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

• 0907

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)): Good morning, colleagues.

Ladies and gentlemen from the department, I hope you're ready for some fun.

Just so we can have some ground rules here, for your edification and your assistance, there's a book with 200 or so amendments. That's the bad news. The good news is that an awful lot of them are common. There seems to be some good work. Everybody is thinking along the same lines. So I'm not that worried about the thickness of those amendments. It just goes to show you some of the hard work that's gone into it. I appreciate the work done by all parties and all members.

You have the agenda before you. It's set up for you clause by clause, with some of the amendments that have been included or given to us already. As I said, some amendments are common to all clauses. Within the spirit of working together, as we have over the past two or three weeks, there may be an opportunity for bringing all of those amendments together to come up with one good amendment, which means we'll accept an amendment from the floor if in fact it looks as if we're all going in the same direction. If they are going to be more than two words, I would suggest, just so everybody has them, that we draft them or put them in writing. We'll get the translation done as quickly as possible, and we'll get the clerk to distribute them, if we need to do so.

As you know, we met last week and talked about the big issues and where some of us are coming from. I think that was most useful. Jay has managed to put together for you this document dated May 14, which is a summary of the recommendations. That is what will give all committee members an opportunity to reflect on what the witnesses said on a clause-by-clause basis. So if one needs to try to recall what organization and what person said what, Jay's done a very good job of being able to put that down for us. I think that's very useful and constructive.

What I'd like to do in the spirit of working towards being fair, equitable, and expeditious at the same time is that if there's a clause where there is going to be debate—where there are amendments—we will leave that until a later time. I will just ask simply whether we can defer this until later. So if we can pass the amendments that have no objections, no amendments, no anything, we can move on those fairly quickly, leaving the more difficult ones for a slightly later date—today, tomorrow, Thursday, or whatever.

• 0910

To start that way...it's also about confidence-building measures. If we can get used to passing things together, we'll get used to working out the ones where we have some disagreement.

I'll start off with one that needs to be dealt with right off the bat, and that is the definition of a “foreign national”. As you know, we'd better deal with that definition fairly quickly because that definition is used throughout the bill. I want to deal with the definition, which is in clause 2, and you will see there are four amendments with regard to that particular thing.

Before we move to that, I want to welcome two new members to the committee who are substituting for some of our members who are not here. One is Raymonde Folco. Welcome, Raymonde. And the other one is...where's Reg? He's coming this afternoon, okay.

Raymonde, do you have a point of order?

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): I just wanted to have an explanation of what the strange lettering is here on the agenda, LU-12589.

The Chair: Where are you reading from?

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I'm reading from the agenda here.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): It's the submarine we purchased.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I thought it was a helicopter, actually.

The Chair: The LU-12589 is an example of a computer code that was used by the clerk's office to number them. The relevant things are BQ1, CA1, government one—which is the Liberals—NDP is the other one, and that follows with these things. Okay?

Thank you for that question.

If we could get to clause 2 with “foreign national” and “permanent resident”, I have about four amendments. Why don't I have the people who are proposing the amendment talk a little about that? I know we have some wording too.

(On clause 2—Definitions)

The Chair: Madeleine, you're first up with BQ1.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Hello everybody. I hope we are going to remain cheerful even if it kills us.

On clause 2 we suggested to delete lines 20, 21 and 22 in the English version, to take out the whole definition of “foreign national”, especially since there is not even a definition in the French version. So we suggest to completely take it out and replace it with what we have in the second amendment of the Bloc Québécois, which would add a definition of “temporary resident”. We have a definition of “permanent resident” and we would add a definition of “temporary resident” since these words are used in several places in the bill. The definition we would suggest is:

“temporary resident” means a person who is in Canada, or who applies to enter Canada, without having permanent resident status or Canadian citizenship.

We find this an easy and clear way to solve the problem.

[English]

The Chair: Madeleine, before I let you put the amendment, there are about four or five amendments dealing with this, and I think we're all on the same side. I think we've already agreed that we're going to change this definition, and it's just a matter of finding the best way.

Inky, do you want to take us through CA1 and CA2?

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance): My recommendation was, on line 22, to put in exclusion, so a foreign national “excludes a permanent resident of Canada”.

Continuing on the definition side, for the permanent resident status I need you to look at CA2 on page 4 and take out “who has resident status”. It needs to be shortened because it's too wordy.

Basically, “permanent resident” would mean a landed immigrant to Canada who has landed immigrant status in and outside Canada, which is what my colleagues across the floor alluded to in terms of the definition of “landed”.

The Chair: Okay.

Yes, because if you're going to do something on “foreign national”, then you must do something on “permanent resident”. That's what you were doing in CA2, and BQ1 and BQ2 are the same thing. Okay.

Steve.

• 0915

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I think we're all saying the same thing, though maybe with slight differences. My motion would simply read that clause 2 be amended to add a definition of “foreign national” that specifically excludes Canadian citizens and permanent residents, which I think is fundamentally the same issue, and I have that here in writing.

The Chair: Do you want to just read it for us?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: That clause 2—

The Chair: That will be a new government one.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It's a new government motion.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): You're winging it now.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I am winging it, absolutely. Just so you know, it's been prepared on a computer, so I'm not totally winging it. It is that clause 2 be amended to add a definition of “foreign national”, which specifically excludes Canadian citizens and permanent residents.

Mr. Chairman, this would remove permanent residents from the definition of “foreign national”, and it will then set up three main categories: Canadian citizens, permanent residents, and foreign nationals.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I think it's the same thing, la même chose.

The Chair: I'll take the question from Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Your proposal is to amend the definition of “foreign national” under clause 2. My question is, would you not still want to include a stateless person, so it would say that a foreign national means a person who is not a Canadian citizen, a permanent resident, or a stateless person?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: No, I don't think so. What I'm concerned about is landed immigrants remaining landed immigrants. That's what I've spoken to numerous times at this committee, and I think that's a status people are proud of, one they work hard to obtain. They don't want all of a sudden to be referred to as foreign nationals when in fact they're landed immigrants. Stateless persons could come from any number of different scenarios, and I don't think they fit into the same category as landed immigrants.

The Chair: Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark: Steve's amendment is similar to my number three, except he added “citizen”.

The Chair: What page is it on?

Mr. Inky Mark: It's on page 3.

The Chair: Give me your amendment number.

Mr. Inky Mark: It's CA1. He included there “citizen”.

The Chair: Listen, as I understand it, the motion by the government is essentially saying what CA1 says: “foreign national” means a person who is neither a Canadian citizen nor a permanent resident and includes a stateless person. At the end of the day, that's how it's probably going to read. Right?

Mr. Inky Mark: Excluding....

The Chair: Then “permanent resident” will have to be fixed up so the definition says that a permanent resident is a person who has acquired permanent resident status. It won't mean that this is a foreign national.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: Well, that's a great way to start this new bill.

[Translation]

Thank you. Do you have a question?

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Chairman, do not forget to have it translated into French.

[English]

The Chair: Of course we won't, as always.

[Translation]

Always.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: It is just that there is no French definition in the present bill. That is all.

The Chair: Yes, agreed.

[English]

Joan?

Ms. Joan Atkinson (Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Program Development, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): I just wanted to point out, Mr. Chairman, that other amendments that may follow may have to be modified in order to take into account the new definition of “foreign national”.

The Chair: Yes, that's what I was going to say. As we go through this clause-by-clause, with the new definition of “foreign national”, we would probably want clarification.

Yes, Daniel?

Mr. Daniel Therrien (General Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): We've actually prepared—

The Chair: No, I don't want any more paper right at this time.

Mr. Daniel Therrien: This is simply to tell you that we've prepared motions for this decision. All the government motions that were tabled yesterday have to be amended to take into consideration the terminology change. There are a number of clauses in the bill as tabled that need to be amended to take into account this terminology change. This is the list of the amendments.

The Chair: Thank you, and I will take those as consequential changes towards the end. That way it won't confuse us any more, as we've got enough paper as it is.

You're right. Once we've done this, it will mean an awful lot of consequential changes. I thank the administration for being so clairvoyant in recognizing that we were going to do this right off the bat.

• 0920

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Chairman, since the words “temporary resident” appear quite often in the bill and there is no definition of “temporary resident” as such—it is the “foreign national”—, we should try to provide some concordance.

Mr. Daniel Therrien: There is no definition of “temporary resident”, but with the amendments, a copy of which you will get, the only people excluded from the category of “foreign national”, “étranger”, are permanent residents.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Yes. That is clear.

Mr. Daniel Therrien: Therefore, temporary residents, in light of this amendment, remain foreign nationals or “étrangers”.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: In that case I would like the words “temporary resident” which appear in several places to be replaced by a word such as “étranger” or the English term “foreign national”.

[English]

The Chair: Excuse me. Perhaps the questions could be put through the chair so I know exactly what's going on here.

First of all, we're getting ahead of ourselves. Can I just deal with the definition of foreign national and permanent resident? I know you have another, temporary resident, at BQ2. We will deal with that in a moment. I think the explanation was useful.

(Clause 2 as amended agreed to)

The Chair: Do you want to withdraw your motion, Madeleine, on temporary resident, based on the explanation?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Yes, agreed.

[English]

(Amendment withdrawn)

(On clause 3—Objectives—immigration)

The Chair: With regard to clause 3, there are a lot of amendments and a lot of discussion probably on what we might want on the objectives and applications. Can I have a motion to defer clause 3 until later?

(Clause 3 allowed to stand)

(Clause 4 agreed to)

(Clauses 5 and 6 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 7 to 9 inclusive agreed to)

(Clause 10 allowed to stand)

(Clause 11 agreed to)

(Clause 12 to 16 inclusive allowed to stand)

• 0925

The Chair: The clerk has brought something to my attention. Based on the consequential amendments necessitated by virtue of the changing of the definitions, because we just have the paperwork right now, we don't know whether or not that means the ones we've just passed may have to be further amended. They would be technical in nature.

I keep saying there are no amendments. I just want to let you know there may be some amendments because of what we just did with the definition of foreign national. We'll catch those up at the end. I hope you can bear with me as we move this one.

Yes?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Is it possible to put an omnibus motion, so to speak, that would catch all of that and just do it in one motion?

The Chair: No, it has to be done on a clause-by-clause basis. I will do that by doing the same thing. I think we could probably do it at the end while the clerk has an opportunity to sort through those amendments necessitated by our changing definition. Then we'll come back to it, okay?

(Clause 16 allowed to stand)

(Clause 17 agreed to)

(Clauses 18 to 20 inclusive allowed to stand)

(Clauses 21 to 23 inclusive agreed to)

(Clauses 24 to 28 inclusive allowed to stand)

(Clause 29 agreed to)

(Clauses 30 to 32 inclusive allowed to stand)

(Clause 33 agreed to)

(Clauses 34 and 35 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 36 and 37 agreed to)

(Clause 38 allowed to stand)

(Clause 39 agreed to)

(Clause 40 allowed to stand)

(Clause 41 agreed to)

(Clause 42 allowed to stand)

(Clause 43 agreed to)

(Clause 44 allowed to stand)

(On clause 45—Decision)

The Chair: I don't see any amendments here.

Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I have a lengthy one, new clause 45.(1).

The Chair: Let's defer clause 45 then.

(Clause 45 allowed to stand)

• 0930

(Clauses 46 to 48 inclusive agreed to)

(Clauses 49 to 51 inclusive allowed to stand)

(Clauses 52 to 54 inclusive agreed to)

(Clauses 55 and 56 allowed to stand)

(Clause 57 agreed to)

(Clause 58 allowed to stand)

(Clause 59 agreed to)

(Clause 60 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 61 and 62 agreed to)

(Clauses 63 and 64 allowed to stand)

(On clause 65—Humanitarian and compassionate considerations)

The Chair: I wonder if I could ask for clause 65 to be deferred. It talks about humanitarian and compassionate considerations. It all relates to clauses 63 and 64, and so on. I wonder if we could just defer clause 65.

Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): Are there any proposed amendments?

The Chair: No, I'm just asking for it to be deferred because it relates very much to clauses 63 and 64.

(Clause 65 allowed to stand)

(Clause 66 agreed to)

(Clause 67 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 68 and 69 agreed to)

(Clause 70 allowed to stand)

(Clause 71 agreed to)

(Clauses 72 to 80 inclusive allowed to stand)

(Clause 81 agreed to)

(Clauses 82 and 83 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 84 to 89 inclusive agreed to)

• 0935

(Clause 90 allowed to stand)

(Clause 91 agreed to)

(Clauses 92 to 94 inclusive allowed to stand)

(Clause 95 agreed to)

(Clauses 96 and 97 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 98 to 101 inclusive allowed to stand)

(Clause 102 agreed to)

(Clauses 103 and 104 allowed to stand)

(Clause 105 agreed to)

(On clause 106—Credibility)

The Chair: Are there any questions on clause 106, credibility?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: No.

[Translation]

Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Yes.

[English]

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: I would like to see it deferred.

The Chair: Which one, clause 106?

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: I will be bringing an amendment on clause 106.

(Clause 106 allowed to stand)

(Clause 107 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 108 and 109 agreed to)

(Clause 110 allowed to stand)

(Clause 111 agreed to)

(Clauses 112 and 113 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 114 to 117 inclusive allowed to stand)

(Clause 118 agreed to)

(Clause 119 allowed to stand)

(Clause 120 agreed to)

(Clause 121 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 122 to 125 inclusive agreed to)

(Clauses 126 and 127 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 128 and 129 agreed to)

(Clause 130 allowed to stand)

• 0940

(Clauses 131 to 138 inclusive agreed to)

(Clause 139 agreed to)

(Clauses 140 to 147 inclusive agreed to)

(Clause 148 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 149 and 150 allowed to stand)

(Clause 151 agreed to)

(Clauses 152 and 153 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 154 to 158 inclusive agreed to)

(Clause 159 allowed to stand)

(Clause 160 agreed to)

(Clause 161 allowed to stand)

(Clause 162 agreed to)

(Clauses 163 to 165 inclusive allowed to stand)

• 0945

(Clauses 166 to 168 inclusive agreed to)

(Clause 169 allowed to stand)

(Clause 170 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 171 to 185 inclusive agreed to)

(Clause 186 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 187 to 189 inclusive agreed to)

(Clause 190 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 191 to 200 inclusive agreed to)

(Clause 201 allowed to stand)

• 0950

(Clauses 202 to 218 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 219)

The Chair: Clause 219 is the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act. Can I just ask a question here, because some of these, of course, refer to particular acts? I take it that when we get back to some of the deferred clauses, if in fact we pass an amendment there, we may have to come back to some of these consequential clauses, I would imagine. No?

Mr. Daniel Therrien: Because of the terminology change?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Daniel Therrien: No. Very few actually.

The Chair: Very few? Okay.

(Clauses 219 to 226 inclusive agreed to)

(Clauses 227 to 229 inclusive allowed to stand)

(Clauses 230 to 241 inclusive agreed to)

• 0955

(Clause 242 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 243 to 248 inclusive agreed to)

(Clause 249 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 250 to 272 inclusive agreed to)

• 1000

(Clause 273 allowed to stand)

(Clause 274 agreed to)

(On clause 275—Coming into force)

The Chair: Clause 275 is coming into force. Wasn't there an amendment on coming into force? I thought so, but it was way before. I don't know if this was impacted on by clause 275, though. I think you should defer clause 275.

I'm looking after your interests, Inky.

(Clause 275 allowed to stand)

The Chair: Now we're back to clause 1, the title and everything else. We'll just leave those for a minute.

Okay, let's go back to the front of the book. Now we get to do some talking.

On clause 3, remember we talked a little about the objectives and applications last week, and everybody thought that we could beef it up, that we could do something. There are a number of amendments, G1, G2, NDP2, NDP3, NDP4, NDP5, BQ3, and PC1. Boy, there's a whole bunch of them. Let's take them one at a time and see where we're going to come there.

We'll start with G1, government 1. If I could ask...hang on a sec.

Does anyone need a two-minute break?

Some hon. members: Yes.

The Chair: Let's have a two-minute break. Let's have coffee.

What do you mean, there's no coffee?

An hon. member: It's out.

The Chair: Already? And it's only 10 o'clock. That's why we need a break. Okay. Two minutes.

• 1002

• 1011

(On clause 3—Objectives—immigration)

The Chair: Let's go to G1.

John McCallum.

Mr. John McCallum (Markham, Lib.): Actually this was my colleague Anita's.

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): It was mine.

The Chair: Okay. Anita.

Ms. Anita Neville: I think it's fairly self-explanatory, Mr. Chair. I proposed the addition of the word “multicultural”. It's an important characteristic of our country and an important policy of the government, and I think it's consistent with the bill and with what we've heard to enrich and strengthen the cultural and social fabric of the country.

The Chair: So G1 before you essentially is amending clause 3 by replacing line 15 on page 2 with the following:

respecting the federal, bilingual and multicultural character.

Is there any further debate on that one? Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I'll certainly support the recommendation, although I think it falls short of the sense we were getting from many of the hearings about adding something in the preamble portion of the bill that reflected Canada's history and tradition in respect of an open door policy and humanitarian approach, diversity of the land, and all the rest. I'm sorry, I don't have another amendment on that here.

The Chair: But, you know, that might be (j), (k), (l), (m), (n), (o), (p), and (q)—who knows? But right now we're dealing with this one with regard to adding “multicultural” there. That doesn't preclude others from happening. Any objections on G1?

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: G2 is on the minority official languages communities in Canada. Who was going to do that? Yolande, I believe.

[Translation]

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: So, here goes:

b.1) to support and assist the development of minority official language communities in Canada;

[English]

This is to further the....

[Translation]

I will speak French. Excuse me. I am trying to speak both languages and it does not work.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: You have the right to speak French. It is not forbidden.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: Yes, yes, I know. Right now, I am mixing the two and it does not work.

It is to ensure that the spirit of the Official Languages Act is adhered to and to help the minority official language communities in Canada. I think it is very important that language minorities outside of Quebec, or vice versa, in fact, be supported by this legislation.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Since there are two official languages, I would suggest, at least, to use the plural. So the amendment would read: “... minority official languages communities in Canada”. Do you agree? If we do not add the s, people will wonder what language we mean.

• 1015

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: I fully agree with you.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Is that a friendly amendment on G2 then? We have no problem with that—right?

Is there any further debate on G2?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: We'll go to NDP2 and Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Do I move it, or is it presumed moved?

The Chair: It is presumed moved.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Okay.

The purpose of this amendment, along with several others we've proposed is to address the concern that many presenters made before this committee, especially representatives of large cities, where there's significant influx of new Canadians, to find ways through this bill to consult, include, and work with municipalities. So my suggestion is that we include it everywhere possible. I understand there are, from our preliminary discussions, concerns about jurisdiction and so on, but I think the way this clause is worded, dealing with objectives, it makes sense to actually include the word “municipalities”, and I'd make a similar argument with respect to the clause on applications.

I think it enhances the bill and doesn't take away from the fact that the federal government and the provinces have primary jurisdiction for immigration.

The Chair: Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark: If I may, Mr. Chair, I would suggest a friendly amendment. Instead of using “municipalities”, maybe we can use the term “and other governments”.

The Chair: Thank you.

When we were talking about this last week, I think we went through what the present bill said and it talked about other levels of government. I know we talked about some constitutional jurisdiction. I wonder if I can ask Joan. The way the present act now reads, it talks about other levels of government. We did hear substantive evidence indicating that there are an awful lot of municipalities—the FCM and others have indicated that they also should be consulted formally, informally, or whatever. Are there any problems with keeping the wording as is in the bill or with the amendments that have been put forward? What's your take on this?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: If I could speak to municipalities specifically, they are, of course, creatures of the provincial government. We think the most appropriate way to reflect consultation with provinces and municipalities is through the mandated obligation on the part of the government to consult with provinces, through which we engage with municipalities and other levels of government. So we think we have what we need for reflecting appropriate consultation mechanisms, and we would not support a specific reference to municipalities.

The Chair: Raymonde.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I fully agree with what Ms. Atkinson just said.

Secondly, with regards to the present wording of the bill, these governments i.e. municipalities are not really governments under our Constitution. I do not see how we could add this element.

[English]

The Chair: Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I obviously dearly love municipalities, but I do not want to see them there.

However, I would like to put a question to Ms. Atkinson, through you. Very often we see “provinces and territories”. I wonder why in this bill territories are not mentioned, because the federal government often consults with them. If it is an oversight, I will table an amendment on the spot, which you will all support.

The Chair: Okay. That is a good question.

[English]

We'll ask Joan whether territories would normally be added or included.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: No. Under the Interpretation Act, when you read “provinces”, you read “provinces and territories”. So it's implied and included.

The Chair: For greater clarity, would it be harmful if one were to include the word “territories”?

Mr. Daniel Therrien: It might, because it would have to be consistent throughout and there would be a risk of error. If you did it in some places and not others, territories would not be included in the other places.

The Chair: But the evidence you just presented is that when we talk about provinces, that includes territories.

• 1020

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Precisely, under the Interpretation Act.

The Chair: John.

Mr. John Herron: I would support the amendment, but which municipalities are we referring to that we're going to consult. Are we saying Quispamsis and Sussex and Fundy Royal, or are we automatically thinking Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver kind of thing? I think by doing the provinces, the provinces know which municipalities to actually engage with. Mind you, I think Rothesay and Quispamsis are the most important.

The Chair: Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, having spent ten years in municipal government, I have some sympathy with the problems faced by municipalities, particularly places like mine, which happens to be where Pearson Airport is located, and I do think there needs to be a consultation process. But I think we can't turn the constitution of our country upside down in this act and all of a sudden give the municipalities a seat at the table, so to speak, interpreting the Immigration Act and the intent in the future.

The intent may well be good, but I think it's clear that our mandate is to consult with the provinces and the territories. We have agreements in place in la belle province, where they have an agreement on immigration. Other provinces have been offered the same option and have not chosen to take it up, seeing immigration as a federal issue. I think we'd just be muddying the waters and making this almost an inoperable situation if we had to consult—to take John Herron's point—with every municipality in the country every time there was a regulation or a change. I think it would render us almost neutered in our ability to function under this act. So I cannot support the motion.

The Chair: Inky, finally.

Mr. Inky Mark: If this bill is to set a new focus, a new direction, because the words “other levels of government” are already in the bill, Joan, would it create any problems to put those words under paragraph 3(1)(f)?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: What we're doing in this bill is making explicit reference to provincial and territorial governments, which we think is absolutely correct, given the shared jurisdiction of immigration with provinces and territories in this country, as opposed to the current act, which simply refers to other levels of government, without specifying that what we're talking about is provinces and territories. So we think that having the explicit reference to provinces, with the interpretation of that as including territorial governments, is absolutely critical for ensuring it's clear that provinces and territories are partners. “Municipality”, as I think has been explained, causes some difficulty.

The Chair: Joan, for clarification, this does not preclude a minister and/or federal parliamentarians from consulting with municipalities and stakeholders with regard to immigration matters. It's done already.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Absolutely. We are not suggesting here that we don't talk to municipalities about the issues that are of concern to them. That happens now, and it would continue to happen.

The Chair: Judy, final intervention.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: As a final comment, I hear what department officials are saying and other colleagues are saying, and I certainly have no intention of initiating a constitutional debate. But I'm not going to withdraw the amendment, because I think paragraph 3(1)(f) is dealing with some very specific issues in regard to processing and standards that I think often have to involve direct consultation between the federal government and those municipalities. I also note that under paragraph 3(1)(e) we don't hesitate to talk about the obligations of municipalities and make specific reference:

while recognizing that integration involves municipal obligations—

The Chair: Excuse me, it says “mutual”, not “municipal”.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Oh, sorry.

The Chair: My eyesight was going too this morning, but that's okay.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Sorry. Then I'll take that back. I guess I was just hoping it was there—wishful thinking.

The Chair: Good try. You just about had us for a moment.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Just about had you.

The Chair: Okay. NDP2.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: We move to NDP3. You've got something with regard to paragraph 3(1)(i), Judy.

• 1025

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I'd like to propose an additional paragraph under subclause 3(1), which would try to reflect the concern we heard from many groups about the need to address occupational integration and recognition of skills and qualifications and training. There are very few opportunities in this bill to reflect that concern to be true in the sense that there is a need to do whatever we can, through the federal government, to work with the provinces and other levels of government in helping people who have lots of training and expertise to be recognized.

The Chair: I think you're talking about NDP3 first.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Which one are you on?

The Chair: NDP3 is international justice, respect for human rights, and security.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Oh, I'm sorry. I'll come back to that. Can I...?

The Chair: Yes. Go ahead.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Can I finish that one or go back?

The Chair: No, go to NDP3.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Okay. NDP3, the amendment, is to amend paragraph 3(1)(i). Am I on the right one?

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Okay. The purpose of this amendment is basically to express the sense conveyed to us by the Canadian Council for Refugees, and I think some other groups, to indicate that in fact while there's appreciation for this bill to recognize the obligations imposed upon Canada in terms of international justice, it's too narrow. It needs to be more specific in terms of respect for human rights and it needs to not deny the opportunity for justice to be executed in this country. Folks will recall that the CCR made a very strong presentation around the fact that in this bill the government entrenches too narrow a definition for dealing with war criminals. The sense conveyed through some of the provisions is that all we should do is deport them and not prosecute them. I think this amendment—and it's also done in another paragraph under subclauses 3(2) or (3)—is to broaden the scope and make it more true to the kind of obligations Canadians have.

The Chair: It says “to promote international justice, respect for human rights and security”. Is it your intent, Judy, to drop out—

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Delete the rest.

The Chair: —“by denying access to Canadian territory to foreign nationals who are criminals or security risks.” Is that what your intent is?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: That's the intent, yes.

The Chair: Okay. I think you just about had everybody if you didn't leave out that second part, which also is a comfort level. But I won't tell you what you should do.

Joan, do you have any comments?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Yes. I think, first of all, protecting human rights and upholding the principles and obligations under our international conventions is very fully laid out, particularly in subclause 3(2), which deals with the need to protect persons who are in need of protection. I think that in that particular clause, dropping the “by denying access to Canadian territory to foreign nationals who are criminals or security risks” misses an essential balance in the act and an essential balance in our objectives, because we know that it's an essential element of an open immigration and refugee policy that we be able to remove those people who pose a threat to Canadian society. It's an essential element and it's essential for public support for having an open immigration and refugee policy. This is the objective in subclause 3(1) that delineates that very important balance, which is absolutely critical.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes. I guess my comment would be—and this is where I appeal to committee members—I know that there is some balancing in this provision of the act. But my concern is that we might have gone too far the other way and that we may have denied our obligations under various conventions, such as the Convention Against Torture, to prosecute torturers here in this country. And the example—

The Chair: Judy, I wonder whether I could be helpful in this way. We were talking about objectives and application as it relates to immigration.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes.

The Chair: Your intervention and your debate seems to be centred around clause 2, which is the objectives with regard to refugees. I think you may want to look at that again, because there's one with regard to immigration, and that's paragraphs 3(1)(a) to (i), and then the other one is on refugees. Perhaps the best place to argue that would be subclause 3(2), but I'm not....

• 1030

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I think subclause 3(1) is a set of broad principles for the act as a whole, and it does talk about a general direction. It's that general direction that I'm concerned about, and our failure to acknowledge the roles and responsibilities Canada has for prosecuting individuals in this country, and for not shutting the door entirely on that, and not caving in holus-bolus to the attitude in this country of deport everyone without taking action.

The Chair: But that's why, if you look at paragraph 3(2)(b):

to fulfil Canada's international legal obligations with respect to refugees and affirm Canada's commitment to international efforts to provide assistance to those in need of resettlement;

Anyway, it's NDP3.

John, a final comment.

Mr. John McCallum: I'd like to say something on Joan's reaction. I certainly agree 100% with this need for balance. When you mention the word “justice”, there are two sides of justice, the positive and the negative. So how about, with that paragraph 3(1)(i), you say “to promote international justice and security by promoting human rights”? Add that—that's the positive side—and “by denying access to Canadian territory to foreign nationals who are criminals or security risks”.

Would that be acceptable?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Well, in paragraph 3(2)(e) we certainly talk about supporting Canada's respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms of all human beings. So we certainly do indicate in the objectives the support for human rights.

I think in paragraph 3(1)(i) “denying access to Canadian territory” is a critical element here.

The Chair: Raymonde.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to deal with the part the member wants to add, but with the part she wants to take out of paragraph 3(1)(i). If I understand correctly, she wants to delete the second part of the paragraph that says:

[...] by denying access to Canadian territory to foreign nationals who are criminals or security risks.

This is what I heard you say. I, for one, cannot support this amendment—I do not have an opinion on the first part—because of that deletion. This seems to be a fundamental part of the main objectives of the bill before us.

[English]

The Chair: Judy, to be helpful, I would like to, in the sense of a friendly amendment, do what John has suggested and add “human rights” to yours, but continue security “by denying access to Canadian territory to foreign nationals who are criminals or security risks”. If you would accept that—

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I would accept that.

The Chair: —I'll treat this as a friendly amendment and go to Inky and then Steve.

Mr. Inky Mark: I agree with your proposal, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: I'm trying to be helpful.

Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I want to be clear why you're promoting...because we're amending things on the fly in a sense. Could I ask Joan to respond again to this suggestion, because my understanding is that the protection of human rights is outlined elsewhere in the bill?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: The protection of human rights is outlined, as I pointed out, in subclause 3(2) of the objectives with regard to protected persons. But adding “protecting human rights” in paragraph (i) would also underline the fact that protection of human rights is consistent for the whole immigration program and not just the refugee program, and so it would certainly be acceptable.

The Chair: Okay. I'm going to accept that as acceptable to everybody—a friendly amendment. We all know what it is. We're adding human rights to paragraph 3(1)(i). Thank you all for cooperating.

(Amendment agreed to—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

Mr. Daniel Therrien: May I ask with what word though? I heard “promoting”.

Mr. John McCallum: What I said was “to promote international justice and security” and then add, “by promoting human rights and by denying access to Canadian territory to foreign nationals who are criminals or security risks.”

The Chair: That's done.

Let's move to NDP4.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: What I already spoke to, right?

The Chair: Yes. On paragraph 3(1)(j)—this would be a new paragraph.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: This is to add the new paragraph to deal with the concerns raised with us around recognition of foreign credentials and access to people with various qualifications and professions and trades. It's a very general statement that I think adds to the bill and allows for us to state a clear principle around this serious issue.

The Chair: Joan, we did hear a tremendous amount, and we know the minister wants to do this. We know it's provincial jurisdictions. We know that certain provinces have even delegated their authority to self-regulated groups.

• 1035

I think there was an overall feeling of wanting to make sure that these people who come to this country and who have an awful lot to offer.... There are some barriers to their professional accreditation. Although we're not about to get into micromanagement, would it be possible to make a statement—I don't know if NDP4 is along the same lines—to encourage or to facilitate recognition, which I think is the term used, as something we would want in the objectives?

Again, that's without interfering with provincial jurisdiction and constitutional stuff. As an objective, I want to make sure we can have these people resettle in a way that brings, as we've always said, the best and brightest of their talents to their country.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Obviously, we don't disagree with the need for us to work with the provinces to try to deal with this difficult issue of credentials recognition. However, putting it in federal legislation is a difficulty. It's a real problem, because regulation of professions and trades, as we know, is a constitutional responsibility of the provinces. So it would cause us a real problem on those grounds to have an objective in federal legislation that speaks directly to an area that is provincial responsibility.

As well, in Bill C-11 we've made specific reference to mandating consultation with provinces and territories. It's under that provision of the legislation, in clause 10, that with the provinces these sorts of issues must be dealt with. But for us to put in federal legislation an objective that relates directly to provincial jurisdiction is a problem.

The Chair: Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, the intent here is good. I think it's a matter of where we in fact do address it in the bill and in the regs. We've all seen the grid system that the minister.... Obviously, it isn't yet formally in the regulations, but we know that this committee is going to have an opportunity to have input into that.

If I recall correctly, there are 20 points allocated for someone with a skilled trade or an apprenticeship. I have a lot of questions, when we get to that, about how we define the apprentice system—the number of years of formal education required and things of that nature—that I think we're going to have to flesh out, if you will, before we come to a final agreement on that.

I just think this amendment is in the wrong place. As a result of the role we have with the provinces, in terms of both attracting skilled trades to come here and attracting people to come here and allowing them to use their skilled trades.... There are two separate issues there. We all know the stories of engineers driving taxis, etc. There was discussion about adding, I think, the regulatory group called CORA, a non-governmental organization, under paragraph 3(3)(c). I believe that's where it would show, that there would be recognition of that.

I think that's the more appropriate place for us to deal with that and then also to deal with it in the regs when we get to the grid system.

The Chair: There seems to be discussion that we would want to try to achieve, Judy, what you have tried to do, but at this point in time it may not be the right place. We can either deal with your motion and look for another alternative sometime thereafter or you can try to change yours. But I feel there is some support for the intent of what we all want to do, and that is to try to encourage those regulatory bodies to have people who come to this country move toward their occupations and professions in a much more expeditious and fair way. As to how we achieve that, I think what Steve has indicated is that adding (j) to subclause 3(1) may not be the place to do it, but it could be done thereafter.

I'll put the vote, but there seems to be a willingness to look for other opportunities.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: On a point of order, is it possible to defer this specific issue until such time as we're able to address the concern somewhere else in the bill, in the event that it may not be possible to reflect the sentiment somewhere else?

• 1040

The Chair: If you want to hold NDP4 for a moment—

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Is that acceptable?

The Chair: —on this particular issue of how we deal with occupational accreditation and so on, I think, yes, we can leave that for a moment. Okay?

(Amendment allowed to stand)

The Chair: Are there any further amendments to subclause 3(1) with regard to objectives and applications as it relates to immigration?

John McCallum.

Mr. John McCallum: Mr. Chairman, you asked me if I might think of something relating to the economy and the benefits of immigration and so on, but then I noticed that paragraphs 3(1)(a) and (c) seem to cover that. I don't really have anything extra to say. I'm only answering because you'd asked me to.

The Chair: Yes.

Joan, with regard to achieving our demographic imperatives, we know why we need immigration, to ensure that we're always competitive. I know we don't use that word, “competitive”, and we talk a little bit about the demographic imperatives of this country, and that's why we need people. Is that, in your opinion, covered off in paragraphs 3(1)(a) to (i), or is there an opportunity to broaden our objectives as a country demographically as well as from a competitiveness issue?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I think it's covered in paragraph 3(1)(a), where we talk about maximizing the benefits of immigration, not just economic but social and cultural as well. In (b) we talk about enriching and strengthening the social and cultural fabric of Canada. I think all of those things speak to, even beyond the economic objectives of immigration, our basic nation-building objectives of immigration that relate very much to what you're speaking of, Mr. Chairman.

Of course, as Mr. McCallum has pointed out, in paragraph 3(1)(c) we speak specifically to a “strong and prosperous” Canadian economy, which we think covers very well issues relating to productivity, competitiveness, innovation, and all of those very important government policies.

The Chair: On that basis, with the exception of a little more discussion on the occupational stuff, that's fine.

We'll move to NDP5, which gets us into subclause 3(2), dealing with refugees.

Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: The proposal is to amend paragraph 3(2)(b) by replacing line 8 on page 3 with:

obligations with respect to refugees and others at risk of human rights violations and

The purpose of this amendment is to reflect the fact that Canada has international legal obligations toward non-citizens who are not necessarily refugees—for example, anyone who might be at risk of torture or extrajudicial execution—as well as toward children.

So it's just to broaden the intent, I believe, and to spell out the obligations that flow beyond specific refugees.

The Chair: Any comments, Joan?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: When you look at the other objectives, protection against human rights violations and for people who are displaced or who are in a difficult situation because of that displacement is in fact articulated in the objectives. Paragraph 3(2)(a) talks about offering protection to the displaced and the persecuted, and (b), again, the way it's worded now, talks about providing assistance to those who are in need of resettlement.

Specifically with regard to resettlement, as you know from our draft regulatory proposal paper, the humanitarian designated classes, as they currently exist and will continue to exist under the regulations to Bill C-11, offer protection to people who do not meet the precise definition of a refugee under the Geneva Convention but who are suffering from a massive violation of human rights, who have been personally affected—for example, a massive violation of human rights in their country of origin.

So we think we have this already in the objectives, and through the provisions of the bill related to refugee protection, and in the regulations that will follow, we think we are offering a broad range of protection to individuals who are not only refugees but also in refugee-like situations, including those who suffer from violation of their human rights.

The Chair: Steve.

• 1045

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, I'm having trouble, particularly given Joan's response, and when I read paragraph 3(2)(b), it says, “to fulfil Canada's international legal obligations with respect to refugees”.

What we're dealing with in this clause are the refugees, not all human rights violations around the world in every country. This is not an omnibus bill. This is an immigration bill dealing with immigrants and refugees.

First of all, I don't see the need; I think it's overkill. And I think it could be interpreted more widely than we want it to be. We want this to be with respect to refugees, and we are addressing and fulfilling Canada's international legal obligations. So I would have to speak against the amendment as being unnecessary and potentially confusing down the road.

Thinking of it in terms of how other people might interpret this act after it's out of here and done and gone, we all know from all the exposure from the Canadian Bar Association and others that the lawyers are going to have a field day tearing this apart for the first year after its implementation, so I want to be very cautious about that.

The Chair: I think I also heard, Judy, that it's covered—human rights—there.

I'm going to put amendment NDP5. It's been moved.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: We'll move to amendment BQ3, which deals with paragraph 3(2)(d).

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

The Chair: I'm sorry, John.

Mr. John Herron: Mado and I had the same intention here, so we're not going to have any differences, but the tradition in most committees is that the first amendment in is usually addressed.

The Chair: I'm only going by what's in my book.

Mr. John Herron: I need to finish.

The Chair: I agree that yours might have been in first, but—

Mr. John Herron: I'm still on my point of order.

The Chair: Is it a point of order, or are you talking about amendment PC1?

Mr. John Herron: Yes, I'm going to process first on this.

The Chair: Oh, okay.

Mr. John Herron: In this case it makes no difference whether it's Mado's or mine, but down the road, if we end up accepting an amendment at the committee stage, it might mean another amendment may not be able to be voted on or discussed at the committee level. So I want to set that rule first, that the amendment in first is addressed first.

In this case it makes no difference.

The Chair: Okay, I would agree and we're all going to try to work, because I'll tell you, in some cases, we're all trying to achieve the same objectives. We might try different words to get there.

I should tell you, we put the amendments in this package—not necessarily the agenda, but this package—on the basis of when we received them; therefore, whoever first moved an amendment on a particular subject matter pertaining to a particular clause—

Mr. John Herron: But this isn't the case right here.

The Chair: No, in this case—

Mr. John Herron: You're saying it was a mistake.

The Chair: No, amendment PC1 was...the Bloc had put one in with regard to this particular issue before you.

Mr. John Herron: See, that's the point. I don't think that was the case.

When did you put yours in, Mado?

The Chair: Well, I was told that. In any case—

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: This discussion is of little consequence. In the end, what we all want...

[English]

Mr. John Herron: It's minor now, but I'm saying, down the road, it could be very, very contentious. I've been in clause-by-clause before where this particular issue became very controversial. Right now it's good to do it on a—

The Chair: John, can I just suggest—as we did with Judy's previous motions—that when your motion also has another party concurrence or agreement in principle, you may want to refer to each other's. That way we could either pick one or the other or even develop something better.

Mr. John Herron: Again, the point of my point of order is that there could be a process issue down the road in which I may refer to this very discussion.

The Chair: The clerk has told me that the package was put in place on the basis of whoever submitted first—

Mr. John Herron: In this case it was just an error.

The Chair: Okay, yes.

Ms. Susan Baldwin (Legislative Clerk): When there's a line conflict only, of course.

The Chair: When there's a line conflict only.

Mr. John Herron: In this case it was just an error, then.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. John Herron: That's okay.

The Chair: So let's try...we'll put yours and Madeleine's together.

Madeleine, amendment BQ3.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Adding these words would reflect the concerns expressed by many witnesses and would clarify a number of situations, especially for people living outside Canada where things are not always as clear.

I obviously hope everyone will support this motion and I am very glad to see that my friend John has almost exactly the same. Therefore, we have a consensus.

• 1050

[English]

The Chair: Yes, Madeleine, but can I just ask you, in your amendment BQ3, it's in paragraph 3(2)(d) you're adding the words “race, religion, nationality, political opinion, membership in a particular social group, sex or sexual orientation”.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: But how about “as well as those at risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment”? Do you want to keep that in there, or are you taking it out?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: No, we keep them.

[English]

The Chair: Because that's—

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: No. We are simply adding.

Okay.?

[English]

The Chair: Oh, you're keeping the other one in. Okay.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Yes, that is it.

[English]

The Chair: That's why I needed a clarification.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Fine. Okay.?

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

Now, John, on your amendment PC1.

Mr. John Herron: I'm okay with accepting Mado's, except that I want to point out to the committee that this is a consequential amendment that would flow into.... We have amendment PC20. Do you have one there as well? Because if we're going to use sex orientation as opposed to gender orientation, the language has to be consistent. My amendment PC20 would alter the....

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: On a point of order, I think it's a translation difficulty. The French is identical. I would think the normal term would be “gender” in English. So it would be “sexual orientation” or “gender or sexual orientation”.

The Chair: Okay. Gender or sexual orientation. We have no problem in the French. You see, the French language is so much more precise than the English language.

I'm going to take both of those together, if you want—amendments BQ3 and PC1—as essentially being the same.

Are there any objections to adding the words “sexual orientation” and “gender”?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Can we hear from Joan?

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Thank you.

First of all, I want to reassure everyone that under Canadian jurisprudence and the interpretation of the convention as it exists now, persecution based on gender and sexual orientation is grounds for protection under the Geneva Convention. I should also point out that the IRB has issued guidelines for the assessment of gender-based persecution that are emulated by judges and decision-makers around the world. We are a world leader in terms of the way we interpret the existing Geneva Convention on gender-based persecution.

So we don't think that, number one, it's necessary to add these specific references, because they are already included in the interpretation of the Geneva Convention and they are established in Canadian jurisprudence. To add grounds for protection in the act may in fact have the opposite effect of limiting our flexibility to be able to deal with persecution on gender and sexual orientation grounds.

The Chair: I didn't understand that at all. Maybe you can explain to me how you can say we're leaders in the world and we're doing it through the convention, but if we add those two words that are already covered, all of a sudden it's going to be limiting us.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: What we're doing is replicating the language of the convention in this objective, and the language of the convention is broad enough already to include assessment of persecution based on gender and sexual orientation.

So what I'm saying is, number one, we don't need to put specific reference to this in the objectives, because it's already included in the language of the convention, which is reflected in this particular objective.

The Chair: Raymonde.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Mr. Chairman, I would like to add something to what Ms. Atkinson just said.

In the Geneva Convention, there is specific reference to “social groups”, in other words membership in a particular social group. The way the words “social group” have been interpreted by the Immigration Commission and in the President's guidelines way back means that in some situations, where the law of a country is discriminatory or there is discrimination against homosexuals, homosexuality qualifies for membership in a particular social group under the Geneva Convention. Therefore, further to what Ms. Atkinson said, when we talk about membership in a particular social group, on line 19, this includes the sexual orientation of the individual.

• 1055

[English]

The Chair: We'll have Madeleine and then John.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I have just one comment. Any citizen of Canada or anyone outside of Canada can read a bill. I wonder if adding this reference would indeed damage the bill. I do not think so. We should aim at making legislation as clear as possible.

[English]

The Chair: We'll have John and then John.

Mr. John Herron: I understand where Ms. Atkinson is coming from, but if that's the logic, then let's not bother putting in race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or any of it. I don't see how that would preclude it, and we've heard testimony that those two issues are a concern.

The Chair: John McCallum.

Mr. John McCallum: I had a similar question. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that if we add these two words, we make it more explicit and strengthen it. I don't understand your earlier point that we may in fact weaken it.

The Chair: You'd better clarify it, Joan.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Perhaps I can try to clarify it.

By putting in specific reference to two types of social groups

[Translation]

as Ms. Folco indicated.

[English]

Mr. John Herron: Gender isn't a social group.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Sexual orientation, gender, or a particular situation with a woman in a particular environment may limit the interpretation with respect to other social groups. It may mean that board members will have to interpret them when they're looking at membership in a particular social group because you've specifically delineated two types of social groups. You may be restricted in terms of applying it more broadly. The broader term offers greater flexibility in offering protection to a broader group of people.

The Chair: Wait a minute. I can't have the same person speaking five times on the issue. We're dealing with BQ3.

We have Madeleine and finally Steve.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: If I understood Ms. Atkinson correctly, the problem arises from the fact that sexual orientation and gender come after “particular social group”. You tend to include these in the latter expression. If that is the case, the clause could read: “... nationality, political opinion, sexual orientation, gender, membership in a particular social group...”. In this way, there would not be the automatic relationship you suggest.

[English]

The Chair: Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I'm wondering if, without causing problems, you could share with us some examples of how it would expand or open the door to other groups. I hear what you're saying. On the one hand it's unnecessary because it's addressed in the Geneva Convention and we live up to our international legal obligations under the Geneva Convention. In a sense this is put in more as a political gesture than anything else, saying we're protecting sexual orientation in the act. I can understand why you don't want it there for political reasons, but I think committee members are having some trouble understanding, when you say it opens the door or it broadens the situation, what you mean by that.

The Chair: Before you answer that, we have one more comment from Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I just wanted to speak very briefly in support of the amendments. I'd also like to suggest that when you're dealing with broad areas of persecution, it's hard to imagine excluding in this day and age gender and sexual orientation. It's hard to understand how people coming under those two important areas could be simply lumped together with other social groups. I don't know what other social groups the officials have in mind, but it strikes me that in this day and age, with so much information about discrimination, not to include gender and sexual orientation would be a serious omission on our part.

The Chair: Joan, I wonder if you can clarify it, because you made the statement that under the Geneva Convention—unless you've got it in front of you so we can read it—it's already covered. Canada is the leader with regard to sexual orientation and gender. Yet when we get talking about whether or not we should include those two words, all of a sudden there seem to be some difficulties as to maybe broadening it. You said that in your opinion it would be restrictive. Can you clarify this? I'm going to put it to a vote because there seems to be some real confusion here. I may hold it in abeyance until we find out exactly what....

• 1100

Ms. Joan Atkinson: First of all, I don't think we're excluding anyone by not having specific reference to gender or sexual orientation. As we've said, clearly in the way the convention is interpreted in Canada and clearly in the way it is interpreted not just in Canada but in other places around the world, membership in a particular social group is broad enough and flexible enough to enable us to include those who are suffering persecution due to gender or sexual orientation.

The fear we have of making specific reference to gender or sexual orientation is that you are restricting the ability of board members to be able to interpret membership in a particular social group in a broad and flexible way. We do not feel that, by not making specific reference to gender or sexual orientation, you are in any way excluding protection decisions on those grounds.

By putting it in, you run the risk of narrowing that particular ground under the convention, which obviously is not something we want to do.

The Chair: I'm going to—

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I have a point of order.

The Chair: Wait a minute.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: The amendment doesn't exclude the words “membership in a particular social group”, so I don't think that—

The Chair: That's good, then. No, it's just adding three words, as I understand it, “sexual orientation” and “gender”.

I'm going to hold this in abeyance until the government side is able to huddle and find out what in tarnation is going on. Let's just hold it for a minute.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: We know where we stand.

The Chair: Excuse me, when I see three or four of our members asking some questions and raising some concerns...just because, Raymonde, you say “We know where we stand”.... You may know where you stand, but I heard three or four indicate that they would like some further clarification.

So I'm going to hold—

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Excuse me, Mr. Chair, I wasn't the only one who said this.

The Chair: I'm going to hold that BQ3 in abeyance, if I could.

Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark: I just wanted to ask you, Joan, if the issue of gender were put in here, would it have an impact on the review of the case that's occurring right now about this lady from Australia? Would it?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I don't think I can comment on specific cases, but obviously we've seen decisions of the board that relate specifically to persecution based on gender.

Again, as I pointed out, the IRB has very comprehensive guidelines in terms of dealing with gender persecution. As I indicated before, that makes the IRB a leader in the world in terms of dealing with that specific interpretation of the convention.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you.

The Chair: I'll put the question on BQ3 and PC1 if you're ready.

(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 3)

The Chair: We'll turn to NDP6.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: If I could seek your advice...with reference to the amendment of my colleague John McCallum, which applied to paragraph 3(1)(i), if that applied to paragraph 3(2)(h), I would be pleased with that.

The Chair: I'm sorry. You're asking—

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: The one before is identical to the one we've already dealt with in paragraph 3(1)(i).

The Chair: Okay. Yes.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: So I'm asking your advice as to whether we could apply the—

The Chair: John McCallum.

Mr. John McCallum: I don't think the same logic for balance applies in this case. In the previous section one had to balance the positive and negative elements of justice because the positive ones had not been mentioned, whereas in subclause (2) here the humanitarian side is mentioned a lot. So it seems to me paragraph 3(2)(h) could stand as it is.

• 1105

The Chair: Okay. Joan, any comments?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: No, it's fine.

The Chair: NDP6.

(Amendment negatived—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: NDP7.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Again, Mr. Chairperson, this is an attempt to ensure that municipalities are included in the consultation process in the application of this law. I think it makes particular sense to have it included in this particular segment, which deals with application.

The Chair: Okay. I've been told that NDP7 was taken care of. It was part of NDP2—at least that's what the clerk said. So if you want to remove it, that will be fine, or we can deal with it.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I don't understand.

The Chair: The vote applies. It's the same issue.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: So you're applying the vote?

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: So it's still put, but defeated?

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Okay.

The Chair: Okay.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: NDP8.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: The purpose of this amendment is to ensure—I'll be as brief as possible—full application of the charter, bringing everyone under the charter.

The Chair: Can I ask Joan to comment on that?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I think G3 is going to cover some of the issues being raised here, ensuring that all decisions taken under this act.... So we may want to discuss government motion 3.

The Chair: Judy, do you want to take a look G3? It does cover some of what you've said. It adds a new paragraph 3(3)(e).

Ms. Joan Atkinson: There's a similar change to paragraph 3(3)(d) in government motion 3 that I think may cover what's being proposed here.

The Chair: Do you want to defer to G3, Judy, or do you want to deal with yours separately?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Let me just ask for clarification then. Will that amendment on paragraphs 3(3)(d) and (e) deal with my concern about going beyond those seeking admission to Canada and ensure that anyone covered under this act is included in that section?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Yes. What we're proposing is to say “ensures that decisions taken under this act are consistent with the standards”.

The Chair: Do you want to withdraw NDP8, so we can move to G3, which I think will be taken?

Do you want to move that, Steve?

Okay, Yolande.

[Translation]

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: So now we are into... Thank you. When I read the wording of paragraph 3(3)(d):

3. (3)d) ensures that any person seeking admission to Canada is subject to standards, policies [...]

it seems to me we are asking those who want to come to Canada to commit or to promise somehow to submit to our laws. I think this wording is not strong enough.

Canada needs to ensure, through this bill, that decisions made under this legislation are consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, etc. This is the intent of this amendment.

I would add another paragraph, paragraph 3(3)(e), which would read: “supports the commitment of the government of Canada to enhance the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada.” This would reflect the spirit of the recent report of the Official Languages Commissioner who called for a recognition of the Official Languages Act in one way or another in every bill.

Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Merci, Yolande.

Madeleine, your BQ4 speaks to the same issue, by the way. Do you want to deal with yours separately?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I think so.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I think so.

[English]

The Chair: All right.

G3 is page 19 in the booklet—the page number might be helpful for members. On G3, is there any further discussion?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

• 1110

The Chair: BQ4 is page 21 in your amendment booklet. It refers to the same paragraphs, 3(3)(d) and (e). It adds a new section. Go ahead, Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Could you repeat, Mr. Chairman? I was distracted.

[English]

The Chair: BQ4.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: BQ4.

[Translation]

Okay. Here goes. What is missing here are Canada's international obligations, both present and future. So we listed here the main obligations as requested by many people, including women's groups who want the bill to clearly spell out aspects such as elimination of violence and discrimination against women. I think that by adding this list of instruments and adding “present and future” before “international obligations” we would clearly state the intent of the bill.

[English]

The Chair: Can I be helpful?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: G3 just proposed a new paragraph 3(3)(e), which talks about minority communities language. In your BQ4 paragraph 3(3)(e) talks about international obligations. I wonder, so we're clear, if you could say that would be a new paragraph 3(3)(f), now that we've passed G3?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Yes. Absolutely.

The Chair: Yes?

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Of course. We did not know that the government would introduce a new paragraph 3(3)(e). So I am pleased to make this paragraph 3(3)(f).

[English]

The Chair: Then do you want to talk to us about your new paragraph 3(3)(f) on BQ4?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I hope this will be our new paragraph 3(3)(f). You have it in front of you and that is all I...

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Joan, any comments with regard to BQ4, which says:

ensures that Canada fulfils its international obligations with respect to human rights.

Is that covered, do you believe, somewhere in subclause 3(2)?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Yes, we do make specific reference to our obligations out of the Geneva Convention and the Convention against Torture, as well as to the best interests of the child. But more generally, in paragraph 3(2)(e), we make reference to “upholding Canada's respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all human beings”, and in paragraph 3(2)(b) to fulfilling “Canada's international obligations with respect to refugees” and affirming “Canada's commitment to international efforts to provide assistance to those in need of resettlement”. Again, we think we cover in those areas the Government of Canada's objectives in fulfilling its international obligations under various instruments.

The Chair: There's a question we talked about last week with an awful lot of witnesses. We all agree with what you just said about international obligations. The question is, do we have to list all of those international obligations we've been a signatory to, or are they automatically covered? I think that's what Madeleine and others have tried to say: why don't you list all those conventions? That's what the discussion last week was all about.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Let me start by saying I don't think it's possible to provide a comprehensive list, because whatever list we come up with, we've probably not caught all the international conventions to which Canada is a party. So I think it's a bit dangerous to try to list all the conventions, and when there are new conventions coming up that Canada will be signing in the future, it's difficult to have a list. It's not possible to cover all the treaties and obligations and conventions that may have an impact on immigration or refugee issues.

Daniel, do you want to respond to the specific question about the legal implications?

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Therrien: I would add that, to ensure this flexibility, we already have a provision in the substantive clauses of the bill, in subsection 97(2). In the definition of “person in need of protection” we target people who are at risk and who are protected by the Convention against torture, as outlined in subsection 97(1). But subsection 97(2) provides the flexibility to extend the definition of “person in need of protection” to those who would be protected under future conventions. We believe this is where we can provide the required flexibility.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Are there any further comments? Judy.

• 1115

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes. I want to support Madeleine's amendment. You'll notice it's fairly similar to the next one, amendment NDP9, with different listings of all the conventions and protocols.

I want to make the argument that it's important that reference to our international obligations and the international conventions be made in subclause 3(3), which deals with application of the law.

It is true our international legal obligations are referenced in the preceding subclause 3(2). I think it has to be stated somewhere in this subclause as well. I don't think the new paragraph 3(3)(d), referencing the charter of rights, covers the international obligations. I think we have to be clear about explicitly stating our need to adhere to international human rights obligations and conventions.

If it's too difficult to list them all, and obviously there is some difficulty given our two different lists, then I'm wondering if we could come back to this as the recommendation by simply stating:

This Act is to be construed and applied in a manner

(e) that complies with international human rights instruments to which Canada is a signatory.

It would cover that concern. I think there has to be something here.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you for bringing that up.

Joan, can I ask you a technical question as to where you would place this? Everyone says it's probably referred to in the objectives as to whether or not it needs to be in subclause 3(3), which is the application of the law.

What's your answer to Judy?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: It's possible, of course.

In terms of delineating a list of instruments, as I said before, you're in danger of missing some, perhaps even existing ones, and certainly future conventions and instruments we may sign onto that would have relevance to immigration and refugee matters. There's a real danger in trying to list instruments.

The Chair: If we didn't list them and did what Judy indicated, saying “international” and “construed in”, we would be signators. Would that cause any difficulties?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: It's certainly possible to do that.

The Chair: Then may I suggest, Madeleine and Judy, on amendments BQ4 and NDP9, that you defer these things? Let's come up with something that might be acceptable and we'll consider it a little later.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I have wording I could share.

The Chair: Let's get rid of amendments BQ4 and NDP9. We'll deal with it now.

Do you want to withdraw amendment BQ4, Madeleine?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Yes. It is clear that it will be withdrawn anyway. I believe it is in our interest to cooperate to come up with something that will be acceptable to everyone and that will demonstrate our will to fulfil our international commitments other than under the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the Convention Against Torture, etc.

[English]

The Chair: Amendments BQ4 and NDP9 are withdrawn.

Judy, what do you have?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I move that there be a new paragraph 3(3)(f) that reads:

This Act is to be construed and applied in a manner

(f) that complies with international human rights instruments to which Canada is a signatory.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Those Canada has already signed and those it will sign in the future.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes. Agreed.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Agreed?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Absolutely.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

Can I ask, Joan and Daniel, do you have any difficulties with that before we consider it? None?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: No, I think we speak to those issues in terms of the provisions later on, with refugee protection, pre-removal risk assessment, and so on.

The Chair: There's a new paragraph 3(3)(f). Does everyone understand what it's going to say? Are there any objections to that? None. Okay, it is paragraph 3(3)(f). Can we make that a government motion?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Sure.

The Chair: Okay, good. Thank you. We'll make paragraph 3(3)(f) a government motion. We're all agreeing to it anyway, it doesn't matter.

(Amendment agreed to—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Okay. You're on again, Judy, with amendment NDP10 on page 23 in the booklet.

An hon. member: Do you have any idea how much paper we have here?

The Chair: Yes, tell me about it.

(On clause 5—Regulations)

The Chair: We've now moved to clause 5.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes. We're into regulations now.

• 1120

The proposed amendment is I think reflective of the will of most members around the table in dealing with the broad range of powers that have been transferred to regulatory capacity of government, as opposed to being entrenched in the law. So the proposal, which was made by many groups, is to delete the words after “Act” so it takes away this broad-ranging regulatory capacity, which says “or that it considers necessary to carry out the objectives of this Act”. So it limits and constrains.

The Chair: Yes, I think G4 and John McCallum suggested exactly the same thing as that.

Mr. John McCallum: Identical.

The Chair: So NDP10 and G4 are identical. Whose French do we want to use, the NDP10 or the G4 French? G4 French is the best French.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: G4 French is the best.

The Chair: It's G4 French.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Ah, yes! I am speaking English so everyone will understand.

[English]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: There are French-speaking Liberals here, I would just like to remind you. There are at least two of us here on the government side.

The Chair: And some of us try to understand it.

Okay. Listen then, on NDP10 can we just go to G4 and use G4?

John Herron.

Mr. John Herron: The Progressive Conservative amendment on the same clause is different.

The Chair: Yes, I'm sorry, CA3 and PC2 are all on the same thing.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: We'll make it a government amendment.

The Chair: Can we make it that G4 covers everything off? Put a little water in your wine, John, and it's G4.

Okay, let me withdraw NDP10 and deal with G4.

Mr. John Herron: Again, going back to the order, I just want to put my water in my wine....

The Chair: And yours is way back there, I'm telling you.

Mr. John Herron: No, but which is in first?

The Chair: G4 was first.

Mr. John Herron: If you look at the bottom of the page in every one of these amendments, Mr. Chair, you'll see where the actual date and time of the legislative draft just came out and you'll find that won't be the situation.

The Chair: Okay, we've got four parties wanting to propose something, and what I'm trying to say is that obviously the NDP agree with G4. The Bloc and CA say all right to G4. Now what do you want to do?

Mr. John Herron: I want to read that paragraph; however I do want to make sure the order issue is addressed.

The Chair: Well, then give the clerk hell, because I didn't put this thing together.

Mr. John Herron: I'm not going to give him hell; that's your buffer role.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Inky Mark: Mr. Chair, maybe we should respect the order that these were tabled.

The Chair: Excuse me, Inky, I'll ask that....

Mr. John McCallum: On a technical matter, I don't know exactly why we're doing that thing. I think the intent is exactly the same, to limit the scope of the regulations, but we'd have to ask an expert to describe why that clause beginning with “or” is required. Because that's what the NDP and Liberals have and the other two don't.

The Chair: On the process issue, I appreciate, Sue, the other clerks give me some guidance in this matter.

First of all, she's put this booklet on the basis of where in the lines it comes out. So NDP10—believe it or not—is first, because it speaks to the line commencing at 23. Even the government stuff starts a little bit thereafter. CA starts a little thereafter and PC is way down on lines 25 and 26. So if you want me to deal with each motion, I will. I'm just trying to put them all together.

John.

Mr. John Herron: I understand where you're coming from, but the problem with this is that the tradition is to begin where the language is truly altered, and not just to refer to the repetitious language above. I'm saving some time here down the road, because if that's the approach, all people would end up doing is just starting with the front end of the clause every single time, and you have to go through the whole thing. I've been on other committees....

The Chair: Oh, no, no. Give us an awful lot more credit than that, John. So far we haven't encountered that, because everybody's working cooperatively.

Mr. John Herron: I understand that.

The Chair: And I can tell you that in terms of when and who submitted these things in terms of time, that's debatable and all the sort of stuff, so I'm not even going to get into that. She's done it in a very logical order

Mr. John Herron: Let's get to the amendment, though.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. John Herron: Ms. Atkinson, the consensus we heard in committee was just to stop and put a period at the word “Act”, in terms of witnesses we'd heard. You've added a new “or” clause. Can you explain to us how that's watered down? We don't want to absolve our right as parliamentarians, because that's what we saw that language will cede. We may never need to see the act ever again. Explain how that helps.

• 1125

Ms. Joan Atkinson: It provides further clarity. But I'm going to ask Daniel to speak specifically to the technical issue of why that phrase is important.

Mr. Daniel Therrien: There are three elements in the current clause 5 making regulations referred to in the act that prescribe things and that are necessary to carry out the objectives. All of the amendments that are tabled remove the latter part, “or that it considers necessary to carry out the objectives of the Act.”

The “or” in the English version of the government motion is simply a grammar issue. There are two propositions; there's an “or” in-between.

In French the language is different between the opposition parties and the government party, because the French version of clause 5 repeats the two remaining propositions.

The Chair: Anyway, I'm moving to amendment G4.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: On a point of order.

The Chair: Yes, I'm sorry.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: My point of order

[Translation]

about what Mr. Therrien just explained. I would like to have further clarification on the difference between the English version, where we have the word “or”, and the French version, where we have the word “et”. I did not quite understand this part.

Mr. Daniel Therrien: It is a drafting issue. We often see...

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Is the meaning the same?

Mr. Daniel Therrien: Yes, the meaning is the same.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege.

We tabled an amendment on clause 5 which is not in the book you gave us. I have it here. I think it was completely forgotten. Since it is rather important, I would like to have it in there. We can deal with it later...

[English]

The Chair: Is it the same clause, same line, same everything?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: It is...

[English]

The Chair: Okay, amendment G4.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: That means that amendment CA3 or amendment PC2 are not necessary, but.... Are those withdrawn? Okay. Withdraw CA3 and PC2. They're redundant.

Now we'll move to amendment CA4.

Inky.

Mr. John Herron: It's not redundant, but it may be out of order, because you passed a motion.

The Chair: That's why I asked. Do you want to deal with yours? Okay, go ahead, PC2.

Mr. John Herron: I'll take a minimum amount of air time on that.

On this particular amendment, if you go back to the reading of the clause itself, it states:

Except as otherwise provided, the Governor in Council may take any regulation that is referred to in this Act, that prescribes any matter whose prescription is referred to in this Act

What I have objection to is the rest of the clause “or that it considers necessary to carry out the objectives of this Act.”

If that's the case, then whatever it considers necessary to carry out the objectives of the act, we may never need to see the bill again. They'll just do it in regulations. Parliament will never have to see the bill again. Why bother even having a committee to actually review the legislation?

The Chair: On the broader issue of this committee's involvement with regulations, we've already indicated that's one of the big issues we will talk about—of where it should go. This committee wants to see the regulations for public input when they're tabled or when they're done.

Second, any regulations in the future that may be developed will also come back to the committee. We're going to look for a vehicle by which to achieve that.

Mr. John Herron: On that point, the chair has been very insistent on having that provision for us to see the regulations. The minister has been cooperative in that regard beyond expectations—to be honest—but contrary to what you might think, you may not be the member of Parliament for London North Centre forever, although we of course hope you are in perpetuity. The point is that we're writing laws for future parliaments and future chairs and future ministers. It is way too broad. It's taking powers away from members of Parliament by including “or that it considers necessary to carry out the objectives of the Act.”

• 1130

The Chair: Can I just add something in answer to your question? I'll ask about the broader question in a moment. CA4 deals with exactly this issue too, and Inky will want to talk about it. So can you answer, Joan, John's specific question with regard to his thing, and then we'll talk about—-

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I think as you indicated, Mr. Chairman, by taking out the reference to the ability to make regulations necessary to carry out the objectives of the act, we've removed the problem in terms of having a regulatory power that is as broad as witnesses expressed concern about. So what we've done in the government motion is restricted the regulation-making authority to where it is prescribed in the act, not with the broader...necessary to carry out any objectives of the act. We have struck that.

The Chair: John, do you want to get rid of your PC2?

Mr. John Herron: I will throw it out.

The Chair: Okay, thank you. PC2 is out.

Let's get to CA4. Inky, maybe you should talk about it, because I'll ask you the question. What's the mechanism by which this committee gets those regulations?

Mr. Inky Mark: Well, CA4 will do that. Basically it just asks that the regulations be tabled with the committee, not that it has any legislative scrutiny mandate, but just to see the regulations in all parts of the bill—any part that deals with regulations. New regulations should come to the committee. That's it. It's pretty reasonable.

The Chair: The Bloc amendment, which will now be number BQ4a speaks of the same issue. We don't have a copy of it, because it was missed in the booklet. We were going to defer this until we can get copies of Madeleine's. So, Inky, with your approval, can we just defer this thing for awhile until we get it? We can just keep moving forward?

On the broader question, Joan, would this be the place to insert something that would allow this committee and committees of the future to get the regulations before it? Or is there a better place based on your knowledge of this bill and the administrative acts of Parliament as to somewhere else that one would put it? It must be clear that we want those regulations now when they're developed and any future regulations that are brought forward.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Well, certainly in terms of making a specific amendment, this would be the place to do it in the act.

The Chair: We'll defer that discussion until we get copies of BQ4a.

Mr. John Herron: That's a fabulous amendment.

The Chair: Yes, thank you. We're all on the same page on this one. Thank you all for cooperating.

G5 is a government amendment on clause 6. Who has this one?

Can I have a motion to adopt clause 5 as amended? CA4 and BQ4a will be a new subclause. It will be subclause 5(1) or something like that. Do you want to just defer clause 5 until we settle it? That's fine by me. That's okay.

(Clause 5 allowed to stand)

(On clause 6—Designation of officers)

The Chair: Who has this government amendment 6? Jerry or Steve? Page 29 of the booklet, G5, clause 6. Where's the parliamentary secretary? He gets paid all this money.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Well, I'm just moving it.

The Chair: Okay, moved. Do you want to talk to it?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Not until I hear any response.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes, I'd like an explanation.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Where's the parliamentary secretary?

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Could we have some clarification as to what these paragraphs refer to?

• 1135

The Chair: Listen, when we get the government amendments—and we're on one right now—I'm going to ask you to forget about this big package. We have a smaller package that incorporates all those consequential amendments we made by changing “foreign national” and “permanent resident” and so on and so forth. So for the government amendments go to the separate book, because the language is better, the consequential things and everything else. It's too bad we couldn't have different-coloured paper; it might be helpful.

Anyway, we are on G5. Can somebody tell us what G5 is all about.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Yes.

This will allow the minister to delegate her decision-making power in risk assessment cases, so that officers can make risk decisions in criminal and security cases. It's necessary to implement the provisions of the bill for an oral pre-removal risk assessment hearing in exceptional circumstances.

The Chair: That is so clear and wonderful.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Exactly.

The Chair: Are there any questions?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes.

The Chair: Is there any objection to G5?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I don't know what that means.

The Chair: Can you put it in layman's language?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Certainly. The minister is not allowed to delegate her decision-making power in risk assessment cases, where she's required to balance risk to the individual—if that person is returned to the country of origin—and the safety and security of Canada.

Maybe Joan could respond and help, but it's a balancing act.

The Chair: Joan, can you help Steve out?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: It's about who is the decision-maker and how the minister delegates her decision-making authority. In the case of pre-removal risk assessment, as you know, in Bill C-11 we've put the provision for the possibility of an oral hearing in the pre-removal risk assessment process. Unless the minister were able to delegate that decision-making authority, the minister herself would have to conduct oral hearings in the case of the balancing act in the pre-removal risk assessment.

The Chair: John Herron.

Mr. John Herron: I think this goes to what the media and a lot of witnesses have been advocating, that if you give too much power to the officers in play, it actually removes the authority of the act. So I'd even have amendments later on. If you don't want to give too much power to the officer, and it's too cumbersome for the minister to handle it, then perhaps it should be done at prescribed senior levels, whether it be a senior officer or deputy minister or some departmental staff.

I think there's plenty of room for a half-way here, as opposed to going right from the minister down to an officer, with nothing in between. That's a fundamental change in the shape of this act, and I would challenge the department to find a half-way ground.

The Chair: Yes, Joan.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: The proposed amendment does not say that it will be made by an officer. It will be made by the minister's delegate. And that delegate will be determined by instrument, as is the standard procedure when you are delegating authorities under an act, to someone from the minister down. You delegate according to instrument. It doesn't say it will be an officer. It says it will be the minister's delegate, that delegate to be determined by instrument.

Mr. John Herron: Mr. Chair, that actually goes to some of the commentary you've added to this committee. These are things that we don't want left. Parliament is actually delegating this. Parliamentarians aren't making this call in respect of political accountability. We owe it to the public to determine who that delegate is, and we should specify who that delegate is in the shape of the bill.

The Chair: Okay.

Steve.

• 1140

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I think it's pretty unrealistic to try to hamstring the department or the minister. The comments made by my friend across the way are that it could be a deputy or it could be an ADM. If we want to bog this system down, let's put in a requirement that specifies that senior staff must conduct hearings, and there'll be a lineup as long as the Trans Canada for people waiting for hearings. These are extremely busy people. There are people who are trained, who operate in this business, who have the knowledge, probably more knowledge, with all due respect, than even deputies or assistant deputies would have, because they deal with it on a daily basis.

So it should not be spelled out. What is spelled out is that the minister will by this have the authority to delegate her decision-making power to make sure these hearings are dealt with expeditiously and fairly. What you're talking about is a function of training and competence and staff, which is a totally different issue. So you don't want to specify in this amendment exactly who that authority would be delegated to. If you want to deal with the training issue somewhere else, then let's deal with that.

The Chair: And as you said, if it comes up somewhere in the act, we'll deal with those amendments.

Right now I have only one amendment on clause 6 and it's the government 5. So Inky and Judy, and then that's it.

Mr. Inky Mark: I just want to ask, why the deletion of paragraph 115(2)(b)—it refers to persons in need of protection. What's your reason for the deletion?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: The amendment reflects the pre-removal risk assessment and any decisions that are taken on removal of a protected person under the non-refoulement principle of the bill, which is clause 115.

The Chair: That means it's somewhere else.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Well, yes, I mean it refers to—

The Chair: That's right.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: That's right. Okay.

The Chair: Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I'm still not clear, and failing any clarification, I'll have to vote against it. I'd prefer if we could defer it, to get some understanding. I'm trying to quickly read.... Why the deletion of section 114? We leave subsection 77(1), delete subsection 114(2), and I haven't got the ability to quickly understand the impact of delegating to other authorities, given the wording. So I would prefer time to clarify it.

The Chair: This is a standard clause in every piece of legislation and everything else. It really is no different here. We've heard some testimony about powers and how they're exercised and everything else. But to tell you the truth, this is a standard clause in every piece of legislation that the minister needs to designate certain people to carry out and discharge her responsibilities.

That's it. On G5, all in favour?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I have a point of order.

The Chair: No, you asked me to put the question, and you're going to vote against it.

Judy, I have to move forward.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: But, Mr. Chairperson, someone's got to be able to explain this clause with subsection 77(1), which used to say as well subsection 114(2). Now we're deleting that part. There's a change here since the bill was tabled.

The Chair: You've asked a question. I'll ask Joan or Daniel to deal with it.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Because there are oral hearings that are available in the pre-removal risk assessment process, the minister needs to be able to delegate authority, so that she herself personally will not have to make all of those decisions where an oral hearing is possible, because then it would require the minister herself to conduct the oral hearing.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Was this an oversight on the original bill or is this a result of other changes?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I don't know whether I would call it an oversight, but it was a realization that what we had here meant we had a technical problem.

The Chair: On that basis, those in favour of G5?

(Amendment agreed to—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Now we have Madeleine's BQ4a, can we go back to CA4 and deal with clause 5? This will be a new section. So do you want to talk about it? And then Madeleine will talk about it.

Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark: CA4?

The Chair: Yes, CA4.

• 1145

Mr. Inky Mark: That's the business of having any new regulations coming before this committee, for information basically.

The Chair: Okay.

Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Given the comments we have heard, we feel it absolutely must be stipulated in the act that the regulations will have to be tabled with the committee for study. Since some lines in the clause have already been amended with what the government proposed, the clerk has suggested that I move a new clause 5.1 that would read as follows:

5.1 Except as otherwise provided, and further to consultations held by the Standing Committee of the House of Commons on Citizenship and Immigration, the Governor in Council may make any regulation that is referred to in this Act or that prescribes any matter whose prescription is referred to in this Act.

[English]

The Chair: Well, to tell you the truth, Madeleine, because yours deals with amending clause 5 and CA4 talks about creating a new subclause 5(1), it's much clearer, at least to me, that subclause 5(1) probably does exactly the same thing you wanted to do. So I'm just wondering whether you might want to lift BQ4a and support CA4, because I think it does the same thing.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Yes, indeed.

[English]

The Chair: So BQ4a is gone and we'll vote on CA4.

Oh, I'm sorry. Judy and John.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I'd like clarification on both proposed amendments. On CA4, is it correct that this simply deals with presentation of regulations to this committee on a consultative basis, as opposed to seeking the approval of committee? One of the discussions we've had in the past was about ensuring that regulations come to committee for approval, and I don't know if this amendment does it. If it doesn't, we should do it somewhere, which is the case in other pieces of legislation.

The Chair: John, you wanted to say something?

Mr. John Herron: Yes. I just had a comment. This amendment doesn't do anything in particular, because all it says is that the minister shall table any regulations made under sections 17, 32, etc., with the committee. We can get them off the Canada Gazette anyway. It doesn't do anything. What we want to do is have input on the regulations before they actually go to the Canada Gazette.

So I think there has to be a friendly amendment added to this with respect to timing, so that before the minister would go forward to publishing a regulation, the committee would have the right to have access, to see it in advance to provide input. I think that's the intent Mr. Mark wanted.

The Chair: John McCallum.

Mr. John McCallum: I would have thought this was a technical matter and Madeleine's proposed amendment, BQ4a, might be better, because it's more concise and she says, “further to consultations held by the standing committee”, which logically implies coming earlier.

The Chair: Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark: Mr. Chairman—

The Chair: No, Madeleine wanted to say something, and then I'll go back to you.

Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: We could add something to Inky's amendment: “Further to consultations by the Standing Committee of the House of Commons on Citizenship and Immigration, the minister tables the regulations”. I believe that would clearly indicate that the regulations must come to the committee before being tabled.

[English]

The Chair: It's getting very difficult to hear, because there are so many discussions happening. I understand what this committee wants to do. I think we're all of one voice with this, that we all—

Ms. Raymonde Folco: No, I'm sorry, we're not.

The Chair: Well, I think I can speak for those members who travelled for three weeks. Anyway, I'll let you comment for yourself.

The intent was that we want the regulations to come before this committee and that this committee would like to have public discussions on those regulations before they go out and are gazetted. That's what I understood. That's what everybody was talking about. That's what we're trying to achieve. Can I ask you, Joan, is there something in the regulations...? I think, before we move to that, we asked that particular question. Is this the place to put it? You said yes. Does this allow for that to happen, or is there a problem with legislative framework? Do they have to be gazetted first, or at least printed first, and then tabled, and so on?

• 1150

I know where the committee wants to go. I'll let anybody who doesn't agree with that speak for themselves, but I understand that's where we want to go.

Can I ask you a technical question, Joan?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Okay. As you know, it is the government's right to make regulation. The pre-publication of those regulations is the mechanism by which the government invites and seeks the views of all concerned Canadians, including parliamentarians. The pre-publication process is intended to balance the need for the government to be able to respond quickly to evolving situations and deal with policy matters reasonably quickly, and the need to be able to have an open and transparent process that all Canadians can get involved in and make their comments and views known.

Certainly, I think any time a regulation is pre-published, it is open to all to comment on, including parliamentarians. As you know, the minister has made commitments to this committee about involving and engaging the committee in terms of draft proposals and regulations when they're pre-published.

The Chair: The minister's been very supportive in this thing.

Mark.

Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): I think the committee members will remember that when the minister came before us and we touched on this—and we've had many discussions on this matter—we agreed the regulations would come before the committee, and at that point we could give recommendations. But we never talked about restricting the orders in council. We never brought that up. We agreed they could come before us and we could make recommendations, but....

The Chair: Listen, we know for a fact that you can't draft regulations until you have a bill. The bill gets passed; the regs get drafted. They come to this committee, we have public input, they're approved, they go back to the minister, and then they get gazetted. I think that's the process everybody's talking about, including you.

John, Madeleine, Judy, and then we'll deal with the vote.

Mr. John Herron: I think the fundamental issue here is that the bill we have before us is framework legislation. It means the scrutiny and input of regulations, given that we have a framework as opposed to an actual bill, in most amendments will be done from a regulatory framework.

With all due respect on this, it's nice that parliamentarians are allowed to be included when they get gazetted—we're allowed to join the club of 30 million Canadians. Except we also like to have the input of parliamentarians to actually have input on the laws that are crafted in the country.

I don't want to sell out my right as an MP by saying, well, I'll put myself into the group of everyone else, as opposed to carrying out the parliamentary responsibility we have. So if we go along without having input on regulations for framework legislation, we're selling out our role as MPs.

The Chair: Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: This is framework legislation that will most certainly be in force for 10, 15 or perhaps even 20 years. I believe that the will of the minister was very explicit, that Ms. Caplan will not remain as minister of Citizenship and Immigration for 20 years. If this will to consult the committee before regulations are promulgated is written into the Act, then it will be very difficult for any other minister to do otherwise.

I say that we have the right to innovate within an act when it is for the greater good of the community. I would even go so far as to say that it is our responsibility to innovate. In that sense, I believe that it should be very cleat that the regulations must be submitted to the committee for consultation before their coming into force. This must therefore be written into the Act.

[English]

The Chair: I think we're just looking at words.

Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark: What I would suggest, Mr. Chair, is to put the two resolutions together.

The Chair: Yes, and I think the clerk has been helpful. I'll tell you in a moment.

Raymonde.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I wanted to add something that seems to have been forgotten by the members of the committee. It is that any committee of the House of Commons has the right to discuss any bill and any regulation at any time.

• 1155

To respond now more specifically to Madeleine's comments, I would say that when the regulations are tabled, the committee may and should, in my opinion, decide to study these regulations and to report on them to the House and to the minister. I do not see how this amendment contributes anything, given that the roles and responsibilities of any standing committee of the House of Commons already include precisely that.

[English]

The Chair: The only difference is that the committee wants to have them before they're actually gazetted. That's the fundamental difference we've decided to take.

Anyway, can I just assist here? Inky indicated we could probably combine both amendments BQ4a and CA4 to do exactly what it is...and perhaps I can share this with you. It would essentially read, if you look at amendment BQ4a...delete “Except as otherwise provided”, and say:

Further to consultations held by the Standing Committee of the House of Commons on Citizenship and Immigration, the Governor in Council may make any regulation that is referred to in this Act or that prescribes any matter whose prescription is referred into this Act...the Minister shall table any regulations made under sections 17, 32, 53, 61, 102, 116, 150, with the committee of the House of Commons that normally considers immigration and refugee protection matters.

It covers both. I'll tell you what, can we just defer this, and we'll work on some better wording, okay? So leave number five. I think we understand it.

Yes, Jerry.

Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): Could we get a clear comment from Joan on why or why not the department has a position on this?

The Chair: I think she did comment.

If you want to answer it again, Joan.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Well, I think Madame Falco really spoke very clearly in terms of the committee having the right—perhaps even the obligation—to consider regulatory proposals, regulations, and the legislation, and in that sense, it's not necessary. It is highly unusual in federal legislation to have a clause that specifically delineates a role for a standing committee of the House of Commons to approve, review, or make recommendations on draft regulations, which is why the minister's offer to involve this committee as much as possible in the regulatory proposals is that much more exceptional.

The Chair: The only thing I can say is that 99.9% of the people we met with and talked to—154—indicated that this is framework legislation...regulations...the devil's always in the detail, and they wanted this committee and committees in the future to look at it that much more specifically.

Anyway, we're going to table this discussion on number five and move to number.... We need some better wording; we can't incorporate both.

(Amendment allowed to stand)

The Chair: We'll move to amendment CA5, which is on clause 6.

Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark: Amendment CA5 talks about what the public hearings produced—that there should be an ombudsman vehicle put in the regulations so there's a place for people to go when they have problems with the legislation. That seems to be a logical place to put it.

Maybe I can ask Joan. Is that the place to put that kind of vehicle?

The Chair: Before you ask that question, let's make sure...are there amendments to talk about?

Let me ask a technical question in terms of drafters. If one wanted to put in something like an ombudsperson or a complaints commissioner, would it be in clause 6, in terms of the delegation of officers?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: It's possible to put it in clause 6, if you were to make an amendment of that nature.

The Chair: All right. I just wondered—he asked a technical question.

• 1200

Any comments with regard to an ombudsperson?

Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, I think this runs exactly counter to the intent of this new bill, which is in fact to streamline and make this system work better.

It's astounding to me, frankly, coming from a CA member; the implications of the costs involved here would be astronomical. I've seen ombudsmen offices provincially. In fact, I had a motion to abolish the ombudsmen in the province of Ontario, which was quite controversial because it was my view that elected members are in fact the ombudsmen who should be involved in dealing with this issue.

So we're just throwing in more red tape, building a huge bureaucracy that will certainly do nothing to enhance the immigration system in this country. So, by extension, you might guess that I'm opposed to this.

The Chair: Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I'm in support of it. There may be some contradiction coming from the Alliance—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: You, I can believe. Him?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: —however, the idea is a good one. If this is dealt with here, I guess it'll make mine redundant. Based on our advice from legislative counsel it was to be added to clause 186 to make it a new clause 186.1. It's the same idea though. There would be an ombudsman to offer an opportunity for people who felt their best interests were not addressed through the bill, through the government, and through the minister.

In the case of this bill, with so much power being delegated and so much opportunity for people not to have their concerns heard, one way to protect against it is having an ombudsman. That was the suggestion made by a number of groups. The Maytree organization made that specific recommendation, and I think it's an important one.

The Chair: Any comments?

Can I just say one thing? It's true that the witnesses we heard talked a lot about wanting to have a vehicle by which to have a check and balance system to launch complaints. I would agree with Steve in this sense. To tell you the truth, I was on either side of the issue. I've been involved on the transport committee where we created a complaints commissioner.

At the end of the day you have to ask this fundamental question. Whom do we want to hold ultimately accountable? Do we want to hold the ombudsperson accountable whether or not there are any screw-ups in immigration, or do you want to keep the minister's feet to the fire each and every day in the House of Commons?

I'll give you a perfect example. Have you ever heard of any more questions about Air Canada in the House of Commons? No. Do you know why? Because they're all going to that referee, as opposed to holding the Minister of Transport or whomever responsible.

At the end of the day this is the tilting balance for me. If I were you I would want to hold the minister's feet to the fire each and every day in the House of Commons, as opposed to deflecting it to an ombudsperson who will create a whole bunch of apparatus to deal with something that even members of Parliament deal with.

So at the end of the day I'd rather hold the minister accountable and responsible than an ombudsperson trying to solve the problem. That's for what it's worth.

Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark: I would like to make a comment. This won't be the only piece of legislation that creates an ombudsman. The more checks and balances we have in the system, the better it is for the people.

MPs are all different; they operate differently. At this point in time, perhaps with an ombudsman you'd reduce your file numbers substantially.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Or increase them. They happen to the ombudsman then.

The Chair: Okay. I don't see any further—

Madeleine, did you have something?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I would simply like to make a comment.

Even if my colleague opposite sees a paradox in Inky's suggestion, we heard witnesses, both here in Ottawa as well as on the road, who were very worried by this new Act and the appointment of an ombudsman would certainly go a long way to reassure those people. There will obviously be costs, but such is life. For my part, I will support this amendment.

[English]

The Chair: We will call a vote on amendment CA5.

(Amendment negatived—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

• 1205

(Clause 6 as amended agreed to)

The Chair: We've passed clauses 7, 8, and 9.

(On clause 10—Consultations with the provinces)

The Chair: Thank God for Sue here. NDP11, NDP12, and NDP13 are consequential because of what we did with NDP2, which means we now will go to amendment CA6. It's on page 35.

We've already dealt with this in terms of who does one consult with. Do you want to withdraw that or do you want to put it?

Mr. Inky Mark: I'll put it on the floor and we can vote on it.

The Chair: Let's put it on the floor—amendment CA6 with regard to consultation.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: We already dealt with this.

The Chair: Yes, but in another place.

(Amendment negatived—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 10 agreed to)

The Chair: Clause 11 is done.

(On clause 12—Economic immigration)

The Chair: We have amendments CA7, PC3, NDP14, and NDP15 on this clause.

First, PC3 is redundant now. It's consequential because of what we did with PC1, John. So PC3 is not required.

Mr. John Herron: Why?

The Chair: Because PC1 took care of that. That means now we can deal with amendments CA7 and NDP14, even though there's a conflict between two lines, the same lines, and I'll get to that in a moment.

Mr. John Herron: You're saying amendment PC5—

The Chair: No, amendment PC3 is redundant now because PC1 took care of it.

Mr. John Herron: No, that would be different. PC1—

The Chair: We dealt with gender.

Mr. John Herron: That's different. This is with respect to common-law partnerships, but it's completely different, right?

The Chair: Oh, yes, I'm sorry.

This is an entirely different one, Sue. It's an entirely different section, a different place, so you're right.

Let's deal with amendment CA7.

Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark: Amendment CA7, Mr.Chair, expanded the definition of “family” to include siblings and grandparents.

The Chair: Just one moment, John. I have to deal with what I have here.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Amendments CA7 and NDP14 are basically identical.

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: That's different from amendment PC3, so we should separate the two.

The Chair: John, do you want to talk about amendment PC3?

Mr. John Herron: Amendment PC3 is very simple. It's very different from what we discussed before. What happens is the intent of the minister in this bill is to include common-law partners, as a definition, to be same sex or opposite sex.

• 1210

A number of groups that came before the committee said, if that's the intent, we would feel more comfortable to spell that out, to include that common-law refers to same sex or opposite sex. It doesn't do anything the minister didn't want to do, but we had a number of groups of individuals who came to us and said to go and spell that specific thing out. I don't see how, but maybe it excludes someone, somehow, the opposite way, by spelling it out. We'll see in a second.

So that's the motion I so move.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, on a point of clarification or help, maybe I'm out of order, but what happened to the amendment dealing with subclause 12(1)? Here we're talking about subclause 12(2). Is there not an amendment on subclause 12(1) dealing with the economically established—

The Chair: By whom?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: It is the Bloc. It is not here, in the booklet.

[English]

The Chair: I was just going to bring that to your attention. Unfortunately, another good Bloc amendment—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Oh, it didn't make it.

The Chair: Well, it made it to the thing, but it didn't make it into the package. We're getting that changed. It deals with a different aspect.

Thank you, Steve.

There are two different issues. John, you want a clarification on that same-sex one, and I'll ask for a clarification from Joan. Inky and the NDP deal with a further expansion of the family class. Okay?

Mr. John Herron: Right. They're different issues.

The Chair: I wonder if I could deal with the expansion of the family class before I get to yours.

Mr. John Herron: No problem.

The Chair: I had a couple of comments from this side with regard to the family class expansion.

John McCallum, and then Steve.

Mr. John McCallum: I just want to make the comment that, from everything I've heard, if you open the gate completely to brothers and sisters, there would be a massive number of people, which would either swamp the economic class or result in American-style extremely long waiting lists. So I think there should be room somehow to open the door a little bit for siblings, but I would oppose putting it in the legislation as something that could swamp the system.

The Chair: Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I agree with my colleague, and I would just add that we've heard a lot of discussion this morning about the need to consult with provinces and territories. We're not doing that by just moving this amendment. There would be an enormous impact.

We have federal-provincial agreements in place and other discussions ongoing, and I think there are a lot of things that need to be looked at before we just simply amend this legislation to do something that most of us hope will eventually happen.

So I think those discussions need to take place, and as a result, with the process in place in this bill that will allow for regulations—and we go back to that debate earlier where we're going to come back to that at a later time—that's where this should be addressed, in the regulations.

The Chair: Okay.

Anita, and then Gurbax.

Ms. Anita Neville: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have considerable sympathy with these amendments, but I too share John McCallum's concern, particularly as it relates to tipping the balance.

My question is to Joan and her staff. You've heard that this is a major issue. What kinds of consultations would be undertaken, what would be the timeframe, and when would you come back with some proposed regulatory options or actual regulations?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: As Mr. Mahoney pointed out, consultations with the provinces and territories would be key under the terms of our agreements with the provinces. It is essential that we undertake thorough consultations with them before we make a regulatory change or a change of this nature. So that would be critical.

But we would also want to discuss with stakeholders, NGOs, and other partners as well, because obviously there is a great deal of interest in this issue. Witnesses spoke about that consistently across the country. We would also want to be able to take enough time so that those who had a view on this issue felt they were consulted.

• 1215

So we would want to be able to develop some proposals and put those proposals out to a fairly broad consultation in order to ensure that not just provinces and territories, but NGOs and stakeholders and others had a say.

The Chair: Yes, Anita.

Ms. Anita Neville: Could I follow that for a minute?

Who participates in this consultation process? Is it a departmental one? Are parliamentarians involved? What format does it take?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Our consultations have taken place in a number of different ways in the context of the bill and the regulations to date. We find that when we put a discussion document out there, that's the best way to launch a consultation, because everyone is speaking from a position of knowing what the government is proposing.

We have had meetings with a large group of NGOs, and we have had smaller meetings with smaller groups of specific NGOs and stakeholder groups. With provinces, we have had consultations both with all provinces in a federal-provincial forum, and we've had bilateral consultations, as we are required to do under the terms of our federal-provincial agreements. So these consultations can take many different forms, but essentially, we would want to get a piece of paper out there first so that people can see what the options are and what the proposals might be.

The Chair: Okay.

Gurbax.

Mr. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale, Lib.): John mentioned about brothers and sisters, that they will open it wide. I don't think so. Brothers and sisters won't be a burden. If somebody sponsors their brothers and sisters, it is my experience that they rent accommodations for them and jobs. I think we should have the brothers and sisters in the clause.

The Chair: Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark: The idea that adding those two words, “siblings” and “grandparents”, opens the floodgates to this country is ridiculous, because even with the definition right now, we're looking at two or three years' waiting time on applications. The system still controls the number of people we allow into this country. All this does is make this country look more inclusive and a little more compassionate when it comes to getting families back together. That's the position of this government.

The Chair: Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I support the amendment on the table, as well as all the others that seek to broaden the family class. I think the proposal is a very reasonable one, and, as Inky just said, it won't open the floodgates in terms of inordinate pressure on the system in Canada. In fact, the opposite is likely the case. When family members take responsibility for supporting other members of their extended family, they assume full obligations, and those immigrants tend to settle and integrate very quickly into Canadian society.

I think the point of this amendment is in fact to bring balance to a system that is otherwise out of balance. I think there is an emphasis on the economic class and on skills and occupations, as opposed to family reunification. I think the bill overall is heavy on protection and weak on family reunification. Given the fact that we're looking at an overhaul of a bill 25 years after the last major piece of legislation, we should be doing everything possible to address that issue.

The other point is that we heard over and over again about Canada being competitive internationally for immigrants. One way to do that is through some of the work we're doing on economic categories and occupations. But just as important is the question of family reunification. I think that's vital if we're going to be competitive globally, and it's one way to address some serious shortfalls in provinces like Manitoba and Saskatchewan where the family, especially around the Filipino community, is so important, and where there's so much potential in terms of bringing in family members who will contribute and integrate quickly into Canadian society.

The Chair: Are there any further comments on the expansion of the family class? The amendment before us is amendment CA7.

I thought the minister indicated, as Steve has said too, that there seems to be a willingness on the part of the government to look at the expansion to siblings.

My question is, Joan, because I think Gurbax also hit the nail on the head, without expanding the definition.... One needs to sponsor anyway, so it's not as if, if one had 11 brothers and sisters, a sponsorship would allow all those in. There's a check and balance system in it.

• 1220

I'm just wondering whether or not—because I know the minister says she needs to consult with her.... If you put it in the bill now, is that problematic because it's doing it in advance of the consultation?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: It's doing it in advance of the consultations, and it doesn't give us very much flexibility in terms of the various options that might be on the table for including brothers and sisters, whether in the family class or as a separate category altogether. It's very problematic in terms of putting this in the bill without any of that consultation the minister has spoken about and we've spoken about. It also reduces our flexibility in terms of putting forward a number of different options.

The Chair: Okay, I'll deal with CA7 and—I think, Judy, you said that NDP14 was practically the same thing. So do you want me to treat them...? I'll treat them separately.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Treat them separately.

The Chair: Okay, we're on CA7. I guess in principle we agree with you, Inky, but whether or not we can do it now, I'm not sure.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Whenever anybody says they agree with you in principle, it means they don't agree with you.

(Amendment negatived—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: We'll move on to NDP14. John, I'll get to yours in a moment because yours is just slightly different. We're on NDP14.

(Amendment negatived—[See Minutes of Proceedings]

Mr. John Herron: It's mine now, right?

The Chair: Okay, it's PC3. Yes.

A voice: What page number is it?

The Chair: It's page 37 in the package.

Mr. John Herron: It's PC3 on page 37—

A voice: It's number one in your hearts.

Mr. John Herron: —but number one in your hearts.

Essentially, again, this follows the exact intent of what the minister wants to do in the act. Same-sex advocacy groups came to the committee and said, we'd like extra clarification, so when “common law” is referred to, it means “same sex and opposite sex”. If you put that in the bill, it's what the bill says, so we may as well say it. I don't think it skews anything, and I so move the motion.

The Chair: Those representations were made to us. We know what the omnibus bill says, and we know what the bill is supposed to say. By putting this clarification in brackets, does it cause us any difficulties? Does it make it better for everyone to understand exactly what we're saying and talking about?

• 1225

Ms. Joan Atkinson: We think it's unnecessary because the phrase “common-law partner” is clearly used across all federal legislation.

As a result of modernizing benefits legislation, it's clearly understood to mean opposite-sex and same-sex couples. The proposed amendment does not add or subtract anything in particular to the bill. It is unnecessary and would make this piece of federal legislation inconsistent in terms of the exact wording that is used in all other federal legislation.

(Amendment negatived—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Okay, NDP15 deals with clause 12 also.

Mr. John Herron: What about this 30-minute thing?

The Chair: I think I'm going to stop at one o'clock, and we'll come back after question period at 3:30. Okay?

Mr. John Herron: I booked a lunch because I thought we'd have lunch at lunchtime.

The Chair: We were working through lunch. You knew that, John.

You have half an hour, then we'll take a break, and everybody can have an hour before question period.

We're on NDP15, clause 12.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: We're talking about clause 12 and adding a new subclause, 12(4). The purpose of this addition is to find a way to ensure that recognized refugee stateless persons who are dealt with through our system are given automatic status upon that recognition.

It deals with the limbo issue but does have a qualification: it makes an exception for cases involving security, crime, and war crimes. It's something we heard over and over again from representatives about the state of limbo that happens and the fact that these folks aren't able to get status for a long period of time. It deals with my earlier concern about defining stateless persons and refugees as foreign nationals. This is one way to ensure we get them moved up to permanent residents immediately upon recognition.

The Chair: Judy, you know....

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, can I help?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: We want to ask Judy to stand this down. We're working up some other wording under another section, wording we think she would accept and find satisfactory.

The Chair: Would this be the place to deal with that whole issue?

I didn't think clause 12 was going to be the place, and that's why I wanted to ask a technical question about this limbo issue, namely whether this or another clause is the right place. Now I understand it's probably another clause.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: We're not quite ready with the wording.

The Chair: Can we stand this down then to another clause?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes.

The Chair: I won't stand down clause 12. Once we finish with clause 12, which clause will we refer this NDP15 to?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: That's something else. It would be clause 21.

The Chair: It'll be clause 21. Okay.

There are no further amendments to clause 12. Did we amend it at all?

Voices: No.

The Chair: Okay.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: We defeated them all.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: We will be coming back to our amendment to clause 12, which is not in the package, will we not?

[English]

The Chair: Oh, there's yours.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: Yes, that's true.

Let's stand clause 12 down just for a moment until we get to deal with that BQ amendment that was lost or forgotten in the package. Okay?

(Clause 12 allowed to stand)

(On clause 13—Right to sponsor family member)

The Chair: Let's deal with BQ5, which we do have and which is on clause 13.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: The purpose of this amendment is to allow for joint sponsorship. Here is our amendment:

a Canadian citizen or permanent resident may, alone, or with a member of his or her family who is also a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident, may, subject to

The purpose here is to encourage joint sponsorship, a sharing of responsibilities.

The Chair: Raymonde.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I would like to ask Madeleine if, when two persons would be responsible, the financial responsibility would it too be shared? Is that what you intend here?

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: The purpose of the amendment is to foster a sharing of responsibilities, be they financial or emotional. A person may not feel capable of sponsoring someone else, but with a little help from a brother-in-law, a brother, a spouse or someone else, it may be possible, in the interest of family reunification.

• 1230

[English]

The Chair: Okay, just for members, CA8 talks roughly about the same issue. It expands on it a bit.

I should point out that during the representations we heard across the country as well as during talks with the minister I indicated that joint sponsorship is something worthy of consideration. I'll leave that with you.

Mark.

Mr. Mark Assad: On that point, Ms. Atkinson, tell me, has this been attempted in the past and what has been the result?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Yes. In fact, Mr. Chairman, we had joint sponsorship as a possibility prior to 1977. The research we undertook on sponsorship defaults unfortunately showed that joint sponsors were more likely to default than any other sponsors. The default rate for joint sponsors was in the neighbourhood of 30% as opposed to 17%, which was the default rate for single sponsors. Part of that is due to the difficulty of having shared responsibility in that it is difficult to know who takes ultimate responsibility for supporting family members. Our experience with joint sponsorship has not been good, certainly not as good as our experience with single sponsors. The provinces and territories, as you know, have expressed a lot of concern about sponsorship default and the cost of sponsorship default. This is an area where we deliberately took that action in 1977 to eliminate joint sponsorship.

The Chair: Yes, Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Would it be possible, Joan, to put something in the regs that might allow not so much for joint sponsorship but for a guarantor to such an agreement? Is there some opportunity to do that?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: We have in fact explored those sorts of possibilities, having a third party act as a guarantor. The difficulty we've had in trying to explore that option is that we haven't been able to find any third parties so far who would be willing to act as guarantors. We've been talking to financial institutions and the like, and thus far we have not been successful in terms of interesting any of those institutions in acting as sponsorship guarantors.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Good.

What about things like church groups such as the Mennonites, people like that who are involved in resettlement programs right across the country?

The other part of the question is, is there some way in the regs to put in a provision for a guarantor from within the family as opposed to a full co-sponsor? You see, I can understand a problem where a family member might feel pressured and might not easily be able to turn down a request by a sibling, a parent, or whoever to sign a co-sponsorship agreement. They'd wind up with a feud in the family.

I come from a family of ten kids. I can tell you all about family feuds, so I can understand the reluctance there. I'm wondering if, rather than putting anything in the bill, there's some way of putting it in the regs. They might have to go through some kind of a qualification or regulatory process to ensure it's a valid guarantee as opposed to just something they're being pressured into.

The Chair: The problem is you'd have to make it permissive and then have the regulations follow what you're doing. You've got to make it permissive because right now it's not permissive in legislation, in what's before us right now. The amendments would make it permissive, but the present legislation that is before us doesn't make it permissive with regard to joint sponsorship of any kind. How the mechanics work—where Steve can get to—is obviously a little different, but the amendments would make it permissive, and that's the debate we're having.

I'll go to Inky.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I appreciate your observations on that, but I'm trying to find out if there's a difference between a co-sponsor and a guarantor in terms of regulatory wording.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: First of all, let me clarify the fact that the regulation-making authority in subclause 14(2) is permissive. The regulation authority allows the Governor in Council to make any regulations relating to and provisions respecting sponsorships, undertakings, and penalties for failure to comply with undertakings. So we have fairly broad regulation-making powers there in terms of the mechanics and sponsorships.

• 1235

The Chair: So if one didn't want to get so specific in the legislation, it could be done, as you're saying, through the regulatory framework.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Yes. Provisions for guarantors can by done by regulation.

The Chair: Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark: There's no doubt that the regulation will set the conditions for joint sponsorship. The purpose of my amendment is to open it up so that any two responsible Canadians can sponsor someone, which really sets a whole new direction for immigration in the future.

The Chair: Go ahead, Raymonde.

I want to get to Madeleine, because BQ5 and CA8 are the same except that CA8 expands it even further.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: My question is for you, madam, and it relates to group sponsorship and the responsibility of provincial governments.

I know that in Quebec, for example, some ten years ago, the government of Quebec had accepted that certain groups—the two I am aware of are the Ismailians in Pakistan and the Jews in the former Soviet Union—be sponsored, as groups, by Canadian Quebec groups.

How do provincial group sponsorship and what we are attempting here to write into federal legislation fit together?

[English]

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I think the sponsorships you're speaking of are in relation to refugees, the humanitarian-designated class, and other protected persons, which of course we have on the federal side as well. A community organization can sign a sponsorship agreement with the federal government, or they can sign a sponsorship agreement under the terms of any agreed upon provincial program where that authority to sponsor refugees or the humanitarian-designated class of people is delegated under federal-provincial agreements. So, yes, there is provision for groups of Canadians or corporations to sponsor, but it is with relation to refugees and the humanitarian-designated class.

The Chair: Not the immigrants.

We'll now vote on amendment BQ5.

(Amendment negatived—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: I wish it was closer.

Now we'll vote on amendment CA8.

(Amendment negatived—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: That was on clause 13.

Mr. John Herron: I think we'll resort to a filibuster.

The Chair: Next is amendment CA8a.

Mr. Inky Mark: It's on the same topic, Mr. Chairman, but it has been expanded even further. I would categorize this as a once-in-a-lifetime sponsorship. Again, it's—

The Chair: You can't get the brothers and sisters, so now you're going after the aunts, uncles, and first cousins. Let's go back to the brothers and sisters.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Inky Mark: Anyway, this is a once-in-a-lifetime sponsorship, which we've heard discussed before, and I thought I would put it in the bill. Again, people have to be accountable for those they sponsor.

The Chair: Joan.

• 1240

Ms. Joan Atkinson: As you know, we have explored the possibility of a once-in-a-lifetime sponsorship. We explored it in the context of perhaps doing something with provincial nominee programs. That might cause us some difficulty because it would probably be contrary to the charter, or at least it would be very difficult for us legally to have such a program running in only a small number of provinces where we have a provincial nominee program and not make that category or that right available to all across Canada. Again, it goes back to this issue of expanding the family class and the necessity of us consulting with our provincial and territorial partners before we make any proposals to change the family class configuration or to include additional family members in a sponsorship provision.

The Chair: John.

Mr. John Herron: I would say that she just summarized Mr. Mark's argument for it, because here's an opportunity for the federal government to control the particular issue. It was worth exploring that Christopher Columbus found the new world here, so I think we should actually go ahead with it.

An hon. member: Or Ponce de Léon.

The Chair: We'll now vote on amendment CA8a.

An hon. member: I'd like a recorded vote.

The Chair: I hope my aunt is not paying attention, or my first cousin.

An hon. member: Is she here?

The Chair: No, but she might want to come here. Thanks to Inky she might be able to come here, but not thanks to the Liberals.

Mr. John Herron: I'm serving notice that I'm writing a letter—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

(Amendment negatived—[See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: I'll now go to amendment BQ4b with regard to clause 12. Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: The purpose is to remove, in subsection 12(1) the words “as a member of the economic class”. The clause would therefore read as follows:

12. (1) on the basis of their ability to become established in Canada.

When we say “to become established”, this encompasses not only their economic establishment in order to earn a living, but also their social establishment, which plays a very important part in their success in their new country.

[English]

The Chair: We had a discussion the other day about the significance of the word “economically” and so on. I wonder, Steve, if you have any comments.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I recall the discussion. In fact, an interesting suggestion was put forward by Judy, I think it was, which was to swap the family class with the economic class in terms of precedence. It's somewhat symbolic, but it's not a bad symbol, and I kind of like that.

The problem I have with this is that I don't think we should be replacing that.

By the way, this wording was supported strongly by the Government of Quebec as a result of some discussions that were held with them. I'm sure my friend opposite would appreciate the fact that those discussions took place. So they're satisfied with that term.

• 1245

I don't like the word “class”, but what “class” really means in this instance is a group of people, if you will, as opposed to upper class, lower class. I don't think we can support it.

I think it's important, though, that we not get too hung up on this concept of “best and brightest”. At some point, I hope we can address, whether it's in regulations or elsewhere, the issue that “best and brightest” would include tradespeople, apprentices, and people like that. We're not just looking for PhDs.

The Chair: Of course.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Not of course, there's a lot of people who don't think that's where some are going.

The Chair: [Inaudible—Editor]

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I don't want to debate with you, sir. A lot of people think this bill doesn't indicate that strongly enough. That's my point.

The Chair: We'll have an opportunity of doing that, and I look forward to your amendment to do that.

We're now on BQ4b. Do you want to speak on it, Judy?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I'm not sure.

The Chair: We're talking about getting rid of the word “economically”, that's all.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Right. I hear Steve's argument, but I'm not sure there's a problem with the proposed amendment. It's not to delete “economic class”, but just to delete the word “economically established”, so that we use a holistic term in the case of integration into Canadian life.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: That's why I tried to make the point before I was brutally cut off by the chair.

The Chair: All right. Is there any further discussion on this? Why do I seem to always favour that side of the argument today?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: You've been doing it through the whole process. Why would you change now?

The Chair: It's lucky I don't have to vote. Go ahead. We're on BQ4b.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I hear there are some vacancies in the CA caucus.

The Chair: Yes, but when they start to sound more Liberal than we do, I get a little concerned.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: They only do it because they know we're going to vote.

The Chair: BQ4b.

(Amendment negatived—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Could I propose a friendly amendment in terms of Steve's suggestion, which is that under clause 12 we reverse subclauses (2) and (1), so that (1) shall become (2) and (2) shall become (1)?

The Chair: Does anybody have a problem with that one? No? Let's do it.

Mr. John Herron: Of course not; it's the government's suggestion, not mine.

The Chair: So for subclauses 12(1) and 12(2) we're just going to reverse them, right? You want to put “family” before “economic”, and that's fine by me. One for the good guys. All right.

(Clause 12 as amended agreed to)

The Chair: Clause 13 is done.

(On clause 14—Regulations)

The Chair: We have BQ6 and NDP16.

You know what? There are a lot of amendments on this clause 14 and about 11 minutes to go before we're taking a break.

Mr. John Herron: Did we skip 15?

The Chair: No. We're not on 15; we're on clause 14. We're on BQ6, at page 43 in the book.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Chairman, since the result of the vote was very clear, my feeling is that this amendment will know the same fate. Since everyone is very preoccupied...

[English]

The Chair: Are you going to withdraw that one then, Madeleine?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Yes, absolutely. I am all for concordance when it works, as much as I am all for concordance when it does not work, even when it really upsets me.

[English]

The Chair: NDP16.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes, it's to amend 14(2)(c) to eliminate any notion of arbitrary quotas on refugees.

The Chair: I had a question mark on that one. Joan, can you explain whether or not that is meant to be a quota?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: There is a requirement for us to be able to have the ability to be able to set a maximum kind of a target, if you will, on the number of refugees and protected persons because the number of resources we have available to settle refugees who we select from overseas is not unlimited. We need to have the necessary flexibility.

• 1250

I would also point out that in the changes we are making in the regulations on humanitarian and designated class we are looking at—and we've been consulting with the NGOs and stakeholders on this specific issue—ways in which we can remove some of the restrictions that apply currently in our humanitarian and designated class by removing, for example, country lists, which is what we have in the current regulations.

In order for us to look at removing those sorts of restrictions that currently exist on the humanitarian and designated class, it's essential that we retain in the act the ability to be able to put some kind of a ceiling in the event that we need to do so because our resources available for settlement and integration of refugees cannot accommodate the numbers that would want to come in a given year. So it gives us the flexibility we need in order to be able to deal with those situations.

The Chair: Are there any further comments?

Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I'd ask committee members to look at this one seriously, because in fact what the department is suggesting is that when you're dealing with international situations and refugee numbers, administrative concerns and cost concerns have a role to play.

Granted, when Canada is working internationally in terms of dealing with refugees and unprotected persons and victims of torture, there are negotiations that happen country to country, and every effort is made to ensure protection for all individuals in need of refuge. But surely we shouldn't spell out in legislation any sense of a quota on humanitarian concerns. I don't think there is any place for a price tag on any aspect of human suffering globally. I think it's—

Mr. John Herron: Draconian.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: —draconian. My colleague from the Conservatives says it's draconian. I think it is. It's not needed, so let's make it clear that we are open when it comes to refugees and unprotected persons.

The Chair: Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, part of the problem I think we have faced in the area of refugees and immigration has been misinformation that's been out there. I won't even bother sharing the latest I've seen. The concern here is that the government has to ensure we have the capacity, whether it's through NGOs or government services, to be able to provide the types of services and facilities we need.

When you do hear things, it makes your blood boil. For instance, in today's National Post, and I will read it, Diane Francis says:

“Refugees” are not people who have been displaced and are brought in for humanitarian reasons into Canada. Only a few are in that category. Most are smuggled in or are queue-jumpers who lie their way into the country by pretending they cannot go home and get all the entitlements they need immediately.

This is the kind of garbage that is being propagated by people like Diane Francis and others. It makes your blood boil. But I think what we have to be careful of in a practical and pragmatic sense, and I do take your amendment seriously, is that we're not seen to be, and in fact are not in reality, just saying the sky's the limit, because the sky is not the limit. We will propagate that kind of reaction from people if we don't put in place at least the ability to have some control over the numbers.

I don't think it's the intent, certainly not of this government, that we're going to arbitrarily turn people away who are in need of protection. That's certainly not our history. It does not coincide with our legal responsibilities under Geneva or any other treaties we've been a party to. I don't see this as a quota, but I do see it as giving the government the ability to control the situation if the need arises down the road.

Sorry for the speech.

The Chair: Are you ready for the question? You'll get your chance in the regulations, by the way, Judy.

(Amendment negatived—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: We're now at amendment NDP17 on clause 14.

Judy, will you take us through this one?

• 1255

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: On social assistance, yes, I'd love to.

I'm hoping there will be support for this amendment. It deals with paragraph 14(e) and the concern raised about limitations on sponsorship if you're on social assistance.

Obviously, we're talking about an economic barrier, a process that ensures selective immigration into this country. I think this bill has to ensure it's not a concept endorsed or supported in any shape or form. It's to make absolutely clear that because you're on social assistance, it doesn't mean you're not qualified to be a sponsor.

The Chair: Judy....

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Am I on the right one?

The Chair: That's what I'm going to ask. No, you're on the right one. I want to ask a question of Joan.

You're absolutely right. We heard that from an awful lot of people across the country. Is this the place where one would want to deal with the particular issue of not being able to sponsor a family member if you're on social assistance? This is a regulatory part and she was referring to paragraph 14(e).

Ms. Joan Atkinson: That's correct.

The Chair: Is this the place? Is there some other place in the legislation that might better address the issue? As I read “sponsorship, undertakings, and penalties”—is this the place you would have to change?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: This would be the place that we would have to change, yes. It's the regulation-making authority for sponsorship.

The Chair: Where's the legislative part that refers to it? I thought that was another clause.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: The legislative part is the right to sponsor, which is in subclause 13(1). The regulations in subclause 14(2) prescribe and govern any matter relating to, and provisions respecting, sponsorship undertakings.

The Chair: Precisely. That's why I wanted to ask whether or not it was necessitated at clause 13 or 14. It is a regulatory right. You say if it needs to be addressed, it has to be at clause 14.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: It could be either.

Mr. Daniel Therrien: If it could be either clause 13 or 14, it's appropriate in clause 14.

The Chair: Okay. It's appropriate in clause 14.

Go ahead, Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I already made the case. I could do it again.

The Chair: No, it's okay.

Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, I don't know how we can open this thing up to a situation where people who are having difficulty, for whatever reason, are availing themselves of the social service system in this country. I think this is another area where a lot of misinformation is put out there. Obviously, you would hope in the vast majority of cases, whether it's single moms, the working poor, or whatever, they are trying to get on their feet to establish themselves.

I would have to think living up to the terms required in a sponsorship agreement would be a pretty onerous thing to put on someone currently on social assistance and trying to get his/her life turned around. It may sound a little harsh, but it's reality. I think we have to deal with reality. It's another example of one of the areas that cause people to go a little nuts against this system.

The Chair: Okay, let's have one final comment, Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I want to try to address Steve's concerns. He will probably know more than anyone in this room that there are circumstances beyond the control of some individuals in our society. There shouldn't necessarily be a penalty for bringing a family member to join you to help you deal with those circumstances.

The possibility of being restricted from sponsoring because you're on social assistance will have a particularly onerous impact on women. It's one of those issues I hope would be deleted if we ever did a thorough gender-based analysis of the bill. Many times women, who are suddenly deserted and left without support, have to go on social assistance. They would benefit enormously from having a parent or another relative join the family unit to help support them through those difficult times.

At least from the point of view of the impact on women, for goodness' sake, try to see your way clear to support this amendment.

The Chair: John Herron.

Mr. John Herron: I'll be honest. This is a tough one.

I have a question. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to the particular piece of legislation we have right now, right?

• 1300

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Yes.

Mr. John Herron: So if social conditions were added to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for issues with respect to discrimination—it's something Minister McLellan has flagged as something she's amenable to adding—would that make this particular aspect of the bill unconstitutional?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I'm not going to answer that one directly, because it's a hypothetical situation, what might be added to the charter. But let me say there is flexibility in Bill C-11 to deal with exactly the sorts of situations that have been raised here, where the family member in Canada would be helped by bringing a family member from abroad, where the situation of the sponsor in Canada would be improved by the family member from abroad coming forward to Canada. That situation can be resolved through the humanitarian and compassionate discretionary decision-making provisions in this legislation.

Mr. John Herron: On that issue, is there anybody here from Justice or legal who would be able to answer that question?

The Chair: Yes, Daniel.

Mr. John Herron: It's not that hypothetical. The minister is before the public on that.

The Chair: We're not going to get into the Charter of Rights and Freedoms at this committee. This is an entirely different issue.

Mr. John Herron: No, it relates to the bill.

The Chair: No, it doesn't. We're talking about social assistance and whether or not somebody on social assistance should be allowed to sponsor someone else. It has nothing to do with this bigger question of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

John, let's stay focused here—okay?

Mr. John Herron: Social conditions.

The Chair: Again it was hypothetical.

Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, to follow up on the point Joan makes, under clause 25 of the bill the minister does have the flexibility, under H and C, to allow for someone to come in. There could very well be a situation where that person coming in would be able to add to the solutions the sponsor is attempting to find in his or her life. So there is that flexibility there. But simply broad-brushing it and saying that anybody under any.... You may as well wipe out sponsorship agreements. I don't think this is the appropriate amendment. I think it is covered under clause 25, where the minister has the ability to deal with those humanitarian and compassionate issues.

The Chair: I think there's been enough.

NDP17, those in favour. I'm sorry, we've had enough on this, Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Somebody's got to make the point that—

The Chair: The point has been made that there is flexibility.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: —the purpose of the bill is to ensure all the time, and not leave it to individual discretion or ministerial discretion, in the event that person may not be sympathetic or understanding of the difficulties facing people on social assistance, in particular women. The point of the bill is that it's supposed to entrench a concept and a philosophy and a policy, not to leave all these difficult issues to future governments and future ministers who may not be at all interested in protecting human rights.

The Chair: Agreed. You've got the question. NDP17.

(Amendment negatived—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: All right. NDP18 is on fees, still on clause 14.

Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Inky might have some help on this one. I've been searching high and low in this bill to find a way to address the difficult issue of right of landing fee and administrative processing fees. As members know, many in the House, particularly on the opposition side, have heard from constituents and others who indicate that the fee structure, the introduction of the right of landing fee, otherwise known as the head tax, imposed a particular difficulty on people from poor countries. We need to find a way through this bill to address that concern.

Not knowing where else to address it, I assume the best place would be under regulations. This amendment, you'll notice, doesn't call immediately for the elimination of the right of landing fee. It talks about eliminating it first. We know the minister has already removed it from refugees. This talks about removing it from dependants of refugees and members of the class of persons who have been granted entry to Canada on humanitarian grounds. It also talks about applying the same selective elimination of fees when it comes to the processing fees, and that's under proposed paragraph 14(3(b).

• 1305

The Chair: First, can I ask the question you asked, whether this is the place one talks about this? I know there was another section in the bill that talked about fees and so on and so forth. Let's be technically on the right page, in a sense.

Then I needed to ask a question of Joan. We have forgiven landing fees for refugees. If we change the bill and we're talking about dependants of refugees, surely we're not going to charge them landing fees?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: First, fees are dealt with in clause 89 of the bill, so it's probably not appropriate to raise any amendment concerning fees in this part of the bill. It probably would make more sense in clause 89.

The Chair: When we got to clause 89 and we were talking about fees, I made a point of saying “Fees?” Nobody answered and we passed that clause.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Is that what you meant when you said that?

The Chair: Yes. Anyway, that's clause 89. We may have to come back to it, because I'm going to rule it's out of order in this particular area. If you want to do it, I'll let you do it on clause 89, but not here.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Okay, fair enough, as long as you agree that we can reopen it on clause 89?

The Chair: Okay. Joan, give us your thoughts with regard to the principle.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: When the government eliminated the right of landing fee for convention refugees and members of the humanitarian class, they also eliminated it for dependants of the members of those classes who are eligible for what we call concurrent processing, that is, when they're being processed at the same time.

As you may remember, one of the new provisions we're talking about for faster family reunification of refugees is to, in essence, allow the concurrent processing for refugees who are resettled from overseas and come to Canada without their dependants, to have that one-year window of opportunity to allow those dependants to be processed and come to Canada. Those dependants will, by nature of that, also be exempt from the right of landing fee.

The Chair: I don't know whether or not you've got—

An hon. member: It's done.

The Chair: It's done, that's what I'm just saying. Anyway, this is out of order. You might want to wait for it in clause 89 or bring it up again, but I think Joan's explanation is that it's already done.

I don't see any more amendments on clause 14.

(Clause 14 as amended agreed to)

The Chair: See you back here at 3:30 p.m. Thank you very much. We're adjourned.