Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology
Issue 20 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 20, 2012
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, to which was referred Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, the Marine Transportation Security Act and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act, met this day at 4:15 p.m. to give clause-by-clause consideration to the bill.
Senator Kelvin Kenneth Ogilvie (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I hereby call the meeting to order. I want to remind us that the one item on the agenda today is clause-by-clause examination of Bill C-31. At this point, I will put the issue before you, and then you tell me how you wish to proceed.
Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, the Marine Transportation Security Act and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. With leave of the committee, I would like to suggest that we consider lumping clauses by group. I went through the document, and there is no obvious way of breaking it up.
Senator Jaffer: Chair, I suggest that we not go through each clause and, if the committee agrees, we do 10 clauses at a time.
The Chair: Is that agreeable to the committee?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: That is agreed. Thank you very much, Senator Jaffer. If you are ready, I shall begin. Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Shall the short title in clause 1 stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Shall clauses 2 through 10 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division. Shall clauses 11 through 20 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division. Shall clauses 21 through 30 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division. Shall clauses 31 through 40 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division. Shall clauses 41 through 50 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division. Shall clauses 51 through 60 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division. Shall clauses 61 through 70 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division. Shall clauses 71 through 80 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division. Shall clauses 81 through 85 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division. Shall clause 1 carry? That is the one we defer, the short title.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall the bill carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division. Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report?
Senator Jaffer: Mr. Chair, I may have erred and it may be too late. Is it possible to do a recorded vote for the whole bill?
The Chair: With the agreement of the committee, it would be possible to do a recorded vote. I think that is a very reasonable request. Essentially, you are asking me to revert to the question, "Shall the bill carry"?
Senator Jaffer: Yes. I apologize.
The Chair: Is it agreed, honourable senators, that we revert to "Shall the bill carry"?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Jaffer: I am in a fog just now. Once we do the recorded vote, can we then look at the observations, or should we look at observations now?
The Chair: Once we deal with the vote on the bill, I will then once again ask the question.
It has been asked for a recorded vote on this. Please call the committee. The chair will stay as the chair on this.
Jessica Richardson, Clerk of the Committee: The Honourable Senator Cordy.
Senator Cordy: No.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Housakos.
Senator Housakos: Yes.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Jaffer.
Senator Jaffer: Yes.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Martin.
Senator Martin: Yes.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Mercer.
Senator Mercer: No.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Merchant.
Senator Merchant: No.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Seidman.
Senator Seidman: Yes.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Seth.
Senator Seth: Yes.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Verner.
Senator Verner: Yes.
Ms. Richardson: The Honourable Senator Wallace.
Senator Wallace: Yes.
Ms. Richardson: Six yeas, four nays.
The Chair: The motion to carry the bill is carried by a vote of 6 for and 4 against.
Now I will go to asking the committee, does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report?
Senator Jaffer: Would the committee kindly agree to look at observations dealing with section 109.1 of the act, what I call the designation of countries of origin, the safe country option? I wanted to see whether the committee would consider — I may not have the wording; you may have to help — having the observation that when the bill is passed we recommend the minister emphasize that gender guidelines be in place and, as we heard from Ms. Morrissey yesterday, that we develop guidelines for the LGBT question.
The Chair: I want to ask you as a committee to consider this matter. We have the option of going in camera.
Does the committee wish to go in camera to discuss observations? It is a question I need to put to the committee.
Senator Cordy: No.
The Chair: All I have heard is "no," so I am going to take that as the decision of the committee.
Senator Jaffer, if you could take us back and start with your first suggested observation and take us to the appropriate section in the bill.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you, chair. I am looking at page 27, proposed section 109.1 of the bill, which talks about designation of countries of origin.
There has been so much testimony before us in the last few days. Just to refresh all committee members' memories, if you will remember, we had a number of people who were concerned that when the minister decided there were some countries of origin designated as safe countries, there may be a case that needed special attention wherein perhaps a person was being persecuted in their own country and was seeking protection in ours. For reasons of gender or for reasons of being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, those considerations may not be considered.
In light of the number of witnesses we heard from, I put it to committee members that we may want to make an observation that — we already have gender guidelines. If you will remember, the officials said they currently apply. I think Ms. Irish said they apply. However, just to emphasize, to make sure those guidelines apply, and that we encourage the minister to develop the same kind of guidelines for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender. That is the only observation I would like to make.
The Chair: Let us see if we can get wording.
Senator Cordy: I was jotting some things down. What I recall hearing is that while a country may be a safe country for the majority, it may not be a safe country for minorities within that country. We heard testimony concerning the Roma in Hungary and the LGBT — I think it is sufficient to put the initials — in many safe countries. Following that would be a note to the minister to keep these concerns in mind when determining whether or not —
The Chair: Can I take them separately?
Senator Cordy: This was just a jotting down.
The Chair: Right. I think it is a separate observation than that proposed by Senator Jaffer. She was dealing with purely the gender issue, and we can make more than one observation. The chair will entertain more than one observation.
Senator Jaffer, please help me here going forward. Ultimately, I want to put something specific to the committee.
Did I understand you to say that within clause 58, proposed section 109.1, the minister consider the application of gender guidelines to the designation of safe countries? Is that the essence?
Senator Jaffer: Perfect.
The Chair: If I understood you correctly, I am going to put it to the committee for its consideration to append an observation to the bill, that we have just carried the following observation:
That under paragraph 58, referring to section 109.1, with respect to the designation of countries of origin, we append an observation to wit: "That the minister consider the application of gender guidelines to the designation of safe countries."
Senator Jaffer: Sorry, I wanted "emphasize the application." I do not want to put him in a difficult position because he is not the deciding authority. I apologize. I did not do that properly. I would like "emphasize the application" because it is the Immigration and Refugee Board members that apply.
The Chair: That the minister "emphasize."
Senator Jaffer: The application. Sorry.
The Chair: I will read that again.
"That the minister emphasize the application of gender guidelines to the designation of safe countries."
Senator Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to clarify that in clause 58, under 109.1(b), these are the qualitative criteria enshrined within the legislation. When it articulates civil society organizations as being one of the criteria and organizations that represent various vulnerable peoples and whatnot, this would cover that important consideration you mentioned, but you want to add an additional criterion here?
The Chair: No, nothing will be added to the bill.
Senator Martin: You are just making the observation that that consideration be done?
The Chair: Yes. I am glad you raised the question. So that we understand what Senator Jaffer is suggesting, she is not suggesting any amendment or change to the bill. We have already carried the bill. The bill is carried.
We are now into the idea of when the report goes to the Senate, do we append an observation or more. The senator has proposed a specific observation that would bring out a specific aspect of the item under (b)(ii), the basic democratic rights and freedoms and so on, simply the observation that would request that the minister emphasize the application of gender guidelines to the designation of safe countries.
Senator Martin: Thank you very much for that clarity, Mr. Chair.
Senator Jaffer: These guidelines already exist. If you remember, Ms. Irish said that they do apply, but I erred in not emphasizing it to the minister. I just wanted to add that out of precaution as a result of what we heard from the witnesses. I have no doubt the minister is supportive of this, just to emphasize that we had the same concern.
Senator Martin: Thank you for that clarity, senator. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Jaffer: I think the steering committee understands, and we would be just as happy with whatever the steering committee comes up with. I erred and I feel bad. I should have brought something in writing. I messed up and I apologize.
The Chair: No need to apologize, senator. Let us see if we can work this through. I do not think this is a complicated suggestion we have here for language. The wording now under consideration is the following:
"The minister emphasize the application of gender guidelines to refugee claims from designated countries" because it is the minister in the end who makes the decision, not some third party.
Is that understood?
Now, there are a number of officials from various branches of our public service dealing with these issues, including Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Is there any request for clarification?
Senator Jaffer: I would actually really appreciate their help. I may have gotten this wrong, and they may have better wording. I see Ms. Irish in the gallery.
The Chair: I wonder if Jennifer Irish, Director, Asylum Policy Program Development, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, would join the committee.
Senator Cordy: This is just for clarification of wording, not yes or no.
The Chair: As well as any information with regard to appropriate wording. Obviously you know what we are asking, Ms. Irish. You are not debating the issue; you are giving us advice with regard to this. I wonder if you might have any advice for us on that.
Jennifer Irish, Director, Asylum Policy Program Development, Citizenship and Immigration Canada: Certainly. When the question was posed to me during the committee proceedings, it was about gender guidelines when claims were being determined. I did clarify that yes, gender guidelines currently in effect would continue to apply in hearings, including on designations.
One thing I am not clear about with respect to your wording is that those gender guidelines are issued under the authority of the chairperson of the IRB. One question I am not clear about is whether you can have the minister direct the IRB to apply certain guidelines. That is a technical point.
Senator Jaffer: You are absolutely right. Thank you. Ms. Irish is absolutely right.
Could you suggest some wording that we can encourage the Immigration and Refugee Board to use?
Ms. Irish: Given I cannot negotiate, but I suggest perhaps you put it in a third voice, saying that "the committee believes it important that the gender guidelines continue to apply" without attribution as to how that is passed to the board, for example.
The Chair: "The committee considers it important that the application of the gender guidelines to refugee claims from designated countries be continued." They are already in place.
Ms. Irish: Yes, the one issue with "continue to apply" is that designated countries do not exist yet until the coming into force of the bill.
The Chair: Senator Wallace, can you help us here?
Senator Wallace: Probably not, but I felt I had to say something, so here I am. You know what that is like.
With the present application of these gender guidelines by the chairperson of the IRB, are they required? As the rules exist today, are they required to consider applying those gender guidelines? Is there a firm requirement for those to be part of the process and part of the consideration?
Ms. Irish: Yes, that is correct.
Senator Wallace: That being the case, would it not automatically flow that if the bill were passed as it is now, then these gender guidelines will have to be considered in consideration of this by the chairperson of the IRB?
Ms. Irish: It is my understanding it is the intention of the IRB that those guidelines continue, although my department has no authority over the IRB to make that so.
Senator Wallace: There has been no suggestion the IRB is not going to continue to apply its same requirements, was there?
Ms. Irish: That is correct.
Senator Wallace: What are we talking about, then?
Senator Jaffer: There were witnesses who were concerned about people who had come from countries with specific concerns like LGBT or issues of gender, that those were not being applied. To assure them for the safe country option, we would encourage the board, you are right, to continue applying those guidelines.
The Chair: Senator Wallace and Ms. Irish, could you see if this might capture what Senator Jaffer is intending:
The committee emphasizes the importance that the gender guidelines issued by the IRB continue to be applied to refugee claims from designated countries.
Ms. Irish: That would be technically correct.
The Chair: We are now "technically correct." Are we spiritually correct? If we now have an observation that is both technically correct and meets the spirit of the intent of the suggester, I will read it again and then put it before the committee:
"The committee emphasizes the importance that the gender guidelines issued by the IRB continue to be applied to refugee claims from designated countries."
Did we all hear that clearly?
Senator Cordy: Would you read it one more time?
The Chair: "The committee emphasizes the importance that the gender guidelines issued by the IRB continue to be applied to the refugee claims from designated countries of origin."
Are honourable senators ready for the question as follows: Is the committee prepared to support the addition of this as an observation to the bill we have carried and will forward to the Senate?
Are honourable senators ready for the question?
Those in favour please signify. The yeas. Those contrary? All I heard was yeas. The observation carries and will be attached to the bill going forward to the Senate.
Senator Jaffer: There is one more. If I may ask the same kind of wording but to encourage the developing of guidelines for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender.
The Chair: Ms. Irish, are they included in the definition of gender as it is interpreted within the — they are not?
Ms. Irish: No, and I am not certain that there are currently guidelines in place for LGBT claims.
Senator Jaffer: There are not.
The Chair: The suggestion is that someone considers developing such guidelines; is that right?
Senator Jaffer: If the committee agrees, my suggestion is that we encourage the —
The Chair: The development of?
Senator Jaffer: Yes.
The Chair: The committee encourages the development of guidelines related to LGBT communities.
Senator Jaffer, is it your intent that the observation runs something like this: "That the committee encourages the development of guidelines related to the LGBT communities"? Is that it?
Senator Jaffer: Yes.
The Chair: Ms. Irish, is there any technicality with regard to that language?
Ms. Irish: The gender guidelines that are in place are to ensure that gender issues are reflected through all types of claims, and they do procedures for dealing with particular types of gender claims. I am not entirely clear myself what the LGBT guidelines referred to would do.
Senator Jaffer: The same thing you said for the gender guidelines.
The Chair: Therefore we need "for application to," so we would need to say "develop guidelines related to the LGBT communities with regard to," or what would be the appropriate language?
Ms. Irish: Again, without understanding the nature of the guidelines it is hard for me to be helpful on that one because LGBT is a ground for seeking protection if you are persecuted on those grounds. It is considered a social group.
Senator Jaffer: Just to give you a bit of background, Ms. Irish is completely correct in saying it is a group, but what has happened is that as we have developed our refugee law we added gender guidelines specifically. Before people used to say that gender comes as part of the social group, but we added gender guidelines to emphasize that the board members need to look at gender specifically.
We heard, for example, from Ms. Morrissey yesterday that they wanted LGBT guidelines to be developed the same way as gender guidelines, so that is my suggestion.
The Chair: This is, as you know, complicated in terms of how the process works. Once again, I think the issue is to capture the spirit of what you are putting forward. My understanding is that guidelines are developed by the IRB. Perhaps I will try some wording here: "The committee encourages the IRB to develop guidelines related to the LGBT communities." If we leave it at that, since the IRB has responsibility and we are not directing the IRB and they have an understanding of where these issues would most appropriately occur, it allows them that flexibility without us attempting to bind through the issue in an unusual way.
Ms. Irish, would that be appropriate language from your point of view?
Ms. Irish: Yes, that seems like an appropriate way of addressing the recommendation to the IRB.
The Chair: Senator Wallace, your meter has not gone on so you are okay at this point?
Senator Wallace: Well, I am still listening at this point.
The Chair: The meter is still running is what he means.
Honourable senators, I will now put forward an additional observation proposed by Senator Jaffer to the effect that the committee encourages the IRB to develop guidelines related to the LGBT communities. Is that what you agree?
Senator Jaffer: Yes.
The Chair: Are honourable senators ready for the question? Those in favour please signify? Contrary? It is carried.
Senator Cordy: We are on a roll. Just going back, and some of it is covered but it is talking about guidelines, so that those who testified as witnesses can get a sense that we actually heard them. Thank you for staying. This is most helpful.
The committee heard that while a country may be a safe country of origin for the majority of citizens it may not be a safe country for minorities within a country. The committee heard testimony about conditions for the Roma in Hungary and the LGBT community in what many would consider safe countries of origin.
The committee encourages — and this is where I need your help — the minister and the IRB to take this into consideration in making a determination for refugee claimants in Canada.
It is really not changing the bill in any way. It is just sort of red-flagging and saying that while the minister, if the bill passes in the Senate, certainly has the right to designate safe countries of origin, the whole point that several witnesses made yesterday was that what is safe for one group may not be safe for another group.
The Chair: Coming down to the actual observation, Senator Cordy, again, I will be so bold as to attempt an initial suggestion and then we will see how that plays out.
The committee encourages the minister and the IRB to take into consideration a special situation of minorities within the country of origin.
Senator Cordy: That is even better. Thank you. I just mentioned two groups and I think that adds a great deal to it. I appreciate that. Thank you.
The Chair: Ms. Irish, is there anything in that language that is contrary to the structure of the bill?
Ms. Irish: No.
The Chair: Honourable senators, I am going to read this again. It has been suggested that there be an additional observation, to wit: "The committee encourages the minister and the IRB to take into consideration the special situation of minorities within the country of origin."
Are you ready for the question? All those in favour so signify? Contrary? Carried.
Okay. Seeing no other suggestions, is it agreed that I report this bill with observations to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: That is agreed.
I want to take a moment, the committee having now concluded, and you may remain there as you wish, Ms. Irish, and thank you on behalf of the committee for coming forward. I also want to thank all those other officials who were prepared to give us guidance in various aspects. I want to thank you on behalf of the committee for being here and ready to assist us with various aspects. Thank you.
To the committee, obviously, as we have seen, these are difficult issues on a worldwide basis, with an enormous range of cultural and other social issues that are involved in various countries around the world. You have before you a bill of importance to Canada that brings us forward in a very important area, and you handled this discussion in a way that does credit to the committee and to the Senate of Canada.
I want to express my gratitude to you for the way in which you have handled it and, in particular, I want to commend Senator Jaffer, who is the critic on this bill, and Senator Martin, who is the government sponsor of the bill in the Senate, for the way you two specifically have brought your duties to this bill.
With that, there being no other business of the committee, I declare the meeting adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)