CIMM Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 15, 2001

• 1534

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)): Okay, here we go. We're at amendment G6 in the government stuff, on clause 15.

Mr. McCallum.

(On clause 15—Examination by officer)

Mr. John McCallum (Markham, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, it's a pleasure for me to introduce a liberal Liberal amendment to this bill, because in clause 15 we're eliminating the statement that an officer can proceed with an examination where the officer has reasonable grounds to believe a foreign national may be inadmissible. We're limiting this power only to the case where a person has made an application to the department. So I think this limits very much the authority of the officer. This change was in response to those who were saying we were being draconian or Stalinist in waking up people in the middle of the night, which was never the intent. I think this amendment makes that limitation very clear.

• 1535

The Chair: Thank you, John.

Are there any questions or comments?

I believe this is a very good amendment—finally a good Liberal amendment. Thank you, John.

To the administration, just so we're clear, the definition of “foreign national” has now been changed, but what happens to permanent residents in clause 15? They're not mentioned specifically. I'd like to keep it that way. That's fine, but I want to make sure everybody has a clear understanding, because I don't want any surprises down the road.

Mr. John McCallum: I took that as a given.

The Chair: I took that as a given too.

Okay, that's a given—oh, even more liberal, even better.

Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): On what we did with respect to the definition, with the change, we still actually refer to “foreign nationals” throughout the bill. It's just that in the definition section it's clarified.

The Chair: A “foreign national” is not a Canadian citizen and not a permanent resident. Everybody else falls within that stuff.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: So we've gone partway, but we still haven't addressed the concern by some about the use of the term “foreign nationals” as part of our—

The Chair: You mean as it relates to clause 15?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Right, or generally.

The Chair: I thought that would appeal to everybody. I don't want to go back to that definition.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: No, I just want a clarification.

The Chair: Yes, we have decided to keep the term “foreign national” for everyone other than a Canadian citizen or permanent resident.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Okay.

The Chair: Are there any questions on clause 15 or amendment G6? Are there any objections to amendment G6? None?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): If the government had not tabled an amendment like this one, would it have accepted those formulated by the opposition?

[English]

The Chair: I think we probably would have. You guys are so on the ball, it's incredible. But finally we have one.

Okay, so we're on clause 15 as amended, then? Shall the clause pass?

Wait a minute. I'm sorry, I have to go to this book. I have amendments BQ7, NDP19, and PC4.

Yours is exactly the same as ours, Madeleine. So that takes care of that. So is amendment NDP19.

Amendment PC4, c'est la même chose. He's not here, so too bad. It's the same thing.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: No, PC-4 is not the same thing. Right, we will stand them. I have talked about our two amendments.

[English]

The Chair: Yes, but this is line 24. We're talking about subclause 15(1). This comes after. Hopefully John will show up before we get to amendment PC4.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Are you talking about the NDP one?

The Chair: No, I'm talking about amendment PC4.

So amendments G6, BQ7, and NDP19 are all the same.

An hon. member: Right.

The Chair: We've approved them.

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, CA): I'll move amendment PC4.

The Chair: This spirit of cooperation is incredible. You want to do it for the Conservatives. Do you believe in it, though? Read it first. Do you want to defend it?

Mr. Inky Mark: It's pretty easy to defend.

The Chair: Take us through it, Inky, on behalf of John Herron.

Mr. Inky Mark: This amendment basically calls for the right to have counsel present during examination, which is pretty rational stuff.

The Chair: Can we hear from the administration as to why that would be problematic? Or is it anticipated that this is the way natural justice works or whatever?

Mark or Elizabeth?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp (Director General, Enforcement Branch, Citizenship and Immigration Canada): I'll address this one.

• 1540

In fact, examinations first of all are fact-finding exercises; they're not adversarial. So even including the case of an application to come to Canada to make a refugee claim, we're talking about a fact-finding exercise on the part of the officer. A refugee claimant then would have no need for counsel at that stage since it's simply a fact-finding exercise and they have a basic right to have their claim heard once the claim has been made to the officer.

The courts in fact have looked at the issue of examination and have determined that the person examined is obliged to answer questions truthfully, put by the examining officer, directly and not through a representative.

The last thing I will say is that in the context of ports of entry, where examinations are carried out, giving a right to counsel during an examination in Canada could create a bit of havoc at our ports of entry. It would result in delays in processing all persons coming in, should they want to have counsel present. That would include Canadian citizens who could be subject to an examination, and they would be required to wait in line as others chose to exercise that right to have counsel. So it would not be practical from that perspective.

The Chair: Are there any other comments? Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: So we have to choose between what is practical and what is right. That's it.

[English]

The Chair: Very well said.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: I'll thank John Herron on your behalf.

That was very well done, by the way, Inky.

(Clause 15 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 16—Obligation—answer truthfully)

The Chair: On clause 16, we have amendment G7.

Mr. McCallum, is this yours? It's the only amendment we have on this one. It's obviously another good Liberal amendment. It's based on being arrested.

Mr. John McCallum: Yes. This further limits the scope of the power of the officer, by saying “who is arrested” rather than “who is examined, arrested,” and so on.

The Chair: So it's technical, a clarification.

Are there any questions or further comments? Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: For clarification, it simply deletes the words “who is examined”, and everything else stands? So it would read:

a foreign national who is arrested, detained or subject to a removal order

The Chair: Judy, we're just adding the four words “permanent resident or a”.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: No, you have the wrong one. It's amendment G7.

The Chair: My apologies. I have to go to book 3 here.

I'm sorry, I don't have that consequential one. They're in two different places. I'm just trying to sort out whether or not we have the paperwork here.

A voice: It seems to me the consequential one is before it.

Mr. John McCallum: It just takes out the word “examined”.

The Chair: Elizabeth, could you take us through this? It's part of that package once we change the name “foreign national”, or the definition. There were consequential ones that you tabled this morning that we gave to everybody. Maybe you can take us through exactly what that is.

• 1545

Mr. Daniel Therrien (General Counsel, Legal Services, Citizenship and Immigration Canada): The amendment does two things. The amendment substantively removes the word “examined” so that the authority given to officers in that provision does not apply to examinations. In the package we gave you this morning on terminology changes, it adds the words “permanent resident” so that it's clear that permanent residents are not foreign nationals for the purpose of that provision. The substantive effect is to delete the word “examined”.

The Chair: Is everybody clear? Are there any objections to that? None. Okay.

John, while you were away, Inky did an absolutely fantastic job for you on PC4. It lost anyway, but I should just tell you that he did a very admirable job on PC4.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): So we don't want counsel any more.

The Chair: We've done it. He did an admirable job. You weren't here for the explanations and the debate, but you lost, so it's okay.

Mr. John Herron: Did he give you the one about putting people in a dark room with a light shining on their face, or anything like that?

(Clause 16 as amended agreed to)

The Chair: We did clause 17.

(On clause 18—Examination by officer)

The Chair: On clause 18, we have amendments G8 and CA9. Who is doing it—Steve or Mark or John?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, we're recommending that we amend clause 18 by replacing line 18 on page 10 with the following:

Examination by officer

18.(1) Every person seeking to enter Canada

and adding after line 22 on page 10 the following:

Transit

18.(2) Subclause 18(1) also applies to persons who, without leaving Canada, seek to leave an area at an airport that is reserved for passengers who are in transit or who are waiting to depart Canada.

Mr. Chairman, this will clarify to allow examinations of persons in a transit or departure area of an airport who want to leave the area. It exists in the current act, and in our view the amendment is consistent with the objective of consolidating the examination provisions.

The Chair: Okay. Now, we also had as part of that one CA9. Was that similar, Inky? Let's just take a look at it. Is it an entirely different matter?

Mr. Inky Mark: Different. We could call it subclause 18(3) or something like that.

The Chair: Okay. Let's deal with the government G8. Are there any further comments? Elizabeth, do you have any comments?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: Only if there are points of clarification. We're talking about transit areas in an airport where someone is transiting through, but not necessarily coming to Canada.

The Chair: Can I ask a technical question? Do we use that word “every”? Every, to me, means every single person without discretion on both clauses 18 and 19. Does that essentially mean that every person is subject to an examination?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: That's correct.

The Chair: And that's the way the present act reads?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: Yes, absolutely.

The Chair: All right. Are there any further comments or objections on clause 18 or on amendment G8?

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Now, on amendment CA9, do you want to take us through that, Inky?

Mr. Inky Mark: We could renumber that subclause 18(3). Again, it's front-end security. It says:

Every person entering Canada, regardless of the person's point of entry, shall be subject, upon entry, to a security check.

That's what they're supposed to do anyway, so we might as well put it in the bill.

The Chair: Is that what we do presently, Elizabeth—a security check?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: No, we do not. Visitors and people who come to Canada—

The Chair: No, no, go ahead. I've asked you the question. You don't look at John whether or not you can—

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: My apologies.

No, we do not. If people seeking to enter Canada are subject to an examination, if at that examination it becomes clear that further information is required, or that person might pose some sort of security concern, or is at risk, it would be at that point that we would seek to conduct a further review and do work, for example, with CSIS and the RCMP, if need be, and check out the information.

• 1550

The Chair: Okay, John.

Mr. John Herron: Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt.

I don't think Inky's amendment says that we want to do a security check on everybody who comes through. He says “subject to” a security check. Basically, I think that the—

The Chair: The word is “shall.”

Mr. John Herron: “Shall be subject.”

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Every person.

Mr. John Herron: Every person has a security check. Is that what you want to do?

The Chair: Do you know the lineups we're going to have at every airport, border, and...

Mr. John Herron: I don't like that one. I'm voting against it.

The Chair: Inky, are you sure you still want to keep this thing?

Mr. Inky Mark: It's an instant check. It's like your Visa card. Instant check.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Instant, it comes in a bottle.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 18 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 19—Right of entry of citizens and Indians)

The Chair: On clause 19, we've got NDP20. Do you want to take us through that, Judy?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes. It's just a small change, but I think a significant one. It changes subclause 19(2), deletes the words “if satisfied following an examination on their entry that they have that status” to “unless loss of status has been established”. This is simply a clear, more positive way to say the same thing, and it confirms the right of entry when status is established.

The Chair: Just for the members, clause 19 speaks of every Canadian citizen, whereas clause 18 spoke of everybody else. This one speaks of the Canadian citizen.

Are there comments from the administration, Elizabeth, as to whether or not, as Judy says, it makes it a little easier—more positive sounding than clause 19?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: Well, if you look at subclause 19(1), it's worded similarly to subclause 19(2), and in fact simply confirms that while permanent residents and citizens have an absolute right to enter the country, they are also subject to an examination provision to determine that they do indeed have that status. Upon confirming that they have that status, they are allowed to enter. In order to establish whether you had someone who had in fact lost their status, you would have to examine them. So that is the purpose of the provision, and that's why it's worded the way it is.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: It's like innocent until proven guilty, as opposed to leaving it more vague.

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: Well, everybody entering Canada—it's part of our border control—is subject to an examination, including citizens.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Including citizens?

The Chair: It's part of the present system that we have.

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: That's right.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 19 agreed to)

The Chair: Okay, clause 20. We have G9 and CA10. This looks like a technical amendment to make sure that the English and the French coincide.

Mark, you'll move that technical amendment?

Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): Yes.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: How about CA10, Inky?

Mr. Inky Mark: Again, Mr. Chair, this amendment basically says that we should keep track of who comes in and who leaves the country.

The Chair: Boy, we're going to have lineups longer than the country—

Mr. Inky Mark: We do live in a computer age, you know.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

A voice: Did G9 carry?

The Chair: Yes.

(Clause 20 as amended agreed to)

The Chair: Okay, so we've done clauses 21, 22, 23, and now we'll go to—

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: On clause 21, you promised you'd come back with something.

• 1555

The Chair: On clause 21?

Mr. Steven Mahoney: Yes. It's being distributed now. This has to do with an NDP concern on clause 12.

There are so many papers here, and we're trying to remember all of this stuff.

The Chair: What's the issue?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: It's about automatic status after you've been categorized or named a refugee.

The Chair: Did you have an amendment on that one?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes. Remember, I had an amendment to clause 12. You asked me to hold or withdraw it, because the government was bringing something in to address this concern under clause 21.

The Chair: Yes. I have my notes here, and I'm going through them.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I don't think it's out yet.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It's just coming now. I can read it, if you want.

The Chair: Yes, Steve, maybe you can take us through this.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Okay. We're moving that clause 21 be amended by replacing line 16 on page 11 with the following... “A foreign national becomes a permanent resident” is what it says now.

We're just doing this on the run here. You've lost me.

The Chair: We're going to hold it. Forget clause 21 until we sort this thing out.

Judy, do you want to take us through amendment NDP21? This is in regard to clause 24.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes.

(On clause 24—Temporary resident permit)

The Chair: “Temporary resident permit” replaces the minister's permits.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Inky, maybe you could introduce this for me. I just can't remember.

The Chair: This one is in regard to temporary resident permits. Remember, these take the place of minister's permits. Your amendment NDP21 talks about “environmental disaster or other extraordinary and temporary conditions”, so we let more people in on a temporary basis.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes. I'm sorry, I was on another one.

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: On clause 24, after line 43 on page 11, the amendment adds a new subclause 24(1.1). This came especially from the Mennonite Central Committee. It reads:

(1.1) An officer may issue a temporary resident permit to a foreign national of a country that is designated by the minister as being a country that is experiencing an environmental disaster or other extraordinary and temporary condition.

It covers earthquakes, floods, etc.

The Chair: Okay. Elizabeth, the wording there seems to be broadened in its application, in that it might look after such eventualities. Do you mind taking us through this subclause 24(1)?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: Absolutely. In fact that is the case. The wording is broad. In fact the bill doesn't limit in any way the scope for temporary resident permits. They could be issued for those types of circumstances under this act.

We'd be a bit concerned that by adding this clause the amendment could be read by the courts as an intention by Parliament to actually limit the scope of temporary resident permits. Again, by being explicit on this point, the courts might interpret it as a limiting factor or actually a narrowing of the definition or circumstances in which a minister's permit might be issued.

The Chair: Would some of the regulations give further guidance to the legislative stuff? Mark?

Mr. Mark Davidson (Deputy Director, Economic Policy and Programs, Citizenship and Immigration Canada): Yes, regulations, instructions to officers, or training would do so.

The Chair: Okay.

Judy, do you want to keep it like this, or are you satisfied your concerns are taken into account in the broad language used?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: My concern is that it's an addition to the section. It doesn't narrow the definition and shouldn't limit the courts in terms of rulings. It gives an extra cushion in terms of dealing with extraordinary circumstances. I think it still makes sense. I'd leave it and call for a vote.

• 1600

The Chair: I'll put the question then on NDP21.

It should be noted that with some of the discussion we're having around the table, sometimes I probe for an explanation in terms of getting inside the legislator's head. They may use these transcripts in the future to see exactly the intent. What Elizabeth and Mark have said is there for the history books and may be used by an interpretive judge or whomever.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Amendment NDP22 would be consequential to amendment NDP21. It's redundant, I suppose. Okay?

The next one is amendment NDP23.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: It deletes lines six to eight under clause 24. This is to narrow the discretionary powers of the department.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: What are we on now, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: We're on amendment NDP23, to delete lines six to eight under clause 24.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: It's on the top of page 12.

The Chair: In the next break I'm going to get rid of all the paper that is redundant, unnecessary, and everything else. Okay?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: If you can figure it out.

The Chair: All right. Elizabeth, can you address the intent of amendment NDP23?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: Yes, absolutely. The issue here is having a mechanism to ensure consistency. Allowing the minister to issue authoritative instructions is one way we can enhance and ensure consistency across the board. It's important to us. It's also important to the Auditor General, who last year highlighted in his report that we need to do a better job of enhancing consistency.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Sorry, I think I'm totally lost on this.

The Chair: We don't need you on this one, Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Do you mind if I know what's happening?

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: A very good idea of mine has been shot down.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I'm in favour of that. I would like to know what it is, so if somebody asks me I might be able to answer reasonably and intelligently.

The Chair: We're on amendment NDP23.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Yes. What is it amending? Is it just amending clause 24?

The Chair: It is amending subclause 24(3). It is an amendment to delete lines six to eight. I think Elizabeth has provided us with a pretty good answer on limiting function.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Great, I'm with you now.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 24 agreed to)

The Chair: I have a pile of amendments here on clause 25.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I wonder if I might now go back to clause 21. We seem to have it sorted out.

The Chair: Do we have it sorted out? Maybe you can sort out the chair and the table officers.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I won't hold my breath.

The Chair: Where are we, first of all? What's it called?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Clause 21, on page 11, has been handed out to everyone. We're adding, after line 21 on page 11, the following...

The Chair: Steve, I think we all have it now. Can we hear it?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: You have it? Should I read it?

The Chair: Yes, please.

• 1605

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It's an additional subclause 21(2), on protected person. It reads:

Except in the case of a person described in subsection 112(3) or a person who is a member of a prescribed class of persons, a person whose application for protection has been finally determined by the Board to be a Convention refugee or to be a person in need of protection, or a person whose application for protection has been allowed by the Minister, becomes a permanent resident if the officer is satisfied that they have made their application in accordance with the regulations and that they are not inadmissible on any ground referred to in sections 34 or 35, subsection 36(1), section 37, or paragraphs 38(1)(a) or (b).

The Chair: It sounds pretty clear to me.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Tell me what I just said.

The Chair: Elizabeth, can you take us through clause 21? What was the purpose? This is under “Status and Authorization to Enter” for a permanent resident. We have a consequential amendment. Can you take us through this so we have a good idea of what is intended with the amendment before us?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: I'll ask Daniel to respond.

Mr. Daniel Therrien: This is the same issue raised in one of the NDP motions to amend clause 12, the purpose of which is to entitle protected persons or refugees to be landed, subject to certain requirements. Rather than doing this in clause 12, we propose to do it in clause 21.

The Chair: That was the limbo case.

Mr. Daniel Therrien: We propose to do it in clause 21 because it is the clause that deals with becoming a permanent resident.

The Chair: Right.

Mr. Daniel Therrien: Essentially the clause says if you're a protected person, have made an application in accordance with the regulations, and are not inadmissible on serious grounds such as serious criminality, you're entitled to be landed. It's meant more or less to confirm what is found in the current act as a right of landing of convention refugees.

The Chair: This is to move the process a little more expeditiously, based on the testimony we heard throughout the country and Judy's motion.

Mr. Daniel Therrien: Expeditiously, and also to confirm a right of landing, as opposed to simply a discretionary authority to select refugees.

The Chair: Okay. Very good.

Yolande, this is an issue that has been very important to you.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): I can't imagine how this would eliminate the fact that people are in limbo for eight to twelve years. Would this provision correct that situation? How?

The Chair: Gerry.

Mr. Gerry Van Kessel (Director General, Refugees, Citizenship and Immigration Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The critical issue for quicker landing, in the cases where security concerns remain outstanding, is how to get that information more quickly. There are other processes we're putting into place right now designed to do that.

In the current situation, we look at security information only after a person has been found to need refugee protection and then we start the process. The process is really complicated if the identity is not known. Then you can't match who the person says he is with any information we may have in our data banks.

The process we are instigating, and are going to start piloting fairly soon, is working out all the details around how we start the process when a person first makes a claim to refugee status. When the person first makes the claim, then we will be determining, through our connections with CSIS and through the information they have, to see whether there are any hits, and so on, to try to establish identity much earlier. This is the way we think we should be able to advance the process.

The problem in the end, though, remains. If you have the situation of a person whose identity you don't know, who fits a certain profile where there may be information respecting issues like terrorism, war criminality, or so on, what do you do? Through the series of measures we're taking, plus the examination we're making of the current undocumented class to see whether it really did meet its objectives, it should allow us to initiate the process more quickly.

I will not pretend there won't be instances in which this will remain a difficulty. We really do believe that starting the process when they arrive, rather than after they've been here for two years and then starting the process, is going to help the situation a lot. This measure seeks to make more explicit something we felt has been a right, but hasn't been as clearly expressed as it might have been.

• 1610

The Chair: This is on clause 21, which is the front end of the process. Is there another place where Yolande might be able to address it? We're not even at the refugee section of the bill yet; that comes after. Is there another place where she could raise that question again, with regard to the limbo stuff, or is this the one and only place it can be done?

Mr. Daniel Therrien: This is the only place where refugees are granted permanent resident status.

The Chair: Okay, all right. We have an explanation.

Yolande.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: But I really think we need some kind of statute of limitation there.

After two years, if nothing has been proven against a person who wants to come and stay in our country, I don't see why we should keep that person in limbo with the sword of Damocles over his head. Justice delayed is justice denied.

I'm not a lawyer, but we know very well that under the criminal law in this country if the prosecution can't prove a case within a certain amount of time, the case is thrown out. I don't know whether it should two, three, or five years, but I would like to see that somewhere in the law.

The Chair: Just before I move to that debate, if someone wanted to put in a time limitation, would it have to be in this clause, or somewhere else in the bill? That's all I want to know for now, because I'm only dealing with this front end thing now, clause 18.

Elizabeth, Daniel.

Mr. Daniel Therrien: It could be here or it could be in the inadmissibility provisions.

The Chair: Which is what clause?

Mr. Daniel Therrien: That's from clause 33 to clause 45.

The Chair: Okay.

Steve, John, and then Inky.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: How are you going to put a specific time requirement in the legislation?

In essence, with this amendment, the persons who have been conferred refugee protection by the board or by the minister are entitled to be landed, unless they fall within certain categories. The person could be an American citizen, for example, or a criminal or suspected terrorist, and we'd have to do some work at CSIS or wherever.

So if you put in a time limit and they're unable to get the information they might need from overseas, through other law enforcement agencies, you're going to create problems and we're going to have people let in who shouldn't be let in.

The Chair: Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark: I support my honourable colleague on the whole business of limitation, and that was the complaint from the public hearings.

Surely after half a dozen years there has to be some determination, in terms of status. You can't leave people for decades wondering what status they have in this country.

The other question I have is what kinds of numbers are we looking at for people in limbo? If determination is set for six years, then, my god, six years is plenty of time to determine.

The Chair: Before you answer that, I'll go to Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: The amendment before us helps to some extent in terms of those who have the documents in order to apply, and this speeds up the process. But it doesn't deal with Yolande's concern and other concerns around refugees who don't have the required documents.

There are two different cases. One is from countries that don't have the civil service to even issue the documents. We have a waiting period of a minimum of three years, now, to deal with those. But for all other refugees from other countries, there's an indefinite wait. So it comes down to the question of allowing undocumented refugees the right to be recognized and landed. That has to be addressed somewhere else in this act.

The Chair: Let me be a little helpful. I think in my questions to the minister last week or the week before, and to Joan, the evidence and the input of the committee was on the basis that there is an awful lot of frustration.

If there were a way to move a person with refugee status to landed as quickly as possible, the minister said that would be a good goal and objective, and Joan said it could be done.

• 1615

I think the minister indicated there's a court decision that says it might be done by affidavit attesting to the fact that you are who you say you are. That affidavit would move you into doing what Yolande and everybody else wants to do. So whether or not you do it under clause 21 or someplace between clauses 33 and 36...

Gerry, you wanted to say something?

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Maybe it should go under “Claimant Without Identification”, which is clause 106. I'd like your advice on that.

The Chair: Daniel, did you want to say whether or not clause 106—

Mr. Daniel Therrien: Whether clause 106 would be the right place?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Daniel Therrien: Clause 106 deals with conferring of protection by the IRB, not the conferring of permanent resident status.

The Chair: Yolande, that's not the place.

Gerry, did you have...

Mr. Gerry Van Kessel: First of all, most refugees right now are landed within about roughly six months or a little longer after the granting of convention status.

The issue is one of what we do with the people who are undocumented. Right now we have a class for them called the undocumented refugee class in Canada, which deals with the Somalis and a few Afghans. That is one in which we've reduced the waiting period from five to three years, and that we're doing an evaluation of right now to see whether it's achieved its objective.

I'd like to remind members that the original objective of this was to give people who are undocumented, we didn't know where they were, a period of time in Canada during which a track record could be established to allow a background examination to be made. We're doing an evaluation right now to see whether those objectives that were set some years ago in fact have been met with the landings that have taken place.

At the same time, what's happening at the present time is that for those people who are not in that class, many are getting landed simply on the basis of an affidavit. We did a check of about 500 what we call “improperly documented refugees” from Somalia, and of those, for example, 81 were landed on the basis of a statutory declaration only.

The court decision you referred to, Mr. Chairman, was one that further confirmed the direction in which we're heading and want to proceed with. The bottom line, I think, as one of your colleagues said, is what happens in the situation where someone is deliberately uncooperative? There are indications that an individual may in fact be inadmissible on very serious grounds, and it is very difficult to get the information because of the lack of cooperation.

While they may be few, I think those are the kinds of instances that are of real concern, because you may end up landing someone under that provision who in retrospect you may wish not to have landed.

The Chair: Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

An amendment was moved to subclause 99(4) that dealt with applications by refugees to become permanent residents. I don't know if it makes sense for it to be there. I imagine that, if a problem is discovered, permanent resident status can be revoked.

[English]

The Chair: I know what Yolande and other people want to do—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I have a suggestion. I'd like to get a response from either Gerry or Elizabeth.

If we were to add the word “expeditiously” in the text here, that “they become a permanent resident expeditiously”, would that at least send a signal that this is what we mean and still leave the exceptions in place so if someone is not cooperating or we need to wait for information, we would still be able to do that? If that is acceptable, would that satisfy some of my colleagues' concerns?

Let me address this, though. In all fairness, no one disputes that six years is ridiculous, but let's not put an amendment... Twelve years is obviously twice as ridiculous. See how quick I am on that. Let's not put an amendment in the bill to try to fix a situation that's obviously unacceptable, and then create other problems.

• 1620

With all due respect to my friends opposite, they'd be the first ones in question period up on their feet demanding that the minister resign because Joe Blow got into the country when he shouldn't have, because we were too loose in our investigations. We have to have a system where we can deal with the legitimate people. They're convention refugees, they've been identified and accepted as such, and they should be landed expeditiously, as long as they're not in any of the categories that have been identified. It seems to me that's about as far as we should be prepared to go.

The Chair: John, and then John. McCallum first.

Mr. John McCallum: Mr. Chairman, I don't know if this is a useful suggestion. It seems to me, though, that to give a number of years, like four or five—I don't know what the maximum is—gives an incentive to the minister and to the security people to work hard. Then if the minister or the security people are in trouble, they have an incentive. I think some statute of limitations isn't a bad idea.

Since we don't have wording and we haven't thought much about this, I suggest it might be possible to think about it overnight, or something like that.

The Chair: I was thinking of going that way.

Go ahead, John.

Mr. John Herron: I'm okay with what John touched on. I come from the private sector, where if you can't measure it, you can't manage it.

Yolande isn't far... She was talking about six years; it wasn't like something arbitrarily overnight. This can't go on and on.

(Clause 21 allowed to stand)

(On clause 25—Humanitarian and compassionate considerations)

The Chair: I should tell you that there are a number of amendments: PC5, G10, BQ8, NDP24, PC6, just for starters.

I think you're up first this time, John. Do you want to take us through amendment PC5?

Mr. John Herron: Amendment PC5's intent is that the minister can't simply ignore applications for humanitarian and compassionate consideration. The current bill now says that the minister must hear applications with respect to humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Although we do have the pre-risk removal mechanism that's very helpful and a step in the right direction, for the minister not to hear applications on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, this aspect is an immense step backwards.

I heard members on both sides of this table speak to that very point on countless occasions before witnesses and they said that would be something that would have to be fixed. That was the language we had when we were before Canadians. Now that it's showtime are we going to capitulate and go backwards?

The Chair: Okay, take us through your specific amendment. Does this change that? Can you take us through your whole subclause 25(1)? I know you addressed the issue, but let's get to your technical amendment here. The devil's always in the detail.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the documentation that I have on this amendment has the word “may” scratched out and “shall” written in. Is that what we're dealing with?

The Chair: Yes. That's what I was asking. It's only one word, right, “may” to “shall?”

Mr. John Herron: Right.

The Chair: And in the French version too.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: In French, I would far prefer “doit” to “peut”. “Shall” has been translated as “peut” in French: the word “doit” is not there. I imagine there were a number of translation problems.

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

Perhaps I can ask a question before we deal with PC5. John, it deals with a fundamental change from “may” to “shall”. Amendment G10 tries to clarify... NDP24 talks a little bit more about it.

Judy, NDP24 is on the same clause and essentially on the same issue.

• 1625

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: You'll note we've come up with a slightly different wording and we've had it rewritten to give clear authorization.

The Chair: Let me deal with this “may” or “shall” and ask the administration. Obviously moving from a “may” to a “shall” gives an entirely different complexity to the thing. Tell us some of the problems that may occur with a “shall” or some of the positives that remain with a “may”.

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: I shall at the same time perhaps speak a little to the government motion, which is attempting to address the same issue.

You'll notice that language does retain the word “may” but removes the language “in the Minister's discretion, examine the circumstances” and simply says “may grant to a foreign national who is inadmissible”. Ultimately, the decision remains with the minister, so it's a question of “may” based on the circumstances of the case and her opinion.

The Chair: What does the existing legislation say? Is it “may” or “shall”?

Mr. Daniel Therrien: No, it's a “may”.

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: It's a “may”, discretion.

Mr. John Herron: I have a point of order.

The Chair: I'm going to get to yours, because we're dealing with fundamentally why it should be a “shall”, John. That's why I asked for their clarification, and Elizabeth was just taking us through the government amendment.

Perhaps now could you tell us some of the problems that might occur with a “shall”.

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: The “may” indicates that it's still the discretionary power of the minister to grant or not grant, and that's how it's worded. I think the effect is the same in terms of what is being sought to be achieved here, which is that she has to hear the case.

The Chair: John and then Madeleine.

Mr. John Herron: I guess where I'm coming from is more the fact that the minister must hear the case and then make the determination, and that's the intent of this.

Currently the legislation says that the minister must hear the case on H and C and then make determination and then may grant.

The Chair: It isn't easily fixable, because everybody's not in her head. Is there something that can be said to express that she must hear it and then may grant, but at least must hear it? Is that what G10 does?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: Yes, that's exactly what it says.

Mr. Daniel Therrien: The current bill does not speak to an obligation to hear. It's implicit. That's how it happens, and with the government motion we would maintain the status quo. We would not talk about a duty to hear. It's there implicitly. We would talk only about the authority to grant permanent residence as is in the current bill.

The Chair: Don't forget this is a new bill, and perhaps John is right. If you said it's a duty to hear, what's wrong with putting it in there so everybody understands that?

Mr. John Herron: Yes, I think that's precisely the point. If it's implicit in the bill, then let's say it in the bill.

The Chair: Okay. And if that's not going to cause any problems, could we just add a few words that would say—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: No, it causes lots of problems.

The Chair: The administration is saying it's not a problem.

Mr. John Herron: The Canadian Bar Association said it was a problem.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It's not what I'm hearing, Mr. Chairman. You're saying here in the amendment that the minister shall or must examine the circumstances concerning a foreign national who is inadmissible. Okay? Well, excuse me, they're inadmissible.

What we're saying in our amendment is that even though they're inadmissible, the minister may grant permanent resident status to a foreign national who is inadmissible, who does not meet the requirements of permanent resident status.

Mr. John Herron: Only on humanitarian grounds?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: What if the minister determines that this person is absolutely inadmissible and she is not willing to grant them permanent resident status? Your amendment would force the minister to have a hearing regardless of that, which is ridiculous.

The Chair: Thank you for that clarification. We want to make sure it's clear.

Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I believe that the minister "shall" examine and "may" grant permanent resident status if she believes it is justified by humanitarian and compassionate considerations. This would not apply to everyone, but only to those people for whom it is justified on humanitarian grounds. That is what the section says.

[English]

The Chair: John.

• 1630

Mr. John McCallum: My understanding is that maybe we're not arguing, really. I think we all... well, I might be wrong. My impression is that we agree the minister may grant landed immigrant status, but what we're trying to say is that somebody must hear a case on compassionate and humanitarian grounds if it is requested. Is that right?

The Chair: That's what I thought we were all talking about.

Jerry.

Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): I'm just reiterating what John has said. That's not what this amendment does. This amendment says the discretion is taken away from the minister and she must grant it. The operative word there is “grant”.

Mr. John Herron: I hear it.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: So you need a different—

Mr. John Herron: If there's no humanitarian and compassionate grounds issue and if there's nothing extraordinary from a humanitarian and compassionate grounds perspective, then she doesn't have to hear it. It's not as if she has to have a hearing for everybody who's inadmissible. It's only if it's a humanitarian and compassionate grounds issue.

This isn't just my perspective. The Canadian Bar Association brought this forward as well.

The Chair: Can we get a further clarification from the administration? Are we talking about two different things, or are we asking if there's a duty to hear a case? It's not a duty to grant someone status on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, but is there a duty to hear the case? That's the question John, John, and Jerry have asked.

Mr. Daniel Therrien: The answer is yes. That's not the effect of the PC motion, but that is the current law.

The Chair: Okay, but wait a minute. Does G10 do that?

Mr. Daniel Therrien: Yes.

Mr. John McCallum: I don't understand why G10 requires a hearing.

Mr. Daniel Therrien: It does through the jurisprudence that has interpreted the current provision, which is maintained with this version.

Mr. John McCallum: So G10 does require a hearing to be held?

Mr. Daniel Therrien: Yes.

Mr. John McCallum: All right. Then it's—

Mr. John Herron: It doesn't say that, though.

Mr. Daniel Therrien: It doesn't.

The Chair: Okay. That's my point. If you're saying it does but it doesn't say so and everybody understands it, can you not just put in a couple of words so everybody agrees that there shall be a hearing? That's what you're saying, right?

Mr. John Herron: If it comes in there, I rescind my motion.

Mr. Daniel Therrien: If I understand the intention of the committee, it would be to say something along the lines of “On application or on the minister's own motion, the minister shall examine the case and may grant landing”.

Mr. John Herron: Right. There you go.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, I'm a little puzzled by Daniel's reaction to this. My understanding was that there was concern about putting in wording that would force a hearing by the minister simply because the person is inadmissible. Now you're telling me that you can come up with some wording that does that and somehow doesn't offend the integrity of this section? I'm getting mixed messages here, and—

The Chair: Maybe I can be of help, Steve and everybody. I'm holding clause 25 in abeyance—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Well, maybe they can answer me.

The Chair: —until we can get it all sorted out.

Mr. Mark Assad: Why hold it off when we can solve it?

The Chair: Because there are two different opinions I hear.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Could I get an answer to my question, Mr. Chairman, before I determine whether or not I'm prepared to see if we need help?

The Chair: Yes.

Daniel.

Mr. Daniel Therrien: If someone, even a criminal, applies for permanent residence on humanitarian grounds, they are entitled to have their case considered under the current law. We could maintain that in the new law.

What is important is that of course people—

Mr. John Herron: What? You maintain nothing.

The Chair: John, would you stop interrupting for a moment? Let him finish his explanation.

Mr. Daniel Therrien: It does implicitly because of the jurisprudence. It doesn't say that explicitly.

The important thing is that of course the minister cannot be bound to grant permanent residence unless there are humanitarian considerations.

The Chair: That's what I understood.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: No one, not even the opposition, is suggesting at any time that this means the minister shall grant permanent resident status.

The Chair: No. You're right. We all understand that.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Then what's the point here?

The Chair: We're trying to clarify whether or not there's a duty to hear the case and a right to have it heard. Daniel has said so, Elizabeth has said so, John has said so, and Gerry has said so. You're the one who's getting some different signals from somebody who is saying that's not—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I don't need to be lectured by you or anybody else.

The Chair: As the chair—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: If I want to get clarification on what the staff are saying, I'll damn well ask for it.

The Chair: Then ask through the chair.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I am asking, through you, Mr. Chairman, if he could explain to me how you can have... Really, it sounds to me like a double standard. If you're now going to explicitly amend this to say that the minister shall have a hearing on this, that is contrary to everything I've been told up to now.

The Chair: Daniel.

Mr. Daniel Therrien: May I have two minutes to explain?

The Chair: Yes, please.

• 1635

Mr. Daniel Therrien: The provision, as you see it in the bill, created for the first time a discretion for the minister to not even entertain an application. That, I hear, is not what the committee wants.

G10 takes away that discretion not to hear the application. G10 does that by maintaining the status quo, which is that it is implicit that the minister must hear the application because of the jurisprudence I have referred to.

We could make explicit that duty to hear. I'm not sure it would change much, but we could do that, and it would not really change the end result.

The Chair: Jerry.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Daniel, could you or someone further...

I'm just following through on the same one, Steve. Thanks.

The Chair: Order.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Could you help me by providing an example, a case you would put forward where the minister shouldn't hear it? I believe there is something here that experience shows has been a problem for the department. That's what we're dealing with. I think it has to be put to the committee here so we understand why you've done it the way you have.

The Chair: Elizabeth, what was the original intent of wording clause 25 the way it was, before G10?

Mr. Dick Graham (Acting Director, Legislative Review, Enforcement, Citizenship and Immigration Canada): I'll answer that.

The reason we drafted it that way was because we do have a problem with people abusing the H and C system. That is, they wait until we're about ready to remove them. We've decided to remove them, and we tell the person they're going to be removed from Canada. We go to get them, and they make an H and C claim at that point in order to try to delay the removal. It puts us in the situation of having to review this person's case quickly and trying to decide whether or not we should actually remove the person or allow them to stay in Canada while we do this.

If we do that, then our travel arrangements are off. Often we have a travel document that's only good for a few days in those situations where another government has given us something.

We're trying to prevent abuse of the system. There are people who will keep putting in H and C requests. That was why we did it. It's a problem for us, and that's why it was there in the first place.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Could I just continue one step further?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: You have very clearly said that implicitly there is the right for that hearing unless extraordinary circumstances exist where you're trying to remove somebody at that point. That seems logical to me.

I'm not sure what the witnesses said, because I was not privy to that comment while travelling across the country. I think the way it exists sounds reasonable, very reasonable, thanks to the explanation the officials have given.

The Chair: If I can, I'll clarify. We've moved from the existing clause 25 to G10, Jerry. That's a government amendment. G10 clarifies clause 25. That's all we needed, further clarification. G10 was going to explicitly say what implicitly is supposed to be there anyway. That's what this whole discussion's all about.

John.

Mr. John McCallum: I have a question for Daniel.

I don't have the same understanding as Jerry as to what he just said. My understanding is that given that the government has now moved on G10, you will have more difficulties of the kind you described than you had before, but the government has said it is willing to do that.

As G10 stands now—correct me if I'm wrong—you will be obliged to have a humanitarian and compassionate hearing for anyone, no matter whether they're about to get on a plane or not. You said “implicitly”.

A voice: No.

Mr. John McCallum: Given that the government has decided to go that far, it wouldn't make any practical difference if that implicit duty changed to an explicit duty. Am I right?

Mr. Daniel Therrien: There would be no significant change. You're right.

Mr. John McCallum: So why not make it explicit?

The Chair: We heard that 15 minutes ago. Okay? So everybody's...

Mr. John Herron: So is that the direction?

The Chair: Yes. That's why I understood your frustration, Steve.

As to clause 25, I'm holding it in abeyance until we get an explicit amendment. G10 will have to be changed to add those words, Daniel, where you talked about making it explicit in terms of the hearing. All right?

(Clause 25 allowed to stand)

(On clause 26—Regulations)

The Chair: For clause 26 we've got NDP25 and G11.

Judy, you have NDP25. That's page 69 in the booklet, and it deals with clause 26, lines 35 to 39.

• 1640

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: It's what amendment?

The Chair: NDP-25.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: On clause 26?

The Chair: Yes. This is regulatory again.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes.

This is the deletion of paragraph (c) under clause 26, again for some of the concerns we've already talked about in terms of arbitrary powers and discretionary powers and the feeling that this paragraph wasn't needed and that clause 26 could stand on its own without it.

The Chair: I think the same answer could be provided by Mark that he did on the last round, if you want to do so, Mark.

Mr. Mark Davidson: No, I was just going to make the point that there's also a government amendment on paragraph 26(c) that has the intention of removing the authority to make regulations to restrict access to H and C, to humanitarian and compassionate.

The Chair: Yes. If in fact you look at G11, it takes out those words, “may be taken into account”.

Will that help you, Judy?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes.

The Chair: It gets you part of the way, or most of the way there, right? We'll do G11 on clause 26.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 26 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 27—Right of permanent residents)

The Chair: On clause 27 we have CA10a. Inky, clause 27.

Mr. Inky Mark: It's a new clause 27.1, again under the rights of a resident and basically respecting application for judicial review. It's on page 72.

The Chair: Go ahead, Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark: It's fairly self-explanatory. It's respecting the right to judicial review for permanent residents.

The Chair: Can somebody take me through that? I don't understand whether or not clause 27.1 is at the place where this particular issue is.

Daniel.

Mr. Daniel Therrien: It would be better to address this issue, I would suggest, in the Federal Court provisions around clause 72.

The Chair: That's where I added all kinds of stars and asterisks, and everything else, that this would be the big issue, or one of the big issues, in clause 72. So if you want to refer CA10 to clause 72, it might be better. If that's the case, then we'll deal with—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Is that withdrawn?

The Chair: It's being moved to clause 72.

(Clause 27 agreed to)

(On clause 28—Residency obligation)

The Chair: On clause 28, we have CA11 and PC6a.

Inky, on clause 28. This is the permanent residency requirements, the five-year period.

Mr. Inky Mark: Again, this is in reference to the whole business of permanent residency and to amend it to a ten-year period rather than a five-year period.

The Chair: Do you want to make a case for it?

Mr. Inky Mark: The case again is that five years doesn't give you much time. Someone said the five years is tagged to the passport, but what has the passport got to do with the residency card?

If this is a travel document, passports can be renewed pretty quickly versus this one. For this one you have to prove status.

The Chair: Excuse me, Inky. This is not about the travel documents; that's clause 31. I think for this one you may want to talk how you maintain your permanent residency.

Mr. Inky Mark: Yes.

The Chair: In other words, it's an improvement over what we have in the present bill, because you have to essentially be here two out of five, right?

Mr. Inky Mark: Right.

The Chair: Two out of five, as opposed to what the present bill is. The status document, or travel document, is in clause 31. So you want it to be two out of ten?

Mr. Inky Mark: Two out of ten.

The Chair: Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: The result of this would be that you could actually, as a permanent resident, a landed immigrant, stay away from Canada for eight years, have no contact with the country whatsoever, and still maintain your status.

It really does sound rather extreme. It doesn't sound like it's a commitment to the country at all, so I'd be very much against it.

The Chair: John.

• 1645

Mr. John McCallum: I agree with what Steve just said, but I wanted to ask one question.

When we heard the witnesses from Halifax, we heard from a man and a woman, American lawyers, who came to Canada as landed immigrants and the woman had a sick mother in the U.S. They were asking, what if we had landed immigrant children who went to Harvard University for three or four years? Is there enough flexibility that one can deal with those situations?

The Chair: Mark.

Mr. Mark Davidson: The two-out-of-five test that's in Bill C-11 is a huge improvement over the present standard. The present standard is very subjective. It's based on the concept of “intent to abandon Canada”. The advantage of the two-out-of-five test means that an individual knows up front what standard they have to meet. They know that they are able to spend up to three years outside of Canada in that five-year period, so it lets them make the choices right up front.

The Chair: John.

Mr. John Herron: I'm sensitive to Mr. Mahoney's approach to this too, because you have to make a commitment to the country. However, we did hear that there were some circumstances where this became a problem from a work perspective for people who were on contracts, or in school, and also the not so extreme circumstance where one had a parent who was ill and wanted to spend some time with them.

My intent was to give a bit of a compromise of one out of five years, and I said 365 days out of five years, so that put it in a slightly smaller timeframe to look at. My amendment was essentially meant to be a compromise between where the government is and what we took in testimony.

The Chair: I want to ask the administration something in regard to what John said. I think the witnesses all indicated that there are a number of ways one can show attachment to Canada. This one is all predicated on—and at least it's an improvement over what we have—that you have to physically be here two out of five, or two out of ten, or two out of seven years. That's what the witnesses were saying, that you have to be physically here. I'm wondering whether or not clause 28 allows those exceptions, such as health, such as school, such as work, such as this, so you don't actually have to be physically present.

Mr. Mark Davidson: Indeed that's correct, Mr. Chair. There are exceptions that are spelled out in clause 28: working abroad; accompanying a Canadian citizen, spouse, or permanent resident spouse. Indeed, there is a humanitarian and compassionate exception too. So the objective standard in clause 28 does have a number of subclauses as well that we believe reflect the vast majority of cases.

It's also important to remember that approximately 80% of permanent residents apply for and are granted citizenship from the first. So in fact most permanent residents would not even remain permanent residents throughout the five-year period, because they would have obtained citizenship in the meantime, and obviously then they're outside of the residency tests entirely.

The Chair: Is there any further discussion on CA11 or PC6? I'm sorry, did you want to treat them differently?

Mr. John Herron: Yes, they are different.

The Chair: We'll vote now on CA11. The motion's been put.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: All in favour of PC6?

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 28 agreed to)

(On clause 30—Work and study in Canada)

The Chair: Clause 29 was done before. On clause 30 we have a number of amendments.

Clause 30 is about that status document you were talking about before, Inky, for a permanent resident.

BQ9 is up first. Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The French version states:

(30.(1) A foreign national, other than a permanent resident, may not work or study in Canada...)

• 1650

We know that professions are governed by the Professional Code. I believe that the intent of this article is to refer to the right to work; I would therefore suggest that line 17 on page 14 be replaced by the following:

ne peut exercer un travail

[English]

The Chair: I'm sorry, I misled everybody by saying it had to do with status documents. That's wrong. We're on clause 30.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: You have that right, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

We're dealing with amendment BQ9. From the administration point of view, is there any difficulty with that one?

Mark.

[Translation]

Mr. Mark Assad: We found that the term "activité professionnelle" was far broader.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I would like to say something. When we talk about professions, we are talking about the Professional Code. The ability to work can refer to anything, including professions.

[English]

The Chair: Daniel and Elizabeth, would that be satisfactory or problematic?

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Therrien: We believe that the two terms are more or less equivalent. In any case, section 32 stipulates that terms can be defined in the regulations. As for the term provided for in the bill, be it "activité professionnelle" or "travail", it will be properly defined in the regulations. The two terms mentioned are therefore equivalent.

[English]

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Thank you, Madeleine.

Next is amendment CA12. Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark: As we've heard throughout our deliberations, Mr. Chairman, when parents are held in limbo, their children are also held in limbo. Most witnesses felt that these minor children should have access to the educational system. So that is what the amendment is about.

The Chair: Madeleine, amendment BQ11 says the same thing. Amendment PC7 does the same thing, and amendment NDP26 says the same thing.

This came up in our discussions with the minister and the administration side, and it was raised by a whole bunch of witnesses, as you know. It was said that if a person is here in Canada and should be here and has documentation or status as a refugee and has a child, that child should attend school. We heard, though, that these children are being denied access to school by school boards or others, which have indicated there's a special document, authorization, or something. I think that, essentially, the committee wants to make sure that any child who is here does get to go to school. I'm just wondering if these four amendments will achieve what I think everybody wants to do, unless I'm mistaken. I think the minister, the department, and the government want to do exactly the same thing.

We'll go to John before we go to the administration side.

Mr. John Herron: What I want to touch upon is that I see amendments from the Canadian Alliance, the Bloc, the Progressive Conservatives, and the NDP.

The Chair: Do you want one from us?

Mr. John Herron: That's exactly where I'm heading. There's an immense consensus on this. We had dialogue beforehand on both sides of the table on this particular point.

I don't know why we would want to send a signal to young individuals, who are likely to stay in Canada, that they can't go to school. By not supporting Mr. Mark's amendment, that's essentially what we're saying. We're saying to a small group of individuals that they may not be authorized to receive education.

The second point I want to flag—and I think my friend from the Bloc might subscribe to this—is that through this amendment we are making a direct foray into provincial jurisdiction, in my opinion, because we're talking about preschool and the primary and secondary school levels. I think the provinces have the right to determine who they're going to educate and to say the federal government should not authorize that particular issue. So I think we should categorically support Mr. Mark's amendment.

• 1655

The Chair: I think we're all on the same page. I think the minister and the government and even our members over here said exactly the same thing.

Anita.

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I'm completely supportive of the intent of the motion. But coming from a public education funding background, my concern is that it not allow people who want their children to be educated in Canada to be able to come to Canada as a visitor so that their children can take advantage of the public education system. We certainly ran into that abroad.

The Chair: I'm sure that wasn't the intent.

Elizabeth, could you help on that?

Mr. John Herron: If they were rich enough to be able to do that, they'd go to private schools.

Ms. Anita Neville: Let me tell you quite sincerely, when we were in Korea, we happened upon families that were choosing to bring—and I was astounded at this—elementary age children to summer camps in Canada in order to experience our country. Then they were looking at bringing their children into Canada so that they could participate in a publicly funded education system in southern Ontario.

So my concern with this is that although it certainly allows all children who come in appropriately under the refugee and permanent resident categories to go to school without any roadblock whatsoever, it should not in any way allow people to choose to come in under the visitor status so that their child will have the benefit of having access to the public educational system. It's happening, and I was surprised.

The Chair: We'll get clarification as to whether or not it goes that far.

Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, I think Anita has it right. That's exactly what it does. This amendment would delete the words “of a temporary resident not authorized to work or study”. By deleting those words, you are allowing the situation she just spoke of to occur. That's certainly not the intent of the government.

The Chair: Mark.

[Translation]

Mr. Mark Assad: I have a question for Daniel.

We know that education for young people is under provincial jurisdiction. It's easy to say in the bill that they can go to school, but at the end of the day that is not up to us to decide.

Mr. Daniel Therrien: This provision in the bill is intended solely to create an exception to the general rule, to wit, that people require federal authorization to study or work. It does not oblige the provinces to do anything.

Mr. Mark Assad: To accept them.

Mr. Daniel Therrien: That's right.

[English]

The Chair: Next is Judy, followed by John and John.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I think that with all of these provisions there's always another side. There's always the possibility of creating a situation that one might want to avoid. So you end up erring on the side of justice and what's in the best interest of the people you're trying to serve.

In this case we have to be worried about meeting our obligations under the conventions and ensuring that children of parents who are here under those provisions are not denied access to education.

I think some of the testimony we heard acknowledged the difficulties but said we have to at least comply with our obligations. In fact, I'll just quote from the Canadian Council for Refugees document, which states:

...the fact that there is an exception to the rule for the children of temporary permit holders means that Canada will not be complying with its obligations under the Convention to ensure basic rights in a non-discriminatory manner. Furthermore, because there is an exception, school boards will ask to see proof of status, leading to possible confusions and delays and the potential of parents not sending their children to school out of fears for the consequences.

The Chair: I'd like to get a clarification. I don't think it's anybody's intent, at least in these four motions, to provide education to people who are visiting the country.

I don't know what the present law says, but obviously the people who are here legitimately—not as visitors and therefore not as temporary residents who don't have authorization to work or study—are having problems accessing the school system.

Mr. Mark Davidson: That's correct, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Would stronger language make it possible for those people we're talking about to have access to the school system?

• 1700

Mr. Mark Davidson: The issue at the moment is that the present Immigration Act is not clear on the point that children of persons found to be refugees, refugee claimants, and holders of work and student authorizations are allowed to work. Our view is that Bill C-11, as written, makes it clear that those individuals—the children of those individuals—will be able to work without having to have an authorization, but at the same time I will also state that a pure visitor—an individual such as the one Ms. Neville referred to—would not fall under the same provisions.

The Chair: But CA12, BQ11, PC7, and NDP26, in their present form, the way they were written, would be problematic in the sense that someone who is here as a visitor could potentially ask for education.

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: Yes.

The Chair: Is that what the intent is of these four?

Mr. John Herron: No.

The Chair: Well, either change it or we're going to stick to what the words are—

Mr. John Herron: There are two problems here. I accept Ms. Neville's concern that that is a problem, but we know in point of fact that there are refugees who are in limbo. Because they don't have documentation—

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: They're not authorized to work.

Mr. John Herron: —they're not authorized to work, they're not authorized to study, and their children aren't as well. So that side of the equation has to be addressed, and they've flagged that particular issue.

I'd be more amenable to supporting Mr. Mark's amendment and maybe attaching some of the language Ms. Neville has, except for people here on travel visas.

The Chair: Can I just get a clarification from Mark? In terms of those people who don't have status to work or are in limbo, will they be able to go?

Mr. Mark Davidson: No. In fact the children of protected persons will be covered by Bill C-11 as worded because those individuals do have the right to work and study. So the children of those individuals will certainly be able to study without having to have an authorization.

The Chair: Where is that written?

Mr. Mark Davidson: Because those individuals now have the right to work and study, and they will in the future.

The Chair: John and Anita.

Mr. John McCallum: I think all of us have the same objective. Notwithstanding this talk about we heartless Liberals not caring if children go to school, we care. But we want to exclude the kinds Anita was talking about and children of illegal immigrants or people who are here without legal status. We certainly heard across the country that a lot of those children were not in school, either because the parents were afraid and thought they would get caught if they sent them to school or because the schools would not let them in.

So is there some way we can walk and chew gum at the same time? Leave out the ones we don't want, the ones Anita is talking about, and get the ones to school that we do want to go.

The Chair: Anita.

Ms. Anita Neville: I support what John is saying completely, but what I need is some understanding of how Bill C-11 is different from what is currently in place.

The Chair: Maybe I can get that answer for you, and then we'll go to Steve.

Mark or Elizabeth.

Mr. Mark Davidson: The current act has no clause like this. There is no clear statement in the current act that children of these individuals have a right to work and study, so there is confusion in the education industry. There are differences of opinion between school boards. Our feeling is that this section will clarify that and actually will be able to make it clear to these individuals.

Just to answer Mr. McCallum's point, in fact this section as worded does walk and chew gum at the same time. The illegals are not temporary residents and therefore are not covered by the exception here, so children of illegals would not have to have an authorization under this clause.

The Chair: Mark, we have you on tape, and the first challenge to this, you're being called up as a witness. You said that all of these things that we've said or looked at... everybody on this side doesn't have anything to be concerned about.

I'm going to call the question on these motions, unless there's any further...

• 1705

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I didn't bring all my documents with me, but we heard testimony from people in the field—and I can think of Janis Nickel in Winnipeg working at the International Centre, who outlined situations where they wouldn't have fallen under the protected person's definition and wouldn't have been able to access education because of circumstances of their lives. I don't think we've addressed that and I'd like to have the chance to. I guess I'm in the hands of the chair, but I think there are things—

The Chair: Do you want me to ask him to swear on the Bible?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: I just wanted to clarify that the only exception here again is the temporary resident not authorized to work or study—the visitor, the pure visitor. They're not temporary residents. The people you describe are not temporary residents. The exception doesn't apply.

The Chair: Anita, does that satisfy you then?

Ms. Anita Neville: Just as a response to Judy, my understanding—and that's why I asked the question about what the difference is between the status quo and the bill—is that she was speaking to what is currently in place, not what was proposed.

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Anita Neville: I think the proposal should address the issue as we've heard it explained today.

The Chair: Listen, one thing is for sure: I think we have all achieved what we want. Either you believe that clauses 30, 31, and 32 do that or the amendments will further do it, but at the end of the day there's a big milestone that we've achieved, which is that the status quo says nothing about minor children; we now have moved at least to that level that says everybody is covered, except visitors' minor children.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I have a suggestion. Why don't we change in that clause... instead of “a minor child”, why don't we say “every minor child”? Then you read the exception. So it's “every minor child in Canada, other than a child of a temporary resident not authorized to work or study”.

The Chair: I'll accept that if in fact everybody else agrees that you take that off. We'll do it. We'll vacate amendments CA12, BQ11, PC7, NDP26 and move a little friendly government amendment to all of those. You're talking about “every” child. Are there any objections to that? None. Okay.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: You're deleting the sense of all the other amendments.

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: That's all you're doing?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Replace “a” with “every”.

The Chair: Does that satisfy you, or do you want me to put yours to it?

Mr. John Herron: No, it's better than what we would have got.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 30 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 31—Status document)

The Chair: I have a whole bunch of amendments on this one.

We have amendments PC8, BQ11, NDP27, G12, BQ12, CA13, NDP28, all on a simple little status document, which is supposed to be a travel document—that's what we understood it to be.

Amendments PC8 and G12 are the same. If you look at the government amendment, G12, you will see that amendment PC8 is the same.

Mr. John Herron: I'll read my little briefing note here. It says that as per the UNHCR and the Inter-Church Committee for Refugees and others, Bill C-11 is unclear if status documents would be given. It says this falls short of the state party's obligations under articles 27 and 28 of the refugee convention to use ID documents, travel documents, for refugees.

That's what my briefing note says, but this one's not popping into my head that much.

The Chair: Because amendments PC8 and G12 are the same thing, I'm going to have the government give you the rationale, exactly the same words, and we might even give you credit for it, for God's sake.

• 1710

Mr. Steve Mahoney: John, it's “may” and “shall”.

Mr. John Herron: Show me the way.

The Chair: Steve, go ahead. Show him the way.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Well, it's “may” and “shall”—isn't that what his amendment does? A permanent resident “shall be” and a protected person “may be” is the way the bill reads. Your amendment says “shall be” in both cases.

The Chair: Guess what? We're going to give you the credit for it, John.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: So the question I have of the staff is, why do we need the discretion in the case of protected person?

Mr. Mark Davidson: No, we don't.

The Chair: That's why we've got G12. Are there any objections then to PC8 and G12, which say exactly the same thing? Let's deal with that one first. Any objections? None. Okay. Thank you for that.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Let's go to BQ11. Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: This amendment will put in writing what the minister said: That the status document indicating permanent resident status is essentially a travel document. The minister said so very clearly, and I think this is something that should be included in the bill.

[English]

The Chair: Can I just ask you a question? The clerk tells me that once we've approved, as we did, PC8 and G12, BQ11 becomes unnecessary. But can I just ask you, because I think there's a fundamental... It talks about a travel document, and that's what the minister has said. So I'm just trying to get a clarification here as to whether or not one would need that. Is that a problem, Dick or Elizabeth?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: The status document would allow a person to obtain the appropriate travel document from the passport office.

Mr. Dick Graham: I think there's a little confusion about what the minister said. She was talking about the one that's being given to permanent residents to indicate their status. That document will be used not like a passport, but to be able to board airplanes, get on ships, or use a means of transportation coming into Canada, to prove that they don't need a visa because they are permanent residents of Canada. The airlines will be instructed to accept that document.

The document given to the protected persons is a document to indicate their status as protected persons of Canada. It will not be suitable for travel internationally any more than that card we're giving to the permanent residents. You can't use it as a passport. But they will be able to use it to take to the passport office.

The Chair: You're going to confuse us. Clause 31 only talks about permanent residents.

Mr. Dick Graham: No.

The Chair: Yes, it does.

Mr. Dick Graham: No, it talks about a permanent resident and a protected person.

The Chair: Okay. But now you're separating them. One is a status document and one's another travel document. I think the minister did say this little card that we were going to have, or status document, was going to be a travel document, it was very much going to be like a passport.

Mr. Dick Graham: It can't be used as a passport, in that it's just a little card.

The Chair: I know that.

Mr. Dick Graham: People are still going to need a passport to get on airplanes, to travel internationally. They can't get into other countries with a Canada permanent resident card. They need a passport. The same will be true of a protected person. They won't be able to use that status document to get into other countries, but they will be able to use it as a means of identification with the Canadian passport office, which issues travel documents, and get the travel document that protected people get, which is the requirement that we have under the convention for refugees.

The Chair: Madeleine, it's your motion.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: You are saying that permanent residents will have to apply for passports. I do not think one can obtain a passport unless one is a Canadian citizen. When we authorize permanent residents to travel outside the country for at least three years out of five, they do of course need travel documents, but obviously those travel documents are not passports. In fact, the travel document is the status document indicating permanent resident status. We want the bill to state clearly that the status document serves as a travel document. That is what I understood the minister just said, and I believe everyone present here today understood her to say the same thing.

[English]

The Chair: Steve.

• 1715

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It strikes me the issue is that this is out of the jurisdiction of CIC, that the immigration department does not have the authority to issue passports, nor do we have the authority to issue documents that could authorize someone else to issue passports. That's what in essence you're doing. You're creating a travel document that somehow confers upon this person the right to apply for a passport. That's outside of the realm of this bill, in my opinion. Am I right on that?

The Chair: No.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Well, the staff—

The Chair: Excuse me, now I'm confused. We're talking about a status document for permanent residents and protected persons.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Within Canada.

The Chair: We know those two classes can't get a passport. Now we're all confused.

Mr. Dick Graham: No. If a permanent resident of Canada who is, for example, a citizen of Greece wants to travel internationally, they have to travel on a passport of the country of nationality.

The Chair: Right.

Mr. Dick Graham: So they will have a Greek passport.

The Chair: Right.

Mr. Dick Graham: If they want to come back into Canada and they have the permanent resident card, they show the card, and the card will tell the airline they are a permanent resident of Canada and have every right to get on that airplane.

The Chair: That's what the minister says, it is a travel document.

Mr. Dick Graham: That's right. But at the same time they'll have to show their Greek passport to show that they are citizens of a country.

The Chair: So far everything's clear. The minister said this card was a travel document, so BQ11 says it's a travel document. It's more than a travel document, it's a status document.

Mr. Dick Graham: It's not a travel document like a passport, it's a travel document like a visa.

A voice: It's complementary.

Mr. Dick Graham: Yes, it's complementary, but it's like a visa in that sense, a type of travel document.

The Chair: It replaces that big piece of paper, the permanent resident piece of paper.

Mr. Dick Graham: Yes.

The Chair: So there was a little confusion. I think that's why Madeleine said she wanted to clarify, because the minister kept saying it was a travel document, like your passport, that was going to be able to allow you to travel. Because you weren't a citizen, you'd have this card. What you're saying is, it does that, but it also is a status document of sorts.

Mr. Dick Graham: Right. And people will still need a passport of the country of nationality.

The Chair: You're not going to confuse us more, are you, Mark? So far, so good.

Go ahead.

Mr. Mark Assad: It's a status document. You use it to get back into this country. You can't use it to go to another country if you're outside.

Mr. Dick Graham: That's right.

[Translation]

Mr. Mark Assad: No problem. So, this is not a travel document.

[English]

The Chair: Madeleine, do you want to withdraw BQ11 on the basis of the explanation?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: No. I would like us to vote on this amendment, just for the fun of it.

[English]

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: NDP27.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: CA13.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: BQ12.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: NDP28.

Mr. John Herron: The government amendment is coming up.

The Chair: It's the same thing, I guess.

Mr. John Herron: Is there any desire to be a teammate and let it stand until she gets back?

• 1720

The Chair: It says exactly the same thing as CA13 and BQ12 essentially said.

I'll put NDP28 as moved.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: We're taking PC8, by the way, as the amendment. Okay, John?

Mr. John Herron: I feel touched.

The Chair: You're welcome. PC8 and G12 were exactly the same.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 31 as amended agreed to)

The Chair: We'd better hold clauses 32 and 33, because Judy's not here. Let's go to clause 34 on inadmissibility.

(Clauses 32 and 33 allowed to stand)

(On clause 34—Security)

The Chair: We have amendments NDP31, BQ13, NDP31a, and CA14 on this particular clause.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chair, why don't we take a five-minute recess?

The Chair: Okay. Five-minute break.

• 1721

• 1738

The Chair: We're going to go back to clause 32. Judy had a couple of amendments, NDP29 and NDP30. We just held them in abeyance while she was out.

Judy, I wonder if you could take us through NDP29 and NDP30. It's with regard to clause 32.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairperson, for holding this until I was able to come back.

The purpose of these two amendments is to change the regulations so that in fact we deal with a contentious issue that needs to be resolved as we pursue this bill. That is the question of the live-in caregiver program.

Members will recall the considerable testimony that we heard about problems with that program in terms of the loss of rights of those individuals, the requirements to live with the person who's employing them, the inability to take further training, to take night school, or to do other activities while in the employ of that person, and of course... It may be seen throughout all of this that these individuals who come in because of a certain set of skills are not granted permanent resident status.

The purpose of this amendment, with the consequential amendment, is to spell out in the bill that the regulations will deal with this issue—phasing out the live-in caregiver program by first addressing the requirement to live in the employer's household and, secondly, granting permanent status on arrival.

The Chair: Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Sorry, I'm scrambling to get back to make sure I've got the right documents. This is clause 32?

The Chair: Right.

• 1740

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I have a couple of concerns about this amendment. First of all, live-in caregivers are currently covered under provincial labour laws, so there needs to be some discussion, vis-à-vis the provinces once again, as in so many situations.

In fact, there are ongoing battles in Ontario with regard to labour market standards and all of those kinds of issues, and I'm afraid by unilaterally amending this bill to in essence take these people out of that jurisdiction or to potentially do so would cause us grief that I don't think we'd be very happy with.

I also don't think it would address the labour market needs that it's designed for by doing that, and you're in essence creating some kind of a special category of caregiver and giving them status and reason to come here that's different from what it has been intended for.

So I just think it would be a mistake. At the end of the day, through provincial negotiations and, again, in the regulations there may be an opportunity to address the concerns that Judy has outlined, but not by amending the bill.

The Chair: Could I just ask the administration, in the regulations with regard to the caregiving program... And Judy is absolutely right. We heard a lot of testimony. It seemed to be clear that one problem is this live-in provision. Is that one of our conditions under the caregiver program?

Mr. Mark Davidson: Yes. The live-in caregiver program is a very special program for foreign domestics that allows them to have what you might call an expedited or a facilitated access to permanent resident status.

It's a contract. Part of the contract is on the part of the caregiver to fulfil a two-year term of live-in, which responds to a very specific and quite unique Canadian labour market need—the fact that the Canadian labour market isn't able to satisfy the need for live-in caregivers. On the other side of the contract for the live-in caregivers is the department's or the government's granting of them at the end of the two-year period permanent resident status.

Without this contract, many of these individuals would not actually qualify for permanent resident status, so it actually provides a special permanent resident status, or a special access to permanent resident status, for domestics and at the same time during that two-year period helps to resolve the specific Canadian labour market need.

The Chair: Anita and Yolande.

Ms. Anita Neville: Mr. Chairman, I think Judy Wasylycia-Leis raises important issues, and we've certainly heard them across the country. I'm not sure that the amendment to the act, though, is the manner in which to deal with them.

I think it certainly has to be dealt with, and I would agree with the comment that it is addressing a particular labour market need, which is for live-in caregivers, 80% of whom, I'm advised, come from the Philippines.

I think the issue is more one of education and responsibility of the department before people come here, as well as ongoing education and support here, so that they have some understanding that they are not indentured in situations that are inappropriate or unsatisfactory and that they can't be forced to remain in them in contradiction to provincial labour codes.

So I'm not sure that this is the manner in which to deal with the issue, although the issue does have to be dealt with.

The Chair: Yolande.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: I've given that a lot of thought as well. It seems to me that, as a whole, our immigration policy is extremely discriminatory towards women, especially women without any special degrees.

I think that the way I would like to see it addressed would be through the regulations. Why not make domestic work a category under skills—recognize it as a skill? I haven't worked out all the details yet, but if domestic work were to become a skill like a carpenter or anything else, possibly it would help quite a few women who have a dream to come and work and to immigrate to our country. It would make their dream possible. Are there any thoughts on that?

The Chair: Okay. John McCallum.

Mr. John McCallum: I wasn't going to talk, but I will.

• 1745

The Chair: I thought you were waving your finger at me.

Mr. John McCallum: I wasn't really, but I was—

The Chair: I won't say which finger, but...

Mr. John McCallum: I'll be very brief. I was with Anita in the Philippines, and I saw the people interviewing the people who would come here, and I agree with what Anita said. The department is encouraging them to get further educated and encouraging them to come to immigration offices if they have any abusive situation. Somehow that message hasn't gotten across. But I just agree with Anita because I think, as was said, that if you just abolish the program, then 90% of them wouldn't get in at all.

The Chair: Okay, Judy. I'll give you a last kick at the can. It's your motion.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I appreciate the feedback. I think there are obviously better ways to accomplish this objective. But the fact of the matter is that it's a major issue. The act is before us, and the only opportunity, the only way, the only place, to address this issue through Bill C-11 is under these regulations and to actually spell out the concern and to then compel—to direct—the regulatory process. Presumably, if we succeed in having regulations come back to this committee, there's another avenue. But in the meantime, I think it would be remiss for this committee to not in some way address it.

The issue is that this program ends up really ghettoizing women and treating women as second-class citizens. It's unlike any other group. I think that, contrary to what Steve is saying, this program treats domestic workers, primarily women, in a very segregated way with different rules and with less access to the rights of citizenship that other skilled workers have entering this country.

There is a labour market need, clearly. There are skills associated with this profession, yet we treat them more as second-class citizens than as a person with skills required in this country. And I think we shouldn't, through this bill, perpetuate that kind of inequality. It is something that women's groups right across the country referenced as a problem, and we have to address it. I think this is one way to do it without abolishing the whole live-in caregiver program. It restricts it, defines it, constrains it, and gives some status to the position, as opposed to dumping the whole category—which is one option. That's what many groups wanted us to do—just abolish the live-in caregiver program.

The problem is, as it now stands, that many people trying to get into this country who don't fit any other category end up coming in as a live-in caregiver in order to get their entry into this country. So we heard from doctors, nurses, and other professionals who want to come to Canada because they have skills and training; they aren't getting recognized, so they come in through this program and spend two years basically tied to one employer in that domicile, without any rights and privileges. That's surely not the way in which we want to approach this issue.

The Chair: Okay, Judy, let me try to be helpful. I think, though, in order to achieve what you want without scrapping the whole program altogether, it's a matter of training, education, and communication. It's a matter maybe of fine-tuning that specific program. And I think, to tell you the truth, we would be better advised to look at it when in fact the regulations come down with regards to that particular program, rather than changing the provisions in the legislation under clause 32. So I'm going to put the questions on NDP29 and NDP30.

(Amendments negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 32 agreed to)

(On clause 34—Security)

The Chair: On clause 34, we have a number of amendments, starting with NDP31, BQ13, NDP31a, and CA14.

A voice: You have amendment BQ12a first.

The Chair: Amendment BQ12A is first, I'm sorry.

Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Clause 34 states:

34. (1) A foreign national is inadmissible on security grounds for

(b) engaging in or instigating the subversion by force of any government;

• 1750

I think we should add the words "democratically elected", because some governments are dictatorships, and people who want to overthrow a dictatorship should sometimes be thanked. I would therefore suggest:

engaging in or instigating the subversion by force of any democratically elected government;

[English]

The Chair: There are a number of amendments to cover a whole bunch of different areas in clause 34, as you know, from the question of what does “organization” mean, to what the definition of “terrorism” is, to what Madeleine just talked about with regard to democratic governments. Do you want me to take them all?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Yes, those are all different things.

[English]

The Chair: I'll take them all separately, because they all talk about different aspects of it.

Are there any responses to Madeleine's question or concerns with regard to what she just indicated, either by the administration or by Steve or Mark?

Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Just so I understand it, you're suggesting they be inadmissible... your amendment is to paragraph 34(1)(b), is that correct? Where it says “by force of any government”, you're saying any democratically elected government, am I correct?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: This is in subclause 34(1)(b):

instigating the subversion by force of any government;

[English]

The Chair: Is it in paragraph 34(1)(b) or 34(1)(a)?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Exactly.

[English]

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It's paragraph 34(1)(b), line 14.

My only concern is that we're now getting into an international political arena where we're going to start perhaps once again getting out of the realm of citizenship and immigration. We're trying to identify people who use subversion to overthrow a government of a particular country, and it's a very broad sweep. Certainly the principle of being democratically elected is one that all of us as Canadians support, but I think it's in the wrong act, in the wrong bill, in the wrong part of the government, and frankly, we should stick to the meat and potatoes we're responsible for here, which is not allowing in people who are subversives.

The Chair: Mark.

[Translation]

Mr. Mark Assad: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a question for Daniel, or Ms. Dalphond-Guiral. If we were to adopt Ms. Dalphond-Guiral's amendment, I believe we would be the only country in the world that could say to all of the countries that do not have a democratically elected government: in this country, you are free; your government has not been democratically elected; therefore, if you come to our country, we will recognize that. It seems to me that we may attract a great many people with that approach, in most cases people we would rather not be attracting.

[English]

The Chair: Is that a debating point, or do you wish to comment on it?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: I could respond to that.

In fact, yes, our concern would be that we could easily then become a haven for those persons or organizations engaged in subversion, and by force of another government that is not democratic here in Canada. I think the purpose of this provision is that people who are engaged in such activities are not welcome, are inadmissible to Canada.

[Translation]

Ms. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for our experts.

When the Ceausescu government was overthrown, were Romanians prohibited from entering Canada?

The Chairman: Daniel.

Mr. Daniel Therrien: I don't have an answer for you regarding Romania, but one purpose of this provision is to make people who engage in acts of violence ineligible. If it is decided later on that a given act of violence may in some cases be justified, there are provisions in the bill that would make it possible to admit people on the grounds of national interest. In our view, it is preferable by far to prohibit people who engage in acts of violence from entering Canada, though in some exceptional cases some of them may be allowed in on the grounds of national interest.

[English]

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: We move to amendment NDP31.

• 1755

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: We had the discussion last week about problems with paragraphs 34(1)(c) and 34(1)(f) without definition—“engaging in terrorism”, and

Being a member of an organization that there are reasonable grounds to believe engages, has engaged or will engage in acts referred to in paragraph (a), (b), or (c).

Everybody was concerned that without a clear definition, it's open to all kinds of interpretation and could possibly lead, as an example that was offered over and over again, to Nelson Mandela not being allowed to enter Canada.

I didn't have the resources or the time to figure out how to define those two areas, so I recommended deleting them, but that's not adequate either. I'm looking for help and wondering if there's any wording—

The Chair: Judy... hopefully we can.

Let me separate the two issues. One is defining “terrorism”, and the other one is in the other. I asked whether there was an international definition for “terrorism”. As I understand it, there is not. So Canada and we in this committee are not alone in trying to define what it is we're saying here.

There is a definition within CSIS, as I understand it. I'm sorry, that definition is about threats to the security of Canada, not terrorism.

I think everybody understands and knows what terrorism is supposed to be. I know we've heard evidence that a lot of people are being labelled as terrorists when without a definition, one doesn't know... there was some confusion in the minds of some people as to what a terrorist was.

I think we heard one witness tell us that he was branded a terrorist, and had us raise the question of whether or not there is a definition. There is none, Judy. So we're left with putting in a term that, while it doesn't have a definition, has a certain definition to it.

Elizabeth.

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to add that the federal court has reviewed and interpreted these provisions and we've been guided by the court's jurisprudence in relation to this terminology in the Immigration Act context. We'll continue to be guided by that in this act. So there is some jurisprudence there.

The Chair: With regard to the second part, paragraph 34(1)(f), which is on being the member of an organization, can you just take us through that concern about “organization” not being defined for this purpose in this act?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: This is really a measure to ensure we can take tough measures against a terrorist, human rights violators, and groups that engage in those types of activities, and persons who are members and might provide financial or logistical support to these organizations are, certainly for our purposes, equally involved in those activities by virtue of their contribution to them. So in that sense, this is an essential measure for us to be able to deny admissibility to people engaged in those activities.

Certainly with respect to the groups themselves, the information on those groups is reviewed very carefully in this context, and any changes to the activities they might engage in would factor in to any decisions on this.

The Chair: Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Certain words used in law and in legislation are accepted. In the case of the term “reasonable grounds”... Frankly I'm a little surprised at a motion to delete the words “engaging in terrorism”. We may not be able to define “terrorism”, but we sure have seen, throughout the world, the results of it. I'm surprised we can't define it, but I'm not going to go there. I obviously think that's unacceptable.

The other one, the place where I might have had some sympathy, was in being a member of an organization. It might have been Judy or others who said you could be a member of a union, for example. But I don't think there would be reasonable grounds to believe that a union, as we know a union, would engage in terrorist activities. I just don't think any court of law or any body in this country would see reasonable grounds to believe that. They might see reasonable grounds to believe other organizations could perhaps engage in it.

• 1800

Notwithstanding what you might have heard from some witnesses, we all go into our ridings and listen to our constituents. I think they've made it fairly clear as have people in questions in the House that we have to put a stop to any kind of inclination that Canada is some kind of a safe haven. It's just not an acceptable response from CIC or from this government.

So I'm perhaps speaking of a little overkill on this. I strongly think that not only should we defeat this motion, but I also think it's really a mistake to go anywhere down the line that would soften that position, given the nature of the world today and the mobility of criminals and terrorists. Things can show up in envelopes that kill and maim. So I think we have to be firm on this.

The Chair: John.

Mr. John McCallum: I certainly subscribe to the spirit of what Steve has just said, but there are always two sides to every balance. While subscribing to that, I guess the question I would ask is, what are the chances that totally innocent people will slide through the cracks here? Suppose you're officially on paper as a member of some organization only by marriage and you don't do anything—or, as mentioned before, Nelson Mandela or some member of the ANC in the past might have been implicated. Are there means to discriminate to try to ensure that innocent ones don't get swept up in this anti-criminal charge? I know you'll never have a perfect system.

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: Perhaps I may answer that. I could draw your intention to the exception provision in subclause 34(2) that refers to “a foreign national who satisfies the Minister that their presence in Canada would not be detrimental to the national interest”. This would be an exception that would override, in a sense, what you see in the first part of that. So I think that's certainly one tool to deal with that.

Of course, each case has to be looked at individually, obviously. As was said, there is a reference to reasonable grounds to believe in the context of the organization, so the person who has absolutely no connection or dealings with... That really is the test there.

So there are sufficient tools there, in our view, to make those appropriate judgments and to make those exceptions as well.

Mr. John McCallum: Those reasonable grounds relate to the behaviour of the organization, as I read that, not to the member.

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: That's true.

Mr. Daniel Therrien: To take your example of membership through alliance, through marriage, that would not constitute membership for this purpose. You're right that the membership clause relates to an organization and the reasonable grounds relate to the activities of the organization, but the concept of membership implies here that you may not, to use the colloquial term, pull the trigger. If you know that the organization is involved in these activities, then you're no longer innocent.

The Chair: Judy Wasylycia-Leis.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: My hope in putting forward this amendment was that in the interim since we discussed it last week there might have been some enlightenment around definitions. In fact, I was basing my amendments on some of the testimony we heard from organizations like the MCC, the Mennonite Central Committee, that said, and I quote, “Terrorism should be restricted to acts articulated in UN Conventions (e.g. highjacking, hostage-taking, bombings).” So I thought there would be an actual definition used internationally that we could employ here. There isn't.

I prefer to withdraw the amendment and work on some other wording that we could introduce during regulations.

The Chair: Okay.

Inky, amendment CA14 tries to define a threat to the security of Canada in paragraph 34(d). Do you want to take us through that?

Mr. Inky Mark: Yes. We're looking for a definition. One already exists, a danger or a threat as defined by section 2 of the CSIS Act.

• 1805

The Chair: Does somebody have that here so we can review what that definition of the danger to the security of Canada is?

Jay, I knew you would have that, because I asked you to get it. Do you want to read it? Go ahead.

Mr. Jay Sinha (Committee Researcher): It reads:

“threats to the security of Canada” means:

(a) espionage or sabotage that is against Canada or is detrimental to the interests of Canada or activities directed toward or in support of such espionage or sabotage,

(b) foreign influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person,

(c) activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political objective within Canada or a foreign state, and

(d) activities directed toward undermining by covert unlawful acts, or directed toward or intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow by violence of, the constitutionally established system of government in Canada,

but does not include lawful advocacy, protest or dissent, unless carried on in conjunction with any of the activities referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d).

The Chair: So there's your definition, Inky and committee members. That would be inserted, if approved, in paragraph 34(1)(d) as a definition to a danger to the security of Canada.

Would that cause any problems, Elizabeth?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: Yes, it would.

The Chair: Why did I know you were going to say that?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: A lucky guess.

The CSIS legislation is concerned, as has been articulated, with persons who pose an active threat to the security of Canada. The Immigration Act is different, in that it's concerned with who may enter or remain in Canada. So while obviously we want to keep out people who may pose an immediate threat to Canada, we do want to keep out persons who have engaged in activities outside of Canada who fall into this category and who may not pose a direct and immediate threat.

The Chair: You've convinced him. It's okay. He's going to withdraw amendment CA14. Thank you very much.

Do you want to withdraw amendment BQ13 too, Madeleine?

You're getting better at this, Elizabeth.

(Clause 34 agreed to)

(On clause 35—Human or international rights violations)

The Chair: You have to go to the other package, by the way, for amendment G13.

Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, this replaces lines 3 to 11 on page 17 with the following:

(c) being a person, other than a permanent resident, whose entry into or stay in Canada is restricted pursuant to a decision, resolution or measure of an international organization of states or association of states, of which Canada is a member, that imposes sanctions on a country against which Canada has imposed or has agreed to impose sanctions in concert with that organization or association.

This is about international commitments to impose travel sanctions on foreign nationals other than permanent residents—and that terminology will be changed as well—who by their nationality or activities are considered by the international community to deserve to be subject to those travel sanctions.

The Chair: Do you want to tell us why we changed this?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: No.

The Chair: Okay. Elizabeth, you tell us why we changed it. It obviously makes an awful lot of sense. It must; it's a government amendment.

You read it very well, Steve, but...

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I intended to ask the staff to explain it.

Mr. Daniel Therrien: The bill, as introduced, only applied to nationals of countries that are the subject of sanctions. The amendment expands it to non-nationals. For instance, the UN recently adopted a resolution to prevent the travel of people who sell arms to Liberia, who are not necessarily Liberian nationals. This would allow us to fully implement our international obligations.

The Chair: Okay. That's good enough for me.

(Amendment agreed to)

• 1810

(Clause 35 as amended agreed to)

The Chair: We did clauses 36 and 37.

(On clause 38—Health grounds)

The Chair: On clause 38, we have NDP32, BQ14, and BQ15.

Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: My amendment is to basically delete paragraph 38(1)(c) and combine (a) and (b) into one sentence. Paragraph (c) is the contentious one about excessive demand.

The Chair: It's page 95 in the book of amendments and page 19 in the bill.

I think the BQ amendment does exactly the same thing as yours.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Yes, exactly. It's the same thing.

[English]

The Chair: Yes, so the argument will be the same.

From the administration, can we have the effect of those deletions? We know that this is improvement on the existing bill, which essentially is very problematic with regard to health access. Part of the intent is to reunify families, and if in fact health is a concern it shouldn't be that big a concern.

Obviously, we heard... and that's why Judy and Madeleine have brought forward amendments. Do we have a definition, just to start, of what “excessive demand on health or social services” might be, as a way to assist? Because their amendments would delete paragraphs 38(1)(c) and 38(2)(d).

Mr. Mark Davidson: Bill C-11 goes further than the current act because it provides an explicit exemption from the excessive-demand provisions of the medical inadmissibility to a number of groups, as outlined in the bill, which includes protected persons, sponsored spouses, and common-law partners. So that's already a major step forward from where we are now in the present legislation.

This amendment would go quite a bit further by in effect saying that there would be no excessive-demand test for any individual. The government would no longer be able to bar someone from coming to Canada if they had a condition that would lead to excessive costs on the public health care system.

The Chair: Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Do I understand that we're dealing with both the NDP motion and the Bloc motions, which basically accomplish the same thing?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, in relation particularly to the Bloc amendment, this would have the potential of adding a significant increase in health care costs right across the country. I suspect that the people in Quebec City might get a little bit annoyed if we were to unilaterally make such an amendment. I also suspect that it might cause some consternation within the Bloc caucus.

There is an exemption in subclause 38(2) dealing with family class, common-law partner, child of a sponsor, etc., so we're dealing with the family issue. There has to be some way—and I've certainly heard this from people as I've travelled the country—of ensuring that people don't come and inadvertently add excessive costs to our health care.

The Chair: Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I am surprised to see that my colleague is alluding to the Quebec government to justify voting against this amendment. He could just as well have alluded to the government of Ontario, the government of New Brunswick, and all other governments. I think all this does is show us how broad-minded he is.

• 1815

[English]

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It's your motion.

The Chair: Madeleine, if it'll make you happy, I'll add Mike Harris to the equation, okay?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chair: All right. There's the explanation for NDP32 and B14.

(Amendments negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: BQ15 is with regard to clause 38 again, but it deals with lines 40 to 45.

Madeleine, do you want to take us through this one?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: We were extremely hopeful, Mr. Chairman. Since our first amendment carried, subclause (2) became superfluous.

[English]

The Chair: You withdraw BQ15?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: In any case, we will ask for a vote, but I'm willing to bet $5 on the result of that vote.

[English]

The Chair: Well, let's test it and see.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: You see, I won. You all owe me $5.

[English]

The Chair: There you go. Your wish has come true.

(Clause 38 agreed to)

The Chair: Clause 39 we did.

(On clause 40—Misrepresentation)

The Chair: We have a number of amendments—PC8a, BQ16, NDP33, and NDP34.

John on PC8a.

Mr. John Herron: This amendment essentially evolves from the Canadian Bar Association. They were saying that the clause is dangerously broad, in their view, which is my view as well. Without this amendment misrepresentation is not limited to obtaining status. It could be related to anything. Officers would have too much discretion, especially in overseas discretions, which are difficult to review since they require leave, as we all know.

Essentially what we're advocating here deals with misrepresention for the purpose of obtaining status. Now, most of us are going to say “Well, that's the issue at hand”, but we don't want to be able to empower an immigration officer, particularly one where we may not have the same degree of scrutiny—they're overseas, say—to be able to utilize any information that evolved from something other than material facts relating to a matter in the course of an application under the act.

That's the purpose of it. That's what the CBA had wanted to do in order to tighten up the broad range of things some of our colleagues have read about in the media.

The Chair: Madeleine, BQ16, for all intents and purposes, tries to do exactly what PC8a does. Do you want to argue your point?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: No.

[English]

The Chair: All right.

NDP33 is a little different, so I'm going to hold that.

Daniel or Elizabeth.

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The language being proposed takes out, in both cases, the withholding of information, for starters, in terms of a misrepresentation. That would create a distinction between persons who lie about the information they're providing and people who do not provide material information. For example, they have a criminal record and they do not provide that, or they do not put information on the table that is relevant. We do not feel that would be a tenable distinction.

The other thing it does is that in both cases, I believe, the amendments would further widen the scope. The reason they would do that is that you're taking out the words “relevant matter that induces or could induce an error”. Therefore, anybody who lies about material information under these provisions would then be inadmissible, even though the information was not relevant to the outcome of the application. In effect, then, you've actually widened the provision instead of... in limiting it.

In essence, what's on the table, we believe, has the appropriate caveats in it in terms of what's currently drafted to relate to the fact that it has to be either a withholding or a providing of information that is a misrepresentation that relates to a matter that could induce a different outcome or an error in outcomes. That's why it's crafted the way it is, and that's why the provisions, as proposed, would broaden that.

• 1820

Mr. John Herron: I like one half of her comment—

The Chair: You can't discriminate on the basis of—

Mr. John Herron: —her language with respect to withholding any material facts. I think that's more than relevant, utilizing a bit of a pun in this.

The Chair: Yes, but this makes—

Mr. John Herron: However, making it relevant to the application of obtaining status, that side of the equation... You may think that the bill has the caveats, but legal people known as the Canadian Bar Association think a little bit differently. They count a little.

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: May I comment, Mr. Chair, on the issue of the application—only in relation to an application?

There are situations—for example, an admissibility hearing—where a person could also misrepresent themselves or withhold information that would be equally important for the determination of inadmissibility under this provision. So by limiting it to the making of an application, you are—

Mr. John Herron: Obtaining status, which is the same thing.

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: Which is the same thing. It means that in the purposes of an admissibility hearing you would therefore lose the ability to use the misrepresentation provisions if someone, for example, lied or withheld important information relevant to that decision on the admissibility.

Mr. John Herron: But isn't that an application?

Mr. Mark Davidson: No.

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: Not necessarily.

Mr. John Herron: How is it not an application?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: Mark, did you want to—

Mr. Mark Davidson: An admissibility hearing is not an application as such. It's not considered an application—

Mr. John Herron: You're trying to obtain status. That's an application.

Mr. Mark Davidson: You may or may not... No.

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: You may be losing status in an admissibility hearing as well.

Mr. John Herron: But it's still trying to maintain status.

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: It's not—

The Chair: Paragraph 40(2)(a) talked about the application; this talks about administration. I think the administration of this act... I think what Mark and Elizabeth are trying to say is that there are certain provisions of this act that don't necessitate an application but in fact necessitate an administrative action of some sort, either admissibility or other things. Misrepresentation must be taken into account in those cases, and not only the application, as your amendment PC8 says.

Mr. John Herron: It says “in the course of any application”.

The Chair: Okay. Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I think this is a classic example. My friend says that the Canadian Bar Association has put this forward, and it's not surprising because I think you could easily argue that inadmissibility would be the result of someone asking to be admissible, which you could interpret as being an application or an admissibility hearing. I think we're arguing semantics.

The point out of all of this is that while you're seeking admissibility into this country, if you misrepresent anything in the process of doing that, those are grounds for turning down your request for admissibility, so don't lie to us.

In fact, putting your amendment forward would say that it's okay to lie, and it would probably encourage people to lie to somehow try to build their case, because as long as they could prove that the lie they told was not necessarily directly relevant... You see my point? All of a sudden you're playing legal games, and I can see certainly why the CBA would want it. It would enhance their opportunities to argue and debate ad nauseam, etc.

The Chair: Okay. Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Let me jump in here. Although you've put my amendment aside, it's basically the same thing, the same idea—

The Chair: Yes, except it was in a different part of the bill... lines 22 and 24, page 20. You're right, yes. Why, do you want to get into the fight now, too? Okay.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes, I want to get into it now. We might as well do it all at once.

The Chair: Okay.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I think Steve's missing some important points that were brought before this committee by way of testimony.

Mr. John Herron: That's for sure.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: It wasn't just the CBA. We heard from organizations that pointed out to us that in fact sometimes information is withheld because they don't know it's something that's required. The process and the communication lead to a situation where one may not be aware that they're withholding information.

• 1825

The second piece of that testimony that's important came from women's groups that suggested to us that in fact sometimes there are good reasons for not disclosing all information because of cultural differences and because of difficulties that the testimony and the representation may cause for the family unit.

The Chair: We're going to fix that in the H and C, as I understood it.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Okay, but I think this is one place to do it, where we can actually spell out some qualifications around misrepresentation and make sure that we don't open this up so wide that any untoward, unforeseen circumstances with respect to withholding information are part of it.

The Chair: Okay. Mark.

Mr. Mark Assad: In a sense, though, it's not that drastic for this sense. I understand that if somebody claims refugee status, although they have a forged document, it's not held against them if they're classified as a genuine refugee, except that after that they've got to comply or always tell the truth. So it's quite liberal in a way.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Well, it's not liberal enough, and that's the problem.

The Chair: Hey, everybody's trying to be a good Liberal today. I like that.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: You need to put a little more flexibility in this section to allow for those liberal values.

The Chair: Okay. We've heard the arguments. Amendments PC8a, BQ16, and NDP33 are all the same thing. I'll move them all together so everybody feels inclusive.

(Amendments negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Amendment NDP34 is a little different, isn't it? Yes.

Go ahead, Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes. It's just another attempt to accomplish the objective as just outlined. It means changing the first few words of paragraph 40(2)(a) so that you qualify the foreign national, or however we're defining it to be, to say

misrepresentation is in respect of the falsification of the identity or relationship of a sponsored family class applicant, or of their own identity or their relationship with that applicant

and then continue on.

So again it's an attempt to qualify and constrain and deal with some of the situations we've just talked about.

The Chair: Elizabeth, do you have any comments?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: Yes. The identity fraud and fraud in relation to relationship are only a small part of the fraud we see. So, if we were to restrict ourselves to that, we would be really losing a tool.

Just to give you some examples, we would see false declarations on dates of birth, employment offers, employment history, education, and criminal records—things like that could be falsified. For temporary entrants, we often get fraudulent invitations to conferences and business meetings, false letters of acceptance to universities and colleges, and so on. So there are a lot of ways and means that persons can misrepresent.

The genesis for these provisions, if I can just remind the committee, was in fact the Auditor General, who in his report recommended that we needed provisions to address fraud and misrepresentation with respect to the immigration program. His recommendation was not restricted in any way.

The Chair: God forbid that we shouldn't do anything that the Auditor General said, so the opposition couldn't ask any questions in question period about the Auditor General's report.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 40 agreed to)

The Chair: Clause 41 we did.

(On clause 42—Inadmissible family member)

The Chair: Amendment G14 is a government amendment. This is on clause 42, inadmissible family member. Anita.

Ms. Anita Neville: Mr. Chairman, the definition is simply to add “or a protected person” there.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: On line 14.

Ms. Anita Neville: Yes—“or a protected person”.

The amendment is designed to clarify that refugees or other protected persons will not be inadmissible because one of their family members is inadmissible.

The Chair: We're getting a little more liberal.

• 1830

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 42 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 44—Preparation of Report)

The Chair: Clause 43 we did. On clause 44, we've got four amendments here, NDP35, G15, G16, and NDP34a.

Judy, do you want to take us through NDP35?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: The intent of my amendment is to eliminate the examination, so if one of the government amendments captures this...

The Chair: Well, clause 44 deals with report on inadmissibility, preparation of a report, the loss of status and removal—division 5 in the bill, for those who are listening in.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: My amendment is under subclause 44(2), the words “If, following an examination”, essentially. You get right to the direct process for removal and orders.

The Chair: Okay, let's take G15 and see where that takes us.

Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: That's Mr. McCallum's, I believe.

The Chair: Okay, John McCallum, G15, report on a removal order. We're into subclause 44(2).

Mr. John McCallum: I'm trying to figure out where we are here.

The Chair: Clause 44, subclause (2).

Mr. John McCallum: Oh, yes. The general liberalization continues.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. John McCallum: The earlier one was to limit the power of the immigration office in the face of examination. The effect of this amendment is to limit such power in the case of removal orders to ensure that in all cases but one, removal orders can only be issued by the immigration division and not simply by an immigration officer. This whole exception is for persons who are considered to have failed to comply with the residency requirements. So this amendment goes in that same direction of protecting the position and the rights of permanent residents.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. John McCallum: Sorry for the delay.

The Chair: No, it's okay, John.

Okay, I think yours is a little different.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I don't think so.

The Chair: If not, do you want to lump them both together?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I'd like to ask the officials if they're roughly the same.

The Chair: If they're roughly the same, do you want to take our word for it, or should we take your word for it?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I'll take your word for a change.

The Chair: So we'll get rid of NDP35 and vote on G15.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: NDP35 is withdrawn.

John, do you want to take us through G16? This is clause 44 again, line 2 on page 22.

Mr. John McCallum: Okay. This further liberalizes by allowing for the possibility of payment of a deposit or posting of a guarantee as a substitute for detention.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: They can impose a cash bond.

The Chair: Yes. It's a bond, security.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Or a performance bond.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

• 1835

(Clause 44 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 45—Decision)

The Chair: Clause 45. Judy, do you want to take us through...

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: My proposal is to totally change... Just a second here; wait a minute.

The Chair: It's clause 45, which is admissibility hearing by the immigration division with regard to decisions.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Right. So it's actually to add a whole new long section, which basically reverts to the current process in place, which I think was believed by many of the groups who appeared before us to be better and more effective.

This proposal is presented because it's believed to be more thorough, not totally dependent on the judge alone, and provides for better notification and better due process.

The Chair: Could I ask the administration, what would be the effect of adding this whole section? I take it that nobody has a problem with clause 45, then; it's just adding this 45.1. What would be the effect of adding that NDP34A?

Are you addressing... There are three pages of this: 45.1, 45.2, 45.3, and 45.4. You must've stayed up extra hours for this one, Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: It's good drafters. I should acknowledge the work of—

The Chair: Yes, please do.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: —wonderful legal advice through our legislative counsel, who worked at the last moment and provided us with all these detailed amendments.

The Chair: Daniel, have you had a chance to look at this one? It talks about a review committee or something like that.

Mr. Daniel Therrien: Not in detail.

The appropriate place for this provision, if it were to be enacted, would be probably near clause 76, I'm told.

The Chair: Clause 76, or clause 77?

Mr. Daniel Therrien: Clause 76. Division 9 deals with a similar process.

The Chair: Hey, Judy, what a way of getting away from this right now. We're going to leave it till clause 77. How's that?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Probably a good idea.

The Chair: Then we'll move 45. Any objections to that?

(Clause 45 agreed to)

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: So it comes under clause 76?

The Chair: Clause 76 or clause 77. We don't know for sure, but one of those two. That's tomorrow's work, probably, Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Okay.

The Chair: That means that the administration can get prepared for the answer for tomorrow.

Clauses 46, 47, and 48 we did this morning.

Clause 49, BQ17. Madeleine. This is with regard to enforcement of removal orders.

(On clause 49—In force)

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: With this amendment, we wish to ensure that the removal order comes into force 60 days after notification that the claim is rejected by the Refugee Protection Division. We would be going from 15 days to 60 days. This is a very liberal measure, and I'm sure that our colleagues across the way will vote for it with a smile.

[English]

The Chair: Well, let's deal with the “happily” in a moment. Let's get a reaction first of all from the administration.

Elizabeth or Daniel, do you want to take us through the effect of this?

Mr. Daniel Therrien: The 15 days is consistent with the period that people have to seek leave in the Federal Court or to appeal to the RAD. So there is some support for consistency with that period, which says that while you determine whether you're going further in the courts, you should not be removed. That period should be the same as the period you have to determine whether or not to appeal.

The Chair: What clause was that, just so some of us who might want to... We talk about consistency in other parts of the bill. It is 15 days? While you're looking for that...

• 1840

Mr. Daniel Therrien: I would refer you to clause 72.

The Chair: Okay. That's a little later on.

Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I think this runs counter to the intent of streamlining. Certainly we've heard from provincial and municipal governments that there is a need to speed up the refugee determination process, including places like the provinces of Ontario, Manitoba, British Columbia, and Quebec, who have suggested that they support a timely increase—or rather, support the goal of dealing with these things in a timely way. So I think this is counter to what we would want to achieve.

The Chair: In other words, it's too liberal. We want to go a little right.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Fifteen days is fine.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 49 agreed to)

(On clause 50—Stay)

The Chair: On clause 50, we have two amendments, BQ18 and CA15. CA15 is first. Inky, do you want to take us through this?

Mr. Inky Mark: I added a new paragraph (f). What I was going to do is cross out “binding” in the phrase “binding recommendations as put forth by SIRC”—remove the word “binding”.

The Chair: You want to remove “binding”?

Mr. Inky Mark: Yes.

The Chair: And just put “according to recommendations as put forth by SIRC”. That would be paragraph (f). That's what you're doing, right?

Mr. Inky Mark: Yes.

The Chair: And in the French translation, that word “obligatoire” would be deleted.

Mr. Inky Mark: Okay.

The Chair: Do you want to tell us the reason?

Mr. Inky Mark: There's no linkage to what SIRC does in reference to gathering the information or final appeals on the security side, so I think this creates a linkage in terms of what SIRC does and how it may or may not impact CIC.

The Chair: Can I just ask a question? It seems to me we're talking about the enforcement or stay of a removal order, right?

Mr. Inky Mark: A stay.

The Chair: So there's the loss of status, enforcement of a removal order, and all of a sudden there is a stay and that's what clause 50 is all about.

What would be the effect of adding this paragraph (f) in terms of a SIRC recommendation to that whole bunch of conditions in terms of a removal order being stayed?

Elizabeth.

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: Well, it's quite unclear in the sense that—and I know we're going to get to this discussion later—there is no role for SIRC in the immigration process under Bill C-11, so it's unclear why we would be staying removal as a result of a recommendation from the SIRC. It's not consistent with their mandate, as well, as defined in the CSIS Act to make recommendations of that sort.

Mr. Inky Mark: The problem is when you're gathering information, as we heard earlier, on the security side, you rely on CSIS to get the information, right?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: Yes.

Mr. Inky Mark: So why wouldn't you take the information SIRC has? Why wouldn't it have an effect on the final decisions of CIC?

Mr. Dick Graham: I can speak to that.

I suppose the situation, as you see it, would be that we would take somebody through because they have a removal order that has to be stayed. You're saying that we have been through a process, probably a Federal Court process, where the court has said that the finding was reasonable and that the information given was relevant and that the process was fair, and then after all that has happened we have a removal order, we're ready to remove the person, and then SIRC would stay the person's removal.

We would now have somebody in Canada who was under a removal order and we couldn't act on that removal order. We couldn't remove the person because it would be stayed. Basically, the person would be in limbo. There would be no way to deal with them because SIRC would have come in and basically put a stop to our removal process.

• 1845

Mr. Inky Mark: The cases that were brought before us through the hearing process were exactly what you say. It creates a problem when SIRC says this information is important and yet it has no relevance or no bearing on your decision, or CIC's decision.

The Chair: I think what Inky is saying is the testimony we heard from a couple of witnesses indicated that they had been given refugee status, SIRC had been involved, and had reprimanded whoever and indicated that these people should be given status. And they still have not been given status based on the recommendation of SIRC.

I think what Inky is trying to do is link SIRC to the decision-making process at the front end, in between, or at the back end, which is the stays. So this may or may not be the time to discuss the role of SIRC or our immigration with regard to SIRC. That's a broader issue that you may want to discuss. You can do it here, but—

Mr. Dick Graham: You're not doing it in the right place here, that's the problem, because the situation you just described is not... If somebody has been found to be a refugee and they're waiting to be landed, it's not a situation where we've taken somebody as a security threat to Canada and we want to remove them.

So a stay of removal is not what you're looking for. You're looking for something to make us land the person.

The Chair: Inky, can you withdraw that and we'll have a couple of days to think about this?

Mr. Inky Mark: Okay.

The Chair: On BQ18, Madeleine, it's adding a paragraph (f) with regard to a review in the Federal Court. It's a little different.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: We are adding another instance:

draft 114(1)(b);

(e) for the duration of a stay imposed by the Minister; and

(f) if an application for judicial review is made to the Federal Court.

We believe that should—

[English]

The Chair: Is there any comment? I'm sorry. Go ahead, Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: No, that's it. I'm done.

[English]

The Chair: Dick, Daniel, or Elizabeth, do you have any comments on that one?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: I would simply say that, first of all, anyone who's made an application for judicial review can apply for a stay of removal at the same time. That exists now. To make that automatic in every case would run counter, we believe, to streamlining and trying to streamline and make processes move quicker, particularly if you're moving toward a removal and seeing delays and processes that delay this.

But as you know, there is provision being made in the regulations to provide for an automatic stay of removal when application to the Federal Court is made for leave in regard to a refugee appeal decision or a pre-removal risk assessment.

The Chair: Madeleine, do you want to deal with it at the regulatory stage?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: That is already in the regulations. In other words, people find themselves with a removal order without ever being informed of the fact that they can apply for judicial review. It would therefore be superfluous to put that here, if I understand correctly.

[English]

The Chair: I'll leave it to you to remember when we're talking about regulations to remember this very point.

(Amendment withdrawn)

(Clause 50 agreed to)

(On clause 51—Void—permanent residence)

The Chair: On clause 51 there's a new clause, PC9. We're talking about void permanent residence.

Go, John. Here's Johnny.

Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chair, this amendment evolves from the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, and it essentially keeps the victims updated as to the process to remove the perpetrator of the crime against them.

I move that clause 51 of Bill C-11 be amended to read:

As soon as possible after a removal order order has been enforced against a foreign national convicted of any Act of Parliament or provincial Act punishable by a term of imprisonment, the Minister shall notify any victim to whom harm was done or who suffered physical or emotional damage as a result of the commission of that offence that the foreign national has been removed from Canada.

We want to be able to give the department some space.

There's obviously an immense amount of uneasiness, for want of a better expression, for a victim of crime that the perpetrator could still be in the country. Informing the victim that the person has been removed from Canadian soil is something the victims' rights group would advocate. That is why I'm moving this particular motion.

I want to emphasize that “as soon as possible”, doesn't mean instantaneous—

The Chair: Excuse me, John, maybe you can help me, because clause 51 reads that “A removal order that has not been enforced becomes void if the foreign national becomes a permanent resident”. You figure that if they become a permanent resident there haven't been any more concerns, they qualify to stay, so why do you want to do what you're doing? I'm trying to understand this.

• 1850

Mr. John Herron: Why is it there?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. John Herron: I don't know. We might want to check with the legislative drafter, or I could ask the—

The Chair: No, you told them to put it in here. What's your rationale for that? I know that you want to advise the victim—

Mr. John Herron: Correct.

The Chair: —but the person's going to stay.

Mr. John Herron: I have no specific information of why they elected to put it as a subclause of this particular clause, but obviously it's related to the removal order.

The Chair: Maybe Dick or Elizabeth—

Mr. John Herron: Can I ask the officials about where there would be a better location for it?

Mr. Daniel Therrien: It would be better around clause 48 or 49.

The Chair: We just went by that, but it's fine by me.

Mr. Daniel Therrien: Or perhaps after clause 52.

The Chair: Clause 52 then.

Mr. Daniel Therrien: But, really, it's at the front end of these clauses that it would make more sense.

Mr. John Herron: Is there unanimous consent at least to debate? We could revisit clause 48.

The Chair: I'll tell you what I'll do, let's just leave PC9 in abeyance. Or you can argue it on—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Why wouldn't we debate it on clause 52? You want it in there.

Mr. John Herron: Yes, why don't we just debate the merit of the amendment?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: We'll debate it on clause 52, so pass clause 51 and then...

(Clause 51 agreed to)

(On clause 52—No return without prescribed authorization)

The Chair: John, do it here, in clause 52. Or can I ask the administration, what would be the effect of having to do this in clause 52?

Mr. Dick Graham: The effect of doing it would be that we would have to create a large bureaucracy to do it. We would need a lot of resources to do it, because we would have to keep track of the victims, basically. There isn't such a thing that exists in any federal legislation right now that we can find, so it would mean we would have to create our own data bank of victims who we would have to keep track of.

Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chairman, how many deportations do we do per year?

Ms. Elizabeth Tromp: Over 2,000 criminal removals. So you'd be looking at 2,000 victims.

Mr. John Herron: That's all it is. You don't need a big department for 2,000 notifications per year.

Mr. Dick Graham: But we would have to keep track of the victims over a period of years. So what we would need is a tracking system. We would have to set up a tracking system and we would have to get people's names into it. It would take quite a bit of a bureaucracy.

Mr. John Herron: My membership list in my riding association is bigger than that.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Yes, but are they all accurate?

I have a question as to whether or not there could be something done in regulation to attempt to deal with the issue of the victims. I think it's simplistic to think we can do it by an amendment here, but is there something we could move towards? Maybe it's something we could look at.

The Chair: Hold that thought. We're going to deal with clause 52.

Do you want to withdraw this?

Mr. John Herron: No. Two thousand notifications per year for a government—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Assuming there's only one victim per person.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: But you could have a total tracking system on computer.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: You could have ten victims for a crime.

The Chair: The last time we tried to do a registry, I heard it cost us millions and hundreds of millions.

Mr. John Herron: And you kept it and it's still going on.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: We could tie it to the GST rebate.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 52 agreed to)

The Chair: Clause 53 we did before.

Guess what, we're at division 6, detention and release, and I'm going to adjourn. We're going to pick it up at 3:30. We're going to have dinner tomorrow night and we'll go till nine or ten o'clock tomorrow night.

I want to deal with clause 55 so we can get rid of a whole bunch of paper, according to the clerk here. You would have to pick one where there are five amendments.

An hon. member: Are we doing clause 55 now?

The Chair: No, we're doing it tomorrow. I don't care about the paper.

We're adjourned till 3:30. We're having dinner and we'll decide whether or not it's Chinese or lobster.

There's a vote tomorrow, I should say, and while we're voting everybody else can eat. We'll vote when we get back here.

Thank you very much for all your hard work and your cooperation. Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.