Bill C-280 (Historical)

An Act to Amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (coming into force of sections 110, 111 and 171)

The purpose of this enactment is to ensure that sections 110, 111 and 171 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act come into force on the day on which this enactment receives royal assent.

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-280, which seeks to create a refugee appeal division. The Bloc Québécois has asked repeatedly for such a body, and it is far from being the only one to have done so. Others include the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the UN Committee against Torture, the Canadian Council for Refugees, the Canadian Bar Association, Amnesty international, the Civil Liberties Union, and the KAIROS group.

What is a refugee? The definition of a refugee or an asylum seeker has long been established in international conventions. For example, the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees was adopted by the United Nations in 1951. Under that convention, Canada cannot directly or indirectly return a person to a country where he will be persecuted. Article 1 of the convention defines the term “refugee” as follows:

—owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country;—

Furthermore, article 33 defines the responsibilities of governments with respect to the protection of refugees, and I quote:

No contracting state shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

This definition is limited and applies only to political refugees, and not to those who have suffered a humanitarian crisis such as flooding or famine. Nevertheless, this constitutes a major legal obligation.

A proper appeal process for refugee claimants ought to have been put in place as soon as the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act took effect in June 2002.

This act includes three sections that create a refugee appeal division, to be administered by the Immigration and Refugee Board. Citizenship and Immigration briefly defines the refugee appeal division as follows:

The refugee appeal division will provide failed refugee claimants and the minister with the right to a paper appeal of a decision from the Immigration and Refugee Board.

Establishing the refugee appeal division is a matter of justice. The failure to do so allows a situation that is unfair to asylum seekers to continue. For four years now, the federal government has been stubbornly postponing the establishment of the refugee appeal division, as called for in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The federal government claims that a safety net already exists, consisting of the opportunity to request a pre-removal risk assessment, a judicial review by the Federal Court, or permanent resident status on humanitarian grounds. Unlike a refugee appeals division, they do not offer any protection for refugees.

There are four reasons why the refugee appeal division should be established. These four reasons were presented by Mr. François Crépeau who teaches international law at the Université de Montréal. They were also cited in a report by the Canadian Council for Refugees.

The first reason is efficiency. A specialized appeal division for refugee matters can deal much more efficiently with unsuccessful claimants than the Federal Court, an application for pre-removal risk assessment or requests on humanitarian grounds. The refugee appeals division can do a better job of correcting errors of law and fact.

The second reason is consistency of the law. An appeal division deciding on the merits of the case is the only body able to ensure consistency of jurisprudence both in the analysis of facts and in the interpretations of legal concepts in the largest administrative tribunal in Canada.

In other words, an appeal mechanism helps the system to make decisions by establishing precedents that will be applied to lower court rulings when the facts are exactly the same.

The third reason has to do with justice. The decision to refuse refugee status has extremely serious consequences, including death, torture, detention, and so on. As in matters of criminal law, the right to appeal to a higher tribunal is essential for the proper administration of justice. Because human errors occur in any decision-making process, it should be normal to have an appeal process to offset the fact that decisions are made by a single person.

The fourth reason is political. By not establishing the refugee appeal division, the federal government is going against the will of Parliament and the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, which have called for such an appeal division.

We must never forget that when a person applies for refugee status, they are in a state of vulnerability and helplessness. They have left a situation where their life was in danger because of persecution. They arrive in a country where, in many cases, they do not understand the language, neither French nor English, and they are in a precarious economic situation, sometimes with only the shirt on their back.

Canada has a moral duty to make sure these people are treated with the utmost compassion.

Even though the refugee appeal division is included in the legislation, neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives have wanted to implement it.

Yet in April 2005, the Conservative Party released a report entitled “National Consultations on Canada's Immigration System”, containing the following recommendation:

The appeal process must be reviewed. There is no real appeal process. The refugee appeal division has to be set up. Decisions have to be made by more than one person.

The Conservatives were in favour of a refugee appeal division when they were in opposition. Now, they must keep their promise.

The refugee appeal division has no equivalent. A pre-removal risk assessment does not provide for a substantive review of the application. The Federal Court can conduct reviews of technical legal issues only; it cannot review the facts of a case.

Applying for permanent resident status on humanitarian grounds can be extremely complicated for someone from another country who has no representation in Canada, and it is therefore difficult to claim that this is a substitute for the refugee appeal division.

For all these reasons, and many more besides, Bill C-280 on implementing a refugee appeal division must be adopted.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the constituents of Fleetwood—Port Kells and Canadians recognize and are very proud of our country's responsibility to provide refuge and protection to those in need. In the past year alone, we have welcomed 32,000 refugees.

Recently, the minister was at an event in London to announce that Canada will be accepting an additional 2,000 Karen refugees. This is further to the 800 we announced last summer.

It is no secret that Canada is a world leader when it comes to providing refuge and protection to those in need. Just a few months ago, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees praised our current refugee determination system as being one of the fairest and most generous in the world.

In addition, the Canadian Council for Refugees has noted the high quality of the decision making process of the Immigration and Refugee Board. The reason for the high praise from the Canadian Council for Refugees and UNHCR is because Canada provides protection to those who need it.

Canada has been welcoming tens of thousands of refugees each year. The Government of Canada has ensured that the first level decision makers and the decisions they make are fair, compassionate and competent. As well, if the fair minded, first level decision makers determine that a claimant is not a refugee, the current system offers several avenues both to revisit the decision and to apply to stay in Canada.

The proposed legislation, Bill C-280, revisits Parliament's decision in 2001 to delegate to cabinet the timing for implementing a refugee appeal division. To reiterate, RAD would be a paper based review of the refugee determination record. It may confirm the initial decision, set it aside, or refer the case back to the refugee protection division of the Immigration and Refugee Board.

It will not streamline existing processes in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act since it would be a de facto right of appeal. Failed claimants would still be able to apply for judicial review at the federal court.

The implementation of the RAD would be cumbersome and a very delicate task that would involve $2 million in startup costs alone, in addition to systems costs.

Despite the fact that this Conservative government has just added $307 million in new funding for settlement services, it will be the provincial and territorial governments which will bear much of the responsibility for the welfare of refugee claimants while they await the determination of their claim and the hearing of their appeals.

Of the estimated annual $32 million that it will cost to implement, approximately $12.1 million will be the cost to the federal treasury. The provinces would be expected to carry approximately $21 million annually to fund social services and legal aid for another level of legal process.

Ordinarily, the federal government would engage in consultations with the provinces and territories before it acts to impact their treasuries to the tune of $20 million-plus. Imagine the howls of protest from the opposition, especially the Bloc, if the situation were different and the government implemented these sections unilaterally without talking to Quebec or the other provinces first. It is not surprising that the Bloc and the NDP, two parties not used to making decisions in government, are errant in this responsibility.

It should also be noted that in order to implement the RAD, the IRB itself has said that the skill set of members of the RAD would need to be different from other IRB members. The IRB stated that the selection would have to reflect the tasks of an appellate decision-maker, require a stronger legal and analytical capacity, and some prior adjudicative experience. The IRB further stated that the only workable way to implement this would be to have a date of implementation 10 months to one year after royal assent, so that there would be a full complement of members, training and a case tracking system.

Many reasons were taken into consideration when Parliament decided to delegate the decision to implement RAD to cabinet. Rather than calling for its immediate implementation, these considerations included: the existing backlog at the Refugee and Immigration Board; the practical and administrative matters involved in setting up a new tribunal such as the appeal division, opening its offices, hiring staff, finding qualified decision makers and developing procedural rules; the need to provide the appeal division with appropriate budgetary allocations; and the opportunity to assess the success of the system that was created by the IRPA and all the measures and protections it provides without a refugee appeal division.

For instance, if an individual's claim for refugee status is denied by the Immigration and Refugee Board, he or she has the right to apply for a leave or a type of permission to request a judicial review from the Federal Court. When leave is granted, the court will proceed with the judicial review.

Historically speaking, 76% of negative cases from the IRB apply for leave and only 15% get the authorization to proceed by the Federal Court of Canada. This speaks to the high quality of the first level decisions at the IRB.

It is important to note that in fact the Federal Court considers both errors in law and errors in fact when reviewing IRB decisions. Should the Federal Court uphold the IRB decision, claimants can exercise their right to apply for a pre-removal risk assessment. This process addresses situations where there is new evidence or a change in circumstances.

The Government of Canada has an obligation under international law not to expel or return any individuals to a country where they may face a risk of torture or ill-treatment. This obligation is taken very seriously. In fulfilling these obligations, we assess claims made by refugee applicants who would, if removed from Canada, face a substantial risk of torture or ill-treatment. The risk assessment must be completed before the individual may be returned to his or her country.

The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provides another avenue, allowing refugee claimants to apply for permanent residence in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. The purpose of humanitarian and compassionate discretion is to allow flexibility to approve deserving cases not anticipated in the legislation.

In 2006, more than 8,900 people were accepted under humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Many of them were failed refugee claimants. This discretionary tool is intended to uphold Canada's humanitarian tradition.

Many claimants are in the system for many months and even years as they exercise their rights to apply for a review. When approved, often newcomers land in Canada two or three years later. Rejected cases are not ready for removal before two to three years.

Ordinarily, claimants remain in Canada while the review is conducted and have access to a range of benefits in all provinces, including education, and medical and hospital services through interim health funding and welfare systems. The requirements and benefits may vary from one province to another, but they are applied evenly to all residents of that jurisdiction.

While we are all proud of our generous and fair system, we also expect it to work efficiently as well as effectively. In fact, it was the former Liberal critic, the member for Laval—Les Îles, who stated that the current process allows delays by failed claimants ad infinitum and does not want to see RAD implemented without tinkering with other parts of the system.

We must consider whether creating yet more processes will enhance what is already regarded as one of the best and most generous refugee determination systems in the world. Furthermore, we must question whether there is an actual legitimate reason to implement the RAD at this time.

These questions must be asked within the context of the recognition that Canada's current refugee determination system meets all legal requirements, provides adequate protection to all those who need it, and provides a number of opportunities for decisions to be reviewed.

The House resumed from January 29 consideration of the motion that Bill C-280, An Act to Amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (coming into force of sections 110, 111 and 171), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Opposition Motion--Citizenship and Immigration

[Raymond Gravel, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will share my time with my colleague, the member for Jeanne-Le Ber.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity today to discuss the Liberal motion before us, which states that immigrants to Canada and persons seeking Canadian citizenship are poorly served by this government.

The Bloc Québécois supports this motion. In fact, immigrants to this country and persons seeking Canadian citizenship are very poorly served by the current Conservative government. Unfortunately, I must also add that they were just as poorly served by the previous Liberal government. The crazy thing is that it is the Liberal Party that introduced this motion in the House today.

There is plenty of proof that immigrants and persons seeking Canadian citizenship have been and are being very poorly served by both the current and former governments.

For my part, I just want to discuss the issue concerning three sections of Bill C-11, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which came into force on June 28, 2002. In sections 110, 111 and 171, the act provides for a refugee appeal division. That division was never created.

Bill C-280 is quite straightforward. It simply aims to implement the refugee appeal division, commonly known as the RAD. Adopting this bill would mean that the three sections already included in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act concerning the refugee appeal division, or RAD, would simply be implemented.

This is a little strange, in fact it is nearly the height of absurdity, since the Bloc Québécois already introduced a bill to implement the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which was adopted in 2001 and which came into effect in June 2002, in its entirety. I am a new member of Parliament, but I did not know that a piece of legislation was needed to enact another piece of legislation.

A proper appeal process for refugee claimants ought to have been put in place as soon as the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act took effect, namely, in 2002. This is one of the significant changes required to ensure that all asylum seekers are treated fairly and equitably.

The creation of the refugee appeal division is a matter of justice. To persist in not making this change, as the two most recent governments have done, is to allow a situation that is unfair to asylum seekers to continue. When the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act was drafted, the refugee appeal division was seen as a fair compromise in response to the desire to move from two board members responsible for examining asylum claims to just one.

Yet, now we have the worst of both worlds. There is only one board member, not two, to examine the files, and there is no refugee appeal division in effect. This results in terrible, irreparable harm to asylum seekers, who are all too often victims of an arbitrary and faulty decision made by a board member, whose competency can be, in certain cases, uncertain, and all this with no appeal process.

The federal government maintains that a safety net already exists by virtue of the opportunity to request a pre-removal risk assessment, through judicial review by the Federal Court and through a request for permanent resident status on humanitarian grounds. But these two solutions do not offer any protection for refugees, because, as my colleague from Vaudreuil-Soulanges pointed out this morning, the Federal Court conducts only judicial reviews, reviews of form, and does not review the facts of a case when someone applies for asylum.

In addition, there is a blatant lack of political will to establish the refugee appeal division, because this division is already enshrined in the legislation, in sections 110, 111 and 171. In June 2002, after their own legislation came into effect, the Liberals avoided establishing the RAD. Now that the Conservatives are in power, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration still has not established the RAD, despite the positions her party has taken in the past.

In 2004, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration adopted a motion calling on the Liberal government at the time to establish the refugee appeal division or rapidly come up with a solution. The government consistently refused to comply with the committee's motion.

Many groups in civil society in Quebec, across Canada and in the international community have called for establishment of the RAD. Among these are the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the United Nations Committee against Torture, the Canadian Council for Refugees, the Canadian Bar Association, Amnesty International, la Ligue des droits et libertés and the KAIROS group.

In a Canadian Council for Refugees report, Professor François Crépeau, who teaches international law at the Université de Montréal, gave four reasons why the refugee appeal division should be put in place. I will simply list them, because my colleague also spoke about them this morning. The four reasons are efficiency, uniformity in the law, justice and politics.

The definition of a refugee or an asylum seeker has long been established in international conventions. The Convention relating to the Status of Refugees was adopted by the United Nations in 1951. More than 145 countries, including Canada, ratified the convention and its protocol.

According to this convention, Canada cannot directly or indirectly return refugees to a country where they will be persecuted. Refugees find themselves in very difficult situations and are very vulnerable.

We must never forget that when a person applies for refugee status, that person is always in a state of vulnerability and helplessness that we as citizens here, for the most part, have never known. This person leaves a difficult situation where their life was in danger for a number of religious, political or other reasons. This person arrives in the country and, in many cases, does not understand the language—neither French nor English. This person also arrives in a precarious economic situation, sometimes with just the shirt on their back. These are fragile, vulnerable and very poor people.

It is our moral duty to welcome these people with respect and compassion. To do so, Canada must do everything it can to ensure asylum seekers a fair process when they arrive in Canada, especially since a negative decision can have tragic consequences and very serious repercussions.

The Bloc Québécois is dismayed by the lack of justice toward refugees demonstrated by Citizenship and Immigration since the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act came into effect in 2002. The worst part is that Bill C-11 in 2002 was intended to correct the former Immigration Act of 1976, which did not include a refugee appeal division. Furthermore, this lack of a refugee appeal division was compensated for, at the time, by the presence of two board members who reviewed the asylum claims. Only one of the two board members needed to rule in favour of the asylum claim for the person to be granted asylum.

Currently, now there is just one board member instead of two, the refugee appeal division, RAD, seems even more important. Without the RAD, the risk of error is even greater and asylum seekers have no recourse if they are victims of an arbitrary negative decision.

Establishing a refugee appeal division would ensure that justice is done. It would also address the inconsistencies in the determination process. Furthermore, the costs of implementing this measure would be minimal. According to Jean-Guy Fleury, the chairperson of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, operating the RAD would cost $8 million per year. When we consider that the financial resources of the IRB are estimated at $116 million for 2006-2007, the RAD annual operating costs would represent only 7% of the total budget. The resulting savings must be considered.

In closing, I would just like to say that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the Liberal motion presented today. While it is true that immigrants to Canada and individuals who seek to obtain Canadian citizenship are poorly served by the government, I sincerely believe that by establishing this principle of fairness and justice for those asking for asylum, we could improve the condition of individuals seeking refugee status. The principles of fairness and justice must come from establishing the refugee appeal division.

Therefore Bill C-280 must be adopted to ensure that the three sections of the 2002 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which have not yet come into force, are implemented.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleagues in the official opposition for giving the House this opportunity to discuss an issue as important as citizenship and immigration.

I must point out, however, that none of the successive governments we have seen has been very successful in this area. It is a very complex portfolio, one that needs significant changes in terms of policy decisions related to it.

The government we see before us has been improvising incessantly since coming into power, particularly concerning citizenship and immigration. This is nothing new. We have seen five different ministers in five years, and two Conservative ministers in one year. Frankly, the minister seems to change just when he or she begins to understand the file.

To illustrate just how poorly immigrants in Canada and people waiting to obtain Canadian citizenship are served by the federal government, it is important that I highlight three files, as examples. The immigration file is significant enough that we could debate it here for hours and hours. Some of the issues are: the refugee appeal division; the absence of mechanisms to find a long-term solution for individuals protected under the moratorium on deportation to their country of origin for security reasons; updating the Citizenship Act to address the issue of dual citizenship and to correct certain deficiencies that are causing people to fall victim to this archaic act.

Many people born between 1947 and 1977—as my hon. Conservative colleague mentioned earlier—are now learning, as they apply for their first passport or renew their passport, that they are no longer Canadians, because provisions of the Citizenship Act of 1947 apply. The Citizenship Act of 1977 was not retroactive. Thus, these people are now learning that they are not Canadian citizens.

The irony is that I asked the minister this week, and she was unable to say what would happen in the event of a negative decision. I understand that she is looking at cases individually and will try to expedite matters for people whose Canadian citizenship is not in doubt.

By the way, I am in favour of not removing people while their case is being studied. However, the minister is unable to tell the members of this House what would happen in the event of a negative decision. Some people who have lived here for many years have always believed they were Canadian citizens.

With regard to the time when the laws were in effect, the department has not proven that information was easily accessible and that people could be aware of everything that happened and all the legislative changes regarding citizenship. In short, these people have voted, they have received benefits and they have gone to school here. Then, when they are about to leave on a trip abroad and they apply for a passport, they find out that they are no longer Canadian citizens.

I find it unacceptable and unfair that people should be kept in such uncertainty. Losing one's citizenship has serious consequences, which could go as far as removal. Yet the minister has been unable to tell us here in this House what impact a negative decision would have and what legal recourse would be available.

Let us turn our attention back to the refugee appeal division. The Bloc Québécois has introduced Bill C-280. This is another example of the government's inaction. The legislation is in effect, yet the sections pertaining to the refugee appeal division have not been implemented or enforced since 2002. The Conservative government did not take the first opportunity to enforce legislation that was democratically adopted in this House, in order to correct the unfair treatment of refugees. We were therefore forced to introduce Bill C-280 on the refugee appeal division.

I just want to remind the hon. members why the refugee appeal division is needed: for the sake of efficiency. A refugee appeal division would make it possible to correct substantive errors in law.

Currently, mechanisms are in place that enable people to appeal to the Federal Court, although they must first obtain permission to have the case heard there. Only technical legal errors can be corrected at that level. The appeals division is the Conservative government's first opportunity to correct an injustice. We need the appeals division to make the system more efficient.

There is also a substantive reason: consistency of the law. A centralized appeals division ruling on merit, as well as decisions made by experts, would lead to a fairer legal interpretation of the need to protect a person seeking protection. In other words, these people could be certain—or at least more confident—that their case would be treated fairly and equitably.

Every day, our offices receive cases concerning refusal of refugee status. When we look at the files, we see that they have dragged on for quite some time. That is often the argument the government tries to use: it takes months and months to resolve refugee claims that are refused.

There is a big problem with the reasons for refusal. Careful analysis of the cases reveals a number of elements that are open to interpretation. Moreover, because the files could not be corrected early in the process, the problem persists. These people use every tool at their disposal to appeal and to try to get protection.

That is unfortunate, but I also understand where my Conservative colleagues are coming from. Under the Liberals, none of the ministers had the courage to set up the appeals division. The arguments were many and, at times, perhaps even valid. But the explanation given back then is no longer valid today.

As to the absence of political will, we are now dealing with a conservative ideology, and refugees are under unjustified attack.

Consequently, with respect to the appeal division, I would hope that the Conservatives' position is going to revert to what it was when they were the official opposition.

I would also like to point out that, at that time, one of our colleagues was the official critic for citizenship and immigration. She travelled twice across Canada to consult and she came to the conclusion that we needed the appeal division.

I would further like to remind this House that a motion was unanimously adopted in committee about the need for the appeal division. What I find utterly bizarre now is this reversal in the position taken by the Conservatives, who, now that they are in power, are dragging their feet.

I raised a second point, the fact of the thousands of foreign nationals who have been denied permanent residence and who cannot be sent back to their countries of origin because of a moratorium due to unsafe conditions. On that point, we are offered the argument that they can always return to their countries of origin. The primary reason they are here, however, is that their countries appear on a list and they are not being sent back because of the widespread climate of insecurity that prevails in those countries.

These people can be here for years without being able to get decent jobs, continue their education or get proper health care, as everyone else who comes here is able to do. So I would remind this House that these people come from countries that are on the list of moratorium countries, and that they cannot be sent back for reasons having to do with safety and security.

These measures affect nationals of Afghanistan, Burundi, the Dominican Republic of the Congo, Haiti, Iraq, Liberia, Rwanda and Zimbabwe. They came here to the Hill to demonstrate, and they met with a number of members. New Democrat, Bloc and Liberal members have repeatedly raised the problem of people who have been living in legal limbo for a very long time.

Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives have proposed any measures to create a mechanism for regularizing their status. One after another, the people responsible for immigration here have not shown the will to stop the injustices.

I will not repeat every point raised by my colleagues in relation to processing times and the backlog. I will remind this House that it was the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration that raised the backlog problems.

In 2004, we asked the minister to table the number of cases in the backlog. Just this morning I was given the number of applications received in 2006 and 2007. I must say, frankly, that the situation in Asia and Africa has not improved significantly.

When I look at the numbers for the backlog in the regional office in Mississauga for processing the files of parents and grandparents, I do not see a clear improvement.

There is a lot of work left to do, whether in terms of permanent residents, qualified workers or business people who settle here. Entrepreneurs and business people who come here do not get any respect. The backlog keeps growing. These people arrive here wanting to enhance the economy. It is the same situation with refugees and sponsored persons.

The issue of citizenship is of concern to us right now. Since 2004, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, of which I have been a member since my election, has studied the Citizenship Act a number of times and found that this legislation is archaic.

Today we are celebrating the 60th anniversary of the 1947 legislation. We are also celebrating the 30th anniversary of the 1977 legislation. Today we learn that people who thought they had Canadian citizenship, and who have enjoyed all the services and benefits that come with this citizenship, are not Canadian. This archaic legislation has created victims. I think we have a responsibility to remedy these injustices.

During the meeting with the minister, I also raised the issue of Canadian children and young people who are living abroad.

When I asked what information was available on the points of service and offices abroad, I was told that by going to the Web site of these offices or directly to these offices, I could get information on how young Canadians could register to keep their citizenship.

Before the end of the meeting, we learned that in the Hong Kong office and some others, the information was not even available. With all the technology and information available today, people still do not have access to information on how to register properly. How can we—in 1947, in 1977 or in 2007—tolerate anyone being a victim of legislation? We have repeated it many times in committee and in press conferences: this legislation is necessary.

I could go on about other issues, but for now, these are the three that perfectly illustrate the inaction of the Conservative government.

Employment Insurance Act

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank and congratulate the NDP member for Acadie—Bathurst, for his perseverance in defending the unemployed for so many years, often in rather difficult situations, as the member for Cape Breton—Canso pointed out earlier. The situation in which he was put when the next to last budget was presented made things even tougher for him. The member for Cape Breton—Canso himself had probably not noticed, but $2.5 billion had been taken out of that budget. I think this was a deplorable misfortune about which the hon. member surely has regrets. It could even make him cry, but this is the past. Let us just say that such things should not happen again, because it does not help workers.

The bill before us is a positive measure that does two things. First, it reduces the number of hours required to qualify for employment insurance benefits to 360 hours, and bases benefits on the highest-paid 12 weeks. This means 12 weeks of 30 hours, thus making it easier for people to qualify.

As the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst rightly pointed out, over 60% of workers are excluded from the employment insurance program when they lose their job, even though they have contributed to that program throughout their working life.

The parliamentary secretary and member for Blackstrap wondered whether these were good changes in this day and age. I find that question to be disconcerting. There is no specific era to determine whether we should help those in need or those who are not in need. There is no specific era for making such a distinction. There is no specific era for determining whether the government has a responsibility towards the unemployed. I think the answer is obviously yes. This bill provides proper solutions to the problems faced by the unemployed.

Ever since the Liberal Party reformed the EI program, the government no longer considers it to be an assistance program. It is a hidden tax that has particularly helped the Liberals achieve fiscal balance. However, the only ones contributing to the employment insurance account are the workers and the employers. As we are speaking, over $50 billion has been diverted from that account.

This is nothing new. Since 1998—when the incumbent was a man—and up to the most recent report, released on November 23, 2004, the Auditor General has reported that the government continues to loot the employment insurance fund, thus violating the rules that were set by the government itself.

As for the Bloc Québécois, of course we will vote in favour of this bill. It is a bill that addresses concerns that we raised with other bills. My colleague for Cape Breton—Canso said earlier that it is just one part of the measures that should be implemented. It is positive and it must be implemented.

It also reflects the will of the parliamentarians who sat on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, which made 28 recommendations. By mid-December, it had made 8 recommendations and added another 20 on February 15, 2005. The measures found in Bill C-265 are actually measures recommended by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

This same committee had recommended that the misappropriated amounts be restored to the employment insurance fund. Guess what? Last year, the Bloc Québécois tabled a bill calling for the establishment of an independent fund, as recommended by the committee.

During parliamentary committee meetings on Bill C-280, it was the Conservatives themselves who suggested the rate at which the fund should be reimbursed.

Now that they are in power, they no longer hold the same positions they did when they were in opposition, back when they supported the Bloc's demands on this issue.

Let us review, in brief, the history of these bills. Last year, in the previous session, the Bloc introduced a bill that included these measures. Bill C-269, introduced by a Bloc Québécois member, is now in second reading in committee. It, too, contains these measures.

On November 8, the House of Commons voted to debate Bill C-269 in second reading.

This bill was drafted in response to the demands of major unions and groups of people who are unemployed. It acknowledges the real needs of unemployed people. These groups made statements to the parliamentary committee.

I would like to speak in detail about the costs of these two measures. In December 2004, Malcolm Brown, an assistant deputy minister at the Department of Human Resources and Social Development, stated that the Bloc's proposed measure concerning the 360 hours—12 30-hour weeks—would cost $390 million of a $16 billion budget. It would improve employment insurance and enable 90,000 more unemployed people to collect employment insurance. Furthermore, the assistant deputy minister calculated that the measure in this bill concerning the 12 best weeks would cost $320 billion. This measure alone would help 470,000 people in need. Those 470,000 would not have to collect social assistance from the provinces. Obviously, under the circumstances, they are currently exacerbating the fiscal imbalance.

Over the past 12 years in particular, the restrictions imposed by the Liberal Party on the employment insurance program have not only penalized people who lost their employment, but also the families of those people. They have also penalized the regions in terms of the regional economy. In your riding, Mr. Speaker, there is an annual shortfall of between $30 million and $40 million because the unemployed do not receive the EI benefits they are owed. It is scandalous. These people go on welfare, of course, which increases the burden on the provinces and Quebec, since they have to support these people.

In closing, the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-265 in order to have it considered at second reading.

The Bloc Québécois sincerely hopes that the House of Commons passes this bill unanimously, or at least with a majority, refers it to second reading to deal with it quickly, receives it at third reading and that cabinet does not apply its royal recommendation to block this bill.

That would be the best thing that could happen for the unemployed. For once, the government—

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure today to speak to Bill C-280, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, introduced by the member for Laval, no doubt in close collaboration with the member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges. I thank them for taking this initiative and indicate to them that New Democrats strongly support the bill.

However, the private member's bill, a bill to implement a bill that was already fully debated in the House and in the other place and that received royal assent, should never have been necessary. It is unbelievable that the House should have to revisit legislation, passed after a full debate, to call on the government to implement the provisions of the law in Canada. However, that is just what the bill does, and it is sadly necessary because the current Conservative government refuses to implement the law of the land and the former Liberal government and the former Liberal ministers of citizenship and immigration, the members for Bourassa, York West and Eglinton—Lawrence, all directly refused to implement the law of the land.

The bill before us today would implement the sections of the current Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or IRPA, pertaining to the establishment and operation of the Refugee Appeal Division, or what we commonly call the RAD.

IRPA, including these sections related to the RAD, was passed in Parliament in 2001. It is the law of the land. However, Liberals and now Conservatives have decided that they know better than Parliament, despite their participation in the legislative process in Parliament, and that they can ignore the decisions made here. I believe that kind of decision making shows contempt for Parliament and for the law.

We should not need to have this debate. The implementation of the Refugee Appeal Division should have been done years ago. It should be up and running.

I want to be on the record. I want to give officials and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration this notice. After an election, should I be in a position of responsibility in government, and I am an optimist by nature, as the minister of citizenship and immigration, I expect the department's file, with a detailed plan to implement the provisions of the existing Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Refugee Appeal Division and with the accumulated dust of years of Liberal and Conservative inaction and contempt blown off it, to be on my desk the moment I walk into the office. If I am ever in that position of being minister, I will, as the first act of my time in office, implement the Refugee Appeal Division. I have made this commitment publicly many times. It is the only possible decision, the only possible action, if one respects the law, if one respects Parliament and if one is concerned for fairness and justice for refugees in Canada.

What exactly is the Refugee Appeal Division?

The RAD was a compromise reached during debate on the immigration act in 2001. In exchange for reducing the Immigration and Refugee Board, IRB, hearing panels from two people to one, MPs agreed to establish the RAD to ensure there was an appeal of errors. It was to be the fail-safe. The only appeal of a decision of a refugee claim by the IRB in our system is to apply for leave to appeal in the Federal Court, and only 15% of claimants that apply for leave to appeal are granted an appeal by the court.

The RAD was, and is, a key ingredient of a fair and just refugee process. It is a paper-screening process, and it is not expensive. The former Liberal government estimated the cost at $2 million to establish it and $8 million a year to operate it. These figures have recently been jacked up in estimates from the Conservatives, but remain very low in terms of the overall immigration program.

The Canadian Council for Refugees, the key organization working on refugee issues in Canada, which is made up almost every refugee serving agency and organization in Canada, has taken a strong stand on the need for the Refugee Appeal Division and on the miscarriage of justice that the failure to implement it represents.

Back on June 28, 2006, Amy Casipullai, its vice-president, said:

Accountable government means respecting the laws passed in Parliament by the elected representatives of Canadian citizens. Yet for the past four years, the Canadian government has been flouting the law that gives refugee claimants a right to appeal. As a result, contrary to the will of Parliament, the Canadian government has been deporting people whose refugee claim was determined by a single fallible human being, with no right of appeal on the merits.

Peter Showler, the former chairperson of the Immigration and Refugee Board, has said:

Refugee decisions are often very difficult to make, particularly when assessing the credibility of the refugee claimant....The government’s failure to implement the Refugee Appeal Division is profoundly undemocratic and some genuine refugees have undoubtedly been lost in the asylum shuffle. This is not just an issue about legal process. In the refugee business bad policy destroys individual lives.

“Destroys individual lives” is a strong statement from someone who understands the refugee process inside out because he ran a key part of it for years.

I want to point out that in this case “destroy” must be taken literally because a wrong decision in a refugee case can return someone to a situation where they may be killed. That is why we cannot take this legislation lightly and why we have to ensure the best possible system is in place. We cannot rest on our laurels.

We will hear in this debate, from the government benches, that Canada has the best refugee system in the world, that we resettle thousands of refugees each year, that the United Nations has repeatedly applauded Canada for its refugee work. That is all true, but it does not excuse us from addressing the flaws in our system. It does not excuse us from making our system even fairer or more just. It does not excuse our government from obeying our laws or respecting the will of Parliament.

Even though it has honoured Canada for our refugee work, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees has criticized the lack of an appeal. Here is what the UN High Commissioner for Refugees wrote to the Liberal member for Bourassa in May 2002, when he was minister of citizenship and immigration, after he announced that the RAD would not be implemented:

UNHCR considers an appeal procedure to be a fundamental, necessary part of any refugee status determination process. It allows errors to be corrected, and can also help to ensure consistency in decision-making. Canada, Italy and Portugal are the only industrialized countries which do not allow rejected asylum seekers the possibility to have first instance decisions reviewed on points of fact as well as points of law. In the past, a measure of safeguard was provided by the fact that determinations could be made by a two-member panel, with the benefit of the doubt going to the applicant in case of a split decision. With the implementation of IRPA on June 28th, this important safeguard will be lost.

And it was lost.

Last November the Most Rev. Brendan M. O'Brien, Archbishop of St. John's, and a member of the Episcopal Commission for Social Affairs of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, appeared before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. At that time he stated:

—it is hard for us to understand how governments can fail to implement the appeal provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and not face some form of meaningful censure. It was on the promise of a fair and timely appeal system that the legislation carried. The executive branch's failure to fulfill this promise is a sign of obdurate defiance of democratic authority. In the absence of an effective right to appeal, many parishes and denominational congregations are placed in the position of having to make agonizing decisions of whether or not to grant sanctuary. As other witnesses I'm sure have testified...it is very rare that churches choose to grant sanctuary, notwithstanding the many requests they receive. They do so only after close examinations of the facts before them, through an extensive process of communal deliberation. Granting sanctuary, then, for these churches is an exercise of their informed conscience that must take into account the prospect of breaking the law, risking fines and imprisonment, or violating conscience and the imperative of hospitality. When all other recourse has failed, I think granting sanctuary is a way to call the government's attention to an exceptional injustice and a way to denounce a specific and unacceptable failure of the immigration system in faithfulness to the Lord's own call to hospitality as justice. We recommend, therefore, that the committee unanimously call upon the government to implement a rigorous, transparent, and timely appeal system, as required in the act.

The argument has been made by Liberal and Conservative governments that our refugee appeal process is too complicated and that the RAD will only further complicate the system. I do not accept that argument. The RAD is a necessary level of appeal against an incorrect decision by a single member of the IRB. Having a functioning appeal at this level will stop some cases from going to the Federal Court. Having a hearing at the RAD will be far cheaper and less time consuming to the system than having a full blown court appeal in Federal Court. Having a functioning RAD appeal will ensure that fewer failed claimants, denied and appeal and denied leave to appeal in Federal Court, will disappear underground. It will also ensure that fewer refugees will end up in sanctuary in churches in Canada, supported by communities that believe, communities that know, they did not have a fair hearing in our refugee determination system. Rather than complicating the system, I believe the RAD will simplify the system.

This debate should not be necessary. The government should act immediately to implement the provisions of the current Immigration and Refugee Protection Act with regard to the refugee appeal division. Justice and fairness demand it.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I rise in the House for the first time in 2007, allow me to take a moment to wish you and my honourable colleagues a successful and productive year serving Canadians. It appears that 2007 will be another year filled with excitement and political drama.

I also want to extend my wishes particularly to the residents of my riding of Mississauga—Erindale who just over a year ago elected me as their new MP. I thank them for their ongoing support and wish them a peaceful and joyous 2007.

I am pleased to speak to private member's Bill C-280 that is intended to reaffirm some of the clauses of the existing Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and calls for immediate enforcement of an appeal mechanism for failed refugee claimants. I totally agree with the intent of the bill and will be supporting it.

Canada has a long tradition and a compassionate history of receiving refugees from around the world, refugees who are escaping unfair persecution and severe injustices, and are seeking a new and peaceful life. Canadians recognize that welcoming legitimate refugees is not a feel good exercise, but a right and moral thing to do as a country which believes in the principles of equality, fairness, opportunity and justice. Also, a privileged country like ours has obligations under international treaties to contribute to providing relief in the global refugee crisis.

Canada is one of the very few countries in the world that has made a conscious decision to take every refugee claimant very seriously. Claimant applications are first reviewed by a quasi-judicial refugee board where each case is examined based on its own merit and circumstances.

Currently, if a refugee application is rejected, the applicant is entitled to apply for a federal judicial review. A pre-removal risk assessment is also conducted to ensure that circumstances that led to the negative decision have not changed. However, under the existing Immigration and Refugee Protection Act there are clauses that allow for the creation of an appeal process that would enable failed claimants to have their applications reviewed and have a negative decision re-examined.

Bill C-280 is intended to reaffirm the need for the installation of such a process and urges the government to implement it immediately. The decision to accept or reject a refugee application is extremely serious. It must examine the reality and the merit of the application in an objective and thoughtful way. The consequences of such procedures could have a life or death implication and we as a country have accepted our responsibility in affording fairness and justice to all applicants. By proceeding with this appeal mechanism we can assure that our responsibility as a government and as a country has been fulfilled in a just and verifiable way to the people who seek our help.

It is worth noting here that the Conservative Party has been exhibiting very little compassion and understanding to the real humanitarian issues of immigrants and refugees. We just witnessed that today where it is reluctant to implement a clause that already is on our legislative books.

While the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act can benefit from a comprehensive review and modernization, the Conservatives are busy flexing their muscles at vulnerable undocumented workers. While the Citizenship Act is in need of fundamental re-examination, and it appears that thousands of Canadians are at risk of losing their citizenship because of old flaws, the Conservatives are busy reviewing the issue of dual citizenship, wanting to make Canadians feel guilty if they hold dual citizenship.

Not surprisingly, just like we see them behave on most files, the Conservatives appear to be at odds with what is needed and what Canadians expect of them. In their pursuit of holding onto power, the Conservatives and the Prime Minister have been humbled and have had to appear that they have changed their mind on many issues. Canadians will not be fooled. They want to see real action with substantive measures.

Canadian voters are much more sophisticated than the Conservatives give them credit for and we will be closely monitoring how the minority Conservative government proceeds with immigration and citizenship reforms. Canadians expect genuine and sincere efforts to improve our systems for the benefit of all Canadians.

Let me pause here to remind the Conservatives that we, the opposition parties, have the responsibility to evaluate and analyze how they govern, while it is their responsibility to govern according to what Canadians expect of them. We have been witnessing recently in the news that someone must frequently remind the Conservatives of their role and remind the Prime Minister that he is the leader of a country, not just the Conservative Party, and as such must govern responsibly for all Canadians.

I must take this opportunity, while debating the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, to express the urgent need for evaluating the security certificate process contained in that legislation. Many have been arguing that this process contains inherent, unjust and unfair procedures that can easily destroy lives without the necessary checks and balances. The Supreme Court is currently examining this tool and many Canadians are disheartened by the Conservatives attitude which is unwilling to compromise and accept the need for reform.

There are currently three security certificate detainees at the Kingston facility who are expressing their despair with a hunger strike. Mahmoud Jaballah, Mohammad Mahjoub and Hassan Almrei have been on a hunger strike for about 60 days. Various human rights organizations have written to the Minister of Public Safety urging him to ensure that medical aid is provided to these detainees and that he take immediate action to resolve this hunger strike. I urge the government to heed their call and demonstrate a real commitment to genuine reforms. As the case of Maher Arar has taught us, stubborn security procedures that do not receive appropriate checks and balances do not make us any safer and could in fact endanger the lives of Canadians.

I will be voting in favour of Bill C-280 with the hopes of sending it to committee where it can be carefully examined. Some may argue that it is in need of some minor adjustments such as ensuring that the department has prepared the capacity and resources needed to establish an efficient and effective appeal mechanism. These changes are mechanical or technical in nature and can be adjusted for in committee.

This bill is not asking us to introduce anything new or change our procedures drastically. It is only reaffirming what is already on our legislative books. There are probably many reasons why these clauses have not yet been applied, but it is hard to deny the intent and the objectives of this bill. Stakeholders and human rights advocates have been calling for the need to strengthen and reform our refugee application examination process. This step will further enhance the transparency and credibility of our system.

I call upon my colleagues across all party lines to vote in favour of sending this bill to committee. In a country where we pride ourselves on championing justice and equality, we must not turn our back on implementing a process that would ensure the application of justice. Not only do we want to pursue the application of justice, but we must also be seen as doing everything we can in that pursuit.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to the private member's bill tabled by the hon. member for Laval.

I appreciate the hon. member's motives in proposing Bill C-280. It is clear that she and her colleagues, and in fact all of us, want to see a refugee system that is fair and efficient as well as compassionate. These qualities are what we, as compassionate people, hope to see in the systems and programs of our government.

Canadians can take pride in our humanitarian, compassionate nature. That is why Canada's new government welcomes refugees, and over 32,000 were welcomed last year. I am sure all members of the House and all Canadians understand Canada's obligation as a member of the global community to provide protection to those in need.

We also understand the importance of having in place a refugee determination system that is fair and consistent in the application of the rules. As recently as last November, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees praised the fairness and quality of Canada's refugee system in being one of the best in the world.

Canadians also see the value in our system. Last October, Ms. Janet Dench, executive director of the Canadian Council for Refugees, appeared before the House Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. I fully recognize that she supports Bill C-280, but it is worth noting what she had to say with respect to the existing system. She stated:

--I think it is fair to say from our perspective that the Canadian refugee system...has a lot to be said for it....One of the great benefits of the Canadian system is that we have invested in a very competent first-level decision process. Rather than wasting time making a first decision that has to be overturned most of the time on the appeal, we have a first-level refugee determination that, generally speaking, is good.

In other words, an applicant for refugee status in Canada can begin the process knowing that at the first-level hearing the members will be generous in listening to claims and deciding them. Applicants actually can make representation and present evidence and of course the matter is determined in accordance with the judicial principles of fairness and justice. This is the first step.

Our system, which earns high praise from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, currently includes a review mechanism for errors that may have been made by the first-level decision maker. In the current system, if an individual's claim for refugee status is denied by the Immigration and Refugee Board, that person may apply for a judicial review of the claim by the Federal Court of Canada. Ordinarily this review proceeds while the claimant is able to remain in Canada, with full social benefits throughout the process.

I should point out that there is a common belief that the court considers only errors in law in determining whether a case will be returned to the IRB for another look. This is not correct. The Federal Court can overturn and has overturned IRB decisions based on errors in finding of fact. The appeal division at the heart of this bill will not in fact be bringing that much more to the applicants in this sense.

When we look at the jurisdiction of the Federal Court, we see that it can do a number of things, including declaring the order invalid, setting it aside, or referring it back for further consideration. Some of the grounds the court looks at are that the first tribunal acted without jurisdiction or beyond its jurisdiction, that it failed to observe a principle of natural justice, procedural fairness or other procedure that it was required by law to observe, that it erred in law, or that it based its decision or order on an erroneous finding of fact made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it. Those are the grounds, along with others, that the Federal Court can consider.

When we look at the section that this private member's bill wishes to bring into place, we note that it allows the appeal division to look at the record, just like the Federal Court can, without calling new evidence, without calling viva voce evidence. This particular tribunal can of course either affirm the decision or refer it back to the first tribunal for further decision, as the Federal Court can; in fairness it can substitute its own decision. When I asked the registrar of the Federal Court whether the number of grounds set out in the Federal Court of Appeal were actually broader or more extensive than the ones the refugee appeal division proposed, the answer was yes, that is correct.

The refugee determination system is noted as being fair and a model for others to use. If a judicial review with the federal court is not successful, the claimant has the right to apply for a pre-removal risk assessment. This process addresses situations where there is new evidence, a change in circumstances, or a concern with respect to danger in terms of removal.

Another avenue available to a failed refugee claimant is provided by the Immigration Refugee Protection Act, and that is on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. This is one that a good percentage of applicants take advantage of for their benefit.

In considering the bill, we must also consider whether opening another level of review, creating yet more processes, will enhance what is already regarded as one of the best and most generous refugee determination systems in the world.

The cost of putting the RAD in operation is estimated to be a minimum of $2 million in start up costs alone and an additional $30 million on an ongoing annual basis to the federal and provincial treasuries. This includes the cost of items such as the provision of health care, legal aid services and other social assistance as necessary.

These are not small sums and we must consider the impact on our partners in the provincial and territorial governments. It is they who bear much of the responsibility for the welfare of refugee claimants while they await the determination of their claims and the hearing of their appeals.

Consider if you will, Mr. Speaker, a study carried out by immigration officials which followed 100 random refugee claimants from 1998 to 2004 and the number of processes that were required from beginning to end.

By 2004, 71 claimants had achieved some kind of resolution, while 29 had not. It took 2.1 years on average from claim to landing as refugees. It took four years on average from claim to landing in other categories, such as humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

It is expected that implementation of the sections of the act dealing with the refugee appeal division would add at least another five months to the refugee determination process. As we all know, that is on a minimal basis, but there will be perhaps a year, nine months or more, added to what already is not functioning as efficiently as it should.

This is of concern. As praiseworthy as our system is, if Canadians express one concern about it, it would be to have less delays in the refugee determination process. All quarters and all parties have expressed this concern.

Indeed, it was the previous Liberal critic who said that she found the current process allowed delays by failed claimants ad infinitum. I might just quote a portion of what was said by the critic:

--I think it's important that when we look at the RAD, we see it not as being off and by itself but within the context of all the other types of appeals to which refused refugee claimants have access. I'm talking about humanitarian and compassionate grounds, I'm talking about risk of return, I'm talking about the Superior Court, and so on.

If I were a refugee claimant who had been refused and I went to the RAD, if the RAD existed, and the RAD told me, no, I couldn't do it, then obviously my next step would be to go on asking someone else, and someone else, and someone else. Because right now that's what the system allows, almost ad infinitum. I would make the suggestion to the committee that when we come to our suggestions and recommendations for the minister and the House on the role of the RAD and whether the RAD should exist, we should put it in the context of all the appeals that are possible for refused refugee claimants. We should try to bring some kind of homogeneity and logic to the whole system of appeals on behalf of the refugee claimants.

The acting chief administrator of the Federal Court of Canada administration services said he agreed 100% with that aspect of it.

There was some mention made about two members being better than one, but in tracking the decisions of a two member board, less than 1% of the cases resulted in a split decision. The question now is, when we take those factors into account, that alone is sufficient basis for implementation.

I am sure all hon. members understand that when Parliament passed the Immigration Refugee Protection Act, it gave government the authority to decide when to implement these sections of legislation. It did so by making the sections come into force by governor in council resolution. The bill proposes to sidestep that and to make it effective on a sooner basis.

Canadians trust the government and the governing party's judgment. Canada's new government is listening to Canadians. It listened to Canadians who wanted to see funding increase for immigrants and refugees by adding $307 million more to services that help them adapt to life in Canada. It also increased the budget by 25%.

Canadians would be right to question whether a fourth avenue for appeal would make the system any fairer, especially when they are already seeing some people in the system for many, many months, and even years in some cases.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-280 deals with three sections, sections 110, 111 and 171, all of which I think members may very well agree are important additions to the current act.

Would the member assure the House that she has determined that these provisions in fact are already in the act and that the issue here is whether or not the refugee board is able to bring on board and properly train the people necessary to discharge these responsibilities? Is that the issue the member is concerned about?

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-280, which I introduced on May 12 for my hon. colleague from Vaudreuil-Soulanges.

First off, however, I would like to take this opportunity to wish a happy new year to my hon. colleagues, Parliament Hill employees and all my constituents in Laval.

This bill would implement the refugee appeal division. The Bloc Québécois has to put this bill forward to have a provision of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act come into force, which is rather ironic.

A proper appeal process for refugee claimants ought to have been put in place as soon as the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act enacted in 2002 took effect. This is one of the significant changes required to ensure that asylum seekers are treated fairly and equitably. To persist in not making this change is to allow a situation that is unfair to asylum seekers to continue.

To illustrate, I have some examples to share of people who are experiencing or have experienced difficulties in recent years because the refugee appeal division was not in force. Pierre Gauthier from the refugee outreach committee of St. Joseph's Roman Catholic Church in Ottawa appeared before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on November 2, 2006. He reported that, for more than 16 years, the refugee outreach committee of St. Joseph's Parish on Laurier Avenue in Ottawa has been helping newly arrived refugees in Canada's capital area.

In 2005, they helped a woman who had applied for refugee status and who was ordered deported without a complete and just hearing. After spending a year in a sanctuary with their help, Maoua Diomande was authorized to remain in Canada. Once all the facts had been uncovered, the minister decided to issue the permit on compassionate grounds.

At present, religious institutions are forced to offer sanctuary only because the refugee determination system is not working properly. Countless other refugee status claimants—hundreds and maybe even thousands—have been turned down by Canada because they did not have the opportunity to fully present their case.

The case of Samsu Mia, who lived in sanctuary at First Unitarian for 18 months, illustrates some of the problems encountered within Canada's citizenship and immigration system.

Mr. Mia came to Canada in 1995 as a domestic employee of a senior official in the Bangladeshi High Commission. He was treated as a slave. His wages were withheld. He was not given his contractual trips home. He had to sleep on the floor, and his shoes and passport were confiscated. In 1999 he escaped and attempted to recover his wages and passport.

He, his family at home, and his Canadian rescuer, were all threatened. Mr. Mia's initial refugee claim was turned down by a single judge on the grounds that this was simply a personal dispute between two individuals. The judge ignored the fact that one individual was an illiterate cook and the other a powerful official.

Shortly after he was turned down, Mr. Mia's brother in Bangladesh was threatened by a different official, who had been transferred home from Canada. This was new evidence, and evidence of continuing danger, but there was no way to present it under present procedures.

In 2001 his son in Bangladesh was beaten and admonished to “Tell your father to be quiet and go home”.

In March 2003, the pre-removal risk assessment noted that this beating was not documented. The result was a removal order. It would have been better if a decision on removal had been delayed to allow time to document the son's beating.

With the help of one of our contacts, a Canadian who operates several orphanages in Bangladesh, documentation was finally obtained, but it took some time. However, there was no procedure in place to allow him to present this new evidence; the decision had been taken.

It does happen that a refugee may not be able to produce such evidence; whether more time is required or because someone did not understand in time the need for that evidence. There should be an appeal process and a process than makes it possible to present new evidence. The final decision should not depend upon religious institutions or the compassion of the minister. Justice should be rendered without the necessity to call on the intervention of strong and well-organized pressure groups.

Finally, Mr. Mia received permission to remain in Canada. However, he must deal with numerous administrative complications.

The federal government maintains that a safety net already exists by virtue of the opportunity to request a pre-removal risk assessment, through judicial review by the Federal Court and through a request for permanent resident status on humanitarian grounds. These do not in any way offer refugees the protective measures that the refuge appeal division would provide. The Federal Court provides only for a judicial review and does not provide for a review of the facts of a case. Since the Conservative party came to power, neither the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development nor the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration have established the division, even though in the past the Conservative party had supported all demands for that to be done.

Many groups in civil society in Quebec, across Canada and in the international community have called for establishment of the RAD. Among these are the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the United States Committee against Torture, the Canadian Council for Refugees, the Canadian Bar Association, Amnesty international, la Ligue des droits et libertés and the KAIROS group.

There are four reasons why the refugee appeal division should be established. The first is efficiency. In dealing with applicants who have been denied refugee status it is more efficient than the Federal Court for pre-removal risk assessment or applications on humanitarian grounds. The second reason is the improved uniformity in the law to ensure unified jurisprudence, in terms of analysis and in legal interpretation. In other words, an appeal mechanism helps the system to make decisions by establishing precedents. The third reason is justice. The denial of refugee status has grave consequences. because human errors occur in any decision-making process, it should be normal to have an appeal process to offset the fact that decisions are made by a single person. The fourth reason is political. By not establishing the refugee appeal division, the federal government is going against the will of Parliament and the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

The Convention relating to the Status of Refugees was adopted by the United Nations in 1951. According to this convention, Canada cannot directly or indirectly return refugees to a country where they will be persecuted. Article 33 sets out the responsibilities of states for protecting refugees:

No Contracting State shall expel or return ("refouler") a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

Although the definition is limited, it is nonetheless a major legal component.

Refugees find themselves in very difficult situations and are very vulnerable. They have left a situation where their lives are in danger. Often they do not understand French or English. They arrive in a precarious economic position. The Bloc Québécois is dismayed by the lack of justice shown by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration when dealing with refugees since the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, Bill C-11, came into force in 2001.

Previously, two panel members would hear refugee claims. Only one member had to rule in favour of the refugee's request for asylum in order for it to be approved. Now, with only one member, there are many shortcomings and a great deal of injustice takes place because quite often there is not the balanced view that prevails when two people make a decision. The former chairperson of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Peter Showler, confirmed before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration that:

Single-member panels are a far more efficient means of determining claims. It is true that claimants will no longer enjoy the benefit of the doubt currently accorded them with two-member panels...

Mr. Showler also said:

However, any perceived disadvantage is more than offset by the creation of the refugee appeal division, the RAD, where all refused claimants and the minister have a right of appeal on RAD decisions.

The Bloc Québécois believed that these increases toughened the requirements that refugee claimants had to meet and made it more difficult for immigrants to enter the country. Still, we felt that the refugee appeal division balanced the loss of two-member panels. That is why we voted against this bill. However, we asked that the refugee appeal division be reviewed.

It is difficult to know what an appeal division would cost, as such a division has never been set up. However, we do know that the human costs would be much higher than the financial costs. Considering that the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and the various components have financial resources of some $116 million for 2006-07, the annual costs of the RAD represent only 7% of the total budget. When we look at the costs of the appeal division, we must take into account the savings it generates.

This political inaction must not be allowed to continue, because there is an urgent need for the refugee appeal division. It is unacceptable that this appeal division is not yet in place in 2007.

In my riding alone, I employ someone who spends 40 hours a week working on these extremely important, time-consuming cases, which I would describe as “humanitarian cases”. Most of the people who come to see us would be entitled to be heard by the government, through the refugee appeal division.

What is more, on December 14, 2004, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration adopted the following motion:

The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration requests that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration implement the Refugee Appeal Division or advise the Committee as to an alternative proposal without delay.

Every committee member from the Conservative Party voted in favour of the motion. We do not understand the delay in implementing an effective refugee appeal division. Furthermore, in April 2005, the Conservative Party published a report on a national consultation on Canada's immigration system. It recommended reviewing the appeal process. There is no real appeal process. The refugee appeal division has to be set up. Decisions have to be made by more than one person.

However, the previous minister did not show any willingness to implement this appeal division. This safety net is very important because we cannot accept that failed refugees are denied the opportunity to seek permission from the Federal Court, Trial Division, to request a judicial review. Currently permission is granted in a very small number of cases, roughly 4% of the time.

In closing, many people have called for a refugee appeal division for a number of years now. The Bloc Québécois has called for one a number of times and it is certainly not alone in doing so. Even before the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act came into effect the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights was calling for such an appeal division. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has always felt it was necessary to have an appeal mechanism.

In December 2004, the United Nations Committee against Torture condemned Canada for still not having a refugee appeal division. The Canadian Council for Refugees has also repeatedly spoken to the need for an appeal division. That is why I am asking all my colleagues in this House to support this bill, which will allow greater fairness and greater justice for refugees.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

moved that Bill C-280, An Act to Amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (coming into force of sections 110, 111 and 171), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Human Resources and Skills Development—Main Estimates 2006-07

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Chair, this still runs counter to the minister's thinking. When the minister voted last year on Bill C-280, which sought to create a separate fund, she said—and it was the resolution that said this—“Employment insurance funds should be used strictly for the employment insurance plan”.

Recently, when the government declared a $13 billion surplus, that $13 billion included $2.118 billion belonging to the employment insurance fund. Her government used that money to pay down the debt.

Is the minister telling us that she has changed her mind and now agrees with the diversions that are still going on today?

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-280, An Act to Amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (coming into force of sections 110, 111 and 171).

Mr. Speaker, for four years now, the federal government has been stubbornly delaying the creation of the appeal division under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. It is time that the government respected the legislation and implemented the appeal division, which is why I am introducing this bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)