, carried on the following recorded division: YEAS: Rick Dykstra, Roxanne James, Chungsen Leung, Costas Menegakis, Ted Opitz, John Weston — 6; NAYS: Alain Giguère, Sadia Groguhé, Kevin Lamoureux, Jinny Jogindera Sims, Rathika Sitsabaiesan — 5.

ORDERED, — That the Chair report the Bill , as amended, to the House.

ORDERED, — That Bill C-31, as amended, be reprinted for the use of the House at report stage.

At 6:35 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.