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.

Balanced Refugee Reform Act

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

We can only hope he will come back, although I doubt the hon. member for Outremont feels the same. My point is that we have been waiting for this measure for nearly eight years. This also explains, in large part, the injustice of the current system, which was never completed. I will come back to this later.

We believe that this notion of safe country is discriminatory, because it means that the refugee claims of individuals from so-called safe countries will not have the right to appeal their cases before this appeal division and will have to take their cases to the Federal Court, as is the case right now. We have already seen all the problems and concerns associated with such a situation. We saw the example this week of the pregnant woman from Guinea who, just a few minutes before she was supposed to board a plane for her deportation, was granted a four-month stay of deportation by the Federal Court.

Since the Appeal Division has not been instituted, they will have to keep going to the Federal Court to make sure that the new evidence her lawyer has uncovered is taken into account and she can get refugee status. In this instance, the lady was more or less fooled by a consultant, who did a poor job of preparing her case. She cannot appeal because the Appeal Division will not come into force until two years after the bill passes.

I want to remind the House that a real appeal procedure for refugee claimants should have been instituted as soon as the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act took effect in June 2002. The Bloc Québécois also had a unanimous motion adopted by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on December 14, 2004 asking the Liberal government of the time to immediately institute the Appeal Division.

Despite the adoption of this unanimous motion, the Liberal government did not budge, no more than the ensuing Conservative government. We therefore introduced private member’s bills, including Bill C-280 instituting the Refugee Appeal Division, which was introduced in October 2006.

We were back at it in February 2009 with Bill C-291. It is very sad that the bill was defeated by a single vote, 142 to 143. If it had not been for the notable absence of several Liberals, the bill would have passed easily. I hope they are asking themselves some serious questions in the Liberal Party. Is there really any difference between the Conservative government and the opposition? For my part, I do not think so. I like to say they are like two peas in a pod, but it is not very funny.

If not for the cowardice of certain Liberal members, the Bloc bill would have passed. We are glad all the same to see in Bill C-11 that the Refugee Appeal Division is finally being implemented. Once again, though, we think it is appalling that some refugee claimants will be precluded from the Appeal Division because of the distinction the bill draws between safe and unsafe countries. I think this is discrimination. We will ensure, therefore, that the witnesses who appear before the committee do what they can to enlighten the government and the members of all parties so that this regrettable situation is corrected.

In addition, the minister is playing with words when he says that the claims from people from safe countries will be expedited. The procedure will certainly be accelerated, but only because these claimants will be precluded from any recourse to the Appeal Division. As soon as the immigration official makes his decision, these claimants will be accepted as refugees or will have to leave, unless they take their case to the Federal Court. We will certainly take issue with this.

What concerns me the most is the fact that the bill gives the minister the legal authority to designate safe countries of origin. According to the government, safe countries of origin generally do not produce refugees, have a good human rights record, and protect their citizens well.

Sometimes, even in countries that are relatively democratic, people can be harassed or have their lives threatened because of their sexual orientation, gender or religion.

For all these reasons, we will vote in favour of Bill C-11 at second reading in order to study it in committee. I remind the House once again that we want to see the regulations before proceeding to clause by clause study of the bill.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, it was in March that the federal government introduced the bill we are discussing today, Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Federal Courts Act and called it part of its balanced refugee reform. The minister said that its objective is to preserve the system's integrity by reducing wait times for refugee claims to be processed and, he said, to give people the protection they need more quickly. The bill proposes spending an additional $540.7 million over five years.

The Bloc Québécois will support this bill so that it is referred to committee and an in-depth study can be undertaken of the refugee system, its flaws and the proposed amendments. The Bloc Québécois will work hard to see that all the necessary amendments are passed so that this reform is effective and so that claims are processed quickly and processed fairly, in the case of refugees. Many of the measures in this bill are interesting. And even though they are being proposed as part of the reform of Canada's asylum system, we believe that they are hiding other, more worrying proposals. In our opinion, the bill we are discussing today, Bill C-11, contains fundamental flaws.

What we noticed as we were going through this bill initially was the typically Conservative ideology that seeks to differentiate between genuine and false claimants. We are concerned about that because we believe that reforms based on that kind of discriminatory principle could be deeply prejudicial toward refugees. The bill also gives the minister significant latitude in designing the asylum-granting system. We also noticed that several of the measures announced as part of this reform do not appear in the bill. For example, the minister can designate countries of origin according to criteria set out in regulations published in the Canada Gazette, but the criteria used in creating the list of safe countries cannot be debated in the House. We believe that lacks transparency. The minister is really giving himself a lot of powers.

Several other measures also make us worry about the politicization of the system. First, the minister may designate, by order, a country whose classes of nationals, in the Minister’s opinion, meet the criteria established by the regulations. Second, the minister can designate countries whose nationals are precluded from appealing decisions to the refugee appeal division. Third, the minister can prohibit nationals of certain countries from applying for protection. Fourth, the minister can grant an exemption from any obligations of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act on humanitarian and compassionate grounds or on public policy grounds.

Once again, the minister really would be assuming a lot of powers.

The Bloc Québécois believes that an appeal process for refugee claimants should have been instituted when the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act came into force in June 2002. In fact, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration unanimously passed a Bloc Québécois motion requiring the federal government to set up a refugee appeal division immediately.

We also introduced Bill C-280 in 2006, which became BIll C-291 in 2009, with the aim of establishing a real refugee appeal division. Unfortunately, the House's two official parties, the Conservatives and the Liberals, joined forces to defeat that bill. Members on both sides either abstained or were absent.

Some members hid behind the curtains, so they would not have to vote.

The Bloc Québécois is delighted that the bill before us could finally establish a refugee appeal division and allow new measures to be added to the system, even though the refugee appeal division will not be up and running until two years after the new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act comes into force.

Also, unsuccessful claimants from countries that are deemed safe will have no right to appeal the initial decision rendered by public servants. We believe this measure is far too strict. It is unfair that claimants from a safe country whose first application is denied cannot appeal their cases before the refugee appeal division, and instead must take their cases to Federal Court.

Earlier I spoke about designated countries of origin. I spoke about designated countries and other countries. The United Kingdom uses a fast tracking process to examine refugee claims from designated countries. Canada, on the other hand, would assess all claims from all countries the same way. The only reason the process would be any faster is that unsuccessful claimants from countries that are deemed safe will have no right to appeal their case before the new refugee appeal division. We think this measure is discriminatory.

The principle of safe countries raises a number of other concerns. First, the fact that a refugee can be classified as a false claimant even before his or her case is analyzed can be extremely prejudicial. Even though the government assures us that all claims will be analyzed on their own merits, it cannot guarantee that no mistakes will be made in first-level decisions. For this reason in particular, the committee must look at this issue and consider how such a designation by the minister could affect refugee claimants.

The Bloc Québécois had made it known that it wanted all failed refugee claimants to have access to the refugee appeal division, regardless of their country of origin. Our critic on the committee is willing to look at any measures that would correct this flaw, such as including criteria for designating safe countries in the bill. As things now stand, these criteria would be established by regulation.

Canada's asylum system has always been based on reliable, solid resources that make for sound decisions. The proposal to submit all the necessary documents within eight days and hold hearings within 60 days after the claim is made could mean a change in this procedure and could have serious consequences for refugees. With such short deadlines, decision-makers could make decisions too quickly, and the quality of the decisions would suffer as a result.

Refugees have the right to find a lawyer and assemble all the documents they need for their testimony. This is a fundamental rule of justice.

I want to make one last point. The fact that IRB officials make the first-level decisions is problematic. These officials are probably long-standing employees, but it is essential that they demonstrate a certain level of independence.

Lastly, Bill C-11 must be studied in committee, because it has major flaws. That is why it will be sent to committee. I am sure that our critic on the committee will clearly state the Bloc's position.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

During the last Parliament, Bill C-280, a bill to implement the Refugee Appeal Division, was adopted in the House at every stage, as well as in the Senate. However, it died on the Order Paper before receiving Royal Assent.

In this Parliament, Bill C-291 also aims to implement the Refugee Appeal Division. It has been adopted and is moving forward.

I know that the Conservatives are against the implementation of the Refugee Appeal Division, as it was set out in the legislation of 2002, but has your department nevertheless set aside money, or created mechanisms, in case Parliament decides to adopt this bill?

Liberal Party of Canada

[Pascal-Pierre Paillé, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this House has twice supported implementing a refugee appeal division. The first time, Bill C-280, introduced by the Bloc Québécois, went through all the stages in the House and the Senate, but died when this government made an early election call. Reintroduced barely a month ago, Bill C-291, sponsored by my colleague from Jeanne-Le Ber, once again received the support of the House.

Yet even though they supported Bill C-291 during the vote at second reading, the Liberals are now working with the Conservatives to block the bill in committee. The Liberals claim to stand up for refugees, but in fact, they are in bed with the Conservatives.

It is pathetic that the Liberals, who claim to support Bill C-291, should be playing the government's game.

Clearly, the Liberal leader's new strategy is to talk out of both sides of his mouth in order to fool the public, especially refugees, whose status is precarious.

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his speech and certainly the work that he is doing on the immigration and citizenship committee. Regardless of political stripe, we on occasion have been able to find some common ground and have been working quite well in the early days of this 40th Parliament.

I do want to thank the hon. member for not singing in the House of Commons. I certainly do not mind him speaking once in awhile, but the last thing I would really want is to hear him sing a tune here in the House of Commons.

Off the top, I want to state that our government's position on Bill C-291 has not changed from that in the 39th Parliament. In fact, we will be opposing the bill, because this bill seeks to establish the refugee appeal division.

There is no question that we strongly support an effective refugee status determination system, but as the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration said yesterday, he was delighted to hear the interest of the member who asked a question on this topic and was hopeful that we could all work together to create a more efficient and effective refugee determination system.

The government opposes this legislation because it is neither necessary in the current system nor is it efficient. It would add considerable delays and costs, both in the start-up and operating costs as well as the prolonged costs for services provided to failed refugees waiting for their fourth level of appeal, which would be this appeal division.

The cost of implementing the refugee appeal division would be in the range of $15 million to $25 million annually in new operating costs, about the same amount in social services costs paid by both the provincial and federal governments for refugees, not to mention start-up costs of approximately $10 million.

It would also add five months to the decision-making process. Provinces such as Ontario, British Columbia and even Quebec would be disproportionately affected by this.

Canadians have a right to be proud of our humanitarian tradition, no question, and as the member for Eglinton—Lawrence, a former Liberal minister of citizenship and immigration, said last June before the human rights committee in the other place:

--[T]he people that I consulted, those from the United Nations responsible for refugees, liked to think of Canada as the premier example of a system for refugee determination that underscored fairness and product.

The member concluded that the current system is fair, that there is no need for another appeal process, as four steps already exist in this decision-making process.

As the member for Eglinton—Lawrence put in his own words:

--I said I would not implement it. Of course, we got into an election so I could not change my mind. When Bill C-280 came forward, I did not see any compelling arguments to make me change my mind.

If a former Liberal citizenship and immigration minister is willing to publicly speak against the bill, which has not been substantively changed since its previous incarnation as Bill C-280, then I have to ask all of my Liberal colleagues across the floor why they would not listen to one of their colleagues and also oppose this bill.

There is a full range of recourses offered by the refugee determination system as a whole. Our refugee determination system is based on a strong, independent, first level decision-making process at the Immigration and Refugee Board.

Rejected applicants can then seek leave for a judicial review at the Federal Court, another form of appeal, if you will. If both the IRB and the Federal Court turn down the applicant's claim, he or she is still entitled to a pre-removal risk assessment before leaving and can also apply for permanent residence on humanitarian or compassionate grounds.

The addition of the refugee appeal division would only add a further level of review to an already comprehensive refugee determination system. Successful refugee applications can take an average of two and a half years to reach permanent residence status. Negative applications can take over five years, and in some cases much longer than that, before an individual has exhausted all avenues of appeal.

We changed the selection process to make it more open and more accountable. This is a great improvement over the years of Liberal patronage to their political friends, appointments such as Mr. Mouammar, who had an acceptance rate double that of the IRB average at that time, which rose to virtually 100% in some cases if one was from the Middle East.

Last year there were 40 Governor in Council appointments and 24 reappointments. With the minister's announcement on March 10, 2009, of two appointments and five reappointments, and his previous announcement of 25 appointments and 3 reappointments in 2009, the board now stands at close to 90% of its full complement. With fewer vacancies on the IRB, genuine refugee claims will be processed and finalized faster, while frivolous asylum applications will be dismissed much more quickly.

Canadians expect their refugee system to help and protect legitimate refugees. As the minister said yesterday in the House, “last year we received 38,000 inland refugee claimants, about 60% of whose applications were rejected by the IRB”.

There are individuals taking advantage of our compassionate nature and seeking refugee status on dishonest grounds. They know the significant length of time that this process affords them. We must fix this.

It is not an uncommon tactic to make a false refugee claim to allow the individual to attempt to make enough connections within the community so that they are able to bolster their humanitarian and compassionate grounds case. This is a fundamental problem that this bill simply does not address. In fact, it would legitimately add to the incentive to make fraudulent applications, as the time before deportation would be extended by at least five months.

In 2008, 34,800 refugee claims were referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board, as compared to 27,912 claims in 2007. This represents an almost 25% increase in refugee claims.

Last year, the former minister of citizenship and immigration, the member for Haldimand—Norfolk, shared her concerns at the Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights. She noted the number of refugee claims in Canada was increasing at a rate higher than in almost every other country. She reported that a majority of claimants were found not to be in need of protection. Only 43% of claims finalized by the Immigration and Refugee Board were accepted in 2007 and the acceptance rate dropped to 42% last year.

There are those who would like to take advantage of our generosity in this country and take a place away from those who are genuinely in need of our protection and their own. There are those who come to Canada from countries, such as Mexico, that are not typically seen to produce refugees. Mexico is the largest source country of refugees, with approximately 8,000 individual claims in 2008. Only 10% are successful in their application for status. Very valuable resources are being increasingly diverted from those who need our help to those who are found not to be genuine refugees.

If this bill is implemented, failed refugee claimants will be the ones filing for secondary appeals. It is impossible to predict the number of appeals that could be made every year because each refugee claim is assessed individually. On average, it takes three days to determine an eligibility claim but it takes about 17 months from the date a claim is referred to the IRB to an initial decision rendered by the IRB.

Leave applications for judicial review of the IRB decision can take about four months. If that leave is granted, it can take approximately a year or more to decide the appeal. A pre-removal risk assessment takes about nine months. An application made on humanitarian and compassionate grounds can take an additional 21 months.

A claimant has a right to seek judicial review of negative pre-removal risk assessment and decisions made on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. It adds up. It can take up to five years for almost all of these cases to be handled through the process and up to ten years in some cases. The hon. member's bill would extend that by at least another five months.

We need to consider that almost 35,000 refugee claims were made to the IRB last year. Adding another layer to the current refugee status determination process would not only further paralyze our system, it would erode its very integrity. The Refugee Appeal Division would conduct only a paper review of the evidence presented at the original hearing, it would not allow for the introduction of new evidence or an in-person hearing.

We have monitored the impact of delaying implementation of the Refugee Appeal Division. We have consistently found that even without this fourth layer of review, the current system already provides protection to those who need it.

The implementation of an appeal would be possibly only if the current system could be streamlined to avoid access to multiple and overlapping recourses. Therefore, I urge all hon. members to not support Bill C-291.

World Refugee Day

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

Mr. Speaker, refugee assistance agencies, such as the United Nations High Commission for Refugees and the Canadian Commission for UNESCO, are joining together today to mark World Refugee Day. This year's theme is “Protecting Refugees: Rebuilding Lives in Safety and Dignity”.

This day is an opportunity to pay tribute to the incredible strength, courage and determination of refugees throughout their ordeal. They have been uprooted and must make the journey from oppression and persecution to asylum and protection before finally finding a place they can call their own. Today is also an opportunity to recognize the people who help refugees rebuild their lives in safety and dignity.

My Bloc Québécois colleagues and I commend the agencies that help refugees rebuild their lives in safety and dignity. We must take real steps to protect refugees. Bill C-280, which was introduced by my colleague from Laval and is designed to protect refugees, will finally bring about the implementation of the refugee appeal division.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that Bill C-280 passed in the Senate about 30 minutes ago.

However, that said, the government is committed to the principle of evaluating each case on its own merits and each individual's circumstances.

Before removals or deportations from Canada begin, individuals can ask for the pre-removal risk assessment to examine the risk they might face in returning to their home country, based on evidence that may not have been available at the Immigration and Refugee Board hearing.

During the time that the PRRA is going on, the removal order is stayed and that individual can remain in Canada, but if the assessment fails, removal procedures will resume. Under the single decision-maker model, the pre-removal risk assessment officer is an expert in matters of risk.

However, single decision-makers assess not only risk but also other--

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised that the parliamentary secretary, who is so well prepared, does not have an answer to such a simple question about the refugee appeals division.

He forgot to mention that applying for permanent residence on humanitarian grounds is a process often used by refugees whose first application for permanent residence has been denied. As such, it has everything to do with Bill C-280, which is dragging in the Senate.

In the absence of a refugee appeals division, people are looking for another option for victims of bad decisions. That option is applying for permanent residence on humanitarian grounds. The current process is questionable indeed.

Let us return to the first question I would like him to answer. What are we waiting for to ask the senators to send back the amendments they made to Bill C-280? It is not that complicated; we do not need—

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to speak on this issue today. Some time ago, I asked the minister why in many cases the same immigration officer who analyzes an application for permanent residence on humanitarian grounds also conducts the pre-removal risk assessment or PRRA.

At the time, I was told that this was normal procedure. I do not feel that this is normal at all. It should not happen, because it reduces the likelihood of a fair and equitable decision. It would be like appearing before a judge who ruled against us, then appealing and having the appeal heard by the same judge. Even though the provisions of the act that apply are not the same, the fact remains that the same person will rule on the same case twice. The Bloc Québécois believes—and this opinion is widely shared—that the same officer should not analyze both cases.

First, I would like the minister to tell us whether it is an official, documented policy of the government that the same officer conducts the PRRA and analyzes the application for permanent residence on humanitarian grounds. I wanted this information, but I did not get it.

I would also like to know something else. Since this measure eliminates the possibility of an appeal and there is still no refugee appeal division, does the government plan to put pressure on the unelected Conservative senators who are stalling Bill C-280 in the Senate?

The Liberal and Conservative senators have reached an agreement on the refugee appeal division so that the bill will not take effect until one year after it receives royal assent. This is all well and good, but if an agreement is reached, it should be referred to the House as quickly as possible so that we can make a decision. The Conservatives are stalling this bill in the Senate. They are so critical of the unelected Liberal senators who block, delay or amend Conservative bills. Now, what is happening? The Conservatives themselves are using the Senate to delay a bill that was duly passed in this House by a large majority of members.

I would like to know why the government is doing this. This is important because the refugee appeal division is critical. It would ensure that nobody's fate is determined at the whim of the member responsible for reviewing his or her case.

Take, for example, the case of Abdelkader Belaouni in my riding. His case was assessed by Laurier Thibault, a member who, at the time, rejected 98% of the applications he evaluated. If any other person had to appear before a judge who was known to convict 98% of the people he or she tried, that person would not feel that justice had been served. That is why the refugee appeals division is so important, and that is why the government should not let it drag in the Senate. The government should respect the democratic will of the elected members of this House and the agreement that the Conservatives and Liberals reached in the Senate. When an agreement is negotiated in good faith, the parties to it must fulfill the terms of that agreement.

When will the Senate's amendments to Bill C-280 be considered in this House?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I would like to correct a comment made by our friend Mr. Lake, who distorted the facts a little. I recall that a recommendation was passed unanimously by this committee to the effect that the money that had been removed from the fund would be repaid in the amount of $1.5 billion per year. This appears in the December 16, 2004 report and again on February 15, 2005. It was recommendation 3 in a unanimous report.

But when we debated Bill C-280, Mr. Peter Van Loan, the government house leader, proposed putting funds into the fund to the tune of $4 billion per year. Our friend Mr. Lake was perfectly right to describe this proposal as quite irresponsible. But now he is sitting with the government, we are told that it is not responsible to put money back in the fund. When you are a member of the opposition, you sometimes say things that you do not hold to when you become a member of the government. I feel that the Conservatives are presently in that position.

That said, we are very worried about your reasoning on the responsibilities of employees and employers. I recall that, in Quebec, the CSST, like other large public and quasi-public organizations, has employees and employers on its board of directors. This morning, you stated once more that the board's directors, seven in number, would be part-time positions. We must therefore conclude that skilled and specialized people will be in place to advise them.

What is preventing you from adopting the proposals from employees and employers about the way the board's directors should be appointed? I am not talking about the entire board, but at least two people from each group.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform concerning the requirement for a royal recommendation for Bill C-357, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (Employment Insurance Account and premium rate setting) and another Act in consequence, standing in the name of the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

I would like to thank the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform for having raised this issue as well as the hon. Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine for his comments.

In his presentation, the hon. parliamentary secretary argued that clause 2 of the bill would create an employment insurance account that is outside the consolidated revenue fund, thus transferring money out of the consolidated revenue fund into the employment insurance account where money would no longer be available for any appropriations Parliament may make. He further argued that Bill C-357 would change the duties of the Employment Insurance Commission by allowing it to deposit assets for the financial institution and to invest assets to achieve a maximum rate of return. Finally, he expressed concern that clause 5 would increase the number of commissioners on the Employment Insurance Commission from its current four to seventeen.

The hon. parliamentary secretary claimed that these arguments were supported by a ruling delivered by the Speaker on June 13, 2005, concerning Bill C-280, also entitled An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (Employment Insurance Account and premium rate setting) and another Act in consequence, and nearly identical to Bill C-357.

The hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine countered that there is no basis for the claim that this bill would bring about “additional” or “new” expenditures and that the transfer of revenue to an independent fund would not change the circumstances, manner and purposes by which Canada's Employment Insurance Commission will set the premiums and manage its revenue. Although he acknowledged that a royal recommendation would be necessary if the bill were seeking to withdraw revenue from the government's consolidated revenue fund to be used for purposes other than those described in the act, he claimed that this was not the case since the purpose of the bill would not alter anything in the current legislation.

He further argued that having Canada's Employment Insurance Commission invest assets to achieve a maximum rate of return did not constitute a new purpose for the fund since the federal government was “investing” these public monies to pay down the Canadian debt.

He concluded by saying that adding 13 new commissioners will be financed by a small increase in expenses, which will no longer appear as an expenditure from the consolidated revenue fund given that the employment insurance fund will no longer be a part of the consolidated revenue fund.

After examining Bill C-357, the Chair was struck, as was the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, by its similarity to Bill C-280. Indeed, the proposed amendments to sections 71 and 72 of the Employment Insurance Act included in Bill C-357 are in many respects virtually identical to those in Bill C-280.

For instance, like in Bill C-280, the proposed section 72 in Bill C-357 would credit moneys from the consolidated revenue fund to the commission, which would then place it into a new and separate account, one that would be outside the consolidated revenue fund.

Today, moneys in the consolidated revenue fund are available for eventual expenditure for purposes of claims under the Employment Insurance Act. With the passage of Bill C-357, these funds would no longer be available because, in effect, they have been spent, that is, transferred out of the consolidated revenue fund to a separate and independent account outside the consolidated revenue fund.

When the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities sought clarification regarding the provisions of Bill C-280 as it related to the royal recommendation, the Chair ruled, on June 13, 2005, that:

Such a transfer, in my view, constitutes an appropriation within the meaning of section 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and for this reason a royal recommendation is required in respect of clause 2 of the Bill.

The Chair sees no reason to reach a different conclusion on this provision of Bill C-357 than the one that was reached at that time on Bill C-280.

In relation to the argument that the proposed change to subsection 72(6) of the Employment Insurance Act found in Bill C-357 creates new duties for the commission in terms of managing and investing amounts paid into the employment insurance account, the Chair does not accept the argument put forward by the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine that the federal government's use of moneys in the consolidated revenue fund to pay down the Canadian debt constitutes an authority to spend funds for a new purpose.

In addition, the Chair is of the view that the bill's proposed alteration of the duties of the EI Commission to enable the spending of public funds by the commission, namely, the investment of public funds to achieve a maximum rate of return, is a new purpose and requires a royal recommendation.

Finally, the increase in the number of commissioners on the Employment Insurance Commission from its current four to seventeen also clearly requires a royal recommendation. Although the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine contended that these expenses would not come from the consolidated revenue fund but rather from the newly created employment insurance fund, clause 5 of the bill clearly calls on the governor in council to appoint these new commissioners. Given that the current commissioners are remunerated, it follows that the proposed new commissioners would also be paid. As such, the addition of these new commissioners would involve an additional appropriation of a part of the public revenue.

Consequently, I will decline to put the question on third reading of this bill in its present form unless a royal recommendation is received.

However, the debate is currently on the motion for second reading, and this motion shall be put to a vote at the close of the second reading debate.

Business of the House

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order. It appears we have a few moments and to save time later I will inform members of something they are just aching to hear about now.

As hon. members know, our Standing Orders provide for the continuance of private members' business from session to session within a Parliament.

The list for the consideration of private members' business established on April 7, 2006, continues from the last session to this session notwithstanding prorogation.

As such, all items of private members' business originating in the House of Commons that were listed on the order paper during the previous session are reinstated to the order paper and shall be deemed to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation of the first session.

Generally speaking, in practical terms, this also means that those items on the Order of Precedence remain on the Order of Precedence or, as the case may be, are referred to committee or sent to the Senate.

However, there is one item that cannot be left on the Order of Precedence. Pursuant to Standing Order 87(1), Parliamentary secretaries who are ineligible by virtue of their office to be put on the Order of Precedence will be dropped to the bottom of the list for the consideration of private members' business, where they will remain as long as they hold those offices.

Consequently, the item in the name of the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Motion M-302, is withdrawn from the Order of Precedence.

With regard to the remaining items on the order of precedence let me remind the House of the specifics since the House is scheduled to resume its daily private members' business hour starting tomorrow.

At prorogation, there were seven private members' bills originating in the House of Commons adopted at second reading and referred to committee. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 86.1:

Bill C-207, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax credit for new graduates working in designated regions), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Finance;

Bill C-265, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (qualification for and entitlement to benefits), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities;

Bill C-305, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (exemption from taxation of 50% of United States social security payments to Canadian residents), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Finance;

Bill C-327, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act (reduction of violence in television broadcasts), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage;

Bill C-343, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (motor vehicle theft), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights;

Bill C-377, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development; and

Bill C-428, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (methamphetamine), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

(Bills deemed introduced, read the first time, read the second time and referred to a committee)

Furthermore, four Private Members' bills originating in the House of Commons had been read the third time and passed. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 86.1, the following bills are deemed adopted at all stages and passed by the House:

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

Bill C-292, An Act to implement the Kelowna Accord;

Bill C-293, An Act respecting the provision of official development assistance abroad; and

Bill C-299, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (identification information obtained by fraud or false pretence).

Accordingly, a message will be sent to inform the Senate that this House has adopted these four bills.

Hon. members will find at their desks an explanatory note recapitulating these remarks. The Table officers are available to answer any further questions that hon. members may have.

I trust that these measures will assist the House in understanding how private members' business will be conducted in this second session of the 39th Parliament.

(Bills deemed adopted at all stages and passed by the House)

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-280 under private members' business.

The House resumed from May 28 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 third time and passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to conclude this hour of debate on third reading. This is not the first time I have spoken about the Refugee Appeal Division. It is necessary, and it is the cornerstone of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or IRPA.

It took a bill introduced by my colleague from Laval to finally get the appeal division implemented. Around us here, among our colleagues in this House, there are many who have openly supported the creation of the appeal division, and I want to thank them warmly.

Since I came to Parliament in 2004, I have worked constantly with refugees and immigrants in Quebec and Canada. The Refugee Appeal Division is an important piece that was missing from the legislation, and that absence is currently hurting people who are among the most disadvantaged among us. We know the consequences of the decisions that are made, and that, when mistakes are made, they are not necessarily corrected. I would therefore like to take this opportunity to thank my colleague from Laval for joining me in standing up for the rights of refugees, with conviction and without wavering.

Over the five years that have followed the passage of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Bloc Québécois has called attention to the injustices and inconsistencies in the area of immigration and refugee protection. The Bloc Québécois has also stood up for the interests of Quebec in this area. By failing to implement the appeal division, the government has made a mockery of refugee law. The Bloc Québécois has done everything possible to put an end to this injustice and used every means at its disposal to do that.

Canada is recognized as having one of the most generous systems in the world. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the UNHCR, in fact points to Canada's reputation as a leader in the humanitarian cause. On the other hand, the High Commissioner for Refugees believes, and has long been saying, that to add credibility to our system we need to have an appeal division in the refugee determination process. We need to be sure, once and for all, that the legislation that has done so much harm to so many refugees will be fixed and we need to be able to have an appeal on the merits. This procedure would allow for inconsistencies to be remedied as early as possible in the decision-making process.

It is not always possible to understand the intentions of the government, which has obstinately refused to set up the Refugee Appeal Division. We have numerous international organizations behind us. Amnesty International is urging Canada to set up the Refugee Appeal Division. The UN Committee against Torture has criticized the fact that there is no appeal division and has called for major changes. After the esteemed international organizations, we have organizations such as Rights and Democracy and the provincial governments, including the Quebec government. We can also include refugee advocacy groups like the Canadian Council for Refugees, the Centre for Faith and Justice, KAIROS, the Canadian and Quebec bar associations, immigrant service agencies like OCASI and TCRI, and the thousands of people who have signed the petitions presented in this House for more than five years. What is the Conservative government waiting for? The list goes on; it includes numerous professors and experts in international law and justice, including François Crépeau, the professor to whom my colleague in the NDP referred.

The Bloc Québécois had to introduce a bill asking for the implementation of the sections of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act dealing with the Refugee Appeal Division. This is ironical. I am proud that the Bloc Québécois took this initiative. We asked and demanded several times that this appeal division be implemented and, given the unwillingness and stubbornness of successive governments, we had no other choice than to introduce this bill so the debate would take place once and for all.

We believe that the in-depth changes concerning protection are urgent and necessary. These changes will not happen easily or quickly, but they must happen. Concrete and immediate action must be taken. We must start right now, especially since this will be a lengthy process.

Members will agree that a long trip can only start with a first step. The Refugee Appeal Division is this first step that we are seeking.

I take this opportunity to thank all the organizations that appeared before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and which provided us with the information and some wise advice. Their expertise and know-how are now duly recognized and they provided us with precious input. Thanks to them, we managed to convince several colleagues from other political parties in the House of Commons. All these people came here to remind us on many occasions that Canada's humanitarian tradition has long been a model for many countries, and they asked us to maintain it.

Consequently, I take this opportunity to salute them and to pay tribute to them today. The Conservatives, who now form a minority government, have done everything in their power to obstruct the passing of this bill. They flipped-flopped on this file and this is unacceptable. In the past, they supported the implementation of the appeal division when they were in opposition and also took part in an unanimous motion by the committee. This, among other things, was part of their platform.

In getting at the issue, I think that we must remember that deciding whether an individual is or is not a refugee is probably one of the most difficult decisions there is and everybody recognizes this. It is also a terrible decision to have to make since a serious mistake in the determination could cause an individual to be deported back to their country of origin, where they could suffer unfortunate consequences, be threatened or even killed. That is why we have been demanding for so long that Canada, like all other countries, adopt a determination mechanism that would allow the review of decisions, and that is the Refugee Appeal Division.

The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, the IRB, has been going through the worst crisis of its existence since the Conservatives have come to power. Besides advocating a return to a partisan board members selection process, they voluntarily put up roadblocks and created the present crisis because more than one third of IRB commissioner positions are now vacant. These people are necessary to make important and crucial decisions for people.

The backlog increases by 1,000 cases every month because the government is improvising on such an important issue. The government must correct the situation. The Conservatives have a moral responsibility to do so. I ask the hon. members to support Bill C-280. The rights of the refugees are at stake.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to participate today in the debate on Bill C-280, An Act to Amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act . I want to again thank the member for Laval and the member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges for their efforts in bringing this legislation forward.

Earlier the member for Laval called this a strange a strange bill. It is indeed a strange bill, a bill to implement legislation that has already been fully debated and passed in the House and in the other place, but the government has failed to implement it. This bill should not be necessary. This action should have been taken years ago when the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act was passed in 2001 and the legislation was implemented. The fact that it has not is a very serious problem.

I agree with the former chair of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Peter Showler, who called it “profoundly undemocratic” that this place could debate and develop a compromise on the refugee appeal process that saw a two-member board reduced to a one member board, but that a refugee appeal division was added to ensure that mistakes, caused because only one person was hearing a refugee claim, could be addressed. The fact that the refugee appeal division has not been implemented is undemocratic. It is also a real blow to justice and fairness in Canada.

Regarding the UNHCR, we have heard a number of times this morning that Canada has an excellent reputation when it comes to refugee resettlement work, and that is true. In 1986 the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees awarded Canada the Nansen Medal for our refugee work, and we are the only country to have been recognized as a country. Usually that award goes to individuals for their work with refugees.

We have been recognized in the past for our outstanding contribution, and that continues.

I should also point out that the UN High Commissioner for Refugees also criticized Canada when it came to the failure to implement an appeal process for refugees, the refugee appeal division. I want to quote from the UN High Commissioner who said:

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.

That is a direct criticism of the failure of the Canadian government to implement the refugee appeal division. She pointed out how necessary this division was given the changes made in the process under IRPA in 2001.

There have been many criticisms of this legislation. One of them has been the cost of doing this. I submit that the cost is relatively small given the overall immigration and refugee budget in Canada. The former Liberal government estimated a $2 million start-up cost and $8 million a year to operate the refugee appeal division, which is a paper appeal process. More recently, officials from the IRB and the Conservative government have said that the start-up cost would be more like $8 million and a $6 million to $8 million a year operating cost. That is fairly negligible in terms of the process.

Another criticism has been that the process is already too complicated. We heard that again from the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells. She said that there were too many stages in the refugee determination process and that the refugee appeal division was an impediment to streamlining. The lack of a refugee appeal division is an impediment to justice and fairness in our refugee process. The huge impediment to streamlining is the behaviour of the current government, especially around appointments and reappointments to the IRB itself, and I will have more to say about that in a few minutes.

Coming back to what the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells said this morning, I found her speech distressing in one important way. She was quick to criticize the official opposition for the position of former Liberal ministers of citizenship and immigration who did not support the implementation of the RAD. That is a valid criticism of the position that they took, but I want to criticize the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells because when she was a member of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration in the last Parliament, she was part of a unanimous decision to call for an immediate implementation of the refugee appeal division.

Suddenly, now that her party has become government, it seems she has picked up the speaking notes of the former Liberal ministers and is now reading them almost verbatim into the record. At least that is what it sounds like. She is saying that somehow it would be a problem to implement the RAD, whereas not so long ago she was part of a unanimous committee decision, as were a number of other Conservative members, calling for the implementation of the RAD. I think that some of the criticism that she was levelling at the official opposition and the former minister should land right back in her own lap.

There are very valid reasons for implementing the refugee appeal division just on its own. François Crépeau, Professor of International Law at the Université de Montréal and Canada Research Chair in International Migration Law, has made four points about why the refugee appeal division is indispensable for the smooth functioning of the Canadian refugee determination system.

His first point is:

In the interests of efficiency: a specialized appeal division is a much better use of scarce resources than recourse to the Federal Court, which is not at all specialized in refugee matters. It would be much better placed to correct errors of law and fact and to discipline hearing room participants for unacceptable behaviour.

His second point is:

In the interests of consistency of law: an Appeal Division deciding on the merits of the case is the only body able to ensure consistency of jurisprudence in both the analysis of specific facts and in the interpretation of legal concepts in the largest administrative tribunal in Canada.

His third point is:

In the interests of justice: a decision to deny refugee status is generally based on an analysis of the facts, often relies on evidence that is uncertain and leads to a risk of serious consequences (death, torture, detention, etc.) As in matters of criminal law, a right to appeal to a higher tribunal is essential for the proper administration of justice.

His last point is:

In the interests of reputation: as a procedural safeguard, the Refugee Appeal Division will enhance the credibility of the IRB in the eyes of the general public, just as the provincial Courts of Appeal reinforce the entire justice system. The IRB's detractors--both those who call it too lax, and those who call it too strict--will have far fewer opportunities to back up their criticisms and the Canadian refugee determination system will be better able to defend its reputation for high quality.

Those points that Professor Crépeau has made are very important ones that show how the RAD is important to improving the refugee determination system and improving the reputation of the refugee determination process in Canada.

I think it is fair to say that the Immigration and Refugee Board is currently in a crisis and I want to talk a little about that crisis. We know that over one-third of the places on the board are vacant. Those positions have not been filled. The members of the Conservative government have not taken recommendations for appointments to those boards and have not made reappointments of people who have served on the board.

The former chair said that this has caused 300 years of experience to be lost from the board. The backlog is going up by 1,000 cases a month at the IRB. The backlog was down to 19,000. The chair figured that 15,000 was a good working level for the board. It is now up to 24,000 or 25,000. That is completely unacceptable.

That crisis has been entirely created by the government. It is the government's own creation because it has refused to make appointments and reappointments. This cannot be tolerated. Our refugee determination system is in crisis. This situation has to come to an end. Those appointments need to be made. We must also get on with implementing the RAD. It is the right thing to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak, for the second time, to private member's Bill C-280, An Act to Amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Bill C-280 is an act that is intended to reaffirm some of the clauses that already exist in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act by calling for the establishment of an appeal mechanism for failed refugee claimants. This is the final debate on the bill before its third and final vote in the House. I continue to support it and hope that it becomes law.

As I mentioned before, Canada has a long tradition and a compassionate history of receiving refugees from around the world. These people are escaping unfair persecution and severe injustices and are seeking a peaceful new life and a promising future for themselves and their families. Canadians recognize that welcoming legitimate refugees is not a feel good exercise, but the right and moral thing to do for a country that believes in the principles of equality, fairness, opportunity and justice.

Also, a privileged country such as 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 the Immigration and Refugee Board, IRB, a quasi-judicial refugee board, where each case is examined based on its own merit and circumstances.

Prior to 2001, the backlog of refugee claimants was rising considerably and there were many calls to reform the system. The previous Liberal government recognized the magnitude of this challenge and confronted those needs head-on. Steps to reduce political interference were taken and measures to improve efficiencies were adopted.

One component of those reforms was to reduce the number of board members who adjudicated each claim from two to one. In exchange, an appeal division was proposed to ensure that a second opinion would not be lost by reducing the number of adjudicators to one. This measure was reached after conducting extensive consultations with experts, stakeholders and refugee organizations.

The new appeal is only a paper appeal and would not allow for new evidence to be submitted. It is intended to ensure that any failed refugee claimant is given a second look before a final decision is made. Though the new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act was passed in 2001, the refugee appeal division has not yet been put into practice.

Understandably, there are some administrative challenges to implement it, but that is not unusual when reforms are to be adopted. The decision to accept or reject a refugee applications is extremely seriously. It must examine the reality and the merit of the application in an objective and thoughtful way.

These procedures could have life or death consequences 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 ensure that our responsibility as a government and a country has been fulfilled in a just and verifiable way to the people who seek our help.

Instead of building on improvements that the previous Liberal government and the IRB have made over the last few years, the Conservatives have unfortunately chosen to set the clock back and weaken the system.

After years of progress, the backlog of refugee claimants has more than tripled in less than a year and a half under the watch of the Conservatives. The process to select the IRB is being politicized and the chair of the IRB, Mr. Jean-Guy Fleury, who is known for his honourable 40 years of public service, has resigned in protest.

The attempt by the Conservatives to inject their ideology and political agenda into the IRB has caused so much paralysis that we now have a crisis. The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration prepared an extensive report that was the culmination of a comprehensive study on the status of refugee matters in Canada. The report, entitled “Safeguarding Asylum—Sustaining Canada's Commitment to Refugees”, contains informative findings and thoughtful recommendations. I urge everyone to take a look at it when it is tabled.

One of the many constructive recommendations included in this report is to urge the government to act quickly to implement the appeal division. This matter requires urgent action.

I support conducting a comprehensive overhaul of the refugee processing system that must include an accessible and fair appeal process. Currently the system is convoluted and multi-layered. The lack of appeal and efficiency compels failed claimants to seek out legitimate and sometimes illegitimate methods in order to remain in Canada.

By strengthening and streamlining our application process, we can ensure that fewer people opt to appeal to Federal Court, which costs taxpayer money and clogs up our courts.

It is worth noting that the Conservative Party has been exhibiting very little compassion and understanding with regard to the real humanitarian issues of immigrants and refugees. 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, attempting 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.

I will be voting in favour of Bill C-280. The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration examined the legislation and approved its objectives. This bill is not asking us to introduce anything new or change our procedures drastically. It is only reaffirming what is already in 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 objective 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 the bill. In a country where we pride ourselves in championing justice and equality we must 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 also must be seen to do everything we can in that pursuit.

I want to remind my colleagues that a strong, efficient, transparent and fair refugee claims process is not only the right thing to do, but it is good for the safety of our country, good for the well-being of our citizens and is prudent when it comes to spending our tax dollars. It is the least we can do for people who are escaping persecution or tragic conditions and are seeking a better life for themselves and their families.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Fleetwood—Port Kells to participate in third reading debate on Bill C-280.

I would first like to say for my hon. colleagues and all Canadians that as a country we should take pride in our humanitarian and compassionate nature. Canada has welcomed thousands of refugees over the years and has helped them to settle so they could contribute to the economic, social and cultural enrichment of our great country.

Indeed, the government welcomed over 32,000 refugees last year, including, recently, over 750 Karen refugees from Myanmar, with hundreds more to come in the next two years. We also raised by 500 people the target for privately sponsored refugees, bringing it up to 4,500 for 2007.

I am proud to say that we are living up to our reputation when it comes to providing refugee protection to those in need. There can be no doubt that Canada meets and has surpassed its international commitments.

Canadians have a right to be proud of our humanitarian tradition, but we also recognize that we must have in place a refugee determination system that is fair and consistent in its application of the rules. That is why I rise today to repeat that the government is opposed to the private member's bill tabled by the hon. member for Laval.

Once again I ask my hon. colleagues to question the need for an appeal in the context of all the recourses offered by the refugee determination system as a whole. Implementing this legislation would be unfair to refugees as it would add months to the process.

While our in-Canada refugee determination process is fair and even generous, many have said that it is already complex, slow and costly. As we deal with these realities, we must also ensure that we are able to help individuals who really need protection.

I will outline the steps once again. First, applicants have access to the refugee protection division of the Immigration and Refugee Board or IRB. If their claim is refused by the IRB, they can apply for a pre-removal risk assessment. Should the pre-removal risk assessment be unsuccessful, failed refugee claimants can apply to stay for humanitarian and compassionate reasons, including for reasons of risk.

We do not see any practical reason to make this process any longer by adding a fourth layer of review.

There are currently three members of the official opposition who at one time served as ministers of citizenship and immigration. How about if we ask them for their views on this matter? The former Liberal minister of immigration, the member for Eglinton—Lawrence, said:

--the Refugee Appeal Division, which was proposed by the committee and accepted in Parliament, was an additional impediment to streamlining the process...we hardly needed that mechanism.

That is quite the statement, but there is more. The former Liberal immigration minister went on to say:

I might remind the House that all failed claimants can make an appeal to the federal court. They are also subject to a pre-removal risk assessment and have applications for [humanitarian and compassionate] in the process.

I refer to a specific case just this last year: a country from Central America, 2,000 applicants and 99% of them were refused. Would she have those 99% clogging up the system that she abhors?

Not only are former Liberal ministers making these comments, but the current official opposition critic for citizenship and immigration, the member for Mississauga—Erindale, said recently in the Toronto Star that the current refugee process takes too long and allows “bogus refugees...to stay longer, with potential implications for Canadian security”.

So we have former ministers saying the refugee process takes too long and the current Liberal immigration critic saying the refugee process takes too long, yet here we are with the Liberal Party supporting a bill that would increase the length of the process by adding an unnecessary layer to the system. If that is not a prime example of someone trying to suck and blow at the same time, I am not sure what is.

The opposition cannot have it both ways. Either the system takes too long or it does not. If it does, then the Liberal leader and caucus should take the advice of the former immigration ministers and refuse to support Bill C-280. If the Liberal opposition believes that the current refugee process is taking too long, it does not make any sense that it would extend the process by voting in favour of Bill C-280.

The hypocrisy from the opposition on this issue is breathtaking. Implementing sections of the RAD would add more time to a process that many consider long enough. It would also presume that the current safeguards intended to ensure that no one at risk is removed, including the judicial review process at the Federal Court and the pre-removal risk assessment, were not functioning as they should.

Let us consider the individuals who have been in the system for years. How do we make the system fairer and more just by adding yet another layer to the review process?

In addition to questioning the addition of a fourth recourse to the refugee system, we must also consider the lack of transition provisions in Bill C-280, which raises questions. For example, we must ask ourselves, who would be eligible for this new level of appeal? Would it apply to individuals whose cases were heard since the IRPA came into force in 2002? Or would only new cases be eligible? What would be the rule for cases currently before the Federal Court?

Who would hear cases sent back by the court? Would it be the refugee protection division or the refugee appeal division? This is not to mention that creating a backlog of cases for the inexperienced RAD would cause further delays.

As members of the government have said, the current refugee system includes many steps for both accepted and failed refugee claimants.

Assuming that the RAD would be given a new start without any backlog from day one and that fully trained decision makers with the necessary qualifications would be appointed, implementing the RAD would add at least another five months to an already long refugee process.

As for the alternative, we must ask ourselves, what are the risks of saddling the new appeal division with a large backlog which would cause a further increase in processing delays in the refugee system?

As I have said, currently those who are successful go through a minimum of three steps: an eligibility decision by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration or the Canada Border Services Agency; a merits decision on the claim by the IRB; and an application for permanent residence by CIC. It often takes upward of three years from the time of the claim to being accepted as a refugee and obtaining permanent residence.

Current research suggests that most failed claimants go through at least four separate processes: an eligibility decision; a merits decision; an application for leave to seek judicial review at the Federal Court; and a pre-removal risk assessment. As I have said, many failed refugee claimants also make an application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

Ultimately, it takes years before failed refugee claimants can be removed from Canada. Canadians would have every right to question whether yet another layer of appeal would make the system any fairer and more just, especially when they see that many people have been in the system for years and years.

Will creating more layers enhance what is already regarded as one of the most generous refugee systems in the world? No.

Is there a legitimate reason to implement the RAD at this time? As the former Liberal ministers of citizenship and immigration would say, no.

Canada's refugee determination system meets all legal requirements, provides protection to all who need it and provides a number of opportunities for decisions to be reviewed. Adding yet another layer and delaying the process even further is not fair to refugees and their families, who count on an efficient and timely determination process so they can get on with building their lives.

I am happy to see that the former Liberal ministers of immigration agree with our government's position on this issue. My only hope is that the leader of the Liberal Party and the Liberal immigration critic, the member for Mississauga—Erindale, will actually consult with them before the next vote on this important issue.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, 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 third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, this is the third reading of this bill, which I was proud to introduce on behalf of the Bloc Québécois. Originally, the bill was sponsored by my colleague from Vaudreuil-Soulanges, the Bloc's immigration critic. The reason we have had to introduce this bill, and this is true for a number of bills and motions introduced by the Bloc Québécois, is because things are truly absurd in this House, and the Refugee Appeal Division—which is part of legislation that has already been passed—has not yet been implemented. So, passing this bill will make it possible for sections 110, 111 and 171 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the three sections that have to do with the Refugee Appeal Division, to take effect.

While it is absurd to have to pass legislation to ask that specific sections of another piece of legislation come into force, this should not come as a surprise. From day one, the Bloc Québécois has stood up for the most vulnerable in society and made a point of vigorously defending the interests of all those citizens who do not have a voice and are unable to defend their interests themselves.

We have come to the conclusion that we should introduce a bill to implement the refugee appeal division after many people, individuals, groups or representatives asked us repeatedly to put a bill together to put an end to this absurd situation. We have done so very thoroughly and with great pleasure.

As I indicated, we have sought the assistance of many. My colleague, the whip of the Bloc Québécois, alluded earlier to relevancy. We are always very careful to be relevant in making requests. I could point out today that the Canadian Council for Refugees has been of great assistance to us in explaining the many ways in which the refugee appeal division is essential. I will mention a few.

Why is an appeal division necessary? The stakes are high. Refugee determination is one of the few decision making processes in Canada where a wrong decision can mean death for the applicant. Even though the stakes are so high, there are fewer safeguards in the system than for other decision making processes where the stakes are much lower—for example, a minor criminal offence. As a result, wrong decisions go uncorrected.

Decision making is inherently difficult. Refugee determination is extremely difficult because it involves deciding what may happen in the future in another country, about which the decision maker may have limited knowledge, based often on testimony that must pass through an interpreter and that may be confusing because of the traumatic experiences that the claimant has lived through. Often decision makers have little documentary evidence that can help decide the case one way or the other, and the credibility of the claimant is a decisive factor. However, credibility assessments can easily be wrong.

Another reason is that not all decision-makers are equally competent. For many years, appointments to the Immigration and Refugee Board have been made in part on the basis of political connections, rather than purely on the basis of competence. As a result, while many board members are highly qualified and capable, some are not. The problem was recognized by the former Minister of Citizenship and Immigration who announced a reform of the appointment process in spring 2004. While this is a positive development and may mean future improvements, in the meantime board members appointed under the old political patronage system continue to decide on the fate of refugee claimants.

Another reason to support this bill is that decision-making is inconsistent. Refugee determination involves a complex process of applying a legal definition to facts about country situations that can be interpreted in different ways.

Different decision-makers do not necessarily come up with the same answer, leading to serious inconsistencies. Two claimants fleeing the same situation may not get the same determination, depending on which board member they appear before. This was the case with two Palestinian brothers who had the same basis for their refugee claim, yet one was accepted and the other refused.

I had the privilege, together with my colleague from Vaudreuil-Soulanges, of meeting a refugee claimant who experienced that very situation. Someone he knew had gone through the same experience he had. The person he knew was accepted as a refugee, but he, himself, has sought sanctuary in a church for almost two years now. That is not right.

Poor representation is another reason. Refugee determination is made more difficult because refugee claimants sometimes have no legal representative, or are represented by incompetent and unscrupulous lawyers and consultants. How many times have we had to deal with people who have been wronged and deceived by others who claimed to be competent lawyers and who claimed to be able to help when nothing could be further from the truth? They did not help; in fact, they made things worse in order to make their money at the expense of very vulnerable people.

This problem is quite common because refugee claimants rarely have much money to pay for a lawyer. In some provinces, legal aid is unavailable to claimants, and in others, the aid is so meagre that few competent lawyers are willing to represent claimants on legal aid.

Any decision-making process will involve mistakes. As human beings, we are all bound to make mistakes from time to time, however hard we try. An effective system recognizes this and provides a mechanism to correct errors. We do this in the criminal justice system, which allows anyone who feels they have been wrongly convicted to appeal the decision. We try to avoid people being wrongly sent to jail here in Canada by providing appeals. Why would we not similarly try to avoid refugees being wrongly removed, which could result not only in their being jailed, but tortured and even killed?

There is one more reason. Non-implementation shows disrespect for the rule of law. Parliament approved a law that included a right to an appeal on the merits for refugee claimants. This right was balanced by a reduction in the number of board members hearing a case from two to one. During debate, there was never any suggestion that the implementation of the appeal would be indefinitely delayed and there is no indication that Parliament would have passed the law if the government had proposed it as it is now being implemented.

For these very obvious and valid reasons, I would ask all my colleagues to reflect very carefully when deciding how they will vote on this matter. We feel this bill should be passed and adopted by all the members of this House, and we are not the only ones to think so. Amnesty International recently released a report that criticizes the Canadian government's failure to respect these agreements and the decisions of Parliament.

It would be a disgrace to not be able to meet the needs of these men, women and children, of all these vulnerable people. Some of these families have been here long enough to integrate very well. Some individuals are working or in school, some are involved and engaged in their communities and civil society. There is every indication that they are exemplary citizens. If we do not adopt this bill, in the near future these individuals may be forced to return to a system of terror and to a country where they may be beaten, silenced, imprisoned or even killed.

I am convinced that most of the members of this House would not wish this on anyone. I am convinced that if someone in our family had to suffer what most refugees are subjected to in their countries, we would realize the importance of this bill and we would vote in favour of it.

Bill C-280—An Act to Amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The Chair is now prepared to rule on a point of order raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform on May 3, 2007 in relation to Bill C-280, An Act to Amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (coming into force of sections 110, 111 and 171), standing in the name of the hon. member for Laval.

In his submission, the parliamentary secretary explained that Bill C-280 proposed to change the manner in which provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act would come into effect. That act was amended in 2001 by Bill C-11, which contained a clause, clause 275, providing that:

The provisions of this Act come into force on a day or days to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council.

This sort of clause is frequently found in bills and is commonly known as the “coming into force clause”.

Some provisions of Bill C-11 have yet to be proclaimed by the governor in council. Bill C-280 proposes to have three such provisions, namely sections 110, 111 and 171 of the act, brought into effect immediately upon royal assent of Bill C-280, and not by way of proclamation to be determined by the governor in council.

The parliamentary secretary noted that the substantive effect of implementing sections 110, 111 and 171 of the act would be to establish the refugee appeal division at the Immigration and Refugee Board and that this would entail significant new expenditures of an administrative nature. He then went on to explain that through its coming into force clause, Bill C-11 gave the governor in council the power to determine at what time the division would be created and the associated expenditures would be incurred.

The parliamentary secretary contends that by changing the coming into force of these sections of the act, the terms and conditions of the royal recommendation accompanying Bill C-11 are being altered. He read from citation 596 of Beauchesne's sixth edition, which explains that the royal recommendation not only fixes the amount of an expenditure but also the way that it would be incurred.

He went on to cite two precedents from 1985 and 1986 to support his arguments that Bill C-280 should therefore be accompanied by a new royal recommendation.

The Chair has examined the two precedents cited by the parliamentary secretary in support of his basic argument that an alteration in the coming-into-force provisions of a bill infringes on the financial initiative of the Crown.

The first precedent, in 1985, concerns a report stage motion to Bill C-23, an act to amend the Small Business Loans Act. The bill sought, among other things, to restrict to 90% the amount of loss sustained by the minister for loans made to small business enterprises after March 31, 1985. The report stage motion sought to maintain the existing law and make the minister liable for the full amount of the loss. On March 26, 1985, Mr. Speaker Bosley ruled the amendment inadmissible because it relaxed a condition of the royal recommendation.

The second precedent, in 1986, concerns an amendment put forward during consideration in committee of the whole of Bill C-11, an act to amend the Income Tax Act. The bill sought to allow the prepayment of a child tax credit in the following taxation year. The amendment would have permitted the prepayment during the greater part of the current taxation year. In ruling the amendment inadmissible on October 17, 1986, the chairman of the committee of the whole simply explained that the proposed amendment infringed on the royal recommendation.

While these precedents may be useful in understanding how programs may be limited or extended in their application, they do not assist us in better understanding the issue at hand.

The fundamental issue in the present case is whether the coming-into-force provision of an act which was originally accompanied by a royal recommendation can be altered without a new royal recommendation.

After considerable reflection on the matter, the Chair would present the situation as follows.

In 2001 Bill C-11 sought an authorization from Parliament to establish the refugee appeal division. As I see it, the action of setting up the statutory framework for the new division required that a royal recommendation accompany Bill C-11 because a new and distinct authority for spending was being requested.

As it happened, Bill C-11 also contained a coming into force provision which would allow the governor in council to decide when the refugee appeal division would be formally established. In the view of the Chair, it is very important to remember that even after the governor in council proclaims the establishment of the division, Parliament would still have to approve spending plans for its operations through the estimates and the subsequent appropriation act.

In this light, therefore, it appears to the Chair that the chief financial components which require a royal recommendation are: first, authorization for setting up the statutory framework for the refugee appeal division, duly provided by Bill C-11 with its original royal recommendation; and the operational funding to be sought in a future appropriation act where financial authority can be duly provided in the usual estimates process.

Although the proclamation of the coming-into-force provision will set into motion the establishment of the refugee appeal division, it should be seen as independent of the royal recommendation and not part of its terms and conditions.

Our rules and practices hold that coming into force clauses of bills have always been open to amendment and a vote. If we were to accept the argument that an alteration in the coming into force provision would somehow infringe upon the royal recommendation, then it should not be admissible for a committee or the House to negative or amend such a clause unilaterally. Such is clearly not the case.

Essentially, it is a question of timing. The royal recommendation originally attached to the bill applies, unaltered, to its provisions irrespective of the point in time at which such provisions come into force and, from a procedural standpoint, the alterations to the coming into force provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, as expressed in Bill C-280, cannot be seen as infringing on the financial imitative of the Crown.

Consequently, Bill C-280 may proceed for debate and a vote at third reading.

I think that the hon. Leader of the Opposition wishes to rise on a question of privilege.

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at report stage of Bill C-280 under private members' business.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-280, An Act to Amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (coming into force of sections 110, 111 and 171), as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Bill C-280--Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened as my colleague from across the way tried to put up a roadblock to Bill C-280. However, Bill C-280 is not an amendment to Bill C-11. We only ask for implementation. Bill C-11 already received royal assent. It has been voted on and studied. We only ask for the implementation of a measure included in Bill C-11. I do not see where the problem lies.

In concluding, I reserve the right to speak again to the issue.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my point of order I must say that while I recognize I am raising this point of order today, I also recognize the fact that a ruling by yourself will not be made before third reading debate takes place on Bill C-280.

It is on Bill C-280 that I rise today. Without commenting on the merits of the private member's bill, I would appreciate your consideration, Mr. Speaker, on whether Bill C-280, An Act to Amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, requires a royal recommendation under Standing Order 79.

The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act was adopted as Bill C-11 by the 37th Parliament and received royal assent on November 1, 2001. Bill C-11, which was accompanied by a royal recommendation, specified in clause 275 that:

The provisions of this Act come into force on a day or days to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council.

Bill C-280 seeks to amend section 275 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to stipulate that, despite the coming into force provisions adopted in 2001, sections 110, 111 and 171 would come into force on the day Bill C-280 receives royal assent.

The substantive effect would be to establish a refugee appeal division at the Immigration and Refugee Board. This would involve significant new expenditures to cover the appointment of adjudicators to hear appeals; the administrative officers to establish, receive and process applications for appeal; office space to conduct appeal hearings; and other activities required for the operation of a new appeals division.

The Department of Citizenship and Immigration estimates that the initial start-up cost would be at least $8 million and ongoing annual costs would be over $12 million. This does not include the considerable costs associated with the provision of legal aid.

Those estimated costs also do not take into consideration the potential significant costs of implementation should the bill fail to include transition provisions, without which, could potentially lead to an immediate backlog of approximately 40,000 additional cases.

Of course, the creation of a refugee division was contemplated by the original legislation. However, this was accompanied by a qualification in clause 275, that the timing of its creation would be subject to a future decision of the governor in council, namely, when to bring in sections 110, 111 and 171 into force.

The procedural authorities and precedents indicate that the royal recommendation, which accompanies a bill, fixes not only the amount of an expenditure but also the way in which it will be incurred.

Beauchesne's 6th edition, page 183, citation 596, indicates:

...the communication, to which the Royal Recommendation is attached, must be treated as laying down once for all...not only the amount of the charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications. In relation to the standard thereby fixed, an amendment infringes the financial initiative of the Crown not only if it increases the amount but also if it extends the objects and purposes, or relaxes the conditions and qualifications expressed in the communication by which the Crown has demanded or recommended a charge.

On March 26, 1985, on page 3353 of Hansard, the Speaker cited this section of Beauchesne's in ruling an amendment to a government bill out of order because, by eliminating a legislated deadline, it would relax a condition of the royal recommendation.

On October 17, 1986, at page 473 of Hansard, the Speaker ruled that an amendment to an income tax bill was beyond the scope of a royal recommendation, even though it did not change the overall expenditure, because “It changes the intent of the Bill”.

The intent of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, as clearly expressed in clause 275, was that the governor in council would determine at what time clauses 110, 111 and 171 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act would be brought into force. In other words, that the governor in council would determine at what time the expenditures associated with those clauses would be incurred.

This was a condition of the royal recommendation for Bill C-11, which members of the 37th Parliament accepted and which is, therefore, inseparable from the authorization for expenditures for a refugee appeal board.

Since Bill C-280 seeks to relax that condition by removing the Governor in Council's determination of the timing of the crown's expenditure, Bill C-280 is beyond the scope of the original royal recommendation and, I submit, should be accompanied by a new royal recommendation.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Norman Doyle, Conservative, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, reporting Bill C-280, An Act to Amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (coming into force of sections 110, 111 and 171), without amendment.

Statutes Repeal Act

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

Mr. Speaker, this morning I am honoured to address Bill S-202, the statutes repeal act.

Let me begin by congratulating the member for Joliette on his appointment as House leader for the Bloc Québécois. I know that he will bring his not only his experience but his commitment to this place to that job. I also want to thank the member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean for his work in that position up to this point. They are different MPs, I know, and they bring different perspectives to that important task in this place.

I also want to thank the member for Mississauga South for presenting this Senate bill, the statutes repeal act, here in the House for our consideration. I know that it comes out of his commitment to the functioning of this place. He takes a great interest in how the chamber works and I appreciate his initiative around this important legislation.

As we have heard, this legislation seeks to address the fact that a number of pieces of legislation have never come into effect. They have never been enacted even though they have passed through the legislative process here in the House and also in the other place. For some reason, the government has chosen not to enact them.

That came as somewhat of a surprise to me even though I have worked in this place for many years. The fact that the government could choose not to implement legislation that had been passed by the House of Commons and the Senate, that it had that prerogative, is something that I still find passing strange. I find it strange that governments would sponsor legislation, take it through the process in both chambers, with members giving it their due and careful consideration, and see it go through all the stages of the various readings in the House and Senate and ultimately be passed, yet for some reason choose not to implement that legislation, and it would also not seek to repeal that legislation. It would just let it sit there on the books without effect for many years.

Indeed, I understand how that is a problem and I understand the need for some kind of housekeeping measures, both to bring accountability for the legislative process and to ensure that governments are doing their duty and following the will of the legislative branch of our government. I think this bill is a very important piece of legislation. It is important to consider what we do with legislation that has been on the books for many years and has not been enacted.

Generally there are several ways in which this is dealt with in legislation. All legislation has a coming into effect clause, which is usually the last clause of the legislation and which talks about when the legislation will come into effect. In some legislation that is very clearly stated: that it comes into effect at the point of royal assent or sometimes on a specific timetable with specific dates. In those cases, there is not a problem in terms of that legislation not becoming effective, not being enacted and not actually being carried out.

The problem is in the situation where the coming into effect legislation talks about the date to be determined by the governor in council, when the government is given the opportunity to determine the timeline for the coming into effect of legislation. Often there is a good reason for that. It may be that there are further negotiations with other levels of government that have to happen. It may be that regulations have to be developed to allow for the implementation of that legislation.

However, it is in those situations that the prerogative begins for the government to delay or even not implement legislation. That is where I think we need to be more diligent, perhaps, as members of Parliament. I certainly will be careful to look at that clause in any legislation that I am directly involved with in this place in the future, because I think that is where we as legislators can exercise our abilities to ensure that the legislation we work on and support comes into effect in a reasonable length of time and actually does happen. I think that is a place where we need to be more careful.

I would also hope that governments might take more direct responsibility in a situation where problems do crop up with legislation that has been passed but which governments feel they cannot go forward with. They should take responsibility to bring back legislation to repeal something that has already been passed, to convince the people in this place, who have responsibility for the people of Canada to work on that legislation and to make judgments about that legislation. A government must give representatives the opportunity to understand the problems with the legislation as the government sees it and to make a decision about whether it should go forward or not.

We have heard that there are two complete bills, the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act from the early 1980s and the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute Act from the early 1990s that have not been implemented. I do not know what was in those pieces of legislation that caused them to not be implemented by the government. When I see the title of the first one, the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act, I wonder if it had come into effect we might have solved some of the problems that we are facing today since it seemed to be an early attempt to deal with that important issue back in the 1980s.

I also understand that there are 57 other pieces of legislation that would be affected by this bill and it seems reasonable that there should be a review of that legislation. However, I want to make sure that we do not lose the opportunity to hold governments accountable for important legislation that was passed, and that we do indulge and we are careful about the politics between the legislative branch and the executive branch of government. We sometimes have to as legislators push the governor in council, the government, to act on legislation and for very good reasons.

I will use as an example my experience since I arrived in this place with a piece of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act which was passed in 2001 dealing with the refugee appeal division. I know this is not exactly applicable to the Statutes Repeal Act, but it gives an example of the kind of situation we are talking about.

The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, IRPA, was passed in 2001 and one feature of that act was the establishment of the refugee appeal division which was a paper screening process that gave refugee claimants an appeal of a decision made by the Immigration and Refugee Board. That refugee appeal division was established in law as a compromise in the debate on the immigration and refugee appeal division.

The government of the day wanted to reduce the panels which heard refugee claims from two members to one member, but concerns of other members of Parliament were that a two member panel gave an opportunity for corrections of errors that might be made in the process, whereas a one member panel did not afford that opportunity for fairness and justice, hence the RAD was introduced as a compromise to ensure fairness in the system.

Since then, the governments of the day have refused to implement the refugee appeal division, and every refugee and immigrant serving organization in the country and many internationally have called on the government to implement that. The previous Liberal government and the current Conservative government have faced those strong calls from NGOs which work with refugees to implement that division to bring a modicum of fairness to the process.

The governments of the day have refused to do that. It is part of the law. It was passed as part of the law, but the fact that the law also gave the governor in council the ability to determine the timetable for the implementation of that law, these particular sections have never been implemented.

This brings us to the strange situation where the member for Laval, with the support of her colleague, the member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges, have drafted a private member's bill, Bill C-280, An Act to Amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (coming into force of sections 110, 111 and 171). However, this is a private member's bill to implement legislation that has already been passed by Parliament. It seems a strange step to have to take, but many members of Parliament in all parties have called for the government to take this action.

That is one example of the kind of situation we get into, where this chamber made a decision and the Senate also made a decision on this legislation. The legislation was passed. An important piece was added as part of the debate on that and yet the government has chosen never to implement it. Many of us feel that it is a very serious problem with our immigration law.

There are other examples. There is the wage earners protection bill, Bill C-55 which dealt with corporate bankruptcies and putting workers first in the lineup to receive compensation. Parts of that have not been acted on even though it was passed in this place. There are sections of the Labour Code which face the same situation. We do need an effective mechanism to review those pieces of legislation and I am glad that Bill S-202 gives us that opportunity.

[Barry Devolin, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

I don't agree with the decision of the committee that because of unusual circumstances we didn't get a chance to hear the witnesses we wanted to hear on this bill. I think we should hear them, and I've said this in the past, that this is a very unusual situation with the RAD, that it's a piece of legislation that was passed, and for some reason the government of the day chose not to proclaim the one part of the bill. That is unusual.

Secondly, when Bill C-280 went before the House of Commons a few weeks ago, I have said there is one current minister for this portfolio and four former ministers for the portfolio in the House. None of them voted to support it, and in fact, in terms of the three former Liberal ministers, one voted against it and two abstained, which is in some ways maybe even a stronger statement than voting against it.

I have said this in the past, and I accept the fact that some of my colleagues believe the RAD should be proclaimed and implemented and this is the right part of the process, but with all due respect to that point of view, I also find it interesting that people who are more familiar with the department and are familiar with processes and ought to have a good sense of what it will mean obviously have some problem with it. That's why, quite frankly, I found it irresponsible that we decided not to call some of the former ministers before us and just ask them: “You're familiar with this. It was your government that passed it. Why do you even today still not support implementing it?”

Secondly, if there are actually people from outside government, who are outside witnesses, who also have reservations about the RAD...this morning we heard so many compelling stories about how long it takes to get stuff done. There seems an incongruency to me between us wanting to make the system better and fairer, which is the argument for the RAD, but at the same time we want to make it faster, and the way we're going to do that is by introducing another layer and that somehow that's supposed to solve either of those problems.

It's 1:05 p.m. now. To try to jam this through in the next few minutes is irresponsible on the part of this committee.

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

I hesitate to accept this motion because the work we did last time we dealt with the bill was very disappointing. The clerk told me that no amendments to Bill C-280 had been tabled and that no motion had been introduced last Tuesday for us to hear new witnesses on this bill. From what I could understand, the meeting was interrupted and the witnesses who were to appear at that meeting were not summoned to a subsequent meeting. So I don't see the need to adopt this amendment, in view of the fact that no amendment has been introduced. In my view, it should be possible to do the clause-by-clause consideration in five minutes, since no amendments have been tabled.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

When we had the last meeting on Bill C-280 there were two witnesses who testified. One was Mr. Gallagher, and I forget the other one. I expressly asked this committee if we could call witnesses on Bill C-280. I think it was in the form of a motion. Remarkably, the motion passed for the witnesses to be called to testify. The names were given to the clerk, who arranged for the witnesses to be here. I'm not sure if they were going to appear as separate panels. Were they kept together? Their presentations weren't particularly lengthy, but they certainly had a perspective on that issue. It seems that we already decided it was okay.

I would suggest a friendly amendment to Ms. Faille's motion, to the effect that the clause-by-clause proceed at the next scheduled hearing date—which I understand is Tuesday of next week—with the opportunity to hear from the witness. I know it's a moderate delay, but it's not an overly lengthy one.

We're almost at one o'clock in any event. I'm not sure how urgently the committee wants to try to put through this motion today. Maybe you want to hear further on the motion, but as we have it—

[Rahim Jaffer, Conservative, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

It seems to me, if there are relevant questions to be asked about RAD, we should be able to ask them in this particular forum. If we do have to change the time slightly, I think there should be at least the goodwill on behalf of committee members to be able to do this.

I don't usually move motions like this, nor do I speak on particular motions of this nature, but I must admit I was offended in the first round of questioning, as I mentioned. When we did have the ability to ask further questions, we were looking at changing the format according to the schedule. I know we've done that many times.

I sit on the steering committee with a number of members on the other side, and often what's determined at the steering committee is changed here at a particular committee if the majority of members don't agree with it. I know that in this particular case, to ask for slightly more time of witnesses, even though I know we have a very packed committee, there's no reason why we shouldn't be able to look over even potentially delaying witnesses. At the last meeting, I remember that we were going through the detention certificates report, and there were witnesses waiting, Mr. Chair. I felt sorry for them, yet our committee decided that we were going to send them home in order to continue on with the study of our report.

All my motion is speaking to is the particular fact that right now, if we want the ability to ask further questions, I don't think there should be any reason not to. There were legitimate efforts on behalf of members to find out, as we talked about, what sort of backlog is going to exist with this RAD if it's implemented and what sort of timeline will exist with the RAD if we are going to pass it.

Just because the opposition says so, and although they may have the majority on this committee and pass this bill here and later in the House, it doesn't make it so magically. There are going to be implementation issues that the government has to take into consideration, including the cost. We were just informed by Mr. Aterman that in fact it's going to be 7% of the current budget, which is clearly going to have an impact on the backlog position.

Of course, being the Government of Canada, we have to take this into consideration. The opposition doesn't necessarily have to worry about those implementation issues. They can pass anything they like and then simply say it's our problem to put it into effect. For these reasons, it's clear that we must have time to ask further questions. Again, my friendly amendment to the motion is simply suggesting that. Why wouldn't we have the ability to do so?

I know that even the last time around when we had the officials here, I wanted to ask what the minister would do in an appeal decision to RAD, and why the bill would include a provision for the minister to seek judicial review of RAD decisions. I wasn't able to put the questions to the previous witnesses. We would, in the spirit of this amendment that I'm moving, have the ability to actually bring back those witnesses in order for us to get the proper questions in. I think that's something the committee should really take into consideration.

On this refugee appeal division I think we've heard from a number of speakers around the table, including most recently my colleague Barry, who was asking a particular question that I think is a valid one. In the last opportunity I had to actually move a motion here at the committee--and I think it was the last time the committee met--I asked specifically that as a follow-up the committee consider what Barry had asked current witnesses. That was the question of why the previous ministers of immigration, in opposition, had not supported this new Bill C-280. When it comes to RAD, it was obvious to me there were huge splits, huge problems.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just have some comments, and I want to thank the witnesses for their presentation.

Chair, I'm going to reject the allegations that the parliamentary secretary was making earlier, when he was beginning his filibuster, that somehow other members of this committee aren't interested in doing their appropriate job, or aren't doing a good job in terms of dealing with this issue and with this piece of legislation. I want to reject that categorically.

If the government, whether Liberal or Conservative, had done its job, and if the Conservatives had remained consistent with the position they took in the last Parliament in support of the RAD, if the government, whether Liberal or Conservative, had respected both the will of Parliament and the law that was passed, we wouldn't be here today discussing a bill to implement existing legislation. Those of us who have been advocating for a fair and just refugee process in Canada wouldn't have this frustration, and we wouldn't have to resort to this kind of legislation.

It is ridiculous, as Monsieur Gravel pointed out, that we should have to have a bill to implement existing legislation. That could have been dealt with easily along the way and long before now, with very positive results for the system.

I'm going to say to the representatives from the IRB that no one in this room wants to overwhelm the IRB. If anything, we want to be advocates for an effective IRB, and we have done that in our work in terms of our concern about the backlog and the lack of appointments. We will continue that work. It's not our intention to frustrate the excellent work of the IRB on very important and life-and-death questions for many people, but we are extremely frustrated with the refusal of the government to implement the provisions of IRPA.

The reality remains that if the government were concerned about creating backlogs, they could implement the RAD today. They could take those steps. They could announce their commitment to it. They could announce a timeline, and I'm sure all of us would be willing to consider that kind of timeline and that kind of process if there were a firm and hard commitment to doing that. They have chosen not to do that, and that's why we're in this position today.

The government could have short-circuited Bill C-280 the day before it was passed in the House. They could have short-circuited it--I'm sure--the day after it was passed in the House. If they wanted to take into consideration that a strong majority of the members of the current Parliament supported this legislation because they believe the RAD is an important piece of our refugee determination process, they had the ability to respond to that action by Parliament, and they chose not to. So that's twice that the government has chosen not to do that.

Though I understand the frustrations that implementation might cause and the stresses it might cause, it is within the government's ability to deal with that at any time.

I have one question. You say that it might take 12 months to establish the RAD. When I ask for a deadline, I usually put some extra time in it. If pressed, could it be shorter, or is that a minimum timeline?

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

You'll have to explain that to me. I understood that all Bill C-280 does is set a deadline for implementing existing sections of IRPA.

[Malcolm Brown]

It could, but I'm not sure it would apply to the provisions that are contained in the current Bill C-280. There's an assumption that there's a perfect match and the provisions of section 73, as they apply to IRPA, can be applied to Bill C-280. The advice I'm getting is that they can't be.

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

If we contend that the coherent package is already in IRPA...you're not answering my question. Even though section 73 might not be mentioned in Bill C-280, if Bill C-280 were passed and went ahead, the government could also go ahead on section 73 at any time, because it's already been passed by Parliament and the mechanism to do that is there.

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

You mentioned a concern about section 73 not being included, but there's nothing to prevent the government from implementing that immediately, should Bill C-280 pass, if the government was concerned about the absence of that.

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

You mentioned your concern about section 73 not being included in this, but the passage of Bill C-280 doesn't preclude the government from taking action on section 73 if it chose to do so. Is that correct?

[Malcolm Brown]

Frankly, that's not been an issue. We've been focusing on the implications of Bill C-280. You're going to hear from the IRB later today. They may be unhappy with me for saying this, but I think really it's an important question for the IRB in terms of the implications it would have for them. I wouldn't want to trespass on what is, I think, largely their question to answer. It's certainly an issue that if the committee so instructs, the department can look at the questions of the implications of going back to decision-makers. But I think the government and previous Parliaments made a decision about the merits of a single decision-maker.

[Malcolm Brown]

You're really asking me two questions, and I'll try to answer both.

In terms of the challenges, yes, of course there are challenges in running any system. What we've tried to identify today are specific challenges that I think are unique, in terms of our having been asked about the specific implications of Bill C-280.

There is a responsibility upon officials to identify what those are. They are significant and, I would argue, they are not simply business-as-usual ones in operating big systems. They're complex.

As I underlined in my statement, and I won't repeat it, there are very significant implications if the bill is passed as it currently stands, in terms of the absence of transition provisions and those sorts of things.

On your second question, about the “deal”, to paraphrase what you've described, there is no question that IRPA contained the provisions and that RAD was not implemented. I'm not sure it's a question of the history of it; it's the question of the implications of the decision around implementing the RAD. At the time, there were implications in terms of backlogs, and there was a decision made.

I think as well, our assessment is that the system we have now is working quite well. As for the concerns some people may have had at the time around a single decision-maker and whether their system was robust enough and had sufficient protections in place, we think adding a new measure of appeal wouldn't significantly change things and would in fact only result in further delay and more money.

Our view is that the circumstances of how IRPA was negotiated at the time of the bill is an historical point. As an official, I have to deal with the consequences of the legislation before us, and a debate, frankly, about what was or wasn't agreed to at the time is really outside my pay grade, if I can put it that way.

[Malcolm Brown]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to thank the committee for having invited departmental officials from Citizenship and Immigration to speak to you on the issue you are studying, that is to say Bill C-280, an Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

As you stated, Mr. Chairman, I am accompanied today by Ms. Micheline Aucoin, Director General, Refugees Branch, and by Mr. Eric Stevens from the department's Legal Services Branch.

The committee is aware of the subjects of concern to the government as far as Bill C-280 is concerned. The committee also knows that the government opposes the bill. We are here to answer procedural questions, for example concerning the necessary preparations for the implementation of a schedule, and questions related to the transition.

At Citizenship and Immigration Canada, we are very proud of our Canadian refugee determination system. It is often described as being one of the best in the world, including by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. There is no doubt that Canada respects its international commitments and the requirements of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that it even goes beyond that. Canadians can be proud of their humanitarian tradition.

Let me begin by drawing your attention to the fact sheet entitled “Refugee Appeal Division” that the department tabled at this committee in December of last year. In that document, we discussed the many opportunities that refugee claimants currently have to show why they should not be removed from Canada.

First, they have access to the refugee protection division of the Immigration and Refugee Board, where independent, well-trained, well-informed decision-makers hear the claimants' stories and review the information put forward to support that story.

Second, claimants have access to the pre-removal risk assessment, where they can put forward any new information that has not been considered by the IRB. Well-trained, well-informed public servants ensure that individuals are not returned for persecution, torture, or death.

Third, failed refugee claimants can apply to stay in Canada for humanitarian and compassionate reasons, including reasons of risk. Refugee claimants can and do make such applications, and many are accepted. About half of applicants for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds—H and C, for brevity—are failed refugee claimants. The general H and C acceptance rate is 50%.

Fourth, refused refugee claimants can apply for a judicial review of that decision. The Federal Court review involves a full paper review of the IRB decision on grounds of fact and law, much like the refugee appeal division as proposed in Bill C-280.

The Federal Court can send and has sent cases back to the IRB based on patently unreasonable errors in findings of fact in a range of cases, including on issues relating to the claimant's credibility, assessing medical evidence, gender persecution claims, as well as the availability of police protection and country conditions.

I would like now to turn to some of the technical issues that are raised by Bill C-280.

The first issue has already been raised by Jean-Guy Fleury, the former chair of the IRB, when he appeared before this committee in December 2004. He advised that the board would require approximately one year to establish a fully operational refugee appeal division. I believe this lead time to be optimistic.

While the IRB is here to testify later this morning, there are a number of issues worth identifying. Board members with a different competency in hearing appeals than is currently the case would need to be assigned to the RAD, or appointed. Finding members and training them will take time. As well, a new set of rules establishing the procedures and conduct of a new division would need to be created. The IRB would also need to locate office space, set up systems for applications to be made, and establish case management technologies to implement the RAD. Resources would need to be identified even to begin such a process.

The second group of issues relate to the lack of transitional provisions in Bill C-280, which raises a number of questions. Who would be eligible for this new appeal? Would it apply to old cases, since the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act came into force in 2002, or only to new ones? What would be the rule for cases currently before the Federal Court? Who would hear cases sent back by the court: the refugee protection division or the refugee appeal division? What are the risks of saddling the new appeal division with a large backlog, which would cause further delays? These are issues that could have serious consequences, if Bill C-280 is enacted into law.

In the fact sheet the department tabled in December, we indicated that the addition of the refugee appeal division would add at least another five months to the already long refugee process. This is based on the assumption that the RAD would be given a fresh start without a backlog on day one and that it would be implemented with a full set of trained decision-makers already in place. Should this not be the case, these delays could stretch to many more months.

I would also point out that among the unproclaimed provisions of IRPA is a section, section 73, that ensures that the government could appeal any decisions of the refugee appeal division. This section does not form part of Bill C-280. Just as failed claimants have access to the Federal Court, so should the Minister of Immigration.

Thank you for your time listening to me. We welcome your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I've been told in no uncertain terms by a member of the committee, “Let's get moving”, so I guess we'll have to get moving.

I want to welcome all of you here today to our meeting and our consideration of Bill C-280, An Act to Amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (coming into force of sections 110, 111 and 171).

I want to welcome here today, from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, Mr. Malcolm Brown, assistant deputy minister, strategic and program policy; Micheline Aucoin, director general, refugees branch; and Mr. Eric Stevens, legal counsel, legal services. Thank you for your presence here today to help us out as we consider Bill C-280.

I think you are well aware of the drill. I think you have opening remarks, so I'll go to Mr. Brown, the ADM, for opening remarks. Do you all have opening statements?

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

[Rahim Jaffer, Conservative, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today in committee I presented a motion to invite three former Liberal ministers of immigration to come to explain why they agreed with our government and could not support Bill C-280. Unfortunately, the opposition voted it down.

It is shameful that the Liberal leader is not only refusing to consult with his party's foremost experts on immigration, but worse yet, he is attempting to silence the members for Eglinton—Lawrence, Bourassa and York West, who have every right to be heard.

To quote from the Liberals former immigration minister and member for York West, bringing the Refugee Appeal Division at this time would:

—simply add more roadblocks and more time to the system, which... would prevent us from helping the very same people we want to help, people who come here genuinely seeking a safe place.

The Liberal leader and caucus should do the right thing. They should listen to their own experts on immigration, reverse their position and vote against Bill C-280.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I'm going through it for a minute. I have a point I want to make.

I notice that Bill C-280 is set for Tuesday of next week, with respect to evidence from departmental officials.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Order, please.

The subcommittee on agenda and procedure met a couple of days ago. We agreed on the following report, the sixth report, and to place it before you for your consideration.

On Tuesday, March 27, we would adopt the draft report on the study on detention centres and security certificates. We would then go into Bill C-280, which you have before you, and receive testimony from departmental officials on Bill C-280. We would move to clause-by-clause on Bill C-280 on Thursday, March 29.

On Monday, April 16, we'll have the draft report on the loss of Canadian citizenship.

On Tuesday, April 17, and Thursday, April 19, it will be immigration issues and the IRB appointment process. We'll hear testimony from Jean-Guy Fleury, the former chair of the IRB.

I won't go through it all. You can go through it to see that this is what we're recommending and what we agreed to at the subcommittee meeting.

On Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday, we'll again have the draft report on refugee issues, and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration will be invited to present on the main estimates.

Are there any comments on the report?

Ms. Faille.

The House resumed from March 2 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.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I close out the debate, I will not talk about Bill C-280. Nor will I talk about the hundreds and thousands of refugees who, in the absence of a refugee appeal division, will be denied full Canadian citizenship and will be sent back where they came from.

I will not talk about them because today, after listening to the debate all day, I realized that this government is so mean-spirited that it is using all kinds of people to deny other people their rights. It is using women to deny women their rights; farmers to deny farmers their rights; people born elsewhere to deny the rights of refugees; and francophones to deny the rights of francophones.

It has been going on about the previous government ad nauseam, saying it was they who did nothing. Now this government has been in power for over a year. It made its promises over a year ago. When the Conservatives were in opposition, they said that there would be a refugee appeal division, but now they want nothing to do with it.

This is not right. The Conservative members from Quebec, who spend their time denying people their rights and denigrating other members from Quebec, have done nothing as part of the government. They have done nothing for their ridings, nothing for their citizens, nothing for Quebec and nothing for Quebeckers.

Next week, when we vote on this, will they decide to do nothing for refugees? I hope that all Canadians and all Quebeckers with immigrant ancestors will remember this.

We have been asking for this appeal division for years. The UN has even said a number of times that it is incredible that it still has not been implemented.

This is not just a whim or a passing fancy the Bloc Québécois came up with for political gain; we are talking about lives, people, women and children who are living in churches today, who do not even have the opportunity to go out in the storm because they cannot even leave their home in a church, where they have been shut in for more than a year in some cases.

This is not right. I wonder what the government is doing. We are still waiting for rights to be reinstated and for fairness and justice to be restored. We are not talking about billions of dollars, we are not even talking about hundreds of millions of dollars.

The hon. member from the government side spoke earlier. The government interferes in every provincial jurisdiction when it suits its own interests. However, when it does not suit the government, it talks about the millions of dollars. But it wants to invest those millions of dollars in fighting cancer or Alzheimer's, wherever its own interests are served.

It is a matter of political will to restore fairness and justice for people who have the right to be heard, listened to and validated in their quest for freedom.

[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)