Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology

Issue 36 - Evidence

The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, to which was referred Bill C-11, respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger, met this day at 9:05 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.

Senator Michael Kirby (Chairman) in the Chair.

[English]

The Chairman: Honourable senators, our purpose today is twofold. It is, first, to study Bill C-11 clause by clause. Second, if there are no amendments, we will proceed to discuss the observations that have been circulated to all members.

Senator Di Nino: Mr. Chairman, I suspect it comes as no surprise to you or other members of the committee that our side is not very impressed with this bill. We think there are a lot of weaknesses in it, particularly having regard to the pre-study of Bill C-36. The committee that is doing that pre-study is being told that the provisions of Bill C-11 will likely change if certain things happen with Bill C-36. We have made comments on that basis throughout these hearings. We would like to have this bill put on the back burner for awhile, but we do not think that will happen. If your side were prepared to do that, we would be delighted.

Having said that, we can count and we know what your side wants. We would be prepared to do clause-by-clause "en bloc" on division rather than going through each clause, with the understanding that we are concerned about the speed with which this bill is being pushed through and that the government will likely introduce some amendments after Bill C-36 is passed, assuming that it runs its normal course.

We think the prudent and appropriate thing to do is to postpone further consideration of this bill. However, we understand the reality. You should know that we will be introducing amendments on third reading.

Senator Andreychuk: I feel very strongly about this immigration bill and also believe that it requires amendments if it is to serve the purposes of the Canadian public as well as the purposes of immigrants and refugees.

I am a member of the committee studying the anti-terrorism bill. Yesterday, the minister told us that it is not adequate to simply say "terrorism," that there is a very carefully worded definition of terrorism in Bill-36. There are also amendments to Bill C-11 contemplated right in the bill.

I understand why the House of Commons passed Bill C-11. No one could have predicted the events of September 11. Although amendments were moved there, the majority prevailed and the bill was not amended.

The government has told us in this room that Bill C-11 is adequate. However, the same government, speaking to Bill C-36, is telling us that it is not adequate.

Minister Caplan was to appear at 8:30 this morning before the committee studying the anti-terrorism bill, but for some reason she was not able to be there. I know that Senator Fairbairn is eager to get her in front of that committee.

The Senate falls into disrepute when it passes bills that are not as good as they could be for public policy. If you pass this bill, you will say that it is a great bill that can stand alone and does not need amendment. Then you will be asked to amend Bill C-36, which will in turn amend Bill C-11. That will cause the Senate to fall into disrepute.

I urge members of the committee to reflect on the haste with which we are doing this. The pre-study on Bill C-36 is moving very expeditiously. In a matter of weeks, there should be an outcome on that bill. Would it not be better for the Senate if the two bills were consistent?

Although opposition members on this committee can move amendments and state their dissatisfaction, I am more worried about how the entire Senate is viewed by the public.

The Chairman: That issue would have to be addressed at third reading.

Senator Andreychuk: I hope it will be in our report, if nothing else.

The Chairman: Senator Andreychuk's point will clearly need to be addressed by the government side at third reading stage.

I understood Senator Di Nino to move that we not do a detailed clause-by-clause study but move directly to a vote on whether the bill should be adopted, without amendment, on division.

Is there a motion that the bill be adopted without amendment?

Senator Cordy: I so move.

The Chairman: The motion is that the bill be adopted without amendment.

Will all those in favour so signify by saying "yea"?

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

The Chairman: Will all those opposed so signify by saying "nay"?

Senator Di Nino: On division.

The Chairman: The bill is adopted, on division, and will be reported back to the Senate without amendment.

That leads us to the question of observations. A set of observations was circulated last week. They were edited by a number of members of the committee. It is my understanding that Senator Cordy has one or two minor suggestions to raise with regard to them and I believe that Senator Roche wishes to comment as well. Other than that, it is my understanding that the observations circulated yesterday are acceptable.

Senator Roche: I would prefer to deal with the observations in camera.

The Chairman: I have never done that. I do not mind an open discussion on observations. Does anyone else have a view on whether we need to deal with the observations in camera?

Senator Di Nino: Chairman, I do not like in camera meetings. I think we should conduct the affairs of the state as openly as possible at all times. Obviously Senator Roche, an experienced parliamentarian, has reasons for requesting that we continue in camera.

The Chairman: I am happy to have an in camera meeting for a few minutes. We will move in camera to deal with the observations.

The committee continued in camera.