Bill C-31 (Historical)

Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act

An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, the Marine Transportation Security Act and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act

This enactment amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Balanced Refugee Reform Act to, among other things, provide for the expediting of the processing of refugee protection claims.
The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is also amended to authorize the Minister, in certain circumstances, to designate as an irregular arrival the arrival in Canada of a group of persons and to provide for the effects of such a designation in respect of those persons, including in relation to detention, conditions of release from detention and applications for permanent resident status. In addition, the enactment amends certain enforcement provisions of that Act, notably to expand the scope of the offence of human smuggling and to provide for minimum punishments in relation to that offence. Furthermore, the enactment amends that Act to expand sponsorship options in respect of foreign nationals and to require the provision of biometric information when an application for a temporary resident visa, study permit or work permit is made.
In addition, the enactment amends the Marine Transportation Security Act to increase the penalties for persons who fail to provide information that is required to be reported before a vessel enters Canadian waters or to comply with ministerial directions and for persons who provide false or misleading information. It creates a new offence in respect of vessels that fail to comply with ministerial directions and authorizes the making of regulations respecting the disclosure of certain information for the purpose of protecting the safety or security of Canada or Canadians.
Finally, the enactment amends the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act to enhance the authority for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to enter into agreements and arrangements with foreign governments, and to provide services to the Canada Border Services Agency.

Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

moved that Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, the Marine Transportation Security Act and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to begin debate on Bill C-31, an act to protect Canada's immigration system.

Canada has a proud tradition as a welcoming country. For generations, for centuries, we have welcomed newcomers from all parts of the globe.

For more than four centuries, we have welcomed new arrivals, economic immigrants, pioneers, farmers, workers and, of course, refugees needing our protection. We have a humanitarian tradition that we are very proud of. During the 19th century, Canada was the North Star for slaves fleeing the United States. We accepted tens of thousands of black Americans and offered them freedom and protection.

Throughout the 20th century, we welcomed more than one million refugees, including those who fled communist governments, like the people of Hungary in 1956, when we welcomed 50,000 Hungarian nationals. In 1979, we accepted 60,000 Vietnamese nationals, refugees who were fleeing that decade's communism. We are very proud of our tradition. With this bill, this government is going to reinforce and enhance our tradition of protecting refugees.

I am pleased to say that our government is increasing by some 20% the number of resettled refugees, UN convention refugees who are living in camps in deplorable circumstances around the world. We will now accept them and give them a new life and a new beginning here in Canada. We are also increasing by some 20% the refugee assistance program to assist with the initial integration costs of government assisted refugees who arrive here.

We continue to maintain the most generous and open immigration program in the world since our government came to office, welcoming more than a quarter of a million new permanent residents each year, the highest sustained level of immigration in Canadian history, adding 0.8% of our population per year through immigration, representing the highest per capita level of immigration in the developed world.

However, for us to maintain this openness, this generosity toward newcomers, both economic immigrants and refugees, we must demonstrate that our immigration and refugee programs are characterized by fair rules and their consistent application.

Canadians are a generous and open-minded people but they also believe in fair play. Canadians insist, particularly new Canadians, that those who seek to enter Canada do so in a way that is fully respectful of our fair and balanced immigration and refugee laws.

That is why Canadians are worried when they see large human smuggling operations, for example, the two large ships that arrived on Canada's west coast in the past two years with hundreds of passengers, illegal migrants who paid criminal networks to be brought to Canada in an illegal and very dangerous manner.

Canadians are also worried when they see a large number of false refugee claimants who do not need Canada's protection, but who file refugee claims because they see an opportunity in Canada's current refugee system to stay in Canada permanently and have access to social benefits even though they are not really refugees in need of our country's protection.

Canadians want Parliament and this government to take strong and meaningful action to reinforce the integrity and fairness of our immigration and refugee systems, which is why we tabled Bill C-31.

The bill has three principal elements: First, it includes essentially all of the provisions of the bill currently on the order paper known as Bill C-11, a bill designed to combat human smugglers from targeting Canada and treating this country like a doormat; second, it includes important revisions and improvements to our asylum system to ensure that we grant fast protection to bona fide refugees who need Canada's assistance, but that we remove from Canada false asylum claimants who seek to abuse our generosity; and third, it would provide for the legislative authorities for the creation of a new biometric temporary resident visa program which would be the single-most important advance in immigration security screening and the integrity of our system in decades.

With regard to the first question, as I was saying, the destination for major voyages organized by criminal networks in Southeast Asia and human smugglers was Canada. Only two major voyages have reached Canada in the past two years. Thanks to the efforts of our intelligence and policing agencies and the co-operation of the countries of transit of the illegal migrants from Southeast Asia, we managed to prevent a number of other human smuggling voyages from reaching Canada.

Thanks to the strong investigatory police and intelligence operations of our agencies in Southeast Asia and in West Africa, we have succeeded in preventing several large planned voyages of illegal smuggled migrants to Canada. I know some members of the opposition categorize these as humanitarian missions of hapless refugees but we need to be clear on what we are talking about. The networks targeting Canada were typically gunrunners running illegal armaments and weapons into the Sri Lankan civil war. They were profiteering from one of the deadliest civil wars around the world in recent decades. When the war ended, they needed a new commodity to move so they took on people. Every year around the world, thousands of people die in dangerous illegal human smuggling operations, whether they are marine migrants off the coasts of Australia, or people being smuggled in cargo containers who suffocate to death as they cross the British Channel, or people who are dying while trying to cross the Mexico–U.S. border under the guidance of coyotes of illegal smugglers.

Every year, thousands of people die as a result of human smuggling networks. We therefore have a legal and moral obligation to put an end to these dangerous human smuggling operations and prevent the deaths that occur each year.

I do not want to be the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism on whose watch we have a large vessel of illegal smuggled migrants headed to Canada in a leaky vessel that goes down in the Pacific Ocean at the great cost of human life if we have not done everything within our power to prevent human smugglers from targeting this country.

The anti-smuggling provisions of Bill C-31, which were previously included in Bill C-11, would give us additional tools to combat the smugglers. First, it would impose stronger penalties, both in financial fines and prison sentences, on the shipowners and the smugglers, although, admittedly, it is very hard to prosecute the smugglers because they typically operate offshore.

Second, the bill would enhance detention provisions for smuggled migrants who arrive in an operation that would be designated by the Minister of Public Safety as a designated irregular arrival or smuggling event. This is because when hundreds of people arrive in such an operation without documents, without visas, having arrived illegally in violation of several immigration and marine laws or other statutes, we need the time to be able to identify who they are. We need to know whether they are admissible to Canada and whether they constitute a security risk to our country. We cannot practically do that for a large number of smuggled migrants overnight.

We have to be able to keep illegal immigrants in custody, in a completely humanitarian way, so that they can be identified. However, let us be clear: Bill C-31 continues to give migrants, even illegal and smuggled migrants, the right to file a claim for refugee protection with the Immigration and Refugee Board. We will therefore not refuse anyone access to our asylum system, even in cases where people arrive in the country in illegal ways.

The bill proposes humanely detaining migrants who arrive through illegal smuggling operations for up to 12 months without review.

That again would allow our intelligence agencies to do the necessary background checks on such individuals.

I should mention that these provisions are far more modest than those used in most other liberal democratic countries like Australia, New Zealand, the United States, the United Kingdom and most European countries.

Finally, we would disincentivize illegal migrants from paying often tens of thousands of dollars to criminal gangs in order to be smuggled to Canada by indicating that even if they get a positive protection decision at the IRB, if they arrived in a designated irregular smuggling event, they would not receive permanent residency for at least five years. They would receive protection. They would not be refouled to their country of origin. We would be fully respectful of our legal and moral obligations under the United Nations universal conventions on refugees and torture, as well as our obligations under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as defined by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Singh decision and other jurisprudence.

We would fully respect our absolute obligation of non-refoulement of people deemed to be facing risk to their lives or persecution in their country of origin, but we are not obliged to give immediate permanent residency to such individuals. With immediate permanent residency comes the privilege, not the absolute right but the privilege, of sponsorship of family members. The reason is that many smuggled migrants, we know from our intelligence, calculate that they will be able to pay the $40,000 or $50,000 obligation that they have made to the smuggling network by sponsoring subsequent family members to help them pay off the debt. We need to create some doubt in the minds of would-be smuggled migrants that they would be able to benefit from such provisions as family reunification. That is what the bill seeks to do.

Second, let us look at the changes to the asylum system proposed in the bill.

I would first like to remind the hon. members that, in June 2010, this House approved important and balanced reforms to the asylum system in order to make it fair and effective, but the current system is broken. It is not working. It takes almost two years for refugee claimants to get a hearing before the IRB. That means the real victims of persecution must wait almost two years to be certain that they have Canada's protection. That is unacceptable.

However, we are seeing an increasing number of false claims for refugee protection in the system. More specifically, since the bill on balanced reforms to the asylum system passed in 2010, there has been rising tide of false asylum claims filed by nationals from countries that are completely democratic, liberal and respectful of human rights. I am speaking specifically about countries in the European Union. Frankly, I find it a bit strange that we are receiving more refugee claims from the European Union than from Asia or Africa. It does not make any sense.

Last year, we received 5,400 refugee claims from European nationals, almost none of whom attended their hearings before the Immigration and Refugee Board. That means that almost all European claimants abandon or withdraw their own refugee claims.

Virtually all of these European asylum claimants are abandoning or withdrawing their own asylum claims. They are not even showing up for the hearing. However, what almost every single one of them does show up for is the initial interview that is required to get the status document as an asylum claimant which qualifies them for an open work permit, full interim federal health care benefits, which are better than the health benefits available to most Canadians, provincial welfare payments, and several federal cash grants for programs.

We stand for the protection of real refugees. We stand against the abuse of Canada's generosity. That is why these measures are necessary. They take a balanced approach. I regret to see members of the opposition turn a blind eye to what is widespread abuse of the system. That is not my opinion. That is a reflection of the fact that in too many cases the applicants do not show up for their hearings, but they do show up to collect Canadian social benefits.

What we seek to do is strengthen the reforms adopted in 2010 by allowing the minister to more quickly designate certain countries which are known not normally to produce refugees, which countries would see an abandonment rate at the IRB of 60% or more, or a rejection rate by the IRB of cases heard of 75% or more, and/or which countries are respectful of human rights and are signatories to the UN convention on refugees, which have an independent judiciary and allow independent NGOs to operate. These are the kinds of countries we are talking about. Claimants from those countries would receive a hearing at the IRB in a delay of about 45 days and that is it. They would receive no further appeals.

Under the current system, with the redundant administrative appeals and post-claim recourses, a manifestly unfounded asylum claimant is able to stay in Canada often for up to five or six years or longer and claim benefits that whole period of time. This is a positive incentive for false claimants to abuse and clog up our system, while delaying protection for the bona fide refugees who do need our protection.

I reiterate that the bill would also create the new refugee appeal division. The vast majority of claimants who are coming from countries that do normally produce refugees would for the first time, if rejected at the refugee protection division, have access to a full fact-based appeal at the refugee appeal division of the IRB. This is the first government to have created a full fact-based appeal.

I find it ironic to hear members of the opposition complain that this government is insufficiently concerned about the procedural rights of refugees when the Liberals in particular refused to create the refugee appeal division. We are putting it in place because we want to ensure that real refugees get Canada's protection. That is why we are actually strengthening this dimension of the system.

Finally, the bill includes legislative authorities to allow the government to require foreign nationals to submit biometric data, particularly fingerprints and a digital quality photo, when applying for a temporary resident visa. In doing so, we would be adopting the same approach as Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom, and increasingly the European Union to harness new technology to facilitate the movement of legitimate visitors, travellers, business people and students to Canada, yet we would be able to better detect those who intend to do this country harm. I have a long list of criminals who have come back to Canada, some as many as 10 times, on fake documents and fake passports. One was deported eight times on more than 30 counts, including theft and fraud, and kept coming back to Canada on fake documents. With biometric visas, that would no longer be possible.

I hope this bill will lead to serious consideration of these important measures to protect our proud humanitarian tradition of refugee protection and our large and open immigration system, but also to maintain the integrity and fairness of that system. That is something we owe all Canadians and new Canadians now and in the future.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has attempted to portray himself as an advocate for refugees. However, I think there has been a great deal of concern that the government, more than any other government, sees fit to try to demonize that particular community, when the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism stands at the back of a ship with the Prime Minister to say that refugees are bad and that the human smuggling bill is the best way to resolve issues of this nature.

Why does the minister feel that refugees have to be singled out, and from the government's perspective, the system is in such disarray that if the government does not take this kind of action the whole system will fall apart?

Perhaps the minister could explain that in a nutshell.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, the member's question portrays such a fundamental misunderstanding of refugee protection that I am virtually speechless. I will explain a very basic concept that I hope the member can grasp.

Canadians, our law and this government are absolutely for the protection of bona fide refugees, but we are absolutely against the abuse of our system by people who are not bona fide refugees. We are absolutely against illegal and dangerous human smuggling. It is a very simple concept to grasp.

That is why we are increasing by 20% the number of UN convention refugees that we will accept. We are increasing their support by 20% when they get here. We are creating the refugee appeal division so that there is a full fact-based appeal for failed asylum claimants, which the member's party refused to create. At the same time, we are going to deter the majority of claimants who are found not to be in need of Canada's protection, including virtually all of those coming from the safe democratic liberal European Union.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the minister well knows, there are two ways that refugees can legitimately come to a country. One way is to be settled through the UNHCR process and the other way is to make their way to a country of safe haven by whatever means they can.

The UN convention on refugees says in article 31 that it is a violation of the convention for a country to impose penalties on refugees who come to a country through irregular means. For people who come to our shores and whom the minister designates as irregular, the bill would prevent them from making permanent resident claims for five years, would prevent them from sponsoring their family for five years, and would detain them without review for up to a year. These are clear differences from how the government would treat refugees coming in through the UNHCR process.

Is the minister not concerned that by imposing these penalties on refugees who arrive in Canada under irregular means, many of whom could be legitimate refugees, that we potentially would be in violation of article 31 of the UN convention on refugees to which Canada is a signatory?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not concerned about that because the premise of the question is completely false.

If someone arrives in a designated smuggling operation and deposes an asylum claim, he or she goes before the Immigration and Refugee Board which reviews his or her case. The board would determine if indeed that individual had a well-founded fear of persecution on such grounds as race, religion, sex, national origin or political opinion. If the person is deemed by our legal system to be a bona fide refugee, he or she would immediately be released from immigration detention. We would not detain refugees. We would only detain people who, up to that point, are illegal smuggled migrants.

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

Mr. Speaker, the speech by the minister was well detailed and documented. It certainly speaks very strongly to the importance of why Bill C-31 is in the House today.

The minister used the term “biometrics”. It is important for folks who are watching the discussion on Bill C-31 to have a clear understanding of why biometrics is so important in terms of the bill and what it would bring to the ministry's ability and Public Safety's ability to track, review and ascertain the identification of an individual trying to come into Canada as a refugee.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the new normal around the developed world is to enhance immigration security screening by requiring that foreign nationals submit biometric data, because there is such a large amount of fraudulent migration based on fake documents.

We have had serious crimes committed in Canada by people who had been deported as foreign criminals but who then re-entered the country on false documents, fake passports. As long as our system is based simply on biographic data, that is to say papers and names, we cannot absolutely verify the identity of someone.

A biometric system would allow us to identify, for example, Mr. Edmund Ezemo who was deported eight times for more than 30 counts, including theft and fraud, and kept coming back. With biometrics, that would be impossible. The doors of Canada would be shut to repeat foreign criminals who had been deported.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House once again to debate Bill C-31. I would like to ask the minister a question.

We now know that refugee families who unfortunately are smuggled into Canada will be targeted and punished by this new Conservative bill. The NDP has a number of concerns, including the fact that these families will be put in jail: the parents, who have had to resort to extreme measures in trying to flee their country, and also their children, who will be kept in detention centres.

If the children remain with their parents, will the minister ensure that these children receive appropriate psychological care and also the education to which they are entitled? Can he give us that assurance?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, the premise of the question is completely wrong. We do not have jails for immigrants. There are immigration detention centres that often receive families and are equipped to care for families and children.

Having said that, I would like to point out two things. First, almost all democratic and free countries use immigrant detention much more than Canada. Even after the bill passes, immigrant detention will be very minimal. We will be moving an amendment to Bill C-31 to allow minors under the age of 16 who are not accompanied by their parents to be released from detention if they have been smuggled into the country. I imagine they would become the responsibility of provincial child welfare agencies.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of Calgary Northeast, I thank and congratulate the minister for his effective management of the tough immigration issues. Whether it was to reduce the backlog ballooned by the Liberals or to bring in skilled workers in an expedited manner, whether it was to help the families by allowing their parents to come in under super visas, and now, to deal with those who put their lives at risk and also pay thousands of dollars to the human smugglers criminal network.

Are there measures in the bill for those people who come to Canada and, after obtaining their permanent residency, go back immediately to the same country they—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. minister has about 30 seconds left for a response.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, the answer is yes. Too often we see situations where people who claim persecution from a country receive Canada's protection and immediately go back to that country that was supposedly the source of persecution.

We have clarified in the bill that, under the current law, the minister may apply to the IRB for an order to cessate the protected person status of someone who does go back right away. The bill simplifies it so that an application to cease protected person status can also be joined with an application to revoke the person's permanent residency. If someone were to fraudulently obtain a protected person status, we would now have a streamlined process to revoke both the protected status and the fraudulently obtained permanent residency.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand and debate this bill and present the position of the official opposition, the New Democratic Party of Canada, on Bill C-31, improperly and inaccurately named “protecting Canada's immigration system act”, because this bill would do damage to Canada's immigration system legally, socially, morally and internationally.

I want to talk about the omnibus nature of this bill which, just from a structural point of view, is something that is a disturbing feature of the Conservative government. Canadians saw already in this Parliament, the government take nine separate pieces of serious and complex crime legislation and put them into one omnibus bill and then put that before parliamentarians to discuss and debate. Now we see the minister take two separate major pieces of legislation, as well as another serious issue, which is that of biometrics, and combine those into one bill.

For Canadians who may be watching this, I want to explain a bit about what those bills are. By introducing this bill, the minister has taken Bill C-11, which was introduced in the last Parliament, debated, went through committee, was amended and passed in this very House, went through all three readings at the Senate committee and passed there, received royal assent and was waiting to be implemented this June, and the minister has stopped that bill from being implemented this June. I will tell members a bit more about what the minister had to say about that bill in a few moments. That bill was geared toward reforming Canada's refugee system.

About that bill, in June 2010 the minister said:

We have, in good faith, agreed to significant amendments that reflect their input, resulting in a stronger piece of legislation that is a monumental achievement for all involved.

These amendments, I am happy to say, create a reform package that is both faster and fairer than the bill as it was originally tabled.

Those were the comments by the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism on Tuesday, June 15, 2010. The minister has now taken the original bill that he had tabled in the previous Parliament, before those amendments that made it fairer and faster, and has thrown the amendments in the garbage and reintroduced the original bill, the very bill that he said was inferior to the amendments that were made by all parties of this House. The minister has, not unsurprisingly, neglected to explain that.

In addition, one of the first bills the Conservatives introduced in this Parliament was Bill C-4, again inaccurately and unconscionably titled a bill concerning human smuggling. It has been going through debate in this place but the minister has taken that bill and put it into this current Bill C-31. There is no explanation as to why he would take a bill, which has already been introduced and is moving through the system, slow it down and put it back into this legislative process, basically putting us behind where we would have been. I have a theory as to why that may be the case. Bill C-4 has been roundly condemned by virtually every group and stakeholder involved in the immigration system in this country, from lawyers, refugee groups, churches and immigrant settlement services across the board. I cannot name any group that has sent any message that it supports Bill C-4.

As well, the government has taken another issue, biometrics, and put that into the bill. What is puzzling about that is that approximately 30 days ago we commenced a study in the Standing Committee on Immigration and Citizenship on biometrics. We have had a handful of meetings and are in the middle of our study of biometrics and the government introduces legislative steps on the very thing we are supposed to be studying. I wonder what that says about the government's view of the work of standing committees and the experts and witnesses who appear before our committee when it actually comes to a conclusion before we have heard all the evidence.

I want to talk about the substance of Bill C-4. Bill C-4 was hastily drafted by the government when Canadians witnessed the spectre of two boats coming to the shores of British Columbia carrying some of the most damaged and wounded people on earth, people fleeing, as the minister has rightly pointed out, one of the worst civil wars in the world in Sri Lanka.

Some 550 people were on those boats. And, never ones to pass up a good photo op, the Minister of Immigration and the Minister of Public Safety were there doing news conferences outside accusing the people on those boats of being bogus and of harbouring terrorists. They said that publicly. They also accused them of queue jumping.

What anyone going through the immigration system knows up to now is that there is no queue jumping. It is a normal part of our refugee system for people to make their way to a country by regular means and make a refugee claim, and the Minister of Immigration knows that. No queue is being jumped. The Minister of Immigration actually went into immigrant communities where they were suffering long delays in their applications for permanent residency to sponsor their parents and preyed on their frustrations at his government's inability to deal with that backlog and wait time and tried to foster resentment from those immigrants toward these refugees.

We always want to be careful with our analogies but we need to consider the Jews when they were fleeing Nazi Germany during World War II. When they made their way into a neighbouring country through the dark of night, they did not arrive with a visa. They did not come through any UNHCR process because there was none at the time. They just made their way to safety. Those people were not bogus. They were not jumping any queue. They were escaping for their lives. That is what people do and that is what those people were doing on those boats.

To make the claim that those people were terrorists before there was an adjudication is as incendiary and as inflammatory as it is wrong. To this day, of 540 people, none have been deemed to be terrorists. Also, if anyone has any kind of question about their origin, there are less than a handful.

What would Bill C-4 do? It would allow the minister to concentrate his power. The Minister of Immigration wants the power to designate people as irregular arrivals. Under the bill, it just says a group. It does not define how many. We presume it is two or more. What happens to those people? Those people could be detained for up to a year without review.

I will talk about the legality of that. The identical provision has gone to the Supreme Court of Canada in the security certificate cases and it has been deemed unconstitutional, yet the government puts it right back into this bill. Moreover, the minister says that they can come out if they are deemed to be refugees. That is true but that assumes that we have a refugee determination system that would make that determination in under a year. If it does not, people could be stuck in detention for up to a year. Even if those people are deemed to be bona fide refugees, this part of the bill would still prevent those people from being able to make a permanent residency application for five years or sponsor their family for five years. I will say right now that that is a violation of the UN convention on refugees and a violation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

I will explain for the minister why that is the case. I put the question to him and he avoided answering the question. It is because the UN convention on refugees says that signatories, which Canada is, are not to put penalties on people who arrive at our shores by irregular means. If people who are deemed to be refugees are then prevented from sponsoring their families for five years or prohibited from making a permanent residency application for five years, they are absolutely being penalized because of their irregular entry.

The minister said that if they make a successful refugee claim they would be let out within the year. That is true but what about the five year bans? The minister refuses to answer that. That is the differential treatment of someone who comes through in the other process and it is a violation of the UN convention on refugees.

In terms of the rights of the child, the Ocean Lady and the Sun Sea, the two boats came to Canada's shores, included children who were travelling unaccompanied. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child obligates signatories, of which Canada is one, to put the best interests of the child first and foremost in our determination, and that includes in the immigration system. If we have a 14-year-old or a 12-year-old child who comes to our country and is deemed by the minister to be an irregular arrival, he or she would be prohibited from sponsoring his or her parents for five years. That is not in the best interests of that child. I say that there is a violation there.

Lawyers across the country from the Canadian Bar Association to the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers have all said that the detention without review process will be attacked as a violation of the charter in three different ways. The act will go to the Supreme Court of Canada, mark my words.

Let us talk about the Bill C-11 component. All parties in the House in the last Parliament worked in good faith to reform Canada's refugee system. I will grant the minister that there was need for reform. The minister is correct when he says that the old system is not working. People make a refugee claim, they are denied, they appeal. Then they make a H and C application and they are denied the appeal. Then they make a pre-removal assessment application and they are denied the appeal. It can take too long to remove people who do not have valid claims.

That is why the parties rolled up our sleeves last Parliament and worked on a streamlined quick process to make those determinations. The New Democrats proposed, as we have for a long time, through our hard work, that the government actually put in place a Refugee Appeal Division, which I will give the minister credit for doing. The Liberals never did do it and the current minister did. However, it was pushed by the New Democrats all the way.

The problem with the bill is that the minister then wanted to deny access to the appeal division of people that he determined to come from so-called safe countries. The minister wanted the sole power to determine what was a safe country. Again, that is too much power concentrated in the hands of one person. The opposition asked why he did not have an independent panel of experts to guide him with firm criteria and the minister accepted that change. In fact, he praised it. He said that it made the process of designation more transparent. Those are not my words, they are the minister's words in the last Parliament. Now today, the minister has thrown that panel out and he wants to go back to the original proposals so that he alone determines what is a safe country.

As well, the minister wanted to deny access to the appeal division to people who came from what he deemed to be safe countries. In the last Parliament, we persuaded the minister and we said that everyone had a right to appeal. We cannot have a justice system where some people have a right to appeal and some do not. Imagine how Canadians would feel if we said that if they went to court, their neighbour could appeal the decision, but they could not, depending on where they came from. We were successful in saying that everyone had a right to appeal no matter where they came from.

While I am on this subject, a fundamental difference between the Conservatives and the New Democrats is that New Democrats believe that every country in this world is capable of producing a refugee. There are cases where some countries or more or less likely, but every country is capable of that. In particular, on the LGBT community, 100 countries have some form of legal discrimination against the LGBT community. Governments change.

The minister said that there were EU countries that had refugees and they had to be safe. Right now the far-right government of Hungary is currently passing laws before its parliament to have the power to pass laws in 24 hours, with 6 minutes of debate accorded to the opposition parties. It is amending the constitution. There is the situation of the Roma in Europe. Everyone knows in World War II that Jews were rounded up because of their faith and ethnicity. Roma were rounded up because of their ethnicity as were disabled and communists. These were historically discriminated against, including Roma. There is a long history of established discrimination against Roma, and those people come from Hungary. They come from the Czech Republic, from Romania, from countries that are members of the EU in some cases and those people have a right to make their claim.

The minister has thrown out the panel of experts to advise him. I ask why? If the minister is so confident that he can choose which countries are safe countries, why would he not want the benefit of advice from experts in human rights, the very idea he praised and thought was a good idea 18 months ago?

The Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism may have great faith in his own judgment, but to have one person make such important determinations as to what country is safe or not, which country is or is not capable of producing refugees and who is an irregular arrival who will be subject to detention for up to a year without review and penalties that might keep their families apart for a decade. That is too much power for one person. We should build in checks and balances and that would be the case no matter who would be the minister of immigration, including a New Democrat. I do not know who would make the argument that the system is not better served by having that kind of check and balance.

In terms of the biometrics, biometrics is a system whereby this legislation would have people who apply for a visa to come to this country provide their fingerprints and pictures. That is a model we should be looking at, but there are significant privacy considerations and the Standing Committee on Immigration is looking at those very considerations right now.

The privacy commissioner has already testified and she says that providing a fingerprint for the purposes of identification to ensure that people presenting at our borders are who they say they are is fine. However, taking that fingerprint and comparing it to a wide database for other purposes or sharing that information with other countries or other bodies raises serious privacy concerns. We are in the middle of looking at those and those are issues that the government would be well advised to pay attention to before we proceed down that path.

I want to talk about a few other things that the bill would do.

The bill would prevent someone who has been convicted of a jail sentence of more than 10 years from making a refugee claim. I have raised this issue as well. Nelson Mandela was convicted of a crime for which he received a sentence of more than 10 years. Under the legislation, were that to happen today, Nelson Mandela could not make a refugee claim in Canada. He might be able to make a humanitarian and compassionate claim but no refugee claim. I have not heard the government explain that.

The bill would also, for the first time, give the minister the power to refer to the IRB the case of a refugee who had now become a permanent resident. The minister would have the power to strip that refugee of his or her permanent resident status if it were determined that circumstances had changed in the country from which the refugee escaped. That is unacceptable. People come to this country seeking safety and yet they find themselves, under this legislation, perhaps looking at being stripped of that status.

I would like to move the following amendment. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, the Marine Transportation Security Act and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act, because it:

(a) places an unacceptable level of arbitrary power in the hands of the minister;

(b) allows for the indiscriminate designation and subsequent imprisonment of bona fide refugees for up to one year without review;

(c) places the status of thousands of refugees and permanent residents in jeopardy;

(d) punishes bona fide refugees, including children, by imposing penalties based on mode of entry to Canada;

(e) creates a two-tiered refugee system that denies many applicants access to an appeals mechanism; and

(f) violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and two international conventions to which Canada is signatory.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The amendment is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Madam Speaker, I am afraid I cannot agree with any of the remarks by my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway. I clearly do not have enough time to rebut the various specious arguments that he offered. I hope to do so throughout the course of the debate.

I will say two things.

First, I found the suggestion that human smuggling was a “normative” part of a refugee process shocking. It is not normative. It is not normal. It is a despicable crime and we must do everything we reasonably can to deter people from going into smuggling operations. The member has offered no alternative. If the NDP members want to be critics, that is fine. If they want to be a government in waiting, they have to offer responsible alternatives that would, in this case, deter smugglers from targeting Canada. What are the member's alternatives?

Second, I wonder if the member realizes just how extraordinarily far out of the mainstream he and his party have become. Is he aware that, as a matter of policy, the left-of-centre social democratic government of Australia detains all asylum claimants, not just smuggled asylum claimants, until their claims are determined? Is he aware that the social democratic labour government of the United Kingdom created a law to detain all asylum claimants coming from designated safe countries? Is he aware that the social democratic government of Portugal, for example, deals with claims coming from designated safe countries in nine days? Is he aware that the position of his sister parties across the democratic west is far faster and less respectful of asylum rights than what we propose in this bill?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, the clever words of a sophist are always difficult to deal with. I never said that I am protecting human smugglers. The minister uses these shifts of language quite often. I was making a distinction between the irregular movement of refugees and human smuggling. There are cases where sometimes refugees organize themselves together and leave a place on boats sometimes.

There are tens of thousands of people from Vietnam in my riding of Vancouver Kingsway. Does the member know how many of them left Vietnam on a boat? Does he know how many of them paid someone to help them leave on a boat? Under the minister, those people would be criminals. They would be victims of human smuggling.

Let us look at Australia. We had an immigration professor at UBC, who did her doctorate in Australia, give testimony before our committee last week. She testified that the very same system the minister wants to impose in Bill C-31, which would penalize entrance to Canada for regular arrivals by detaining them, had not worked in Australia. It had not deterred anyone from going to Australia. Those are the facts, but facts are a challenge for the government.

What is out of the mainstream is an extreme right-wing approach to immigration that seeks to be incendiary and uses language such as “bogus refugees”, when some of the most vulnerable people on earth, people who have a well-founded fear of persecution and are fleeing countries, deserve to have their claims treated with respect. It is unseemly for the minister of immigration to continue to use inflammatory language that misleads. People may not have a valid claim—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order please. I see many people rising and I would like to give them an opportunity also.

The hon. member for Bourassa.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Vancouver Kingsway for his speech.

The problem is that we are caught between two ideologies. On the one hand, those subscribing to a right-wing ideology want to erase everything the Liberals did. We know that Canada is a nation that welcomes immigrants and that every case is unique. When we start generalizing and labelling everything, we end up with problems and people fall through the cracks.

On the other hand, the NDP thinks that everything is rosy and nice, but that is not reality. As a former immigration minister, I know that it is not easy, and I know that the minister has to deal with certain cases.

I would like the member for Vancouver Kingsway to comment on the problem with this bill, which is that a minister will decide whether a country is safe or not. We know that there can be problems in places like Mexico or even Hungary. Recently, an intellectual left Hungary because of anti-Semitism. If the minister decides that Hungary is a safe country, then no refugees from Hungary will be allowed in.

Without indulging in labelling and ideology, if the member were the immigration minister, what would he do?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is pretty difficult to determine the question in that statement.

One thing on which I will agree with the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism is that the previous Liberal government sat back and made a complete mess of our system. When the government took power in 2006, it inherited a backlog of some 850,000 people. That does not sound like a model of success by the previous Liberal government.

Let us settle more refugees through the UNHCR process. Let us try to do a better job at bringing people to Canada and settling them here. Let us get a quick determination process of refugee status and give the refugees the support they need. Let us have a system that is fair. I think we can have both an efficient refugee determination system and one that respects Canadian domestic law and our international agreements.

The problem with the bill is that it does not achieve that balance, and the NDP will continue to fight for a refugee determination system that is fair, quick, legal and compassionate. That is what Canadians want, and that is not out of the mainstream.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Speaker, an exceptional thing happened, and I am sure the member who just spoke took part in it. It was in 2010, when we passed an amended version of Bill C-11. All the parties examined the issue and improved the government's bill. Even the minister was pleased, because he said that once the bill was amended, it was an essential tool for safeguarding the integrity of Canada's immigration and refugee systems. The bill, as amended by the Bloc Québécois and the other parties, had a provision to accelerate the application process. It also provided the right to appeal for all refugees, without exception. With Bill C-31, the government is removing all that.

I wonder if the government is trying to send a message to refugees the world over, telling them not to come to Canada, that they are not welcome. That is the feeling we get from Bill C-31. What does my colleague think?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is true that the Bloc did play an instrumental role in building Bill C-11 in the previous Parliament. It is only fair to point that out.

It does seem like the government is trying to target refugees. One of the problems with Bill C-4 is that although it is directed punitively at human smugglers, it actually penalizes the refugees. That is what everyone is pointing out.

What happens if a refugee comes here? We will lock them up. We will prevent them from sponsoring their family for five years. We will prevent them from making an appeal application for five years. That is not targeting the smugglers but the refugees.

That is the problem with this bill. This bill also prevents someone from making a humanitarian and compassionate claim for up to one year, and it forces someone who arrives on our shores to make an election within 15 days between whether they make a refugee claim or a humanitarian and compassionate claim. These are people who often cannot speak English and have no access to legal advice. This is another serious structural flaw in the bill.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be brief because I want to give my colleague a chance to comment further on one of the very important points he raised. He said that some countries might be considered safe when that is not necessarily the case, particularly certain countries in Europe where widespread discrimination is causing problems. If we took the time to examine ethnic conflicts, we would find several examples in Eastern Europe, particularly in Hungary, as the member mentioned. I would like to give him the opportunity to comment further on this problem and the prejudices against some countries.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, as I said in my speech, every country in this world is capable of producing a refugee. It depends on the particular political situation at the time. It depends on the government of the day. It depends on the cultural norms of that particular place. For example, how a country may treat gay people varies widely in this world.

Even in our own country, we are capable of producing refugees in a particular context at a particular time, and so these kinds of determinations should not be prejudged.

The bill stereotypes a group of people. If people come from a particular country, none of them have access to refugee appeal division. It does not matter how meritorious their case may be. It does not matter what the facts are.

That is not a typical characteristic of a modern, democratic legal system. One does do not make a determination on who has access to the court system or appeals in advance. One should let the merits of the case make that determination, and this bill does not do that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by making reference to what the minister started his speech with, that there has been great value from immigration. We in the Liberal Party have recognized over the years the importance of developing a balanced approach to dealing with immigration. We believe it is important to get not only good numbers but also the right mixture. We believe there is value in refugees. We believe there is value in families and family reunification. We see the value in terms of economic development. It is about getting the right mixture, and this is something on which we have been very successful in the past in what we have been able to achieve.

One of the greatest programs in the province of Manitoba has been the provincial nominee program.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

The member is welcome.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will inform the member that it was actually a Liberal government that brought it in, but if the member for St. Catharines wants to try to take the credit for that, I will give him some credit.

What the government can take credit for is the huge backlog of refugees that has been generated. Remember that it was the Conservatives who did not fill the necessary positions at the refugee board to hear the numbers, and that is what started the backlog in the refugee system. Yes, improvement has been needed but members will find that through the years there has been movement, with a good mixture of immigrants and a progressive immigration policy that includes refugees.

We in the Liberal Party value the contributions that refugees make to our country. We have had refugees who have made it to Governor General of Canada, and to every economic, business, societal, non-profit and for-profit organization. Ninety-five percent plus of refugees who settle here in Canada go on to contribute immensely to our country and nation. We recognize that and are not scared to talk about it. The government and this minister in particular, on the other hand, have a totally different objective, an objective that demonizes the refugees in our great country.

The Liberal Party does not support Bill C-31, and for a good reason. Bill C-31 is in essence Bill C-4 and Bill C-11, with one major compromise in Bill C-11. The compromise took out the idea of an advisory group that would determine and advise the minister on which countries would be on the safe list. That was good enough when the Tories had a minority government but now that they have a majority government, they are going back to the Reform ways in how they are trying to deal with refugees in our country.

The minister wants to say what is a safe country. Think of the consequences of that. The minister wakes up one day and says that country X is no longer a safe country. As result, someone who comes from that country and claims to be a refugee will in all likelihood be gone before any sort of an appeal can be heard. That person will not even be in Canada but will have had to leave the country in order to make any sort of appeal.

The minister also wants to say who is an irregular arrival. That goes back to Bill C-4. There have been arguments about that. I know the minister will often write off the Liberal Party or the New Democrats as just being the opposition speaking. I would like to provide a specific quote about the government's behaviour on that particular line, and this comes from lawyers across our country.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Immigration lawyers who rally to the cause of immigration lawyers, you have to love that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Well, I am listening to some lawyers, Madam Speaker. The Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism would do well if he also listened to some lawyers periodically. Maybe he should be listening—

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Stand up for the immigration lawyers.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I would like the hon. member to direct his comments through the Chair and all members to wait until questions and comments before intervening.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North has the floor.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I do not blame the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism for getting a little excited about that particular statement. Here is a response to the government on Bill C-31, a quote that makes reference to Bill C-4:

—[The] proposed mandatory, unreviewable, warrantless, year-long detention is patently unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of Canada decided this issue in the clearest of terms.

This is not coming from the Liberal Party but a third party stakeholder that is trying to give advice to the Minister of Immigration . It is like talking to a brick wall. The minister has his own personal agenda and it is one that I do not think most Canadians would support.

I would like to read some comments made about Bill C-4 in some letters from Faith Academy school:

I urge you to take a tremendous stand against this bill.

Another reads:

You have to understand that the main reason refugees leave their countries is because they seek shelter from abuse, persecution and civil unrest. However, under this bill, refugees—including children—are only subjected to more persecution, fear of authority and denied rights.

If Canada's main concern truly is catching smugglers, why create a bill that only appears to punish refugees? Instead, let us join together in creatively seeking a way to deter smugglers without victimizing legitimate refugees.

That is a profound statement that the minister should really listen to.

I will read some more: “The bill forces refugees to be detained and they have come from their poor quality of life only to enter a similar one. Surely we have more integrity than that. There must be a more efficient way to keep track of them. Also the rule that the family can't come for five years after the refugee is allowed is absolutely absurd.” Another says, “I think let them come but make them wait for a certain time to gain residence, but the time should be reduced. Like what if you had to be put in that situation? Think it's still right?” A further one states, “The protection they wanted for Canada is great, but making other people and even innocent children feel like they are criminals or are committing something wrong is unfair.” Finally, “Bill C-4 is a punishment to refugees and is discriminatory since they will serve a mandatory sentence of one year and they will be denied the right to family reunification for five years.”

These are letters by young adults at Faith Academy school who have actually taken the time to read Bill C-4 and to voice their concerns regarding it.

I could go back to some of those statements by the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers. I mention the word “lawyers” and the minister laughs. I would suggest again that the minister would do well to listen. The association states:

Refugee claimants who are put on the designated safe country list are subjected to even shorter deadlines to submit a written claim, and will not have access to an appeal.

The Minister need not justify why he deems a country safe, nor does he have to take account of the differential risk faced by certain minorities in a country that is “safe” for others. Refugees will be vulnerable to the political whims of the Minister and the government.

The last time I had the opportunity speak to the bill, I challenged the government in my question to the minister. It was a very telling picture for me when I saw in a newspaper the minister, along with the Prime Minister, standing on the back of a ship, the Ocean Lady, making a statement.

He did it again today. At the beginning of his speech, he made reference to the fact that illegal immigrants pay to be brought here on two large ships, with a high number of bogus claims. He likes to refer to those queues, which is, I argue, the demonizing of the refugee.

He went on a boat with the Prime Minister and he talked about profiteers and how the government would get tough on human smugglers. This bill would have more of an impact on refugees. In essence, individuals are leaving their countries and putting their lives in danger by getting on some of these crafts to come to Canada. They leave for a wide variety of reasons. Their lives might be in danger. Who knows? At the end of the day, they are putting their lives at risk in order to land on our shore. The minister said he does not mean just boats. It could be people arriving by plane or car. The minister said the first thing to be done is to put these people in detention.

The last time I spoke on this bill, there was a lot of discussion about how to justify putting a 14-year-old or an 8-year-old in detention. To the minister's credit, and I do not give him very much credit, but in this case I will give him some credit, he said people under 16 years of age will not be detained. I am not 100% clear. I think he attempted to address it in his remarks. How does that apply if it involves a family? I believe he said it is only youth who are 12 or 14 years old and might not have a parent who would not be held in detention.

I was a little more clear going into this debate than I am now, because of the minister's remarks. I would look to him to provide some clarification. In terms of the legislation, the government is still saying one year of detention. That is fairly strong in terms of charters, constitutional rights, et cetera. We believe the government is moving in the wrong direction and there has to be an alternative.

The minister is often quoted as referring to or implying the notion of bogus refugees. I have had the opportunity to speak with refugees. Many people come to Canada with genuine fears. Just because they might not necessarily meet the criteria of refugees does not mean that they come to Canada wanting to commit fraud. When we start to label people by saying bogus, it is to the detriment of the refugee community. The minister needs to seriously consider how he chooses his photo ops when he talks about human smuggling, for example, or when he makes general statements about bogus refugees. His definition might not necessarily be the same definition as the many individuals who come to Canada fleeing persecution.

There was another issue that the critic for the New Democrats raised that I want the minister to comment on. It is incorporated in this particular bill and it is the biometrics.

We have been looking into this issue at the citizenship and immigration committee. Individuals have come before the committee to make presentations. Now the minister has brought this in out of nowhere and put it into the legislation. Some might argue that he undermined the work of the citizenship and immigration committee. There is some very strong merit in that argument.

We had another review to deal with the backlog of immigration. On November 4, halfway through it, the minister announced a freeze so that people could not sponsor their mom and dad from India or the Philippines or any other country for at least two years. He said we were not to worry because the government has this super visa program, which would compensate for the freeze.

The government has abandoned the whole concept of family and the valuable role that plays in the mixture of immigrants to Canada. We oppose this. What amazed me was that the minister announced the 10 year super visa, and then on December 1 he provided the details of the program.

Initially I was quite supportive of the concept of the super visa. However, the details of it probably excluded the parents of over 80% of immigrants because of the financial and health requirements put into place by the government. I would argue it was ultimately a manipulation. Much like with biometrics, this was another attempt by the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism to undermine what the citizenship and immigration committee was doing.

I look to the government, and in particular this Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, to reassess what it is actually doing within the immigration department. There is a need for change. We recognize that. When asked, for example, about the role biometrics could play, we believe that biometrics can play a role. We were quite willing to discuss this, and to hear what other Canadians and other stakeholders had to say on the issue. That is why we ultimately supported the committee to deal with that issue.

There is strong merit for biometrics. The minister himself has made reference to them, in terms of individuals who were able to come to Canada, put in a claim, leave and re-enter. There is no doubt biometrics would deal with issues such as that. There is no doubt that countries around the world are trying to get a better sense of the role of biometrics in a nation's security and the integrity of our immigration system, not only for refugees but also for temporary visas for visitors, students or possibly workers. We are open to that.

We are surprised that the minister would have taken this time to bring in that legislation when in fact we have a committee that is supposed to be studying the issue. One could ultimately ask why we are looking at that issue if in fact the minister seems to be going in a certain direction.

That brings me right back to some of my opening comments.

We in the Liberal Party believe that there has to be due process. We need to ensure that there is an appeal mechanism that would enable people to be in Canada while that appeal is being heard. That would not happen under Bill C-31.

We would like to see the minister make the change that he previously agreed to. He acknowledged that there was value to it. We would like to see that change.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Madam Speaker, a number of the member's remarks were factually inaccurate but I do not have time to identify all of those now.

The member just said that the government has abandoned the whole concept of family reunification. If the member studied this issue at all, he would know that the opposite is true. The government has increased this year and next the number of parents and grandparents who will be sponsored into Canada as permanent residents by 60%, going from the average under his government of 17,000 admissions under that program up to 25,000. That is a huge increase, not a decrease.

Similarly, he repeated his outrageous smear that I and the government somehow stigmatize refugees. The opposite is true. It is true that I visited one of the smuggling boats that dangerously brought people to Canada for profit in violation of all of our laws. I have also visited thousands of refugees in Canada. Just last week I visited with some of the Iranian homosexual refugees we have welcomed here with our special program. The week before that I met with some of the Karen Burmese out in British Columbia.

That is why this government is increasing by 20%, by 2,500, the number of Convention refugees settling in this country. We are increasing the support they get under the refugee assistance program by 20%, something that member's government never did.

With respect to the asylum question, the member is criticizing us because we will not give rejected claimants coming from safe, democratic countries access to the refugee appeal division. The Liberal government was opposed to creating the refugee appeal division at all. Under these reforms, the vast majority of failed claimants would have, for the first time, access to a full fact-based appeal, something that the member and his party denied all failed refugee claimants. How does he explain that basic hypocrisy?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I give the minister additional credit for his ability to spin things as if the government were doing something good in immigration.

As the population grows, one would think that we would be able to sustain more refugees.

The minister should visit a gurdwara anywhere in Canada and explain how his statement about getting more parents and grandparents into Canada reconciles with the fact that if someone wants to sponsor his or her mom and dad today, that cannot be done. An application cannot be put in. That is the reality of today. The minister said that over this year and next 17,000 parents and grandparents will be admitted to Canada. Maybe he should take a look at how many were admitted in 2010 and other years.

The minister is very selective. I would welcome a public debate with the minister anywhere, any time on the immigration issue. I suspect he would never take me up on it because he knows he would not win.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his speech. I would also like to take this opportunity to say that the Minister of Immigration has some pretty strange ideas about asylum seekers and refugees, people who are persecuted and hunted, whose rights are trampled on and whose safety is in jeopardy. The minister talks about these people as though they could simply take their credit card, buy a plane ticket, make their way to the airport and come here to seek asylum or refugee status.

Sometimes, they have to do very difficult things. Sometimes, desperate times call for desperate measures. In response, the minister would punish them, accuse them and throw them in jail. Bill C-31 says that only the minister can designate countries as safe or unsafe. That is very dangerous because it creates a two-tiered system. I would like to know what my colleague thinks of this situation. What would be a more reasonable alternative?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague has made a wonderful comment and has asked a great question.

All we need to do is look at Bill C-11. There was a consensus that there should be an advisory group of professionals, individuals who really understand the issues of human rights and so forth, to determine what could be classified or deemed as a safe country. That is a critical component to refugee policy.

Under this proposed legislation, the minister wants sole discretion to choose which countries are safe.

The consequence of the minister saying that a certain country is safe is that whoever comes from that country will not be able to get a legitimate appeal here in Canada. That is totally unacceptable.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I also will be opposing this legislation on numerous grounds.

For instance, I find it worrying that under this legislation refugees who arrive at our border would be detained for a full year. This would include young people 16 to 18 years old who should still be protected under international law on the protection of the rights of the child.

I particularly want to ask my friend from Winnipeg North about the concern that has been raised that under this legislation refugees who have been settled in Canada, who have been granted permanent residency and who have committed no offence nor have misled anyone about obtaining that status, could be stripped of that status and deported even years after arrival.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member has raised an issue on which I would love to elaborate, if I had more time.

The reality is that if a refugee is on that safe list, comes here, is in detention for a year and then gets out of detention, the person could wait four more years before he or she could sponsor a family member. Ultimately it could be an additional three or four years at least before the child might be able to join the person in Canada. That is the type of policy direction the government is moving toward with Bill C-31. That is why I would say it is far from being a family-oriented bill. This legislation would cause all sorts of despair within the refugee community, especially for someone who gets the unfortunate label of being an irregular or coming from a safe country.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to say that in the riding I have the pleasure of representing, there are many people with refugee status. There is a lot of confusion, and many people are worried. These people's stories are disturbing, and I am very upset and worried about them.

I have a question for my colleague from Winnipeg North because he is a member of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. First there was Bill C-4, which was studied in the House. Now we have Bill C-31, and before that, there was Bill C-11. Is my colleague concerned that all of these changes will make the refugee claim process even more cumbersome?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, given how the minister has undermined the current study and previous study regarding immigration policy at the citizenship and immigration committee, the minister would have been better advised to have Bill C-4 go to the committee, or at least the issues that are now within Bill C-31, and let the committee deal with them. The committee could have had witnesses and stakeholders from across the country make presentations on that. It would have been far more transparent.

Ultimately, I am sure the member would likely agree that we would have had a much better progressive piece of legislation than what is before us today. The bill would have had a much better chance of being built on a consensus and maybe we could have done away with some of the very strong problem areas that are currently in the bill.

Bill C-31--Notice of time allocation motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the bill that is currently being debated, Bill C-31, would protect and strengthen our immigration and refugee determination systems and it needs to be passed by June 29.

I would like to advise the House that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, the Marine Transportation Security Act and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot an additional five days for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

That will result in a total of six days on which this bill will be debated. This is my best assessment of the time necessary to debate the bill fully, after I consulted the House leaders from the opposition parties.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, the Marine Transportation Security Act and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

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

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to speak to Bill C-31.

First, there are a couple of aspects that were brought up by the critics from the Liberal Party and the NDP with regard to Bill C-11, the balanced refugee reform legislation which was passed in the last Parliament. They claimed that bill is on hold, that it has not been implemented and that no acts within that bill have actually been processed. I want to clarify that they are factually incorrect. It needs to be identified in the House and on the record that there are two very important components of that bill that have continued.

The first is that prior to passing Bill C-11, there was a backlog in this country of over 60,000 refugee claimants. The process set in place by Bill C-11 would see that reduced significantly. In fact, that has happened. The backlog has been reduced to below 45,000 refugee applicants, which is a very critical component to the direction Bill C-11 was moving toward, which is to ensure that we do not have a tremendous backlog that would put us in an extremely difficult position in terms of processing applications.

The second is a point which the minister brought up during his speech. With the implementation of Bill C-11, we would see an additional 2,500 refugees, which is 20% on top of the current average. An additional 2,500 refugees would be able to settle in our country. We would accept those additional 2,500. Five hundred would be government-sponsored refugees and 2,000 would be privately sponsored.

I know what the Liberal Party and NDP critics' jobs are, but to hear them say that Bill C-11 has not moved forward and has not helped refugees or those in need is completely false. I suggest that when they get the opportunity, they should acknowledge that they supported two parts of that bill without reserve, and those parts continue to move forward today.

Turning now to Bill C-31, Canada welcomes more refugees per capita than any other G20 country in the world. I mentioned the additional 2,500 refugees that will settle in this country. They will, through the United Nations and private sponsorship, begin to come to this country.

The facts speak for themselves. In 2011, Canada received a total of 5,800 refugee claims from people in democratic, rights-respecting member countries of the European Union. That is an increase of 14% from 2010. It means that 23% of the total refugee claims come from the EU. That is more than Africa and Asia. In fact, Hungary is the top source country for people attempting to claim refugee status in Canada. Hungary is an EU member state. That means 4,400 or 18% of all refugee claims in 2011 came from Hungary. That is up 50% from 2010.

What is even more telling is that in 2010, of the 2,400 claims made by Hungarian nationals, only 100 of them were made in countries outside Canada. That means Canada received 2,300 of those claims, 23 times more than any other country in the world. That is not by accident. Those claims are being made for a reason. What is most important is that virtually all of these claims are abandoned, withdrawn or rejected. Refugee claimants themselves are choosing not to see their claims to completion, meaning they are actually not in genuine need of Canada's protection. In other words, these claims are bogus. They are false. They are untrue. These bogus claims from the EU cost Canadian taxpayers over $170 million a year.

At the federal level, we throw figures around in millions of dollars on a regular basis. However, if the average cost of a refugee claim is $55,000 and upwards of only 38% of those claims are actually approved, we can see what we now accept and have to deal with. It costs $170 million to deal with bogus claims and claims that are withdrawn or abandoned. That money should not go to defend and try to articulate and determine whether these are actual refugees. It should go to refugees who are in fact approved and need the assistance, whether it be for settlement services, education or whatever it may be to help them acclimatize and learn about our Canadian system.

Bill C-31, the protecting Canada's immigration system act, is part of our plan to restore integrity to our asylum system. It would make Canada's refugee determination process faster, fairer, stronger and more appealing. It would ensure that we would go through this process in a faster way so that legitimate refugees would be able to settle into the country and be approved. As well, we would remove bogus claimants in a much quicker, more expedient way so that we could actually deliver services to those who deserve them.

The monetary aspect is not why we are moving forward with the legislation. However, with the implementation of Bill C-31, over the next five years, we will see a savings to taxpayers across the country of close to $1.65 billion.

Bill C-31 would also help speed up refugee claims in a number of ways. One major component is the improvements to the designated countries of origin provisions. It would enable the ministry to respond more quickly to increases in refugee claims from countries that generally did not produce refugees.

The minister and I spoke earlier of what we saw in the European Union. That is specifically why we will be able to ensure with a safe country that we can process and work through the response in a period of up to, and no more than, 45 days. That is compared to a process which now takes upward, and in many cases exceeds, 1,000 days. It goes on and on.

Much of the determination of which countries would be designated would be determined on criteria clearly outlined in both the legislation and within the ministerial order. For example, for a country to be considered relatively safe, more than 60% of its asylum claims are withdrawn or have been abandoned by the claimants themselves, or more than 75% of asylum claims are rejected by the independent Immigration and Refugee Board. If that is not an objective, neutral test, I am not sure how the opposition could actually come up with one.

Because there will be countries that do not have a threshold in terms of the numbers who come to our country and claim refugee status, where there are not enough of those claims to make an objective quantitative assessment, clear qualitative criteria will be applied to determine the likelihood that a country would produce genuine refugees. This criteria will include, for example, an independent judicial system that recognizes and respects democratic rights and freedoms and whether civil society organizations exist and operate in that country.

In fact, unlike the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, which had both quantitative and qualitative criteria specified only in regulation, Bill C-31 would have its qualitative factors enshrined in legislation, while the quantitative factors would be set out in a ministerial order. In this way, the criteria used to trigger a country for review for designation would be more transparent and more accountable than under the Balanced Refugee Reform Act. It is an important criteria and important aspect to keep in mind as we debate the bill.

The designated country of origin provisions included in Bill C-31 would bring Canada in line with peer countries, like the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Switzerland, recognizing that some countries were safer than others.

The opposition likes to use the United Nations as an example, or at least as the leadership that we should follow in terms of how we recognize refugees and how we are supposed to stay in line with what should happen in dealing with refugees in our system, in our program in our country.

However, if I could just quote from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Antonio Guterres, who has himself acknowledged, “there are indeed Safe Countries of Origin and there are indeed countries in which there is a presumption that refugee claims will probably be not as strong as in other countries”. He also has agreed that as long all refugee claimants have access to some process, it is completely legitimate to accelerate claims from safe countries.

Under Bill C-31, every refugee claimant would continue to receive a hearing before the independent and quasi-judicial Immigration and Refugee Board regardless of where he or she may have come from. Furthermore, every refugee claimant in Canada would have access to at least one level of appeal. This is contrary to the opposition statements. These procedures exceed the requirements of both our domestic law and our international obligations.

Unfortunately, what is lost in a lot of the debate on the bill is the other equally important positive aspect that it will have. Not only will it result in fewer bogus claims abusing our generous immigration system, it will also allow for legitimate refugees who are in need of Canada's protection to receive that protection much sooner than they do now.

I want to stop at this point for a moment. Under Canada's current refugee determination system, it takes an average of two years before refugee claimants receive a decision on their case. Our system has become so backward that legitimate refugees are not in a position to move forward in a much quicker way. Our system has been overwhelmed by a backlog of cases. We have started to work toward a reduction of those cases, but we have not done enough and we need to do more, which is why we are debating Bill C-31.

It is important to remind the House and all Canadians that bogus refugee claims clog up our system. They result in legitimate refugees who are in genuine need of Canada's protection waiting far too long to receive that needed protection.

Bill C-31 would further deter abuse of Canada's immigration system by providing the government the authority to collect biometric data from certain foreign nationals who wanted to enter into Canada. The minister brought forward countless examples of serious criminals, human smugglers, war criminals and suspected terrorists, among others, who had come into this country in the past, sometimes repeatedly, up to eight times, even after having been deported. As fraudsters become more sophisticated, so too must the countries that are to protect their citizens. Therefore, biometrics will improve our ability to keep violent criminals and those who pose a threat to our country out.

Foreign criminals will now be barred entry into Canada thanks to biometrics. It is an important new tool that will help protect the safety and security of Canadians by reducing identity fraud and identity theft. Biometrics, in short, will strengthen the integrity of our system and help protect the safety and security of Canadians while helping facilitate legitimate travel.

Using biometrics will also bring Canada in line with other countries that are already ahead of us in that regard, the United Kingdom, Australia, European Union, New Zealand, United States and Japan, among others.

I would like to point out that while other countries around the world are using biometrics, opposition members voted against the use of biometrics and the funding to implement it, to assist with the safety of both Canadians and those entering our country. They determined they were not going to support what Canadians, if we were to ask them, probably believed should already have been implemented.

It is not likely surprising to anyone that I certainly do support the bill and that all of the government's efforts to improve our immigration system move us in the right direction.

However, what is telling about the bill is that a large number of experts and immigration stakeholders also support the bill. I heard from both critics, from the NDP and Liberals, that all lawyers across the country did not support the bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I wouldn't say all.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

They sure made it sound like they meant all. However, that is not the case. I hear what the opposition is saying now. One says that we need to refer to the lawyers when we are making these decisions. Now I hear from another who says who cares about lawyers. I am not sure where they stand now.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

The records show the New Democrats said that.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

No wonder the Liberals were in so much trouble prior to us coming into government. They could not make a decision to save their life on this issue.

However, Richard Kurland, who was a witness at our committee, said the following:

Finally someone recognized that the open wallet approach of the past, offering free education, free medicare, and a welfare cheque to anyone who touched Canadian soil making a refugee claim was not the right thing to do. So I’m glad to see today that finally, after several years, someone has the political courage to take the political risk of saying, if you’re from a European country and you can land in London or Paris or Berlin, fill out paperwork, and legally live there, work there, pay taxes there, you shouldn’t be allowed to make a refugee claim in Canada. Buttress that with this reality check. Over 90 percent, and in some years 95 percent, of [claimants from Hungary] didn’t even show up for their oral hearings. They rode on the taxpayer.

Julie Taub, also an immigration lawyer and a former member of the Immigration and Refugee Board, probably appointed by the previous Liberal government—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

That would've been a good appointment, no doubt.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

The Liberal critic says that she was a great appointment. I am sure she was. Let me quote what she said about the bill. She said:

I can tell you from theory and practice that the current refugee system is very flawed, and cumbersome, and definitely needs an overhaul. It takes up to two years to have a claimant have his hearing. And there are far too many bogus claims that clog up the system, and use...

She used the word “bogus”.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

So does the Toronto Star.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

So does the Toronto Star, as the minister has indicated. Therefore, to say that this word should not exist in this process is bogus.

Let me return to the quote. She said:

And there are far too many bogus claims that clog up the system, and use very expensive resources at a cost to Canadian taxpayers.

Who pays for those expensive resources? The taxpayers of our country. She went on to say:

I...like the fact that [the minister] is going to fast-track [some] claims, so they do not clog up the refugee system for genuine claimants. I have clients who've been waiting since 2009, early 2010 to have their hearing, and I represent many claimants from, let's say Africa, the Mid East countries, who base their claim on gender violence or Christian persecution in certain Middle East countries, and they have to wait, because the system is so clogged up with what I consider to be unfounded claims from citizens of safe country of origin.

Since I only have a minute left, I will not use anymore quotes. I have a feeling I will be able to use these over the next six days as we debate this to show that there are professionals involved in this industry who support what we are going with respect to the legislation.

I listened very closely to both the NDP and Liberal critics present their speeches. They told us who did not support the bill. Let me end with this. Millions upon millions of Canadians sent us here. In some respects they believe we did not go far enough. Canadians support the action we are taking with respect to C-31 and in terms of balancing refugee reform in the country. We will continue on their behalf.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Madam Speaker, this bill gives the minister alone all the power to determine which countries are safe, while in the former Bill C-11, that task belonged to a panel of experts that included human rights specialists. Bill C-11 was sponsored by the Minister of Immigration at the time.

Why is the government creating two classes of refugees and how can it guarantee that any single country in the world is completely safe from persecution?

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, it continues to boggle my mind that the opposition keeps suggesting that there are two levels of refugees in the world. That is wrong. There is only one. There are those who seek asylum and deserve it, and there are those who seek asylum and do not deserve it.

I appreciate the fact that the member works extremely hard on the immigration committee, and I respect her being here this afternoon, but she was not here in the previous Parliament when we passed Bill C-11 and moved toward a more balanced approach. Bill C-31 would make the process of safe country more transparent and more accountable. How that process would work is spelled out in the legislation and regulation, as is how and when the minister would be able to undertake the issue of safe country.

I come back to the original point of what the refugee system in this country is supposed to be about. It is supposed to be about assisting those who genuinely need the help of this country to seek a new life, to seek a new country and to seek new opportunity but it is for those who deserve it, not for those who attempt to get it under bogus means.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member and I sit on the citizenship and immigration committee where we are studying biometrics right now. I want to give the member a hypothetical situation that may be an analogy.

Let us say, for the sake of argument, that the government will buy some F-35s for billions of dollars. The Minister of National Defence says that the government is buying those planes no matter what. However, someone on the committee says that maybe we should study F-18s and other alternative aircraft. I suspect that would be a stupid thing to do because the government has already committed to buying the F-35s, even if it is not in the best interests of taxpayers.

I will e now go back to biometrics. The minister has already decided on what he will do with respect to biometrics. The member and I sit on the committee. Is not the minister undermining what we do on the committee by not even listening to what was being said or not even waiting until the committee was done before presenting this legislation?

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, I like to think of it in the opposite. I like to think that the minister views this from a completely different perspective.

At noon today, I and my committee colleagues on this side of the House presented our report that contains 10 recommendations on how to work through the backlog. I have no doubt whatsoever that the minister will look at those recommendations take them seriously. We were going to recommend the super visa for parents and grandparents but the minister did not wait for us to finish our report and said that it was such a good idea that he would implement it now. The minister did not wait to fix the problem like the Liberals did when they were in government. He acted immediately. What more can one ask for?

As for the F-35s and the F-18s, what about the chance that a previous government already passed that and said that those were the planes Canada would buy?

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for coming to Mississauga--Streetsville on Friday and making an important announcement on marriage fraud, which we applaud and appreciate.

I would like the parliamentary secretary to respond to this quote and tell me if he agrees. It reads:

We want a fast, fair system where we can give a sanctuary to people who need it quickly and we can weed out the people who don’t have valid claims, get them through a fair process. And if they’re not valid at the end of the day, deport them out of Canada swiftly.

That was said by the NDP immigration critic, the member for Vancouver Kingsway. Would the parliamentary secretary agree with that quote?

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Mississauga—Streetsville who is doing an amazing job as a member of Parliament in that riding.

If the minister acted quickly on the implementation of super visas for parents and grandparents to come to Canada, that member was one of the first to quickly assemble a town hall meeting to ensure that the people of his community understood what the super visa meant and what the advantage would be. He told the people of his riding at the town hall meeting that if he could help them in any way that he would be there for them. It is good to know that Mississauga—Streetsville has one more Conservative member of Parliament to stand for residents in a way that will assist them.

I agree with the quote by the NDP critic. It is a great quote.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, there is much in this legislation that is deeply concerning to me and other members of the Green Party across Canada. I know the parliamentary secretary has referred to what happened in previous Parliaments, but I was not in the House at that time. However, I am deeply concerned about the approach that will be taken on refugees who arrive by what is called irregular entry.

Since Bill C-4 was introduced earlier this year, Bill C-31 appears to subsume Bill C-4 and provide it in a different fashion. I note now that we will not be interning children under 16 years of age, but what will happen to refugee families that arrive on our shore? Apparently, parents and anyone over the age of 16 who arrive at our shore will to be interned for a year. What will happen to children under the age of 16?

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the leader of the Green Party spends a lot of time in the House doing her job as a member of Parliament, but she also went across this country saying time and time again that she was not coming to Parliament to criticize, that she was coming here to work with the government. I would say to her, with all due respect, that if we are going to use words like “internment”, they be used in their proper context. That is not what Bill C-31 represents. In fact, it is far from it.

When it comes to the detainee aspect of this bill, I will put into perspective the types of lives individuals coming to this country to seek refugee status have led up to that point. How they are treated here is humane, proper and, in fact, in almost every case is better than any type of treatment they received from the country they come from if they are true refugee applicants. If they are not true refugee applicants, they should not be here in the first place.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to point out once again that many people in LaSalle—Émard are in extremely difficult situations precisely because they are trying to claim refugee status. I have heard some very troubling stories.

I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration could tell us why the government decided to amend the legislation and introduce Bill C-31, which, in the end, creates two categories of refugees and makes judgments regarding different refugee cases?

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, when Bill C-11 was passed and we anticipated an implementation date of June 29 of this year, there was an expectation that we would have rooted out the issues of false claimants, that we would have put a process in place that would have exemplified to individuals thinking about claiming refugee status in Canada that if they did not have a true refugee claim, they would not be welcome in Canada, or it would not be approved and would be done so in a very expeditious manner.

What we learned, whether it was through crooked consultants or advice from individuals who understand how to manipulate and work around our process, is that they were not being scared off or they did not see the fear in applying in Canada. They simply found additional loopholes. Bill C-31 would eliminate, once and for all, the loopholes that allow bogus refugee claimants to come to Canada to seek refugee status. In fact, we will be assisting those who truly need help.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle.

A policy without justice is an inadequate policy. Bill C-31 completely jeopardizes refugee rights. Never in human history have refugee rights been as threatened as they are under the Conservatives and never has our democracy been as discredited as it is under the Conservative government, which is unable to respect the compromises reached in consensus with the other parties.

The government seems to forget that our ratification of international conventions on refugee rights and human rights requires us to bring our laws and policies into line with the provisions of these international conventions.

Canada is a signatory to the 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees. Bill C-31, intended to protect Canada's immigration system, respects neither the spirit nor the letter of the Geneva convention. Having read the bill, one wonders whether the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, adopted by the House in 1982, is still in effect in Canada.

Let us not forget that Bill C-31 is an omnibus bill, which seeks to amend the Immigration Refugee Protection Act by unfortunately incorporating into Bill C-4 the most unreasonable provisions of the former Bill C-11, which received royal assent in June 2010.

The government had three main goals in mind for this bill: revoking the majority of the compromises included in the former Bill C-11, Balanced Refugee Reform Act, which received support from all the parties; reintroducing Bill C-4, the Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act; and finally, introducing the use of biometrics into the temporary resident program.

Bill C-31 raises some serious concerns in addition to the those already raised by Bill C-4, the unconstitutional nature of which we have raised and highlighted in our previous interventions.

In my speech today, I would like to draw the attention of the House to some of the concerns that Bill C-31 raises. In reaction to the introduction of Bill C-31, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers says that like the sorry Bill C-10, Bill C-31 is extremely complicated.

The most draconian measures in Bill C-4 have been integrated into Bill C-31. Let us look at a few examples. Bill C-4 provided for mandatory detention for one year for people fleeing persecution in their country of origin and entering Canada without identity documents in their possession. Also, Bill C-4 eliminated review of detention for refugees who are smuggled into Canada.

The provisions pertaining to detention found in Bill C-4, which are being reintroduced in Bill C-31, are a direct violation of our Constitution. Furthermore, the jurisprudence constante of the Supreme Court is categorical in this regard.

Why are the Conservatives attempting to put themselves above the rule of law, which is a key principle of our democracy, even though they are familiar with the precedents of our high court? Why are they attempting to mislead the House by proposing that it pass laws that they know violate not only our Constitution, but also the Canadian charter and human rights conventions that our country has signed? Pacta sunt servanda is a principle of international law. Signed conventions have to be respected.

Furthermore, lawyers specializing in refugee rights have said that they are deeply troubled by the short time frames that Bill C-31 gives refugee claimants to seek Canada's protection. They find that Bill C-31 drastically changes Canada's refugee protection system and makes it unfair. Bill C-31 imposes unrealistic time frames and unattainable deadlines on refugee claimants and uses the claimants' inability to meet those deadlines to exclude them from protection.

In fact, under the terms of Bill C-31, refugee claimants have only 15 days to overcome the trauma of persecution, find a lawyer to help them, gather the documentary evidence to support their allegations, obtain proof of identity from their country, scrape together the money for legal fees, present an articulate and coherent account of their life, and so forth.

Is there a woman who has been raped and traumatized who would be willing to tell her story to a stranger? I am a psychologist and I know that is impossible in the time provided.

Unsuccessful refugee claimants will have 15 days within which to file an appeal under Bill C-31. As everyone can see, the time frames imposed on refugee claimants are not long enough to allow them to make full answer and defence.

Under our justice system, the greater the risk to life, the longer the time frames given to the person being tried to prepare his defence. Bill C-31 does not respect this principle of fundamental justice.

I am also deeply concerned not only about the new term—designated country of origin—that Bill C-31 introduces into our legislation but also about the undemocratic nature of the process for designating the countries in question. Under Bill C-31, the minister alone has the power to designate safe countries of origin, without first defining the designation criteria for these countries.

According to the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, the designated safe country list and the unilateral power granted to the minister dangerously politicize Canada's refugee system.

Refugee claimants who are on a designated safe country list have even less time to submit their written arguments and will not be allowed an appeal.

Bill C-31 also relieves the minister of the obligation of justifying why a country is safe and considering the differential risks that certain minorities face in a country that is safe for others.

If Bill C-31 is passed, refugees will become more vulnerable because their fate will depend on the political whims of the minister and the government. Failed claimants from designated countries of origin can be deported from Canada almost immediately, even if they have requested a judicial review of the decision. In other words, a person can be deported before his case is heard.

This shows us that the government has no understanding at all of the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, which was adopted on July 28, 1951. The convention insists that the individual concerns of victims of persecution be taken into account. The Geneva convention does not state anywhere that international protection is granted to the victim of persecution based on the country in which the persecution was experienced.

Persecution of religious minorities does not occur solely in non-democratic countries, nor does discrimination based on sexual orientation occur solely in non-democratic countries. Race-based persecution can happen anywhere in the world. All signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights are democratic countries, but the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights is teeming with rulings that condemn democratic states for abuses of individual rights.

If that is the case, by what objective criteria can the minister deny a person international protection based on the fact that he or she is from a particular country and claims to have been persecuted because of his or her sexual orientation or religion?

The process of designating countries of origin is not carried out by an independent, democratic entity. The government is judge and jury. It has the power to designate countries of origin considered safe, and it has the power to refuse protection provided for in the Geneva convention on refugee status without examining the merits of a given case.

I would also point out that under subclause 19(1) of Bill C-31, the government can, if it chooses, withdraw the international protection due to victims of persecution on the grounds that circumstances have changed in the refugee's country of origin. Under this provision, the government could now decide to send people to whom it granted international protection during the first and second world wars, for example, back to their countries of origin.

Subclause 19(1) also adds new terms to the section concerning loss of permanent resident status. It states that the existing criteria for withdrawing protection from asylum seekers can be grounds for loss of permanent resident status.

I will conclude with one final concern about changes that Bill C-31 makes to claims made on humanitarian grounds. Such claims enable a person to stay in Canada even if he or she is not eligible on other grounds. Unfortunately, under Bill C-31, applicants awaiting a refugee appeal division decision cannot simultaneously apply on humanitarian grounds.

This bill is unjust and cruel. It is antithetical to Canadian values of compassion for victims of persecution, and it must be defeated.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-11 ultimately established an advisory group that would be made up of professionals, people with a human rights background, for example, to recommend to the minister which countries could be listed as safe countries. Now that the Conservatives have a majority government, they have made the determination that it is better to have the minister make that decision. We in the Liberal Party oppose that and would like to see it amended. I wonder if the member could provide comment on that.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

I would like to respond with a very simple answer. I think it is important to be impartial in these kinds of decisions. When addressing these kinds of issues, if one makes unilateral decisions, this does not make for a fair and transparent system. I completely agree that it should be up to a committee to decide which countries should be designated.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her intervention.

She noted that there is a limit to the appeal process for unsuccessful refugee claimants. I would remind the hon. member that the only thing required by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees is that we give all asylum seekers a hearing and that we consider their claims. That is all.

In the current system, there are several avenues of recourse when a claim is rejected by the IRB. We are proposing a new refugee appeal division for most failed claimants. Yes, we are limiting the appeal process for people who filed claims that are clearly unfounded or who come from countries that are not generally a source of asylum claims.

We are under no obligation to provide an appeal process, but we are creating such a process for most claimants. We are not limiting any rights. We are adding the right to appeal in the bill.

Does my colleague not support creating this appeal division, which is something completely new?

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. minister for his question.

In response, I would simply like to say that it is important to ensure that legal recourse is available to everyone. Given the situations facing refugees and asylum seekers who—as we all know—are fleeing persecution or situations in which their lives are at risk or their freedom is jeopardized, I think we need to maintain a position where everyone has the right to appeal. I think maintaining that is crucial.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to commend the hon. member for Saint-Lambert on her excellent work and her excellent presentation and on the remarkable job she does within the NDP as the deputy immigration critic.

I would like her to elaborate a bit on the issue of the countries that would be put on a list, on the fact that the list would be developed only by the minister and how this process might go off the rails given that any decision would be the responsibility of just one person.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her comments and question.

I just want to remind the House that in the former Bill C-11, there was the possibility of having a committee, including human rights experts, meet in order to make this designation.

I think that in a democratic country, it is important to ensure that these powers are not given unilaterally to one person, but that a committee makes this type of decision in a transparent and impartial fashion.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle. I must inform him that I will have to interrupt him at 5:30 p.m., in five minutes, to call a vote.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, what I cannot stand about this debate are all the rather extreme terms used by the government, as if Canada were being invaded by bogus refugees. We are just trying to warn them about certain realities.

I am sure that everyone empathizes with Syrians, who are going through an absolutely horrible crisis at present. However, almost 2 million Kurds live in Syria, and about 400,000 to 500,000 of them have no papers. For the past 30 years or so, Syria has refused to register the birth of Kurdish children and has refused to issue passports and identification papers to Kurds. If Kurds are trying to flee Syria right now, we would have to tell them to come to Canada, where they will be detained in a lovely prison for perhaps five or six years.

There are concrete examples to back up our concerns and our questions. In my riding, an Algerian family is facing deportation simply because their claim was not legitimate. They were threatened for several years, but those who were threatening them were armed on only one occasion. The government now considers the situation in Algeria to be stable. However, these people are here with their two children who were born in Algeria and their third who is a Canadian citizen. They are wondering if they are going to be able to stay. They are model citizens who have successfully integrated into their community. They have the support of their entire town. Nevertheless, they may be forced to return to Algeria and face the people who tried to steal their business.

Letting ministers make arbitrary rulings on all sorts of situations is risky. There are examples here in our country. One minister looks at a garden shed in Attawapiskat and says that it is a house. He sees two trailers pushed together and that becomes a school or a community centre. We are wondering whether people who are living in similar conditions in another country and who want to come here would be eligible for refugee status.

Europe is full of lovely law-abiding countries with very advanced legal systems like ours, where life is wonderful unless you are Roma. In fact, in France, Italy and everywhere in Eastern Europe, the Roma are persecuted. They are imprisoned, their camps are destroyed and their vehicles are seized. Hungary, which according to the minister is a beautiful, safe country, is infested with right-wing extremist, neo-Nazi and homophobic groups. That may be why, all of a sudden, many people want to leave.

We have to ask ourselves some questions. What type of country do we want to become? Do we want to be a country that imprisons minors? A country that goes after permanent residents who have successfully integrated into the community? A country that deports children who were born here? We do not want to be added to the list of countries that are not safe for refugees. Our country sees everything from a trade and investment perspective. International trade is a good thing, but it was not so long ago that the brother-in-law of Tunisia's president and an investor, Mr. Trabelsi, was welcome here. He bought a mansion in Westmount. Libya was a good place to invest. Today, Gadhafi huggers are much less popular.

The House resumed from March 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, the Marine Transportation Security Act and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle has five minutes.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, I asked the minister a question and he did not really give me an answer.

I am wondering what will happen to refugees who arrive at our borders in some very specific cases. In general, I find that Canada's international reputation has suffered greatly. We have always been regarded as a progressive country that is open to people from all over the world who need our help. Our reputation is being greatly compromised. We have become a host country for the brothers-in-law of dictators who come and buy luxury mansions in our posh neighbourhoods, in Montreal, for instance. Construction companies are going to build prisons in Libya and others will provide electricity to a corrupt regime in Syria. We are losing ground all along the line.

What are we going to say to Kurdish refugees who come from Syria without papers? Are we going to invite them to stay, saying that we have safe housing with bars on the windows and that they can stay there for at least a year, and maybe up to five years? I did not really like the minister's response.

These are the questions that are raised by such a shoddy bill. This bill affects so many aspects of our international reputation that we have to wonder if we will ever re-establish it. And, of course, there are also the Canadian security firms, or security firms operated by Canadians, who help fleeing dictators by taking care of logistics for them.

We are wondering where the government is going with our international policy in general. Bill C-31 sends a very bad message. Soon we will be the laughingstock of the world.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to share my time with my colleague the member for Richmond Hill.

It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak today in support of Bill C-31, the protecting Canada's immigration system act. Bill C-31 would restore integrity to our asylum system by making Canada's refugee determination process faster and fairer, resulting in faster protection for legitimate refugees and faster removal of bogus claimants.

Canada has a well-deserved international reputation for having the most generous and fair immigration system in the world. Canada provides protection to more than one in ten refugees resettled each year worldwide, more than any other developed country in the world. However, the fact is that Canada's asylum system is vulnerable to abuse.

There are countless stories in the media on almost a daily basis about bogus refugees, serious criminals, and those who have committed crimes against humanity who are trying to take advantage of Canada's generous asylum system. This abuse wastes limited resources on bogus claims while legitimate refugees have to wait in a queue behind them. It also undermines public confidence in our immigration system.

Canadians are generous and welcoming but we have no tolerance for those who refuse to play by the rules and abuse our generosity. The current flawed refugee system has made Canada a target for those who are all too happy to take unfair advantage of us. As a result, too many taxpayer dollars are being spent on people who are not fleeing genuine persecution, but seek to exploit Canada's generous asylum system to receive lucrative taxpayer-funded health care, welfare and other social benefits.

The facts speak for themselves. For example, in 2011 Canada received more refugee claims from the democratic and human rights-respecting countries of the European Union than from Africa or Asia. Last year alone, a quarter of all refugee claims were made by European Union nationals.

Once these bogus claimants land in Canada most of them are eligible for a generous range of taxpayer-funded social services and benefits within days of arrival. They can then receive benefits for years as they wait for their refugee claims to be heard under the current slow system.

Virtually all of the refugee claims by Europeans are eventually withdrawn, abandoned or rejected. In fact, in many cases, the refugee claimants themselves eventually decide to return to their country of alleged persecution. These claims are, by any definition, bogus. These bogus refugee claims from Europe cost Canadian taxpayers more than $170 million per year.

Bill C-31 includes three sections, all of which are aimed at improving the integrity of Canada's immigration system.

First, the bill includes further refugee reform. While the Balanced Refugee Reform Act that was passed in 2010 was a much needed improvement, it did not go far enough to ensure that our refugee system was working as effectively as possible. For example, Bill C-31 would allow the government to designate countries that are not generally refugee producing, such as those in the European Union. Claims from these countries would be processed on average in 45 days compared to more than a thousand days under the current system. It is baffling to most people that the current system takes on average more than a thousand days to hear a claim, but it is the unfortunate truth.

Second, the bill includes provisions from Bill C-4, the preventing human smugglers from abusing Canada's immigration system act. These provisions include an increase in penalties for those who organize human smuggling events and the provisions aim to discourage anyone from using the services of human smugglers to come to Canada. It is important to note that there is one important difference: Bill C-31 includes an exemption from detention of minors under the age of 16.

I want to be clear, because there is a lot of intentional misinformation being spread about the detention aspects of the human smuggling provisions. Once the identity of a claimant has been established and a refugee claim is approved, which would be within a few months under the bill in many cases, individuals will be released.

Through the human smuggling provisions, our government is sending a clear message that our doors are open to those who play by the rules, including legitimate refugees, but we will crack down on those who endanger human lives and threaten the integrity of our borders. Human smuggling is a despicable crime and Canadians think it is unacceptable for criminals to abuse Canada's immigration system for financial gain.

Finally, Bill C-31 would provide the government with the authority to collect biometric data, in this case fingerprints and photographs, from visa applicants who want to enter Canada. Biometric data are much more reliable and less prone to forgery or theft. Implementing biometrics will strengthen immigration screening, enhance security, and help reduce identity fraud. It will prevent known criminals, failed refugee claimants and previous deportees from using a false identity to obtain a Canadian visa. It will also bring Canada's system in line with many other industrialized countries such as the U.K., the European Union, Australia, the United States and Japan.

Canadians have given our Conservative government a strong mandate to improve Canada's immigration system. Taken together, the measures included in Bill C-31 will help our government to put a stop to those who seek to abuse our generosity. The bill will save Canadian taxpayers $1.65 billion over five years. It will provide protect to genuine refugees in a more timely manner while allowing us to remove more quickly the bogus claimants who cheat the system and abuse our generosity. That is in the best interests of Canada and of genuine refugees.

The NDP is against this bill and has now made that much clearer. Unfortunately, its members even tried to kill this bill before any substantive debate was allowed to happen or it be studied at committee. That is more proof that they are more interested in playing games than working with the government to move forward with important pieces of legislation reflecting the priorities of Canadians.

Yet interestingly enough, when asked about Bill C-31, the member for Vancouver Kingsway, the opposition critic, had this to say:

Well, I think what we need to do is build a system that has a fast and fair determination process. And that’s something that I’ll give [the] Minister...credit for. I do think that’s what his intention has been all along. And we all want to work towards that. We don’t want endless dragging on of this stuff because refugees, when they come here, you know, they do qualify for basic sustenance...it is at the cost of the Canadian taxpayer.

So we do have an interest in making sure there’s a quick determination that’s correct and fair and get these people into our communities, working and being productive taxpaying members of our society if they’re bona fide refugees.

We want a fast, fair system where we can give a sanctuary to people who need it quickly and we can weed out the people who don’t have valid claims, get them through a fair process. And if they’re not valid at the end of the day, deport them out of Canada swiftly.

I agree with that statement by the NDP immigration critic, which is exactly what Bill C-31 aims to do. This is why I call on all members of the House to work with our government in the best interests of Canadians and support Bill C-31, the protecting Canada's immigration system act, and ensure its speedy passage through the House.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his speech, the member said that the current asylum system was open to abuse. While that statement may be true, the bill leaves a different kind of opening for abuse available to the government. I refer specifically to the ability of the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism to actually determine which countries are safe or not, without reference to any third party, without reference whatsoever to a panel of experts, which was the agreement between all parties in the last Parliament. They had agreed that this would be an appropriate way to avoid abuse of the system.

The types of abuse we can name are the following. Countries could be placed on a safe list for foreign policy considerations, even though they are not safe. If a different minister or the Prime Minister decided that he wanted to put a country on a safe list for foreign policy considerations, we may end up being able to turn down refugees.

I would like the member to say how we can avoid this kind of possible abuse under this new legislation.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely false. There is no such unilateral power on the part of the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism. The minister will take advice in consultation with Foreign Affairs and from our posts overseas, and he will certainly consult with experts in this area before making those decisions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, let us be perfectly clear on this: The minister under this legislation is taking the responsibility upon himself to say that he as minister will determine henceforth who is going to be on the safe country list. Before that, it was going to be an advisory group that would provide the recommendation. The advisory group would be made up of professionals, individuals and different stakeholders, to ensure that the right countries would be on the safe country list.

Why does the government need to have the sole discretion to determine who should be going on the safe country list and who should not when the advisory panel, which at one time the minister favoured, has now been thrown out the window?

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we all know the common saying that a decision made by committee is like camel designed from a horse with a hump on it. I think if we go through that process it would take a long time to make these decisions.

In the regulations the minister has a very transparent process whereby he consults with professionals and other departments related to our overall foreign affairs relationships to determine where these safe countries are.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this bill has a number of aspects that are likely to be found in violation of the Charter of Rights, particularly the section allowing detention without access to counsel for up to one year for any group of people coming to Canada designated by the minister, without criteria, as an irregular entry. I find that the most egregious section, but there is much in this very complex bill that is worrying.

There are very tight timelines for people arriving here to make a decision and to file within 15 days their appeal and to find a lawyer. There is unrealistic pressure on people coming to our shores, including the requirement that people be put in detention up to one full year without access to counsel.

Would the hon. parliamentary secretary explain how this would pass a charter challenge?

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the premise of that question. Anyone who comes to this country and is landed would be given the full treatment under the charter in recognition of their refugee claim. Whether they are detained or not, I think it is grossly unfair to have them wait over thousand days before we process their refugee claims. I think 35 days is much more humane and fair. It would certainly be a swift removal so that they would know exactly where they stood with respect to their refugee claim.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in support of Bill C-31, protecting Canada's immigration system act. It is legislation that will improve this country's immigration system in a number of very important ways. Immigration is central in our country's history to our prosperity, our international reputation, our generosity and humanitarianism, and our great success as a nation.

In so many ways Canada is a country that was built by immigrants. Since Canada's earliest days, we have opened our doors to millions of newcomers from everywhere in the world. They have helped to make Canada the peaceful, free and diverse country that it is today.

My family is one of those families that came here as immigrants. My mother, Panagiota Bissas, and my father, John Menegakis, came in the mid-1950s, 1956 and 1957 to be specific. My parents were given every opportunity and are excellent examples of how people from all over the world have come here and have built families and certainly have contributed to our beautiful nation.

Whether those newcomers are pursuing economic opportunities, seeking to unite with family members, or looking for security and stability or asylum, Canada has long been a destination of choice for people around the world.

The Government of Canada recognizes the importance of immigration. That is evident in all of its actions and policies. Since 2006 the government has had the highest sustained level of immigration in nearly a century. In fact, since 2006, the Conservative government has welcomed an average of 254,000 people per year. This is a 13% increase over the level of immigration under the previous Liberal government.

We have also continued to strengthen and support our generous refugee system, which is an important expression of Canada's compassion and humanitarian convictions and of our international commitments. Canada remains one of the top countries in the world to welcome refugees. In fact, we welcome more refugees per capita than any other G20 country. Because our government understands the importance of the immigration system to Canada's future, we also understand the importance of remaining vigilant about keeping that system functioning in our national interest. To do so, we must always be prepared to make improvements to the system according to changing circumstances and identified shortcomings. Indeed, a dynamic country such as Canada requires dynamic and flexible immigration policies that adapt to the times.

It is the government's responsibility to ensure that we have a strong, effective and efficient immigration system. That is why I am very pleased to be speaking today about legislation that is designed to fulfill exactly that responsibility.

Bill C-31, protecting Canada's immigration system act, aims to strengthen Canada's immigration system in three very specific ways. It will further build on the long-needed reforms to the asylum system that were passed in Parliament in June 2010 as part of the Balanced Refugee Reform Act. It will also allow Canadian authorities to better crack down on the lucrative business of human smuggling by integrating measures which the government previously introduced in the preventing human smugglers from abusing Canada's immigration system act. It will enable the introduction of biometric technology for screening visa applicants which will strengthen our immigration program in a number of ways.

I mentioned earlier the fact that our refugee system is among the most generous in the world and that Canada admits more refugees on a per capita basis than almost any other country. That is certainly true, but when there is a system in place as generous as Canada's, it is particularly important to guard against the abuse of that system and our generosity.

Indeed, for too many years our refugee system has been abused by too many people making unfounded claims. Our system has become overwhelmed by a significant backlog of cases. More recently we have grown more and more concerned about a notable upsurge in refugee claims originating in countries that we would not normally expect to produce refugees. This is adding to the backlog.

I was certainly surprised to learn that Canada receives more asylum claims from countries in Europe than from either Africa or Asia. Last year alone, almost one-quarter of all refugee claims to Canada were from European Union nationals. Let us think about that. European Union countries have strong human rights and democratic systems similar to those in Canada, yet they produced one-quarter of all the refugee claims to this country in 2011. That is up 14% from the previous year.

It can take up to four and one-half years from an initial claim to remove a failed refugee claimant from our country. Some cases have taken more than 10 years. The result is an overburdened system and a waste of taxpayers' money. For too long we have spent precious time and taxpayers' money on people who are not in need of protection at the expense of legitimate asylum seekers.

In recent years virtually all EU claims were withdrawn, abandoned or rejected. That means the unfounded claims from the 5,800 European Union nationals who sought asylum last year to Canada cost Canadian taxpayers an astounding $170 million.

Many members of the House will remember that back in June 2010 we passed the Balanced Refugee Reform Act. The act contains long-needed improvements that will result in faster decisions and quicker removal of those failed claimants who do not need our protection. However, it has become clear that gaps remain and that further reforms are certainly needed. We need stronger measures that are closer to the original bill we introduced in March 2010.

The measures of Bill C-31, the protecting Canada's immigration system act, will build upon the reforms passed in 2010. These new measures will further accelerate the processing of refugee claims for nationals from designated countries that generally do not produce refugees. It will reduce the options available to failed claimants to delay their removal from Canada. As well, with this new legislation we expect that taxpayers will save about $1.65 billion in just five years.

An Edmonton Journal editorial stated:

Given the financial stress placed on our system by those numbers, there has to be a more efficient, cost-effective means of weeding out the bogus claimants from Europe and elsewhere. Simply put, we cannot continue to give everyone the benefit of the doubt when it costs that much money and taxes our social systems unduly to do so.

[Bill C-31] is a tough, no-nonsense document that speeds up the review process and takes much of the financial burden off the Canadian taxpayer...Bill C-31 is worth supporting.

Martin Regg Cohn of the Toronto Star said:

I do think our refugee system is, if not quite broken, under a tremendous amount of stress. The acceptance rates for some of these countries—Hungary, Czechoslovakia before a visa restriction was imposed—are one, or two, or three per cent. So it's a tremendous burden on a system that really I don't think we have that much to apologize for.

So I think there is a lot of public policy behind this....I think this might put the system more or less on a better, stronger footing for genuine refugees.

In conclusion, these measures will help prevent abuse of the system and will ensure that our refugee determination process works more effectively. This will definitely be accomplished while maintaining the fairness of the system and without compromising any of Canada's international and domestic obligations with respect to refugees.

I urge all members of the House to support this important bill which will make important reforms to strengthen Canada's asylum system, something which is desperately needed and on which the previous Liberal government refused to act.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, the Marine Transportation Security Act and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague serves with me on the citizenship and immigration committee.

The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration has been tasked with studying biometrics as an option for immigration, monitoring entry into and exit from the country, and yet before the committee has even finished the study and produced a report, the government is saying that this is going to become legislation. Does the government not respect the standing committees that are established in this Parliament?

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not necessarily accept the conclusion which the hon. member has come to, that the government does not respect the wish of the committee.

Certainly this legislation is the framework which gives the minister and the ministry the opportunity to pursue the good work they do to ensure that our borders are secure at all times. I know that the minister is waiting with much anticipation for the results of our very important study. We are studying the issue of security and biometrics, which will give an additional tool to officials to ensure that those who are seeking to come to Canada are indeed the people they claim to be, and that they are good, law-abiding citizens in the countries from which they come.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could comment on the component where the minister can say that someone is an irregular arrival. He is referring more to arrivals by boat, but it also applies to individuals who would land at any of our airports.

Someone who is labelled as an irregular arrival could be detained for up to a year. After that detention there would be a five-year waiting period before the person would be able to sponsor someone. A 26-year-old man who has left a country where his life was threatened and has managed to escape that country would be waiting years. It would be five or six years before he could even put in an application to sponsor someone, his child, for example, which could then take another five or six years. His six-year-old child would be 17 or 18 years old by the time the child arrived here.

I wonder if the member could comment in terms of the fairness of that aspect of the legislation.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about fairness. Without question, Canada has the most fair and generous immigration system in the world. However, Canadians, and we are hearing this every day in our ridings, have no tolerance for those who would abuse our generosity and would take unfair advantage of our country.

At some point we have to have a balance. We must take action to crack down on the abuse. Our government is committed to strengthening the integrity of Canada's immigration system.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, one of the changes that has been made to the bill from the previous human smuggling bill is the detaining of children under the age of 16.

Could the member comment on that specific change and how it strengthens the bill?

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the protecting Canada's immigration system act will make our refugee system faster and fairer for everyone. It will put a stop to foreign criminals, human smugglers and bogus refugees abusing our generous immigration system and receiving lucrative taxpayer-funded health and social benefits.

At the same time, the bill will provide protection more quickly to those who are truly in need.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Beaches—East York.

I rise today to add my strongest objection to Bill C-31, the Protecting Canada's Immigration System act. I find it ironic that the bill would be given this title. It would do anything but protect our immigration system. In fact, the bill would set out to dismantle our immigration system, damaging it legally, socially, morally and internationally. I find the omnibus nature of the bill very disturbing.

This particular bill groups together two major pieces of legislation, Bill C-4, the Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System act, and C-11, the Balanced Refugee Reform act from the last Parliament. Then it introduces the mandatory collection of biometrics for temporary residents. These are three major issues that deserve adequate attention and debate.

I have already stood in the House and expressed my strong objection to C-4, yet components of the bill reappear here in C-31. The bill would attack refugees rather than human smugglers. By placing an overwhelming amount of power in the hands of the minister, the bill would allow the minister to designate a group of refugees as an irregular arrival. If the minister believed, for example, that examination for establishing identity could not be conducted in a timely manner, or if it were suspected that the people were being smuggled for profit, or a criminal organization or terrorist group was involved in the smuggling, designated claimants would then be subjected to a number of rules. They would be mandatorily detained on arrival, or on designation by the minister, with no review by the Immigration and Refugee Board for their detention for a year. Release would only be possible if they were found to be true refugees. If the Immigration and Refugee Board ordered their release within a year, even then the Immigration and Refugee Board could not release people if the government said their identities had not been established, or if the minister decided that there were exceptional circumstances.

Decisions on claims by designated persons could not be appealed to the Refugee Appeal Division. A designated person could not make humanitarian and compassionate applications. A designated claimant could not apply for permanent residency for five years. If the person failed to comply with the conditions or reporting requirements, that five year suspension could be extended to six years.

This raises a number of concerns. First, this is extremely discriminatory as it would create two classes of refugee claimants: real refugees and designated claimants. This is possibly a violation of the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms' equality rights, as well as the refugee convention, which prohibits states from imposing penalties on refugees for illegal entry or presence.

Second, detention without review is a clear violation of the charter rights. The Supreme Court already struck down mandatory detention without review on security certificates. This legislation would imply indefinite detention on the basis of identity with no possibility of release until the minister decided that identity had been established. Arbitrary detention is also a violation of a number of international treaties.

Third, designated persons would have no access to the Refugee Appeal Division. This means that these claimants would not have the right to an appeal, thereby removing any system of checks and balances.

Additionally, the mandatory five year delay in applying for permanent residency would further delay the family reunification process, forcing claimants to wait eight to ten years to be reunited with their spouse or child living overseas. Last, this legislation would create an undue barrier for humanitarian and compassionate claims. I am extremely concerned with the idea that the minister could name someone a designated claimant based on irregular arrival with no explanation of what constitutes an irregular arrival.

If we look at the history of the legislation of this nature, introduced by this government, we can see that it has glaring resemblances to Bill C-49 in the last Parliament.

Bill C-49 was hastily drafted by the government when Canadians witnessed the spectre of boats coming to the shores of British Columbia, carrying some of the most damaged and wounded people on earth. These were people fleeing, as the minister has rightly pointed out, one of the worst civil wars in the world, in Sri Lanka. Never ones to pass off a good photo op, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism and the Minister of Public Safety were in British Columbia, holding news conferences where they publicly accused the people on these boats of being bogus refugees, harbouring terrorists and trying to jump the immigration queues. They called these people “queue jumpers”.

I find this extremely confusing. The government seems to be speaking out of both sides of its mouth. On one hand, we have the Minister of Foreign Affairs referring to the Sri Lankan civil war as a great atrocity where numerous war crimes and crimes against humanity were committed. On the other hand, we have the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism and the Minister of Public Safety accusing people fleeing this very violence of being bogus. This is completely absurd. Which one is it?

Some of the refugee claimants and the refugees who arrived on the MV Sun Sea now live in my riding of Scarborough—Rouge River. Many of them have told me stories of their trip to Canada and their arrival in British Columbia. Many of them had UNHCR refugee cards. Upon their arrival, the people who greeted them gathered all of their refugee cards. When there was not the same number of cards as people, all the people aboard were told that they had not presented adequate identification and documentation when they came. Regardless of whether they had refugee cards, they were all detained. Thankfully, many of these people have now been released, but some are still in detention. Some of these people who had refugee cards are still being detained.

I am going to go back to the idea of an irregular arrival. This concept is not defined in this legislation. Based on the history of this bill, it is easy to jump to the conclusion that irregular arrival means arrival by boat. This bill is essentially saying that people who arrive in an irregular fashion, or by boat, are not refugees but rather are criminals. This bill is saying that people who wish to flee war, conflict or persecution but do not have the means to pay for a plane ticket so instead risk their lives by throwing themselves onto a rickety cargo boat and spending months crossing an ocean are not real refugees. No, the government is saying they are criminals. They are not real asylum seekers. They are not really fleeing a horrible situation, leaving behind their homes, livelihood and families with hopes of creating a better life here in Canada. No, these people are criminals. This is what this bill and the government are telling us.

Furthermore, if they fail to provide adequate identification, they can be detained without review. Most refugees who come to Canada do not have documentation, regardless of which process is used to enter the country. When people flee their home nation, they leave everything behind. How can we expect people who have left a war-torn country to carry valid identification? This concept of queue jumping, as the minister likes to say, is completely bogus. These people still must go through the same immigration process as any other immigrant to Canada. When people are fleeing persecution or war, they cannot be called queue jumpers. For refugees, there is no queue to jump. There is no lineup for people who are in serious danger; people living through a civil war; or people being persecuted because of their gender, religion, sexual orientation, et cetera. When people's lives or the lives of their families are called into question, there is no line. These people must leave their country immediately. Once they are safely here in Canada, they must joint the same queue as everyone else who wants to gain some sort of status in our country.

The second part of this bill comprises of Bill C-11, from the last Parliament, and the calling of safe countries. In the 40th Parliament, after a lot of work and compromises, Bill C-11 passed this House with all-party support. It was scheduled to come into effect this spring. However, before the legislation that was passed by this House could even have a chance to come into effect, the members opposite have including the original legislation, Bill C-11, excluding any part of the amendments that were accepted by all parties, in this current omnibus bill. The government has not even given the original Bill C-11 from the last Parliament a chance to work.

The Conservatives are using fear-mongering and fear tactics to scare the current immigrants in Canada and current Canadians. They are pitting Canadians against immigrants and new immigrants against other newer immigrants. This type of fear tactics is absolutely wrong.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her informed and enlightening speech.

When I was a teacher, I often told my students that it is impossible to find a simple solution to a complex problem. However, I get the impression that this has become the Conservatives' speciality. They present everything to us in black and white as though it were possible to cut right down the middle and say that there is a good side and a bad, black and white, when, in reality, life is full of grey areas to which we need to learn to adapt.

Is this bill not just another example of a black and white view of a problem? I would like the hon. member to provide some clarification in this regard.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. The immigration system in Canada is very complex. Just saying that we are going to put a whole bunch of legislation together, that we are stopping debate on it and not letting the democratic process run itself out, that we are just going to make safe countries, that we are going to stop people who are coming by boat because there are fake refugees in our country and that we are going to now ignore the parliamentary processes that have been established by ignoring the committee and the work that the citizenship and immigration committee is going to be doing, or is doing, is absolutely another example of the government's black and white easy fix to every problem, “Let's just rewrite the law, because that's what we do”.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the point to which the member just made reference. I, too, sit on the citizenship and immigration committee. We are spending thousands of tax dollars to do a study on biometrics.

Like her, I was surprised that the government introduced a bill with regard to it. We are still in the midst of a study. I would argue that the minister is, once again, undermining the work of the citizenship and immigration committee.

Could she be clear and succinct on the point of the minister undermining the efforts of the committee?

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree with my colleague from Winnipeg. The minister is clearly undermining the processes of the citizenship and immigration committee. The committee has been tasked with the job of looking into whether biometrics would be a good way to go for the government and for our country to protect the safety and security of our borders. Yet, instead of waiting for the committee to hear expert witnesses and feedback from Canadians and then waiting for the report from the committee, the minister just goes ahead and says that he has made the decision and that he does not care what the committee says.

Once again, he is going ahead, undermining the committee and not respecting Parliament and the processes that we have in Parliament.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the speech and the questions and answers between my colleagues who sit on the immigration committee. However, I want to tell members I have a completely different perspective on this, and that is the question I would like to put to the member.

We just completed a report on backlogs. One of the first things the minister did was listen to what we had said about the whole issue around super visas for parents and grandparents to come to this country in a much quicker manner. The committee made the recommendation. The committee discussed this for a number of weeks. The minister made the decision even before the committee had finished the work. There is not a minister who is listening more closely to his committee and to the reports that are coming forward than the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism.

Let me also point out that there is backlog upon backlog in the refugee system, an average of 55,000 per file. I would like to know why the member and her party will not support a process that would quicken this and ensure that refugees, true refugees, come to our country in the appropriate time and appropriate manner.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is funny that the day after the minister came to the committee, when we were contemplating looking at the possibility of super visas, he then went off and made an announcement. Was it suggested at the committee because he was ready to make an announcement?

The same thing happened here. A committee is looking at the potential of biometrics, but it has not even decided if biometrics is a good way to go. We are still listening to experts from Canada and around the world who are providing us with their expertise. The committee has not even made a report, yet the minister has already made his decision as to what he will do.

This is not a minister who waits for the report and study to come from a committee before making his decisions. This is a minister who makes decisions and then makes a suggestion to the committee that it should study this. It is really the opposite of what the parliamentary secretary is saying.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as yet another member of the citizenship and immigration committee, I am pleased to stand and talk to Bill C-31, although I am disappointed to have to do so under time allocation.

Bill C-11 of the previous Parliament, which Bill C-31 seeks to replace, is due to come into effect in June 2012, a mere three months from now. Bill C-11 was a product of a minority Parliament, but according to the minister, it was also the product of good faith, something that should guide the way that all Parliaments, minority and majority alike, function.

The minister told Canadians that he listened to all the speeches on Bill C-11 and that:

During the debates and consultations, the government took constructive criticism into account and recognized the need to work together with the opposition to design a bill that reflected the parliamentary consensus.

What emerged from this approach to developing legislation, according to the minister himself, was “a stronger piece of legislation...a bill that is both faster and fairer than the bill as it was originally tabled”.

That progress, that monumental achievement for all involved, as the minister once described Bill C-11, is now about to revert to the slower, less fair, weaker piece of legislation in the form of Bill C-31 and the collective wisdom that informed Bill C-11 all but erased. What is left is a bill characterized by a terrible irony.

This is a bill that is meant to set out how to treat people who have fled their country of origin on the basis of persecution or fear of persecution on grounds that are protected by human rights laws and convention. Yet this is a bill that is dismissive, if not actually contemptuous of the rights and freedoms that Canadians and citizens of many other countries around the world feel are fundamental.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, for example, is not reflected in the bill. Bill C-31 carries over from Bill C-4 the power of the minister to create a second, or in the terms of the bill, a “designated” class of refugee that face mandatory detention upon arrival. Such detention in the absence of good reason and sound process clashes with section 7 of our charter, which provides for the right to life, liberty and security of the person.

Further, group detention of refugees implies the detention of individuals without specific assessment and therefore grounds. Such arbitrary detention raises a violation of section 9 of our charter, and that is the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.

The fact that there is no review of the detention for at least 12 months raises further issues. Section 10 of the charter requires that everyone arrested or detained has the right to be informed promptly of the reasons therefore, retain and instruct counsel and to be informed of that right, to have the validity of the detention determined within 48 hours and to be released if the detention is not lawful.

These are not the rights and freedoms of Canadians alone. They are what we call “human rights” and we consider them to be inalienable. In the language of our charter, they “belong to everyone”.

Long before our charter, we were signatories to the Charter of the United Nations. As a signatory to the UN charter, we reaffirmed our “faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small...”

What follows is our signature on a number of United Nations declarations and conventions and our participation in that organization all for the purpose of putting these beliefs into practice. Most relevant to today's debate is the International Bill of Human Rights, the Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Today I would like to focus on the latter and the treatment of children under Bill C-31.

Bill C-31, as we know, reintroduces Bill C-4 to the House with some minor changes. One of those changes is with respect to the treatment of children in that Bill C-31 does not commit children to detention, but nor does it say what becomes of the kids who arrive in a group that the minister declares irregular.

International declarations with respect to the rights of the child go back almost a century. Over this time, what has remained constant in the successive iterations of such rights and the recognition that: children embody human rights; that they are entitled to special safeguards, care and assistance, including appropriate legal protection; that, “for the full and harmonious development of the child”, they should grow up in a family environment.

And finally, and therefore:

...the family, as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children, should be afforded the necessary protection and assistance....

Such consideration and commitments to children and their families who form part of an irregular arrival are nowhere to be found in Bill C-31.

Interestingly, and hopefully instructively, others have gone before us to measure the impacts of mandatory detention of child refugees against the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Australia, as the government side will know, has a mandatory immigration detention system. It applies to children who arrive in Australia without a visa, so-called “unauthorized arrivals”. The Australian Human Rights Commission studied the impacts of this system and concluded that this system breached the following convention provisions: article 37(b) and (d), which is to ensure that detention is a measure of last resort for the shortest period of time and subject to effective independent review; article 3.1, which is to ensure that the best interests of the child are of primary consideration in all actions concerning children; article 37(c), which is to ensure that children are treated with humanity and respect for their inherent dignity; and article 22.1, article 6.2 and article 39, which all protect the right of children to receive appropriate assistance, to ensure recovery from torture and trauma, to live in an environment which fosters health, self-respect and dignity, and to enjoy to the maximum extent possible their right to development.

It further found that children in immigration detention for long periods of time were at high risk of serious mental harm and that the failure of its country, Australia, to remove kids from the detention environment with their parents amounted to cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of those children in detention.

In short, the commission recommended the release of children with their parents and that immigration detention laws be compliant with the convention and based on a presumption against the detention of children for immigration purposes.

I have taken this time to review the findings of the Australian Human Rights Commission because it is a cautionary tale. Australia has gone before us down this path of immigration detention and, if it were not already obvious, there is at least now laid at the feet of the government more than ample evidence to suggest that it proceed with the detention of children and their parents in full understanding that such action is in conflict with the Convention on the Rights of the Child and causes harm to children and their families.

It is, in part, I am sure, because for our historic commitment to human rights, that from time to time people end up on our shores seeking safe haven or asylum from persecution and yet Bill C-31 proposes to deny to others the very rights and freedoms that define this country for ourselves and in the international community and make us so proud to be citizens of it.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, regarding exemptions, the bill does include an automatic exemption for the detention of minors under the age of 16 and adults 16 years and older would be released from detention as soon as they receive a positive opinion.

I would like the member to acknowledge that this has been addressed for the children who are detained.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the bill would not protect the unity of the family in these circumstances, with the detention, effectively incarceration, of parents. It is very unclear in fact that the separation of parents from their children who arrive together in what the minister deems unilaterally to be an irregular arrival.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, under Bill C-11, which passed unanimously with the support of the Liberals, the New Democrats and the Conservatives, there was an advisory council that would ultimately determine and recommend to the minister what countries around the world would be designated as a safe country to be put on to a safe list.

Now the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism has changed his mind thinking he knows best and that he alone should be the one who makes the determination.

Given the consequence of that particular designation, would he not agree that this is the wrong way of approaching the putting together of a safe country list and that the government should support an amendment that would be brought forward from the Liberal Party saying that it should be an advisory group, not the individual minister, that makes the determination of which country is a safe country?

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I concur with the concerns of my friend from Winnipeg North. One of the hallmarks of the bill is the excessive powers that would be placed on or assumed by the minister himself. Without any disrespect to the minister, these are complicated issues and issues with respect to designated countries of origin should most certainly have the input of experts.

I remember not too long lots of noise coming out of the Conservative Party with respect to human rights abuses in China. Without commenting on the validity of those concerns, the government changed its tune on the issue of human rights, which, at one time, was a bar to trade with that country. Suddenly, China, without having changed its position with respect to human rights, became a friend .

There is clear evidence that such powers should not be assumed by the minister because they will be abused for partisan purposes.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on a question asked by the Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification earlier.

I understand that the requirement for the mandatory detention of children has been removed. If the parents are mandatorily detained and are given the option of what to do with their children, most parents who have just fled from somewhere and are seeking asylum would want to keep their children close to ensure they are keeping them safe.

What is the government really trying to do with these children? Is the government saying that it will not mandatorily detain them but that it is really the parents who are putting their children in detention centres? Is the government just trying to pass the buck once again?

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a fellow member of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, my colleague will be well aware of the testimony brought to that committee by experts in matters of immigration, particularly refugee matters.

It was an expert who brought our attention to the study done by the Australian Human Rights Commission on the effect of detention on children and separation from their parents. The impacts are quite alarming. The separation from family seems to be a clear contravention of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Mississauga—Brampton South.

I am happy to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-31, protecting Canada's immigration system act. Canadians have given us a strong mandate to protect Canada's immigration system and we are acting on that mandate.

Bill C-31 would make significant improvements for our refugee system. It would crack down on human smuggling and provide the government with the ability to collect biometric data from foreign visitors to Canada. This legislation would make Canada's refugee system faster and fairer. It would put a stop to the abuse of our generous immigration system while, at the same time, provide protection more quickly to those who are truly in need.

Bill C-31 is the latest step by our Conservative government to ensure that our immigration system is no longer being abused by foreign criminals, bogus refugee claimants and human smugglers.

Today, I will focus my remarks on the provisions included in this bill pertaining to biometrics.

Canadians from coast to coast to coast have told our government that the safety and security of their families is one of their top priorities. They want their government to pursue policies that keep criminals off the streets and foreign criminals out of the country. They should expect no less. Our Conservative government has listened and is doing exactly that. Bill C-31 would provide the government with the authority to collect biometrics, fingerprints and photographs from foreign nationals who want to enter Canada. Security experts from across the globe agree that fingerprints are one of the most effective ways to determine the true identity of an individual and to combat identity theft and fraud.

Biometrics would be an important new tool to help protect the safety and security of Canadians by reducing identity fraud and identity theft. As fraudsters become more sophisticated, biometrics would improve our ability to keep violent criminals and those who pose a threat to Canada out. In short, biometrics would strengthen the integrity of Canada's immigration system and help protect the safety and security of Canadians while helping to facilitate legitimate travel.

The use of biometrics would put Canada in line with most other western countries that are already using or preparing to use biometrics in immigration matters, countries including the United Kingdom, Australia, the European Union, New Zealand, the United States and Japan, among others. Unfortunately, there are countless examples of serious criminals, human smugglers, war criminals and suspected terrorists, among others, who have entered Canada in the past.

I want to provide the House and all Canadians with some real-life examples of cases that clearly demonstrate the need for biometrics to be implemented. For example, Esron Laing and David Wilson were convicted of armed robbery and forcible confinement. They returned to Canada three different times. In fact, they are known as the yo-yo bandits because, just like a yo-yo, they kept coming back. I know that three times seems like a high number but I am sad to say that many serious criminals are deported and manage to return Canada many more times than that.

Another example is Anthony Hakim Saunders who was convicted of assault and drug trafficking. He was deported on 10 different occasions and, just like the yo-yo bandits, he kept coming back. Edmund Ezemo was convicted of more than 30 charges, including theft and fraud. He was deported and then subsequently returned to Canada eight times. That is incredible. Dale Anthony Wyatt was convicted of trafficking drugs and possession of illegal weapons. He was deported and returned to Canada on at least four separate occasions. Kevin Michael Sawyers was convicted of manslaughter. He was deported and returned to Canada twice. Melando Yaphet Streety served a jail sentence in Canada after he was linked to four underage girls working in Toronto's sex trade. This criminal was deported and then returned to Canada within the same year. Once he returned to Canada, he continued his life of crime.

My final example is the case of a human smuggler from Iran who the IRB found has repeatedly engaged in the despicable crime of human smuggling. There really are few crimes lower than human smuggling. He was removed in 2007 after he arrived in Canada with a suitcase full of fraudulent identification in his briefcase. However, using false documents yet again, he managed to enter Canada a year later.

Unfortunately, this is only a small sample of the serious criminals entering and re-entering Canada. There are even cases in which serious criminals were able to re-enter Canada 15, 19, and even 21 times using false identities and documents. This absolutely has to stop.

Our officials are very highly trained and do their best to catch identity theft and fraud. However, fraudsters have become more sophisticated, and so have the documents they produce. Biometric data will go a long way to determining the true identity of criminals and preventing them from entering Canada in the first place.

After years of inaction by previous governments, our Conservative government is taking the prudent action required to end this. We will be unwavering in moving forward on the implementation of biometrics.

Unfortunately, we are moving forward without the support of the opposition. The NDP and the Liberals are opposing this bill and the authority to implement biometrics as an integral part of this bill. Not only do they not support the implementation of biometrics included in this bill, but the opposition also voted against the funding needed to put biometrics in place. In other words, the opposition NDP and the Liberals have repeatedly voted against our government putting a stop to serious criminals, like the ones I listed above, from entering Canada and living in neighbourhoods among their constituents, my constituents, and all Canadians who just want to protect their families from foreign criminals.

The opposition is on the wrong side of Canadians on the issue of biometrics. They are off-side with the numerous security experts and other stakeholders who have praised our government's decision to move forward with biometrics. For example, according to The Globe and Mail, the implementation of biometric identification such as fingerprints and photos for people who apply for visitor's visas is a “...welcome change [that] will guard against the use of false identities”.

The Montreal Gazette had this to say:

The collection of biometric information is a sensible security precaution that will be a valuable tool in preventing people from slipping into the country with false identities.

On this side of the House we believe in facilitating the process for legitimate travellers and we have taken several steps toward that end. However, our government also takes seriously its responsibility to keep serious criminals, suspected terrorists, and war criminals, among others, out of Canada.

Canadians, including my constituents in Etobicoke Centre, have made it clear that they want us to take action to protect their safety and security. That is exactly what our Conservative government is doing with Bill C-31. Biometrics is one of the most effective ways to ensure that criminals can no longer use increasingly sophisticated false documents to enter Canada.

In short, biometrics will strengthen the integrity of Canada's immigration system. In fact, all of the changes included in Bill C-31, the protecting Canada's immigration system act, are aimed at deterring abuse of Canada's generous immigration and refugee system. With these proposed measures, the integrity of Canada's immigration programs and the safety and security of Canadians will be protected.

I urge all members of this House to stop and listen for a moment, to support this important bill and ensure its timely passage in this House.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, from one member of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, through you to another member, I would point out that we are currently engaged in a study at the committee on the very issue of biometrics. Lots of experts are coming to talk to us. It surprises me to see the member opposite giving such a hearty speech in support of biometrics. In my world, we would call that prejudice, the making of decisions and coming to some judgment about biometrics before we have even done the study and listened to the experts.

I am wondering, what does the member opposite actually think we are doing at the standing committee when we are actually studying, listening, and talking to experts on the issue of biometrics?

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is not a prejudice to defend the safety and security of Canada and the families in our constituencies. It is an important role and responsibility our government has.

As the parliamentary secretary has said earlier on, that the minister listens, as he did in other matters involving the committee. He listened and acted early, especially on issues with visas. He is listening now as we go through committee and listen to experts talk about biometrics and securing our borders.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the member makes reference to the fact that biometrics would have resolved those horrendous or terrible crimes he talks about. Most Canadians, I think, would believe that refugees who had committed those type of crimes and were deported would have had their biometrics take already, such as fingerprints and live ID pictures.

It is only after being in power for six years that the government has finally brought biometrics to the table. It bundled biometrics in with other aspects of legislation to which the opposition is opposed. Therefore, I question how genuine the member's belief is that the opposition is somehow supportive of these criminals when he knows full well that we are not. I would ask him to provide more clarity on that issue.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesting that the opposition is in league with criminals. However, I think they are short sighted in their opposition to this bill and because of that they will allow more criminals to enter Canada.

This government has a responsibility to respect all Canadians and their families from these types of criminals entering Canada and biometrics will be a significant feature in doing that.

This is a forward-thinking government. We act. We do not wait, and we get it done for Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the member for his extremely well done speech. He serves the committee well and understands the file. I wanted to ask him a question from his riding's perspective.

We can come to the House of Commons and speak to particular issues and the impacts they have across the country, but this is really one of those issues that hit home time and time again in each of our ridings. The member deals with visas and permanent residency and refugee applications in his caseload, as well as the folks who come into his office to talk about those. I am wondering if he could allude to how much this bill would assist him from a local perspective in delivering local services to his constituents.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think biometrics would go a great length to help us solve a lot of the open files that we have and have seen in the past, not only in my riding but also in other members' ridings. It would eliminate the confusion that exists in some of these cases and files.

I think this is the right road and the right path for Canada and all Canadians.

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak in the House today on Bill C-31, the protecting Canada's immigration system act. I congratulate my hon. colleague, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, for tabling this important legislation. I encourage all members of the House to join me in supporting Bill C-31 to ensure that it passes into law.

Canada has a proud humanitarian tradition of providing protection to those who need it. Every year of the roughly 20 countries that resettle refugees, Canada annually resettles between 10,000 and 12,000, or one out of every ten refugees resettled globally.

In fact, my father came to Canada as a refugee and today I find myself in this hallowed chamber because of Canada's generosity and compassion. My parents worked hard for years, raised a family and created jobs for Canadians. They were always grateful to Canada and proud of their new homeland.

There is no doubt that our government is committed to continuing this proud tradition of ours. That is why we will uphold Canada's previous commitments to resettle more refugees. By 2013, Canada will resettle up to 14,500 refugees, an increase of 2,500 refugees since 2010. That is an increase of 2,500 refugees.

Our generous immigration system is not only the envy of the world but also enjoys broad support among Canadians.

What concerns us is that in 2011, 62% of all claims were either rejected by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada or were abandoned or withdrawn by the claimants. Considering that this represented more than half of all asylum seekers last year, Canadians would agree that far too many taxpayer dollars are being spent on these claims. Indeed, for the average failed refugee claim, taxpayers are currently footing about $55,000.

The bill is in the best interests of Canada and of genuine refugees themselves, but do not just take it from me. Listen to what the experts have to say. Immigration lawyer, Richard Kurland, called the Minister of Citizenship, and Immigration a “loophole closer”. Kurland said:

Finally someone recognized that the open wallet approach of the past, offering free education, free medicare, and a welfare cheque to anyone who touched Canadian soil making a refugee claim was not the right thing to do. So I’m glad to see today that finally, after several years, someone has the political courage to take the political risk of saying, if you’re from a European country and you can land in London or Paris or Berlin, fill out paperwork, and legally live there, work there, pay taxes there, you shouldn’t be allowed to make a refugee claim in Canada. Buttress that with this reality check. Over 90 percent, and in some years 95 percent, of the target group, the Roma claimants, didn’t even show up for their oral hearings. They rode on the taxpayer.

We were just taken for a ride by a lot of people for a long time. Today that loophole is dead, and I really hope the word gets out to the smuggler community and back to source countries to not try it.

Julie Taub, immigration lawyer and former member of the Immigration and Refugee Board, says:

I can tell you from theory and practice that the current refugee system is very flawed and cumbersome and definitely needs an overhaul. It takes up to two years to have a claimant have his hearing and there are far too many bogus claims that clog up the system and use very expensive resources at a cost to Canadian taxpayers.

Immigration lawyer, Mendel Green, in support of the government changes, says:

The system is being re-designed to stop the abuses.

Paul Attia, from Immigrants for Canada, says:

Immigrants for Canada (IFC) represents the views of countless immigrants across our nation who hold strongly to the view that Canadian immigration policy should always be in Canada's best interests. The immigrants IFC represents worked very hard—

—like my father and mother in fact—

—and sacrificed much to arrive on Canadian shores, and who chose to do so in an honest and legal way. Accordingly, these same immigrants welcome legislation that works to ensure that people who have no valid claim to our protection are not able to use the refugee determination system to obtain permanent residence in Canada.

Julie Chamagne, executive director of Halifax Refugee Clinic, says:

We don’t want people coming here and taking advantage of Canada’s immigration rules. And you know, that does hurt the legitimate claims and that’s what [the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration] is saying.

Even the Globe and Mail applauded the government for bringing in needed refugee reform. It writes:

The legislation rightly focuses on weeding out claimants who are not genuine, and stemming the flow of asylum seekers from countries...that are democracies with respect for basic rights and freedoms.

These experts support our government's actions to create a refugee determination process which is both faster and fairer.

The facts speak for themselves. Legitimate refugees would have their case determined faster and would not have to wait in a queue, while bogus refugees took their spot.

In recent years, over 95% of European Union claims were withdrawn, abandoned or rejected. The total number of refugee claims from the E.U. in 2011 was 5,800. We received more refugee claims from the E.U. than from Asia and Africa, and it is a 14% increase over 2010. Something needs to be done. These numbers are just too dramatic and growing too quickly. The percentage of total refugee claims coming from the E.U. in 2011 was 23%, again more than came from Africa or Asia.

Canada's top source country for refugee claims was Hungary. The percentage of total refugee claims coming from Hungary in 2011 was 18%. My mother is Hungarian. The number of refugee claims from Hungary alone in 2011 was 4,400. That is up some 50% from 2010, a very dramatic increase. By comparison, in that same year, 2011, Belgium received only 188 claimants from Hungary, the U.S. received only 47 claimants from Hungary and France and Norway each received 33 claimants from Hungary. Therefore, for some reason, people are deciding to apply to Canada. I would suggest it is because we are being far too generous. The number of refugee claims made by Hungarian nationals in 2010 was 2,300.

One-quarter of all claims are coming not from war-torn countries ruled by tyrants and plagued by persecution, but instead from democratic European allies. If this trend continues, that means that the unfounded claims from the 5,800 E.U. nationals who sought asylum last year will cost Canadian taxpayers nearly $170 million. Bogus refugee claimants do not only stop legitimate refugee claimants from gaining asylum, they also place a large burden on every taxpaying Canadian. We need to send a message to those who would abuse Canada's generous system that if they are not in need of legitimate protection, they will be sent home quickly.

In order to remove a failed refugee claimant from Canada, it still takes an average four and a half years from claim to removal and some removals have dragged out for more than a decade. While they are still in Canada, these failed claimants are eligible to receive social benefits. This contributes to their overall economic burden on Canadian taxpayers. At the end of the day, there is only one taxpayer, whether they are drawing social supports off the property tax bill, health and education supports off the provincial bills or from our federal tax coffers. For many years, Canada has spent far too much time, effort and money on failed refugee claimants who do not need our country's protection. This hurts those who very much do need our protection.

The refugee reform measures in Bill C-31 build on the reforms that were passed in the House in June 2010, as part of the Balanced Refugee Reform Act. These measures would help prevent abuse of the system and would help ensure that all of our refugee-determined processes would be as streamlined as possible. The reforms proposed in this bill will speed up the processes of both deciding on refugee claims and on removing failed claimants. The cost to taxpayers of bogus refugee payments from the E.U. alone is $170 million per year. This bill would save an additional $1.65 billion over five years in social assistance and education costs to our provinces. Hard-working Canadians need to see better use of their tax dollars. They cannot afford bogus refugees. We need to crack down on the illegal abuse, while still showing compassion to those who genuinely need our help.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, why does the hon. member, who spoke so passionately, think it takes four and a half years? It is not because of delays by refugees who are trying to establish their status and get re-established in a new life after fleeing. It seems to me it is because of a lack of government resources dedicated to things like dealing with those claims and dealing fairly with some kind of an appeal process. Therefore, it is not the fault of the refugees, yet the bill also blames them.

The member talks about the Roma groups. She said that the government was going to cut off Hungary so Roma could not make claims. What about the gay or lesbian Roma who would like to make a claim? What about that person who might have a very legitimate fear of persecution and might have a very legitimate need for sanctuary in Canada? How will take care of that with a safe country list that cuts off entire countries?

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if people are coming from a designated country, for instance, the Roma, they can still absolutely make an application and they still have a right of appeal to the Federal Court. Everybody can still make an application and everyone still has at least one level of appeal.

To answer the first question on why it takes four and a half years to ten years, it is because people are applying and appealing over and over. The facts speak for themselves. Ninety-five per cent of those people who are currently filing claims abandon their own claim. They are simply there as placeholder claims so they can avail themselves of our social services.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, just over a year ago, the minister of immigration brought in Bill C-11 that, with the support of Liberals and New Democrats, ultimately passed. It was supposed to deal with the backlogs and streamline the system. The member even made reference to that bill.

Did the government mess up that badly that it had to reintroduce more legislation, when it did not implement the previous legislation even though it passed the House of Commons? Did that legislation not address the issues which, at one point in time, the minister of immigration told Canadians the bill would resolve the problems? It is like conceding the fact that the minister messed up the first time around. That is the way I think most people would interpret it.

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member's important question gives me the opportunity to clarify.

In fact, as my speech indicated, the number of bogus claims coming from EU countries is growing exponentially, so, clearly, even more needs to be done.

I would suggest that we are building on an already very successful foundation, but the time has come to continue to act. That is exactly what our minister of immigration is doing. He is taking very reasonable steps in order to address this very growing problem.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary and a number of members of the Conservative Party who have spoke to Bill C-31 have talked about the cost savings. I have yet to see anything about what it will cost to have the families that arrive in Canada. We know that the refugee claimants who are deemed to arrive by irregular entry are to be detained for up to a year; that is, men, women and children 16 and over. They are still children between 16 and 18 under international law. The children under 16, if we use what happened with the Sun Sea as an example, are likely to stay with their mother in incarceration.

What will all of that cost the Canadian economy and are the figures the Conservatives are using about cost savings netting out the costs of jailing refugee families?

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think people are trying to fear-monger by citing the one year. It is up to one year. Those who are under 16, as we have already said, will obviously be allowed to immediately vacate the area. Then as individuals are cleared and we are quite convinced that there is no security threat to our general public, they are allowed to vacate at that point.

The area I represent is just next to the Toronto international airport. It is to my area that many of these individuals are coming in and settling. I want to ensure that my residents are protected and safe and that we know the identify of the people who are coming to our country. That is a very reasonable thing to require.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-31, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, the Marine Transportation Security Act and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act.

Before I get to that, we have heard in the House that in the previous Parliament, Bill C-11 was passed. I want to quote what a member of the government was saying at that time. He said:

I am pleased to report that the proposed reforms in the original version of Bill C-11 received widespread support. However, many concerns were raised in good faith by parliamentarians and others concerned about Canada's asylum system. We have, in good faith, agreed to significant amendments that reflect their input, resulting in a stronger piece of legislation that is a monumental achievement for all involved.

Who said that? The current Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I quote him further. He said, “I am happy to say, create a reform package that is both faster and fairer than the bill as it was originally tabled”. He even praised how parties worked together to reach consensus and come up with that bill that worked for all parties. He went on to say, “Miracles happen”.

He further went on to say that the government took constructive criticism into account and recognized the need to work together. That was just a year ago. That was Bill C-11. All of the parties worked together to come to a consensus that would deal with some of the issues such as backlogs, having a fairer system for refugees, and so forth. He went on further to say, “The reforms we are proposing should have been implemented a long time ago”.

What has changed since June 2010 until now? Is it because the Conservatives got their slim majority and they are bringing out their hidden agenda? Instead of catching the smugglers, now they want to punish the refugees.

I will outline my concerns in regards to Bill C-31.

Bill C-31 is basically an omnibus refugee reform bill that combines the worst parts of the former Bill C-11, Balanced Refugee Reform Act, from the last Parliament, with Bill C-4, , preventing human smuggling, from this Parliament. It has basically three main purposes: a repeal of most of the compromises from former Bill C-11. It reintroduces Bill C-4, preventing human smuggling, which targets refugees instead of the smugglers. It introduces the collection of biometrics for temporary residents.

Bill C-31 would concentrate more power in the hands of the minister by allowing him to name safe countries and restrict refugees from those countries. Under the former bill, Bill C-11, this was to be done by a panel of experts, including human rights experts. Refugee claimants from safe countries would face extremely short timelines before hearings, 15 days. They would have no access to the Refugee Appeal Division in the event of a bad judgment. They would have no automatic stay of removal when filing for a judicial review and could not apply for a work permit for 180 days. It would also limit access and shorten timelines to file and submit a pre-removal risk assessment application and evidence.

Not only would the minister have the discretion to designate countries of origin, safe countries, the minister would also have the power to designate a group as an irregular arrival and determine what condition would be placed on those designated as refugee claimants.

Let us take a look at the designated countries of origin, DCOs. Designated countries of origin would be countries which the minister believes do not produce legitimate refugees, usually because they are developed democracies. The designated countries of origin would be decided by the minister, not by experts as was previously agreed to with the consensus of all parties.

Refugee claimants from the designated countries of origin would face a much faster determination process and a faster deportation for failed claims. Furthermore, an initial form would be filed in within 15 days.

Failed designated countries of origin claimants could be removed from Canada almost immediately, even if they asked for a judicial review. In other words, a person could be removed before his or her review was heard. DCO claimants would have no access to the new refugee appeal division.

There are a number of concerns with this. The accelerated timeline of 15 days would make it difficult for people to get proper legal representation. This could lead to mistakes and subsequently a negative decision. Legal experts have warned that these accelerated timeframes and restricted access to the refugee appeal division would create an unfair system.

Furthermore, the effect of the accelerated deportation would mean that people would be removed from the country before the legal process had run its course. The refugee appeal division should be available to all claimants.

There are also concerns in regard to changes to the humanitarian and compassionate consideration. The humanitarian and compassionate consideration is a tool whereby a person can stay in Canada despite not being eligible on other grounds. Under Bill C-31, claimants waiting for an IRB decision could not apply for humanitarian and compassionate consideration at the same time. A person would have to choose at the beginning whether he or she wanted to file for refugee status or for humanitarian or compassionate consideration.

Failed refugee claimants could not apply for humanitarian and compassionate consideration for one year following a negative decision, by which time they would likely be deported.

There are a number of concerns with this aspect of the bill. This strips much of the usefulness from the humanitarian and compassionate consideration. Humanitarian and compassionate consideration is a very important tool in our immigration system. Many people whose refugee was claim denied could nonetheless have a legitimate claim on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Therefore, a failed refugee claim should not get in the way of humanitarian and compassionate consideration.

Another part of this bill that concerns me is clause 19(1) which adds new language into the loss of status section for permanent residents. It adds that existing criteria for ceasing refugee protection can be a reason to lose permanent residency status. Included in the list is if the reasons for which the person sought refugee protection have ceased to exist.

In summary, there are many concerns with this bill. The new bill does not address some of the needs of our current system. The Conservatives are playing politics with refugees, and concentrating excessive and arbitrary powers in the hands of the minister. The Conservatives continually frame their draconian legislation in terms of bogus refugees and those abusing the system, but what they are really doing is punishing refugees with ineffective measures that will not stop human smuggling.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, I categorically reject the notion that the bill would punish refugees. That is absurd. The bill would reinforce, in fact strengthen, Canada's commitment to protect people who flee a country because of a well-founded fear of persecution.

I need to point out one thing to the member. He and his colleagues in the NDP need to understand just how extraordinarily far from the mainstream they are in terms of international policy and practice in this respect. The labour social democratic government of Australia detains as a matter of policy and law all asylum claimants, not just smuggled asylum claimants. The labour social democratic party of the United Kingdom brought in a policy to detain all asylum claimants from designated safe countries. Most social democratic parties and governments of western Europe have pre-emptory assessment of claims coming from safe countries usually done in 24 or 48 hours, sometimes no longer than a week.

I would simply point out to my colleague that the measures we have proposed, limited detention until someone gets a positive asylum decision if the person comes in on an identified smuggling event, are far more modest than those in virtually any other western democracy that I am aware of.

Why is the NDP not more tuned to the mainstream of social democratic parties around the western world when it comes to refugee protection and protecting the integrity of our immigration system?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats recognize and respect our responsibilities to refugees, unlike the Conservatives who have taken an approach that would damage Canada's reputation internationally.

It is good that the minister is in the House. It was interesting for me to go over some of the notes on Bill C-11. The minister not only praised, but called it a miracle, that all parties had worked together to develop Bill C-11. That bill was passed in the last Parliament.

Why is the minister moving away from that? Where is he going? Bill C-11 was passed with the consensus of the House.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I would remind hon. members that it is not appropriate to allude to the presence or absence of members in the House.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the point which the member has referenced.

Bill C-11 passed with the unanimous support of the parties in this chamber. One of the reasons for that support was that there was agreement that an advisory committee was needed which would ultimately provide recommendations to the minister for determining which countries around the world would be listed as safe countries.

[An hon. member]

That was then.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

My colleague is right, Mr. Speaker. That was then. Now the minister says that he himself will make that determination.

We in the Liberal Party look forward to providing an amendment so that we can bring the provision back to what it was. Does the member think the way to go is to amend the legislation to reinstate what at one time the minister agreed to?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is troubling for me to see power being consolidated in the minister's office. We have a very capable Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, but it still troubles me that the decisions would be made solely by the minister, not by an expert panel as agreed upon by all parties in the House.

It is really puzzling to me why the minister would want to have all the power in his own office, why he would make arbitrary decisions that should be made after receiving advice from experts.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before I recognize the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, I must inform her that I will have to interrupt her at 6:30 p.m., at the end of the time provided for the consideration of government business.

The hon. member for LaSalle—Émard.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to rise in the House today and speak to Bill C-31 on behalf of the people of LaSalle—Émard. It is a privilege that is becoming increasingly rare, given that 18 time allocation motions have been moved in this 41st Parliament.

Bill C-31, entitled Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, is in fact a recasting of several bills previously introduced in the House of Commons. The bill amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, the Marine Transportation Security Act and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act. Furthermore, these amendments give greater discretionary powers to the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism.

Before I outline some serious concerns I have about this bill, I would like to say a few words about my riding. According to the 2006 census, the riding of LaSalle—Émard has 27,000 constituents who were born in other countries. Just over 25% of my riding's population consists of immigrants. Almost 6,000 of them have arrived within the past seven years. Just like our ancestors, some of these newcomers have fled economic destitution, religious persecution or the ravages of war and revolution. LaSalle—Émard is a mosaic of French, English, Italian, Greek, Indian, African, Chinese and Lebanese communities. We live side by side with respect and admiration for one another, as well as tolerance for our differences.

Having moved to a foreign land where they have few allies, new Canadians face phenomenal challenges. They must learn a new language, new customs and a new collective history. Without exception, they must master a new way of life in a world where the guideposts can be completely different. They work in order to earn a living with dignity. They study and pay for courses in order to obtain recognition of degrees they earned elsewhere.

The new Canadians living in LaSalle—Émard send their children to school, CEGEP and university. They pass on to their children what their journey has taught them: the discipline of work, applying themselves and perseverance. At the same time, they have a sense of community and co-operation, which reminds me every time that there is strength in numbers, that prosperity is shared, and that if an individual can face a thousand challenges, a united community can face an unlimited number of challenges.

I see this in my very diverse contacts with members of the Italian community, the worshippers at the Sikh temple and the young married couples in the Pakistani and Nigerian communities, or when celebrating the Chinese new year. Despite our different backgrounds, we all share the impulse of wanting to distinguish ourselves through our efforts, our talents and our desire to excel. We all know that Canada is a land of immigrants and second chances. For these reasons, southwestern Montreal is a mosaic that reflects Canada's reality. Those are our values.

Bill C-31 threatens this common vision of hope and our collective desire to build a nation where compassion is the rule.

The House resumed from consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, the Marine Transportation Security Act and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, the Marine Transportation Security Act and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act.

While I listened to the debate on Bill C-31 with great interest, I noticed a very disturbing and continuing trend by the Conservative government. Attention must be drawn to the irresponsible and undemocratic procedural tactics used by the government during this debate.

Through Bill C-31, the government has continued to display its fervour to obstruct the parliamentary process. On Monday, March 12, the government broke its own record for silencing debate. The Conservatives' mind-boggling 18th declaration against democratic debate in the House of Commons is an affront to the majority of Canadians who did not vote for the Conservative Party in the last election.

The Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism falsely claims that his government has the authority to ignore the opposition because it received the majority of seats in the last election. By unnecessarily limiting debate, the government is directly stifling democracy.

Canadians elected members of Parliament of all parties to defend their interests. It is reprehensible when this government prohibits the representatives of all Canadians from making their views known. The only explanation for such action must be that the Conservatives are afraid that too much debate will expose the many flaws in their illogical legislation.

This is not the first time the government has introduced a time allocation motion but the 18th time in under a year. Time allocation is only one procedural method that the government has abused to deny Canadians proper, transparent and democratic debate.

Previously the Conservatives twice prorogued Parliament, preventing members of Parliament from representing their constituents in the House of Commons. It is not only in the House that the government has prevented open debate. In committee, we see the Conservatives dangerously abusing motions to go in camera far too often. What is the government trying to hide? It is a good question. Why does it fear transparency? Why can it not be honest with the Canadian people and debate the validity of their ideas instead of abusing procedural tactics?

Furthermore, Bill C-31 undermines the study on biometrics now under way at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. I am surprised that the minister would include biometrics in the bill, not because biometrics are without merit but because the committee has not finished its study and therefore has not issued a report to Parliament. It seems the minister intends to subvert his own Conservative colleagues and the rest of the immigration and citizenship committee who have been working diligently at committee to hear from Canadians on this very important and very vital topic.

Canadians have a right to be heard. Unfortunately, the government does not have the time to listen. Sadly, this is not the first time the minister has undermined the work of the immigration and citizenship committee. The committee was previously studying the backlog of immigration. Midway through the study, the minister announced a freeze preventing people from sponsoring family members to immigrate for at least two years. Through his actions, the minister has displayed a complete disdain for the witnesses and their testimony heard at parliamentary committees. Clearly, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism thinks he knows best and does not listen to those who testify at committee. People come to committee to be heard and provide input into this most important discussion, yet they are not given the opportunity.

Now the minister has abandoned Bill C-4 before the Standing Committee on Immigration and Citizenship could even study it, even though his own government used its majority to push the bill to committee for study. Go figure.

I find it striking that a minister of the crown could have such disdain for the committee under his portfolio. While the bill does not allow for the unconstitutional detention of those under 16 years of age, it does in fact violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms throught its use of warrantless detention for up to a year for those 16 years of age and older. I must ask the same question my colleagues have throughout this debate. What would happen to a six-year-old child whose parents were being unconstitutionally detained after a family arrived in Canada?

As I discussed when Bill C-4 was debated here in this House, in the Supreme Court's 1985 Singh decision, the highest Canadian court ruled that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies, not just to Canadians, but to anyone who steps foot in Canada, whether or not they arrived legally.

Within Bill C-31, as was included in Bill C-4, are provisions that would enable the government to arbitrarily name refugee groups as designated foreign nationals and permit for the legal and unjust detention of said groups for up to 12 months, regardless of whether they were legitimate refugees or not. Section 9 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, under the heading of Legal Rights, ensures that everyone has a right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned. Section 11, under the same heading, states that any person charged with an offence has the right to be tried within a reasonable time.

Liberals do not support an erosion of our constitutional rights, and for very good reason. The path the Conservatives are pursuing is a very slippery slope that would end in the trampling of the rights and freedoms of Canadians, similar to the warrantless search and seizure in the government's Bill C-30.

In addition, Bill C-31 would entrust the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism with far too much political power over our refugee system. Enabling the Minister of Public Safety to determine which groups were irregular arrivals while simultaneously enabling the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism to personally designate safe countries of origin would give the ministers far too many discretionary powers and would offer no accountability or appeal system to protect refugees from the Conservatives' politically motivated agenda.

Canadians from coast to coast to coast are concerned with Bill C-31. I have heard from constituents throughout my riding of Random—Burin—St. George's, as I am sure other members of Parliament have heard from their constituents, that this is a serious piece of legislation. It is a flawed piece of legislation that must be addressed by this Parliament.

To quote a constituent of mine from St. David's, Elin Steele says:

I am particularly concerned that decisions such as designation of “safe” countries be left to the Minister as I do not believe the level of expertise is there. I am concerned that we, as a country, are not only living up to international obligations and standards, we are not living up to our perceived status, domestically and internationally, of fairness, justice and compassion.

My constituent is right to talk about the reputation that we have as Canadians. She talks about the reputation we have in this country. She is seriously concerned about what is going to happen to that reputation and how we will be looked at by those who are looking to Canada as a safe haven. Not only has Ms. Steele written to express her concerns, but other constituents throughout Random—Burin—St. George's have, as well. What I have given here is an example of the kind of concern that exists throughout our country. If it exists in Random—Burin—St. George's, it undoubtedly exists in other parts of Canada.

As with Bill C-4, Canadians do not support the trampling of their enshrined Charter of Rights and Freedoms, nor do they support the trampling of anyone else's enshrined charter of rights. We believe in caring for others. We believe in reaching out to others. We believe in letting them know that Canadians are caring and that they are welcomed here.

The Liberal Party will continue to stand up for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and oppose this dangerous bill. This bill that is so flawed that we have to make our views known, we have to try to get changes to the bill. Liberals believe that there must be judicial oversight and an appeal process to enshrine the internationally guaranteed rights of refugees.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rarely rise on these kind of occasions. I have to express some frustration, listening to the hon. member complain about the lack of time available.

The time we allocated for this was based on the best we could get from our consultations with members of the other parties, some of whom are not prepared to tell us how long they want. But this was an exception. Some people did tell us.

In fact, even on the second day of debate, the member for Winnipeg North asked, “What's the hurry? Why can't we allow for 15 to 20 hours of debate?” That was asked after two days of debate had already taken place and a further 15 to 20 hours of debate was already in the motion. We were doing exactly what he stood and said we should be doing.

Now the Liberals are complaining that there is inadequate process. Members can see my position as House leader, trying to deal with them. Clearly, there is no willingness to co-operate, to give clear indications of the time.

My question for the whip from the Liberal Party is, will you commit, today, right now and here on this floor, in view of the complaints you are making and your public declarations, that you will actually give public declarations of how long you wish to see each bill debated so that we have a reasoned co-operative process in this House?

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I would remind the hon. government House leader to address his comments to the Chair and not directly to colleagues.

The hon. member for Random--Burin--St. George's.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question from the government House leader. The issue, and I have raised it time and time again, is about time allocation. The member knows only too well that we need to have open dialogue and open discussion. Every time he has raised it we have always said that we would check with our critic and get back to him. We have been co-operative. It is not like we do not get back to them.

The issue is this is the 18th time in a year that there has been time allocation. This is a place where we are supposed to debate legislation. This is a place where we are supposed to be able to represent the interests of our constituents, no matter what party one represents.

At the end of the day, when time allocation is imposed time and time again, what happens is we get legislation that is flawed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am fascinated by the argument that the member presents. She complained throughout her speech that she is not being given the opportunity to debate the bill. She used the entire time not to come up with one addition, one recommendation, one supposed solution or enhancement to the bill, but in fact, she spent the whole time complaining about process.

She obviously needs to hear from her counterpart, the Liberal critic at the citizenship and immigration committee, because the last time we heard from a witness, one recommended by the Liberal Party, Mr. Cheema, he could not go on long enough to endorse 100% what we are doing with respect to this bill and what has been happening at Citizenship and Immigration. In fact, he complimented the minister on a number of occasions. It is surprising that I have heard two mistakes in the presentation this afternoon.

My question is, if there is something in the bill that the member is so against, or if there is something that would improve the bill, what is it? Let us have her get up today and make a recommendation as to how this bill could be improved from what it is right now.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way referenced the member for Winnipeg North. He is a superb member of our party and he certainly is a good representative for us on the citizenship and immigration committee. He has put forward several amendments.

My question for the government would be, are you prepared to accept his amendments instead of standing up and complaining that I am talking about process? Of course I am talking about process when we do not have time to debate a bill of this significance and what it means to people who are looking to our country as a safe haven. Why do you not accept the amendments that are put forward? Why is it that only the government has all the answers?

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am not making any kind of comment on the amendments. I encourage the hon. member to address her comments to the Chair and not directly at other colleagues.

The hon. member for Bourassa has less than 30 seconds.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate and thank my colleague for her speech.

My question is simple. As the former immigration minister, I know that a minister must have certain powers, but that he must not have arbitrary power. He must also work with the system and ensure balance.

Does the member agree that if we want Canada to maintain its reputation, we must not start painting everyone with the same brush? Each immigration case, each refugee case is unique, so it would be a mistake to designate a country as being supposedly safe.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. We should all recognize that in this world no two people are alike and no two situations are alike. If we are not prepared to look at cases that come forward on an individual basis, then we are not doing what we should be doing under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which in fact applies to everyone who sets foot in our country.

[Bal Gosal, Conservative, Minister of State (Sport)]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of protecting Canada's immigration system act.

Canadians want a timely and effective refugee system, one that provides protection to those who genuinely need it in a reasonable amount of time. At the same time, Canadians want a refugee system that is able to quickly identify and remove people who seek to abuse our system.

Illegitimate claimants clog our refugee system and create unnecessarily long wait times for those truly in need of Canada's protection. Under the current system, the average asylum claim takes four and a half years to come to a conclusion. Some cases even take longer than a decade. Illegitimate claimants come here at a huge cost to Canadian taxpayers with the average unfounded claim costing $55,000. They also bog down the system which results in genuine claimants waiting long periods of time before they receive Canada's protection.

The protecting Canada's immigration system act seeks to address these problems with the refugee system by providing faster protection to those in genuine need, but quickly removing those who are not, to support a more robust refugee system and prevent fraud in our immigration system in general. This legislation also recognizes that our country must be at the forefront of current technologies.

Protecting Canada's immigration system act aims to strengthen Canada's immigration and refugee system in three ways. First, it would build on the long-needed reforms to the asylum system that were passed in Parliament in June 2010 as part of the balanced refugee reform act. Second, it would give Canadian authorities the tools needed to crack down on the lucrative business of human smuggling. Third, it would introduce biometric technologies for screening certain visa applicants.

Canadians have given us a strong mandate to protect Canada's immigration system. We are acting on that mandate.

Taken together, these three elements seek to help improve the integrity of our immigration and refugee system. Here is how.

One of the problems with our current refugee system is that it takes far too long for claimants to make their way through the system. This applies whether the claim is legitimate or not. This makes Canada an attractive target for illegitimate claimants since they know they can remain in Canada for several years while their claim is processed. Currently, it takes an average of four and a half years from the time a refugee claim is made until a failed claimant has exhausted all legal avenues and is removed from Canada. During this time, claimants can access our generous social benefits and establish themselves here in Canada.

To help reduce the attraction of coming to Canada, this bill would further expedite the processing of all refugee claims, particularly for nationals from designated countries that generally do not produce refugees. This policy would provide the government with an important tool to respond to spikes in claims from countries that do not normally produce refugees.

In 2011, Canada received 5,800 refugee claims from the European Union. That is more than we see from Africa and Asia. Virtually all these claims from the European Union are abandoned, withdrawn or rejected. In other words, these claimants were not in genuine need of protection; they were bogus refugees.

Canada's top source country for refugee claims is Hungary, which is a stable democratic country. The number of refugee claims from Hungary in 2011 was 4,400. That is up almost 50% from 2,300 in 2010. That is 18% of the total percentage of refugee claims in Canada. In comparison, in 2011, Belgium received only 188, the U.S. only 47 and France and Norway only 33 each. In 2010, a total of 2,400 Hungarian nationals claimed refugee status around the world and 2,300 of these were in Canada alone. That is right; Canada received 23 times more bogus refugee claims from Hungary than did all other countries combined.

Even though virtually all these claims were abandoned, withdrawn or rejected, these applicants knew they had several avenues of appeal which allowed them to prolong their stay in Canada. These bogus refugee claimants cost Canadian taxpayers $170 million per year.

This is proof that Canada has become a target for bogus refugees. We must take action to crack down on this abuse. Canadian taxpayers work very hard and do not appreciate it when their hard-earned dollars go toward supporting foreign nationals who should not be here in the first place.

Canadians have given us a strong mandate to protect Canada's immigration system. We are acting on that mandate. Bill C-31 would save Canadian taxpayers at least $1.6 billion over five years.

These new measures would be accomplished without affecting the fairness of our generous refugee system and without compromising any of Canada's international and domestic obligations with respect to refugees. By improving the refugee system in these ways, this legislation would also ensure that those refugee claimants who really do need our protection would get it even faster.

The second part of this legislation would enable Canadian authorities to crack down on human smugglers who seek to abuse our generous refugee system. It would make it easier to prosecute human smugglers and would impose mandatory minimum prison sentences on those convicted of human smuggling.

At the same time, it recognizes that shipowners and operators are one part of the problem. The other part involves those who seek to use the services of a human smuggler in order to get to Canada. This legislation, therefore, also aims to reduce the attraction of coming to Canada by way of dangerous voyage.

The third part of this legislation would introduce new biometric technology to screen visitors to Canada. This legislation and the regulations would make it mandatory for certain visa applicants to have their photographs and fingerprints taken as part of their temporary resident visa applications.

In order to protect the health and safety of Canadians, it is critical that we stay on top of new technologies, including the methods used by fraudsters to manipulate our immigration system to fraudulently gain entry into Canada.

Linking an individual's biometric data with his or her biographic data would help us to more quickly identify applicants. It would therefore become much more difficult to forge, steal or use someone else's identity to gain access into Canada. Biometrics would make it easier to prevent known criminals and previous deportees from entering Canada. It would make it easier to prevent serious criminals, failed refugee claimants and terrorists, among others, from re-entering Canada by using false identify documents.

Alternatively, the use of biometrics would also bolster Canada's existing measures to facilitate legitimate travel by providing a fast and reliable tool to confirm identity. These measures would put us in line with our international partners, such as the United Kingdom, the European Union, Australia, the United States and Japan.

All these reforms are aimed at deterring abuse of Canada's generous immigration and refugee system. Bill C-31 would make our immigration system faster and fairer. Canadians have given us a strong mandate to protect Canada's immigration system. With these proposed measures, the integrity of Canada's immigration programs and the safety and security of Canadians would be protected.

I implore my fellow members of the House to vote in support of this legislation.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I looked at the legislation and we would be creating two tiers of refugees.

What really concerns me is that the not so acceptable refugees by the minister's standards, which standards are very arbitrary and unknown to all of us right now, would be detained. When those people are put into a detention centre, and prison would be another word for it because they are not going to have travel documents, what would happen to the children?

We have to remember that some of these children and families will be arriving from wartorn countries where they would have spent years in refugee camps. They will arrive looking for refuge at a safe haven called Canada and we are going to put them into prisons.

What will happen to the children while the parents are imprisoned?

[Bal Gosal, Conservative, Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is completely false. According to Bill C-31, there is an exemption from automatic detention for minors under 16 years of age.

We want to have a fair refugee system and this bill would create a fairer system for our country. Our government is committed to strengthening Canada's immigration system and that is what we will do with the bill.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I had another question in mind, but the response of the Minister of State for Sport to my colleague's question missed the point.

We understand the changes that improve the bill, between Bill C-4 to Bill C-31, in that children under 16 are not to be automatically jailed for the year with their parents and older siblings over 16. However, I think the question was what would happen to children under 16 who would not automatically be interned, but who would be with their families when they arrived in Canada. I hope one would presume out of compassion and any common sense that we would want to keep children with their parents. I think that is the essence of the question.

Although I am now surrendering my own question to pursue another matter, could the Minister of State for Sport respond to that?

[Bal Gosal, Conservative, Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, with this bill we are trying to stop foreign criminals, human smugglers and bogus refugees from abusing our generous immigration system. They could receive lucrative health care funded by Canadian taxpayers. That is what we are trying to stop with this to create a fairer immigration and refugee system. Children under the age of 16 would not be jailed.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, again, I will follow-up with this question.

Let us say we have refugees from India. They are deemed to be bogus and are imprisoned. They have two or three kids who are between the ages of six and nine. What happens to these children? Are they imprisoned? Are they kept at the pleasure of Her Majesty's government? Are there are any provisions at all in the current form of the bill to deal with that?

[Bal Gosal, Conservative, Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as mentioned, we are trying to create a fair system. Children under the age of 16 can either choose to stay with their parents or they can be released to provincial custody, while the case is being processed.

At the end of the day, we are trying to create a fair system where we can stop foreign criminals, human smugglers and bogus refugees from abusing our system.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my NDP colleagues for expressing their points of view on immigration and the shortcomings of Bill C-31 so brilliantly.

I agree with my colleagues and I have reservations about this bill, which should be reviewed and amended. There is no doubt that in a world as globalized and complex as the one we live in, the Canadian government must always make it a priority to protect Canadians and keep them safe. However, the approach proposed by the Conservatives clashes with Canadian values and fails to achieve the primary goal, which is to protect our borders while remaining a welcoming and attractive country for immigrants.

I would like my colleagues on the other side to justify the glaring deficiencies in this bill to the House. First of all, one of the clauses in the bill concentrates too much power in the hands of the immigration minister by allowing him to decide which countries will be designated as safe countries of origin, which will reduce the number of refugees coming from these countries. An elected official, by himself, cannot replace an impartial expert panel. In addition to handing over too much power to the minister, this type of procedure leaves the door wide open to partisanship that is directly associated with our country's foreign policy objectives.

The NDP believes that immigration and support for refugees cannot be manipulated in this way merely to serve the country's economic interests. A sound immigration policy should promote Canada's economic development, but it cannot ostracize refugees who are seeking asylum in Canada without violating our international obligations. How can this government claim that only the minister has the expertise and holds the truth in immigration law in Canada?

Another very important point concerns the status of thousands of permanent residents. The bill would make it easier to cancel the claim for refugee protection if the circumstances were to change in the refugee's country of origin, even if he or she had become a permanent resident of Canada.

What this really means is that the new Conservative bill might result in thousands of refugees with permanent resident status having that status withdrawn and being expelled from Canada. We know that under the current legislation Canada's protection may already be withdrawn if, for instance, calm has been restored in the refugees’ country of origin and they can live there in safety, or if they obtain citizenship in another safe country. However, once they had obtained permanent resident status, these nationals were guaranteed the right of residence and could keep their status unless they committed a serious crime or fraud in order to obtain permanent resident status.

Why should we toughen up the existing legislation if it is only to frighten immigrants who are trying to rebuild their lives in Canada and who will have this provision hanging over them like the sword of Damocles?

This type of provision will undoubtedly prove to be counterproductive because future immigrants, most of whom are skilled and interested in contributing to Canada's economic prosperity, will instead choose other countries where their lives will be less constrained and more stable in the long term. Furthermore, the fact that this government is not required to strictly apply this law makes too much room for vague and ill-defined powers and uncertainty as to how the law will be applied.

In this regard, I will quote Le Devoir:

An average of 25,000 refugees a year have obtained permanent resident status over the past five years. The number last year was 24,700. On average it takes between 18 and 22 months. They must then wait three years before applying for citizenship, which takes an average of 19 months. It takes a minimum of five to six years to become a citizen, if the process goes quickly. Under the new legislation, the thousands of refugees admitted every year are at risk, not to mention those who simply have not yet applied.

In addition to this major concern, I would like the government to explain why its new bill contains a clause that prohibits entry of asylum seekers who were incarcerated in their country for more than 10 years, and why no discretion is given to a tribunal in the case of political refugees. We all know that thousands of refugees flee their country of origin because they run the risk of having to serve, or they have served, prison sentences because of their religion, ethnicity, political convictions or sexual orientation.

This type of unfair legislation quite simply endorses the discriminatory position that certain countries impose on their citizens rather than helping them to start their lives over in a supposedly fairer and more democratic country such as ours. I am not saying we should be bringing criminals to Canada, but we should be helping refugees who have been unfairly accused in their home countries.

Bill C-31 permits the arbitrary designation of irregular arrivals and their mandatory detention, which is completely unconstitutional. Need we remind this government that the arrival of refugees by irregular means, such as by boat, is legitimate and that we must respect the international treaties regarding refugee rights that we have signed? Canada has recognized these humanitarian rights in accordance with the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, called the Geneva convention.

An individual's right to life, liberty and security of the person is also spelled out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is therefore mandatory in Canada to protect refugees and not expose them to persecution. Those persons who arrive in Canada by their own means can claim refugee protection at any Canadian border or at an immigration office within Canada.

However, according to the new proposed legislation, irregular arrivals will be subject to maximum mandatory imprisonment of one year if they are 16 or older. They will not be able to apply for permanent residence or sponsor a family member for five years and will not have access to the new Refugee Appeal Division. Now, that is a two-tier system. It is totally illegitimate and unfair to immigrants and flies completely in the face of Canadian values.

In its press release announcing the new bill, the Conservative government accuses “bogus refugee claimants” from what it considers to be safe countries of slowing down Canada's immigration process and penalizing the “good” immigrants. The government even contends, “These bogus claims cost Canadian taxpayers upwards of $170 million per year. That's why the government...introduced the Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act.”

The government is therefore proposing savings of $170 million to protect an immigration system that will never be 100% secure. What, then, is the total cost of imprisonment? We do not know. Can the government provide an estimate as to the cost of this legislation?

I would like to remind Canadians and my colleagues in the House that Bill C-11 from the previous Parliament had to do with balanced reforms concerning refugees. I would also remind the House that that bill was the subject of many compromises and was supported by all parties. By bringing a bill like Bill C-31 back to the table, this government is doing three things that are totally unacceptable.

First of all, it is preventing anyone from seeing the effectiveness and the value of legislation that has already been passed, since Bill C-11 is being killed before it even came into force. Second, it is arrogantly rebuffing all the work that was done on Bill C-11 by introducing a new bill that is practically identical, but ignores all the amendments adopted in the previous Parliament. Third, it is disgracefully wasting taxpayers' money by forcing us members to redo work that was already done respectfully and conscientiously.

Some 14% of the people of my riding are immigrants. Among them are thousands of permanent residents who work hard and contribute to the social and economic development of Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles and the greater Quebec City region. Thousands of them are also worried about their status and want answers.

The NDP believes that we must fulfill our duty to refugees while maintaining an effective, impartial immigration system. Bill C-31 puts refugees in a class with criminals. The bill is ineffective and leaves too much room for the political manoeuvring that characterizes the party across the floor. The government needs to redo its homework.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, there are a number of errors in the member's speech, including her statement that the designation of safe countries will be made arbitrarily by the minister himself. In a bill, when it is a question of a power being given to a minister, it is a power that is a responsibility of the department. Ministers never intervene on a matter of designation without seeking the expertise of all the officials in the department.

In the bill, there are clear, firmly grounded criteria for the designation of safe countries. There are also numerical and mathematical criteria. For instance, the IRB will begin the study of claims for the countries from which 75% or more of asylum claims originate. It is therefore the IRB’s decisions that will determine that.

Secondly, she repeated that the bill gives the minister the power to withdraw permanent resident status from refugees, which is an error because it is totally false. The current legislation gives the IRB the power to withdraw refugee status or permanent resident status from individuals who have committed fraud, for instance. There is no change in this regard.

The member must not spread fear among legitimate refugees, who have absolutely no reason to worry about this bill.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I think this fear exists already, and we in the NDP are not the ones who created it. This fear really exists.

In the bill, it clearly states that the minister can make the decision, and while he may consult a panel of experts, it is up to him to make the final decision. He can therefore make unilateral decisions. It is much too much power in the hands of a single individual.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member has just said that the bill gives the minister the power to withdraw permanent resident status from refugees. Where did the member find this information, in which clause of the bill? I wrote this bill. I have the bill right in front of me. There is no clause in this bill that gives the minister the power to withdraw permanent resident status. What clause is she talking about? It does not exist.

In addition, she is talking about a two-tier system. I would like to remind the member that, during the last Parliament, Bill C-11, supported by the NDP, aimed at creating a two-tier system, that is, an accelerated process for asylum seekers from designated safe countries.

Why is she against a two-tier system now, when her party was in favour of such a system in the last Parliament?

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in my remarks, I said that amendments had been proposed to the previous government's Bill C-11 and that we were starting from scratch in this current Parliament. We could have taken the amendments previously approved by the three parties and continued with the work at hand.

The bill refers to sending refugees to a safer country. What country is safer than Canada? Why do we not keep out immigrants and refugees? And why would we send them to a so-called safer country? What safer country is there than Canada?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, is the member aware that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees clearly stated that it was entirely legitimate and normal according to the essence of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees to permit refugee systems and to designate certain countries as safe countries, that is, countries from which refugees do not normally originate?

Is she against this UN policy?

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will certainly not question UN policies. However, when a refugee comes to Canada because Canada is a safe country, it is important that we keep the refugee and even support him by providing him with all the services that he needs to become a citizen, a worker, and to develop our labour market. We are in great need of labour.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to rise in support of this important legislation. We all know Canada is a compassionate nation. We have a generous spirit that compels us as Canadians to protect the vulnerable.

In fact, Canada has one of the most generous immigration and refugee systems in the world. We resettle approximately 1 in 10 of the world's resettled refugees, more than almost any other industrialized country in the world. We are continuing our tradition as a leader in international refugee protection by increasing the number of refugees resettled from abroad by 20%. By 2013, Canada will resettle up to 14,500 refugees, or 11% of the refugees resettled globally.

The plight of the world's refugees has always moved us to help. Some 30 years ago, people from all walks of life helped to rescue and resettle more than 60,000 Indochinese refugees in Canada. This effort firmly established private sponsorship as a vital component of our refugee program and, in fact, private sponsors across Canada have stepped up and helped more than 200,000 refugees in the past 30 years.

The government is also active with our international partners to help those in need. Take for example, the government's commitment to resettle up to 5,000 Bhutanese refugees from Nepal. We have already welcomed more than 3,600 Bhutanese refugees in several communities across Canada. In addition, we have resettled over 3,900 Karen from Thailand.

Canada has a record of compassion and concern for the world's most vulnerable, a record that we can all be proud of, but we are not pushovers. No Canadian thinks it is acceptable for criminals to abuse Canada's immigration system for financial gain through the crime of human smuggling. It will come as no surprise to anyone in the House that human smuggling is an issue of great importance to me. That is why I introduced Bill C-310, which would amend the Criminal Code to add the offence of trafficking in persons to the list of offences committed outside of Canada that Canadian citizens or permanent residents may be prosecuted for in Canada, among other things. I was very pleased earlier today to appear before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights as the first witness to appear on its study of my bill.

The simple fact is that our country has become a target for human smuggling. The arrivals of the MV Sun Sea and the Ocean Lady are a clear indication that Canada is a favoured destination for human smuggling networks, and recent international media reports have made it clear that human smugglers continue to target Canada. Just a few weeks ago, the media reported that a massive human smuggling operation headed for Canada was dismantled in Togo. Canada is a prime target for human smugglers. That is why we must take action.

Let us not forget what we are talking about here. Human smuggling is a transnational criminal enterprise that is a growing global phenomenon. Human smugglers consider their passengers to be little more than cargo. Migrants are typically stranded at sea on an overcrowded boat with unsanitary and unsafe conditions. As a result of these inhumane conditions, countless people die in human smuggling operations every year. By charging people large sums of money for their transportation, human smugglers have made a lucrative business out of facilitating illegal migration, often by counselling smuggled persons to claim asylum in the country to which they are smuggled. Once they arrive to their destination country, these migrants are often at the mercy of their human smugglers. Many of them are forced to work for years in the underground economy just to pay off their debts to the smuggler.

Interpol says that human smuggling syndicates benefit from weak legislation, and low risk of detection and prosecution and arrest compared to those engaged in other transnational organized crimes. If we do not take strong action now, more vessels will arrive and more lives will be put at risk.

The government will not stand by and allow these exploitive operations to continue. This legislation would enable us to crack down on human smugglers who prey on vulnerable migrants. It also aims to discourage those tempted to use this perilous form of migration. Here is how.

The legislation would make it easier to prosecute human smugglers. We would make shipowners and operators liable for the use of their ships in human smuggling. This legislation includes stiffer penalties and fines for shipowners and operators, as well as mandatory minimum sentences for those convicted of human smuggling. At the same time, the government recognizes that ship operators and owners are only part of the problem. We must also discourage those who would consider using the services of a human smuggler. This bill aims to do that by reducing the attraction of coming to Canada by way of irregular arrival.

First, it would prevent illegal migrants who are part of the smuggling operation from obtaining permanent resident status for five years, thereby also preventing them from bringing their family members to Canada during that period. During this time as well, if refugee claimants return to their country of origin or demonstrate in other ways that they are not in legitimate need of Canada's protection, we can take steps to cease their protected status and remove them from Canada. This is because returning to the country from which they are claiming prosecution is very strong evidence that they are not in need of Canada's protection. Canadians, especially those who waited in line to come to Canada legally, have an innate sense of fairness and want our government to take action to prevent the entry of those who seek to use illegal means to jump the queue.

Through Bill C-31, our government is also ensuring that the medical benefits received by those who arrive by these means are not more generous than those received by the average Canadian.

In addition to these measures, this legislation underscores our top priority, which is to protect the safety and security of Canadians. The mandatory detention of irregular arrivals, excluding those who are under the age of 16, would provide us with the time needed to confirm these individuals' identities and whether they pose a threat to Canadians upon their release.

Simon Zhong, executive director of the Toronto Community and Culture Centre, has said the following: “Human smuggling is a criminal activity that puts people's lives at risk. It involves a network of international criminal organizations and Canada has become their target because of our compassion and fairness.... We support the government's proposals as we need to send a strong message that criminal human smuggling will not be tolerated. Smugglers need to understand that they will be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible and that these proposals will make this easier to accomplish that”.

Canada is a compassionate nation of immigrants with a proud history and tradition of welcoming refugees, but every sovereign country has a responsibility to protect its citizens and its borders. The legislation before the House is a necessary step to protect our borders and the integrity of our immigration system. It also sends a message that the Government of Canada is serious about deterring human smuggling and the people who participate in it.

I urge all members of the House to give this bill grave consideration and, ultimately, their support.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we just heard an extraordinary statement by the Minister of State (Sport) a few minutes ago. When I provided an example of an Indian family, including parents and children, arriving in Canada and being deemed bogus refugees and I asked the minister what would happen to the children, he replied that the children would be separated from their parents, who would remain in detention centres, and be held in provincial custody. I am wondering if perhaps my colleague could flesh that out a bit.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his consideration for children, as our government is showing as well. That is why our government stipulated that children aged 16 and under would not be detained. What we have to do is to look at the best interests of the children. Often when parents are detained, they make a decision as to whether the children will stay with them or go to a relative they know in the country, or go under government care. That is a parental decision to be made by them, and it is part of their parental responsibility when they decide to get on a boat and bring their children over. That is going to be clearly outlined so that parents know before they get on the boat that these are their choices.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, on that question, the member for Kildonan—St. Paul is precisely correct. Indeed, there was a misrepresentation of the statement made by the Minister of State for Sport, who said that children under the age of 16 who were accompanied by parents could be released into the custody of the relevant provincial child welfare agency that would determine whether to place them with a guardian, relatives, or other care. However, if their parents chose to, they could live in the family detention centre, where the conditions are entirely appropriate for families, as they are in all the immigration detention centres. All of the immigration detention centres in all democratic countries around the world make provisions for families.

Unaccompanied minors under the age of 16 would be at the direction of the responsible provincial child welfare agency, which has statutory and constitutional authority for the guardianship of unaccompanied minors.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's continuation of the answer to the question. It is a very important and sober question. Often when parents bring their children over with them on the boat, they need to be aware of what the parameters are around Canada and what Canada will accept. That is what we need to do as a government. Also, with that provision, there is protection for unaccompanied minors as well.

The government has certainly put forward grave consideration that helps so minors can be protected, fed and clothed when they are here.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind the member opposite that when refugees flee their country because they are persecuted, because they want to escape danger and be safe, they do not take the time to find out about the country they are going to. They do not come as tourists. They do not come for pleasure. They are fleeing the difficult and dangerous conditions in which they found themselves in their countries of origin. That is why certain people flee and take a great many risks—because it is better to risk their lives than to stay in their homeland.

I speak from experience. That is what my parents did. So here is my question. If Bill C-31 was so well thought-out, why is it that Australia, which did the same thing and put refugees in detention, has reversed its decision and once again adopted the immigration system that currently exists in Canada?

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for Australia because I do not live in Australia. I know there has been very careful consideration made to the legislation in Canada. There is a proper way to come to Canada. People do not have to get on a ship. They can flee their countries in other ways.

The immigrants who are here, refugees who have come the proper way, do not like it when they hear of others who come across in ships. It is a very dangerous way to do it.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak to the bill. I have been listening to the debate and I am trying to work out what it is we are trying to fix.

Obviously, after the refugee incident that happened off the B.C. coast, it is my understanding, and I have seen the legislation, that there was an all party agreement that addressed a lot of the issues.

When I look at this legislation, even though it is called protecting Canada's immigration system act, it really talks about punishing smugglers and it is against human smuggling. I keep wondering how the punishments for human smugglers are any different under this bill than they were in the previous bill, in which there was life imprisonment. This is the greatest sentencing that can be given by a Canadian court.

I am also hearing a lot about what a wonderful country Canada is, and I absolutely agree. I chose Canada to be my home. I am an immigrant who arrived from England because Canada went over there to look for teachers who could come to teach in this beautiful country, and my husband and I moved here. We came with a profession to a teaching job.

However, the immigrants we are talking about in the bill are refugees. They are not immigrants in the normal sense. These are people who are fleeing what are for most of us unimaginable challenges in their home communities and some of them are not even fleeing from their homelands. They have been sitting in refugee camps or they have escaped from one country to another.

With respect to the stress in the Middle East right now, I heard this morning that over a thousand refugees had crossed over into Turkey from Syria. Those people are not leaving for Turkey because they are just looking for a new place to live. They are leaving because they are living in an environment where bombings are going on and their lives are at risk.

In those circumstances, parents take their kids with them. That is normal. I remember doing this exercise when I was a teacher. If individuals were going on a boat, who would they take with them? If I had my kids with me, they would go on the boat first and I would ensure they were on the boat when I got on. Yet I heard a very respected colleague from across the aisle say that it was their choice whether they brought their young kids with them or not.

I want to get back to the refugees who are escaping these unexplainable and unimaginable situations, and let us say they are now in Turkey. From Turkey they are looking to go somewhere, because even in those camps it is not safe for them.

These people are desperate. They are not going on a cruise ship. They do not have the money to buy first-class tickets or even safe tickets. When a gun is pointed to the backs of individuals, when hunger surrounds them, when they are not sure whether they will wake up the next morning and know their children are with them, or whether they have been shot or whether they will even have enough food for them, they become desperate.

We have different types of refugees. We have those who come here for humanitarian reasons, because of hunger, and those who are fleeing very violent conditions in their country. As a counsellor, I have had the privilege of working with many youths from those refugee camps who have come to Canada and are now contributing members in our society.

When all of these families are looking for a way out, it is because they feel their lives are in danger. At that time, surely we are not saying to them that over in Canada we have a law, so really they should leave their children behind. That is just not how things work.

Absolutely punish those who are engaged in human smuggling. Absolutely punish those who are engaged in fraudulent cases, and we can prove it. However, in that process, let us not lose our humanity and punish the innocent because a few people are fraudulent or are using means unacceptable to us or anyone else.

Once these children arrive with their families on our shores, will we now tell them that their parents will go to prison because they have been designated? We can call them detention centres or whatever we would like, but basically that is what they are. Then we tell their parents that their children do not have to remain in the detention camps because we are humanitarian in Canada and care about children, that they have a choice. They can be farmed out to the provincial governments that can find orphanages, foster homes or some place to look after them. Imagine how those parents and children would feel.

As a mother, I cannot imagine that. As an immigrant who arrived in England willingly at the age of 10, I cannot imagine somebody saying to me, when I arrived in a brand new country and did not speak the language, that I could not stay with my parents because they would be put in a detention centre, that I would be put with a strange family and if did not want to go with that family, I could go back to the detention centre prison and be with my parents. Where is the humanity in that?

I want to make it absolutely clear. We want a fair and transparent process, but humane processes. I do not see why we would punish refugees who were brought in boats to our country. They came based on a promise that they would go to a safe place. If that is what they have to face when they get here, I would bow my head in shame for treating those who had come from very fragile and violent surroundings, whether that be the war fields or refugee camps where they had lived for ages. The impact is not pleasant on children who have lived in those refugee conditions overseas before they escaped.

I had cold shivers earlier when I heard an esteemed colleague on the other side being asked the question with respect to what would happen to the children, whether they could remain in detention with their families or be fostered. I wondered where that fitted into the Canadian way.

Some members might stand to say that we want to support smugglers or that I say this because I want these illegal activities to continue. That is not correct. All my life I have been an advocate for fair, open and transparent processes. I absolutely believe that those who engage in human smuggling or any other kind of illegal activities or use fraudulent means to get here should be punished. Surely, we should not punish everybody in order to punish those few people.

As a teacher, I often like to use an example. I will use the example of drinking and driving. We all know that drinking and driving is absolutely wrong and the consequences can be terrible on people. Because people drink and drive, we do not say that all cars are banned in Canada and that nobody can drive. Rather we get involved in education. I believe we need to provide education with respect to our refugee processes, as well as punish those who do wrong.

I urge my colleagues on the other side to ensure they amend this bill so only people who do wrong are punished and we do not put innocent people in prison with their children or take their children away from them.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for that member. We all share her concern for the welfare of children, particularly vulnerable children. I really do believe that she is massively overstating her concern in respect to this bill.

In the large scale smuggling operations, in almost every case a family chooses to send one member to pay the fee, which is a commitment. The Southeast Asia smuggling syndicates, which used to be gun runners by the way, are charging about $50,000 with a 10% down payment and 95% payable upon establishment in Canada. They typically send one young man in his 20s from the family to Canada so that he can start paying off the debt and then bring subsequent family members in. There were 600 who came in the last two years. I am not aware of there being any children but there may have been a couple of adolescents.

It is not really a serious issue in terms of the reality. I would say that social democratic parties, the member's sister parties, like the labour party in Australia and in the United Kingdom, have far more robust detention provisions.

The member asked where our humanity is. We are the leading country in the world in terms of refugee resettlement. We resettle one out of every ten resettled refugees in the world. We are increasing that number by 20%. The member talked about the Syrians going to Turkey. Well, we have a special program where we are bringing in 20,000 UN convention refugees from Syria. We are increasing our targets from Turkey. We are doing more than any other country in the world to welcome refugees who are in need of our protection.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his question, I think.

I would just say that, absolutely, those who are engaged in fraudulent and illegal practices need to be punished.

However, when we look at this bill, it reaches into far more than that. If it is not a problem, as the minister said, and we have not had that many children, et cetera, then why are introducing this bill at this time? This bill would do nothing to address greater punishment, and I do not think we can give a greater punishment, for those who smuggle.

This bill would actually punish refugees. For families that are petrified, scared for their lives, trying to get away from a situation, may have sold everything they had, and may have begged, borrowed and stolen to get over here, are we then going send them to a detention centre while we determine whether they are refugees? The minister's office will determine that. To me, that just does not seem to be humane.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to comment on two things. First, in her riding, has she met any people who have talked to her about this bill? Has she had any feedback on it? Does anybody in her riding have something to say about this issue?

I would like her to give examples of this. I know that my hon. colleague works on a lot of issues for the NDP, and I would like to congratulate her on the good work that she does.

Second, I would like her to talk about the fact that the minister can determine whether a country is considered dangerous or not. Under this bill, the minister will be able to determine which countries’ inhabitants can truly be considered refugees.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have had discussions in my community. I have had a town hall meeting or a forum where we have discussed different aspects of our immigration policies and their concerns with visas, super visas and family reunification, including refugees.

I have also had people in my office. I had one gentleman come to see me who was really surprised that his refugee status had not been accepted. He wanted to know if I could do something to assist him. I looked at the file and I had to tell him no, that he did not meet the criteria.

I am very honest, as the minister knows, with my constituents when they come in to see me. I do not raise their hopes. For me to get this passionate about this business, the minister has to know that there are some really serious concerns in the community.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Atlantic Canada; the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, Employment; the hon. member for Drummond, Search and Rescue.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Calgary Northeast.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today in support of Bill C-31, the protecting Canada's immigration system act.

Canadians are enormously generous people. For decades, Canadians have welcomed millions of immigrants into our country with open arms. I know this because I was one of them. I know first-hand that whether we fly, sail or drive here, Canada had a place for those who work hard and play by the rules. In fact, over the past six years, Canadians have welcomed the highest sustained number of immigrants than ever before in Canadian history.

However, Canadians want an immigration system that is fair, balanced and in the best interests of our country and our economy. They welcome those who can contribute to Canada, those who have family in Canada and those who are in genuine need of our protection.

However, Canadians also demand that our immigration system keep out those who mean our country harm, those who aim to take advantage of our generosity and those who pretend to need our humanitarian protection but are actually just queue jumpers who do not want to wait in line like everyone else.

I often like to describe my constituents in Calgary Northeast as the hardest working constituents in Canada. Our people are industrious, enterprising, skilled workers and many of them are new Canadians. They have immigrant stories similar to my own. I can tell this House that the message I get from my constituents is that they support a fair and balanced immigration system that does not punish those who play by the rules. They want us to stop those who abuse our immigration system. They want us to keep out those who break our laws. They demand that we close the doors to those who lie and cheat their way into Canada.

If citizens cannot trust in the integrity of their country's immigration system, that system will fail. Canada's immigration system is a success story because our citizens have trust in our immigration system and that is also why it is so important for everyone in this House to ensure the passage of the measures that are found in Bill C-31, measures that would strengthen the integrity and functioning of Canada's immigration system and would help ensure its success.

I will quote from an Edmonton Journal editorial published the day after the minister first introduced Bill C-31. It states, in part:

As ideals go, extending everyone the benefit of the doubt for an in-definite period has become unsustainable.

Take the case of refugee claimants. ... Canada now receives more applications for refugee status from Europe than it does from either Asia or Africa.

...there has to be a more efficient, cost-effective means of weeding out the bogus claimants from Europe and elsewhere. Simply put, we cannot continue to give everyone the benefit of the doubt when it costs that much money and taxes our social systems unduly to do so.

The facts speak for themselves. The total number of refugee claims from the European Union in 2011 was 5,800. That means the percentage of total refugee claims coming from the European Union in 2011 was 23%. That is more than Africa and Asia. It is also a 14% increase from 2010.

Canada has one of the most generous refugee systems in the world. We admit more refugees on a per capita basis than almost any other country. In fact, our Conservative government has increased the number of resettled refugees by 20% or 2,500 refugees per year.

However, we cannot sustain that generosity if our refugee system is being abused by bogus refugee claimants making false claims. We need to effectively fulfill our humanitarian obligation to give protection to those asylum seekers who genuinely need it.

Members need not take my word for it. They need only look at the actions of the bogus refugees themselves. Virtually none of the claimants from the European Union show up for their refugee hearings but virtually all of them show up for the initial screening interview that will allow them to receive taxpayer funded social services. Canadians have the right to question this practice and demand recourse.

Bill C-31 would accelerate the processing of refugee claims for nationals from designated countries that generally do not produce true refugees so those refugees would be dealt with more quickly. It would also reduce the options and delay tactics available to the failed claimants to delay their removal from Canada.

Today it takes a claimant from Europe over 1,000 days to receive an answer from our government. That is nearly four years of welfare, four years of work permits and four years of taxpayer funded health care. Under Bill C-31, the government hopes to reduce this timeline to 45 days for designated countries that have excellent human rights records and democratic governments. This means faster removal of bogus claimants who have abused the generosity of Canadians and shoved aside real refugees for their own selfish purposes.

We are currently dealing with big loopholes that make our generous immigration system open to abuse. We must take action to crack down on this abuse. Canadians have given our Conservative government a strong mandate to protect Canada's immigration system and that is exactly what we are doing.

This legislation would save Canadian taxpayers at least $1.6 billion over five years. It would put a stop to foreign criminals, human smugglers and bogus refugees abusing our generous immigration system and receiving lucrative taxpayer funded health and social benefits. At the same time, the bill would provide protection more quickly to those who are truly in need.

Bill C-31 would help crack down on human smugglers worldwide who are targeting Canada and charging large amounts of money to facilitate illegal migration. Not only that, these human smugglers often treat their clients in a manner that is exploitative and downright dangerous. The measures in this bill would strongly discourage anyone from becoming involved in this criminal activity, while making it easier to prosecute human smugglers. This dangerous queue jumping must be curtailed.

Other measures in the bill, such as mandatory detention, would give Canadian authorities enough time to conduct investigations and examinations into identity, admissibility and criminal activity. Canadians want their government to find out who is being let into our country. It is simply the logical and responsible thing to do.

This is what another Canadian newspaper, the Montreal Gazette, wrote in a recent editorial lauding the measures in the bill that address this criminal activity. It reads:

Human smuggling is an odious enterprise that should be severely punished. And while the smugglers' clients are perhaps desperate people in many cases, they are nevertheless participants in an illegal activity that should be strongly discouraged.

However, all those who arrive in Canada as part of a designated irregular arrival will still have access to a refugee determination and anyone who is determined to be a refugee would be released from mandatory detention. Under Bill C-31, minors under the age of 16 would not be subjected to mandatory detention. These children would be given appropriate accommodation and assistance.

In the short time I have had to speak, I have tried to demonstrate how important Canada's immigration system is to our country and how Bill C-31 would strengthen that system for Canada and for the refugees we seek to help. Canadians have no tolerance for those who abuse our generosity and who take unfair advantage of our country, which is why we are taking action to address these concerns.

I hope my hon. colleagues from all sides will agree and join me in supporting this fair and balanced legislation.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I must say the bill makes me feel somewhat uneasy, particularly the provisions on detention.

Canadian governments in the past have had no problem turning refugees away from our shores to their death. Governments in the past have had no problem with detaining Canadians, Japanese Canadians, Ukrainian Canadians, Italian Canadians, and the list goes on. Whenever we talk about detention, I get a little concerned.

I would like to ask my friend across the way what he really thinks about the detention provisions that are in the bill.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let me tell my colleague what I think and what my constituents think.

I am an immigrant. The constituency I represent has a lot of new Canadians. They are all outraged by the abuse of our system.

Talking about detention, as a matter of fact the bill would give potential immigrants an opportunity, I would say a fair chance, of dealing with the issue in a very timely manner. If we talk to Canadians, in the existing system, it takes years and years to find out the fate of a genuine refugee.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to get up, but the member never answered the question he was asked. It was a very serious question.

I know the member. I have been in his riding. There are a lot of new Canadians in that riding, and they came in under our current system.

What we are worried about is abuse of the system, unnecessary detention. If the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism is to be the sole decision-maker on what is a “safe country of origin”, I do not believe, given the record of the Conservative government, there would be proper accountability. It dangerously politicizes the refugee system. We know of so many other areas where the government has really been unaccountable.

How can the member stand in his place and say that he has confidence in this new system when he knows that his own government would politicize the system for the government's own reasons?

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member were to research the record-setting results of this immigration minister, he would find that the minister is a very logical, very intelligent and very unbiased minister in the recent history of our Parliament.

To answer his question, in my opinion, this bill actually sets up the criteria. It tells how the system would work, what the maximum time would be to have a hearing and what the maximum time would be to make a decision as to whether a person is a genuine refugee or not. If the person is a genuine refugee from a designated country, which is what he is talking about, that genuine refugee would get the results within 45 days, hopefully. In those 45 days, the person would get his or her papers and move on with his or her life.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, on the latter point raised by the member for Malpeque, there is no politicization proposed. There is nothing dangerous proposed. No access to our asylum system would be restricted by the bill at all. Every asylum claimant from every country, regardless of the means of their arrival, whether it is a smuggling operation or not, would have the same access to a full fact-based appeal on the merits of their case before the quasi-judicial Immigration and Refugee Board. We would not refoule anyone who has been deemed by our legal system to face danger.There is nothing arbitrary about the designation process of certain countries. I refer the member to section 58 of Bill C-31, which is a page and a half of criteria by which the designation process would be conducted.

Does the member not agree with me?

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as the minister mentioned, there will be a set criteria. I mentioned the same thing. The minister talked about the set criteria for the designation of countries. There will be a set criteria on how the applications will be processed in a timely manner and how the cases will be determined.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add my voice in support of Bill C-31, the protecting Canada's immigration system act. The bill would protect the integrity of the system. We cannot allow abuses of the system to undermine trust in Canada's immigration system.

As we have heard, Bill C-31 would do three things. First, it would make further much needed reform to the asylum system. Second, it would enable the introduction of biometric technology for screening visa applicants in order to strengthen our immigration program. Third, and the area I will focus on, there are measures that would help crack down on the growing and dangerous business of human smuggling.

I do not think it comes as a surprise to any hon. member of the House that our government is pushing ahead with reforming our immigration and refugee laws to put an end to human smuggling.

Canada enjoys a global reputation as a nation that cherishes fundamental freedoms, that champions democracy and freedom of speech, and that believes strongly in the benefits and opportunities that come from a diverse, multicultural society. That is not disputed.

Most Canadians, and I include myself in that category, have a chapter in their family history that includes immigration and resettlement. For some it was added recently; for others that chapter was written three or four generations ago. There are countless individuals and families around the world who want to add that same chapter to their family history by coming to Canada. Canada is a destination highly desired by many.

The unfortunate reality is that there are individuals and criminal organizations that see our generous immigration system as an easy target to make a high profit with low risks. These criminal elements use Canada's reputation to conjure up their own outlandish stories of how refugees can bypass the proper channels by paying a set fee and arriving en masse. Human smugglers convince these individuals that they will be processed quicker and will be able to start a new chapter of their lives sooner than if they apply to come to Canada by other methods. We have seen strong evidence of this with recent events on Canada's shores.

Until recently, most Canadians believed that any large-scale human smuggling was something that did not happen here, that it was something they would read about in the papers or hear about on the news from other countries.

That changed in 2009 when Canadians witnessed the arrival on the west coast of the MV Ocean Lady which carried 76 migrants. Less than a year later close to 500 migrants arrived on a second vessel, the MV Sun Sea. Shortly after that, a sea container was uncovered at the port of Montreal revealing yet more individuals who had tried to enter Canada illegally.

Canadians are becoming very much aware of this problem. It is a reality that must be faced. They want the government to act, and the government has acted.

I have heard from my constituents, and like all Canadians they have told me that they want our government to act decisively to crack down on those who would endanger the lives of men, women and children by selling them false dreams and transporting them in unsafe vessels or shipping crates. This disregard for human life is an affront to all Canadians.

We must therefore act before another tragedy strikes, such as the one that occurred off the coast of Indonesia last December when close to 200 irregular migrants destined for Australia perished when their vessel capsized in rough waters.

We cannot rest on our laurels and wait for the next incident. That is why our government introduced legislation in October 2010 to crack down on human smuggling. That is why the 2011 Speech from the Throne underscored this government's commitment to combat human smuggling, which can place migrants in dangerous situations and undermine trust in Canada's immigration system.

Today we are proud to see these changes included in Bill C-31, which encompasses some important reforms that would strengthen our immigration and refugee system. These changes would help us to meet the challenges associated with human smuggling while continuing to provide protection to those who require it most.

With this legislation we are delivering on our commitment to Canadians to combat human smuggling, a crime that undermines trust in Canada's immigration system.

First and foremost, the proposed reforms would allow Canada to crack down on human smugglers who would abuse our generous immigration system and endanger the safety and security of Canadians. It also proposes measures that would act as a deterrent for those who are planning and organizing human smuggling operations. Those who plan human smuggling and think it is low risk would now have to reconsider given the measures that would be implemented in this bill.

First, these measures would enable the Minister of Public Safety to designate the arrival of a group of persons as an irregular arrival, thereby making those involved subject to the act's measures. Canadians expect as much. Canadians demand that the government take action along those lines and perhaps even to a greater extent. I would add, though, that there are safeguards in place that would ensure the minister cannot delegate this authority given the significant consequences that flow from a designation.

Second, it would make it easier to prosecute human smugglers, including broadening the definition of the offence of human smuggling to better capture all the ways this crime occurs and make it easier to prove the offence was committed.

Third, it would impose mandatory minimum prison sentences on convicted human smugglers.

The sentence length would escalate based on factors such as if the offence was committed for profit or in association with a terrorist or criminal organization. I do not think anyone would disagree that is a significant consideration and should factor into the sentencing or the consequences. Another factor would be if the person who committed the offence endangered lives, caused bodily harm or death to any of the persons smuggled. The persons being smuggled undergo an extreme amount of suffering and are in danger. People are putting them in that position simply from the motive of profit. Those considerations need to be taken into account in the sentencing provisions.

Some may question the need for such mandatory penalties given the offence can already be punished by life imprisonment. Our government believes strongly that the most harmful manifestations of this crime must be clearly denounced. Our proposed mandatory minimums would do this. Not only would this denounce these types of actions but I believe it would also deter these types of actions. It is important to note, however, that these would only apply in situations where aggravating factors can be proven, factors which reflect the most harmful, serious and reprehensible aspects of this crime.

Fourth, the bill proposes measures that would hold shipowners and operators to account for the use of their ships in human smuggling operations. It is important that liability and accountability be placed on those who allow their assets to be used in this fashion.

In addition to these deterrent measures, the bill includes other measures required for the proper identification and investigation of those wishing to enter Canada as part of an irregular arrival. This includes establishing the mandatory detention of participants in designated human smuggling events to allow for the proper and full determination of identity and admissibility and any other investigations. It is in this last point that we will see wording changes in the legislation to expressly exclude designated foreign nationals under the age of 16 years.

Bill C-31 includes other reforms to help reduce the attraction of coming to Canada by way of illegal human smuggling operations. For example, it includes measures to prevent those who come to Canada as part of an irregular arrival, including those who subsequently obtain refugee status, from applying for permanent resident status for a period of five years. It also includes measures to enhance the opportunity to rescind the refugee status of those who return to their country of origin for a vacation or demonstrate in other ways that they are not truly in need of Canada's protection. Finally, it would prevent individuals who participate in designated human smuggling events from sponsoring family members for a period of five years.

Our government believes that these actions are tough but fair. More than ever before, Canada must take a strong stand with our international partners and allies to help end the illegal practice of human smuggling.

I would urge all members to support this bill and ensure its swift passage.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, the Marine Transportation Security Act and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee and of the amendment.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-31 reminds me of what governments have done over the years to people on welfare: scapegoat the target, demonize people, design the system to basically take away people's rights, and focus on a minority of cases to whip up public frenzy. That is exactly what this bill is doing around refugees.

One section of the bill that I am very concerned about is the humanitarian and compassionate consideration. I do a lot of casework in my riding, as I know others do as well. The bill would require that a person choose at the beginning whether to file for refugee status or an H and C consideration. That would be devastating for someone who is making a claim. An individual may not know at the time about an H and C application.

How on earth can the member defend limiting the H and C consideration? All of us know that for many people, at the end of the day, that is all they have left. To take that away seems to me to be quite disgusting, very unfair and very harmful.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that those who are legitimate refugees would have the opportunity to establish their cases and, to the extent that they are able, they would receive the appropriate status. As the system was, people could apply by any means. They could jump the queue and go through a number of processes to stay in the country. They could apply for humanitarian and compassionate leave under a number of circumstances, after having settled. In fact, some cases take four and a half years or longer to settle. By that time they could have married, had children and built a case for humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

The provision in Bill C-31, as I understand it, would allow for an application for humanitarian and compassionate grounds, but not under a number of conditions and after a number of years. A claimant could apply once and either be successful or not. If they made an application before the board, the board would make the appropriate determination.

What I like about the bill is it would start to focus the time in a narrow window so that cases would be disposed of fairly quickly, instead of taking a number of years.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am smiling because the member said that the bill allows for taking into consideration of human hardship and compassionate grounds. Compassion from that party? I do not think so.

The member also mentioned that there are safeguards in place surrounding the ultimate power of the minister. Would he care to list those safeguards? I do not find the safeguards in the bill to be very strong. Could he outline to me what they are?

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

Mr. Speaker, certainly, it is a compassionate position to allow people who apply for their status to have it determined in a reasonable period of time and to allow then for that provision.

What is wrong is a situation where there is a buildup of legitimate cases because the previous government was not prepared to deal with claims that were bogus, or allowed others to jump the queue and clutter the system so they could not have determination. In fact, many claimants from European Union countries would apply and then abandon those applications over time, after they had an opportunity to be in the country for a great length of time.

There are specific provisions in the legislation that if the claimants themselves from the country of origin abandon their claims, or do not pursue them, and a great percentage, let us say 60% or so, do that, or if the refugee board refuses up to 75% of the applicants from a particular country, those are the kinds of objective bases that we might use. If a country has a democratic system, if it has a judiciary and if it protects human rights, those countries might not be the ones that we would want to allow applications from.

This particular legislation does have compassion for those who want to have their claims heard in an appropriate and expedited fashion.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, the Marine Transportation Security Act and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act. As we can tell by the title, it covers quite a broad range.

We, as a party, have quite a number of concerns with the bill. First and foremost is what seems to be the amount of power granted to the minister. As previous speakers talked about, the bill does bring some accountability. However, we have seen the government in other venues talk about bringing in more progressive legislation, for instance its accountability act. Yet, ever since the Conservatives formed the government we have seen anything but accountability. In fact, the debate on this bill is a prime example, as there are time limitations again.

What we have seen from the government is less debate, more closure, less transparency and less openness. We certainly cannot go by what the Conservatives have promised in previous elections. If the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism were the sole decision-maker of safe countries of origin, there would be no accountability from our perspective and no recourse. It would dangerously politicize the refugee system. This would be all about giving one person in the country the power to choose who can claim refugee status and who cannot.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

That is wrong.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

The minister claims that is wrong. He will have the opportunity to stand and explain that. Certainly our interpretation of the bill is that is the case. Giving this particular minister all this power is indeed worrisome.

Allowing the minister to determine which groups were irregular arrivals would give the minister too much discretionary power with very little accountability.

I asked the previous member from the Conservative Party who would outline the safeguards. I really did not hear any safeguards that would amount to a whole lot.

The removal of an appeal process for those originating from a country on the safe list or from those identified as being part of an irregular arrival would not afford due process. We all know that due process is extremely important. We do not see due process in this section of the bill.

Our party is opposed to the lengthy, warrantless detentions coupled with an unfair review process where the first review would only occur after 12 months. The policies proposed really constitute cruel and unusual punishment. There should be balance in this kind of legislation. There does not seem to be balance or fairness in the act in terms of how the bill would affect people's lives. They come here, maybe abused by others in other countries and other systems. We need to protect those individuals. They come here with dreams and could find them so much dashed.

We do believe in reforming the system so that processing times are fair and reasonable for refugees. We do not think the bill does that to the extent that it should. As I outlined at the beginning, the amount of authority given to the minister is beyond.

The legislative proposal of the bill has quite a number of impacts. It would allow the minister to create a safe list of countries identified as being designated countries of origin. Claimants from those designated countries of origin would be subject to specific guidelines, including expedited application processing and denial of access to the refugee appeal division.

It would allow the minister to determine who was part of an irregular arrival, and therefore a designated foreign national. Designated foreign nationals would not have access to the refugee appeals division.

The bill would include all the proposed changes that, if members will recall, were in Bill C-4. However in Bill C-31, minors, those under the age of 16, would be excluded from the mandatory detention. On that we would have to say congratulations for that slight change.

Biometric data would be required from temporary resident visa applications or those applying for a study or work permit.

Refugees would be at risk of losing protection status. Changes would be made through the bill to prohibit individuals from applying for humanitarian and compassionate consideration while awaiting an IRB decision. Failed refugee claimants would not be able to apply for a year following negative refugee decisions. Those are the kinds of impacts that we see in the bill.

As a party, we cannot support the bill. In addition to the humanitarian and constitutional issues raised by the bill, key points which we oppose include the following: the ability of the Minister of Public Safety to unilaterally determine which groups would be irregular arrivals and, as I said, that would give undue power to the minister; and the ability of the minister to unilaterally determine which countries would belong on the safe list and would be designated countries of origin.

Again, what would be the absolute criteria in terms of making those decisions? Maybe the minister, if he does get up, could explain that further. There have to be more criteria than what we see in the bill currently, so that there would not be just political considerations on the part of the minister to make these decisions.

Another point is the lengthy mandatory detentions related to those deemed designated foreign nationals and the lack of a timely review process.

On this, Canadians are concerned, and rightly so. I would say that the government is correct in saying that there are concerns out there. When there are people who enter the country improperly, it does take too long to get decisions made for many in the refugee process. If people have to be removed from the country, it is a long and burdensome process.

Canadians are dissatisfied with that. It needs to be addressed through legislation. It has to be done in a way that is fair and balanced, and includes due process. We are concerned that at the moment it does not.

The last point I would make is that we are concerned about the removal of the appeal process of designated foreign nationals and individuals from designated countries of origin.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, the member portrayed a fundamental misunderstanding of the legislation when he said that the bill concentrates, in the hands of the minister, the power to decide who may or may not make asylum claims in Canada.

That is patently and completely incorrect. The bill would do no such thing. All claimants from all countries, whether designated by the minister or not, whether they have arrived in a designated smuggling operation or not, would have the same access to an oral hearing at the IRB on the merits of their claim. No one would be denied access at the discretion of the minister or on the basis of their country of origin.

Safe country claimants and claimants determined to be manifestly unfounded would have an accelerated process, which the Liberals and the NDP already agreed to in the last Parliament in Bill C-11. What Bill C-31 changes is that it removes access to the refugee appeal division for safe country claimants. However, under the Liberals, for 13 years they refused to give any failed asylum claimants access to a refugee appeal division.

Why is the member opposed to a bill that gives the vast majority of failed claimants access to a fact-based appeal when his government, in which he was a minister, refused to give any failed refugee claimants access to a fact-based appeal?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, what I outlined for the minister were our concerns with the amount of authority and power encapsulated with the minister's decisions. One of our greatest concerns with this particular legislation is that it goes too far in sourcing authority with one authority within the Government of Canada.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member aware of the provisions in the current legislation that say that when smugglers are arrested, they may incur a fine of $1 million and imprisonment for life? In the context of the bill, can the hon. member tell us how there can be any stronger punishment for smugglers than what is provided for in the current legislation and if he thinks that the government is trying to refocus the legislation on refugees to try to send them back to their own country?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the way the question came through to me, and maybe it is a matter of my interpretation of the language, is why penalize the smugglers further.

I do not think that is the issue. I have no problem penalizing the operatives behind smuggling people into Canada illegally. Those who take money from people who are looking for greater opportunities in life, who see Canada as a beacon of hope and who end up paying huge sums of money to get shoved on a ship or, as the member said earlier, in a container to come Canada, should be penalized to the full extent of the law.

What I am concerned about is the individuals who happen pay those moneys under false pretenses, probably knowing it was wrong but, given their circumstances in their home countries, feeling trapped. Those are the people I am concerned about. They need to be treated with fairness and due process when they arrive in this country.

However, the people who are behind those illegal actions that would entrap those individuals in that kind of a campaign are the ones who should be dealt with to the full extent of the law.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-31, the protecting Canada's immigration system act, one of the most advanced and modern immigration acts to date.

Members of the House already know that the integrity of Canada's immigration system is a key priority for the government of Canada. To maintain the integrity of our immigration system is also a concern of my constituents in the riding of Pickering--Scarborough East.

Canada has the fairest, most generous immigration system in the world. However, Canadians have no tolerance for people who abuse our generosity and take advantage of our country. We have to take steps to clamp down on these abuses. Our government is determined to strengthen the integrity of Canada's immigration system.

The protecting Canada's immigration system act would make our refugee system faster and fairer. We have already taken actions that underscore this. These include measures to crack down on crooked immigration consultants. We are also cracking down on immigration and citizenship fraud. The legislation in front of the House today is another key part of that effort.

No Canadian thinks it is acceptable for criminals to abuse Canada's immigration system for financial gain through the crime of human smuggling. This legislation would put a stop to foreign criminals, human smugglers and bogus refugees abusing our generous immigration system and receiving lucrative taxpayer funded health and social benefits.

Human smugglers manipulate our immigration system for financial gain. They charge their passengers upwards of $50,000 to be smuggled into Canada. The passage can be extremely dangerous onboard rickety ships that either leak or should not be in commission. Every year, thousands of people die while on these dangerous trips.

We must make no mistake that human smuggling is a despicable enterprise and yet human smuggling networks in Southeast Asia are large and growing. By charging people large sums of money for their transportation, human smugglers are making a lucrative business out of facilitating illegal immigration.

Human smugglers in various countries around the world are working on large operations as we speak. In fact, the international media very recently reported the dismantling of a large human smuggling operation in Togo that was planning to bring hundreds of immigrants to Canada on yet another dangerous voyage in a rickety boat.

These human smuggling arrivals are not events from the past. They are events that are being planned right now and will continue into the future. We must take action now. The human smugglers are playing a dangerous game with people's lives. It is a game the government wants no part of. The legislation before the House is a strong and necessary response to the crime of human smuggling.

This legislation would punish human smugglers. It would also help to discourage those who would rely on human smugglers to come to Canada by this irregular means.

The changes put forward in this bill would enable the Minister of Public Safety to designate the arrival of a person to Canada as an irregular arrival. This designation would make those involved subject to the proposed act's measures. The legislation would make it easier to prosecute human smugglers and strengthen the criminal laws in response to human smuggling.

The bill would make shipowners and operators accountable for the use of their ships in human smuggling operations. It would introduce stiffer penalties and fines, including mandatory minimum prison sentences, for those convicted of human smuggling.

The actions of these human smugglers and the irregular immigrants they bring to our shores represent a real challenge to our ability to conduct rigorous identity and admissibility examinations. The arrivals of the Ocean Lady and the MV Sun Sea taxed our system heavily, particularly with respect to conducting the required identity and admissibility examination in a timely manner.

Human smuggling undermines the integrity of Canada's borders and it poses an unacceptable risk to the safety and security of Canadians. We must be in a position to verify whether these individuals have been involved in any other illegal activity and whether they are admissible to Canada.

The legislation would protect Canadians by establishing the mandatory detention of irregular arrivals for up to one year, excluding those who are under the age of 16. This provision would provide us with the time we need to perform proper investigations, to confirm the identities of passengers and to determine whether they pose a risk to the safety of Canadians before they are released.

The government also recognizes that the best interests of a child must come first and that each situation would be considered on a case-by-case basis. In cases where it is determined that it is in the best interests of a child to remain with the parents or guardian, the Canada Border Services Agency would house the minor child with the parents or guardians.

Like all persons 16 years of age or older who are subject to the mandatory detention provision of the new legislation, the parent of an accepted minor could also avail themselves of the exceptional circumstances provision and request release from detention from the Minister of Public Safety. This provision would provide enough flexibility for the minister to grant release to the parents of accepted minors if, in the minister's opinion, exceptional circumstances warranted release.

We are also introducing measures that would discourage people from arriving in Canada by these irregular means.

Canadians have an acute sense of fairness and have no tolerance for people who pay human smugglers thousands of dollars to come to Canada to jump the queue. Canadian immigrants who have followed all the rules and waited patiently in line to come to this great country have told our government they want us to put a stop to queue-jumpers who come to Canada using illegal means.

Through Bill C-31 we would ensure that the medical benefits received by these arrivals under the interim federal health program are not more generous than those received by the average Canadian.

We would also impose a five-year bar on applications for permanent resident status for protected persons who are part of a designated irregular arrival. We have determined this bar to be a reasonable period of time to serve as a deterrent to migrants arriving in this illegal manner. We believe the five-year bar will reduce the attraction of coming to Canada.

Every eligible refugee claimant would be entitled to a fair and independent hearing before the independent Immigration and Refugee Board, the IRB. However, under the proposed legislation before the House, refugee claimants who are part of a designated irregular arrival and who have received a negative decision from the IRB would not be eligible to appeal that decision to the refugee appeal division. As well, during this time if refugee claimants return to their country of origin from which they are claiming persecution or demonstrate in other ways that they are not in legitimate need of Canada's protection, we can take steps to cease their refugee or protected person status and remove them from Canada.

Taken together these measures underscore the government's commitment to preserving the integrity of Canada's borders and immigration system and our national security. At the same time, we will continue to ensure that those who genuinely need our protection receive it.

However, do not just take it from me. This is what Balan Ratnarajah, president of the Peel Tamil Community Centre, had to say:

We are pleased to see the Government taking action to deter human smugglers who charge victims enormous sums of money.

Those who take part in human smuggling make our immigration system less fair for legal immigrants. We believe that the Government should have the tools it needs to protect the fairness of our immigration system.

We on the government side want to ensure that Canada is not an easy target for human smugglers. We want to discourage migrants from taking part in these ventures that place their lives at risk, and we want to protect the safety and security of Canadians.

These measures are necessary and fair. I urge all members of the House to support this important legislation.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as you might suspect, the NDP is strongly opposed to this bill, which punishes refugees instead of offering them a rapid and equitable system.

I have a question. This bill concentrates more powers in the hands of the minister by allowing him to designate safe countries and to restrict the number of refugees from these countries.

Under the old bill C-11, this decision was made by a group of experts, including experts in human rights. Why is this change being made?

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to emphasize what another member said in the House, that the minister does not have outrageous power like those in various dictatorial countries. He would be making his decision on bogus refugees based on consultations on the situations arising in the countries where these refugees originate. The decision would be made in a wise and orderly manner. It is not a matter of one person having all of the power but a decision made in a wide consultation on the facts and events, all which will decide the issue.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are several sections of the act. Being changed are all of the following: the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, the Marine Transportation Security Act and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act.

If I am correct in what I am hearing from the opposition benches, almost all of our criticisms relate specifically to the decision that refugee claimants who have arrived here by irregular entry, largely meaning ships but potentially other means too, would have to go into some form of internment or detention for up to a year. That is what we find most objectionable.

Is the government open to amending the act to take that out and find other means to keep track of new people who have arrived on our shores?

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is an issue of public safety and security. We need to be able to determine that these refugees are not posing a threat to Canada. Sometimes when they come here with fake passports and documents, we do not know whom we are dealing with. Therefore, it is important that we put the security and safety of Canadians first.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to pick up on what the hon. member said about safety and security for Canada.

In 1998, under Liberal immigration policy, a man arrived in Canada under a forged French passport. He was allowed to stay. Although his refugee claim was turned down, he was not deported and later crossed the border into the United States in December of 1999 with a car packed full of explosives destined for the Los Angeles airport.

I wonder if the member could speak to how Bill C-31 would prevent something like that from happening again.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important for us to protect the safety and security of Canadians.

As members know, I fought in Afghanistan. With the events that are taking place in the world today, it is very important for us to be able to identify threats to the good people here in Canada.

The House resumed from March 15 consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, the Marine Transportation Security Act and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased with this opportunity to rise in support of Bill C-31, protecting Canada's immigration system act. This legislation would strengthen Canada's immigration and refugee program in a number of very important ways.

The legislation before us would build on our government's already impressive track record for welcoming newcomers, while preserving the integrity of our borders and taking action to crack down on those who abuse our generosity. Our government will be increasing the number of refugees we will resettle in Canada by 20% year over year. We will be increasing the number of resettled refugees by 2,500 additional refugees. This is on top of the fact that Canada is already receiving one resettled refugee out of every ten in the world. Canada has a very strong track record of providing assistance and sanctuary for refugees who are in genuine need of protection. Under our government, that track record has markedly improved.

As the Prime Minister has noted in the past, Canada not only has, relatively speaking, the largest immigration program in the world and the most generous system of sanctuary for refugees in the world, we also have a level of public support for immigration that is unparalleled anywhere else in the world. Canada welcomes thousands of new immigrants and refugees every year through one of the most generous and fair refugee systems in the world. Since 2006, the Conservative government has welcomed the highest sustained average of immigration in Canada's history. This is a source of pride for our government and a reflection of the generosity of our nation.

However, while Canadians are generous, we are not naive. Canadians will not tolerate those who abuse our generosity. Canadians will not tolerate the acts of sophisticated criminal organizations whose only motive is profit and who prey on those who seek a better life by making promises that they can get them into Canada. Bill C-31 therefore introduces important reforms to deter individuals and organized crime groups from engaging in illegal and dangerous human smuggling operations.

In 2010, Canadians were given a sober reminder that our country is not immune from organized criminal groups intent on making a profit from human smuggling. The arrival of the migrant vessel Sun Sea came less than one year after the arrival of the Ocean Lady. The fact that these vessels reached our shores less than 12 months apart clearly demonstrates that human smuggling networks are targeting Canada as a destination and that they can use the generosity of our immigration system and the promise of a new life in Canada as a means of profit.

Recent international media reports of a massive smuggling ring headed for Canada that was recently dismantled in Togo are a reminder that human smuggling is a problem that will not go away. Human smuggling is a crime that recklessly endangers lives. We must take action now so we can address the challenges confronting us.

Yes, Canada is a welcoming nation but our government has clearly stated that we cannot tolerate the abuse of our immigration system, either by human smugglers or by those who are unwilling to play by the rules. Canadian immigrants who waited in line have no tolerance for those who use illegal means to jump the queue. That is why today our government is moving forward with the protecting Canada's immigration system act. Through this act, our government would crack down on those criminals who would abuse our generous immigration system and endanger the safety and security of Canadian communities. We would ensure the integrity and fairness of Canada's immigration system for years to come.

Among many measures under Bill C-31, our government would: enable the Minister of Public Safety to declare the existence of a human smuggling event and make those involved subject to the act's measures; make it easier to prosecute human smugglers; impose mandatory minimum sentences on convicted human smugglers; and hold ship owners and operators to account for the use of their ships in human smuggling operations. It is important to note that, unlike Bill C-4, Bill C-31 includes an exemption from detention for minors under the age of 16. Under this act, our government would also reduce the attraction of coming to Canada by way of an illegal human smuggling operation.

This includes measures like: preventing those who come to Canada as part of a human smuggling event from applying for permanent resident status for up to five years should they successfully apply for refugee status; ensuring the health benefits participants receive are not more generous than those received by the Canadian public; and preventing individuals who participate in human smuggling events from sponsoring family members for a five-year period. These measures are tough, but they are fair.

All Canadians expect our borders and shores to be protected and secure and our generous system protected from abuse. To those who want to jump the queue or target Canada for criminal gain, these measures would be a message: Canada will not tolerate human smuggling.

Human smuggling provisions in Bill C-31 have been widely praised. This is what Michael Deakin-Macey, past president of the board of directors of the Victoria Immigration and Refugee Centre Society said:

Canada is a generous country with an immigration system that treats both immigrants and refugees very well, however there are those who are not willing to wait their turn in line and criminals who would profit from this. Instead, they want to jump the immigration queue and make their way to Canada through any means available to them, often bypassing several hospitable countries and travelling halfway around the world to land on our shores.... As a result of this human smuggling, honest and legal would-be immigrants who are waiting patiently and anxiously in the queue are penalized while the smuggled refugees' claims are processed.... To all reasonable observers, the criminal enterprise that is human smuggling is an abuse of both Canada's generosity and the honesty of all the other immigrant applicants.... We are pleased that the Government has sent a clear message that it will not be tolerated, and we welcome the introduction of the legislation preventing human smugglers from in effect creating an unfair two-tier immigration system, one for the impatient rich and the other for the honest applicant.

The measures which our government is introducing in Bill C-31 would enhance our ability to crack down on those who engage in human smuggling and who try to exploit Canada's generous immigration system. They would strengthen our ability to protect Canadians from criminal or terrorist threats. They would respect our international obligation to provide assistance to those legitimate refugees who need our protection and help to start a new and better life.

From coast to coast to coast, Canadians want to help those in need or those who genuinely need our protection. That does not make us naive and it does not make us pushovers. Canadians want tough but fair measures to stop those who would abuse our generosity from becoming part of Canadian society. That is why our government is taking action. That is what our government is doing today and this is what we are going to continue to do in the future.

I urge all members to support this important piece of legislation.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that has come to my attention is that most of the strengthening of Canada's immigration system will happen anyway without this bill. In June of this year there will be implementation of the former Bill C-11, which in fact does the things the government keeps talking about need to be done. They are already going to be done.

What is so urgent and necessary that we undo what was agreed to before and now present something completely different, much more restrictive and not agreed to by the other parties in the House? Can the member outline what significant differences there are that are so egregious, that so many false refugee claims would not be captured by the existing Bill C-11?

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, clearly there are gaps in what was in Bill C-11. Those gaps are being completed by this bill. That would actually prevent refugee claims from countries where there are no persecutions or prosecutions taking place.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, if members noticed, today I am wearing green to celebrate St. Patrick's Day, which is tomorrow. I notice a bit of green in the chamber today, which is wonderful. That is my heritage. My relatives came to Canada well over 100 years ago because of great opportunities. We have the greatest country in the world. The bill today is an effort to make sure we maintain Canada as the best place for people to come to. We all recognize that there are issues with our system. This bill would tighten up on people who take advantage of our generous system.

I want to ask my colleague if his constituents would agree that people with no identities who could pose a risk should be let onto our streets before their identities are determined?

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada clearly is one of the best countries in the world, certainly for me. I have lived in many countries, and Canada is the best country in the world.

We want to keep it that way. That is why we want to make sure that some of the measures in this bill would actually help us prevent criminals and other people who are abusing the system from coming into this country, making it not the best country in the world.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, members will notice that today I am wearing grey. The reason I am wearing grey is because of the dark cloud that is hanging over heads because of this bill. There are so many problems with this bill that I do not even know where to begin.

First, I would like to thank the member for his exposé. I think it was well considered although flawed.

Parts of this bill talk about exceptions for safe country designations, where members of the LGBT community may very well not be able to have access to our refugee system. The minister would not be able to use those designations any more to determine whether a country is actually safe. I would say being gay in Mexico can be very dangerous. In fact, many people have lost their lives.

I do not agree with the way this bill is written. I would really like to hear the member's comments on how lesbian and gay people in the world would be able to access this great country of ours. I think one of the reasons it is such a great country is because we welcome people who are in danger in other countries. With this bill, we would not be able to do that. People's lives would be at risk. I would like to hear the member's comments on risking people's lives for political purposes.

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again, there are countries where gays, lesbians or whatever bent someone may have are quite safe, and actually perform very well from that point of view.

There are abuses by claimants from countries like Mexico that have taken place in the last year. We can see where claims of being “of that gender” or whatever have been made, when it is totally false. In fact at one point I think there were 1,500 people coming in from Mexico every month.

There is a balance that needs to be made. I believe this bill gives that balance.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that we are talking about our clothing colour, I am wearing some green but also some black today in honour of my heritage but also to remind people that it is a gloomy day here in the House.

The bill undoes a lot of good work that took place in the last Parliament and, although I asked my friend opposite what exactly the differences were, all he could say was that there were gaps. What the government is now doing is creating gaps, where those gaps had been filled, where there was agreement by the parties to fix the problems with the legislation in such a way that all circumstances were taken care of. We have now created a whole bunch of gaps in this legislation that are glaring by their example, as was evidenced a few moments ago.

Those in some countries who may be declared safe but who happen to belong to the gay and lesbian community may in fact be refugees. However, under this new bill, they would not have the opportunity to be exempted from the rather horrendous provision of having to have a hearing within 15 days and, if they do not win, they are out.

Government members argued at some length in earlier speeches that a significant percentage of supposed refugee claimants abandoned their claim in the course of that period of time. We, on this side of the House, agree that we do not want fake claims. We do not want to encourage a system where people are coming to this country merely to abuse our system. Bill C-11, in the previous Parliament, would have fixed the problem of the fake claimants. It would have fixed the problem to everyone's satisfaction and to the minister's satisfaction. The minister praised the bill. What has changed between Bill C-11 of the last Parliament and now in terms of Canada's refugee system? Absolutely nothing. Nothing has changed since then to warrant such new and draconian measures being placed into this legislation.

The new law would have taken effect in June of this year. We could have had a law that had been through the process and was ready to roll, that fixed all of the problems, which are being talked about again in the House, of the abuse of Canada's refugee system. Those things would have been fixed and we are throwing it away. We are wasting an awful lot of time, energy and resources, but for what purpose?

One of the things that is glaring in the bill that maybe is the purpose is the absolute power it would give the minister. The minister would have the absolute power, and despite the comments from the other side that he would consult, ultimately it falls within the power of one human being to determine for most of the planet whether people are safe from persecution or not.

Lord Acton of Britain stated that, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men”. Those words were spoken over 100 years ago in the British system to describe what happens when someone is given too much power. It becomes a corrupting influence. I have the utmost of regard for the current Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism. I think he will probably do a good job, but who knows who will come next?

We in Toronto have discovered just what happens when power is given to the person in charge. During David Miller's term as mayor, there was a big push on the part of the mayor to give the mayor more power to select an executive committee and to run things in a much more autocratic way. We can see what happened. We ended up with a mayor who is now abusing that power, who is running amok and who now faces the possibility of being stripped of his office as a result of the power that he has used.

That is what comes from putting too much power into the hands of one individual, and that is part of what the bill would do. It would create a system that would put everything into the hands of one individual, and we do not know who that individual will be next.

We also have situations where exemptions, exceptions that were provided for in Bill C-11, have been eliminated. For example, an individual in my riding is a coroner working for the police in what will probably be designated as a safe country. The person came to Canada as a refugee because the police told him that they could no longer protect him because he had given too much evidence against the criminal gangs that happen to exist in that country. Although the country is generally safe, that individual had to leave a beautiful home, a successful practice and quite a well-to-do lifestyle in that country because his life was in danger. The person has now gone through several stages of applying to be a refugee, which is very difficult to establish for an individual coming from such circumstances.

The bill would probably send that person back to that country to probably be killed because that country is designated as safe country, and that is wrong. The minister needs the ability to find exemptions. Individuals need to access to the legal system and access to justice, but that is being denied them by this 15 day maximum time period.

I also want to talk a bit about the old Bill C-4, which is now rolled into this bill, the Sun Sea and Ocean Lady part of the bill that suggests that persons who the minister, again leaving the power in the hands of one individual, a different minister this time, declares as irregular arrivals would make victims of those individuals.

We have heard over and over again about how the government is on the side of the victim. It is not here t in this bill. Those individuals who were innocent until they arrived in Canada are now the victims and are now to be punished by being incarcerated the day they set foot in Canada as soon as the minister declares that arrival to be an irregular arrive, which clearly would have been the case with the Sun Sea and the Ocean Lady, and probably many other arrivals we do not even know about that the minister is keeping tabs on.

That is wrong. It is wrong to create victims where victims do not exist. We all agree that persons who engage in human smuggling ought to be punished, ought to be rooted out and ought to be held to account. However, not the individuals who are seeking refuge in this country and found that the only way they could get here was through this kind of mechanism. That is how desperate people are in these countries. They accept that they need to get here through human smuggling because they have no other way to get here. We have now made victims of those individuals and that is not in keeping with what the government keeps telling us that it is all about.

We are, in fact, on the side of the victims. We are, in fact, on the side of the individuals who have been persecuted in their own country, escape by whatever means and who should not be victimized. They should not be made into criminals merely because of the means of their arrival in Canada.

The final little piece of the bill is making e victims of children. In the previous bill, Bill C-4, the government forgot that persons under 16 probably should not be slapped in jail. What has it done? Instead of saying that the parents of children under 16 will not be put in jail, the government has now said that the parents will be put in jail but the children will not. Where will that leave the children? What kind of message does that send?

I will wrap up by saying that we should not be making further victims of the children who come to this country as refugees but that, apparently, is what the bill would do.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are many parts of the bill that make me feel uneasy. At the very end of his speech, my friend mentioned the part that I would like to concentrate on.

The Government of Canada over the years has a very checkered history when it comes to detention. We do have a history of sending refugees away, sometimes to their death. We do have a history of detaining and jailing Italian Canadians, Ukrainian Canadians and Japanese Canadians. Therefore, there is a very slippery slope with respect to those kinds of measures in the bill.

I will talk about detention for a moment and children in particular. In the bill, children will have two choices. They can either stay with their parents in detention or are put into foster care. I do not think either of those are good options. For children, who have just come to the country and may not know the language that is spoken, to be put into foster care away from their parents, regardless of their age, is not a good option, The other option is to stay with their parents in jail. I wonder if my friend would like to make a further comment on that.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House start from the premise that people who come here as refugees should never be incarcerated, no matter how they arrive. However, the government appears to be trying to fix things by moving jigsaw pieces in a puzzle that actually will not fit together. Admittedly, there is a suggestion that we need to crack down on the people who would smuggle individuals but we do not do that by making victims and we do not do it by making victims of children. It is like a Sophie's choice for the parents. They can either have their children in jail or send them to live with someone else. That is wrong. We should not put people in that position. No one should put people in that position.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague's statement exemplifies again, what I have seen as a new member of Parliament, the positions of members in the House where we have the same feeling about things but very different approaches to dealing with them.

This may be more of a comment than a question. My hon. colleague is standing in the House and basically making the assumption or telling all Canadians that all irregular arrivals to this country are legitimate refugee claimants and that they are victims. He does not seem to be acknowledging that there are people who arrive on our shores who not only pay human smugglers but who are criminals and are dangerous people. I will not say that is every one of them. I certainly agree with some of the concerns that he has about it.

However, it would be responsible for him to stand in the House and recognize that some of the people arriving on Canadian shores in an irregular fashion are the kind of people we do not need or want in Canada and should be detained until we determining their intentions. Canadians deserve to be protected from them. Legal claimants who have gone through the system should have the integrity of that system protected by making them enter Canada the proper way.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to agree with my hon. colleague. I wonder if he would put amendments forward to the bill to do exactly what he just suggested. He suggested that we should distinguish between people who are criminals and those who are not, even if they come as irregular arrivals. We agree. We do not want criminals using Canada as a refuge anymore than the Conservatives do but we should not be punishing people who are not criminals simply because of the mechanism by which they arrived in this country.

Going back to my friend's comment about arriving from Ireland many years ago, to some, the Irish immigrants were criminals in their own country and should not have been permitted entry into the country, but here we are. We should not be determining people's criminal status on the basis of how they arrived here. I would welcome any amendments that the member opposite would like to put forward to the bill to create that distinction.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-31, the protecting Canada's immigration system act.

Canada's refugee system is among the most generous in the world. In fact, Canada currently welcomes one out of every ten resettled refugees worldwide. Our humanitarian efforts have been recognized by the United Nations.

Since World War II, Canada has provided a safe haven for over one million refugees. As a Canadian, I am proud of this compassionate tradition of ours. There should be no doubt that Canada's government is committed to continuing this proud tradition. By 2013, Canada will resettle up to 14,500 refugees, an increase of 2,500 refugees compared to 2010.

In introducing Bill C-31, our rationale is simple. By focusing the resources of our system and providing protection to those who genuinely need it, we will improve our ability to help those in need. The Balanced Refugee Reform Act, which was passed in June 2010, made some important reforms, but the fact is that gaps remain in the new system.

For one, the asylum system is already overwhelmed by a significant backlog of cases. The growing number of bogus claims from European Union democracies is only exacerbating the problem.

The facts speak for themselves and are strong proof of the need for Bill C-31. It is very telling that the opposition in its criticism does not refute any of these facts, but instead chooses to conveniently ignore them.

Last year Canada received 5,800 refugee claims from the European Union. This amounted to a quarter of all refugee claims made last year. That is more than from Africa and Asia. Canada's top source country for refugee claims was Hungary, an EU member state. In fact, Canada received 4,400 claims from Hungary alone last year, double the amount received the year before.

Virtually all claims from the European Union in the past two years were abandoned, withdrawn or rejected by the independent Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. It has become quite apparent that too many of our tax dollars are being spent on people who do not need our protection. These bogus refugee claims from the EU are costing Canadian taxpayers $170 million per year.

Building on the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, the passage of Bill C-31 would save taxpayers a whopping $1.65 billion over the next five years. I think Canadians would agree that this money could be better spent elsewhere rather than on failed refugee claimants who abuse our refugee system and use it as a backdoor into our country. This is precisely what is being done right now under the current system. We are using taxpayer dollars to support people who should not be here in the first place.

Indeed, the average failed refugee claim currently costs taxpayers approximately $55,000. That is because the current system is far too slow. On average, it can take up to 4.5 years from the time an initial claim is made until a failed claimant is removed from Canada. During this time, claimants can access taxpayer funded health care and receive taxpayer funded social assistance for several years while their claim is still pending. Endless appeals and long wait times mean greater costs to Canadian taxpayers.

These bogus refugee claims are bogging down the system. This is negatively impacting genuine refugees who are in need of Canada's protection. People in genuine need of our protection now wait up to 20 months for a decision on their claim. This is unfair to genuine claimants. As a result, our message to genuine claimants who are waiting patiently in line is that we are sorry it is taking so long.

This just is not fair. It is an abuse of our country's generosity. It robs genuine claimants of their ability to get protection quickly. It deprives them of the peace of mind they and their families deserve.

The NDP and the Liberals, by not supporting Bill C-31, are telling immigrants who patiently waited in line that the opposition supports queue-jumping and those who break the rules to get to the front of the line. The opposition is on the wrong side of Canadians, especially Canadian immigrants who followed all the rules.

Given these problems with the current refugee system, it should be obvious to any Canadian that further improvements are needed.

Bill C-31 would not only improve upon the current refugee system and the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, it would also make it faster for genuine refugees to get our protection.

The success of the new system hinges on our ability to speed up the current processing times for refugee claims. This is essential because the less time claimants spend in Canada awaiting a decision, the less incentive there is for people to abuse our generous asylum system and to queue-jump the regular immigration process. Also, speeding up the current processing time for refugee claims means genuine refugees will get our protection more quickly.

Hearings at the Immigration and Refugee Board for claimants from safe countries would occur within 30 to 45 days. In comparison, under the current system it takes an astounding average of 1,000 days to process a refugee claim.

I want to make one important point very clear. Every eligible claim will continue to be heard by the independent Immigration and Refugee Board. In addition, every failed claimant will have access to at least one recourse mechanism, such as the refugee appeal division or the Federal Court.

These new processing timelines not only mean people who are in genuine need of Canada's protection will receive it more quickly, they also mean we can more quickly remove those who do not.

This is what was written in the Globe and Mail about Bill C-31:

The immigration minister's...refugee reforms, aimed at making the process more efficient and decisive, are generally good. If implemented, they will improve the unwieldy asylum program....The legislation rightly focuses on weeding out claimants who are not genuine, and stemming the flow of asylum seekers from countries such as Mexico and Hungary that are democracies with respect for basic rights and freedoms....Fast-tracking refugee claims from these countries, and ensuring failed claimants are promptly deported, is an excellent way to ensure Canada does not become a magnet for abuse.

The spike in unfounded claims from democracies where human and democratic rights exist and which are not typically refugee producing is proof that we must act decisively to deter abuse of our refugee system.

Quick removals would deter abuse and contribute to reducing the overall costs associated with these bogus refugee claims.

We need to send the right message to both types of refugee claimants: the genuine and the unfounded. Those who truly need our help will get it even faster, but if someone is not in need of protection, that individual will be sent home quickly.

These proposed measures will continue to meet our domestic and international obligations. They will also maintain the balance and fairness that are the foundations of our refugee system. I am confident that they will honour the spirit and support for refugees that Canadians value.

I urge all members of the House to support this important legislation and help to provide a quicker and more secure beginning here in Canada for victims of violence and persecution around the world.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech.

I do not know if he shares my concerns, but it seems as though there is a fundamental problem with balance in this bill, which puts more power into the hands of the minister by allowing him to determine which countries should be designated safe and to restrict the number of refugees from those countries. Does this worry the hon. member?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the rhetoric that has gone on with the bill over the last number of days is not important. What is actually in the bill and the facts are important.

In the previous bill the rules were quantified in regulations. The bill puts into legislation the definition of a safe country and the qualifications for a safe country. The applications that are turned down by a large majority, those that do not qualify, from certain countries will define what is a safe country. It is the applications that will define that, not the minister. We are putting it into legislation. We are not waiting for regulations for that to happen. We are being proactive.

That is what the minister has done on all immigration files. He has been proactive to make a difference for Canadians and to make a difference for legitimate refugees.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has been a wonderful mentor to me since I have been in this House.

I would like to thank the minister for his work on this file. I have had the honour to work with the minister for two years. His courage in demonstrating and enacting transformational change on this file is incredible. I am sure that Canadian history will show his courage and foresight in protecting our country.

Our immigration act has been one of the cornerstones of Canada's reputation abroad. My parents are immigrants. Many other people in this House are immigrants themselves.

We need to strengthen the system because Canada is a fair and generous place in the world and we want it to remain so.

The hon. member talked about several things. He talked about fairness. He talked about making sure the timelines are much shorter for genuine refugees and being able to screen out the bogus refugees, saving Canadian taxpayers $1.65 billion over five years. That is money which could be used to much better effect in this country over time.

What does the hon. member think the overall impact of this legislation would be on Canada's reputation around the world?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as members have experienced, even the member for Malpeque, unless he is talking to himself as usual, refugee claimants come into our offices. Some of them have been in Canada for three, four, five years. This legislation would help to remove the backlog so their cases could be heard on a timely basis. Legitimate refugees could have their cases heard, the decisions made and their families could move forward with their lives.

That is not happening under the current system. The change proposed in Bill C-31 will speed up that process to make sure that those legitimate refugees who come into our offices on a weekly basis get their cases heard and become Canadians as soon as possible.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I was worried for a moment. I was thinking there would be a family hug over there, but not quite.

The member talked about the concerns for legitimate refugee claimants. We agree that legitimate refugee claimants have to be processed quickly. The problem with this particular piece of legislation is that it will make victims of people who are already victimized.

Does the member not see that to be the case? There will be those who have been taken advantage of by shysters, who think they will be coming to their dream world in Canada, and then they are made victims.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned when the member for Malpeque claims he is thinking.

My answer is simple. What exists now is that those shysters, as the member called them, present Canada as a place where it is easy for people to get refugee status and they can get into Canada because it is an open door. The way this legislation is structured makes sure that those criminals know that Canada is not a free ride, as they have been trying to sell to those poor people who get on their boats.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply saddened that Canadians must once again rise up to oppose a morally despicable bill. This omnibus bill quite simply stands for the opposite of a Canada that is open to the world. I would like to remind the House that the people who will be treated like criminals after this bill is passed are refugees, and thus people who are already victims. They are women and children, victims of torture, abuse and rape. They are the victims of the most abject poverty.

A few months ago in the House, I spoke out against Bill C-4, which has now been incorporated into Bill C-31. This bill uses an outdated refugee system and makes the situation much worse. There are already 450 immigrants with no status imprisoned in Canada. No charges have been laid against them, and they have no idea when they will be released or whether they will be deported. The detention centres where they are being held are prisons. These institutions are holding people captive against their will.

Canada is already guilty of imprisoning children who are seeking asylum. We are imprisoning people who have not been accused of any crime without giving them access to a lawyer. We are systematically imprisoning people who are traumatized by political conflicts, abuse and extreme poverty. The excessive use of detention centres to imprison asylum seekers is a disgrace to our country's integrity, and the bill being debated here only makes matters worse.

There are a number of problems. First, Bill C-31 indicates that anyone who is arbitrarily deemed to be a designated claimant at the whim of the minister will automatically be detained and will not have his file reviewed for a full year. I must remind the hon. members that this is unacceptable. We should not be imprisoning asylum seekers.

Bill C-31 gives the Minister of Immigration excessive and abusive power. This bill gives the minister the absolute power to designate a refugee claimant as irregular thereby taking away his liberty and mobility and even compromising his safety. The minister can destroy lives without any control mechanisms or checks and balances.

The minister alone will decide which countries refugees can come from and which ones they cannot come from. Categorizing countries like that is absurd. Knowing the state of the country is not enough. That is just one factor. A person's characteristics can make a normally safe country very dangerous for that person. A person who is lesbian, gay or transgender can be subjected to systemic discrimination and persecution even in a country that the minister considers safe.

I fear for such people from countries that the minister designates as safe. Furthermore, there is no way to ensure that a country will not be designated safe for purely political reasons. Refugees from Mexico, for example, are rarely granted refugee status in Canada because, for reasons of international relations, the government does not want to admit that Mexico can be very dangerous.

Mexico is becoming more and more dangerous for many people. Earlier this year, one of my constituents came to my office with his family. He was about to be deported after having lived and worked in Canada for eight years. He had not committed any crime. He was about to be deported and would be facing an extremely dangerous situation upon returning to his country of origin. He feared for his life. Because the process is not very transparent, we do not know if he was deported for a specific reason or simply because the minister decided that refugees from Mexico are not legitimate.

Such excessive power with no accountability should not be given to a single institution, let alone a single man. That is why an independent organization made up of non-partisan experts should be in charge of such decisions, which should never be left up to the immigration minister.

I want to close my speech by focusing on how this bill will, in particular, victimize refugee women. I have consulted with the Ending Violence Association, which along with MOSAIC and Multicultural Family Support Services, has recently completed a fulsome study on the safety of immigrant refugee and non-status women in Canada.

The Ending Violence Association is facing a major crisis. Immigrant and refugee claimant women who are experiencing abuse and violence cannot leave the situation of abuse if they are dependent on their husband who is the principal refugee claimant. They will immediately lose their status if they leave him. He could categorically withdraw his sponsorship and she would be deported. Especially if there are children involved in the situation, it is plain to see how Canada's immigration and refugee laws are currently facilitating and perpetuating violence.

We must take account of these women and children through our laws. To not address this systemic problem is in my opinion criminally negligent. When I explained to the representative from the Ending Violence Association some of the new laws that would likely be passed by the government, her face went white with fear.

In general, we can see how each and every point in this omnibus bill will make the lives of abused refugee and non-status women worse. They will have more fear and less legal protection, less access to health care and less access to services. They will have the threat of imprisonment and deportation hanging precariously over their heads and those of their children.

The bill would make it impossible to women to apply for humanitarian and compassionate appeals unless she did so upon her point of arrival. This makes no sense if she is living in a situation of domestic abuse.

I cannot see how this legislation will improve our immigration and refugee laws when every clause inspires fear in me and those who work every day protecting and advocating for refugees who are surely one of the most vulnerable populations in Canada.

I urge the House to scrap the bill entirely, since many of its provisions are entirely contrary to our Constitution and to the UN convention relating to the status of refugees.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, regrettably it is clear that the member neither understands the current refugee system, nor the bill before the House.

As the minister, I am someone who works and advocates every day for refugees. I am the minister who welcomes to Canada 1 out of every 10 resettled refugees from around the world. I am the minister who is increasing the number of convention refugees who we resettle in our country by 20%, who is increasing the support that we give them for their establishment and integration by 20% and who is creating, for the first time through this bill, the refugee appeal division to create a full fact-based appeal for the vast majority of rejected asylum claimants.

The member talked about a Mexican failed asylum claimant who would be deported because “the minister had determined that Mexico was a safe country”.

First, there is no such power under the current system. Second, what the member does not understand is that such a failed claimant would have had a full hearing before the quasi-judicial IRB on the merits of the case and been rejected. The claimant would have made an appeal to the federal court and lost, would have had a pre-removal risk assessment, an independent decision, and been rejected on the facts of the claim, would have appealed that to the federal court and lost, would have made an humanitarian and compassionate application for permanent residency, another risk assessment, and had the facts reviewed and been rejected as unfounded and would have appeal that again to the federal court.

There are typically between six and eight quasi-judicial and administrative decisions that are taken on asylum claimants in the current system before they typically face removal from Canada, yet the member says that this system is facilitating torture and violence and is criminal negligible.

The member is insulting all of the independent, judicial and quasi-judicial decision makers, our courts and our tribunals. I would ask her to apologize to all of those highly trained decision makers for the slur she has just made against the fairness of our system.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, in the case of the Mexican family, the children were in fact Canadian. The family had been here a long time. It had paid its taxes. Eventually what happened was its refugee status was revoked on the basis of the fact that the family came from Mexico. The family members then cried in the court and because of that they were sent to detention for weeks and deported after that. That is exactly what happened.

When I appealed to the Minister of Public Safety for this not to happen, as it seems out of the norm, he politely said “no” and the family was deported the next day before it had any chance to appeal, see lawyers or anything of the sort.

Therefore, the minister really needs to look at what is happening. People get deported before they have access to these systems.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel for not apologizing to the minister, because the biggest problem with this bill is indeed that this government seems to always insist on playing partisan games.

When a party introduces a bill of this scope at a time when there are so many headlines in the news on this issue, that raises a red flag for me. What particularly saddens me about this legislation is that the Conservatives are still talking in terms of bogus refugees and people who abuse the system. They are trying to cast the whole idea of refugees in a negative light. However, this is a very serious matter, and some cases are just horrifying and truly appalling in certain countries. Yet, the Conservatives would have Canadians believe that all refugees are fraudsters and abusers who come here to steal their jobs, and all kinds of such nonsense.

I would like to thank the member again for not apologizing, because she definitely does not owe anyone an apology. I wonder if she could talk a bit more about the arbitrary nature of this legislation.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel has only 30 seconds left for her reply.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the major problems with the bill is it would concentrate more power in the hands of the minister, who clearly does not know what is going on within his ministry, by allowing him to name safe countries and restrict refugees from those countries. Under the former Bill C-11 that was passed in the previous Parliament, which from what I understand enjoyed approval by all parties and was balanced, there was a panel of experts, including human rights experts, that was to designate these countries. This is no longer case.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I hate to stop the hon. member there, but we have to move on to statements by members.

The hon. member for Yukon.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, the Marine Transportation Security Act and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House today to speak in support of this important legislation, Bill C-31, the protecting Canada's immigration system act.

Some of my hon. colleagues who have already spoken have stressed our solemn duty as legislators to help ensure the integrity of our immigration system. I could not agree more with that sentiment. Canada's immigration system is internationally renowned and we would not have a country today if it were not for the generations of newcomers we have welcomed to our shores.

In fact, our Conservative government has welcomed the highest sustained average of immigration in Canadian history, a remarkable achievement. I have no doubt that a number of my hon. colleagues who are sitting in this House right now and participating in this very debate were, at one point in their lives, newcomers to Canada or their parents and grandparents were. In my case, my parents were born in eastern Europe, so I lived the life of an immigrant family and I know full well the promise of this country.

Immigrants come to create a new life for themselves and for their descendants, and to help build our great nation. They certainly have done so. Newcomers and those family members of many others here in the House today helped contribute to the richness and diversity of our country and to make it the free and prosperous society it is today.

So it goes without saying that protecting Canada's immigration system is extremely important and it falls upon every hon. member of this House to ensure that we enact laws that protect and ensure the strength of that system. I believe that the measures in Bill C-31, once enacted, will do exactly that, so I am very happy to support the legislation.

Some of my hon. colleagues have spoken already about the measures in this legislation that would help carry out long needed reforms to the refugee system. Others have spoken about measures in Bill C-31 that would help crack down on human smugglers who may try to abuse Canada's generous immigration system.

In the time I have today, I will focus my remarks on the third important piece of the protecting Canada's immigration system act, namely, those measures in this legislation that would enable the introduction of biometric technology for screening temporary resident applicants.

Establishing the identity of foreign nationals who seek to enter Canada is a fundamental part of both visa assessment and border processing. Better identity management and the use of biometrics are crucial to keeping Canada's borders secure and strengthening the integrity of our immigration program. The bill we are debating today would provide the government with the authority to collect biometric data from visa applicants. All hon. members in this House should welcome this historic development.

Under the existing system, visa applicants only need to initially provide written documents to support their application, documents that can be easily forged or stolen. However, biometrics, photographs and fingerprints would provide greater certainty in identifying travellers than documents.

Biometrics will be an important new tool to help protect the safety and security of Canadians by reducing identity fraud and identity theft. As fraudsters and criminals become more sophisticated, biometrics will improve our ability to keep out violent criminals, terrorists and others who pose a risk to Canada.

The introduction of biometrics as an identity management tool in our immigration and border control system is both long planned and long overdue, and more and more is becoming the international norm. Many governments around the world have already introduced biometric collection in their immigration programs. These include the United Kingdom, Australia, the United States, New Zealand, Japan, the European Union, South Korea, the United Arab Emirates, Indonesia and Malaysia. Therefore, what we are proposing as a government is hardly new. Because it is becoming so common in international travel, many visa applicants to Canada will already be familiar with this process.

The legislation under consideration today and the regulations that would follow would allow government to make it mandatory for prescribed travellers, students and workers from visa required counties and territories to have their photographs and fingerprints taken as part of their temporary resident visa, study permit and work permit applications. This would be collected before the applicant arrives in Canada and it would be collected again when someone enters the country to ensure that the person the visa was issued to is the person who appears at the port of entry.

Unfortunately, there are countless examples in the media, on an almost daily basis, of serious criminals, human smugglers, suspected terrorists and war criminals, among others, who have entered Canada, sometimes multiple times. The use of biometrics will help prevent violent criminals and terrorists, among others, from using a false identity to obtain a Canadian visa.

Criminals, like Anthony Hakim Saunders, who was convicted of assault and drug trafficking, was deported but returned to Canada, incredibly, on 10 separate occasions. Kevin Michael Sawyers, who was convicted of manslaughter, managed to return to Canada on multiple occasions. There are even examples of criminals re-entering Canada using false identities and documents up to 15, 19 and 21 different occasions. These are real and specific examples. This simply must stop.

Biometrics will help our government end this fraud and abuse. It will greatly help our front line visa and border officers manage high volumes of immigration applicants and the growing sophistication in identity fraud. While it is easy to see how using biometrics will help our own officials make decisions about visa applications, it is also important to consider how their use may provide benefits to the applicants themselves.

In the long run, the use of biometrics will actually facilitate entry to Canada by providing a reliable tool to readily confirm the identity of applicants. For instance, in cases where the authenticity of documents is uncertain, biometrics could expedite decision-making at Canadian points of entry. The time spent at secondary inspections could be reduced, and sometimes dramatically. Using biometrics could also protect visa applicants by making it more difficult for others to forge, steal or use an applicant's identity to gain access to Canada.

Canada will remain a destination of choice for visitors from around the world and, in the long run, the use of biometrics will facilitate entry to Canada by providing a reliable tool to readily confirm the identities of applicants. Again, it is one of the long list of measures our government is taking to make government more streamlined, efficient and cost effective.

For me, biometrics is simply a no-brainer. Unfortunately, the opposition NDP and Liberal members are voting against Bill C-31 and the ability of the government to collect biometric data. They do not support the government having one of the most important and basic tools available to protect the safety and security of all Canadians, including their constituents. Of course, we know that many members opposite did not campaign much in the last election campaign but I would recommend that they get to know their constituents. It would be most helpful in this particular case.

A tool that would help the government prevent the entry of violent criminals and terrorists into the country, the biometrics tool, is very important. Not only do the opposition NDP and Liberal members oppose the authority for the government to use biometrics, they also voted against the funding required to implement biometrics. The use of biometrics is increasingly becoming an international norm and, by passing Bill C-31, the protecting Canada's immigration system act, we will be ensuring that Canada keeps up with many other countries.

Biometrics will strengthen the integrity of Canada's immigration system and help protect the safety and security of Canadians, while helping facilitate legitimate travel. This legislation would strengthen and maintain the integrity of an immigration system that has helped make our country great and would make our country even greater.

I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this much needed legislation.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette for his speech, because I know he really cares about this issue and he wants to work in the best interest of everyone. However, I wonder if he could clarify a few points about the bill that remain controversial, even among the people of my riding who have shared their concerns about this bill with me.

In a previous version of the bill, all the parties had agreed that the power to designate safe countries should lie with a group of specialists that should include human rights experts. With the new Bill C-31, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism has carte blanche to designate those countries.

Why concentrate so much power in the hands of just one minister instead of relying on a group of people who have the expertise needed to make these decisions?

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, my friend's premise is completely false. As the minister has stated, the old Balanced Refugee Reform Act was a good start and included much need reforms. However, our government has always been clear that refugee reform is not a static issue.

Under Bill C-31, the factors that would lead a country to be designated would be clearly outlined in both law and regulations. The most important factors are objective and quantitative and refer to the actual acceptance rates from a given country. Under Bill C-31, the decisions would be rendered by an independent immigration and refugee board, not the minister.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to the comments. One of the unfortunate facets of the Conservatives' approach is they put so many different provisions that have different meanings and applications into one bill and then use that as an opportunity to say, “But you voted against it”.

There are certain aspects of this bill that clearly we agree with. We agree with the notion that the refugee system is broken, which is why we passed Bill C-11. Bill C-11 does an enormous amount to streamline the refugee system in this country and to make it less likely that people could abuse the system.

However, the amendments being proposed to Bill C-11, and the addition of Bill C-4, make it impossible for this side of the House to agree to create a system where we would be making people victims. Even if people are refugees, we do not believe that the government, or any government, should make them victims. That is what this bill would do.

I would ask for the comments of the member opposite.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, obviously since Bill C-11 was passed, things have changed and we have to update our refugee and immigration system.

I have a personal story to tell with respect to refugees from when I was a high school student in Winnipeg. I am of Czech extraction. When I was a high school student my family was part of the Czechoslovakian community in Winnipeg. I remember very well the Prague Spring of 1968 and the Warsaw Pact invasion of my father's country. It was a devastating experience for all of us when we realized what could happen in the world. As a teenager, I witnessed refugees coming to Winnipeg, some of whom even stayed in our home. I take the refugee issue seriously and personally.

The abuses that criminals and fraudsters will undertake to take advantage of Canadians' historical generosity simply must be dealt with. We are doing that with this bill.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my distinguished colleague is right to want to address the abuses present in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. That is a fundamental role of government. It is our duty to protect Canada from abuse.

The problem with this bill is that it throws the baby out with the bathwater. Historically, Canada has always welcomed refugees. During the time of slavery in the United States, there was an organization in Canada called the underground railroad. Small Christian communities knowingly and voluntarily agreed to break the law to help people escape slavery.

People like Diefenbaker, the Canadian Prime Minister who condemned apartheid in South Africa, would have been on our side. Diefenbaker would have condemned a bill that prevents us from helping people. That is the problem. Under Bill C-31, people working to save slaves would have been considered—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. The hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette has the floor.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I utterly reject that example of the member opposite. It is quite unfortunate that he used incendiary language like that. We have to clean up the refugee system. We will continue to admit legitimate refugees into our country, as we have always done.

However, dealing with criminals, fraudsters and those who do not belong here is the simple goal of this bill.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will get right to the point. Bill C-31 is a blot on Canada's reputation. This bill will tarnish our international image as a host country. It will be a major step backward with respect to protecting refugees in Canada. It puts tremendous power in the hands of the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism and fails to revamp Canada's refugee determination system. The purpose of this bill is not, as stated, to fight human smuggling or to help asylum seekers by expediting the process. Its true purpose is something else entirely. All it will do is punish refugees.

Bill C-31 is a patchwork of bits and pieces of old bills, including Bill C-4 on human trafficking, Bill C-11, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, and biometrics.

One of the bills introduced during this Parliament was Bill C-4. That bill received such strong opposition from lawyers and refugee rights organizations that the government dropped it. This bill would allow the minister to designate the arrival of refugees as an irregular arrival. The bill uses the phrase “a group of persons” without really specifying how many persons constitute a group. We presume that two people could indeed constitute a group. These designation criteria are far too vague and disproportionate and leave too much room for legal interpretation. A family fleeing a war-torn country would be a group of persons.

The most despicable proposal in this bill is the one whereby any person designated a “foreign national” will be detained for a maximum period of one year, without review and without any chance of appeal.

Immigration detention centres are already overcrowded. Accordingly, these designated persons will likely be transferred to provincial prisons to live with criminals. Under this bill, a person could be detained for 12 months without review.

According to the bill, a person in detention who receives permanent resident status will not be released since they are not entitled to a review of their case for a period of one year.

The government is not giving any thought to the distress felt by these people who have fled a country in the hope of having a better life. This government is not considering the desolation of these people who are fleeing persecution in their country and who now are being mixed in with the criminal population for a year without review of their case, as I was saying.

These measures go completely against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and international law. The Supreme Court ruled in the Charkaoui case that detention under a security certificate is unconstitutional. That means that every person in Canada has the right to appear before a judge within 48 business hours. The Conservative government has no qualms about introducing a bill that is likely unconstitutional.

Under the Supreme Court ruling, detention has to be subject to a timely and regular review to ensure that it continues to be legal. All asylum seekers not arriving in groups, therefore arriving alone, are entitled to this review. Families would be exempt from this review because they constitute a group of two or more people.

Not only can a group be detained for a year, in addition, no exception is made for the individuals in the group, regardless of gender, age or health status. These inhumane provisions are a direct violation of the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. Indeed, this United Nations convention clearly indicates that no host country shall impose sanctions against refugees by reason of their illegal entry if they present themselves without delay to the authorities and give good reason for their illegal entry.

Canada is, in fact, a signatory to this convention.

The measures proposed in the bill are an attempt to discourage refugees from seeking protection in Canada. Not only are these people being detained without the right to appeal their case, but the implacable attitude of this government will end up increasing the number of removals. That goes entirely against the humanitarian values Canada espouses and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Moreover, this bill stipulates that refugees shall be banned from making an application for permanent residence for a five-year period after obtaining refugee status.

Once again, this bill violates the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees by prohibiting any person who has obtained refugee status from traveling outside Canada. The refugee will, therefore, have no travel document. That also violates the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Furthermore, refugee claimants will not be able to sponsor their families for a period of five years. That means, for example, that a 15-year-old teenager who enters the country illegally will not be able to sponsor his parents for five years. Bearing in mind these constraints alone and the average time it takes to process claims for refugee protection and applications for permanent residence, refugees will be separated from their families for seven years. These measures are discouraging for all refugee claimants.

The minister also reserves the right to designate a country as safe for foreign nationals without even benefiting from the expertise of a committee on human rights. This measure will result in the implementation of stricter deadlines to submit a claim for refugee protection. This will make it difficult to properly prepare an application, which may lead to a refusal.

Moreover, the refugee claimants from the list of countries deemed safe by the minister who have been forced to leave the country will no longer be entitled to file an appeal before the Immigration and Refugee Board. If they are determined to appeal, their only recourse is to seek a judicial review before the Federal Court. Despite this provision, there is a strong likelihood that the claimant will be deported to his country of origin before the court has had time to make a decision. Furthermore, this bill prevents the Refugee Protection Division from reopening files. This clause goes against the principles of natural justice. This bill needlessly takes away a jurisdiction that has always existed.

Another clause is being added to the long list of barriers to claims for asylum. Once again, this clause gives another discretionary power to the minister that allows him to detain any individual who is suspected of a crime. There is no guideline for the principle of suspicion. However, it does not stop there, because the bill specifies that it is possible to turn down any claim if a person has committed an offence, even if it is a trivial offence. Let us take the example of a person who, in his own country, refused to obey an order from the dictatorial government and dared to express his opinion publicly, and finds himself with a criminal record because of it. Canada would refuse his claim because of this offence, without even considering the cases of persecution for which that government is responsible.

This Conservative government is going even further in its indifference to the suffering of thousands of people who are fleeing persecution. In granting permanent resident status to refugees, Canada is offering them safety to settle in our country and quietly begin their lives over again. However, the Conservatives, with their misguided thinking, want to grant permanent resident status on a conditional basis. This bill would allow an application for permanent resident status to be suspended when the country of origin is on the list of countries considered safe and stable, countries that are put on the list by virtue of the minister's discretionary power.

That is not all. This clause is retroactive, which means that thousands of permanent residents will have to leave their new country and new life in Canada. Take the example of someone who left his country because of political persecution 30 years ago. When he arrived in Canada, he asked for asylum and we granted him permanent resident status. He began a family here, but 30 years later the government tells him that his country is safe and he can go back.

Bill C-31 is underhanded; it goes even further. The Conservatives also want to demand biometric data from applicants for a visitor visa, a student visa or a working visa. Biometrics has a reputation as a technology that gives considerable power to states for keeping an eye on people. Bill C-31 put forward by the Conservatives is a huge reversal in immigration policy and is aimed solely at refugees and asylum seekers, to their detriment. The Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism is giving himself the right to make criminals of certain refugees and throw them in jail, without review of their files, for a period of one year.

The Conservative government is now interfering with the right of every person to defend himself. I believe that this bill is discriminatory and that it sets up a two-tier system for refugee protection.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, there were all kinds of factual errors in my colleague's speech. For instance, he criticized the system for being two-tiered. Indeed, we created a two-tiered system in Bill C-11 in the previous Parliament, and the NDP supported that bill. It simply means an expedited system for refugee claimants from a list of designated safe countries, which is a completely legitimate and normal system according to the UN High Commissioner. A similar refugee system is used by nearly all other countries in the democratic world.

His biggest mistake, however, was when he said that the government could designate a country as safe and then take away a refugee's permanent residency 30 years after he or she obtained it. There are no such provisions in Bill C-31. Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Immigration and Refugee Board has always had the power to terminate someone's refugee protection and withdraw their permanent residency, for instance, when someone obtained it fraudulently.

Can the member indicate what clause in Bill C-31 gives the minister or the government new powers to withdraw refugees' permanent residency? There is no such clause.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, contrary to the minister's claims, this bill does give the minister too much discretion to designate certain countries as safe countries, without really being absolutely certain that they are. In that case, he should at least rely on the advice of experts who may perhaps be somewhat more knowledgeable about what is happening in these countries, in order to be sure that these countries are safe before rejecting claims and withdrawing these people's refugee status.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the bill does not take into account the fact that the people we are discussing are human beings and that there are special cases. I would like my colleague to talk more about that.

I am thinking of some very specific cases. We have heard the government's outrage over the treatment of the former prime minister of Ukraine, who is in jail for fraud or something. Everyone agrees that the charges were bogus.

If she were to seek asylum tomorrow for health reasons or in order to escape certain death, because she will spend her life in prison and she has health problems, the government would say that she is a criminal who has been found guilty of fraud and she cannot enter Canada. If my colleague is unable to answer, I would like the minister to explain what he would do in that specific situation.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

If we give the minister this discretionary power without establishing objective criteria and relying on a committee, people who have a criminal record because they took part in protests or were identified as political criminals could be denied refugee status. In my colleague's example, the claim by a person who flees persecution and imprisonment in their country would be denied even if, after checking, his or her criminal record proves to be bogus.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-31, the protecting Canada's immigration system act, introduced by my colleague, the hon. Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism.

The measures in this bill include further reforms to the asylum system to make it faster and fairer, measures to address human smuggling, and the authority to make it mandatory to provide biometric data for a temporary resident visa application.

Canadians take great pride in the generosity and compassion of our immigration and refugee programs, but they have no tolerance for those who abuse our generosity and seek to take unfair advantage of our country. Canada welcomes 1 in 10 of the world's resettled refugees. That is more per capita than almost any other country. In fact, our Conservative government has increased the number of refugees that we will be resettling each year by 2,500.

Bill C-31 proposes changes that build on reforms to the asylum system based in June 2010 as part of the Balanced Refugee Reform Act. The proposed measures will provide faster protection to those who genuinely need refuge, and faster removal for those who do not. In particular, refugee claimants from generally non-refugee producing countries, such as those in eastern Europe, would be processed on average within 45 days compared to more than a thousand days under the current system.

It has become clear that there are gaps in the Balanced Refugee Reform Act. Canada receives more refugee claims from Europe than from Africa or Asia. Last year alone, 23% of all refugee claims made in Canada were made by nationals from the EU. That is up 14% from the previous year. This growing trend threatens the integrity of our immigration system.

In recent years virtually all EU claims were withdrawn, abandoned or rejected. These unfounded claims from the 5,800 EU nationals who sought asylum last year cost Canadian taxpayers $170 million. Too many tax dollars are spent on bogus refugees. We need to send a message to those who would abuse Canada's generous asylum system that if they are not in need of protection, they will be sent home quickly.

Bill C-31 will save hardworking Canadian taxpayers $1.65 billion over five years. That astounding savings really helps to put in perspective the magnitude of the abuse of our immigration system.

However, it is not just Canadian taxpayers who are severely affected by these bogus claims. Genuine refugees are waiting a long time to receive Canada's protection, which they desperately need, because bogus refugee claims are bogging down the system. This has to stop.

Bill C-31 also includes most of the provisions in the former Bill C-4, preventing human smugglers from abusing Canada's immigration system act. There is one very important modification to note, though. Minors under the age of 16 would be exempt from the detention proposals designed to deal with mass arrivals from human smuggling operations.

Our government is sending a clear message that our doors are open to those who play by the rules, including legitimate refugees. However, we will crack down on those who endanger human lives and threaten the integrity of our borders. Human smuggling is a despicable crime, and Canadians think it is unacceptable for criminals to abuse Canada's immigration system for financial gain.

Mandatory detention for those 16 years of age and older remains in place for people who enter Canada as part of a designated smuggling event. However, once the identity of a claimant has been established and a refugee claim is approved, individuals would be released from detention.

The final component of the new legislation would give the minister the authority to make it mandatory for visa applicants to provide biometric data, meaning fingerprints and photographs, to visit Canada. Documents can be forged or stolen, whereas biometric data provides greater certainty, confirming the identity of the applicants when they apply.

Biometrics will be an important new tool to help protect the safety and security of Canadians by reducing identity fraud and identity theft. As fraudsters become more sophisticated, biometrics will improve our ability to keep out of Canada violent criminals and those who pose a threat to the country. In short, biometrics will strengthen the integrity of Canada's immigration system, while helping facilitate legitimate travel.

These measures would put us in line with our international partners, such as the United Kingdom, the European Union, Australia, and the United States. They will help prevent violent criminals, terrorists and human smugglers, among others, from using a fake identity to obtain a visa. The use of biometrics would also bolster Canada's existing measures to facilitate legitimate travel by providing a fast and reliable tool for confirming identity.

When asked about Bill C-31, the protecting Canada's immigration system act, this is one of the things the NDP immigration critic had to say:

—I think what we need to do is build a system that has a fast and fair determination process. And that’s something that I’ll give the [Minister] credit for. I do think that’s what his intention has been all along. And we all want to work towards that. We don’t want endless dragging on of this stuff because refugees, when they come here, you know, they do qualify for basic sustenance...it is at the cost of the Canadian taxpayer.

So we do have an interest in making sure there’s a quick determination that’s correct and fair and get these people into our communities, working and being productive taxpaying members of our society if they’re bona fide refugees.

We want a fast, fair system where we can give a sanctuary to people who need it quickly and we can weed out the people who don’t have valid claims, get them through a fair process. And if they’re not valid at the end of the day, deport them out of Canada swiftly.

I agree. That is exactly what Bill C-31 aims to do.

All of these reforms are aimed at deterring abuse of Canada's generous immigration and refugee system. With these proposed measures, the integrity of Canada's immigration programs and the safety and security of Canadians would be protected.

Bill C-31 sends the clear message that if people are in genuine need of Canada's protection, they will receive it. However, if they are abusing our generous refugee system, they will be removed quickly.

It sends a clear message that Canada will not tolerate queue jumpers. Every years, thousands upon thousands of people play by the rules and patiently wait their turn in line. Canadian immigrants want our government to stop the practice of people breaking the rules by abusing our refugee system or paying huge sums of money to despicable criminal smugglers to jump in front of the line.

To maintain the support of Canadians for our generous immigration and refugee system, we must demonstrate that Canada has a fair, well-managed system that does not tolerate queue jumping.

I urge all members in this House to support this much-needed piece of legislation.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech and I would like him to speak a little about cases involving countries that are deemed safe. For example, Hungary and the Czech Republic are considered safe countries by Canada, even though there is systematic discrimination against the Roma in those countries.

In this particular example, how does the minister justify putting a country on the list of safe countries?

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member refers to Hungary. If I correctly understand the statistics, almost 100% of the claims made by those from Hungary claiming to be refugees were withdrawn by the claimants themselves. I appreciate the fact that the member brought up Hungary because that is an area of concern. The bill would address countries like that.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in the entire debate on Bill C-31 I have found a persistent confusion of the issues of immigration and refugees. Just to get the terms clear from the beginning, the world in 2009 had more refugees than at any time in history. There were 43 million people who had been displaced from their country of origin and fitted the United Nations' definition of refugees. Of that number, only 1% are ever resettled into a third country. In 2009, of that number, four-fifths were being kept in refugee camps, basically in the developing world. Therefore, we are talking about a very small number of refugees who make their way to Canada. They are not in a queue. Refugees, by definition, cannot apply in their country of origin; they have been displaced.

I would like to ask the hon. member if he would clarify for us his understanding of refugees. Refugees are, by definition, people who come here in desperation. They do not form a queue in their country of origin to come as normal immigrants would.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have to understand that this bill addresses those refugee claimants who come to our country. As I referred to in my speech, Canada has a very generous refugee program. As a nation, we accept more refugees than most other nations in the entire world.

I share the member's passion for those who are genuine refugees. We want to ensure that those people have the opportunity and are not backlogged and slowed down by those who abuse the system. We know that this has been the case for too long in our country.

It is the intent of this government, and it is what our constituents have asked, to fix this problem and ensure that we can address those who really do need the services that our governments provide.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, on the last question that was put, in fact there is a queue. There is the process of international protection all around the world.

She mentioned the 43 million people who have UN convention refugee status. I will tell her what the queue is. For example, when the Indochinese boat people fled the communist depression in Vietnam, they went to the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees settlement centres, where their claims were processed and then referred for resettlement. Canada took 60,000 people. There are millions of people like that around the world.

She has a tendency to confuse asylum claimants with refugees. In fact, almost two-thirds of the asylum claimants who arrive in Canada are determined by our fair legal system not to be refugees and not to be in need of our protection. From some countries, nearly 100% actually withdraw and abandon their own claims. They do not even show up for the hearing. Regrettably, they do show up for their welfare cheques. That is the problem we are trying to get at here.

I would like to know if the member would agree that we should be focusing our efforts on encouraging real refugees around the world, if they need to flee their country, to go to the regional resettlement options and seek protection from the first country to which they go.

For Tamils living in India, why would they need to travel through Thailand and Malaysia and bypass 40 other countries in order to seek protection in Canada? In those cases, it is not about seeking protection; it is about coming to Canada. Does the member agree?

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is I absolutely agree. This is another opportunity to thank the minister for the hard work he has done and for this excellent legislation.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, although the minister and I do not always agree, perhaps particularly when it comes to the substance of this bill, I would still like to commend him for his efforts. I have noticed that he is always present during debate and it reminds me of my years as immigration minister. Although we strongly disagree, the fact that the minister is here shows that he takes his work seriously. We may disagree, but I would still like to recognize his efforts.

I have been there. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is living legislation. Over the years, difficulties and situations arise and we must determine whether we can improve things. However, we have to be careful not to put too much focus on ideology because we are talking about individuals. When I was appointed immigration minister right after the events of September 11, we had to come to terms with that reality. I often call the minister of immigration the minister of Canada. He is the one who ensures that Canadian values are protected since Canada is a country of immigrants. It was built on immigration. That is why this is a very delicate situation and anyone occupying the position of minister has to be very careful about the attitude he adopts and the policies he proposes.

I am among those who think that each case is different. When we start generalizing and labelling, it can result in errors and abuse. Canada is a generous country. We were among the first to work to protect refugees. The Conservatives will tell us that the government has increased the number of refugees selected, that it is sending people into refugee camps, that it is working with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and that it is choosing the people to bring into the country.

The reality is that Bill C-31 affects people who arrive in Canada. This is where we have to be careful. I was the minister who negotiated the safe third country agreement with the United States, which was then ratified by subsequent ministers. The first agreement in principle indicated that, since the United States had ratified the Geneva convention, if someone came through the United States, they could be sent back there to go through that country's process.

However, because each case is different, I put forward a series of exceptions. We have our own foreign policy, and our own way of doing things. Each case is different and we never know what might happen. We are against abuse and we want to protect citizenship and permanent residency. They are not rights. In a way, they are privileges. However, we must respect conventions, ensure that we do not make generalizations and protect individuals.

I have problems with this bill for several reasons. The first is the matter of safe countries. The hon. member for Saint-Jean asked some questions about this earlier, and with good reason. The Conservatives can answer and say that 100% of the people abandoned their claims. They can provide the clumsy answer that people are here to collect welfare cheques. Those answers are not really appropriate and are incorrect in any case. The reality is that, in Hungary, for example, there is a right-wing extremist movement and an anti-Semitic movement—we have seen news reports on this subject—that could lead to specific attacks on certain individuals. It could have to do with sexual orientation. That is true in all countries, and it could be true in Europe.

If, as minister, I decide that a country is safe, I have just created a problem. Basically, that is what I have a problem with. We have to protect the minister. A minister should not be at the mercy of a system, but neither should the system be at the mercy of the minister. There can be exceptional measures in exceptional circumstances, and that is why the minister must not be at the mercy of the system.

On other hand, we also have to protect the institution of minister. This is why I thought it was relevant in the other bill. There was a provision for a panel of experts. It cannot be said that just because 80% of things do not happen, the country is safe. There have to be some parameters and guidelines that will allow us not only to protect the minister and the system, but also our immigration procedures. In this case, we are talking about refugees.

They say that justice must be done and that it must be seen to be done. When it appears that there is a possibility of abuse, there is already a problem. Nonetheless, I understand that a minister, because he can use ministerial permits, has the power to make decisions about very specific situations.

Detention also poses another problem, even if children under a certain age are not detained. We have seen some really awful cases where the families arrive all alone. If the adult is in detention and the child lives somewhere else, that creates other social problems.

With regard to biometrics, I was the minister who once proposed that Canada should establish a biometric national identity card. I still think that we should do this and that we should think about how we manage entries and exits at the U.S. border, for instance, and about people coming in to Canada. Biometrics is not bad, but we have to understand that there are offline and online biometrics.

When we have biometrics online, it means we have access to a database. If we do not have a legal framework to protect that information, this is where we have a problem. However, if we have off-line biometrics, and I would propose an I.D. card where individuals could have their fingerprint or some other information, the only thing we would need is to have the technology that recognizes the information on the card with a green light, red light process.

That has been done in China. We have the technology. In Shenzhen, 140,000 people pass through during the weekend. It takes 10 seconds, but there are red lights and then they can be dealt with.

Instead of putting up a label saying that everybody might be a terrorist or might be bad, authorities know where to focus, but they have to be vigilant.

The next issue is that I have a feeling that Bill C-31 is unconstitutional. Legal experts will remember the Singh decision, which stated that people who claim refugee status are also protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

From this point of view, whether we are looking at detention, or the right of protection from arbitrary detention or the right to life, liberty and security of the person, we have to be very careful. In fact, when we are drafting a bill, we may have good intentions and try to score points, but if it does not make it through the courts, it creates other kinds of problems.

I hope we can make amendments, and it is not just to take up more time. I am completely aware of the situation that the current minister finds himself in. It is not easy when you have to make decisions.

I was the last minister who had powers not only in terms of immigration and refugees, but also over deportations. After the events of September 11, protecting the safety of our citizens and of Canada is important and it is a huge responsibility. This is why, when we draft a bill and when we set up a system, we have to be sure that the system will pass the smell test.

Frankly, I believe that in certain areas, we can have all the statistics we want, but it is about what kind of process we want to have. How do we manage the access of the people who come here?

Some may say—and I expect that someone will ask me this question—that I was the minister who did not implement the refugee appeal process. When I was in office, we did not do it because we were considering how to simplify and speed up the process.

It is important to find a way to speed up the process while taking all circumstances into account, but it has to be done correctly. That is why I am asking the minister to make the necessary changes so that we can work on giving protection to those who need it, as I did when I was minister.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his constructive comments, for what he did as the former minister of immigration, and for his knowledge of this problem.

He raised the issue of Hungary and the designation of certain countries in order to accelerate the processing of claims. However, once Bill C-31 is passed, no refugee claimant from Hungary or the European Union, which are designated countries, will have access to a hearing before a decision-maker at the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. That means that all claimants from all countries, regardless of the manner in which they entered Canada, including migrants who are smuggled into the country, will have access to the same system that currently exists, that is, a hearing before a decision-maker based on the merit of their cases.

The only difference is that the processing will be slightly quicker, which was agreed to by the opposition in the last Parliament in the form of Bill C-11. Moreover, claimants will not have access to the Refugee Appeal Division that his government and he, as minister, did not create.

Why is he concerned about the fact that we are not diminishing the rights of claimants from designated safe countries?

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I get the impression that each time the minister asks a question, he makes a speech. He thinks that if he repeats himself often enough, the message will sink in. That is not how things work. You do not create legislation overnight for a particular case. You make legislation for cases that might at some point arise. When you give yourself the ability to designate a safe country and to establish specific guidelines for a given country arbitrarily because you are the only person who can do so, it can lead to abuse and problems down the road.

Where there is a will, there is a way.

Why not bring back an expert panel that could make recommendations along with the minister? Not only would that protect the system, it would protect the minister. That is where the minister has missed the mark.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his speech. I have a short question.

What concerns me about this bill is that it restricts recourse to humanitarian and compassionate considerations. I do not know whether my colleague shares this concern. A refugee claimant cannot invoke humanitarian and compassionate considerations while his claim is being processed or for one year following the refusal of his claim. Does that worry my colleague?

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that type of thing can be cause for concern. When a person arrives in Canada and files a claim for refugee protection, he must not be considered a terrorist. When the Canadian Alliance was in opposition, every time I was asked a question, they would use the words refugee and terrorist as if they were interchangeable. We need to stop labelling people. People come to Canada for various reasons. Yes, an individual might come to Canada because he has heard about the country, but sometimes, he takes certain steps.

It is not just a question of the human smugglers. We despise them. We have to beat human smuggling. However, we are looking for the individual. Sometimes when we are looking for an individual, we have some specifics and we have to make sure that we protect that person.

That is why I said it is the type of thing that needs to be examined.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. friend from Bourassa if he is aware of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' funding profile. We have heard from the hon. minister that there is a queue for refugees. I continue to respectfully dispute this notion, but if there is one and we are depending on the UN High Commissioner for Refugees to provide such assistance, why is it that Canada is not adequately funding this voluntarily funded branch of the United Nations?

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure my colleague that when we were there, we had an amazing relationship with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. I have no doubt other members experienced the same thing. There is some relationship. I do not have the numbers, but if there is some capacity to work closely together, it should be done. I really believe that no matter what, specifically on that issue, we cannot do anything other than comply with the treaty and the organization itself.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to join the debate on Bill C-31, protecting Canada's immigration system act. I have enjoyed the debate and I will concur with my colleague opposite with respect to the minister and the fact that he has been present during this debate. It is an outstanding example for all parliamentarians.

We as Canadians are rightfully proud about our long-standing humanitarian tradition and about the fact that we are one of the top countries in the world to offer protection to those who are in need of asylum. There is no country in the G20 that welcomes more refugees per capita than Canada. We resettle one in ten refugees.

Canada is continuing its tradition as a leader in international refugee protection. Our government has increased the number of refugees we will be resettling by 2,500 per year.

Canadians are proud of our welcoming and fair nature. Nonetheless, few Canadians would disagree that our refugee system is in need of reform, as we see time and time again refugee claimants simply waiting too long for a decision on their claim. We also realize the need to stop those who are abusive of our generous immigration system, and we are therefore taking action to that end.

Canada's current asylum system is bogged down by bogus refugee claimants from countries that are democratic and safe. These claimants do not wait in line like everyone else. In fact, they make an attempt to jump the queue. This leaves in limbo those who genuinely are in need of Canada's protection but also allows those who really do not need our protection to unfortunately abuse our system.

Many genuine refugees have fled their homes because of unimaginable hardship and in many cases have been forced to live in refugee camps for many years. When they arrive in Canada, they essentially start all over again. These genuine refugee claimants unfortunately are waiting years for determination on their claim. They are waiting because of an increasing number of refugee claims from safe and democratic countries. We should just look at the numbers for examples.

The total number of refugee claims from the European Union in 2011 was 5,800, a 14% increase from 2010. That is more than Africa and Asia.

Virtually all claims from the EU are abandoned, withdrawn or rejected. These are bogus refugees that are not in need of Canada's protection. They withdraw their own claims after they receive money unfortunately from our taxpayer funded welfare system and after they get taxpayer funded medical care. These claimants from the European Union cost Canadian taxpayers $170 million per year. That is simply not fair to Canadian taxpayers and it is not fair to genuine refugees who are waiting in line for Canada's protection.

Last year processing times for a decision on a claim before the independent Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada could take more than 20 months. It can take an average of four and a half years from the time a claim is made until a failed refugee claimant has exhausted all legal avenues and is removed from Canada. In some instances, cases have dragged on for more than a decade. Long delays encourage individuals who are not in need of our protection to use the refugee system as a way to remain in Canada. During that time, taxpaying Canadians pay for their health care and other generous social benefits.

Our government is closing the loopholes in our asylum system. We are listening to Canadians and acting in the best interests of Canadian taxpayers. No longer will these bogus refugee claimants be able to abuse our generous asylum system.

Bill C-11, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, which was previously passed, provided for faster processing timelines to quickly decide claims. It introduced a designated country of origin policy to further expedite the processing of claims from those countries.

As we proceeded with the implementation of that bill, it became clear that further reforms were needed. The rising number of refugee claims coming from countries that are not normally considered as refugee producing has warranted additional measures. This is why we have introduced a bill in addition to the Balanced Refugee Reform Act.

We need to send a clear and unmistakable message to those who seek to abuse Canada's generous asylum system that if they are not in need of protection, they will be sent home quickly. At the same time, we need measures to ensure that those who truly need our help get it in a timely manner.

When the recent wave of bogus refugee asylum claims came flooding in from the democratic and human rights respecting European Union, it was made clear that further reforms to Canada's asylum system were urgently needed. We are a responsible government that is not afraid to admit that our previous legislation was not strong enough in this area.

We have a mandate from the people of Canada to protect our immigration system. We listened and we are acting on that mandate.

The protecting Canada's immigration system act would make our refugee system faster and fairer. In this time of economic uncertainty, increased numbers of unfounded refugee claims create a financial burden on Canadian taxpayers.

Under the proposed system, claimants from designated countries of origin would get a hearing quickly, within 30 to 45 days, depending on whether they initially made their claim at an inland office or a port of entry. All other claimants would receive their hearings within 60 days. Let me be very clear about this. Under these new measures, all eligible refugee claimants would continue to be entitled to a fair hearing before an independent decision maker.

At this point I would like to quote what two very distinguished Canadian columnists have to say about our proposals and improvements.

John Ibbitson of the Globe and Mail stated:

I think we need a system first of all that doesn’t cost too much....if you spend four years processing a bogus refugee claim, that’s the taxpayer who pays for it and that person may also be on welfare and other forms of social assistance during that time. So I agree. And I think there is broad public support for the idea that we need to process refugee claimants fairly and swiftly.

Another distinguished columnist, John Ivison of the National Post, stated:

I was talking to somebody today who was saying within four days of a claimant landing in Toronto, they can be claiming welfare. Now that's an obvious magnet for refugees all over the world. We have the most generous refugee system in the world. We have an acceptance rate of something like 50 per cent. Nowhere else in the world comes close to that.

Well, how many people do you need to consult to figure out that Hungary should not be our leading sources of refugees? What had happened was that the ten, the top ten countries that we receive refugees from did not figure in the UN’s top ten list of refugees.

In closing, let me reiterate that the proposed protecting Canada's immigration system act builds on reforms passed in June 2010 as part of the Balanced Refugee Reform Act. These new measures further accelerate the processing of refugee claims for nationals from designated countries which are those that generally do not produce refugees.

In addition, the proposals reduce the options available to failed claimants to delay their removal from Canada. As a result, genuine refugees would receive Canada's protection much more quickly. Even after these changes, Canada's refugee determination system would still proudly remain one of the most generous in the world.

I urge all hon. members of the House to join me in supporting the bill in order to improve program integrity and deter abuse of our refugee system.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what worries me most about this bill is the principle of safe and unsafe countries of origin. I have listened to the Conservative government's argument since we started debating this bill, but in my view, it does not hold water.

About a quarter of the residents of my riding were not born in Canada. A lot of people come to my office looking for refugee status.

When this legislation is passed and a journalist from Russia tells the member opposite that he has written critically about the government in office there, and that he is afraid for his well-being, but that our government believes that Russia is a safe country, what will he do?

I would like the hon. member to tell us what he is going to say to this person who is asking for help. Is the member going to say that he cannot help him because the minister has decided that his country is safe?

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

I certainly listened to the debate and I know this has been an issue of discussion.

The factors are objective and quantitative. The acceptance and designation of a country as safe is based upon decisions taken by asylum claimants themselves. The decision with respect to this is rendered by the independent Immigration and Refugee Board, not by the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism.

In the case which the member mentioned, they would be able to make a claim. That process would still be in place and they in fact would be able to make a claim.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I may have misheard the member so I would just ask him to clarify. My understanding is that although Canada's approach to refugees has been a mixed record, which we have acknowledged, with periods of shame such as turning away the St. Louis, in general our refugee programs have been very progressive historically.

I think I understood the member to say that we were the country in the world that did the most for refugee resettlement. My understanding is that the United States remains the country where refugee resettlement amounts to more than the combined total of all other industrialized countries accepting refugees combined.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that on a per capita basis Canada's resettlement of refugees is on a larger scale.

I want to address the member's earlier question to the member opposite. It was a valid question with respect to the amount Canada is paying toward the UN. My understanding is that it is in the neighbourhood of $70 million, which is the highest it has ever been in Canada's history and this continues.

She referenced a couple of other examples of which obviously Canada, in our nation's history, should not be proud. However, we should be very proud of our tradition. The minister is very much in keeping with this tradition. In my statement earlier today, I referenced the example of Grosse Île. Hundreds and thousands of French Canadians welcomed Irish to that island, treated them with dignity and respect, and cared for them. Unfortunately many of them gave their lives in doing so. This is an excellent example of what this country has done. It is a tradition that the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, who is of Irish heritage, is continuing today.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives like to talk about their support for families. In this bill, the section allowing designated people as irregular arrivals would have some very severe impacts on families. The first is the question of detention. If the parents were detained, what would happen to the children? The second impact is cascading results from those who would be barred from applying for permanent residency for five years and then for an additional five years they could not sponsor their families. This would create a 10 year gap in family reunification. Is the member concerned about the impact on families of these provisions for those who are designated as irregular arrivals?

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, this legislation would use the age of 16 in terms of not detaining children. However, the principle behind detention and behind the five year example that he gave is there have to be consequences for those who seek to jump the queue and those who seek to unfairly use our refugee system for their own benefit who are not genuine refugees. That is the issue.

We want to speed up the process for genuine claimants so they can have Canada's protection faster and can be resettled more quickly in Canada. The way to do that is to deal with the bogus claims that are currently clogging up the system. The point of this bill and of the last bill is to ensure that we can settle genuine refugees at a much quicker pace in the very generous fashion that we have, continuing to lead the world in this way. To do that, we need to unclog the current system and deal with the bogus refugee claimants.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before I recognize the hon. member for Sudbury, I will let him know that we will need to interrupt him at 1:37 p.m.. He has almost enough time for the full 10 minutes but we will need to pace it on that basis.

The hon. member for Sudbury.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I truly am very disappointed that I will not have my full 10 minutes, but I appreciate the fact that you have given me six to seven minutes to talk about how I oppose the bill.

While I say that I oppose the bill, like my colleague from Edmonton—Leduc, I would like to tip my hat to the minister for being here throughout the entire debate. When we are looking at the importance of discussing ideas and trying to come up with the best legislation for the country, it is great that we can have this type of debate.

With that said, now that the hugs are over, I will move forward with my opinions on Bill C-31. New Democrats see this as an omnibus refugee reform bill that combines, in our opinion, the worst parts of the former Bill C-11 in the 40th Parliament and the current Bill C-4.

We see the main purpose is to repeal most of the compromises from the former Bill C-11, Balanced Refugee Reform Act, that received all-party support and royal assent in June 2010. It reintroduces Bill C-4, the human smuggling bill and introduces the collection of biometrics for temporary residents.

The naming of safe countries and the restriction of refugee rights, concentrating the power to determine safe countries in the hands of the minister, under the former Bill C-11, was to be done by a panel of experts including human rights experts. While we all can agree with the minister, we want to ensure that there would be a panel and human rights experts involved in this process, because no one is perfect. We want to ensure that immigrants could see that we do not leave it in the power of one person.

Refugee claimants from safe countries would face extremely short timelines before hearings, 15 days I believe. They would have no access to the new appeal division and no automatic stay of removal when filing for a judicial review. They would not be allowed to apply for a work permit for 180 days. The bill would also limit access and shorten timelines to file and submit a pre-removal risk assessment application and evidence.

In terms of restricting access to humanitarian and compassionate considerations, I do not think anyone would agree with that. Unfortunately, we are seeing this being pushed through by the government. A refugee claimant could not apply for H and C while the claim was pending for one year after a failed claim, in which time he or she would likely be deported. The bill would make it easier to terminate refugee protection if circumstances changed. This could apply to any legitimate refugee who had not yet become a citizen, potentially affecting tens of thousands of permanent residents. This would contravene international norms on the treatment of refugees and add uncertainty to individuals for years after their arrival. We have talked about how we have always been a progressive country in terms of immigration. I do not think that the bill, even though it may have been well-intended on the government side, does that.

Arbitrary designation of irregular arrivals and their mandatory incarceration is something that we on this side of the House definitely do not agree with. Bill C-31 reintroduces most of the provisions of Bill C-4, which are widely condemned by refugee advocates and likely unconstitutional. It would allow the minister to designate any refugee arrival of a group of two or more as irregular. We can use the examples of the Sun Sea and the Ocean Lady. These irregular arrivals would face mandatory detention for up to one year if they were age 16 and over, or until a positive refugee decision was made, whichever came first.

Irregular arrivals could not apply for permanent residency for five years or sponsor their family for five years. They would have no access to the new refugee appeal division. This designation would create an unfair two-tier refugee system, one for regular refugees and one for irregular arrivals.

Looking at the background of this, the former Bill C-11, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, was supported by all parties in the last Parliament. Several compromises were made to the original bill, largely through the work of the member for Trinity—Spadina and the NDP. It made it acceptable to us and other opposition parties.

These compromises included establishing a panel of experts to determine safe countries, allowing access to appeal for designated nationals and those from designated safe countries, and greater timeliness for the start of the appeal process. Bill C-31, unfortunately, repeals almost all of these compromises.

What would we like to see from an immigration bill, something like C-31 specifically? We do not think the Conservatives have been effective at gaining support for this legislation by promoting fear and talking about the threat of refugees. I do not think anti-immigrant and anti-refugee rhetoric, such as “bogus claimants”, “queue jumpers” and “criminal elements”, does anything to help any of the immigrants coming to Canada. However, I think civil society is solidly against these changes to refugee reform. Experience in other countries, such as Australia for example, show that measures such as these do not have a deterrent effect.

These measures target and punish legitimate refugees. Refugees should not be subject to political manoeuvring, but should be given fair and compassionate treatment. All of those who seek protection should be given equal rights, with equal rights to appeal. No country is free from persecution. This is especially true of women and gays and lesbians fleeing violence and persecution.

To summarize, refugees have the right to a fair hearing. The right to appeal is critical for vulnerable claimants at the mercy of an inconsistent and often arbitrary Immigration and Refugee Board. We do not believe that the bill will accomplish that.

I am sure I will have a few minutes on another day to continue, but with that I do wish everyone a very Happy St. Patrick's Day tomorrow and a great constituency week.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for St. Paul's is rising on a point of order.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, looking at the blues today, it appears that my time ran out before I was able to correct the number in the ask. I would like to get it on the record that the national chief has asked for $500 million for education on reserve and that we, as the Liberal party, are asking for no less than $500 million in the budget.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I do not think that is really a point of order. It is a matter of debate concerning discussions and debate earlier today perhaps.

I will let the hon. member for Sudbury know that he will have three minutes remaining for his speech, and also the requisite five minutes for questions and comments when the House next returns to debate on the motion.

The House resumed from March 16 consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, the Marine Transportation Security Act and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the chance to participate in the debate on Bill C-31, the protecting Canada's immigration system act, a bill that would improve the immigration system in Canada in a number of ways.

As the debate has unfolded in the House, I have had the opportunity to hear many differing, yet informed and thoughtful opinions from hon. colleagues on this bill and on the broader issues touching Canada's immigration system. It would be disingenuous of me to claim there is anything approaching unanimous agreement in the House on this issue. As with all legislation we consider here, hon. members make their arguments with conviction and, hopefully, with respect for one another's views. However, in the end, we are still having a debate with more than a single point of view on offer.

That being said, it speaks to the strength of this country that although we may disagree on some of the specific measures in this bill, there is a general consensus among Canada's parliamentarians on the need for a strong, fair and effective immigration system. We should not take this for granted. There are not a lot of other nations in the world where legislators from different parts of the political spectrum, from different corners of the country, from different generations with different personal backgrounds all agree that immigration is a net benefit to the country and vital to our economy, society and national interest.

We are lucky to be living in such a country. We are lucky to be having a respectful debate about how to make our immigration system better rather than having a wrenching, existential dispute about whether to even have immigration at all, as is currently happening in many other countries around the world. That is important to keep in mind as we continue this important debate.

As far as the specific legislation is concerned, I am a strong supporter of Bill C-31. I believe the measures in the bill would bring improvements to an immigration system that we all agree is central to Canada's interests. Many of my hon. colleagues who have already spoken about those measures have done a good job in delineating exactly how they would bring these improvements.

In the spirit of consensus I have alluded to in my remarks so far, I would like to take a bit of time to talk about some of the things this bill upholds, on which I hope all hon. members, no matter where they sit in the House, can agree. I hope that by highlighting these aspects of this bill, I will be putting some of the debate about its measures into a larger perspective.

First, it must be acknowledged that Canada's refugee system is among the most generous in the world. We welcome more refugees per capita than any other G20 country. There is nothing in this bill that would change that fact. Indeed, by helping legitimate refugee claimants get through the claims process faster, it would arguably make the system even more generous. If Bill C-31 passes, Canada's refugee system would continue to be one of the most generous in the world, reflecting the great humanitarian tradition of this country.

In many ways, the operation of our refugee system is also a model for the world. One of the reasons for that is that every eligible asylum claimant is entitled to a full and fair hearing before the refugee protection division at the independent Immigration and Refugee Board. As an independent quasi-judicial body, the IRB decides each claim on a case-by-case basis, on its individual merits. It is worth noting that the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees requires that all refugees receive a fair hearing, but it does not require that claims be decided by an independent quasi-judicial tribunal. We go that extra step in Canada because it is an international best practice.

Also, as an added protection for all claimants, should the IRB reject their claims, they may still apply for judicial review at the Federal Court. These processes help ensure the fairness and integrity of our refugee system and they would continue to do so if Bill C-31 is passed. In fact, most claimants would have access to a new appeals process with the coming introduction of a new independent body, the refugee appeal division, into the refugee system. The refugee appeal division would allow most claimants access to an appeal that included the ability to provide new evidence not reasonably available at the time of the initial claim. The establishment of the RAD is another example of Canada's going above and beyond its international commitments.

I just alluded to Canada's refugee policies being affected not only by the laws we pass in Parliament but also being a reflection of our international obligations. Canada is party to many international agreements and treaties that guide our policies in this area. Bill C-31 upholds them all. For example, all refugee claimants, no matter which country they are from or whether or not they are ultimately found to be deserving of Canada's protection, will have access to our court system. This is part of our obligations under a 1951 UN convention, and it will not change with this legislation.

Another example of an international commitment that will be upheld by Bill C-31 is Canada's core international protection obligation of non-refoulement. Refoulement means the return of persons to situations of persecution, risk of torture, or risk to life. It is prohibited by both the 1951 refugee convention and the 1984 convention against torture. Again, Bill C-31 upholds this international obligation. Indeed, there is nothing in the bill that would affect our international commitments in any way.

The fact is that for a long time Canada's immigration system has been abused by people who do not want to play by the rules and want to jump the queue. Recent waves of bogus refugee asylum claims from the democratic and humans-rights-protecting European Union have made it clear that further reforms to Canada's asylum system are needed urgently.

Our government is acting responsibly and in the best interests of Canadian taxpayers by introducing reforms to address the increasing number of bogus refugee claimants. These bogus claimants, many of whom withdraw or abandon their own claims, seek to abuse Canada's generous asylum system and receive generous social benefits like welfare and health care, costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars each year.

Bill C-31 would make our immigration system not only faster but also fairer. It would put a stop to bogus refugees abusing our generous immigration system, and at the same time this bill would provide protection more quickly to those who are truly in need. What is more, once Bill C-31 is passed, Canada would continue to have the most generous immigration system in the world, and we would continue not only to meet but also to exceed our domestic and international obligations.

I hope that all hon. members will agree with me on these points. I urge all of my colleagues in this House to support Bill C-31 and ensure its speedy passage.

Finally, in my riding I have a community called Brooks, Alberta, which has at least hundred different nationalities. I have spoken with people there who have either been refugees or have come to Canada as immigrants. They all support Bill C-31. They have had many opportunities to tell me how disappointed they are by some of the issues that have come forward, particularly the attempted queue jumping in our refugee system.

I look for support from all parties on this issue.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague concluded his speech by saying that he is looking for support from all political parties. It is important to note that, during the previous Parliament, all political parties reached an agreement after the Conservatives made a number of amendments to the bill to ensure unanimous support. Because the Conservatives had a minority at the time, refusing to negotiate was not really an option. Now they know that they have a majority, so the first thing they did with the bill before us today was take out all of the changes and amendments that the other parties asked for. And now they want our support.

If the government wants support from all parties, can the member tell us why it is refusing to include the amendments we proposed, which it included before? Why did the government decide to use its majority to get a bill passed without negotiating with the parties?

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the refugee system, there has been a lot of queue jumping. People from countries in the European Union whose rights are protected have put in bogus claims. It has cost us hundreds of millions of dollars.

The reason we need to move forward with this legislation is to ensure the safety of our citizens. We need to ensure we do not have these bogus claims. We also need to ensure that when people come here they are actually refugees and ensure we save millions of dollars with respect to our social programs.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we need to be clear that no one has been displaced because of refugees in terms of the process of being able to immigrate to Canada. I would ask the member to give us some specific examples of individuals or embassies anywhere in the world who are aware of individuals who have been displaced because of refugees wanting to come to Canada.

However, my question follows up on a previous question. There were issues regarding the safe country list, which will have a profound impact on thousands of people around the world because the minister now believes that he should have the sole authority to designate a country as a safe country. Prior to that, it was the unanimous opinion of the House, and he made reference to the word “unanimous”, that it should be done through an advisory committee advising the minister as to which countries are safe and which are not.

Would the member support a Liberal Party amendment to re-establish that principle that had been previously supported unanimously in the House?

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things the member talked about was being displaced on the refugee list. We had the Sun Sea and another ship come to Vancouver carrying illegal immigrants who had paid $25,000 to come here. That actually is jumping the queue, which does displace other people.

What we are also trying to do is to put a stop to foreign criminals, human smugglers and ensure that Canada's refugee system is strong, vibrant and available to those people who want to come to Canada and are willing to do so without jumping the queue and displacing other people. We welcome those immigrants to Canada because, at one point or another, our families or our grandparents came to Canada to help build this country. We want to help other individuals who have made proper applications to come here.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my opposition to a draconian bill that would change the way in which refugees and asylum seekers are treated. I am deeply disappointed in this bill, which revokes most of the compromises that were reached in connection with the former Bill C-11, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, in addition to reintroducing Bill C-4, which targets refugees instead of human smugglers.

Bill C-11, which was passed by a minority government during the previous Parliament, gave rise to what could be considered historic compromises with a view to making truly balanced refugee reforms. But now, at a time when that bill has not yet even come into effect, the government is doing away with everything the members of this House accomplished together and is instead imposing an ideological approach without giving any thought to the lives of the people who will be affected by this change.

By acting in this way, the Conservative government is going back on what it agreed to and demonstrating once again that it does not believe in co-operation and that what it wants more than anything is to put its own ideology ahead of the well-being of the people affected by its decisions. Bill C-31 transforms a balanced measure into a radical, partisan, ideological measure.

I want to remind the House that the Laval immigration detention centre is in my riding, Alfred-Pellan. There are three such centres in Canada: one in Laval, one in Toronto and one in Vancouver. Refugees who cannot prove their identity are incarcerated in this facility, which looks like a prison and is on federal prison property. There, people are handcuffed to be moved and families are kept apart. The centre tells refugees that it will take only a few days to check their identity, but in reality some of them will spend weeks or even months in a place that is run like a medium-security prison.

The average stay at this centre is currently 28 days, according to the Canada Border Services Agency. Detention leaves its mark on asylum seekers' mental health. After being handcuffed when they are moved, having their personal effects confiscated and being separated from their families, detainees leave the centre with serious health problems and depression.

Research proves this. Janet Cleveland, a researcher and psychologist at the CSSS de la Montagne at McGill University, met with nearly 200 asylum seekers during a study on the impact of detention on the mental health of people seeking asylum in Canada. The study was conducted with four other researchers. Over 120 of the asylum seekers had been in detention for three weeks in either Montreal or Toronto when she met them. The others were not being detained.

All the asylum seekers taking part in the study had already endured traumatic experiences when they arrived in Canada, but those who were placed in detention were more likely to suffer from depression, anxiety or post-traumatic shock. When I asked the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism in February why this government was not doing anything to correct this situation, which is intolerable for the officials and the newcomers, he replied that it is true that there is a waiting list for refugee claimants, and that a new system will ensure a processing period of a few weeks. He said new claims would be heard by the IRB within two to three months. Here is what Janet Cleveland said:

As far as the government is concerned, three weeks in a centre is not very long. Yet when we compare these individuals to others who are not being detained, the detained refugees were twice as likely to show serious post-traumatic stress symptoms. We did not expect this result after “only” three weeks of detention.

I would point out that 40% of the immigrants being detained in Laval are there simply while their criminal record are being checked. So, I would ask the minister once again: why are these newcomers being treated like criminals? I am also very worried about the rights of refugees, and of the people who work in these centres, and the way this will be implemented. What worries me even more is the fate of child refugees who are separated from their families and loved ones when they arrive here, and therefore lose their sense of security.

Unlike Bill C-4, Bill C-31 includes an exemption from detention for anyone under the age of 16. That is very good, but when I asked the Minister of Public Safety whether those children would be separated from their families and what would happen to the families, he did not even answer my question. That leads me to believe that, as a result of this bill, children will be separated from their families, which can cause serious psychological problems and trauma for children who are only 16 or younger.

It also makes me think about the measures the minister intends to implement to guarantee that minors will not be detained based on their age when their own identity and age are in the process of being verified. If they do not have documents to prove that they are under the age of 16, what assurance do we have that they will not be detained? For example, will a 14 or 15 year old who looks 16 or older be treated fairly? It is truly quite disturbing.

Since men are detained separately from women and children, what will happen when a single father arrives with his children? Will they be separated immediately upon their arrival?

We must rethink how we treat our brothers and sisters who are seeking asylum. To do so, we must first acknowledge the human nature of their journey, which is fraught with injustice, tragedy and trauma. In my opinion, the amendments proposed by Bill C-31 will result in the criminalization of people who are often victims and have reached the end of their rope.

Is it right to treat them like criminals when they arrive? Is it one of our values to separate and break up families, when their family ties are all they have left?

I recognize the importance of properly identifying refugee claimants. However, I am convinced that it can be done in a more humane way, without compromising the psychological and social well-being of asylum seekers, without breaking up families, without passing this bill which would welcome refugees with detention when they arrive.

I would like to quote a letter from Human Rights Watch dated March 16, 2012, addressed to the members of this House.

HRW believes that the detention provisions of Bill C-31 unduly and inappropriately impose penalties on vulnerable migrants, asylum seekers, and refugees. Instead of identifying and punishing human smugglers, these provisions of the bill would punish irregular migrants, including refugee men, women and children fleeing indiscriminate violence and/or persecution. These people should not be punished on the sole basis of their “irregular” entry.

This letter is signed by Bill Frelick, refugee program director, and Jasmine Herlt, director, Human Rights Watch Canada.

Bill C-31 is bad for refugees and does absolutely nothing to target smugglers. In my opinion, the previous Bill C-11, as amended in the last legislature, takes a more balanced approach, and deserves to be implemented and fairly evaluated. The government constantly talks about the importance of taking action. Here we have a bill, Bill C-11, which is ready to go and I invite the government to move on it.

Canadians and the international community are speaking out against Bill C-31. I am asking the government to reconsider its approach. We have to think of the families that have already lived through so much trauma and are just looking for a place where they can be protected. This bill does not target the right people at all. We absolutely have to rethink this approach. Canada has always welcomed refugees and must continue to do so.

I would also like my colleagues to consider the amendment proposed by the member for Vancouver Kingsway, and I would ask all members of the House to support it.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her speech. She said that Canadians are against Bill C-31, but is she aware that after illegal migrants arrived 18 months ago, polls clearly showed that approximately two-thirds of Canadians believed that the government should prevent boats transporting illegal migrants and human smugglers from entering Canadian territory?

Is she aware that the majority of Canadians—about 55%—say that illegal migrants who arrive via illegal means but who are recognized as refugees under our laws should immediately be deported to their country of origin?

This means that Bill C-31 is much more generous than public opinion and more mindful of our tradition of welcoming true refugees.

Is she aware that Quebeckers expressed this opinion more strongly than other Canadians? In other words, her constituents want to turn away ships transporting illegal migrants. Is she aware of that?

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his excellent question.

I believe he is confusing immigrants and refugees. When people arrive here illegally because they are being persecuted in their country of origin, they are protected under international law. Such people are considered refugees and we are supposed to welcome them under the international treaties to which Canada is a signatory.

Honestly, I would like to know what the hon. member opposite who just asked the question would have done with the boat people from Vietnam when they arrived. Should they have been considered illegal immigrants or refugees? Those people were welcomed here. Why would we not continue to do the same thing?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the point the minister raised. It is somewhat discouraging that he wants to portray refugees in a negative fashion. We saw a sample of that when he made reference to illegal immigrants. These are in fact refugees.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

How do you know that?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister asks how I know they are. I have more faith in the system obviously than he does. I wonder if he, as the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, would have that same attitude if they were boat people from Vietnam, or individuals from the Jewish community on the St. Louis.

With respect to the individuals to whom the minister is referring, I wonder if the member sees the value of recognizing them as refugees as opposed to immigrants.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his excellent question.

As I just mentioned, there is a demagogic problem here with the words being used in this debate right now, with the terms “illegal immigrants”, “real immigrants”, “criminals”, “refugees”. We are talking about protecting refugees. We were talking about dealing with human smugglers, but that is not at all what is happening. In fact, refugees are being attacked. This is real Conservative demagoguery.

I would invite the minister across the way to come visit the immigration detention centre in Laval and come see the people who are being detained there. What is he going to do for those people? Where is he going to place the young people who are already there? Is he going to separate them from their families? Will he send them elsewhere?

These centres are quite far from the hubs where the young people would be placed. What is the government going to do with the families? Will the families continue to be separated in this way? Will the detention centres be expanded? What is going to happen with this bill?

Unfortunately, many questions remain unanswered.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to rise in support of Bill C-31, the protecting Canada's immigration system act.

Canada has an international reputation for having the most generous immigration system in the world. We welcome 1 in 10 of the world's resettled refugees, and the number is increasing as our government is welcoming an additional 2,500, or 20%, of the number of resettled refugees to Canada.

Canadians are rightfully proud of our tradition as a compassionate nation. It is a responsibility we take very seriously. Throughout this country I have met and worked with many Canadians. We are a generous people and a generous nation. However, for too many years we have had to tolerate those who find loopholes or who are deliberately abusing our generosity and taking unfair advantage of our country.

That is why Canadians have become concerned with the growing number of bogus claims and queue jumpers. These bogus claimants bog down the system and, as a result, genuine claimants who are in need of Canada's protection are left far behind and must endure long wait lists.

Fortunately, our Conservative government is taking action to crack down on this abuse and to strengthen the integrity and credibility of our immigration system. Bill C-31 will ensure that those who are in need of Canada's protection will receive it more quickly, while those who are abusing our system will be removed from Canada sooner.

Today I am going to focus my remarks on the provisions in this legislation that deal specifically with human smuggling.

Canada is working hard both at home and abroad to deter and prevent human smuggling. In 2010, Prime Minister Stephen Harper appointed a special adviser on human smuggling and illegal migration, who—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. I would remind all hon. members that they ought not to refer to their colleagues by their given names. The hon. member for Vancouver South.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in 2010, the Prime Minister appointed a special adviser on human smuggling and illegal migration to work with governments in source and transit countries as well as with international partners to promote co-operation to combat human smuggling. Canada has also worked hard to partner with local authorities in transit countries to combat human smuggling operations.

While these efforts abroad are important, despite our best efforts, human smuggling operations have continued to target Canada's generous immigration system. Canada must therefore send a clear and categorical message to those who plan to take advantage of us that human smuggling is a deplorable crime and will not be tolerated in Canada. Our Conservative government has been absolutely clear that any attempts to abuse Canada's generosity for financial gain will not be tolerated.

Bill C-31 sends the message that our doors are open to those who play by the rules, including all legitimate refugees, but we will crack down on those who endanger human lives and threaten the integrity of our borders.

Canadians gave our government a strong mandate to prevent the abuse of our generous immigration system. With Bill C-31, we are acting on that mandate.

Canada is a compassionate nation of immigrants with a proud history and tradition of welcoming refugees. At the same time, every sovereign country has a responsibility to protect its citizens and its borders.

With Bill C-31 our government is cracking down on human smugglers with a number of new measures. For example, Bill C-31 will make it easier to prosecute human smugglers and will introduce mandatory minimum sentences for convicted human smugglers. The bill will also target those ship owners and operators who will be liable for the use of their ships in human smuggling.

Experience has shown that cracking down on human smugglers alone is not an effective solution. Action must be taken to address the countless individuals who choose to be smuggled and who choose to pay organized crime large sums of money, sometimes up to $50,000 per person.

It falls on our government to protect Canadians. This is why Bill C-31 includes the mandatory detention of those who arrive as part of a human smuggling operation. Let us be clear that when they arrive we do not know who they are or what their purposes are. It takes some time to determine this.

That said, it is important to note that Bill C-31 includes one very important change from previous Bill C-4. The current legislation includes an exemption from automatic detention for minors under the age of 16. In addition, adults, people who are 16 years and older, will be released from detention as soon as they receive a positive opinion on their refugee claim from the independent Immigration and Refugee Board. Most bona fide claimants will get protected status and will be released from detention within a matter of months.

As previously stated, this provision is necessary as it protects Canadians. It would be irresponsible to release those involved in a criminal human smuggling operation before their identity or their purpose is established and officials have had time to determine whether or not they pose a risk to the safety and security of Canadians.

Only those asylum claimants whose identities cannot be established, who are a security risk to Canada or who are suspected architects of criminal activity can be held longer under the bill, and for good reason.

I am disappointed that the opposition NDP and Liberals believe that those who arrive on our shores should be released onto our streets and into our communities before we know who these people are and what their purposes are for being here, if they are criminals or terrorists, and whether or not they pose a threat. This is simply irresponsible.

It is also important to note that most other western democratic countries have had these detention provisions for some time and have had even more harsher detention provisions than what is before us today. In fact, other countries detain all asylum claimants. Compared to most other western democratic countries, Canada's detention provisions will continue to be used sparingly.

Bill C-31 will also prevent illegal migrants who are part of a smuggling operation from obtaining permanent resident status or bringing their family members to Canada for a period of five years. This legislation will ensure that taxpayer-funded medical benefits received by illegal migrants are not more generous than those received by the average Canadian. These measures are fair, necessary and will protect Canadians.

It is unfortunate that the NDP and the Liberals oppose our government's efforts to crack down on this despicable crime.

Benjamin Perrin, a law professor at the University of British Columbia, had this to say about them:

Maritime migrant smuggling is the deadliest form of illegal international travel and its illicit proceeds fuel criminality. Canada is an attractive destination for migrant smugglers and these new measures send a strong message that our country is no longer open for business to these criminals.

It is shocking to hear apologists for migrant smugglers portraying these criminals as providing a 'service' for illegal migrants seeking to enter Canada. Migrant smugglers have been linked to organized crime, human trafficking and terrorist organizations. They care nothing for the well-being of those they transport in perilous and often deadly vessels.

Genuine refugees are better served through the use of safe, legal channels such as group processing of refugees through the UN High Commissioner for Refugees in programs that Canada has participated in with success.

Michael Deakin-Macey, the past president of the board of directors of the Victoria Immigrant and Refugee Centre Society, has also praised the human smuggling measures included in Bill C-31. He said:

Canada is a generous country, with an immigration system that treats both immigrants and refugees very well, however, there are those who are not willing to wait their turn in line and criminals who would profit from this. Instead, they want to jump the immigration queue and make their way to Canada through any means available to them, often bypassing several hospitable countries and travelling halfway around the world to land on our shores.

As a result of this human smuggling, honest and legal would-be immigrants who are waiting patiently and anxiously in the queue are penalized while these smuggled refugees' claims are processed.

To all reasonable observers, the criminal enterprise of this human smuggling is an abuse of both Canada's generosity and the honesty of all the other immigration applicants.

We are pleased that the Government has sent a clear message that it will not be tolerated, and we welcome the introduction of legislation preventing human smugglers from in effect creating an unfair two-tier immigration system, one for the impatient rich and the other for the honest applicant.

Bill C-31, protecting Canada's immigration system act, would halt an illegal, second tier immigration system and make our immigration system faster and fairer. It would stop human smugglers, foreign criminals and bogus refugee claimants from abusing our generous immigration system and receiving lucrative taxpayer funded health and social benefits.

Bill C-31 would strengthen the integrity of Canada's immigration system and protect our country, our citizens and our communities. This is an important bill and a desirable goal that all members of the House should support.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I must say how shocked I am to hear the misinformation that is coming from the government side, first from the member and, prior to that, from the Minister of Immigration who has referred to people who come to our shores by boat as illegal. That is false. International law recognizes that refugees can land at another country's border without a visa if they are escaping persecution. That is an absolute normative and legal way for a refugee to arrive on shores.

They are talking about jumping queues. There is no queue jumping when a refugee lands on the shore of another country. When the Jews escaped Nazi Germany, stealing away to Switzerland in the middle of the night, they were not jumping any queue. They were not applying for any visa.

The member said that the only people who would be locked up would be those engaged in criminal activity. I wonder if the member has read the bill? The bill mandates the government to lock up every person who is designated an illegal or an irregular entrant, including children 16 years of age, or separating families.

I wonder if the hon. member could explain to the Vietnamese community in Vancouver, all of whom escaped Vietnam in boats and most of whom paid someone to do it, why her government would call those people criminals, human smugglers and queue jumpers. What does she say to the Vietnamese community in the Lower Mainland in Canada who used those exact methods and who are being so tarred by this legislation?

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am shocked and appalled that the member opposite would say that Canada should be opening its doors and borders to anyone who happens to arrive on a boat. That is precisely what he just said.

We know in this day and age of national security risks and the different events that have happened worldwide, even in Canada, there are risks inherent in people arriving on our shores illegally without any documentation or sense of purpose. I think it is entirely reasonable that Bill C-31 would detain people until those things can be clarified.

I would urge the member opposite to support our communities and protect Canadians and our country by supporting the bill.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have one simple question for the hon. member. She and others on the other side have said that refugee claimants are queue jumpers. I am not sure I understand. It is my understanding that someone who arrives and is accepted as a refugee does not make it more difficult for a regular stream immigration applicant. I thought the two systems were completely separate so that one does not cross over into the other.

Is the hon. member saying that every time the IRB accepts a refugee in Canada, a sponsored, regular stream immigration applicant is refused?

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite, who has been a member for a lot longer than I, ought to know that Canada has a generous and welcoming immigration system and refugee accepting system on many different levels: one, as a United Nations designated refugee from camps abroad and elsewhere; and, two, as a group sponsored refugee where churches and various groups can get together to sponsor people they are aware of in specific cases.

The member is trying to mix apples and oranges by saying that people who arrive on our shores, often without documentation, without any sense of who they are, should be put under the government's categories where we know that people are genuine refugees.

In addition, the member opposite should recognize and acknowledge that it takes a while to get in front of the Immigration and Refugee Board, in some cases a number of months, and that, until such time, we do not know who these people are nor their purpose for being in Canada. The bill would ensure the safety of our communities and the safety of our citizens and it would ensure we have some time to determine who they are and their purpose for being in Canada.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the changes being considered in Bill C-31 to the humanitarian and compassionate provisions of our refugee laws. It also concerns me that changes will be made to the designated country of origin provisions.

I would like to register my concern with the provision that suggests that the Canadian state will take the children of refugees from their families and take care of them.

We have heard a lot from the other side about the generosity of our refugee and immigration system but this was not always the case in Canada. I will talk a bit about that history in order to inform members of how that law developed and how that generosity developed.

I will now talk about the state taking children away from their families. Not long ago, in 2008, the government apologized to the first nations people because, in the past century, first nations children were separated from their parents and their culture in an attempt to force assimilation with the government complicit in the destruction of an entire generation. The repercussions of those decisions are still being felt. Its waves ripple out into society and are felt deeply. The misery of an entire generation carries a heavy burden upon the next and for many other generations to follow.

The government also apologized for the Chinese head tax, an amazing sum of money the Chinese people had to pay to come to our great country in a calculated bid to keep Chinese people from coming to our shores. When the act of 1885 did not work in the bid to keep Chinese people out, the government, in 1923, imposed the Chinese Immigration Act, known in the Chinese Canadian community as the Chinese exclusion act. The government only repealed that act 24 years later in 1947.

When we look at all the contributions that the Chinese Canadian community has made and how integral it is to our Canadian fabric, we need to scratch our heads in wonder about the discrimination and fear of our forefathers. It is clear that our predecessors, both the Liberals and the Conservatives, who sat in this chamber were wrong at that time. In his great wisdom, Mackenzie King ensured that the act was enforced on Dominion Day. The Chinese Canadian community at the time referred to that day as humiliation day. It is hardly something to be proud of.

When we think of that decision and the great length to which Canada actively discriminated against people of Chinese origin, we know now, with the distance of time, that we were wrong. In 2006, the Prime Minister apologized for that wrong.

Something else from the Mackenzie King-R.B. Bennett era that I would like to talk about today shows that we as legislators sometimes make bad judgments. It relates somewhat to the DCO provisions in Bill C-31.

During the second world war, only 5,000 people of the Jewish faith were admitted to Canada. Between 1930 and 1934, during the period of Bennett and King, nearly 17,000 immigrants were deported for having become a public charge, which was the term of the day. People were deported for union activities or membership in the Communist Party. By 1935, 20,000 people were deported. Some people were deported for something as minor as vagrancy. That is the dark history of previous legislators that we have in this chamber.

During the Great Depression, it was easier for a government to blame the other, to direct discrimination and hatred toward those who spoke too loud, said unpopular things, believed in the wrong God or in no God at all, and people with the wrong colour of skin or people who spoke different languages. It was the failure of Canada to take in the Jewish people after seeing the horror of the death camps that led to the foundations of our current refugee policy.

It was seeing the folly that we had made in the earlier part of the 20th century and our lack of compassion for the other that led us to liberalize, open up our refugee policy and be more accepting of refugees. We are so often wrong when it comes to judging the other and our history here is clear.

During the difficult period of the depression in the 1930s and during the period of World War II, anti-Semitism was rife all over the world. It was rife in Canada as well. During the 1930s, people did not believe that things in Germany were so bad. Germany's economy was being well managed by a capable leader who sometimes seemed intolerant and scary, but he essentially managed the country like a clock. However, we stood in horror when we saw that regime also killed people like clockwork in a systematized manner. It killed six million people. This accumulated discrimination, this rhetoric of discrimination that happened during hard economic times was turned into a killing machine with the state killing people.

Anti-Semitism was rife, but Canada only took 5,000 of those people who were being persecuted at that time. Anti-Semitism was rife then and it still lives today, as does Islamophobia. When I heard the Prime Minister say on national television that the greatest threat to our nation was Islamism, it gave me pause. As someone who firmly believes that history shows us where we have strayed so that we can do better in the present, forgive me for saying that I fear a government when it points the finger at the other and criminalizes the other, especially during economic hard times.

Would Oskar Schindler have been considered a human smuggler? How would the passport forgers of Europe have been considered during the Great War if this legislation had been in place? For the people who illegally made passports for Jewish people to get out of their country, how would they be considered? Would they be considered criminals? We have to ask these questions.

When I hear members opposite talk about people not going through proper channels and jumping the queue, it disturbs me. These are divisive politics so dangerous to the Canadian fabric. It foments fear of the other. They are the reactionary actions of a reactionary government. Let us think upon the dark history that I mentioned, and I have only touched on a couple of points.

I am very proud of my country and I do not want to be misinterpreted. I am a proud Canadian and proud of our great history, but I am also cognizant that we do have darker elements to our history. We have to think about the decisions, the rhetoric and terms that we use for other people coming to our shores. A person fleeing persecution being called a queue jumper disturbs me. We have to think of the dark history and of the decisions being made in this chamber. Let us think about that and ask this question. Who will apologize for the actions of the current government? Of the future legislators who sit in this chamber, who will have to stand to apologize to the victims of this present policy?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, that speech was absolutely ridiculous. The bill before us now, which amends the Immigration Act, would exceed Canada's obligations under the UN convention on refugees and the charter of rights. All asylum claimants, regardless from which country they came or the manner of their arrival, would have a full and fair hearing on the merits of their claims at the Immigration and Refugee Board. To in any way compare this to the refusal of Canada to allow, for example, the St. Louis to enter territorial waters or the “None is too many” policy of the Mackenzie King government, is outrageous and demagogic.

I understand the demagogic tradition of the hon. member. On May 26 of last year he attended a rally in Montreal, organized by No One Is Illegal and Solidarité sans frontières. This is an organization that opposes any restrictions on immigration. It believes there should be no limits of any kind on immigration to Canada, including for foreign criminals. It is opposed to the deportation of anyone, not only manifestly unfounded and rejected asylum claimants, but even dangerous foreign criminals and terrorists.

By the way, the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway attended a rally for this organization, No One Is Illegal, last week in Vancouver. The head of that organization, who organized the rally attended by those two members, has explicitly endorsed the violent, anarchist tactics of the Black Bloc.

Is that really the policy of the NDP, an anarchist policy that opposes the removal of even dangerous foreign criminals?

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, now I am being smeared as an anarchist, even though I sit in this chamber.

My belief is that even if we make the mistake on one person, that person goes back and gets tortured and persecuted. If the person loses his or her life due to the intolerance and the decisions of the government, if any child gets separated from his or her family, is taken care of by the Canadian state and gets psychologically damaged in any way, then the government is responsible.

This is what I am saying. If we make a mistake with even one person due to the intolerance of the government and this legislation, then we will have failed and will have to apologize in the future for those actions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the issue of the safe countries list. It is an issue that has been dealt with in previous sessions of the House of Commons.

When there was a minority situation, the government unanimously, through the House, passed legislation that in essence deemed that a country would be added to the safe countries list on the basis of a recommendation coming from an advisory committee made up of professionals who could develop what safe country would be added to the list. This current legislation now gets rid of that recommendation, a recommendation that was unanimously supported by the House of Commons just a couple of years back.

Could the hon. member provide comment as to why he believes it is an important amendment to this current legislation to ensure the advisory board is reinstated?

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across mentioned demagogy.

The NDP believes it is better to have experts and evidence backing up policy. To have a panel of experts who would develop the designated countries list is much better than having the demagogy of one immigration minister and his cronies saying which countries are safe and which are not.

I would trust experts and evidence much more than the political whims of a certain minister during a certain day.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges, who reminded us of some of the darkest moments of human history and the plight of Jewish deportees.

I wonder if he could comment on any similarities that may exist with the plight of the Roma from the Czech Republic and Romania, for instance, two countries that this government considers safe.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I lived in Turkey for five years, where the Roma people live in much worse conditions than the general population. From what I understand, the conditions are even worse in eastern European countries. We need to remember that the Roma live in difficult circumstances even if they live in a democracy with a relatively strong economy and a responsible government. In many such countries, there are populations, like the Roma, who are persecuted in a more clandestine manner.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Fleetwood—Port Kells to participate in the debate on Bill C-31, protecting Canada's immigration system act.

Our Conservative government recognizes the importance of immigration to our great country. That is evident in our actions and policies. Since 2006, the Government of Canada has welcomed the highest sustained level of immigration in Canadian history. Our government has also continued to strengthen and support our generous refugee system, which is an important expression of the compassionate and humanitarian convictions of Canadians and of our international commitments.

Canada remains one of the top countries in the world to welcome refugees. In fact, we welcome more refugees per capita than any other G20 country, because this government understands the importance of the immigration system to Canada's future. It also understands the importance of remaining vigilant about keeping that system functioning in our national interest. To do so, we must always be prepared to make improvements to the system according to changing circumstances and identified shortcomings.

Bill C-31 would do exactly that. When there is a system in place as generous as Canada, it is particularly important to guard against the abuse of that system and that generosity. Indeed, for too many years our refugee system has been abused by too many people making bogus claims. Our system has become overwhelmed by a significant backlog of cases. More recently, we have grown more and more concerned about a notable upsurge of refugee claims originating in countries that we would not normally expect to produce refugees. This is adding to our backlog.

Allow me to specify exactly what I mean by that.

It comes a surprise to many Canadians to learn that Canada receives more asylum claims from countries in Europe than others in Africa or Asia. Last year alone, almost one quarter of all refugee claims made in Canada were made by EU nationals. Let us think about that. EU countries have strong human rights and democratic systems similar to our own, yet they produced almost 25% of all the refugee claims to this country in 2011. That is up from 14% in the previous year.

These bogus claimants come with a large price tag for Canadian taxpayers. In recent years, virtually all EU claims were withdrawn, abandoned or rejected. The unfounded claims from the 5,800 EU nationals who sought asylum last year cost Canadian taxpayers $170 million. Under the current system, it takes an average of 4.5 years from an initial claim to remove a failed refugee claimant from the country. Some cases have even taken more than 10 years. The result is an overburdened system and a waste of taxpayer money. For too long, we have spent precious time and taxpayer money on people who are not in need of protection at the expense of legitimate asylum seekers.

The protecting Canada's immigration system act would help speed up the refugee claims process in a number of ways, such as changing the designated country of origin policy to enable the government to respond more quickly to increases in refugee claims from countries that generally did not produce refugees, such as most of those in the European Union. Claimants from those countries would be processed in about 45 days, compared to more than 1,000 days under the current system. Claimants from designated countries of origin would also have their claims heard sooner and would not have access to the new refugee appeal division.

Moreover, it would also further streamline the process by limiting access to appeals for other countries, such as by claimants with manifestly unfounded claims or claims with no credible basis at all. It would enable more timely removals from Canada of failed refugee claimants.

Taken together, these measures send a clear message to those who seek to abuse Canada's generous refugee system. It tells them that if they do not need our protection, they will be sent home quickly. They would not be able to remain in Canada by using endless appeals to delay their removal. At the same time, if they need refugee status, these measures would help them get protection even faster. Every eligible asylum claimant would continue to get a fair hearing at the Immigration and Refugee Board.

Once these needed changes are implemented, Canada's refugee determination system would remain one of the most generous in the world.

The protecting Canada's immigration system act would also deal with the despicable crime of human smuggling. Human smugglers are criminals who operate around the world, charging large amounts of money to facilitate illegal migration. Each year, countless people die while taking these dangerous journeys. Bill C-31 would help crack down on these smugglers in a number of ways. It would enable the Minister of Public Safety to designate the arrival of a group of individuals into Canada as an irregular arrival. It would establish mandatory detention of those individuals to determine their identity, admissibility and whether they have been involved in illegal activities. It is important to mention here that once a person's refugee claim has been approved, that person would be released from detention.

It would also make it easier to prosecute human smugglers and would impost mandatory minimum prison sentences on those convicted of human smuggling. It would hold shipowners and operators to account when their ships are used for human smuggling.

It would enhance our ability to revoke the refugee status of people who are no longer in need of Canada's protection and of those who have gained that status through misrepresentation. It would reduce the attraction of coming to Canada by way of illegal human smuggling, by limiting the ability of those who do to take advantage of our generous immigration system and social services.

One notable improvement in Bill C-31 from Bill C-4 is that mandatory detention would exclude designated foreign nationals who are under the age of 16.

Our government continues to be absolutely clear that human smuggling is a despicable crime and any attempts to abuse Canada's generosity for financial gain will not be tolerated. With this bill, we will crack down on those who endanger human lives and threaten the integrity of our borders.

The protecting Canada's immigration system act also includes a framework for the collection of biometric information, photographs and fingerprints, in the temporary visa program and will establish parameters for how this information can be used and disclosed by the RCMP in order to enforce Canadian law. The use of biometrics would bring Canada in line with other countries that already use biometrics in their immigration programs, such as the United Kingdom, Australia, the European Union, New Zealand, the United States and Japan, among others.

To maintain the support of Canadians for our generous immigration and refugee system, we must demonstrate that Canada has a fair, well-managed system that does not tolerate queue jumping. Bill C-31 will ensure that genuine refugees in need of protection will receive it sooner, while those who are abusing Canada's generosity will be removed more quickly.

I am proud to support this important piece of legislation and hope that all of my colleagues will work together to ensure the timely passage of this bill.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister said that the government has learned the lessons of history, such as Canada's shameful refusal to offer refuge to Jews on the St. Louis.

This is what the minister's bill would say about the German Jews aboard the SS St. Louis if it were to happen today: “The SS St. Louis is piloted by human smugglers intent on abusing Canada's immigration system. The passengers are part of a human smuggling event and will automatically be detained for one year. If their refugee claims are rejected, they will be deported back to Germany with no chance to appeal the negative decision to the RAD. If their refugee claims are accepted, they may or may not be released before the year has passed. Even if their claims are accepted, these German Jews will not be able to sponsor their family members for five years, nor will they be able to apply for permanent residency”.

Five years later would be 1943 and too late for those people to sponsor their family members, because it was 1938 when they came. That is what would have been said if the St. Louis had come to our shores and this bill had been in place.

I would like the government to justify to the Jewish community of this country why it would bring in a bill that would fail to learn the lessons of history and fail to protect refugees in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the hon. member that Bill C-31 is an important step to better protect our immigration system. It is important that we close the immigration back door so that the system becomes fairer for everyone involved. That is what this proposed legislation attempts to do.

The member mentioned that Jews do not support this bill, but I think that Jews all over Canada support the legislation wholeheartedly.

What I would like to make clear is that our government appreciates the fact that our country was built by immigrants. That is why we have introduced a number of other measures to help newcomers who come to Canada and to better protect Canada's immigration system.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in the member's comments she made reference to a change. There was a change from Bill C-4 to Bill C-31, wherein the government responded to opposition concerns in agreeing that it would be inappropriate to lock up or detain eight-year olds. It is now saying that it would not detain someone under the age of 16. We see that as a positive change.

There are a lot of positive changes that we still need to see in order ultimately to accept a bill of this nature in any fashion.

Having said that, my question to the member is what would happen in the case of a parent with a child. For example, if there were an eight-year old boy with his mother, would the mother be allowed to remain with her child or would she be held in detention?

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

Mr. Speaker, again I would tell the member that Bill C-31 proposes very important reforms for asylum seekers to make the process faster and fairer. It includes measures to address human smuggling and provides authority to make it mandatory to provide biometric data with a temporary resident visa application.

Let us be clear: we all want a compassionate immigration system. We all want to help others who generally need Canada's assistance, but we should not and cannot tolerate those who abuse our generosity.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on the matter of Bill C-31 and its prospective immigration reform. Regrettably, rather than being the transformational reform the minister envisages, though some of his reforms have been commendable, this bill, not unlike its earlier incarnation that experts characterized as being “littered with charter violations”, is seriously flawed from a constitutional perspective in its constitutionally suspect provisions; from an international perspective in its breaching of our international obligations; from a humanitarian perspective its turning its back on our humanitarian ethos; and from a policy perspective in its granting to ministers of broad, arbitrary, and sometimes non-reviewable powers, while removing avenues of appeal and review for applicants. In particular, this legislation reflects a serious lack of appreciation of what it means to be a refugee escaping persecution, and it can amount to gratuitous punishment of those seeking our protection.

Let me identify some of the defects in this legislation.

First, Bill C-31 would impose unrealistic and unfair deadlines on refugee claimants that would force them to make representations, perhaps at the moment they are most vulnerable, for example having just experienced violence, torture or sexual assault, and then finding themselves in a new country in an unfamiliar situation, not to mention a situation where a language barrier may likely exist, and where a failure to meet deadlines may pre-emptively disqualify their claim without affording them a fair and reasonable opportunity to establish such a refugee claim. For example, the 15-day window for refugee claimants to deliver a written version of the basis of their refugee claim is simply not enough time for refugees to seek legal advice and to do all that is necessary for the preparation of such claims. This includes responding to complicated legal requirements, gathering the evidence to prove their claim and making the legal case. Moreover, the 15-day window to complete an appeal application is equally unfair and limits the possibility of their pursuing such an appeal, such that mistakes that may be made by the Immigration and Refugee Board may go uncorrected. This legislation would serve in some respects, however inadvertent it may be, to have as its effect the double victimization of those who have been initially victimized by the smugglers exploiting them, and who then end up being victimized when they seek protection on our shores.

This brings me to the second point. The revised process for designating certain countries as safe eliminates an expert independent advisory body that could guard against countries being designated on the basis of erroneous political, economic or other considerations. Individuals from those countries under this legislation would face discriminatory treatment respecting matters as fundamental as access to justice, given that the processing of their claims would occur more slowly than for those from non-designated countries. Not only may this violate UN convention rights, but it also goes against the very premise that all are entitled to equal and impartial hearings regardless of the country of origin. Moreover, the way countries are designated, by a calculation of the number of rejected applicants, we may end up with a situation where a few bad apples can spoil the bunch. Therefore, while there may be numerous false claims from a country, why should we penalize all from that country where there may indeed be bona fide applicants in dire need of protection? Moreover, claimants from these countries would also face immediate removal without a right of appeal, thereby increasing the possibility that those facing a legitimate fear of prosecution would be deported. This flies in the face of our constitutional obligations, as confirmed by the Supreme Court, that we simply cannot deport people to situations of torture or terror.

Third, the bill calls for the mandatory non-reviewable and year-long detention of designated foreign nationals 16 years of age or over, which itself is an arguable breach of both our charter rights and related Supreme Court jurisprudence, which hold that such detentions without review are patently illegal. In the government's rush to incarcerate, a phenomenon that we also saw with Bill C-10, it ignores that there are suffering humans involved who may be in legitimate need of serious protection.

At the end of the day, what this would do is simply immunize error in our refugee system while prejudicing the rights of prospective asylum seekers.

Moreover, the minister himself has acknowledged that there are flaws in this proposal, noting in this place:

We will be moving an amendment to Bill C-31 to allow minors under the age 16 who are not accompanied by their parents to be released from detention if they have been smuggled into the country.

While I appreciate the minister's response in that regard, and I appreciate his presence here and engagement in this debate, it is yet again this rush to legislate without considering all the variables that results in flaws that end up having to be addressed and redressed.

Further, those who are granted refugee status would nonetheless be denied the right to apply for permanent residency for a period of five years. During this period, refugees would be prohibited from applying to reunite in Canada with spouses and their children. In effect, this means that actual reunification could be delayed for approximately six to eight years after being granted refugee status. They would be required to report regularly to immigration authorities for questioning and to produce documents. They would be prohibited from travelling outside Canada for any reason during the period. Arguably again this is in breach of our international human rights and humanitarian obligations in this regard.

As a final note on this point, let us not forget that there are extensive costs associated with the detention of refugees, not simply in terms of their physical detention which is costly on its own, but costs to the system later on in terms of mental health issues resulting from prolonged detention which history suggests could also be a significant burden. This is an issue that was not properly addressed in Bill C-10 and which we are going to be revisiting here in this legislation.

Fourth, this bill targets the permanent residence status of refugees by providing that their status may be revoked if the minister determines that they are no longer in need of protection. This provision could be applied against refugees who make claims in Canada or those who have been resettled to Canada from refugee camps abroad. It could even apply retroactively. As such, refugees who have been living in Canada for even decades and have established lives, families and careers here may be stripped of their status if the minister sees fit.

I would be prepared to say that the minister would not act in such an arbitrary manner, but the legislation does grant that kind of authority for that kind of power to be so arbitrarily exercised.

Indeed, as the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers put it, this provision “undermines Canada's commitment to refugees, makes a mockery of our commitment to the United Nations to provide permanent resettlement to refugees and puts at risk of deportation tens of thousands of refugees who have already been granted permanent residence in Canada”.

Fifth, the bill makes changes to the judicial review process in ways that are highly problematic, constitutionally suspect, and undesirable from a policy point of view.

The proposed bill removes the automatic stay of removal when filing for judicial review for claimants from designated countries of origin, claimants under an exemption to the safe third country agreement, claimants whose claims have been determined to be manifestly unfounded or of no credible basis, and claimants who arrive as part of a designated irregular arrival.

Not only does this prejudice certain applicants further, as I noted in my initial remarks about the problem of having designated countries in the first place, it is problematic in that claimants who have a valid claim as recognized by the courts would be forced to fight their court case from abroad. It is difficult enough for such claimants to argue their cases here in Canada, but it becomes even more difficult when they are forced to do so from a distance. If the court finds that the claimant is correct and should be allowed to stay here, will Canada fund the person's return voyage? Or is the government's plan thereby to end up removing more than needs to be removed and make it more difficult for people to come back?

Sixth and related, the legislation allows the Canada Border Services Agency to establish regulations concerning factors to consider when deferring removal. In this regard, we see a change in the legislation where removal orders are to be enforced as soon as is reasonably practicable, to use the language of Bill C-31, which says that the order must be enforced as soon as possible. This could cause a problem.

Time does not permit me to get into any other concerns, so I will quote the Canadian Civil Liberties Association by way of conclusion:

The provisions of Bill C-31 stand in stark contrast to Canada's legal obligations under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and a variety of international human rights conventions. Furthermore, this bill represents a dramatic departure from the ethos and reputation of Canada....

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the member, but in his substantive comments, unfortunately there were at least a couple of errors of fact and certainly, in my view, mischaracterizations of the bill in its intent.

One of the areas of fact which I suspect he just repeated and probably a researcher got it off the Internet was the notion that the minister is empowered under Bill C-31 with the ability to arbitrarily strip settled refugees of their permanent residency. There is no such power. This is a complete fiction.

In fact, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, adopted in 2002 by the government of which he was a member, in section 108 empowers the minister to make an application to the IRB to revoke permanent residency from people for whom protected status has ceased because they obtained such status through fraudulent means or country conditions have changed.

There is no change in the bill in this respect. The minister has no such power. It is a power that belongs to the IRB and is very infrequently used by that quasi-judicial body.

The member talked about 12 months of detention for smuggled claimants. In fact, they would be released following a positive protection decision by the IRB which, under the accelerated timelines of Bill C-31, would be in a matter of weeks or a couple of months.

The member asked why we would penalize claimants from designated safe countries. There is no such penalty. We have an accelerated process which his party agreed to in Bill C-11 in the last Parliament. The only change is that claimants would not have access, if failed at first instance, to the refugee appeal division, which the Liberal government refused to create in the first place.

How is it penalizing people to not give them access to something which does not currently exist?

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's comments, but they remind me of a recent response of his in a similar situation. In response to a Montreal Gazette editorial, the minister wrote not unlike that which he said in response to my comments today:

It is simply incorrect to suggest that C-31 includes any new powers, or loosens any of the criteria in Canada's immigration laws pertaining to the removal of refugee status.

However, as Professor Sean Rehaag of Osgoode Hall Law School pointed out in his response to the minister, who, I suspect, will have a response to that as well, the issue we are concerned about has to do with the cessation provision in Bill C-31 which authorizes the stripping of people's refugee status that underpin their permanent residency, thus making them subject to deportation. As Professor Rehaag noted:

This is a sweeping change to Canadian refugee law, one that puts the permanent residence of tens of thousands of recognized refugees at risk.

While this may not be the sweeping change that has been so characterized, it clearly is a change, unlike that which the minister himself so characterized.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism continually says that Canada exceeds our obligations of international law by simply giving a refugee claimant a hearing. Under the 1951 refugee convention, host countries have the obligation to assess the claim of any asylum seeker who reaches their territory.

Of course, there is no refugee queue. Everyone has the right to seek asylum regardless of how many others are doing so at the same time. There is no obligation in international law for a refugee to seek asylum in the nearest country. Refugees often escape to the nearest country. Often the country is not a signatory to the UN refugee convention and has no legal obligation to protect them. Those people are often at risk of arrest, abuse, detention, demands for bribes, forced labour, et cetera.

I would like to make a brief comment on the minister's comments on previous Bill C-11 about the independent committee to assess designated safe countries. What he said then was that those amendments “go a long way in providing greater clarity and transparency around the process of designation”. That is what the minister said about the committee in the last Parliament and he scrapped that committee in this Parliament.

Why does my hon. colleague think the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism may have changed his opinion on the process of designating safe countries?

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the minister would have changed his opinion. If the minister wants to offer a response as to why he did, I invite him to do so.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to express my support for Bill C-31, the protecting Canada's immigration system act.

If there is one thing that Canadians can be proud of, it is the way we treat foreign nationals who seek our protection. Our asylum system is one of the most generous in the world. Currently, Canada opens its doors to one in 10 of the world's resettled refugees.

Our humanitarian efforts have even been recognized by the United Nations. Since the second world war, Canada has granted asylum to over one million refugees. As a Canadian and a Quebecker, I am proud of our humanitarian tradition. Our government is determined to maintain this tradition that Canadians are so proud of.

Canada welcomes 10% of the world's resettled refugees, more than almost any other country. Our government has also increased the number of resettled refugees, with plans to settle 2,500 more by 2013 for a total of 14,500, which is a 20% increase.

The rationale behind Bill C-31 is simple: by focusing our system's resources on the people who genuinely need our protection, we will be better able to help those people. But we can make our system more generous only if we correct the problems in it.

We got closer to that goal with the passing of the Balanced Refugee Reform Act in June 2010, but the fact is that gaps remain in the system. We need more robust measures that are more like the ones in the bill that was first introduced.

For example, our asylum system is already overwhelmed by a significant backlog of claims. The growing number of bogus claims from European Union democracies is only exacerbating the problem. When we consider that virtually all claims from the European Union in recent years were abandoned, withdrawn or rejected by the Immigration and Refugee Board, an independent body, it is quite apparent that too many of our tax dollars are being spent on people who do not need our protection.

What are we to make of the fact that most claimants from the EU abandon or withdraw their claims, if not that the claimants themselves believe they do not need Canada's protection and therefore filed bogus claims?

By building on the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, Bill C-31 would save hard-working Canadian taxpayers $1.65 billion over five years. I think Canadians would agree that that money could be put to better use than dealing with bogus refugee claimants who abuse our system to enter our country through the back door. Yet that is just what we are doing now. We are using taxpayers' money to help people who should not even be here.

A failed refugee claim costs taxpayers an average of $55,000 because the current system is far too slow. On average, it can take up to 4.5 years from the time an initial claim is made until a failed claimant is removed from Canada. A number of cases have dragged on for more than 10 years. During this time, claimants can receive free health care and social assistance while their claims are pending. Long wait times mean greater costs for Canadian taxpayers.

It also takes too long for people who need our protection to move through the system. Those who truly need our protection now wait approximately two years—20 months—for a decision on their claims, which is unfair to genuine claimants. Our message to genuine claimants who are waiting patiently in line is that we are sorry. We know that they need protection, but they must wait two years before we can tell them whether they will get it. This is just not fair. It is an abuse of our country's generosity.

This situation deprives genuine claimants of their peace of mind and of the opportunity to quickly obtain protection.

In view of these problems, further improvements to our refugee system are obviously needed. Canadians have had enough. They want our government to take action and improve the system. That is exactly what we are doing with Bill C-31.

This bill will not just improve the current system and the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, it will also provide genuine claimants with protection sooner. The success of the new system depends on our ability to expedite the processing of claims, which is essential. The less time claimants spend in Canada waiting for a decision, the less incentive there is to abuse our generous refugee system and to queue-jump the regular immigration process. In addition, by speeding up processing times for refugee claims, we can provide genuine refugees with protection more quickly.

With Bill C-31, for example, claimants from designated countries of origin could have an IRB hearing within 30 to 45 days, as opposed to the 1,000 or more days it currently takes.

Let us be clear: the independent Immigration and Refugee Board will continue to hear every eligible claim, as it does now, regardless of the claimant's country of origin. In addition, every failed claimant will have access to at least one recourse mechanism, such as the refugee appeal division or the Federal Court. These new processing timelines not only mean that people who are in genuine need of Canada's protection will receive it more quickly, they also mean that we can more quickly remove those who do not.

Given the recent spike in the number of unfounded claims from countries that respect human rights and defend democratic values, and that are not usually source countries for refugees, we must absolutely deter the abuse of our refugee system. Quick removals would deter abuse and contribute to reducing the overall cost of our asylum system.

We need to send the right message to both types of refugee claimants: the genuine and the unfounded. Those who truly need our help will get it even faster, but if someone is not in need of protection, that individual will be sent home quickly. These proposed measures will allow us to continue to meet our domestic and international obligations.

These measures will also help to maintain the balance and fairness that are the foundations of our refugee system. Canadians gave our government a clear mandate to preserve the integrity of our immigration system. Bill C-31 delivers on that mandate.

This bill to protect Canada's immigration system will help to provide a quicker and more secure beginning here in Canada for victims of violence and persecution from around the world. At the same time, it will prevent bogus claimants from abusing the generosity of our immigration system and from benefiting from our health and social welfare services, which are paid for by taxpayers.

Canadians, and Quebeckers in particular, take great pride in the generosity of our immigration system, but they have no tolerance for those who abuse our generosity and seek to take unfair advantage of our country.

For all of these reasons, I urge all of my hon. colleagues in the opposition to support this important bill and to help us pass it quickly.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening all morning to members on the government side speak to the bill. Since we arrived here in May we have been listening to the government continually attacking the most vulnerable people in our country.

Government members describe the way in which refugees come to this country as if it were some kind of decision made by them in far-off countries because it would be fun, because they could scam the system and because they could do a lot better in Canada. That is not right. People who come to our shores, especially those who come by way of the egregious activities of human smugglers, come here because they have no choice. They are fleeing their home countries because they want to save their lives and the lives of their families.

I want to ask a question of the member opposite that plays very much to things that the government apparently is concerned about. The Conservatives talk about how we are losing so much money and how the system is broken. Would it not be better to hire more people to fill the vacancies at the IRB and get the claims processed faster?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the protecting Canada's immigration system act will provide a quicker and more secure beginning here in Canada for victims of violence and persecution around the world. It will also help us prevent false asylum seekers from abusing the generosity of our immigration system and receiving significant taxpayer-funded health and social services.

Canadians, and Quebeckers in particular, take pride in the generosity of our immigration system, but they have no tolerance for those who abuse our generosity and seek to take unfair advantage of our country.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, contrary to the preamble to the question from the member opposite talking about attacking the most vulnerable, Canada has the most generous refugee system in the world.

Many of us in this room have had the privilege and honour of working directly with refugee claimants when they have come here. We have helped them find their way through those early days here, find a place to live and find a place to work. I cannot understand why the opposition would not understand that it is important we have a system in place that actually ensures the security of the Canadian population.

One of the misconceptions that has been repeated over and over again by the opposition, all through this debate and especially this morning, is this myth that somehow Bill C-31 includes the mandatory detention of everyone who arrives as part of a human smuggling event. I would like to ask my colleague to explain the exemptions that are there for those who are under 16, and also how once an actual claim is processed the claimant is no longer detained in the detention centre.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying in my speech, Canada has the fairest and most generous immigration system in the world. However, Canadians have no tolerance for those who abuse our generosity and take unfair advantage of our country. We have to take steps to clamp down on these abuses. Our government is determined to strengthen the integrity of Canada's immigration system. The protecting Canada's immigration system act will make our refugee system faster and fairer. This legislation would put a stop to foreign criminals, human smugglers and bogus refugees abusing our generous immigration system and receiving taxpayer-funded health and social services.

The bill will also make it possible to offer protection more quickly to those who really need it. The bill will save Canadian taxpayers at least $1.65 billion over the next five years.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on Bill C-31, a very important piece of legislation. I hope to put some of this into context.

I wish our new elected official from Toronto—Danforth, Mr. Craig Scott were able to participate. He has yet to be sworn in. He has a legal degree from Oxford, London School of Economics and Dalhousie University. He can certainly provide an international lens to this. Canada is not an island. It is important to deal with the issues of worldwide refugee problems, whether they be violence, hunger, persecution for religion or beliefs or not having beliefs. This is something that Canada has to do with other nations.

I have empathy for the minister having to deal with a difficult file. Karen Boyce in my office is directly assigned to deal with immigration matters. She has worked diligently for 10 years, since I was elected in 2002, processing many claims for people, because we have such a backlog in our system. Sadly, we are not even funded to have a direct immigration person. However, in my office we are dedicated to that service. Karen has basically dedicated her life over the last 10 years to helping people. There is not a day that goes by that she does not change somebody's life.

It is important we talk about this, and think about some of the language that is being used here by the government. In the last couple of minutes I jotted down the words government members are using: protection, take advantage, security of population, abuse, crackdown, bogus. These are the types of words that the government is using to describe the most vulnerable who are coming to our shores, whether they be refugees or immigrants.

I think about this, and I think about my grandfather, Fred Attwood, who came to Canada after the Second World War. How courageous he must have been to come across the ocean, to Windsor, Ontario where he had never been before. He had to try to find a job and save money to send back for his wife, daughter and young son who had been left behind. I thought about how courageous it was. When we go to citizenship ceremonies, we think about how courageous people are. Also, there are the ones who are being persecuted and who do not know their fate. They are often dealing with children.

Let us be straight about this. Canada needs immigration and refugees. That is a reality for us to sustain our quality of life. That is necessary. We have a small population growth right now. That is not going to do, the day we need our pensions paid for, our economy moving and important new skill sets.

Let us put a face on some of these people the government is saying are dangerous, are security issues, who have problems and who we have to make sure are not going to be threatening the general public. They are people like K'naan. He was born in Somalia. He spent his childhood in Mogadishu and lived there during the Somalian civil war which began in 1991. Is a person like that a threat? He is a refugee.

How about Adrienne Clarkson, former Governor General of Canada? She emigrated from Hong Kong as a refugee in 1942. She came here, making her mark and contributing to Canada.

How about Fedor Bohatirchuk, a chess master? He has since passed away, but he was persecuted in Ukraine. He came to Canada and contributed for many years.

Sitting Bull, the Sioux chief. He left America for Canada as a holy man who led his people as tribal chief during the years of resistance in the United States. Sitting Bull eventually came here to Canada from the United States.

These are the people we are talking about. So when we see a system that is going to be put in place, we have to be very careful. I do not like the language that is being used. I do not think it is fair. I do not think it is right. It feeds into the base, the negativity. It is almost exhausting to see that this is what Canada is about, that we literally have a refugee problem that is overwhelming the capability of our current government, and that we have to gut our immigration and refugee policies to deal with this plague before it destabilizes our country. That is almost the message the Conservatives seem to be trying to paint.

We do have problems with our immigration and refugee situation. We do want to make improvements. There is no doubt about that. However painting it in this context, locking up people, tearing families apart, having no defined dates, having no capabilities to be able to advocate for themselves, is this what we are trying to espouse?

I do not like to see lists. I have seen this in the past. I was in the Canadian embassy in Washington in 2003. The ambassador said that Canada was going to have certain citizens who, when they entered the United States, would be put on a list because they came from a different country. I asked if we were going to protest that. He said that we were going to accept that. I said that is wrong, because that list is going to grow. Sure enough, it did. It went from 5 countries to 17.

Now there is a situation where our own citizenship is being tiered and defined by the U.S. to this day, with no resistance from the government, not the previous Liberal administration, not the current administration. We have accepted the fact that they will not validate our legal and due process to assign citizenship to the people we want to come into our country. We have allowed them to tier that.

What happens on the Windsor-Detroit border every day is ironic. We have doctors, lawyers, nurses, teachers, a whole slew of people, some of them were born in Pakistan 40 years ago, who are saving lives.

This is the funny part. Their credentials are not recognized in Canada, so they have to go into the United States and serve in the hospitals there. They are considered a threat to the United States at the border, in many respects because they happen to come from a country that the United States defines as being insecure or having issues, despite having Canadian citizenship. They are actually fingerprinted and photographed. Then they go to their jobs, saving American lives every day.

Ironically, they sometimes save Canadian lives, because when the hospitals are full in Windsor or if there are problems with people that cannot be solved, instead of being sent to London sometimes they will be sent to the United States. They get treated by a doctor who is not qualified to treat them in Canada and cannot get a job here. It is unbelievable. We have not been able to solve that in over 10 years.

The problem we have with this bill is it does not deal with the real situation of the backlog. I am concerned with the delays that are going to take place by not having appropriate staff levels.

We see this on a regular basis. For people waiting for security clearances, what happens is their health clearance goes null after its expiry date. Then they try to go back and get that and have their security clearance go null again, or wait in advance for many years. We have many cases where people are waiting for many years because of security reasons. We understand and appreciate that. However, why would we not put the resources to get these people moving?

Once again, we are connected to the world in regard to refugees. When there is a situation as in Sri Lanka, or in the past with Jews out of the Second World War, it is for all the world to contribute and do its due diligence to ensure that those who are vulnerable, through no fault of their own, get protection. Hopefully, we can restart their lives so they can contribute to our country and planet.

When we talk about refugees, think about people in the past who were refugees. Bob Marley was a refugee from Jamaica. Olivia Newton-John's grandfather was a refugee, as was Max Born. There is K'Naan, as I mentioned before. There are people like Jackie Chan. He was a refugee because of the Triads in Hong Kong. There is Jerry Springer, and I am not a fan of him, but his parents were German refugees. My own editorial opinion is he has not improved the television I watch, but the point is it is a free democracy.

There is Madeleine Albright. Under the system we are talking about, she would be considered a risk and would have to be vetted through our system the way the government wants to do it. Madeleine Albright and Harry Kissinger were refugees. As I mentioned, Sitting Bull was a refugee. I would bet if one were to look at some of the persecutions of people who did not want to participate in the draft during the Vietnam War, they would probably not be let in Canada anymore. Victor Hugo was a refugee. Here is another interesting refugee, Albert Einstein.

When we talk about this, we need to have some context. That is why I think it is important to note the language coming out. It was interesting to hear the minister talk about polls. In a question to one of my colleagues, he talked about polls wanting Canada to do this. We get calls and false emails all the time claiming refugees are getting all this money. It is not true. It is all a campaign of hate.

On an issue like this, sometimes the proper thing to do is not what is popular but what is right. That is hard to do sometimes, and the Conservatives do not understand that. They see this as a wedge issue.

When the Conservatives use the words, “bogus”, “crackdown”, “abuse”, “protection”, “take advantage”, “security of the population”, I refute that with the refugees who have contributed to Canada and this planet. We have to be there for them, not only in terms of passing legislation but in ensuring they can contribute to our country.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the member spent the weekend at the NDP echo chamber because his comments have nothing to do with reality.

Here is the reality. Canada, under this government, is receiving more resettled refugees than any other country in the world per capita. We resettle 1 out of every 10 resettled refugees worldwide. We have 0.05% of the world's population and take 10% of resettled refugees, but that is not enough. This government is so open to our humanitarian tradition that we are increasing the number of resettled refugees that we are accepting as part of our immigration plan by 20%, but that is not enough. We are increasing the refugee assistance program to assist newcomers in need of our protection with their integration. We are increasing that by 20%, but that is not enough. We are so committed to ensuring that asylum claimants get a fair shake that we are creating, for the first time, the refugee appeal division at the IRB, a full, fact-based hearing process for failed claimants.

This government is maintaining what the UNHCR calls the model asylum system in the world. We are making record large contributions to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Why is the member denigrating the best record in the world when it comes to refugee protection?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot mention who is or is not in the House, but obviously the applause was not for my answer. I wish I were that popular. However, it is a pleasure to have the member for Outremont back in this place.

To answer the minister quickly, if our system is so good, why does he have to establish laws and measures to control it? If it is so good, why does the minister have such little faith in his own legislation? This debate is about moving the control of our refugee information into a small cabal as opposed to having due process to ensure that when refugees show up on the shores of Canada, they are going to have a fair and partial process to become part of our country.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before we go to statements by members, the Chair would also like to welcome the new leader of the official opposition to the chamber.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, the Marine Transportation Security Act and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There are still two minutes left for questions and comments for the hon. member for Windsor West.

The hon. member for Nickel Belt.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Windsor West for his intervention on this very important bill. Given the fact his riding borders on the U.S. border, as he said in his speech, he has had one staff member dedicated to immigration for the past 10 years. I would like to ask the hon. member how bill C-31 would affect not only him and his staff but also the people in his riding?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is of great concern because we have a number of different immigration files from countries with lots of troubling issues. If we had further complications with people being detained and held, there would certainly be repercussions for their wellbeing once they have run through the immigration system.

We all know that being detained for a long period of time or separated from family creates trauma. Right now, we actually have few psychological services available in the Windsor region area, especially for youth and children. Therefore, I would be worried about the imprisonment and locking up of people who would later become Canadian citizens and their not having the support services to deal with those tragedies and complications.

It ultimately affects our economy. The health and welfare of people is necessary for them to be productive. That is one of the concerns I have with the bill, that is, not having the services to be able to point people in the right direction.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-31, the protecting Canada's immigration system act.

All Canadians should be concerned about the increase in refugee claims in recent years from countries that are generally considered to be safe and democratic. That is because the numbers clearly demonstrate that an increasing number of refugee claimants in Canada simply do not need our protection. This has been a concern for some time. Allow me to provide an overview of the statistics that demonstrate this from the last year alone.

In 2011 a significant portion of refugee claims came from the European Union. Claims from this region alone accounted for 23% of all claims last year, up from 14% in 2010, more than from Africa or Asia. On average, EU claims were abandoned in 14.5 months or withdrawn in 10 months. In recent years virtually all EU claims were withdrawn, abandoned or rejected. The bogus claims from among the 5,800 EU nationals who sought asylum last year cost Canadian taxpayers $170 million. Hungary, an EU member state, has become Canada's top source country for such refugee claims. Hungarians made over 2,400 refugee claims around the world in 2010. Of those, 2,300 were in Canada. That is 23 times more claims made in Canada than in the rest of the world put together. By comparison, the United States received only 32 Hungarian refugee claims in 2010. I think these numbers speak volumes.

Our refugee system was designed to provide protection to those who genuinely need it, people who have escaped brutal regimes, violence, oppression and persecution in these countries. These people need to come to Canada for protection or they risk losing their lives. However, the majority of claims are coming from safe and democratic countries that respect human rights. The fact that Canada receives more refugee claims from the democratic European Union than from Africa or Asia should be a clear wake-up call. Clearly, there is something wrong with our refugee system and it needs to be fixed.

This is how immigration lawyer Julie Taube summed up the situation under the current immigration system. She said:

I’m an immigration and refugee lawyer in Ottawa, and a former member of the Immigration and Refugee Board. I can tell you from theory and practice that the current refugee system is very flawed, and cumbersome, and definitely needs an overhaul. It takes up to two years to have a claimant have his hearing. And there are far too many bogus claims that clog up the system, and use very expensive resources at a cost to Canadian taxpayers.

....I have clients who’ve been waiting since 2009, early 2010 to have their hearing, and I represent many claimants from, let’s say Africa, the Mid East countries, who base their claim on gender violence or Christian persecution in certain Middle East countries, and they have to wait, because the system is so clogged up with what I consider to be unfounded claims from citizens of safe country of origin.

The reality is that instead of waiting patiently to come to Canada through the immigration process, too many people are trying to use our asylum system as a back door to gain entry into Canada. These bogus claimants do not want to play by the rules. Instead, they use our immigration system to get to the front of the line. All the while these claimants clog our refugee system and make those who legitimately need it to wait far too long before their claim can be dealt with. Let us not forget the huge expense to taxpayers and the enormous waste of taxpayer dollars. On average, a failed refugee claimant costs approximately $55,000. The simple fact is that the generosity of Canada's social benefits, including taxpayer-funded welfare benefits and our general health care system, which is a source of immense pride for Canadians, is the draw factor for many European claimants.

The designated country of origin policy would provide the minister with a more flexible tool to respond to spikes in unfounded refugee claims. To help reduce the pull factors for unfounded claimants, the designated country of origin policy would allow for expedited processing of refugee claims from countries that do not typically produce refugees. It is important to note, however, that whether or not a country is designated, every eligible refugee claimant would continue to receive a hearing before the independent Immigration and Refugee Board. Claimants from those countries would be processed in about 45 days compared to 1,038 days under the current system.

All claimants, regardless of country of origin, would continue to have the ability to seek judicial review of their claim by the Federal Court. Claimants from countries of origin that have not been designated would get access to an additional level of appeal for the first time, as they would have access to the new refugee appeal division.

Bill C-31 is necessary since the many days it takes to process refugee claims is what attracts unfounded claimants to Canada in the first place. On average, it can take up to four and a half years from the initial time a claim is made until the failed claimant is removed from Canada. In the most extreme cases, the entire process has taken up to 10 years. As a result of the improvements in Bill C-31, those who truly need our protection would get it even faster and those who do not would be sent home more quickly. Moreover, Bill C-31 would save Canadian taxpayers at least $1.65 billion over five years.

It is no surprise that Bill C-31 has received widespread praise from across the country. This is what the Globe and Mail had to say about the bill:

[The immigration minister's] refugee reforms, aimed at making the process more efficient and decisive, are generally good. If implemented, they will improve an unwieldy asylum program....

The legislation rightly focuses on weeding out claimants who are not genuine, and stemming the flow of asylum seekers from countries such as Mexico and Hungary that are democracies with respect for basic human rights and freedoms....

Fast-tracking the refugee claims from these countries, and ensuring failed claimants are properly deported, is an excellent way to ensure Canada does not become a magnet for abuse.

Canadians are proud to have the most generous immigration system in the world. However, Canadians have no tolerance for those who abuse our generosity and take unfair advantage of our country. We must take action to crack down on this abuse and strengthen the integrity of Canada's immigration system. The protecting Canada's immigration system act does just that. It would make our refugee system faster and fairer. It would put a stop to foreign criminals, human smugglers and bogus refugees abusing our generous immigration system and receiving lucrative taxpayer-funded health and social benefits. At the same time, this bill would provide protection more quickly to those who are truly in need.

Canadians have given our government a strong mandate to protect Canada's immigration system. We are acting on that mandate. If we want our refugee system to work more efficiently and to provide protection to those who genuinely need it in a reasonable amount of time, then I encourage all members of this House to vote in support of this legislation.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, a number of lawyers gathered at a news conference and pointed out a number of flaws with this bill. I will just ask the member about one in particular, the mandatory detention for up to a year without review of those designated by the minister as irregular arrivals. We know that in the security certificate cases, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down a virtually identical provision to that clause as being unconstitutional. We simply cannot have laws made by Parliament that lock people up without review.

I wonder if my hon. colleague would care to comment on what he thinks about that part of this bill, particularly in light of the decision by the Supreme Court of Canada that very clearly says that that is unconstitutional, and which these lawyers say will absolutely be challenged as soon as this bill becomes law, if it does.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, we believe that the act meets the scrutiny of the constitutional requirements and, obviously, knowing that some people may be detained when they are irregular or illegal immigrants, we are certainly mindful of their human rights and their needs. No system is perfect, but first and foremost we must protect Canadian society by ensuring that we have an immigration system that is fair to all.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make reference to a change the government did make between Bill C-4 and Bill C-31. It acknowledged, as the opposition at the time had clearly indicated, that it would be wrong to put eight-year-olds or youth in detention centres because the minister deems them to be irregular arrivals. Under the new legislation, the government has now said it will not detain youth under the age of 16.

However, there are some really fundamental problems with Bill C-31. In this member's opinion, is the government prepared to accept amendments that would make this legislation better? One in particular is in regard to establishing an advisory committee that would allow for appointments to a board that would recommend to the minister which country should be considered a safe country.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised a valuable point. Obviously the bill will be the subject of further debate. No one has the market cornered on good ideas. Certainly, we will welcome any improvements to the bill that may make the bill more effective and fair to Canadians and immigrants coming here.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the parliamentary secretary, and I have asked this before, about the cost of mandatory detention of people deemed to have arrived by irregular entry.

If Australia's example is any indication, we will not be saving money. We will be spending more money than we ever spent before on the mandatory housing and internment of families and people who come here and are deemed irregular entries. Australia expects to spend $668 million on its 19 immigration detention facilities in the next fiscal year.

Could the hon. member tell us if the government has costed this? Will there be savings or will there be significantly more tax dollars required?

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, certainly no one measure comes without costs. What is particularly important in this case is making sure that refugees and immigrants who come to Canada do so in a legitimate fashion without abusing the system.

Those who do not come here in the fashion that is anticipated by the law will be detained. Of course, there is a cost to that. Obviously there is an offset to this cost of keeping these people here. By getting them out more quickly moneys are saved. There is a trade-off. Certainly we have to put first and foremost the fairness of the system before the costs associated.

We are all immigrants to Canada and we welcome those who come here legitimately.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, although I was not an MP in the previous Parliament, I know that this bill is the logical successor to Bill C-11, which was passed in the 40th parliament. I know enough about this file to say that the bill was negotiated by all parties, including the NDP.

A number of my colleagues, such as the member for Trinity—Spadina, worked very hard to ensure that the bill—which contained some of the measures included in this new bill—would be acceptable to everyone and would bring people together.

What I find fascinating is that none of the negotiated measures are found in this bill, even though they were quite acceptable to the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, the member for Calgary Southeast, who said:

However, many concerns were raised in good faith by parliamentarians and others concerned about Canada's asylum system. We have, in good faith, agreed to significant amendments that reflect their input, resulting in a stronger piece of legislation that is a monumental achievement for all involved.

Am I dreaming? What has become of the “stronger piece of legislation” that the Minister spoke about? But more importantly, what has become of the good faith?

This bill is the latest manifestation of a new Conservative tradition. Ever since I have been in the House, the Conservatives have gone about things the same way. With every bill, we get the same performance. The government proposes measures and refuses to listen to anyone who does not like them or who suggests changes, as though it were sacrilegious to consider any bill to be less than perfect as of the first reading.

That kind of attitude is deplorable. It is bad for our country and for Canadians because, instead of coming up with the best possible solution for them, we have to settle for things like this.

There are ideological differences between the NDP and the government. That much is clear. The government needs to talk about something other than its “strong mandate”. The fact is that most Canadians did not choose the Conservatives. Not even a majority of voters chose them.

This government has to open its eyes and start working with the opposition parties to improve bills in ways that will benefit Canadians.

Many groups oppose this particular bill. Among those expressing their opposition are groups that the members opposite would call friends of criminals: the Barreau du Québec, the Canadian Bar Association, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. However, these groups speak with considerable authority, and I trust their opinions.

All of these groups raised the following points. First, the minister's discretionary power to designate so-called safe countries is too great. This is not about whether I trust the current minister or not. I would rather leave him in the dark about that. This is about knowing who decides which countries are on the list and about considering how the minister—the current one or his successors—will be subject to economic and diplomatic pressure to that end.

Second, a two-tier refugee system is also a problem. Some will have rights, and others will be assumed to be abusing the system. There will be no consideration for personal history.

What also bothers me about this bill are the potential violations of the international convention. I am sure my colleagues across the floor also received the letter from Human Rights Watch. I urge those who have not yet read it to do so.

The letter raises four points that the organization is really concerned about. First of all, the year-long mandatory detention of asylum seekers violates the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, specifically article 31, which prohibits imposing penalties on refugees simply because they had to enter a country without authorization.

Second, the five-year ban on applying for permanent resident status violates article 34 of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. Under that article, states must, as far as possible, facilitate the assimilation and naturalization of refugees. Human Rights Watch is also concerned about the right of separated refugee families to reunite, since obtaining permanent resident status usually takes at least six or seven years.

Third, detaining 16 and 17-year old children violates the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Lastly, Human Rights Watch is concerned about the power vested in the minister to designate which countries are considered safe. In short, once again, all of this will tarnish Canada's reputation on the international stage.

Canada has a reputation as a welcoming country. I have seen this first-hand as an immigrant myself. My experience as a landed immigrant was quite different from what a refugee might experience, but I simply cannot accept that people would systematically be detained because they had to flee an untenable humanitarian situation in their own country. I refuse to let Canada become a country where refugee claimants are treated so poorly that legitimate refugees could be deported before they even have a chance to learn about their rights and the system.

I do not want my country to become a place where refugee claimants will not be considered simply because the government does not want to offend some countries with which it wants to do business. And I certainly do not want to see two classes of refugees.

I strongly oppose this bill because it is harmful to refugees—people who are already vulnerable—instead of offering them a fair, balanced system that does not attack legitimate refugees.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her very eloquent speech. In my riding, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, 14% of the population is made up of immigrants and children of immigrants. Some of these people came to Canada as refugees, others as landed immigrants. The bill, as written, seems to create a two-tier system, meaning that some refugee claims will be processed more quickly than others.

What will happen to 16- to 18-year-olds, young people who have not yet reached the age of majority? The government says that mothers and their children under 16 will be kept together in these famous centres, but what will we do with the fathers? Will they be separated from their families? How much will these famous refugee detention centres cost? There is talk of $170 million for health insurance and other services.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. Clearly, this bill will cost taxpayers quite a lot of money. Yet we have a very valid system, and there are many regulations to prevent bogus refugees from entering the country, as the members across the way claim.

Certainly, this bill will impose one year of arbitrary detention without habeas corpus. Parents will be separated from their children. Spouses will be separated for years, and some people will see their permanent resident status revoked when it is deemed that they can safely return to their country of origin.

I have no answer for my colleague. She should instead ask the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism why he is again turning his back on Canadians.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague about this bill, which will mean that everyone seeking asylum in Canada will be placed in detention for nearly a year.

My concern is that we are now saying that people who arrive by irregular entry would be placed in some form of detention. We are also saying that if they do not come from a country that we recognize as potentially legitimate in terms of their seeking refuge, they would not be allowed in at all.

In the case of Hungary, the Federal Court of Appeal has ruled that “the evidence is overwhelming that Hungary is presently unable to provide adequate protection to its Roma citizens”.

Does my colleague believe that creating a blanket rule that certain countries are safe and certain countries are not would create a threshold that actually would keep people who need our help from being allowed to come to Canada.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that relevant question. I have here a document I got from the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers. I would like to read what it says about the bill:

Bill C-31 gives the Minister broad and vague powers over the lives of refugees. The Minister says he will exercise those powers prudently and fairly. But the Bill also minimizes the Minister’s accountability for how he uses those powers. The Bill contains few remedies if there is an abuse of power by the Minister or his agents.

The minister tells us to trust him but that is not good enough in democracy.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand in the House today and join the debate on Bill C-31.

There has been a lot of discussion over the last few hours and, frankly, over the last few days and weeks on this particular bill. There has also been a variance of opinion, so I am glad to add my voice to those who are seeking support for Bill C-31.

As, I think, everyone in this place knows, there are three distinct elements contained in Bill C-31. The first deals with the asylum system and how we can make it more responsive to refugees who make application to come to Canada. The second deals with the human smuggling aspect. The third deals with bringing in future legislation to make it mandatory for biometric data to be used when temporary resident visas are being applied for.

In the few moments I have I want to address only one element of Bill C-31, the asylum system and why we need to make that system fairer and more responsive to all those seeking to come to Canada.

I do not think there is any question that everyone in this place, with the possible exception of those independent members formerly known as the Bloc Québécois, would agree that Canada is the greatest country in the world in which to live, and there are many reasons for that.

We have an incredibly high standard of living, which is a direct result of the economic situation in which we find ourselves. We are now the envy of the industrialized world when it comes to economic performance and economic potential. We also have a system of justice that empowers law and order that respects, preserves and promotes human rights. We have a system of government that has set up publicly funded and accessible health care for all Canadians. We have wonderful educational systems. We have systems that allow Canadians to speak without fear of persecution on any issues, whether they be political or legislative. We also have a fine system that provides social assistance to those people who genuinely need it. Besides health care, we have welfare systems and pension systems that are viable and completely sustainable. There is no question as to why citizens from across the world would want to come to Canada.

However, there are those who, rather than trying to go through the normal immigration route, are trying to cheat the system by attempting to get into Canada claiming that they are refugees or asylum seekers, that they are being persecuted by the governments in the countries from which they originated.

We have found over the last number of years that an inordinately high amount of those claims for asylum are bogus. Time after time, we have seen, particularly in cases where asylum claims have been made from people in the European Union, that those claims are without merit whatsoever.

However, they come at a cost. Under the current system, if one makes a claim for refugee status and wants to come to Canada under the asylum system that we currently have, it takes up to five and sometimes even ten years to go through the lengthy appeal process to revoke one's claim and actually remove those bogus claimants from our country. At what cost? It is estimated that bogus claims last year alone cost the Canadian taxpayer over $170 million. Furthermore, it is anticipated that the costs associated with providing services to those bogus claimants over a five year period would cost over $1.65 billion.

The way the system is now, if one comes to Canada claiming to be a refugee, that individual can start receiving some of those many benefits, which we offer to all of our citizens, within days. If the Immigration and Refugee Board feels that the claim for refugee status is false, the appeal system is so convoluted and so long that it may take up to 10 years to have that claimant's appeal process exhausted. Yet, all during the time that lengthy appeal process continues, those individuals are still able to receive services and benefits from the Canadian government at a cost to the Canadian taxpayer.

What Bill C-31 purports to do is speed up the process so that those who are making false claims get removed from Canada quicker and those who have legitimate claims to refugee status are dealt with quicker and in a more fair fashion.

The type of approach that we are taking in Bill C-31 has been applauded by members of the opposite parties, pundits and those who are involved in the immigration system because they say that it absolutely would do what it intends to do, which is to make our system of asylum and refugee claimants quicker, more responsive and fairer.

We have a system right now where people who claim to be a refugee are dealt with in a similar fashion. In other words, they need to go through an appeal process if they are initially rejected. What we are suggesting in Bill C-31 is that there would be a designation of safe countries. By that we mean that if history has proven that the majority of claimants coming from certain countries are in fact bogus then those appeal processes would be short-tracked to a 45-day period rather than the 5, 6 or 8 year period that we currently have.

That is a major change in the way we deal with refugee and asylum claimants in this country. It also would not only help save Canadian taxpayers' money but assist legitimate refugee claimants. While the appeals courts are now clogged with bogus claimants, there are legitimate refugees waiting to come to Canada who cannot be processed and accepted into our country because the system is jammed.

I think it stands to reason that all members in this place would come on side with Bill C-31. I have heard many contrary views during debate but, quite frankly, I think they are coming from a position of having misinformation, mistruths or are deliberate attempts to try to misconstrue what Bill C-31 purports to do.

Far be it from me to make accusations of any member opposite but I would suggest to all members that they carefully examine Bill C-31 because I believe it would reform the refugee system in a way that would actually benefits those who really need the protection of a government in Canada.

We know throughout the world there are many who are being persecuted right now in their home countries because of either their religious beliefs or political beliefs. Those are the types of individuals who should be allowed to make a claim to come to Canada under refugee status. Unfortunately, however, they are not the only ones who are attempting to get into our country.

Frankly, in the last number of years, over 95% of claimants who came from the European Union have either voluntarily withdrawn their claims or have returned to their country of origin. Why? They were not legitimate claims.

For example, if a country in the European Union is designated as a safe country and someone from the European Union makes an application to come to Canada as a refugee but is rejected by the Immigration and Refugee Board, he or she can appeal but the appeal process will take place within 45 days rather than 5 years or 10 years.

That is the type of system Canadian taxpayers want to see enacted here in Canada. We are the first government to come to grips with a problem we currently see on the refugee and asylum system that we inherited from previous governments. We are taking the proper steps to ensure that legitimate refugees will still have opportunities to come to our great country and do so quicker than before but also to ensure that those who are making bogus claims of refugee status are dealt with expeditiously. That is what Canadians want.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat ironic, even ridiculous, that the member opposite is asking us to agree on a bill, when there was a general consensus among all members of the House on Bill C-11. Everyone made compromises and agreed on the matter. Now, the Conservatives have come back with an amalgamation of bills that are condemned by defenders of rights and freedoms in Canada. Canada's international obligations are being violated in this bill.

Among other things, in this senseless amalgamation of bills, Bill C-4 infringes on the rights of refugees, instead of helping them and dealing with smugglers. There is a lot of inconsistency in all this. I do not see where the government's good faith is with regard to amendments that might be presented. It is also turning a deaf ear to expert advice.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the previous bill, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, was passed unanimously by the House, but as the minister clearly stated at the time, it was a good first step. Refugee reform is not static. It needs to be enhanced and updated at all times.

I would ask the member opposite who said that she feels our government is being unfair, if 95% of claimants from the European Union voluntarily withdrew their claims, what does she say about that? Are those legitimate claimants? Of course not.

It has been well documented for years and years, if not decades, that there have been bogus claimants coming to this country under our generous immigration system. Some of them not only have been bogus, but they have been criminals attempting to get into our country because we have such a generous and, quite frankly, lax immigration system.

This will tighten up the system with the reforms needed. It is not being unfair; it is just the opposite. It is a fair way to deal with immigration systems, and refugee reform is desperately needed.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the member is a little off base here. For example, there was a consensus, and even the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism recognized the value of having an advisory committee make recommendations as to what country should be deemed a safe country. Even the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism went out after that legislation passed and said that this is good, that it is better than what we had before.

Now this legislation reinstates what the minister originally had, which he was critical of, saying that the consensus was better than having this advisory committee recommend to the minister what is a safe country.

Does the member not see the value in going back to where there was all-party consensus, and one of the strongest advocates for that consensus was the immigration minister at that time, and reinstate that in Bill C-31? That would go a long way in showing that the government is being open-minded before the bill goes to committee.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out a couple of things.

Number one, the minister does not have arbitrary powers to designate safe countries. That designation comes from the Immigration and Refugee Board. There is a system, both qualitative and quantitative, of factors that determine what should be considered a safe country.

I would also like to point out to the hon. member opposite that his former leader, Mr. Ignatieff, stated just that, that there has to be a system to designate safe countries, because otherwise, if we do not have that kind of system, abuse in the refugee system could take place.

His former leader recognized that the designation of safe countries in a reform of the immigration and refugee system that we have in Canada was desperately needed. We agreed with him then. We agree with him now.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak in favour of Bill C-31.

Canadians take great pride in the generosity and compassion of our immigration system. Canadians have long opened their arms to those less fortunate and those who need our protection. Canada has welcomed over a million refugees since the Second World War and we will continue in that proud tradition.

In fact, just this past December at the United Nations in Geneva, our government committed to further concrete actions in order to provide protection to those in need. We pledge to maintain our promise to increase the number of refugees we resettle by 20%, even in the face of a global economic situation that has seen some countries reduce their resettlement. This means that by 2013, Canada will resettle up to 14,500 refugees, an increase of 2,500 refugees.

We also pledged a portion of our resettlement spaces for each of the next five years as part of an international pool for emergency situations. Canada will pledge 200 spaces each year, which represents 10% of the UNHCR's request for additional spaces for urgent crises.

In addition, our government will continue to resettle religious minorities and victims of persecution on the ground of sexual orientation, including those from Iran who have fled to Turkey. We will also continue our efforts to assist highly vulnerable persecuted populations, including traditional refugees, internally displaced persons, women and children.

Clearly, our Conservative government is committed to providing protection to the world's most vulnerable. Canadians are also committed to continuing this proud tradition of ours. The outpouring of support from Canadians under the private sponsorship refugee program underlines our generosity. Under this program, Canadian citizens and permanent residents come together to sponsor refugees and help them build a new life here in Canada.

Since the program began in 1978, private sponsors have collectively welcomed more than 200,000 refugees to Canada. As a result of the compassion and generosity of Canadians, our country is a world leader in resettling refugees, and our humanitarian efforts have been recognized by the United Nations.

For refugees who are resettled from outside Canada, Canada recognizes two broad classes of refugees.

The first class consists of convention refugees, which refers to those people who fall under the definition provided under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. The convention defines a refugee as a person who “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 to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country”, or unwilling to return there because there is a fear of persecution.

The second class of refugees resettled from outside Canada is the country of asylum class. This category is for people in refugee-like situations who do not qualify as convention refugees. To be considered a refugee, they must be outside their home country or the country where they normally live. They must have been and continue to be seriously and personally affected by civil war or armed conflict, or have suffered massive violations of human rights, and they must not be able to find an adequate solution to their situation within a reasonable period of time.

Canada welcomes one in ten of the world's resettled refugees, more than any of the G20 countries. As I have already said, by 2013 Canada will resettle up to 14,500 refugees.

Finally, Canada also offers protection to people in Canada who fear persecution or whose removal from Canada would subject them to a danger of torture, a risk to their life, or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

Last year alone we granted nearly 11,000 asylum seekers protection in Canada. We will continue to grant protection to those in need. Canada will continue to provide protection to those who are persecuted on the basis of race, religion, nationality, their membership in a particular group, or political opinion.

Members will notice that the definitions of refugees that I provided do not include queue jumpers. Nowhere does it say that protection should be offered to those people who do not want to play by the rules, those who want to jump to the front of the line, those who want to benefit from lucrative taxpayer-funded health and social benefits.

Canadians are generous and want to provide protection to those in need. However, they have no tolerance for those who abuse our generosity or take advantage of our country. The fact is that right now too many people are abusing our refugee system as a way to gain quick entry into Canada and jump the immigration queue.

Last year a quarter of all refugee claimants were from the European Union. Canada received more refugee claims from the European Union than from Africa and Asia. Virtually all, I repeat, virtually all of the claims from the EU were abandoned, withdrawn or rejected. The opposition NDP and Liberals cannot dispute the facts and they cannot ignore the statistics. Bogus claimants clog our refugee system and make those who legitimately need protection wait far too long before they receive a decision on their claim.

We must also stop wasting taxpayer dollars on these unfounded claimants. There were more than 5,800 new refugee claims from EU nationals last year. The cost to Canadian taxpayers for the unfounded claims last year was nearly $170 million. These people are not in legitimate need of our protection. Instead, they wish to manipulate our refugee system for their own selfish gain and take advantage of our country's generosity. They do not want to play by the rules or wait in line. Unfortunately, the current process rewards them for abusing the system.

Large numbers of bogus refugee claimants are a financial burden on the economy, but the attraction of Canada's social assistance programs and associated benefits is a draw for many. Under the current system, claimants can access our taxpayer-funded health care system and claim welfare for several years while their claims are still pending. Canadians want us to put a stop to this abuse. The reforms contained in Bill C-31, the protecting Canada's immigration system act, are aimed at deterring abuse of Canada's immigration system. With those proposed measures, the integrity of Canada's program would be protected and we would be able to provide protection more quickly to those who generally need it.

Bill C-31 would make our refugee system fairer and faster. It would put a stop to foreign criminals, human smugglers and bogus refugees abusing our generous immigration system and receiving lucrative taxpayer-funded health and social benefits. At the same time, this bill would provide protection more quickly to those who are truly in need. Canadians are generous and want to provide protection to those in need. These changes would maintain the quality of our asylum system and also continue our active resettlement program overseas. With these changes, Canada would remain a leader in providing refugee protection and we would be able to prevent abuse of our refugee system.

I urge my fellow members in the House to rise in support of this legislation.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, something has become a lot clearer for me after listening to the government today. Among many of the reasons the government is trying to dismantle Canada's social safety net is apparently to make Canada less attractive to supposed queue jumpers. This is outrageous.

I want to get back to the whole idea of bogus refugee claimants. If 95% of them are withdrawing their applications in the first place, let us deal with the remaining 5%.

In my riding there is a Roma community. Human Rights Watch has stated there are documented cases of racist and xenophobic violence directed particularly against the Roma and inadequate police protection in a number of EU member states. These are not bogus refugee claimants. It is a vulnerable community. They come to Canada and if they are given the right opportunities, are in the right communities and are nurtured properly, they contribute to our society and tax base.

Does the member really think that members of the Roma community are bogus refugee claimants?

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting listening to NDP members. I have to say that I understand that they want to oppose. That is their role here in this Parliament. However, it is one thing to oppose constructively, it is a whole other thing to oppose to spread fear and derision throughout the country.

The member who spoke two speakers ago, and I cannot remember his riding, spoke of Human Rights Watch. Let us look at the record of Human Rights Watch. Human Rights Watch, by the admission of its founder, is anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, anti-American and anti-Canadian. This is an organization that the NDP members line themselves up with and take advice from. It is a shame and a disgrace.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but the hon. member is smearing organizations that are known around the world for defending human rights. I think the hon. member should be careful about what he says and stop accusing the NDP of spreading fear and being anti-Canadian.

During the last Parliament, the government accepted our amendments, but we know full well that it did so only because it had a minority. It had no choice if it wanted the bill to pass.

Now that the Conservatives have a majority and have removed the NDP amendments knowing that the bill will pass, how can they accuse us of not wanting to negotiate with them?

Can the hon. member rise today and say that the Conservatives are going to reinstate the amendments and negotiate with us? If the government decides to accept our amendments, the NDP might pass the bill.

Are the Conservatives going to negotiate with us?

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have to take any lessons from the NDP in terms of truth. The NDP, in this instance, has lined up with Human Rights Watch, an organization which has been declared by its founder to be anti-Semitic and have an anti-Israel bias. It has not said a word about the slaughter of Syrians by the Syrian regime. This is an organization that the NDP lines up with. The facts speak for themselves. It was the NDP that brought up Human Rights Watch, not me. The NDP members should stand by their wild accusations and be proud of them. That is fine. They can go before the Canadian people and tell them that.

I have to say that if the NDP members want amendments, and they were so happy with the bill they had before the previous Parliament of which I was not a member, then why did they defeat the government and force an election?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Random—Burin—St. George's, Fisheries and Oceans; the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso, Employment Insurance.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful for the opportunity to add some of my concerns about this bill which up to this point I have only been able to put forward in questions and comments. I am grateful that the Liberal Party allowed me one of the slots in their speaking roster this evening.

I have been in most of the debates on Bill C-31 since it was tabled and also in the earlier debates on its predecessor, Bill C-4. What we have been hearing from the Conservatives is that this bill is necessary to end human smuggling. We hear a lot of cries about human smuggling. We hear that people are jumping the queue. We have heard a lot of allegations.

I have structured what I hope to say in the next 10 minutes by mentioning some of the things that are most frequently alleged here and providing some counterbalance. I think there are egregious parts of this legislation. I think it violates the charter and that future courts will find it to be illegal.

Let us just start with one that we hear all the time, the notion that there is queue jumping if refugee claimants come to Canada in some fashion that is different from the way normal immigration to Canada occurs. We must keep very clear in our minds the distinct and large difference between people who come to this country as immigrants, as my parents did, and people who come to this country as political refugees, people fearing for their very lives.

In this category there is no such thing as a queue jumper. There is no such thing as going to line up at an immigration office for Canada in some country, when people know that their lives are at risk and they flee with the clothes on their back. We need to keep these things very separate in our minds. Much of this bill deals with that latter category, people who are seeking refugee status in Canada.

Some people can fear for their lives when they come to Canada and their refugee claims may be rejected. That does not mean that the adjective “bogus” applies to their claims. Some people are rejected even though they have a legitimate fear of persecution. They do not make it through our process.

We like to think that our process has been, and still is, fair and generous. However, sometimes it has rejected people who really did need our protection. Let us be clear about that.

The vast majority of refugees in this world, and they number in the millions, never make it to an industrialized country. Most of the migration that occurs among those people who are refugees is from one developing country to another. That is the vast majority of claimants.

We have heard that this bill, because of its punitive nature towards people who arrive by ship or some other means of arrival deemed an “irregular entry”, one of the new terms that comes up in Bill C-31, will discourage so-called human smuggling. I have yet to hear any empirical evidence that that is the case.

I have taken some time since the bill was first tabled to try to find evidence, and what I have found is the absence of evidence. An expert analyst of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Alice Edwards, said:

Pragmatically, there is no empirical evidence that the prospect of being detained deters irregular migration, or discourages persons from seeking asylum. In fact, as the detention of migrants and asylum-seekers has increased in a number of countries, the number of individuals seeking to enter such territories has also risen, or has remained constant. Globally, migration has been increasing regardless of governmental policies on detention. Except in specific individual cases, detention is generally an extremely blunt instrument of government policy-making on immigration.

Let me go to a letter that was sent to the Prime Minister of this country by a group of people in Australia who have had a lot of experience. Certainly it is true, as the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism has said, that other countries are going in a similar direction. It has failed there, it will fail here. This is a letter advising the Prime Minister of Canada not to go in the direction of Australia from the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre in Australia.

They refer to the fact that Australia is already learning some hard lessons about trying to discourage refugees by putting people in prison. Australia has abandoned its temporary protection visas because they found they were not working.

I will quote from their letter to our Prime Minister:

Contrary to popular belief, 'tough' immigration policies in the past have not succeeded as an effective deterrent:

In 1999, less than 1000 'unauthorised arrivals' applied for asylum, the year TPVs [temporary protection visas] were introduced.

In 2001, when the policy was in full force, the arrivals rose to more than 4000.

Under this policy, denying the right to refugees on TPVs to apply for family reunion pushed the wives and children of asylum seekers onto boats in an attempt to be reunited.

In 2001 353 people drowned in the tragic SIEVX disaster while travelling by boat to Australia.

Most of the 288 women and children aboard the SIEVX were family members of TPV holders already in Australia.

We have also been told that bringing in this bill would save money because people would be discouraged from coming here and our social safety net programs would not be available to refugees. I have asked several times in the House and I have yet to have one Conservative member of Parliament offer up a cost of this legislation. As far as I can find, it has not been costed.

Anyone, men, women, and children over 16 years of age, coming here by irregular entry would be put in detention. Minor children would likely be placed in detention as well because they would opt to stay with the mother rather than be placed far from their families in a foreign land.

Let us see what it has cost Australia. Australia maintains 19 immigration detention facilities. In the last year for which I could find costs, 2011, it was spending over $668 million on refugee detention. The Australian secretary in the department of immigration and citizenship remarked, and I do not know when we will hear this from the Canadian Minister of Citizenship, that “The cost of long-term detention and the case against the current system are compelling.... The cost to the taxpayer of detention is massive and the debt recovery virtually non-existent”.

We have heard that children would no longer be jailed, unlike the previous version of this legislation Bill C-4. We have been told that the change would allow children to go somewhere else, but we have not been told where. Under the international Convention on the Rights of the Child these children are defined as legally children. Sixteen to eighteen year olds would be jailed, their parents would be jailed, everyone would go to jail for up to a year if they arrived by irregular entry.

I just want to share what Australia has started doing. The Australian Human Rights Commission found that detention actually violated the Australian human rights provisions. It also was not working. In October 2010 the Australian government changed its tactics. It decided that it would begin to move a significant number of families with children into community detention. In other words, the Australian government is keeping track of anyone who arrives by irregular entry. These people are not essentially integrated into the community in the same way that they would be if they were allowed to work or move around freely. This community detention process has reduced costs. Placement in communities bridges visas and is essentially community detention but requires that the people involved report to someone, similar to parole, but they actually live in communities.

Lastly, we have been told that the bill would deal with people coming from the European Union. We have also been told that there is no reason for anyone to worry about the European Union. Since the bill was tabled, a Federal Court decision was tabled on February 22, 2012, in the case of Hercegi v. Canada. Mr. Justice Hughes of the Federal Court said clearly, “The evidence is overwhelming that Hungary is unable presently to provide adequate protection to its Roma citizens”.

I have one last court decision to refer to and that is Charkaoui v. Canada, 2007 in the Supreme Court of Canada. Madam Justice McLaughlin ruled that charter rights extend to foreign nationals. Charter violations are endemic to this act.

We must change this legislation in order to not violate Canadian values, Canadian law and the charter.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague. I am deeply concerned about the pattern I see from the Conservatives. They are talking about people who come here as refugees as illegal immigrants, as though they are all criminal, they are all guilty, they are all up to something and so they need to be locked up, handled and separated.

We see the movement in Europe where families with children are put into detention centres, basically, prison camps for children. My hon. colleagues talked about the situation in Australia, where families fleeing from dangerous situations are treated as criminals and are put into detention centres, without any sort of due course regarding a fair review of what their situation is, whether they have proper refugee status or whether they do not deserve to be there.

Is my hon. colleague concerned about this ideological attack that seems to be so much in keeping with so many of the other countries that we see going down this same road?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this does seem to be legislation that has been designed with an eye to public relations. I am a British Columbian. I know the effect of the Sun Sea coming to our shores. There was a lot of concern that people would be arriving. The first thing we heard from the Conservative members was that there could be terrorists on board this ship. In the end, having screened the many people who had gone through the miserable experience of a voyage on an unsafe and rusty vessel across the waves to Canada who were then detained and who were screened carefully without use of this law, the vessel was not found to contain criminals and terrorists.

We have not had a lot of boats arriving since. Therefore, the legislation seems to me to be intended to be largely public relations.

There is a refugee issue and an immigration issue. We need to replace the dwindling numbers of people on the Immigration Refugee Board so claims can be handled more swiftly and families can be reunited in this country.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, listened with interest to my colleague's comments. The unfortunate part of many of the comments that have been made today is the rhetoric that is involved. She used the term “jail”. My colleague across the way used the terms, “prison camps” and “treated as criminals”. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are simply trying to identify the identity of the persons who are coming here.

Does she not agree that it is important we know whether those who come here to seek the protection of Canada are in fact terrorists or have been involved in criminal activity in their country of origin? Is that too much to ask for the safety of Canadians?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Kitchener—Conestoga to be a person of faith and compassion. I ask him to consider that these may in fact be jails. We do not yet have detention centres. Some of the people from the Sun Sea were placed in jails. That is a fact. Therefore, how are we going to deal with numbers of people?

I agree with the point entirely. We need to know who is coming to our shore. We need to identify them. Those things can be done without a blanket presumption.

For instance, the way this legislation would work is if people come by ship, they are automatically detained. If they arrive in an airport, they are not. I do not understand why it is that we assume that only the dangerous people come by ships. If they come to a crossing by car and say that they are political refugees, their treatment is different.

The government, in its legislation, has not provided consistency in the way in which these streams of political refugees are to be treated.

I can only see it as a public relations ploy to start by saying that if people come by ship, they will be deemed an irregular entry. If we do not call it prison, if we do not call it jail, if we do not call it internment, the detention facilities in this legislation could well end up being the county jail.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak to Bill C-31, the protecting Canada's immigration system act.

I am proud to be part of a government that is effectively balancing ensuring that we offer protection for legitimate asylum seekers with maintaining the integrity of our immigration system and our security, all while ensuring that we build an immigration system that allows those who seek to come to Canada to contribute to the economic needs of our country and allowing them to be welcomed here more expeditiously. That is all thanks to the vision and dedication of the hon. Minister of Immigration, who I am proud to stand alongside today.

Canada already has the most fair and generous immigration system in the world. Canada welcomes more resettled refugees than almost any other country in the world.

However, in order for our asylum system to continue to be generous and to work effectively, Canadians need to know that it is not vulnerable to abuse. Unfortunately, for far too long, our immigration system has been open to abuse by those who do not want to follow the rules, or do not want to wait in line like everyone else, but would rather use the asylum system as a back door to jump the queue. This abuse undermines Canadians' faith in our immigration system. It costs taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars every year and, most unfortunate, it means that genuine refugees who need asylum are waiting far too long for Canada's protection.

Canadians gave our Conservative government a strong mandate to protect Canada's immigration system. They have told us loud and clear that they want us to put a stop to this abuse. With Bill C-31, we are acting on that mandate.

Bill C-31 would make important and further much needed improvements to our asylum system. It includes provisions to crack down on the despicable crime of human smuggling and it provides the government with the authority to require biometric data for anyone seeking temporary status in Canada. Together, these improvements would make Canada's immigration system faster and fairer.

Today I am going to focus my remarks on the refugee reform provisions of Bill C-31. The Balanced Refugee Reform Act, which was passed recently, was a good start and included much needed reform to Canada's broken asylum system. However, our government has always been clear that refugee reform is not a static issue and further steps would be taken if and when required. Recent waves of bogus refugee asylum claims from the democratic and human rights respecting European Union have made it clear that further reforms to Canada's asylum system are needed and needed urgently.

The statistics speak volumes. Last year, Canada received 5,800 refugee claimants from the European Union, which represents a 14% increase from the year before. This means that claims from the European Union made up a quarter of all claims. This is more than the number of claims received from Africa or Asia.

Last year, the top source country for refugees was Hungary, a member of the European Union. It is very telling when we look at the global distribution of refugee claims made by Hungarian nationals. In 2010, 2,400 refugee claims were made by Hungarian nationals. One hundred of them were made to other countries outside of Canada, while a whopping 2,300 were made in Canada. That means Canada received 23 times more claims from Hungary than all the other countries in the world combined. Although these claimants have access to 26 countries in which they can move, work and live, they are choosing Canada and they are choosing Canada for a reason.

Appallingly, bogus claims from the European Union last year cost Canadian taxpayers $170 million. What is more, in the last few years virtually all refugee claims from the European Union were withdrawn, abandoned by the claimants themselves, or rejected by the independent Immigration and Refugee Board.

Our government is acting responsibly and in the best interest of Canadian taxpayers by introducing reforms to address the increasing number of bogus refugee claimants. These bogus claimants, many of whom withdraw or abandon their own claims, seek to abuse Canada's generous asylum system and receive generous social benefits, like welfare and health care, costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars each year.

One of the central features of Bill C-31 is the ability of the government to designate countries that generally do not produce refugees and process their claims more quickly. Under Bill C-31, the factors that would lead a country to be designated would be clearly outlined in both law and in regulation. The most important factors are objective and quantitative and refer to the actual acceptance rate of claims from a given country. This means that the designation of a country as safe would be based on the results of decisions taken by asylum claimants themselves, such as the decision to withdraw or abandon their claims, and by the decisions rendered by the independent Immigration and Refugee Board and not by the minister.

In addition, unlike the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, which had quantitative and qualitative criteria specified only in regulation, this proposed legislation has qualitative factors enshrined in legislation, while the quantitative factors would be set out in ministerial order. In this way, the criteria used to trigger a country for review for designation would be even more transparent and accountable than under the Balanced Refugee Reform Act.

Under Bill C-31, claimants from safe countries would have their cases heard on an expedited basis. More specifically, the independent IRB would hear their case in 45 days instead of the more than 1,000 days that it takes now.

It is important to emphasize that under Bill C-31, every eligible refugee claimant, regardless from which country they came, would continue to receive a hearing from the independent IRB. Furthermore, as is the case now, all refugee claimants, including those from designated countries, would be able to make an application for review of a negative decision by the federal court. Bill C-31 actually adds appeal rights by creating the refugee appeal division to which the vast majority of failed claimants would also have access.

I also note that with Bill C-31, Canada would continue to exceed its international and domestic obligations. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as the 1951 UN Refugee Convention require that all refugee claimants be given the opportunity to have their claim heard. The process in Canada goes above and beyond its domestic and international obligations and that would not change under Bill C-31.

Canada has and will continue to have one of the most generous refugee systems in the world. All refugee claimants will continue to have their case heard by the independent IRB. Furthermore, every failed refugee claimant will continue to have access to at least one level of appeal. People deemed in need of protection will not be returned to their country of persecution regardless of what country they have fled. In fact, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees has recognized the validity of providing expedited processing for refugee claimants from designated countries of origin. António Guterres, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees said:

—there are indeed safe countries of origin. There are indeed countries in which there is a presumption that refugee claims will probably be not as strong as in other countries.

He also stated that as long as all refugee claimants had access to the system, it was completely legitimate to accelerate some claims.

Former Liberal leader, Michael Ignatieff, also recognized the legitimacy of designating certain countries as safe and even advocated rejecting all claims from those countries, which Bill C-31 does not propose to do. Furthermore, many democratic European countries already designate certain countries as safe and accelerate asylum procedures for those claims from those countries, including the U.K., France, Germany, Switzerland, Norway, Finland, the Netherlands and Ireland among others.

Canadians are proud of their welcoming and compassionate nature, but Canadians also have no tolerance for those who abuse our generosity and take unfair advantage of our country. Bill C-31 would prevent bogus refugees from abusing our system and receiving lucrative taxpayer-funded health and social benefits. At the same time, it would provide protection more quickly to genuine refugees who are truly in need.

We need to send a clear message to those who seek to abuse our system that if they are not genuinely in need of protection, they will be sent home quickly. At the same time we can ensure that those who truly need our help will get it even faster.

I urge all members of the House to support this important bill and ensure its timely passage.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to point out that the NDP strongly opposes Bill C-31, because it punishes refugees instead of providing them with a fast, equitable system. In addition, the bill concentrates more power in the hands of the minister by allowing him to designate safe countries and restrict the number of refugees from those countries. The problem with this bill is that, under the current Balanced Refugee Reform Act, the minister can make exceptions to safe country designations to exclude LGBT individuals, who suffer a great deal of persecution in their countries, which are considered unsafe.

My question for the Conservative member is this: will the Conservative members do the right thing and amend Bill C-31 to ensure that LGBT groups can live safely and immigrate easily to Canada as refugees?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I note that in some of the hon. member's comments there were some very misleading statements.

I would argue that it is certainly much fairer to those who seek to come here as refugees to know that they will have their claims processed much more quickly. By ensuring that we are able to eliminate the bogus claims from our system more quickly, we will also be able to be fairer to those who come here and genuinely need our assistance.

I would also point out regarding the decision to hear the cases of those who are coming here from the listed countries, they will make their cases in 45 days rather than a thousand days. I would argue that is much fairer than what currently exists.

I would also note regarding the second point made by the member that the changes we are looking to make actually enshrine in legislation some of the objective and quantitative measures to ensure that those decisions are based on actual decisions of the claimants themselves or decisions rendered by the IRB rather than some arbitrary decision of the minister.

I think the member's claims are completely false.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first member of the Conservative Party who has said that the former leader of the Liberal Party, Michael Ignatieff, supports the safe country list and who then tries to give the impression that somehow our former leader might have supported Bill C-31.

First and foremost, let us make it very clear that the former leader of the Liberal Party, Michael Ignatieff, would not support Bill C-31. The Liberal Party does not support Bill C-31.

The truth of the matter is that Michael Ignatieff supported the concept of the safe country list, but so did the leader of the Conservative Party, our current Prime Minister, when the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism first brought that in with a consensus that there be an advisory group that would decide which countries would go onto the safe country list.

Why are the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism and the member not supporting Michael Ignatieff and the Prime Minister when the latter agreed to an all-party supported proposal that would have seen an advisory committee decide on countries to be included in the safe country list as opposed to just this particular Minister of Immigration having that authority?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, it is very unfortunate the Liberal Party is choosing not to support legislation like this, legislation that is very balanced and fair and seeks to ensure that we provide protection for those who are genuinely in need of our protection in a quicker and more expeditious fashion, while also saving the taxpayers of Canada hundreds of millions of dollars by ensuring that we do not have to deal with bogus claims from countries we should not be dealing with.

It is really unfortunate that they will not support legislation that is balanced and fair and in the best interests of Canadian taxpayers. I would like to read the actual quote from former Liberal leader, Michael Ignatieff:

I want a legitimate, lawful refugee system that, to get to the openness point, welcomes refugees...and then says, look there are a number of countries in the world in which we cannot accept a bona fide refugee claim because you don't have cause, you don't have just cause coming from those countries.

Otherwise, he said, we will have refugee fraud and no one wants that.

Finally, I will just point out that designation of these countries as safe countries will be based on the results of decisions by asylum claimants themselves to withdraw their claims or by decisions rendered by IRB, not by the minister.

[Jean-François Fortin, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin talking about such an important matter as the status of refugees, I would like to say that it is good to be able to rise in the House and speak to one of this government's bills. Given the number of times that the Conservatives have invoked closure since the beginning of this parliament, Bloc Québécois members, and those of the other opposition parties, have been muzzled on too many issues affecting the interests and values of Quebec and Canadians. I am disappointed, but not surprised, because standing up for democracy is not the Conservatives' strong suit. Come to think of it, I find it difficult to come up with one area where they excel.

The bill we are debating touches on two aspects of my introduction that might seem to be off topic: Quebec values and the Conservatives' lack of regard for democracy. I said Quebec values, but I will correct myself. They are actually universal values.

Bill C-31, which we are debating today, takes a dim view of refugees, treating them like a burden and a potential threat. Nowhere in this document do we see the real will to help these people who have experienced real tragedy. According to the minister, they take advantage of our welcome and cost Canadians too much money.

While defending his bill, the minister said the following in February:

There is a whole narrative in the community about how they can come to Canada and benefit from social welfare and all kinds of other social programs, health insurance...

For too long, we have spent precious time and taxpayers' money on people who are not in need of our protection, at the expense of legitimate asylum seekers...

This smacks of avarice and prejudice.

This is how the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism explained and defended his Bill C-31 in the House on March 6:

Canadians are worried when they see large human smuggling operations, for example, the two large ships that arrived on Canada's west coast in the past two years with hundreds of passengers, illegal migrants who paid criminal networks to be brought to Canada in an illegal and very dangerous manner.

Canadians are also worried when they see a large number of false refugee claimants who do not need Canada's protection, but who file refugee claims because they see an opportunity in Canada's current refugee system to stay in Canada permanently and have access to social benefits...our country's protection.

Canadians are really worried about this, for crying out loud. If you want my opinion, this Conservative government is giving Canadians every reason to worry. They like it when people are worried because then they can justify military spending, trampling on people's rights and forcing the provinces to build jails. But this is about refugees, people who come here with nothing but their distress and desperation, not the economic immigrants who show up with half a million dollars. We are talking about people who are willing to risk their lives for a fresh start in Canada or Quebec.

In an attempt to justify his bill, the minister would have us believe that bogus refugees are flooding into Canada, that foreigners have figured out how to work the system: they pass themselves off as refugees so that they can take advantage of Canada's health insurance and social assistance systems. You would have to be awfully mean-spirited and ideological to say such crazy things. They are using exceptional cases to give themselves arbitrary powers that will have a direct impact on the lives of desperate people.

A document published in 2001 by the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees states the following:

Unlike migrants, refugees do not choose to leave their countries; they are forced to do so. Economic migrants are persons who leave their countries of origin purely for economic reasons, to seek material improvements in their lives. The key difference between economic migrants and refugees is that economic migrants enjoy the protection of their home countries; refugees do not.

Bill C-31 fails to recognize the spirit of the Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees:

Considering that the United Nations has, on various occasions, manifested its profound concern for refugees and endeavoured to assure refugees the widest possible exercise of these fundamental rights and freedoms...

Where is that concern now? Where in Bill C-31 is the desire to assure those fundamental rights? They evaporated the moment the Conservatives got their majority. Gone, just like that.

There was Bill C-11, which was passed unanimously by this House. In a speech he gave on June 29, 2010, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism spoke glowingly about Bill C-11, and I quote:

Let me just close by once more thanking my colleagues in the opposition, my critics in particular who worked together with me in a remarkable act of cross-partisan collaboration to get things done for Canadians. As a result of their work we are seeing today what I think is a minor miracle. I came to this place three months ago to launch our Balanced Refugee Reform Act. We said at the time that we would listen to constructive ideas about how to improve the bill.

We did listen. We did consult. We had a remarkable cross-party consensus in the House of Commons and today in the Senate that will lead to a much better refugee system for Canada, a faster and fairer system, a system that provides enhanced procedural fairness for refugee claimants....

Now, out of partisanship and mean-spiritedness, the minister is throwing out Bill C-11, that minor miracle. Bill C-31 not only spoils the balance Bill C-11 achieved in terms of the procedure that should apply to refugee claimants, but it takes the Conservatives' twisted logic even further: it attacks the victims of human smugglers instead of the smugglers themselves by creating a subclass of refugees.

It is clear to the Bloc Québécois that the Conservatives are using Bill C-31 to send a message to people around the world who are persecuted that Canada no longer wants them. Frankly, this is disappointing.

I said at the beginning of my speech that standing up for democracy was not a Conservative value. This government is quite willing to stand up for the free market and rich oil companies, but standing up for people who are suffering, people who risk torture or death, people who do not think what the government would have them think, is the least of its concerns.

Bill C-31 reflects the government's desire to exercise power without sharing, even if it means destroying the consensus that was Bill C-11, because the opposition parties had a hand in it.

Bill C-31 exemplifies this government's lack of compassion. With Bill C-31, this government will definitely further tarnish the image that Canada and Quebec have built as a welcoming country and a safe haven for those who need it most. It is simply shameful.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, twice now, the government in power has expressed a certain viewpoint that really worries me. The Conservatives seem to be suggesting that legitimate claimants should be refused in order to see if they appeal the decision, to see if their claim was actually sincere. That is as absurd as saying that an organization should be refused a subsidy, because if it really needs it, then it will apply again next year. Before hearing that logic, I had no idea just how far the members across the floor were willing to go.

Does my colleague share any of my concerns about what seems to be a new form of immigration management?

[Jean-François Fortin, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.

Indeed, there is a certain logic in this bill—a Conservative logic. It is a logic of distrust, a logic of fear, a logic that serves only Conservative interests. The more fear and doubt the Conservatives spread, the more vulnerable people will feel. The Conservatives want people to be afraid of anyone who is different, to believe that they are dangerous. We believe that treating people this way goes against the spirit of what we should be offering refugees who seek asylum in very particular circumstances and who deserve all our attention, rather than our distrust and rejection.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier I asked the Conservative member for Wild Rose a question on the status of LGBT refugees and the fact that Bill C-31 would close Canada's doors to those refugees depending on the security status of their country. Yet, the Conservative member did not even mention the LGBT acronym, nor the terms “gay”, “lesbian”, “bisexual” or “transgender”.

I would like to ask my colleague from the Bloc whether he is also concerned about the Conservative policy that will make it difficult for people who are persecuted, who are receiving death threats and who are at risk of being killed in their country, to access Canada as refugees. Under this bill, those people are going to come up against closed doors in Canada.

[Jean-François Fortin, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord for his question.

Indeed, gay, lesbian and transgendered refugees have good reason to be concerned given the fact that this bill is a form of profiling.

The Conservatives' profiling could end up making one category of refugees eligible and sidelining another that might not correspond to Conservative values. There is good reason to believe that people will be treated differently depending on where they come from, but also depending on their sexual orientation and positions they may have held in the past.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the speeches from the other side, I truly believe there is a great misunderstanding of what a refugee is and how a refugee should be treated. I would stress the fact that Canada does more than its share in the international community to help those who need help.

We are talking about people here who arrive in this country, make false claims, clog up the system and delay the claims of those who need our help.

Why would the member opposite not support a bill that would benefit those refugees who are stranded in refugee camps around the world and who are under the protection of the United Nations High Commissioner?

[Jean-François Fortin, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for his question.

It is simple: the Conservatives have their own definition of what makes a good refugee. They add a criterion.

There is no such thing as a good refugee or a bad refugee. There are refugees. Refugee status was clearly defined by the UN in 1951.

I think that the Conservatives have a way of coming up with what is good and what is not. The purpose of their bill is not to help refugees, but to define what they think makes a good refugee or a bad refugee.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the frustration the member for Mississauga East—Cooksville has with an answer like that. I heard the member opposite say that there was no such thing as a good or bad refugee, that they are just refugees. There really are legitimate refugees but there are others who are trying to abuse the system. The opposition does not seem to be able to comprehend or understand that.

We are here today to talk about Bill C-31 in order to deal with some of those issues. The title of the bill is protecting Canada's immigration system act, and that is what it would do.

Canada has the most fair and generous immigration system in the world. We welcome more resettled refugees than almost any other country in the world. That number is growing by an additional 2,500 because our government is increasing it by 20%, to a total number of 14,500 resettled refugees to Canada.

However, in order for our asylum system to continue to be generous, Canadians need to know that it is not vulnerable to abuse. That is something that the opposition does not seem to understand. For far too long, our immigration system has been open to abuse by those who do not want to follow the rules or wait in line like everyone else and would rather use the asylum system as a back door to queue jump. This abuse undermines Canadians' faith in our immigration system. It cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars a year and, most unfortunately, it means that genuine refugees who need asylum, who the opposition claims to have some concern for, are waiting far too long for Canadian protection.

Canadians gave our Conservative government a strong mandate to protect Canada's immigration system. They told us loud and clear across the country that they want to put a stop to this abuse. With Bill C-31, we are acting on that mandate. Bill C-31 would make important, much needed improvements to our asylum system. It includes provisions to crack down on the despicable crime of human smuggling and provides the government with the authority to require biometric data for anyone seeking temporary status in Canada. Together, these improvements would make Canada's immigration system faster and fairer.

Today I will focus my remarks on the refugee reform provisions of Bill C-31. The Balanced Refugee Reform Act, which passed in 2012, was a good start. It included many needed reforms to Canada's broken asylum system. However, our government has always been clear that refugee reform is not a static issue and that further steps will be taken when and if required. The recent waves of bogus refugee asylum claimants from the democratic and human rights respecting European Union have made it clear that further reforms to our asylum system are needed urgently.

The statistics speak volumes. Last year, Canada received 5,800 from the European Union, which represents a 14% increase from the year before. This means that claims from the European Union made up a quarter of all claims, which is more than the claims received from Africa or Asia.

The top source country for refugees last year was Hungary, a member of the European Union. It is very telling when we look at the global distribution of refugee claims made by Hungarian nationals. In 2010, 2,400 refugee claims were made by Hungarian nationals, 100 of them were made outside of Canada, while a whopping 2,300 were made in Canada. That means that Canada received 23 times the claims than any other country. Although these claimants have access to 26 European countries in which they can work, move and live, they are choosing Canada. We actually had even more than that in 2011 when it came close to 4,000 individuals. They are choosing Canada for a reason.

However, this is very expensive for Canadian taxpayers. Bogus claims from the EU last year cost Canadian taxpayers $170 million. What is more, in the last few years virtually all refugee claims from the European Union were withdrawn, abandoned by the claimants themselves or rejected by the independent Immigration and Refugee Board.

Our government is acting responsibly and in the best interests of Canadian taxpayers by introducing reforms to address the increasing number of bogus refugee claimants. Many of the bogus claimants who withdraw or abandon their own claims seek to abuse Canada's generous asylum system and receive generous social benefits like welfare and health care, which costs taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars each year.

One of the central features of Bill C-31 is the ability of the government to designate countries that generally do not produce refugees and then to process those claims more quickly.

Under Bill C-31, the factors that would lead a country to be designated would be clearly outlined in both the law and in the regulations. The most important factors are objective and quantitative and refer to the actual acceptance rate claims from a given country. This means the designation of a country as safe would be based on the results of decisions taken by asylum claimants themselves, such as the decision to withdraw or abandon their claims, and the decisions rendered by the independent Immigration and Refugee Board, not the minister.

In addition, unlike the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, which had quantitative and qualitative criteria specified only in regulation, we believe that in this proposed legislation it is important that the qualitative factors be enshrined in legislation, while the quantitative factors would be set by ministerial order. In this way, the criteria used to trigger a country for review for designation would be more transparent and accountable than they were even under the Balanced Refugee Reform Act.

Under Bill C-31, claimants from safe countries would have their cases heard on an expedited basis. More specifically, the independent IRB would hear their case in 45 days instead of the more than 1,000 days it takes now.

It is important to emphasize that under Bill C-31 every eligible refugee claimant, regardless of which country they come from, would continue to receive a hearing before the independent Immigration and Refugee Board.

Furthermore, as is the case now, all refugee claimants, including those from designated countries, would be able to make an application for review of a negative decision by the Federal Court. Bill C-31 actually adds appeal rights by creating the refugee appeal division to which the vast majority of failed claimants would have access. Multiple levels of appeals seems to be very fair.

I would also note that in Bill C-31 Canada would continue to exceed its international and domestic obligations. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as the 1951 UN refugee convention, require that all refugee claimants be given the opportunity to have their claim heard. The process in Canada goes above and beyond its domestic and international obligations, and that will not change under Bill C-31.

Canada has and will continue to have one of the most generous refugee systems in the world. All refugee claimants will continue to have their cases heard by the independent IRB. Furthermore, every failed refugee claimant will continue to have access to at least one level of appeal. People deemed in need of protection will not be returned to their country of persecution regardless of which country they have fled.

In fact, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has recognized the validity of providing expedited processing for refugee claimants from designated countries of origin. Antonio Guterres, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, has said, “there are indeed safe countries of origin. There are indeed countries in which there is a presumption that refugee claims will probably be not as strong as in other countries”. He also stated that as long as all refugee claimants have access to the system, it is completely legitimate to accelerate those claims.

Former Liberal leader, Michael Ignatieff, has also recognized the legitimacy of designating certain countries as safe. My colleague who just spoke talked about that. He recognized the legitimacy of designating certain countries as safe and even advocated rejecting all claims from those countries, which Bill C-31 does not propose to do. He said, “I want a legitimate, lawful refugee system that, to get to the openness point, welcomes genuine refugees … and then says, look there are a number of countries in the world in which we cannot accept a bona fide refugee claim because you don't have cause, you don't have just cause coming from those countries. Otherwise you'll have refugee fraud, and nobody wants that. Furthermore, many democratic European countries already designate certain countries as safe and accelerate asylum procedures for claims from those countries”.

Canadians are very proud of their welcoming and compassionate nature but they have little tolerance for those who abuse our generosity and take unfair advantage of our country. Bill C-31 would prevent bogus refugees from abusing our system and receiving lucrative tax funded health and social benefits. At the same time, it would provide protection more quickly to genuine refugees who are truly in need.

I urge all members of this House to support this important bill and ensure its timely passage.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, of course the UN convention on refugees, which Canada is signatory to, does require every signatory to provide an initial assessment of every refugee claim. Therefore, Canada, in doing that, is doing nothing more than meeting its international obligations.

One of the major criticisms by many of this bill is that those who come from designated safe countries would not have access to an appeal to the refugee appeal division, whereas people who come from countries that are not so designated would. This would create a two tiered appeals system.

In the previous Parliament, all parties in this House, including the government side, the Conservatives, agreed that that was not fair. In the previous incarnation of this bill, the government agreed that all claimants should have access to the refugee appeal division because there could be mistakes made at first instance.

We all agree that we need a quick and efficient system but the New Democrats say that we could have an efficient system that is also fair.

Why would the member and his government put forward a bill that has a two tiered appeals system? Canadians would never accept that their neighbour can appeal to the court of appeal but they cannot depending on where they come from.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is pretty clear that this bill achieves the balance Canadians would like to see. It has a number of factors in it and the issue the member opposite is speaking about is part of that. It talks about the importance of dealing with human smuggling and the importance of reforms to our asylum system. The NDP would have to admit there are people who file bogus refugee claims to try to get into our country and to access the generous benefits that we have in this country. I find it interesting that the member opposite is standing, but earlier today we were talking about his participation in rallies with organizations that do not recognize there are any bogus refugee claimants in this country. We all know that there are. We are trying to deal with that. We are trying to make it fair for honest refugees and for Canadians as well.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the member to be aware of the fact that from what I understand, all political parties inside the chamber support the idea of having a designated safe countries list. The difference is that the Conservatives have done a double flip-flop on it. Originally, they did not want the minister to establish an advisory group so they made their first flip. They said it made sense, that there would be an advisory committee that would recommend to the minister which countries should be on the safe country list. Now the Conservatives have done another flip-flop saying they have changed their minds on this legislation and now they are going back to that it should be the minister who decides. Whether it was Michael Ignatieff or other Liberals, NDP, Conservatives at one time, they supported the other way.

Will the minister acknowledge the need to do yet another flip-flop and agree to an amendment that would reinstate the advisory committee?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, one of the problems with the Liberals is often when they are offered something from us and we have said let us work together, they say that they do not want to do that, that they are not going to co-operate with us. Then they come back later and say they wanted the deal even though they did not want to support it. We have seen that with legislation. Often they will come back and criticize legislation that they oppose and criticize positions that we have taken.

Just before the March break, there was another example of that with the eco-energy bill, a bill which both the Liberals and the NDP have opposed strenuously. At every point they have voted against it. Then they asked us to put it back in. This is one more example of that. Lots of people have said that this legislation is necessary. I could read some of those comments. The Globe and Mail said that the immigration minister's “refugee reforms, aimed at making the process more efficient and decisive, are generally good. If implemented, they will improve an unwieldy asylum program”.

There are pages of comments from people who have come forward and said this is important legislation and that we need to pass it.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to confirm what the member for Winnipeg North said. All of us in this House want to provide improved safety and treatment of refugees as they come to Canada.

Has the government provided any costing for the detention of refugees who are deemed irregular entry? Do we know what this bill will cost?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we clearly know what it costs now. If the member was listening to my speech, she would have those numbers because it costs hundreds of millions of dollars each year for us not to deal with bogus refugees.

I want to talk about the fact that immigration has changed my own riding. It is a rural riding in southwestern Saskatchewan. People would think perhaps that we have not had a lot of immigration, as we did 100 years ago when the land was settled by people who came from around the world. However, over the last few years Saskatchewan has had a tremendous influx of immigrants. They have changed our communities in very special and good ways.

We want to see claimants who have immigrated honestly from other countries. We do not want to see people jumping the queue and taking their place. We welcome folks from around the world.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to this punish refugees and give a break to smugglers bill. Why do I say that? Even though this bill is supposed to go after smugglers, the people who would be hurt are the genuine refugees.

Two weekends ago we celebrated St. Patrick's Day. I was thinking about the Irish refugees who came to the shores of Toronto. At the turn of the century, over 50,000 Irish refugees arrived on the shores of what was the city of York, before it was called Toronto. At that time, the city of York had only 30,000 residents.

How did the Irish refugees arrive? By irregular means, by boats. Did they have any identification with them? Most likely not. Should they have been locked up? Under this law, if passed, I suppose they would have been locked up for at least a year.

Members can imagine refugees coming to the shores of a big country, to a city that does not have a lot of people, and being locked up for a year. A lot of them were sick. Who would have been able to help them? At the time, the medical officer of health risked his life to serve the Irish immigrants. In fact, a doctor lost his life due to a fever. What was shown to the Irish refugees was compassion and support. As a result, they built Toronto. They helped build Canada. Some of their descendants might even be in the House of Commons.

Had they been locked up, they would not have been able to work or support their families. Under the law that is in front of us, they would not have been able to sponsor their family members to bring them here. They would have been separated from their families for at least 10 years. Because they would have been locked up, they would not have been able to work. After they were released, assuming they were genuine refugees, they still would not have been able to become permanent residents for a long period of time. They would have been prevented from sponsoring their family members. Even after they had become permanent residents, their status could still have been revoked. What kind of stability would their lives have had? None whatsoever.

At the time, if Ireland had been seen as a safe country, many of those refugees would have been sent home.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' recommendation indicates that some countries are safer than others, but we have to determine each refugee's claim based on the person's circumstances. Some countries are considered safe countries, so to speak, but not for gay, lesbian and bisexual people. They could be gay bashed or killed.

How does one declare a country as safe? The previous law said that there would be an advisory committee made up of a team of experts who would advise the minister. This bill just got rid of that. The minister does not need any expert advice. He can just declare a country as safe and the people from that country would be fast-tracked for deportation in no time, without right of appeal to the Federal Court, and no humanitarian or compassionate consideration. They could attempt an appeal, but it would not stop them from being deported. That means individual refugees would not be treated equally under the law.

In Canada we have a fundamental belief that each case must be considered equally under the law. The bill would completely change that. It would treat refugee A completely differently from refugee B depending upon the person's country of origin. However, let us assume it is a gay man from a country such as Ghana or Jamaica. One could say that Jamaica is a safe country, yet people can be killed because of their sexual orientation.

The bill has a lot of flaws. I do not understand why the bill is necessary. Less than a year ago, all parties in the House of Commons worked with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and came up with a package called the balanced refugee reform act. At that time, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration said that he was very proud of the bill because it had all-party support, was balanced and fair.

What has changed in the last eight or nine months? Nothing. Why is a bill that was balanced and fair all of a sudden no longer balanced and fair? Nothing has changed.

In fact, with regard to that bill, Bill C-11, the balanced refugee reform act, the immigration minister came to the committee and said, “This is such a fine bill. It will take us at a least a year to implement the bill. Give us one year and we will make the system perfect.” That is what was promised last June. It is not June 2012 yet. A year has not passed and the bill has not been implemented. The minister obviously has not had the time to implement the bill, and yet this so-called fast, balanced and fair bill all of a sudden became a big problem, and here we are debating another bill.

Think of the amount of money and time that has been wasted. A huge number of witnesses came to committee. There were forums in cities across the country. The immigration committee listened to all types of expert advice. All of that is gone. It is completely changed. The bill in front of us looks completely different. It is quite astounding. I cannot see what has changed in one year. The previous bill has not even been implemented and yet we are here wasting time and money debating a new bill.

What is the root problem? Why do we have such a backlog? Why does it take so long to determine a refugee claim?

Prior to 2006, the wait was one or two years. Things were going along and there were no huge problems. When the Conservatives came into power, they did not appoint any Immigration and Refugee Board members. As a result, for two or three years hardly any cases were being determined. A huge backlog was created because the Conservative minister did not appoint any IRB members.

It is the implementation of the law that is the problem. The law is not the problem.

On top of that, the CBSA said that it had difficulty deporting people because it does not have the right computer system. This is according to the Auditor General and admitted by the CBSA.

The real problem is the implementation of the law. There is no need to change the law. That is why members should not support this bill.

It is a very complex bill. I wish I had more time to address every element of it.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member.

The member who spoke before her talked of bogus refugees. I find that shameful. A refugee is first of all a person. They are a refugee no matter what their reason for leaving their country, perhaps on ethnic or religious grounds, or to obtain protection because they are lesbian, gay, transgendered or transsexual. A refugee is a refugee. Refuges arrive in Canada without passports, with the clothing on their backs, without food and possibly even without money. They are refugees and they need humanitarian aid.

A refugee will be integrated into Canadian society and become a worker. We need workers, we need these people. As for the false paranoia that terrorists and the like masquerade as refugees, they do not have to hide among the refugees because they can hide anywhere.

Canada must continue to welcome refugees. What does the member think of that?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if there are bogus refugees, by all means deport them, but what we should not do is draft a law based purely on fear. That is what this is. This fear is going to drive us to build more detention centres so we can detain these refugee claimants, rather than allowing them to work, to make a living so that they can start paying taxes, because some of them are genuine refugees. By all means, if they are bogus, we should send them back. When we set a law, we should not be driven by paranoia and fear.

The other thing is that in the bill, because it prevents family reunification, it is denying genuine refugees the power to bring their families together, and that is cruel.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Trinity--Spadina for sincere concern for refugees. In the context of the NDP, she understands, unlike some of her colleagues, that there are fake claimants who do abuse our generosity, just as there are many legitimate claimants who need our protection. It is the need to recognize both sides of the ledger.

I appreciated her constructive work at committee in the last Parliament in the passage of Bill C-11. Will she not recognize that since that time, we have seen the explosive growth of unfounded claims coming from the European Union and virtually none of those claimants show up at their hearings?

Virtually all of those European claimants admit by themselves, of their own volition, that they do not need Canada's protection because they withdraw or abandon their own claims. Does she not think that we need flexible and fast tools to address large waves of unfounded claims such as those coming from the European Union?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. Within the law now, there are already means to fast track them. The key thing is to catch the smugglers, punish them, fine them, throw them in jail. The problem is with deporting the victims, because some of these people are victimized by their smugglers. They are told a pack of lies. They are told to come to Canada and get whatever they want. They pay a lot of money, their life savings, to the smugglers and the smugglers send them here.

Some of them are not refugees, we know that. However, the key thing is to go after the smugglers. The problem is, with deporting these people so quickly, we are not giving them the time to go to court to use them as witnesses to go after the smugglers and we can never catch the smugglers and try them.

What happens right now is in the last 10 years hardly any smugglers have been punished severely. It is very difficult to find them, catch them and convict them because their victims get deported before the court has a chance to go after them. That is why we need to go after the smugglers and not punish the refugees.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to rise to speak in support of Bill C-31, protecting Canada's immigration system act, a bill that is designed to fulfill exactly that responsibility.

Bill C-31, the protecting Canada's immigration system act, aims to strengthen Canada's immigration system in three ways. First, it includes further reforms to Canada's asylum system to make it faster and fairer. Second, it includes measures to address the despicable crime of human smuggling. Third, it gives the government authority to make it mandatory to provide biometric data with a temporary resident visa application.

Canadians have understandably become concerned by the growing waves of claimants coming from countries that generally do not produce refugees, such as those in the European Union. I do not think there is a single person who does not find it cause for concern that one quarter of refugee claims last year came from the European Union, which is more than from Africa and from Asia.

Even more concerning is that virtually all of the claims from the EU were withdrawn, abandoned or rejected. Unfortunately, it is hard-working Canadian taxpayers who bear the cost of these bogus claims and the costs are not cheap. The bogus claims from the EU last year cost Canadian taxpayers $170 million. It is clear that too many people are abusing our generous immigration system and too many tax dollars are being spent on these bogus refugee claimants.

While the Balanced Refugee Reform Act was a positive step toward fixing many of the problems in our system, gaps remain that must be addressed. Bill C-31 includes many important measures to make the asylum system in Canada faster and fairer and to deter bogus claimants from abusing Canada's system. Under Bill C-31, claimants from countries which after extensive review have been deemed to be safe would have their claims processed in 45 days compared to the more than 1,000 days it takes under the current system. Also, bogus claimants would not have access to as many endless appeal routes that currently results in taking an average of almost 5 years to deport a failed claimant and in some cases more than 10.

However, let me be clear. Under Bill C-31, every eligible refugee claimant, regardless of what country they come from, would continue to receive a hearing before the independent Immigration Refugee Board. Just as is the case now, every refugee claimant would be able to seek juridical review by the federal court.

Bill C-31 adds a level of appeal for the majority of refugee claimants who would gain access to the new refugee appeals division. Bill C-31 would ensure that genuine refugees would receive Canada's protection faster, while those who would abuse our system would be removed from Canada more quickly. It would save Canadian taxpayers $1.65 billion over five years, savings in welfare and other costs associated with bogus claims.

As I mentioned at the top of my remarks, the second piece of the protecting Canada's immigration system act would incorporate measures that would address human smuggling. Several months ago in the House, the Minister of Public Safety introduced Bill C-4, preventing human smugglers from abusing Canada's immigration system act. As my hon. colleagues are well aware, we debated the bill extensively throughout the fall sitting of Parliament.

Bill C-31 will replace Bill C-4, while keeping all of its long-needed measures. These measures would help maintain the integrity of our generous immigration system, while curtailing the abuse of that system by human smugglers whose actions undermine the security and safety of Canadians.

Cracking down on human smugglers is an important element of protecting the integrity of our immigration system. That is why it is entirely appropriate that the provisions of the preventing human smugglers from abusing Canada's immigration system act have been included in this new legislation.

There is one notable change from Bill C-4, however, as Bill C-31 includes an exemption from detention for minors under the age of 16.

The final component of Bill C-31, the protecting Canada's immigration system act, would create a legislative framework for the long-planned implementation of biometric technology as an identity management tool in our immigration and border control systems. This component of the legislation and its corresponding regulations that will follow would allow the government to make it mandatory for visa applicants to Canada to have their photographs and their fingerprints taken as part of their temporary resident visa applications.

Because biometric data is more reliable and less prone to forgery or theft than documents, these measures would strengthen immigration screening, enhance security and help reduce fraud. Biometrics form an effective tool to manage high volumes of applications and the growing sophistication in identity fraud. Using biometrics will help prevent known criminals, failed refugee claimants and previous deportees from using a false identity to obtain a Canadian visa. Implementing biometrics will bring Canada in line with the growing list of countries that already use biometrics in their immigration and border control programs. These countries include the United Kingdom, other states in the European Union and the United States.

Bill C-31 has been praised from coast to coast to coast. This is what the Montreal Gazette had to say:

Canada has a long-standing and well-deserved reputation as a place of refuge for people fleeing persecution in their homelands.

At the same time, however, it has also gained repute as an easy mark for the unscrupulous who fraudulently use our generous refugeedetermination system as a way to get into Canada without submitting to standard immigration requirements and procedures....

The legislation also proposes harsher penalties for those who engage in human smuggling, as well as for asylum-seekers who pay smuggling syndicates to get them to Canadian shores. And it allows for the collection of biometric data -- fingerprints and digital photos -- of people entering Canada on a visitor visa, a work permit or a study visa.

Both of these measures are advisable. Human smuggling is an odious enterprise that should be severely punished. And while the smugglers' clients are perhaps desperate people in many cases, they are nevertheless participants in an illegal activity that should be strongly discouraged.

The collection of biometric information is a sensible security precaution that will be a valuable tool in preventing people from slipping into the country with false identities....

Shielding the refugee system from false claimants is not only in the best interest of Canadians, on whom they are a financial burden, but also of legitimate applicants who stand to lose out if bogus claimants cast the system as a whole into disrepute.

Canada has a generous and fair immigration system that is the envy of the world. It has served Canada well and it has also served well those who come into our country legitimately, whether on a permanent basis or for a fixed period of time, seeking economic opportunities, protection from persecution or for family or personal reasons.

It is incumbent upon us to ensure that such an important system is always operating in our national interest as effectively and efficiently as possible. That means we have to preserve what works well in the immigration system and ameliorate the system in areas where there are shortcomings.

Bill C-31, the protecting Canada's immigration system act, would do exactly what its name says. It would put a stop to foreign criminals, human smugglers and bogus refugee claimants abusing our generous immigration system and receiving lucrative, taxpayer-funded health and social benefits.

The measures in Bill C-31 are necessary to protect the integrity of our immigration system. For that reason, I encourage all my hon. colleagues to support the legislation and allow these much needed measures to be enacted in a timely manner.

It is a pleasure to stand in the House and speak to Bill C-31. This legislation has been needed for a long time in Canada. I congratulate the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism in finally bringing this forward. This is a step in the right direction for all Canadians.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the Parliamentary Secretary's remarks, I would say that, in fact, many people do not like Bill C-4, which is part of Bill C-31, because it includes a number of human rights violations. No, this bill does nothing to tackle smugglers or criminals; it attacks refugees.

My parents came here as refugees by boat. If this bill had been in effect at the time, they would have been considered illegal refugees and they could have been detained, along with my two brothers, who were one and three at the time.

The bill says that children would not necessarily be detained. This means that after going through all of the terrible things they went through, my parents and my brothers, upon arriving in a strange country, would have been separated. That is inhumane. Our party is proud to be on the other side of the debate on this senseless bill, which has been condemned by Amnesty International Canada and the Canadian Council for Refugees. I do not understand how this bill can be reassuring or fair, or how it can improve safety.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member stands in this House as a member of Parliament, born from refugee parents, and I congratulate her.

That is exactly what the refugee system is about. However, that is not what the refugee system continues to do because it has been taken advantage of time and time again. We have to modernize the system. We have to bring it into the 21st century. We have to do that. There is no discussion about this.

The right of appeal will still be there. Children under 16 years of age will not be incarcerated. We have to look at the cost of bogus claims, $170 million to the Canadian taxpayers. We have to look at the abuse in the system, a $1.67 billion cost to the Canadian taxpayers. We have to cut down on human smugglers, and we have to look at biometrics as a way to do this. We cannot do that with 19th century and 20th century ideas. We have to do it with 21st century ideas.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member has some hard numbers at his fingertips in terms of how much money we are going to save the taxpayer.

He says $1.6 billion and $100-some million in one specific area. It is good the government has those numbers. I must say that most people would encourage government to actually speed up the process. We do believe that the system needed to be fixed and sped up.

I have a question for the member. There is a cost to the bill. When we talk about detention centres, there is an anticipated substantial cost increase. Can the member tell us what the cost of that aspect of the bill is going to be, given that he knows where we are going to save money? Does the member know where we are going to be spending money and how much is it going to be?

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I think the part of my discussion that he obviously did not listen to was the whole debate surrounding bogus claims.

Legitimate claims are welcome, and they will be heard by a fair and impartial system. Bogus claims are what has been tying up the system. Ninety-five percent of these bogus refugee claims never ever show up for a hearing. Many of these are coming out of democratic countries in the European Union.

We have to find a way to plug that gap, and we are going to do that. I think the majority of Canadians support us in that attempt.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, a member of the opposition talked about her family. That is a tremendous story. I suspect Vietnamese boat people were the refugees who came in 1979-80.

Those people who fled Vietnam went to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees processing camps in Southeast Asia where their claims were assessed. They were then referred for resettlement. Canada accepted some 60,000. That is what we encourage refugees to do, seek UN regional resettlement opportunities, not get in a leaky boat, paying $50,000 to a criminal gang.

Does the member not agree with me that it is better that people pursue the normal, legal UN route for regional refugee protection as opposed to using dangerous smugglers to cross the Pacific Ocean?

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, what we just heard was the minister's point of view. There are two totally different issues at stake here. We are not about to try to ignore refugees from around the world. Canada steps forward and does more than our share. We carry more than our load of accepting refugees from around the world. We will continue to do that.

However, we will not be the dumping ground for every syndicate and smuggling organization on the planet.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-31. My colleagues across the floor will be happy to hear that I have almost lost my voice. So, this will be different than some of my speeches in the past. However, it is for a good cause.

We are talking about Bill C-31. First of all, what is dangerous about this bill is the concentration of power that it puts in the hands of the minister. We know very well that a minister should not have any say in processes that have been democratically created. For instance, in the past, to determine whether a country was safe or not, a panel of experts, including human rights specialists, had to be created. This bill gives that power to the minister. Why create a system that is much more arbitrary and less democratic to replace an existing process, an institution that has proven successful for Canada?

The government will agree with me that our immigration system was very well structured, despite certain delays. It does need some changes, but does that mean the government has to destroy our democratic institutions? Is that what the government is talking about when it talks about modernizing our Immigration and Refugee Protection Act?

I do not believe that the changes proposed by the minister will modernize the system. I believe they represent a step backwards. The government wants to control everything. I could give a number of examples. My colleague told me about a young Mexican he tried to save and help. Mexico would not be considered an unsafe country, and most refugees from Mexico would be sent back there. Yet all international organizations agree that Mexico is not a safe country. I sit on the House Subcommittee on International Human Rights. The subcommittee heard testimony from a Mexican delegation about how dire the situation was for people in Mexico. Human rights are constantly being violated by the government, which is corrupt and has been infiltrated by criminal organizations. It is very difficult for homosexuals in Mexico to live openly, even though the country is not considered to be unsafe.

Certainly, some European countries are democratic and developed in a sense, but there is pressure on human rights advocates and the rights of homosexuals, women and young women are not respected. Even though there is no armed conflict or danger, these people are often mistreated, arbitrarily imprisoned or tortured.

I have done a lot of work for Amnesty International, and I have met many political prisoners from countries like Greece, which would certainly not be considered unsafe, people who had acid thrown in their faces because they campaigned for human rights and union rights.

The powers the bill gives the minister are not democratic. They are arbitrary. It is not modernizing when a bill destroys our democratic institutions and puts powers in the minister's hands. I am not saying that the minister is acting in bad faith, but I wonder why the government has to destroy our democratic institutions to give itself powers.

It is important to know that there was a great deal of opposition to Bill C-4 across Canada. Many credible organizations, lawyers' groups and international agencies spoke out against Bill C-4 saying that it violates international conventions, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the fundamental rights of refugees. It is important to say that, even though the government dropped Bill C-4 from the order paper, it has reappeared in Bill C-31.

It is the same thing. It is called an omnibus bill. The government introduced its omnibus bill on criminal justice. It is doing the same thing today in the House by including clauses that go against the fundamental rights of Canadians and refugees, and that violate a number of basic principles of justice and of our democratic society. This bill has hidden clauses in order to keep the public in the dark. It is a practice commonly used by right-wing governments. They keep the public in the dark by withholding information so that the public is unaware of what is going on.

This strategy is condemned in many countries. One might say we are living in a dictatorship here. We do not have access to information and information is being hidden from Canadians. For the government to then blame the NDP is completely intolerable. The Conservatives form the government. They need not lay blame on the opposition parties. This government has a majority. If the government's bills violate the rights of Canadians, then it is the government's fault. The government need not blame the NDP.

Bill C-31, like Bill C-4, once again concentrates power in the hands of the minister. For example, humanitarian considerations cannot be cited when a claim is pending or within one year of a failed claim.

It is important to know that, after filing a claim, claimants have a very short period of time—15 days—to prove that they are not safe in their country. These people are at a disadvantage and cannot speak neither French nor English. They are given a mere 15 days to prove that they are in danger in their country. The government talks about red tape and so forth.

The government has 15 days to examine the claim, or it is rejected. That does not make sense at all. Our life could be in danger even if we come from a developed and democratic country. The minister must know this.

I have also heard the minister talk about illegal immigrants. We know that there is a difference between refugees and immigrants. Refugees are people who arrive in Canada, but without going through the same process as immigrants. That is understandable. They left their country in a hurry. They did not have the time to obtain a visa, because they were in a very dangerous and unsafe situation. We are talking about countries such as Greece and others. These people were in such a dangerous situation that they had to leave the country quickly without going through the process. For that reason, generalizing the process will not solve the problems.

They talked about bogus refugees, of thousands of false claims. Only two of the 27 countries in the European Union have problems. Should all refugees throughout the world be penalized because applications from only two countries present a problem? I do not believe so.

I have a question for the minister: who is going to arrest the so-called human smugglers? Where will they be when the refugees go to jail? What about the human traffickers? Who will arrest them? The minister should know that the people smuggling refugees are not usually in Canada. They are back in the home countries. The minister should know that. Will putting children and refugees in jail help the RCMP and government officials arrest those people? I do not think so.

Individuals and their families will be put in even greater danger. Families will not be allowed to bring their children or grandparents until they have been here for five years. A person can obtain refugee status, but cannot bring family members over. That makes no sense. Worse still, if a refugee's claim is denied, family members will be barred from applying. If a family is truly in danger, a person trying to save his family will be penalized just because the minister has decided that the country is safe.

I will give other members a chance to ask questions now.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, before the hon. members deliver their speeches on this issue, I urge them all to study and really understand Canada's asylum system and this bill, rather than rising here and spewing nonsense. The speech we just heard was full of strange allegations that have nothing to do with reality.

For instance, the member said that all asylum seekers from Mexico need Canada's protection. However, 90% of asylum seekers from Mexico are refused by our legal system, through the Immigration and Refugee Board. In other words, most of them do not need Canada's protection. She said it is inappropriate to talk about bogus claimants, but nearly two-thirds of refugee claimants in Canada are rejected by our fair and balanced legal system. She should have nothing to say to that.

For instance, nearly all refugee claimants from the European Union withdraw their own refugee claims. Does she not agree that we need to have certain tools to deal with the waves of bogus claims from developed, democratic countries, like those of the European Union?

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the European Union, I am fully aware of the situation. I travelled to Europe myself and heard from many countries about this. Canada is having problems with claims from only two countries, and yes, most of those claims are not legitimate.

However, Mr. Minister, you know very well that Bill C-11 solved all of those problems and that negotiations were held with the opposition. Now that you have a majority, you are pointing the finger at the NDP.

Will you negotiate with us? No. Will you include the amendments that were proposed in this bill? No. So, we will not take any lessons from you, simply because you claim we do not know this bill. We know very well that you will do whatever you want, but this is a mistake.

You have problems, but this bill does not solve them. Stop generalizing the situation by saying that we are going to be overrun with refugees from all over the world. We are having problems with only two European Union countries. This does not mean we should penalize refugees from everywhere else.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I would like to remind hon. members to address their comments to the Chair.

The hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Immigration is out of touch with reality. Instead of blaming my brilliant colleague, who did her homework and read the bill in detail, maybe he should go out into the field, visit various communities in urban areas and see what refugees are really up against.

My colleague is right to give the example of a Mexican from the LGBT community who received death threats for various reasons, including his sexual orientation, and who claimed refugee status in Montreal. He told me about his reality, and it is incredible. The minister is wrong to blame the opposition, which is doing its homework. He should go out into the field.

I wonder if my colleague could comment about that.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one hon. member will certainly appreciate and identify with what I am going to say.

I want to remind the minister that immigration is more than just a photo of the minister and the Prime Minister with representatives of certain cultural communities in a restaurant or a cultural organization. Immigration is much deeper than a little certificate that is sent to representatives of cultural communities with a photo taken with the Prime Minister and him.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in support of Bill C-31, protecting Canada's immigration system act.

Canada is a welcoming and generous nation. In fact, Canada welcomes one in ten of the world's resettled refugees, almost more than any other country in the world. Our Conservative government is increasing the number of resettled refugees by 20%, to 14,500.

In addition to resettled refugees, many people flee their country of origin because they are persecuted and fear for their life. Unfortunately, Canada's immigration system is being abused by people who are not refugees, by people who would rather break the rules or pay to be smuggled into the country instead of waiting their turn in line.

For far too long, foreign criminals, human smugglers and bogus refugees have abused our immigration system. This abuse comes at a great cost. It is not just the monetary cost borne by Canadian taxpayers. It also comes at a cost to genuine refugees who are waiting longer than they should to get a decision on their claim and receive Canada's protection.

Today I stand in defence of genuine refugees, in defence of Canada's border integrity and for all Canadians whose abundant generosity has been exploited. The facts speak for themselves. Canada receives more refugee claims from the European Union than from Africa or Asia. More specifically, EU member state, Hungary, has become Canada's top source country for refugee claims. Hungarians made over 2,400 refugee claims around the world in 2010 and, of those, 2,300 were made in Canada. That is 23 times more claims made in Canada than in the rest of the world put together.

Further, in 2011, Canada received more than 4,400 claims from Hungarian nationals. These numbers have risen dramatically to the point where Hungarian nationals constituted 18% of all claimants to Canada in 2011. Yet, in the last few years, virtually all of the refugee claims from EU nationals were rejected, abandoned or withdrawn.

The average failed refugee claimant costs approximately $55,000. That means that the unfounded claims from the 5,800 EU nationals who sought asylum last year alone cost Canadian taxpayers $170 million. The facts make it clear that our immigration system is being abused.

Bill C-31 would make several improvements to our asylum system that would make it faster and fairer. An essential feature of Bill C-31 is the ability of the government to designate safe countries that do not typically produce refugees and who respect human rights. It is proposed that hearings on claims for people from safe countries would generally occur within 45 days compared to the current system in which it takes over 1,000 days for a decision.

Under Bill C-31 , all eligible refugee claimants, including those from designated countries, would continue to receive a fair hearing at the independent Immigration and Refugee Board and would be able to seek judicial review of a negative decision to the Federal Court. To put the huge financial costs of bogus refugee claimants in perspective, it is estimated that Bill C-31 would save Canadian taxpayers approximately $1.6 billion over a period of five years.

In addition to refugee reform, Bill C-31 includes measures to crack down on human smuggling. Human smuggling is a serious and despicable criminal offence that endangers human lives while stuffing the pockets of criminal organizations. This bill would send a clear message that the abuse of our immigration system by human smugglers will not be tolerated and every effort will be made to ensure the safety and security of all Canadians.

The proposed legislation would make it easier to prosecute human smugglers and impose mandatory minimum prison sentences of up to 10 years on convicted smugglers. We must change the perception of Canadian shores being a vulnerable target for these migrant vessels. It is important to continually strengthen our laws to ensure that we have the tools necessary to hold offenders accountable.

Bill C-31 also deals with the pull factors that result in migrants choosing to pay tens of thousands of dollars to be smuggled into Canada. Experience has shown that both the push and pull factors must be addressed to effectively deter human smuggling. It is important to underline that when migrants arrive as part of an illegal smuggling operation, they usually do not have documentation or have fraudulent documentation. It takes time to establish their identities and determine whether they pose a threat to the safety and security of Canadians and whether they are architects of the operation.

It is completely reasonable and expected by Canadians that smuggled migrants would be detained until their identities have been established and decisions made on their claims. To suggest that these people should immediately be released into our communities without knowing whether they pose a threat is completely irresponsible. It is important to note that under Bill C-31 minors under the age of 16 would not be detained.

Bill C-31 also includes provisions to ensure that the health benefits received by those who arrive as part of an illegal human smuggling operation are no more generous than what are received by the Canadian taxpayers who fund these benefits. Further, Bill C-31 would also prevent smuggled migrants from sponsoring subsequent family members for a period of five years. By addressing the pull factors that lead to the use of criminal human smugglers, Bill C-31 would be more effective at deterring this despicable crime from happening in the first place.

Finally, Bill C-31 would provide the government with the authority to collect biometric data from temporary residents seeking entry into Canada. Biometrics will be an important new tool to help protect the safety and security of Canadians by reducing identity fraud and identity theft. As fraudsters become more sophisticated, biometrics will improve our ability to keep violent criminals and those who pose a threat to Canada out of our country. Unfortunately, there are countless examples of serious criminals, human smugglers, war criminals and suspected terrorists, among others, who have entered Canada in the past. Under Bill C-31, foreign criminals would be barred from entering Canada thanks to biometrics.

Further, biometrics may result in faster processing and shorter wait times for legitimate visitors and immigrants to Canada, as visa officers would have an additional tool to help them make their decisions. The use of biometrics would put Canada in line with most other western countries, such as Australia, the U.K., the European Union, Japan and the United States, which are already using or preparing to use biometrics in immigration matters.

Bill C-31 would strengthen the integrity of our immigration system. This would mean that genuine refugee claimants would receive Canada's protection sooner. It would also mean that bogus refugee claimants who are abusing Canada's generosity would be processed and removed from the country more quickly. Bill C-31 would provide an expedited secure process for those who are genuinely in need of asylum and protection. It would provide a just framework from which Canadians could feel secure in knowing that their tax dollars were contributing to a structured and thoughtful refugee system.

Finally, this bill would protect our borders from dangers that all Canadians stand united in opposing. These changes are necessary and deserve the support of all parliamentarians.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, parliamentarians on this side of the House will never support a bill that would jail children. The government thought that was a good idea, to bring forth a bill that would jail refugees, men, women and children, for up to a year.

The government has made one change and will now only jail children who are 16 or 17 years old. However, what happens if a refugee family arrives with an eight-year-old child? Do we really think that those parents are going to stay in detention for a year and allow the state to separate them from their eight-year-old child? Absolutely not. We all know what will happen: The eight-year-old child will stay with the parents. Hence, we are still looking at children being jailed with their parents, and the government knows it.

The minister has said that the UN High Commissioner for Refugees approves of his designation of certain countries as safe. New Democrats have checked and what the high commissioner has really said is that if Canada is going to have a system designating countries as safe, there must be an appeal on the merits from an initial decision. Bill C-31 denies refugee claimants from designated safe countries an appeal before the refugee appeal division. I know the minister is not a lawyer, but he should know that an appeal to the Federal Court is not an appeal on the merits; it is an appeal only on natural justice.

My question for the member is this. How can she justify a bill that deprives people of access to the refugee appeal division depending on the country they come from, in violation of what the UN High Commissioner for Refugees has required?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, when I was at home in my riding over December and January, I had an opportunity to meet with many of my constituents, who absolutely understand that our system is being abused.

To be clear, Canada has the most fair and generous system in the world. Canadians know this. Whether addressing refugee reforms, human smuggling or implementing the use of biometric data, Canadians are very aware that all of these things need to be addressed. That is what we are doing through Bill C-31.

This bill would provide more protection more quickly to those who are truly in need. It would weed out the bogus claimants who are abusing our generosity. It would save Canadian taxpayers at least, as we have said many times, $1.6 billion over a five year period.

To underscore my comments on these facts, I would like to quote from The Edmonton Journal editorial, “Good moves on refugees”, from February 17:

Given the financial stress placed on our system by those numbers, there has to be a more efficient, cost-effective means of weeding out the bogus claimants from Europe and elsewhere. Simply put, we cannot continue to give everyone the benefit of the doubt when it costs that much money and taxes our social systems unduly to do so.

The House resumed from March 26 consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, the Marine Transportation Security Act and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to rise for my inaugural speech in the House of Commons since my election as the member of Parliament for Toronto—Danforth.

Permit me to begin by first thanking the people of Toronto—Danforth for having placed their trust in me in the March 19 by-election. I recognize that the bar has been set very high, in that I have both the distinct honour and the distinct challenge of succeeding a truly great member of the House, the Hon. Jack Layton, whose untimely passing this past August 22 triggered an outpouring of emotion among Canadians such as our country has rarely known.

I pledge to represent the vibrant community of Toronto—Danforth tirelessly, with integrity and following the example set by my predecessor. Like Jack Layton, I will do my utmost to contribute to Parliament both constructively, working with others to secure just and sensible results and by resolutely defending the progressive values of the people of Toronto—Danforth.

In that spirit, I turn now to address the substance of the legislation before the House on second reading of Bill C-31. This omnibus bill is intended to amend a variety of existing statutes, most notably, IRPA, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and the Balanced Refugee Reform Act.

The Balanced Refugee Reform Act is itself mostly a far-ranging effort to amend IRPA and the ink is still wet on it, in that it only enters into force at the end of June.

It is important to recall that the Balanced Refugee Reform Act was ultimately a product of hard work and mutual compromise from all corners of the House, having been adopted with eventual all party support. Less than a year after it achieved a majority in the House last spring, the government is abandoning compromise and is steamrolling ahead with its own particular uncompromising view of refugee policy.

In support of this characterization of the government's Bill C-31 legislative initiative, allow me to briefly discuss a few, and I emphasize only a few, of the disturbing additions or changes to refugee law that Bill C-31 will usher in if it is permitted to pass.

First, the minister, if he deems it to be in the public interest, may characterize a refugee claimant, or refugee claimants, as having arrived in Canada irregularly. This decision would turn these claimants into designated foreign nationals, which I will subsequently simply refer to DFNs. Crucially and shockingly this designation as DFNs would subject them to automatic detention.

In contrast to regular refugee claimants whose detention must be reviewed after 48 hours and again in 7 days and then every 30 days thereafter, these irregular claimants could remain for 12 months before there was a first review of their detention. Indeed, for good measure, Bill C-31 explicitly adds a provision saying that review would be precluded before the end of 12 months. Thereafter, their detention would be reviewed in six-month increments.

Little could run further afoul of the international refugee law's strong presumption against detention which requires a stringent necessity test to be made and of the international refugee law's requirement that the necessity of detention be subject to early and then frequent review.

Under the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, a refugee claimant has access to a full appeal to a Refugee Appeal Division panel. However, now, under Bill C-31, a designated foreign national, this second-class refugee created by the act, could no longer access the appeal process established in the Balanced Refugee Reform Act. If the first instance decision maker, and that is the Refugee Protection Division, denied the person's refugee claim, not only would he or she have no right of appeal, but he or she would be subject to immediate deportation.

It is true that a DFN refugee claimant still may seek what is known as a judicial review, but it is important to note, in light of the answers being given in the House before the break, that this is not the same as an appeal. It is a much more limited process. It is found in the current law. It removes the automatic stay of deportation found in the current law so that in many, if not most, cases judicial review will occur after a person has been removed from the country.

What if a designated foreign national is successful in the refugee claim and is recognized as a refugee? Surely at that stage one would think Bill C-31 would provide that the successful claimant would be treated like any other refugee, but unbelievably, no. To start with, the designated foreign national who is recognized as a refugee continues to wear that designation as a state imposed badge of dishonour. He or she is subjected to reporting requirements to which other refugees are not subjected.

More atrociously, an accepted refugee who started out as a designated foreign national cannot apply to become a permanent resident of Canada for five years after being found to be a refugee. This could result in the refugee not becoming a permanent resident for six or seven years, assuming there will be processing delays with some applications. Compare this to a regular refugee who is actually required to apply for permanent residence status before 60 days are up.

One might ask, what is the big deal? If a refugee gets to stay in Canada, what difference does it make if the individual has permanent resident status or some sort of refugee status? One huge difference is that the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act requires that a person be a permanent resident before the person is able to sponsor family members, such as the person's spouse, children, or parents, to immigrate to Canada. Thus, under Bill C-31 irregular refugees would have no hope of reuniting with family in Canada for at least five years.

Currently, family class applications in this country are often processed at a snail's pace. It is not uncommon for it to take three years for a child or a spouse to be admitted and sometimes up to six years for parents. It is no stretch to say that a refugee who started out as a designated foreign national may have to wait 10 years for family members to join him or her.

If that is not enough, a designated foreign national refugee will not even be able to travel outside Canada to spend time with family, for example, in a country other than the country of origin which the refugee fears going back to. Why is that? Bill C-31 decrees that such a refugee will not be given travel documents until he or she becomes a permanent resident, that is, until at least five years have passed, despite the fact that the refugee convention requires that travel documents be issued to refugees once they are “lawfully staying” in the host country. Fortress Canada thus becomes prison Canada for the designated foreign national refugee. If he were still alive, Kafka could not have written Bill C-31 better if he tried.

It does not end there. The DFN provisions apply retroactively to March 2009. After Bill C-31 becomes law, the minister could decide to designate the Tamil refugees who arrived on the Ocean Lady in October 2009 and the Sun Sea in August 2010 as irregulars. The only part of a DFN regime that does not apply retroactively is the detention regime.

Finally, there is the stunning change in the law with respect to cessation of refugee status. This basically means that after the government applies to have a refugee status removed, that simultaneously removes the permanent resident status, which subjects the individual to being removed from the country.

Time does not permit me to go into many other problems with the bill, such as problematic changes to the safe countries regime, the implications for children, the radical cuts in the time that refugee claimants have to prepare their cases, and the advent of a biometrics regime which comes with no privacy safeguards and allows Canada to share this data with other countries.

There is much in the bill that requires close and exacting scrutiny once it gets to committee. I hope that government members along with the opposition will take the committee process seriously and not back the government in what is ultimately repressive legislation. At some point, MPs have to stand up for their conscience as well as for their constituents.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on his maiden speech.

In some countries, many human rights violations remain undocumented or poorly documented. They may occur in isolated areas beyond the reach of human rights groups, journalists and others. Indigenous groups or racial minorities who represent a small percentage of the population may face serious abuses which are under-reported.

For cultural reasons, victims may be reluctant or even unwilling to report the violations. This may be true for women and girls. They may face stereotypes and taboos which make them fearful of speaking out about gender-based violence, discrimination and other human rights concerns.

Does the hon. member think that the patterns of human rights abuse can and do often change quickly, and that conditions may in fact deteriorate more quickly than the process of government designation could accommodate and respond to, as happened in Kenya in 2008?

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the preface of the member's question does a great job of setting out the issue underlying the question.

There are at least two aspects of Bill C-31 that come up against the reality the member described. One is the designation of so-called safe countries. The notion that there is a safe country is a problematic concept, but the idea of quickly changing conditions makes it even more problematic. The fact that Bill C-31 removes the notion of a panel of advisers to the minister on determining what countries will be safe makes it even worse.

Under the cessation regime, the minister or the government could apply for cessation, which could be for a period in time when things had changed; the government comes on the scene when it thinks things are safe in order to send some permanent residents back to the country, but then conditions could change again. The idea of changing conditions has to be taken into account.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on his inaugural speech, which was very well executed. I look forward to working with the member.

This particular legislation has all kinds of pitfalls. It is difficult to know where to start, but I will start with the children. Under this legislation, when some of the most vulnerable people from around the world come to our shores, we are going to say to them that we are going to put them in detention, basically prison. That is what detention is. People will not have the freedom to move around and will not have travel documents.

We heard the minister explain previously that for children who are under 16 years of age, the parents can choose to relinquish them to the state, to the province, or to keep them in detention. For parents, there is no choice. It is so disturbing that that is where our immigration and refugee policy is going.

What kind of impacts are these detentions going to have on children?

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on her recent appointment as the critic for immigration.

There are numerous implications for children spread throughout Bill C-31, and I cannot touch on all of them.

My hon. colleague referred to one of them, a kind of Sophie's choice situation for the parents, about whether children under the age of 16 will stay with them in detention or be relinquished to the state.

Another issue is the age of 16 years. International human rights law generally, and the convention on the rights of the child in particular, indicates that adulthood starts at 18 years of age. This legislation is particularly problematic in that the age limit of 16 years has been set.

Finally, as I mentioned earlier in my answer about cessation and family reunification issues, when permanent resident status takes five years to achieve, that also is an issue. Often a family member, a child or a parent, will make it to Canada and then will not be able to see other family members for at least five years.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to the importance of Bill C-31, protecting Canada's immigration system act. This legislation would improve the Balanced Refugee Reform Act by providing new measures which would ensure a fast and fairer refugee determination process.

Our Conservative government has increased the number of refugees that will resettle every year by welcoming an additional 2,500 people for a total of 14,500 individuals. Canada resettles more refugees than any other G20 nation. The fact is our refugee system is open to abuse and this is undermining Canadians' faith in our generous system. Bill C-31 would put an end to the systematic exploitation of our asylum system and prevent abuse of Canadians' generosity and goodwill. It is in the best interests of all fair-minded, hard-working taxpaying Canadians that this House should pass Bill C-31. Let us examine the reasons this bill is so important.

Bill C-31 would restore the integrity of the Canadian asylum system by enhancing opportunities for bona fide refugees to have their claims addressed in a timely manner. Currently, the number of false claims, namely from democratic countries in the European Union, is overwhelming our system. The sheer volume of claimants precludes officials from focusing their attention on those legitimate refugees who are in true need of our assistance.

It astounds me that in 2011 the number of refugee claims from the EU was greater than the number of claims from Africa and Asia. Indeed, 23%, or almost one-quarter of all claims, now come from EU nationals. Canada's top source country for refugee claims is not a country in Africa or Asia, but Hungary. Moreover, virtually all refugee claims made by EU nationals are abandoned, withdrawn or rejected. These bogus claims cost hard-working taxpaying Canadians an outrageous $170 million per year. For this reason, Bill C-31 would improve the system by recognizing that there are qualitative differences among countries and their general attitudes toward human rights and the rule of law. The bill responds to the differences by designating some countries as safe.

Under Bill C-31, the factors that would lead a country to be designated as safe would be clearly outlined both in law and in regulations. The most important factors are objective in that they refer to the actual acceptance rates of claims from a given country. In other words, the designation of a country as safe would be based on the results of decisions taken by asylum claimants themselves, such as the rate at which they abandon their own claims as well as the decisions rendered by the independent Immigration and Refugee Board.

Unlike the Balanced Refugee Reform Act which has quantitative and qualitative criteria specified only in regulation, Bill C-31 would enshrine these factors in legislation, leaving objectively verifiable quantitative factors to be set out in a ministerial order. As such, the criteria used to prompt a review of a country's designation would become more transparent and accountable than they would have been under previous legislation. For example, quantitative factors would be specified in a ministerial order and include assessments where: 60% or more of total asylum claims from a country are withdrawn or abandoned by the claimants; 75% or more of total asylum claims from a country are rejected by the independent Immigration and Refugee Board. These qualitative factors enshrined in the form of legislation would look to universally accepted democratic principles such as whether the safe country has an independent judicial system, practises basic democratic rights and freedoms and has political and legal mechanisms to redress infringements of those rights and freedoms, and/or allows civil society organizations to exist and flourish.

As I have outlined above, this bill would repair our broken asylum system by stemming the flood of obvious baseless applications and putting in place a process that can ensure a fast and fair determination of legitimate applications simply by distinguishing between safe democratic countries and states with oppressive brutal regimes.

This is also a piece of legislation that respects the rule of law by affording all claimants, including failed claimants from safe countries, the right to judicial review. Every failed claimant would have access to at least one level of appeal. People deemed in need of protection would not be returned to the country from which they fled. Furthermore, under Bill C-31 the majority of refugee claimants would gain access to an additional level of appeal, specifically the refugee appeal division, for the first time.

Canadians pride themselves on being a compassionate society, as well as fair-minded and just, and they would not tolerate repatriation of foreign nationals knowing that persecution and harm would befall them, so the appeal mechanism can respond to uniquely exceptional circumstances. At the same time, this cropping of the current massive applications for appeals would curb the abuse of Canadians' generosity and prevent contempt of our legal system.

Furthermore, under this legislation, Canada would remain a safe haven for genuine refugees seeking asylum. However, claimants who have been involved in acts of serious criminality will not be welcomed into this country. Whereas the current system bases serious criminality on the more arbitrary measure of the length of jail sentence imposed, Bill C-31 rightly bases serious criminality on the specific crime the claimant actually committed, as defined under the Canadian Criminal Code.

This is also in line with the definition of serious criminality under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which states that a serious criminal is a person who has been convicted of a crime which, under Canadian law, is punishable by a jail sentence of at least 10 years. As such, political prisoners are not and will not be barred from making refugee claims.

Reforms to the Canadian refugee system are much needed and enjoy broad-based support. This government has listened carefully to Canadians who seek restoration of a fair and balanced refugee system that protects Canadian values of integrity, compassion and fair play. I submit that the enactment of this proposed bill would go a long way in securing those values.

Let us listen to what others are saying. Our colleague, the former NDP immigration critic from Vancouver Kingsway, has recognized the flaws in the current system. He has spoken of the need to “build a system that has a fast and fair determination process”. Indeed, he went further and acknowledged:

And that’s something that I’ll give [the Minister] credit for. I do think that’s what his intention has been all along. And we all want to work towards that.

Furthermore, a Globe and Mail editorial dated February 17, 2012 reads:

The legislation rightly focuses on weeding out claimants who are not genuine, and stemming the flow of asylum seekers from countries such as Mexico and Hungary that are democracies with respect for basic rights and freedoms...

Fast-tracking refugee claims from these countries, and ensuring failed claimants are promptly deported, is an excellent way to ensure Canada does not become a magnet for abuse.

In conclusion, I am thankful for being given the opportunity to speak to the merits of Bill C-10. I would like to thank my esteemed colleague, the hon. minister, for introducing this important piece of legislation and for being in the House during this debate. It is in the best interests of legitimate asylum seekers that we should pass this bill to bring much-needed change to our broken asylum system, and it is in the best interests of Canadians as well. I urge all members of the House to join me in giving support to Bill C-31's passage.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party has a number of concerns and in fact suggests that there are serious issues with this bill and that it is somewhat fundamentally flawed, which results in a need to bring forward amendments that we hope the government will be sympathetic to.

One of the amendments is in recognition of how important the issue of a safe country list is. At one time the current Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism acknowledged that in order to have a country put on the safe country list, it would be important to have an advisory committee to recommend it. For whatever reason—and many would suggest that is it is because there is now a majority Conservative government—the government has decided that the minister no longer needs the advisory committee in order to assign a country to the safe country list.

I am wondering if the member can explain to the House why the government has changed its opinion on having an advisory board made up of professional people who understand human rights to recommend which countries should be on or off the safe country list.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the member is seeking to deliberately create fear in the immigration system, but simply put, some of the criteria that define safe countries are that they have independent judicial systems, practise democratic rights and freedoms and have political and legal mechanisms to redress infringements of those rights and freedoms.

Basically, the criteria are defined as to what a safe country is and is not, and those are what the minister will operate under. The limits are clearly laid out, and a safe country is well defined.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would do us the honour of speaking a bit more on a safe country with respect to the whole question of designating an entire country as safe when we know that in many situations, including examples in eastern Europe that he was relying on, there may be vulnerable populations worthy of receiving refugee status. The situation with respect to the Roma in countries like Hungary is deeply problematic. Gay and lesbian groups within Mexico will tell us that it is not a safe country throughout Mexico for them.

Why has the government removed the possibility of designating only part of a country or sectoral groups and adopted this incrediblly broad-brush approach?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, simply put, safe country designation, as it is defined, is pretty clear. Basically, it seeks to stem the abuse of the asylum system. If people from foreign countries want to immigrate to Canada, they are more than welcome to go through that process, but what we are seeing now is that a huge flow of people want to immigrate to this country in a faster way, or maybe through the side door, and we are trying to stem that tide by having the safe country designation.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as other opposition MPs have mentioned in regard to this question, it really is difficult to designate a country as a safe country, even with the criteria that my hon. friend has put forward. Some countries will have the apparatus that appears to be representing the rule of law, but some populations within that democracy can still be systematically excluded from access to those rights.

I refer to a recent quote from Mr. Justice Hughes in the Federal Court. This was a case that just came down February 22 of this year, Hercegi v. Canada, in which Mr. Justice Hughes said:

...the evidence is overwhelming that Hungary is unable presently to provide adequate protection to its Roma citizens.

I ask my hon. friend to comment on this kind of specific problem.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, our bill seeks to stem that huge flow that is seeking to abuse our asylum system.

Certainly, as the hon. member mentioned, there are other situations. They can be addressed within a particular act. Just because a country is designated a safe country does not mean they do not have other means to get to Canada. They do. They have other options open to them. It does not mean we are closing the door to them, but it would just be done in a different way.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday some of us in the House—certainly the members of the Liberal caucus—celebrated the 30th anniversary of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This will be the theme of my remarks today, for it really does provide a context for what is happening with the bill before the House, which at its core is purposely mean-spirited, divisive and anti-Canadian.

Last week Canadians from all walks of life and from all parts of Canada celebrated the anniversary of bringing our Constitution home from the United Kingdom. Canadians support the charter, and for good reason; the charter has consistently protected the rights and freedoms of individuals from an overreaching government, and it has been a source of pride for most Canadians.

Canada has traditionally punched above its weight in protecting our citizens and the human rights and freedoms of all citizens, yet I fear the bill will add to the growing concerns that Canada is turning its back on those in our world who are less fortunate.

The United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees ensures that those who are being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion can seek refuge in regions that will protect their basic human rights and freedoms.

As our world becomes more connected through social media, it is harder to turn away from the plight of our neighbours, yet human rights violations are not always as visible as the ones we are watching in Syria. That is why this bill, which gives the ultimate power to the minister to place countries on safe lists, cannot be supported. No matter what political stripe, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism should not have the power to turn away a person seeking refuge due to his or her country of origin. No matter what their political stripe, the Government of Canada does not have the right to detain those seeking refuge for a year without review.

As a democratic country, we need to ensure that refugees are heard in an efficient manner that protects their basic rights and freedoms. I agree that the system can be improved, but the power to accept or deny someone cannot lie with one person. There needs to be more oversight, and the process needs to be expedited to ensure refugees and their families can begin to integrate into our country.

I stand today urging for a balance between protecting human rights and freedoms and modernizing our refugee system.

We have been leaders in the past and we can be leaders again, but not if the bill is supported in its current form.

I have been proud to stand as a Canadian knowing the key role that the Canadian government has played in the introduction and development of the concepts of peacekeeping and the responsibility to protect, yet the bill signals an abrupt shift away from the spirit and intention of those concepts. As it stands, the bill is not only anti-refugee; it is anti-due process, anti-justice, and violates the charter. I have no doubt that elements of the bill will be struck down by the courts.

The government knows that. It knows that locking someone up for 12 months without due process and all the rights afforded by the charter is unconstitutional.

Section 7 of the charter provides that:

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Section 8 assures that:

Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

Section 9 gives everyone the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.

Section 10 gives rights to those who have been arrested or detained, and the key word is “detained” in the context of this particular piece of legislation. In section 10(c), those rights include the right to have the validity of that detention determined and to be released if the detention is unlawful. It could not be clearer.

The sections of the charter that I have just referenced make it explicitly clear that there are elements of the bill, including the detaining of refugees for 12 months, that are a direct violation of the charter, and the minister knows this. The government knows that the charter applies to everyone, not just some, on Canadian territory, including those who arrive by plane or by boat at our ports, including those in transit in our territorial waters. It is called the rule of law.

It is troubling to witness such behaviour from a government that claims to value the rule of law, what the law governs. Even when we may not like it or we have mixed feelings about a particular law or court ruling, we cannot have a situation where the government picks and chooses the laws it likes and circumvents others with which it does not agree.

I cannot support this bill that would strip a refugee's residency status if the situation in his or her home country stabilizes under section 19. This is not democracy. We should be increasing the protection of the most vulnerable but the government seems to think we should turn our backs on them.

Equally troubling is the talk about freedom and liberty from those who stand fully prepared to take away constitutional rights and usurp the rules of law. We have rules and protections. I am grateful we have the charter that checks the power of government.

The day is coming and it is coming soon when the law will prevail, as it always does. I look forward to the day when Canada is once again respected and is a place that will once again value justice, equality, decency, unity and compassion.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, the member clearly misunderstands the bill and the proposed new asylum system when he says that we propose to detain asylum claimants for 12 months without due process. That is complete and utter nonsense. We propose to allow for the enhanced detention of illegal migrants who arrive in criminal smuggling operations for that period so that we can identify them, because these people typically come without documents having destroyed them. We have a responsibility to public safety to ensure that we do not admit people whose identity we cannot verify and whether they constitute a risk to Canadian health and safety.

Any of those people who arrive in a designated smuggling event who file an asylum claim would have the same access to the same asylum system as anyone else. Under the accelerated timelines, the IRB will be providing hearings to claimants, including those under detention in a smuggling operation, within about eight weeks time. If they are bona fide refugees, if they are found to have a well-founded fear of persecution, they would be granted protected status within two to three months of the reference of their application.

Would the member care to correct his mischaracterization of the bill?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I do not accept for a minute that I have mischaracterized the bill. The bill would provide broad-reaching powers to the minister to designate foreign nationals based on their mode of entry. That gives the right to the minister to have the 12 month detention without review.

It also indicates in the bill that the inability to determine the identity of the refugees within a reasonable time also provides that grounds. Therefore, not only do we have the mode of entry into the country, but if the immigration department happens to be too swamped or the officials happen to be too overloaded in order to determine the identity within a reasonable time, that, too, gives the minister that right.

I do not believe for a minute that I have mischaracterized the bill. The bill would provide overreaching powers to the minister. We have called it properly here.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague from Charlottetown to elaborate on Bill C-31.

This bill creates a new category of refugees called “designated foreign nationals”. This seems to go against the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, and it gives the minister discretionary power that he did not have before. We have a problem with that. In this case, as in many other cases, we see a number of aspects that show that bills are being introduced to give ever-growing discretionary powers, which remove the possibility of judging cases in a more objective way.

I would like my colleague from Charlottetown to say a few words about the impact that creating this “designated foreign national” status will have on the refugee processing system.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that creating this third class will absolutely have an impact on refugees.

There is no doubt that there will be a dramatic impact on those seeking refuge and asylum with the creation of this third class. I should point out that a court decision determined that the holding of a refugee for 120 days under a security certificate was cruel and unusual punishment. The fact is that this class now purports to authorize the holding of a designated foreign national for 12 months without review which is four times the amount of time that has already been found to be unconstitutional with respect to security certificates. Undoubtedly, separating these people from their families for such an extended period of time will have an impact.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and for the Asia-Pacific Gateway]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to have this opportunity to join the debate on Bill C-31, protecting Canada's immigration system act, which would further improve Canada's refugee determination system, as well as our immigration system.

I think we can all agree that Canada has one of the most generous and fair refugee systems in the world. In fact, the facts speak for themselves. Canada currently welcomes one out of every ten resettled refugees worldwide. Since World War II, Canada has provided a safe haven to more than one million refugees and our humanitarian efforts have been recognized by the United Nations.

Canadians can take great pride in the openness and welcoming nature of our refugee system. At the same time, few Canadians would disagree that the system is badly in need of reform. As we see time and time again, refugee claimants wait too long for a decision on a claim. This puts in limbo those who are genuinely in need of Canada's protection but it also allows those who are not really in need of our protection to abuse our generosity and take unfair advantage of our country.

Last year, processing times for a decision on a claim before the independent Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, the IRB, could take more than 20 months and, because of the seemingly endless recourses available, it can take an average of four and a half years from the time a claim is made until a failed refugee claimant has exhausted all legal avenues and is removed from Canada. In some cases, it has taken more than a decade.

As one can imagine, these long delays, as well as access to generous taxpayer funded health and social benefits, encourage individuals who are not in need of our protection to use the refugee system as a way to remain in Canada for years on end.

To address these problems, Bill C-11, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, was passed in June 2010. That legislation included a number of improvements to the refugee system to provide for faster protection and faster removals with the aim of deterring abuse.

Bill C-11 provided for faster processing timelines to quickly decide claims. It introduced a designated country of origin policy to further expedite the processing of claims from those countries. It also restricted access to post-claim recourses to allow for faster removals for claimants not found in need of protection.

However, as we proceeded with the implementation of that bill, it became clear that further reforms were needed. We are concerned, for example, that we are receiving a large number of refugee claims from countries where human and democratic rights exist and which are not typically refugee-producing, such as those in the European Union. If members can believe it, Canada actually receives more refugee claims from the democratic European Union than from Africa or Asia. What is more, in recent years, virtually all European Union claims were abandoned, withdrawn or rejected. If that trend continues, that means that the unfounded claims from the 5,800 EU nationals who sought asylum last year will cost Canadian taxpayers nearly $170 million.

When we consider that 62% of all asylum claims were either abandoned, withdrawn or rejected by the IRB last year, it becomes clear that too many tax dollars are spent on these claimants and on tax-funded social benefits.

We need to send a message to those who would abuse Canada's generous refugee system that if they are not in need of protection they will be sent home quickly. At the same time, those who truly need our protection will get it even faster, while providing an extra level of appeal to most failed claimants.

That is why the Government of Canada introduced Bill C-31, which we are debating today, which will, if passed, further strengthen the asylum system and deter abuse. I will be very clear about one thing. Under these new measures, all eligible refugee claimants would continue to be entitled to a fair hearing before an independent decision-maker.

To begin, we propose to eliminate the information-gathering interview that was developed under the Balanced Refugee Reform Act and replace it with a basis of claim. This document would be submitted at the same time as the eligibility interview for those who make their claim inland or within 15 days for those who make their claim at the port of entry.

Under the proposed measures, refugee claimants, particularly those from designated countries of origin, would receive a hearing before the IRB more quickly. Hearings at the IRB for claimants from designated countries of origin would occur within 30 to 45 days. Claimants who are not from designated countries of origin would also have their hearing timelines accelerated. It is proposed that these hearings would be scheduled within 60 days of being referred to the IRB.

However, to be effective, faster decisions on refugee claims must be complemented by timely removals. Quick removals would contribute to reducing overall costs associated with Canada's refugee system by deterring abuse. Under a reformed refugee status determination system, the Canada Border Services Agency would place a higher priority on apprehending and removing failed refugee claimants. In particular, the CBSA would remove failed refugee claimants within 12 months following a final negative decision by the IRB.

As we know all too well, failed refugee claimants may turn to other options to delay their removal from Canada. That is why limits on other recourse options have been proposed in this legislation.

In closing, let me reiterate, the proposed protecting Canada's immigration system act builds on reform passed in June 2010 as part of the Balanced Refugee Reform Act. These new measures further accelerate the processing of refugee claims for nationals from designated countries which are those that generally do not produce refugees. In addition, the proposals reduce the options available to failed claimants to delay their removal from Canada.

Even after these changes, Canada's refugee determination system would continue to meet our domestic and international obligations.

This is what The Globe and Mail had to say about Bill C-31.

Immigration minister's...refugee reforms, aimed at making the process more efficient and decisive, are generally good. If implemented, they will improve an unwieldy asylum program....The legislation rightly focuses on weeding out claimants who are not genuine, and stemming the flow of asylum seekers from countries...that are democracies with respect for basic rights and freedoms....Fast-tracking refugee claims from these countries, and ensuring failed claimants are promptly deported, is an excellent way to ensure Canada does not become a magnet for abuse. The bill will also implement biometric identification, such as fingerprints and photos, for people who apply for visitor's visas. This welcome change will guard against the use of false identities.

I urge all hon. members of this House to join me in supporting Bill C-31 in order to deter abuse of our refugee system, and provide a quicker and more secure beginning for victims of violence and persecution around the world.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Conservative member who just expanded on Bill C-31, for which the time allocated for debate has been limited, yet again.

How does he justify the fact that the detention will violate a number of rights and freedoms of asylum seekers, refugees and immigrants? This practice was condemned in Australia, since it is an arbitrary detention denounced by Amnesty International and a number of human rights groups.

Some people, including children, might be imprisoned for a year simply because they arrived by boat, like my parents did.

The government considers this mode of entry into the country to be illegal. How does the hon. member justify this?

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member would agree that those people are arriving illegally.

An interesting fact that many might not be aware of, with respect to the boats that came in the last few years, is that many of those individuals are actually detained in my riding. I am well aware of how they are treated and the process that they undergo.

The member should also know that it is already within the ability of the government to detain individuals. In this case, it is about protecting the safety of Canadians. As I said, because they are detained in my riding, I receive lots of correspondence and calls. People are primarily asking, if we do not know who these people are, should we simply let them travel throughout Canada and set up homes wherever they might go? They are encouraging the actions the government is taking in this legislation, and saying that before we do that we need to know their identities and ensure that they are not a threat to the safety and security of Canadians.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about safety in a well-known case. Mr. X worked as a police officer in Mexico and investigated drug cartels and the murders of women. Due to his work, he received death threats. Several officers in his unit were killed. He believed he was next and he fled to Canada. His refugee claim failed, as the judge believed that there was adequate protection in Mexico for those who are targeted by organized crime. However, was it safe for Mr. X?

Bill C-31 would attempt to limit the number of refugees who seek protection in Canada by designating some countries as safe. The minister would have the sole authority to designate these countries. Does the hon. member believe there is a reliable and objective means of distinguishing between safe and unsafe countries when it comes to human rights protection? If so, could he describe it, please?

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member has misunderstood the legislation if she thinks that individuals from these designated countries would not get an opportunity to make their case when, in fact, they would. It is important as part of our system that we give them the opportunity. However, Canadians would agree that the system should be a bit different in terms of the timelines for these individuals who come from countries that are not generally refugee producing. They would get to make their case, whether from one of those countries or not, before an independent individual. If the outcome were to their benefit then they would be part of our system. So we would be protecting the ones who need protection.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-31. However, I would have preferred that this bill not be introduced at all and that we not debate it. In my opinion, this is an objectionable bill. There are a number of problems with it and it is certainly going to result in legal challenges.

I would like to start by saying that Bill C-31 builds on Bill C-11, which was introduced in the previous Parliament. With a minority government, the Conservatives were unable to pass the strict and severe bills that they wanted. Now, they are taking Bill C-49, which was also from the previous Parliament, and making the necessary changes to complete their biased and discriminatory immigration policy the sole purpose of which is to close our borders for as long as possible to foreigners seeking asylum in Canada.

The change in this government's tone on immigration and citizenship is striking. Most of Bill C-31 is practically copied word for word from the former Bill C-49, the short title of which was Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act. It was promoted as the bill that would protect refugees and discourage smugglers who were endangering the lives of foreigners trying to enter Canada by boat. Bill C-31, which is pretty much the same, is entitled Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act. The image is eloquent.

The Conservatives are now showing their true colours. The intent of Bill C-31 is no longer to protect refugees, but to protect the integrity of Canada's immigration system against ill-intentioned refugees who abuse the generosity of Canadian laws and who try to take advantage of our country. These comments were made and repeated by the previous speaker.

In the previous Parliament, some immigration bills, especially, Bills C-11 and C-35, were passed after much discussion, debate and compromise by all parties. A compromise was even reached on Bill C-49, the predecessor to Bill C-31. This time, the Conservative government is no longer receptive to amendments. On the contrary, the minister himself said that there are gaps in the Balanced Refugee Reform Act and that Canada needs stronger measures that are closer to the original bill we introduced in March 2010.

This time, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism is not honouring the agreements reached by the various parties.

At the time, a number of groups that defend rights and freedoms condemned Bill C-49. Amnesty International, the Canadian Council for Refugees, the Barreau du Québec and Professor Peter Showler, to name just a few, roundly condemned several key provisions of the bill, saying that they represented a serious violation of Canada's international and constitutional obligations.

In fact, this government is still using the pretext of national security to justify its lack of transparency and its desire to keep people in need out of the country, with no regard for Canada's constitutional and international obligations.

Far from having improved his bill in response to the criticisms about humanitarian considerations in previous bills, the minister instead says that he will not give in to the “immigration industry” lobby whose criticisms only reinforce the idea that the government is truly on the right track. It would be hard to be any more arrogant.

In addition to the government's arrogance, its narrow vision and demagoguery must be condemned.

With this bill, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism is creating a new category of immigrants and giving himself the power to arbitrarily impose a different processing system for those immigrants than for other asylum seekers. This discretionary power is, in fact, the power to declare the entry of foreign nationals into the country as irregular by using loosely defined criteria based on national security interests, which was probably the genesis for the idea that this power cannot be delegated.

The creation of this category of refugee was specifically designed to block the entry of as many refugees as possible and it completely disregards the right to equality under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These asylum seekers often come from countries where fundamental rights are denied and where living conditions jeopardize their health and lives.

It is utterly ridiculous, even irresponsible, for a government to arbitrarily punish refugees who arrive by boat on the pretext of wanting to separate the good refugees from the bad as quickly as possible. That makes no sense. A refugee is not a qualified immigrant who can be selected. We cannot select refugees, simply by virtue of their refugee status. According to this government's logic, refugees who are not selected are bad refugees.

The fact that the minister would be able to create two classes of people is unacceptable and downright disturbing. Human beings are all equal, and the minister must never forget that Canada has a legal responsibility toward these people under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and a moral responsibility arising from its international obligations under various human rights treaties.

According to Peter Showler, director of the Refugee Forum and former member of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, concerns about a deluge of illegal refugees are unfounded because both routes to obtaining refugee protection—the Refugee and Humanitarian Resettlement Program, which targets international refugees as defined by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and Canada's Inland Refugee Protection System for refugees arriving in Canada spontaneously—have historically been responsible for the same number of permanent residents in Canada, around 12,000 per year.

The difference between the two systems is control: control over the number of people coming in, the selection criteria, and the procedures and processing times. This is a legitimate concern, but it should not legitimize the crass justifications that the government is using to block access for people who need help.

For example, the minister claims that Canada is getting more and more claims from certain countries, such as Hungary and Mexico, and that these claims often come from “bad refugees” who do not really need protection. According to Mr. Showler, the Immigration and Refugee Board nevertheless accepts a significant number of claims from those two countries, 17% and 8%, respectively.

The minister also claims that this new bill will enable the board to do some “housecleaning” and shorten the waiting list for “good refugees” who have to wait patiently in refugee camps because illegitimate refugees who arrive by boat bog the system down by using fraudulent documents to get into Canada.

That, according to Mr. Showler, is not true because, on the one hand, not all refugees abroad can reach refugee camps, and on the other hand, the United Nations convention recognizes that it is difficult for refugees to be granted asylum, so it allows them to use fraudulent documents to seek refugee protection.

The Conservatives are trying to create an unhealthy climate around immigration, and specifically refugees. The executive of the Canadian Council for Refugees is very concerned about this and stated, “it is very worrisome when the government tries to create an anti-refugee sentiment among the population”. Several statements made by government MPs have promoted that very sentiment.

According to Wanda Yamamoto, president of the Canadian Council for Refugees, “the bill is discriminatory and creates a two-tier system of refugee protection in Canada. It also makes it dangerously vulnerable to political considerations, rather than ensuring a fair and independent decision about who is a refugee. Our refugee system needs to give everyone a fair hearing, based on the facts of their case and regardless of their country of origin.”

Determining refugee status will henceforth be directly controlled by the minister, who now has the power to establish his own criteria. Janet Dench of the Canadian Council for Refugees said, “there is an arbitrary element in this, which the government is exploiting and abusing.”

Politicizing the immigration system is a very dangerous thing to do. The system had found a rather fair balance between security and individual liberties. All of that is now being compromised in the name of national security. From now on, any difficulty identifying refugees will be considered a threat to national security and, as a result, will justify different, more severe and punitive treatment than for all other kinds of refugees.

The Canadian Bar Association stated that Bill C-31 lacks clear qualitative thresholds and raises serious concern about excessive ministerial discretion. Furthermore, given the serious legal consequences that flow from a designation made by the minister, these amendments are overbroad and unsustainable.

Executive officers of the Canadian Bar Association went even further and recommended that implementation of the proposed changes be delayed to allow for immediate and meaningful consultation with all stakeholders.

I have only touched on some of the important aspects that support dropping this bill. We have asked the government many times to drop Bill C-31. This bill fuels an anti-refugee sentiment and exacerbates fears that are often legitimate, but that are being misguided with a bill like this one.

I think it is a shame that we are voting on this bill this evening with yet another time allocation. The NDP cannot vote in favour of Bill C-31.

We will strongly condemn this bill.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder who is writing the notes and doing the research on Bill C-31 for the NDP because they are completely misinformed. For example, the hon. member just said that, under the proposed system, the minister will directly control the determination process. That is absolutely not true.

All the decisions on requests for asylum will be processed by the Immigration and Refugee Board, an independent quasi-judicial agency, in accordance with all the rules of the act and without any interference by the minister. There will be no change in how the decisions are made. This is what will change: in the refugee protection division, where the hearings will be held and where the decisions will be made, there will be permanently appointed officials instead of members appointed by the Governor in Council. That way cabinet will be less involved in determining who will make the decisions.

The hon. member said there is an anti-refugee sentiment. Is he aware of the fact that our government is increasing by 20% the number of refugees that we will accept as resettled refugees and that we are also increasing the refugee integration assistance program by 20%?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism hears only what he wants to hear. What cannot be denied is that the bill can give and has given discretionary powers to the minister. It was never a question of the minister making all the decisions. I do not believe that a minister or minister's office can make such decisions. I am quite aware that there are boards and councils.

However, on the specific issue of designated foreign nationals, the minister will have discretionary powers that previous ministers did not have. The Conservative government has a tendency to give itself discretionary powers, whereas previously the boards were free to do their job, with as little interference as possible.

As for the second question about the number of refugees, honestly, it is not the number but the type at issue here. The bill creates different titles, different categories with different rights and processes. That is disgusting. A refugee who wants to go to Canada or any other country will do whatever it takes to avoid often severe persecution. In this case, the process for legitimate refugees such as those from Mexico or Hungary, like the Roma, will be complicated by this measure. It is not about the number of refugees; it is really about the process and about justice and equality for everyone.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for his very clear and compassionate speech. As he mentioned, Bill C-31 is the incarnation of the former Bill C-49, and it also includes everything that was denounced in Bill C-4 with respect to refugees. Instead of attacking smugglers and those who abuse refugees, this bill directly attacks the refugees themselves. Furthermore, the Conservatives are trying to make the public afraid. They are fearmongering about refugees' lack of identification. These refugees flee their countries and do not have the time to take their papers with them. I would like my colleague to expand a bit on this subject.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry for her question.

When it comes to refugee protection, we have absolutely no problem with tackling human smugglers who mistreat others and take advantage of people's desperation by promising them a better life and a way out of persecution. I think that was clear from the agreements that the government and the opposition parties came to regarding the previous bill. At the time, there was a minority government that had to negotiate, so we reached a compromise. Now that compromise has been kicked to the curb.

This new bill does nothing about human smugglers. It targets refugees who arrive by a specific mode of transportation. Perhaps some of those refugees should be examined much more closely. We can have a procedure for that.

The bill as written punishes refugees who come to Canada via a specific mode of transportation even though that might have been their only option. That is why we feel that this bill is brutal. The opposition will be voting against it.

[Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, Conservative, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to rise in the House today to speak in support of Bill C-31, protecting Canada's immigration system act. It is so important for us to help ensure the integrity of our immigration system, and the bill would do exactly that.

Immigrants come to Canada seeking a new life and new opportunities for their families and themselves. Our immigration system is the most fair and generous in the world. However, Canadians have no tolerance for those who abuse our generosity and take advantage of our great country. Indeed, Canadians gave our government a strong mandate to protect Canada's immigration system. We are acting on that mandate through this bill.

Bill C-31 introduces many reforms that would help deter individuals and organizations that would seek to engage in illegal and dangerous human smuggling operations. It would also provide faster protection to genuine refugees, as well as faster removal for bogus claimants. With its introduction of biometrics, it would also bring Canada in line with other countries that already use biometrics in their immigration programs, such as the United Kingdom, Australia, the European Union, New Zealand, Japan and the United States, among others.

Although the bill presents many positive changes to our immigration system, the opposition NDP and Liberals continue to propagate myths regarding it. That is why I will try to explain to them today, as many of my colleagues have attempted to do in the past, exactly how these myths are incorrect.

First, the opposition states that the minister will be able to single-handedly pick and choose safe countries. This is categorically false. What the opposition does not understand is that there are laws and regulations that surround such decisions. The factors that would lead to a country's designation would be clearly outlined. It would be based on the decisions taken by the asylum claimants themselves, for example, through the decision to abandon or withdraw their claims, as well as through the independent Immigration and Refugee Board, but not single-handedly by the minister. In fact, it is clear that the criteria proposed to consider a country for designation will actually be more transparent and accountable than under the Balanced Refugee Reform Act.

Another common misconception put forth by members opposite is that Bill C-31 would prevent political prisoners, such as Alexandre Soljenitsyne, from making asylum claims in Canada. It is quite clear, when one reads the bill, that this claim is absolutely false. Political prisoners are not and will not be excluded from making refugee claims.

As is the case now, the only refugee claimants who are unable to access a refugee hearing are those who have been convicted of a serious crime, suspected of being involved in terrorism, have committed war crimes or crimes against humanity or have been involved in organized crime under Canadian law. This does not include political prisoners who have not been charged or convicted of a crime punishable under Canadian law. In fact, what the opposition fails to understand is that serious criminals who have been convicted of crimes punishable under Canadian law have always been barred from making a refugee claim in Canada, and Bill C-31 does not change that.

However, under the current system, serious criminality is based on the arbitrary measure of the length of a jail term rather than the severity of the crime committed. Under this legislation, serious criminality would instead be based on the severity of the crime, as defined under the Canadian Criminal Code.

The opposition additionally claims that Bill C-31 would include the mandatory detention of everyone who arrives as part of a human smuggling event for a minimum of one year. This claim is entirely false. If the opposition members were to read the bill more thoroughly, they would find that Bill C-31 includes an exemption from automatic detention for minors under the age of 16. Furthermore, adults aged 16 and over would be released from detention as soon as they received a positive opinion on their refugee claim from the IRB. In cases of human smuggling, it would be overwhelmingly irresponsible to simply release those involved in a criminal human smuggling operation before officials were able to confirm their identities and establish whether or not they posed a risk to the safety of Canadians. Those whose identities cannot be established and who have been determined to be threats to the safety and security of Canadians or those suspected of being architects of criminal activity could be held longer under this bill. This is a provision that is entirely fair and should be entirely supported. This government has always been very serious about maintaining the security and safety of all Canadians.

The final misconception that I would like to address today pertains to biometrics. Several of my colleagues have spoken out in favour of biometrics in the past and for good reason. They would help expedite identity verification and decision making by officials and would result in shorter wait times. Biometrics would also help prevent the forgery or theft of an applicant's identity to gain access into Canada. However, some members of the opposition choose to say that the government would not adequately protect the privacy of those who provide biometric data. This is simply not true. There are privacy laws in this country and the government plans to follow them. Citizenship and Immigration Canada has been continuously working with the Privacy Commissioner on the implementation of biometrics. Personal information of applicants would be used, retained, shared and disposed of in accordance with Canada's privacy laws. Biometric data would be immediately disposed of when an individual received his or her citizenship. Furthermore, biometric data would not be required of Canadian citizens.

These are but a few misconceptions and myths put forward by the NDP and Liberal opposition. What is not a myth, though, is that the opposition parties are working against a bill that would restore integrity to our asylum system, making Canada's refugee determination faster and fairer in order to quickly provide refuge to legitimate refugees and remove bogus claimants. The NDP and Liberal opposition is working against a bill that would make the asylum system less prone to abuse. The NDP and Liberal opposition is working against a bill that would save the taxpayers millions of dollars every year, would help restore public trust in the immigration system and would ensure that Canada's generosity is only extended to those who genuinely need it.

The government was given a strong mandate to improve Canada's immigration system. In response it has presented Bill C-31, a bill that would help stop those who seek to abuse our generosity.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member went to great lengths to point out how the NDP and the Liberal Party are opposing the bill, and she has asserted that we are incorrect in that. However, I would like to ask the member what she thinks about organizations that are very expert in this field that have also come out publicly in very strong opposition to this bill. For example, the Canadian Council for Refugees has called for the bill to be scrapped entirely. Amnesty International Canada has said that an earlier version of the bill falls far short of Canada's international obligations under human rights and refugee protection. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Bar Association oppose the bill. An expert panel at the Centre for Refugee Studies has called the proposed bill draconian.

What does the member say in response to these organizations? They are not part of the official opposition. They are independent organizations that are experts in their field, and their opinion is that this is a terrible bill. What does she have to say to them?

[Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, Conservative, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate the fact that our government is committed to strengthening the integrity of Canada's immigration system and will make our refugee system faster and fairer. Canadians have given us a strong mandate to protect Canada's immigration system. We are acting on this mandate.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could say whether or not she perceives this to be fair. Imagine legitimate refugees who come from a country where their lives have been in danger. They come to Canada and, according to this Minister of Immigration, are deemed irregular refugees. That means these refugees are going to be held in detention for a year. After getting out of detention these refugees are going to have to wait four years before they are able to sponsor someone, such as a son, a daughter, or a spouse. Once they have sponsored that individual, there is another three to five years before the dependant comes to Canada.

Would the member acknowledge that is not fair? To keep the family apart for that period of time is just wrong. Would she not agree with me on that point?

[Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, Conservative, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Speaker, on February 16, our government introduced Bill C-31, which would restore integrity to our asylum system by making Canada's refugee process faster and fairer, thus resulting in faster protection for legitimate refugees and faster removal for bogus claimants.

Canada's immigration system is known for being the most generous and fair in the world, but we are also vulnerable to abuse. Bill C-31 would work to keep it fairer for everyone.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share briefly with the House that I used to do some refugee law. I once helped a couple of ship-jumping claimants from Halifax in the days when there was a USSR and the countries that are now former Soviet bloc had people coming to Canada. The experience I had was really heart warming. The client I helped, Nickola Marcinko, recently called me out of the blue. He is living in Oakville now. He is doing great. He has kids. He has a business. However, when he first came to Canada he was able to work. He was integrated into our community as we waited for his political refugee status to be concluded. He actually was able to contribute to society.

I wonder if the government could give us an estimate of what it would cost if we ceased to have political refugee claimants able to work in communities and support themselves, and if they are deemed irregular entries to Canada, put into a detention facility for up to a full year?

[Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, Conservative, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I know that Bill C-31 would help our government put a stop to those who seek to abuse our generosity. It would help to get immigrants here faster. We would welcome them and be glad to have them work in our system.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken on this bill before, but we are now debating a reasoned amendment at second reading. I want to thank my colleague for Vancouver Kingsway for putting forward the motion that we are now debating that would eliminate many of the very offensive provisions of this bill.

I listened to the government member who spoke before me. Obviously the government is feeling frustrated that yet again it cannot get one of its bills through. It brings in closure and tries to shut down debate. On this particular bill, as with many other bills that we have seen, the concern in the broader community is unbelievable.

I was in my riding over the last couple of weeks, as I know many members were. I heard from people time and again, particularly those working in the refugee settlement system assisting refugees, how worried they are about the bill and the fact that it is going through Parliament. I want to reflect how bad people think this bill is.

I am glad that we are having this debate and that the member for Vancouver Kingsway put forward his motion. It gives us another opportunity to try to expose the grievous flaws in this bill. The bill would hurt people and tarnish Canada's reputation as a place of refuge for refugees. In effect, it would create a two-tier refugee system and that is something we should be very concerned about.

I want to express concern about the discretion that the bill would give to the minister. I heard the minister earlier in his remarks saying that is not true and not something that would happen. However, when one reads it, this is clearly a strong element of the bill. Again, it is a trend that we have seen with the Conservative government. It tends to centralize more and more power in a minister's hands and take away power from experts, panels and the system itself. It raises enormous suspicion among Canadians about the political motivation of the government with this kind of legislation.

We have a specific concern that the bill would make it easier to terminate refugee protection. I was astounded to learn that even once individuals became permanent residents they could have that taken away from them after the fact if conditions changed in their country of origin. This would create incredible uncertainty for refugees who had gone through the process and become permanent residents. In fact, it may even contravene international norms on the treatment of refugees. This is very concerning.

We have already had some debate and discussion on the clause that would prohibit refugee claimants who have been incarcerated in their home country for over 10 years and would not allow for tribunal discretion in the case of political prisoners. I heard the member give an example. What about someone like Nelson Mandela who is now an honorary citizen of Canada? Under the proposed system, he would not have been allowed in Canada. This very broad brush being cast over the system would deny unique and important circumstances of people who have been under political persecution to get the kind of protection they need. This leads me to wonder about the motivation behind a number of these bills.

I hear Conservative members time and again focus on the word “abuse”. It seems to me, whether it is the drug bills, bills under the criminal justice system or Bill C-31, that they focus on a number of issues around abuse, make out that it is the norm and then penalize the whole system. They basically take a very hard-line approach on the whole system which penalizes legitimate claimants. I think this is very wrong. It is a pattern that has been emerging with the Conservative government in more and more legislation that has come before the House.

One of the areas of most concern in the bill is the changes to humanitarian and compassionate consideration. I know many of us, in our local constituencies, assist with casework for refugees. In my riding of Vancouver East, my staff and office work very hard. Over the years we have had hundreds of cases in which we have helped claimants with humanitarian and compassionate grounds. It is a very important element of the process.

The fact is the changes being contemplated in the bill mean that while claimants are waiting for an IRB decision, they cannot apply for H and C concurrently. That means claimants have to make a very difficult decision at the beginning as to whether they want to file for refugee status or humanitarian and compassionate consideration. We know that failed refugee claimants cannot apply for H and C for one year following a negative decision and possibly, by that time, they may have been deported.

Why is this important? I know from the casework we have done in our community that many people can have a refugee claim denied, but nonetheless may have a legitimate claim on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Our belief is that a failed refugee claim should not get in the way of an H and C consideration.

This change in the act will make it more and more difficult and onerous for refugee claimants to actually have options before them, which they now have. It is definitely a hardening of the system. It is a narrowing of the criteria. It is a focus on abuse that now applies system-wide and makes it much more difficult for people.

As a result of these changes, if they do go through, members of Parliament are going to find it very difficult to work with claimants in our local communities and we are going to see a lot of hardship. We are going to see people facing a system that has closed down on them. I am very worried and concerned about the impact the bill will have.

Another concern with the bill is the fact that the minister will have the power to designate a group of refugees as irregular arrivals. Exactly what that means and what the criteria will be is something we will need to find out. We need to find out how this will work. The very fact that it will create two classes of refugee claimants is something about which we should be very concerned.

As many of the experts have pointed out, and I referred to some of the organizations earlier that had voiced their concerns about the bill, this section of the bill is very possibly a violation of charter equality rights and also international conventions. The notion of detaining mandatory detention for up to a year when the minister has designated irregular arrivals is very offensive to us.

I remember reading over the years about the situation that took place in Australia where it had mandatory detention. First, it created a political environment of hatred against refugees and allowed that environment to get stronger. I think that is what we will see here. This is what the Conservative government is apparently motivated by, creating an environment where we can beat up on refugees and say that somehow everybody is abusing the system.

The idea of having two tiers of refugees and singling certain people out when they may be legitimate refugees is very problematic.

I am proud that the NDP has stood in opposition to the bill, because there are serious flaws and concerns about it. It should be scrapped. I hope the amendment of the member for Vancouver Kingsway is approved in the House so we can go back to the drawing board and do this properly.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, we just heard the kind of speech which indicates how, all too often, members of the New Democratic Party use extreme and irresponsible, in fact, demagogic language. The member just said that the government was seeking to create an environment where we could “beat up refugees”. I would like to give the member an opportunity to retract that outrageous remark. That is disgusting.

This country, under this government's leadership, resettles one out of every ten refugees worldwide. We are increasing the number of convention refugees who we protect in Canada by 20%, the highest per capita number in the world. We are increasing the refugee assistance program to assist them with their integration by 20%. We are creating, for the first time, the refugee appeal division to provide for an additional safeguard for failed asylum claimants to allow them a full fact-based review at an oral hearing on a full appeal. Under the bill, we are going to be giving status to bona fide refugees in two to three months rather than two years.

Reasonable people can disagree reasonably about aspects of this bill, but to suggest that this government, which is according to the United Nations High Commissioner the world leader on refugee protection, is beating up on refugees is an outrageous slur that is beneath that member and her party. I ask her to retract.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder why every organization that has expertise on this issue has voiced its strong opposition and concern about the bill. The fact is that when we read the bill and see how power would be vested in the minister's office, how it would create a two-tired system, how it would focus on abuse, how it would be punitive across the board, we have every reason to believe it is fundamentally flawed and would be harmful to refugees overall. That is why every major organization in the country that is an expert on this issue has come out publicly and said just that.

I would like the minister to respond to those criticisms rather than to stand, with self-righteousness, and pretend that somehow the bill would move us forward when it would do just the opposite.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member. I want to follow up with regard to the safe country list.

I understand and appreciate that the minister has made a decision that would ultimately give him and his ministry more power to determine which country would be deemed as a safe country. However, the legislation passed a couple of years ago allowed for the safe country designation to be determined by an advisory committee made up of experts, for example, individuals who dealt with human rights issues and so forth.

Does the NDP still support, and would it support, an amendment that would allow us to have an advisory committee make recommendations to the minister with regard to what would be a safe country designate?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments and question from the hon. member. It is correct. Under the former bill, Bill C-11, there was a panel of experts, including human rights experts, that could make decisions about a safe country. This would now be put into the hands of the minister. It is just further evidence of the concerns we have about the bill, which focuses more decision making and power, in a political sense, in the minister's office other than through an independent expert advisory situation.

What we had before was far superior to what is now contemplated in the bill.

Why would we have a minister making those determinations about what would be a safe country when we could have reliable, independent experts doing that and giving reasonable advice? Again, it is further evidence that the bill is fundamentally flawed and we should not approve it.

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today in support of Bill C-31, the protecting Canada's immigration system act.

Since Bill C-31 was tabled earlier this year, we have had the opportunity to debate its provisions on a number of different occasions in the House. I have listened to all sides of the debate and my hon. colleagues have made their points with conviction and often with passion.

I remain convinced that Bill C-31 is legislation that will improve our country's immigration system in a number of important ways, including, of course, cracking down on the lucrative business of human smuggling.

Human smugglers are criminals who operate around the world, charging large amounts of money to facilitate illegal migration. This is an important national issue because the actions of human smugglers undermine the security and safety of Canadians.

In some parts of the country, such as British Columbia, there is also an important global issue. It was on Vancouver Island in B.C. where the drama of human smuggling played out most prominently in recent years, in the cases of both the Ocean Lady in 2009 and the Sun Sea in 2010. It was these two incidents, more than any other, that demonstrated that this was not a theoretical problem in the country. It is a real problem.

Last summer, another human smuggling ship, the MV Alicia, carrying almost 90 Sri Lankan Tamils bound for Canada, was intercepted in Indonesia. In January another 200 Tamils seeking to come to Canada were duped by smugglers and left stranded in the small west African country of Togo.

Just a few weeks ago, the SV Tabasco 2, sank off the coast of Nova Scotia. The captain was killed, three crew members are missing and five survivors are requesting refugee status in Canada. The Minister of Public Safety has suggested that this could be another case of human smuggling.

All of these incidents underline the need to take action.

Bill C-31 would help to do so in a number of ways. It would enable the Minister of Public Safety to designate the arrival of a group of individuals into Canada as an “irregular arrival”. It would establish a mandatory detention for those individuals for up to a year in order to determine their identity and admissibility, including whether they had been involved in any legal activity. Mandatory detention would exclude those designated foreign nationals who were under the age of 16. Also, once an individual's refugee claim had been approved, that individual would be released from detention.

The bill would make it easier to prosecute human smugglers and would impose mandatory minimum prison sentences on those convicted of human smuggling. It would hold shipowners and operators to account when their ships were used for human smuggling. It would reduce the attraction of coming to Canada by way of illegal human smuggling by limiting the ability of those who would do so to take advantage of our generous immigration system and social services.

Cracking down on human smugglers is an important element of protecting the integrity of our immigration system. That is why these provisions have been included in Bill C-31.

Aside from human smuggling, the bill aims to strengthen Canada's immigration system in two other very specific ways. The bill would further build on the long needed reforms to the asylum system that were passed in Parliament in June 2010 as part of the Balanced Refugee Reform Act. These new measures would further accelerate the processing of refugee claims for nationals from designated countries that generally would not produce refugees. They would also reduce the options available to failed claimants to delay their removal from Canada.

It may surprise some of my hon. colleagues to know that Canada receives more asylum claims from countries in Europe than from either Africa or Asia. Last year alone, almost one-quarter of all refugee claims made in Canada were made by European Union nationals. That should give us pause for thought.

EU countries have strong human rights and democratic systems similar to our own and yet they produced almost 25% of all the refugee claims in this country in 2011. That is up 14% from the previous year. At a time of economic uncertainty for most people, this state of affairs comes with a large price tag for Canadian taxpayers.

In recent years, virtually all EU claims were withdrawn, abandoned or rejected. In 2010-11 alone, this was the case for 93% of European Union claims. If this trend continues, that means that the unfounded claims from the 5,800 European Union nationals who sought asylum last year will cost Canadian taxpayers nearly $170 million.

The refugee reform measures in Bill C-31 would help prevent abuse of the system and would ensure that all of our refugee determination processes are as streamlined as possible. This would be accomplished without affecting the fairness of the system and without compromising any of Canada's international and domestic obligations with respect to refugees.

Finally, the bill would enable the introduction of mandatory biometric collection for screening temporary resident, visa and study and work permit applicants, which would strengthen our immigration program in a number of ways.

This component of the legislation and its corresponding regulations that would follow would allow the government to make it mandatory for temporary resident visa applicants to Canada to have their photographs and fingerprints taken as part of their temporary resident visa applications.

Because biometric data is more reliable and less prone to forgery or theft than documents, these measures would strengthen immigration screening, enhance security and help reduce fraud.

It is no surprise to me that this important bill has received widespread support. This is what immigration lawyer, Julie Taub, had to say:

I’m an immigration and refugee lawyer in Ottawa, and a former member of the Immigration and Refugee Board. I can tell you from theory and practice that the current refugee system is very flawed, and cumbersome, and definitely needs an overhaul. It takes up to two years to have a claimant have his hearing. And there are far too many bogus claims that clog up the system, and use very expensive resources at a cost to Canadian taxpayers.

I also like the fact that he is going to fast-track these claims, so they do not clog up the refugee system for genuine claimants. I have clients who’ve been waiting since 2009, early 2010 to have their hearing, and I represent many claimants from, let’s say Africa, the Mid East countries, who base their claim on gender violence or Christian persecution in certain Middle East countries, and they have to wait, because the system is so clogged up with what I consider to be unfounded claims from citizens of safe country of origin.

As Canadian parliamentarians, we should all be committed to maintaining Canada's generous and fair immigration system, which is the envy of the world. We need to ensure that such an important system is always operating in our national interest and as effectively and efficiently as possible. That means that we need to preserve what works well in the immigration system and improve the system in areas where there are shortcomings.

The measures in Bill C-31 are necessary to protect the integrity of our immigration system. I support Bill C-31 and I encourage all of my colleagues in the House to join me in doing so.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the member to comment on the process by which Bill C-31 was drafted. For previous bills, the opposition parties and the government specifically agreed to, among other things, the creation of an advisory committee to define a “safe third country”. The government went back on those agreements and came up with Bill C-31.

What does my colleague think of the fact that bipartisan or multi-party agreements in the House can result in reasonable compromises that everyone is happy with, and of the fact that this process led to Bill C-31, which is totally unacceptable and violates all of the previous agreements? Can the member justify the government's decision and its dismissal of reasonable arguments put forward by the NDP and the other opposition parties?

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a lot of work did go into the former Balanced Refugee Reform Act but the reality is that much has changed and the changes are a drain on our system. That act was never intended to be a static act, nor should the law be static. When things change we should be prepared to look at why change is necessary.

Twenty-three per cent of the total refugee claims in 2011 came from the European Union and 18% of total refugee claims came from Hungary. These are safe countries. They are countries like Canada. There is no reason for refugees coming here from those countries. The reality is that by implementing this bill we would save our taxpayers $1.65 billion over five years.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member says that it is because things have changed. I would ask the member what specifically changed that caused the government to change its opinion and say that the minister will now be responsible for the decision on safe country designations as opposed to an advisory committee.

At the time when all four political parties in the House supported the idea of having the safe country designation list, that list was supposed to be assigned by an advisory group, not the Minister of Immigration . What specifically changed to cause the government to make that decision and give the minister that authority?

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the minister has no power to arbitrarily designate a safe country. Factors that would lead to a country being designated safe would be clearly outlined in both law and regulations. I will give an example. In a specified ministerial order there are quantitative factors that clearly identify that 60% or more claims from the country are withdrawn or abandoned. If 75% or more are rejected by the independent Immigration and Refugee Board, that would be considered reasons for a country to be designated as a safe country.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke at length and in-depth about the issue of responding quickly in terms of regulation and what the bill would do to designate safe countries. Based on the riding that he is from, I would like him to comment on the input he has received from his community on the issue of designated safe country and the response from his community in terms of its support for this bill.

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, being a border community, Sault Ste. Marie deals with a lot of immigration issues but the number one issue seems to be the length of time to process applications. This bill would speed up that process. Needless to say, the cost-saving measures in the bill, $1.65 billion over five years, would be money that could be more adequately used in other areas.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we know this bill would deprive some refugees of the right to apply for permanent residence for five years and, therefore, the reunification with their families, including their children. Why on the earth would the government be blocking family reunification, which has always been a very important element? This bill would actually be a roadblock to family reunification. I would ask the member what the justification is for putting a further obstacle to family reunification.

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the premise of that comment. If that is a concern, then that is something that can be discussed fully in committee. I have great respect for the members on the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and if that is a legitimate concern it will be addressed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, the Marine Transportation Security Act and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was very interesting to hear the government House leader say that a committee should be allowed to complete its work before decisions are made. That is the situation on Bill C-31 with respect to biometrics. A committee was engaged in a study to discuss the facts and meet with experts and witnesses in order to reach a decision on biometrics. However, the Conservatives just shot that out the cannon and are now proceeding with this bill before the committee's work is done.

Of course, it is always a pleasure to stand in this House, but I wish we were debating a bill that I would be able to support.

The title of Bill C-31, protecting Canada's immigration system act, is an improper and inaccurate title because rather than protect it, it would do damage to Canada's immigration system legally, socially, morally and internationally.

New Democrats strongly oppose Bill C-31 because it would punish refugees instead of ensuring a fast and fair refugee system.

This is not the first bill this Parliament has seen that targets the wrong group. I would point to Bill C-4, which I spoke up about several months ago, which has now been rolled into this bill.

I would like to sincerely thank my colleague, the member for Vancouver Kingsway, for his hard work and leadership on this file.

I want to talk about the omnibus nature of the bill which, from a structural point of view, is something that is a disturbing recurring feature of the Conservative government's legislation.

Bill C-31 is an omnibus refugee reform bill that combines the worst parts of former Bill C-11 from the last Parliament with Bill C-4 from this Parliament.

We saw this strategy before when the government put nine separate pieces of serious and complex crime legislation into one omnibus bill which it then put out for discussion and debate, therefore denying parliamentarians the opportunity to properly debate the merits of each individual bill.

Now the minister is combining two separate major pieces of legislation, as well as another serious issue, that of biometrics, into one unwieldy bill.

For Canadians who may be watching the debate, I want to explain what those bills are.

Bill C-11 was introduced in the last Parliament. It was debated, went through committee, was amended and passed in this very House. It went through all three readings in the other place, passed, received royal assent and was waiting to be implemented in June. Now, by introducing this bill, the minister has stopped that bill from being implemented. That bill was geared toward reforming Canada's refugee system.

When speaking to that bill on Tuesday, June 15, 2010, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism stated:

We have, in good faith, agreed to significant amendments that reflect their input, resulting in a stronger piece of legislation that is a monumental achievement for all involved.

These amendments, I am happy to say, create a reform package that is both faster and fairer than the bill as it was originally tabled.

The minister has now gone back to the original bill and thrown out all the wonderful hard work done by parliamentarians and the amendments that he lauded as faster and fairer than the original bill, the very bill he said was inferior to the amendments that were made by all parties in the House. It baffles me that the minister has yet to explain his reasoning behind this.

One of the first bills the Conservatives introduced, and one of the first pieces of legislation that I spoke to was Bill C-4. Now the minister has wrapped that bill into Bill C-31. There is no explanation as to why he would do that to a bill which had already been introduced and was moving through the system. This slows the bill down and puts it back at the start of the legislative process.

As I am opposed to the original bill, I do not necessarily mind that it will take longer before it becomes law, but it is certainly a waste of our time and taxpayers' money.

Bill C-4 has been plainly condemned by virtually every group and stakeholder involved in the immigration system in this country: lawyers, refugee groups, churches, immigrant settlement services across the board, and, I might add, a great number of my constituents.

The government has rolled everything into one bill and has added one more controversial issue that deserves its own debate. The government has added the issue of biometrics to the bill.

The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration held meetings and was in the middle of an important study on biometrics when the government introduced this legislation that steps on the very thing it is supposed to be studying. Sadly, it is no great surprise to me that the Conservatives moved on this before the facts were in and the work was completed. It is a little haphazard and half-baked like a lot of things they propose.

What does this say about the government's view of the work of standing committees and the experts and witnesses who appear before committees when the government reaches conclusions before the committee members have heard all the evidence? We would not accept it in a court room and we should not accept it here. That is one among many of the problems the government has.

One of my major concerns is the excessive power that the bill gives to the minister. The minister has the discretion to designate countries of origin or safe countries, to designate a group as an irregular arrival and determine what conditions would be placed on those designated refugee claimants. The designations have serious consequences and there should be oversight in making these determinations. Designated countries of origin would be countries that the minister believes do not produce legitimate refugees, usually because they are developed democracies.

The minister has thrown out the panel of experts to advise him, and I ask why. If the minister is so confident that he can choose which countries are safe countries, why would he not want the benefit of advice from experts in human rights? He praised this very idea as a good one 18 months ago. He still has not explained himself.

The Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism may have great faith in his own judgment, but to have one person make such important determinations as to which country is safe or not, which country is or is not capable of producing refugees, and who is an irregular arrival is extremely troubling and sets a dangerous precedent. That is too much power for one person to have. It sounds to me that he is creating his own little PMO of control in immigration. We should build in checks and balances. That should be the case no matter who the minister of immigration is, even a New Democrat after we form government in 2015. I do not know who would make the argument that the system is not better served by having that kind of check and balance in place.

With regard to the DCOs, the bill removes the requirement that a determination be made by a panel including human rights experts. By concentrating the power to designate a country in the minister's hands, it opens the prospect that decisions could be made for political and/or foreign policy reasons and considerations. Thus, these designations by the minister create two classes of refugees.

Refugee claimants from DCOs would face a much faster determination process and faster deportation for failed claims. An initial form must be filled out and submitted within 15 days of the claim. DCO claims submitted in Canada would be decided within 30 days, DCO claims submitted at a port of entry would be decided within 45 days. All others would be decided within 60 days. Failed DCO claimants could be removed from Canada almost immediately, even if they have asked for judicial review. In other words, a person could be removed before the review is even heard and that is unacceptable to me and to the members on this side of the House.

Furthermore, DCO claimants have no access to the new refugee appeal division. Herein lies what is fundamentally backward about the bill. The accelerated timelines make it difficult for people to get proper legal representation. This could lead to mistakes and subsequently a negative decision. Legal experts have warned that these accelerated timeframes and restricted access to the refugee appeal division would create an unfair system. The effect of the accelerated deportation would mean that people would already be removed from the country before the legal process had run its course. We know that once people have been removed it is much more difficult to get them back here if they are legitimate claimants.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague made a very informative and polite speech. I want to ask him about one specific aspect of Bill C-31.

We have a Minister of Public Safety who tells Canadians that if they are not with a particular piece of legislation then they stand with child pornographers. We have a Minister of National Defence who cannot give straight answers on a massive procurement. We have a Minister of Industry who is getting his hands slapped for cozying up to big business. We have a President of the Treasury Board who shovels money out the back door. How can we really trust the Conservative government to put more power into the hands of a single minister without proper oversight?

I would like my hon. colleague to comment on that part of the bill.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is the crux of it. At the end of the day, even without all of these ethical and potentially other breaches that we have seen from the government, as parliamentarians it would not be right to put that much power to decide the fate of tens of thousands of claimants into one person's hands.

Citizenship and immigration backlogs are now being cleared off by simply eliminating everybody who has applied, including individuals who applied six years ago to come here as skilled workers. A person who applied when single and is now married with a family is finding out that his file is going to be thrown out the door and shredded. This individual is going to have to apply again at the same time as somebody who decided yesterday to come here as a skilled worker.

These are the kinds of decisions being made by the minister, and they give us absolutely no faith whatsoever that he will be able to make the kinds of decisions that are going to be fair to the people coming to Canada seeking a better life.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the bill as it stands would create desperate situations for many people in my city of Toronto and in many cities across the country. Like my colleague, I am happy to serve the city of Toronto as a member of Parliament. Could he tell me how the restrictive elements of this legislation would impact some of his constituents?

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the restrictive elements are going to affect a number of people in my riding. Fully 50% of my riding of Scarborough Southwest is made up of immigrants and new Canadians. This change and all the other changes coming down the pipe, as well as those that have already happened, affect my constituents negatively on a daily basis.

It occurs with the moratorium on parental sponsorships. People who have come here and have started a family cannot get their parents over to help act as caregivers and therefore do not have enough money to go out and work or to attend school or language training classes. The cuts to settlement services that have happened time and time again in our city are affecting these individuals. These cuts negatively impact the economy as well as individuals.

The Conservative government talks about the economy incessantly. It says that it is the best with respect to the economy, that it is on the right path; it is absolutely on the wrong path. The government is damaging a generation of new Canadians and immigrants who have come here.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to comment on the Bill C-4 section in particular. The government has taken great pains and made great noise about how the long gun registry turned innocent long gun owners into criminals even though they had not done anything.

I would like my hon. colleague to comment on the likeness that this bill brings forward in treating people who are trying to either remove themselves from dangerous situations or economically strenuous situations by coming to Canada, which we proclaim to be a free and open country, and being treated like criminals before something happens.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for joining me and the member for Beaches—East York as members of the new parliamentary friendship association between Canada and Bangladesh. We would sincerely like a member of the government to show up to one of these meetings.

There are many parallels. We just need to look at the gun registry. The government said the registry criminalizes people, yet its own folks admitted that over 4,000 stolen firearms were re-registered through the gun registry. The government had no answer as to what it would do about going after that.

Bill C-4 criminalizes refugees rather than the folks who are bringing them here through human smuggling. They already face huge fines; this legislation would put people and families and children in prison, and it is unconscionable.

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in support of Bill C-31, protecting Canada's immigration system act. This legislation will provide a quicker and more secure beginning for victims of violence and persecution around the world.

As a Canadian, I am very proud of our compassionate tradition of providing a safe haven to refugees. Since World War II, Canada has provided protection to over one million refugees. It is clear that the government is committed to continuing this proud tradition, and that is why we will uphold Canada's commitment to resettle more refugees. By 2013, Canada will resettle up to 14,500 refugees, an increase of 2,500 since 2010. Canada welcomes one of the highest numbers of UNHCR-designated refugees. Bill C-31 will not change that.

What Bill C-31 will do is make our generous immigration system faster and fairer. It is no secret that Canada's immigration system is open to abuse, but when people come to Canada to abuse our immigration and refugee systems, it undermines public confidence in our immigration programs. It is that true people have taken notice of our country's compassion; the fact that Canada now receives more refugee claims from Europe than from Africa or Asia shows there is something wrong with the refugee system.

The simple fact of the matter is that we spend far too many taxpayer dollars on applicants who are not in need of protection. Last year alone, bogus refugee claimants cost Canadian taxpayers over $170 million.

Bill C-31 continues to give all refugee claimants, including those who arrive by way of human smuggling, the right to file a claim for refugee protection with the independent Immigration and Refugee Board. We will, therefore, not refuse any eligible person access to our asylum system. As such, this legislation will allow Canada to maintain one of the most generous refugee systems in the world; however, it will speed up the processes for deciding on refugee claims. This will allow us to provide protection much more quickly to those who are truly in need of it.

Under the UN convention on refugees, our obligation is clear: we have an obligation not to turn away people who have a well-founded fear of persecution, regardless of race, nationality, religion, et cetera. The fact that we will continue to grant access to our asylum system to all eligible claimants and that they will get an oral hearing before the independent Immigration and Refugee Board means that we will continue to meet these obligations. In fact, under Bill C-31 we will continue to exceed both our international and domestic obligations.

While all refugee claimants would continue to be able to ask for refugee protection, claimants from designated countries—that is, those that generally do not produce refugees—would have limited access to the recourse mechanisms that currently enable them to delay their removal from Canada for many years. This means that claimants from designated countries who receive a negative decision from the IRB would not have access to the refugee appeal division. They would continue to be able to ask the Federal Court to review the negative decision.

The United Nations has long praised Canada for the generosity of our current refugee system. As I said, all eligible applicants, including those from designated countries of origin, would continue to have access to our current refugee system.

The problem is that the current system is far too slow. On average it can take up to 4.5 years from the time an initial claim is made until a failed claimant is removed from Canada. During this time, claimants can access our taxpayer-funded health care and claim social assistance for several years while their claim is still pending. Long wait times mean greater costs to Canada taxpayers.

Similarly, the system is also too slow for people who need our protection. People in genuine need of our protection now wait about 20 months for a decision on their claim. This is unfair. As a result, the current response to genuine claimants is “Sorry; we know you need our protection, but you have to wait two years before we can even let you know whether you will get it.” This is entirely the wrong message that we should be sending to genuine refugee claimants.

These people need our protection, and we owe it to them to let them know whether we can provide it within a reasonable amount of time.

The reality is that instead of waiting patiently to come to Canada through an immigration process, too many people are trying to use our asylum system as a back door to gain entry into Canada. All the while, these claimants clog our refugee system and make those who legitimately need it wait far too long. While there is no question that Canada is a generous nation that seeks to provide protection to those in need, we must place limits on our generosity when others blatantly seek to abuse it.

This is what immigration lawyer and expert Richard Kurland had to say about Bill C-31, in part:

Finally someone recognized that the open wallet approach of the past, offering free education, free medicare, and a welfare cheque to anyone who touched Canadian soil making a refugee claim was not the right thing to do.

He continued:

We were just taken for a ride by a lot of people for a long time. Today that loophole is dead, and I really hope the word gets out to the smuggler community and back to source countries to not try it.

What is more, both the former NDP immigration critic and the current Liberal critic have stated publicly that they support the principles behind Bill C-31. The former NDP immigration critic said:

Well, I think what we need to do is build a system that has a fast and fair determination process. And that’s something that I’ll give [the minister] credit for. I do think that’s what his intention has been all along. And we all want to work towards that. We don’t want endless dragging on of this stuff because refugees, when they come here, you know, they do qualify for basic sustenance...it is at the cost of the Canadian taxpayer. So we do have an interest in making sure there’s a quick determination that’s correct and fair and get these people into our communities....

He continued:

We want a fast, fair system where we can give a sanctuary to people who need it quickly and we can weed out the people who don’t have valid claims, get them through a fair process. And if they’re not valid at the end of the day, deport them out of Canada swiftly.

Yet both the NDP and the Liberals have decided to vote against this important piece of legislation. They have decided to vote against providing Canada's protection to genuine refugees in need and they have decided to vote against hard-working Canadian taxpayers.

We need to send a message to those who seek to abuse our generosity that if they are not in need of our protection, they will be sent home quickly. Alternatively, the message we should be sending those who genuinely need our protection is that if they need our protection, they will now get it more quickly.

It is only by fixing our refugee system that we can effectively increase the generosity of our system. With the passage of the Balanced Refugee Reform Act in June 2010, we made some progress toward that goal, but the fact is that gaps remain in the new system. In introducing Bill C-31, our rationale is simple: by focusing the resources of our system on providing protection to those who genuinely need it, we improve our ability to help those people in need.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the comments of the hon. member were a reasoned argument based around the theme of generosity. I am having trouble following some of the logic, and I wonder if she can help.

Once a person is designated a foreign national and then is found to be a genuine refugee, a person in need of protection, the rest of the bill then goes on to treat them in a way completely different from regular refugees. They have to wait five years for permanent residence, they cannot sponsor their families as a result of that, and they do not get travel documents for five years. This is a radically different approach from that provided to normal refugees, yet the system has found them to be refugees. What conceivable basis is there for treating refugees in this different way?

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear in this legislation, and I encourage my colleague opposite to read the details.

What we have right now is a system that is slow, rigid and very reactive. The system we need and that we are working toward giving Canadians is one that is rapid and flexible and proactive. The changes that the member speaks of will be very effective in helping the Canadian government to provide more effective and efficient service to all claimants.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, In her speech, the member opposite recognized that the Liberals also have the view that the refugee system can be improved so that it is faster, fairer and better. However, she then took issue with the fact that the Liberals disagree with some of the details of how the government proposes to do this, such as going back on amendments already adopted on Bill C-11, and criticized the Liberals as working against the interests of the taxpayers of Canada.

I would like to know whether the member sees room in the process of parliamentary debate for members to bring forward their ideas as to how the actual details of the bill do not meet the test of the principles that we are supporting.

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I need to provide some information for my colleague opposite that she may not be aware of. First, it is an absolute given that I welcome parliamentary debate. That is why we are all here.

However, the point that may have eluded my colleague is that the current system is crushingly expensive for the Canadian taxpayer to bear. It is the Canadian taxpayer who is currently funding the inefficiencies and ineffectiveness of the system. The proposal in Bill C-31, protecting Canada's immigration system act, is to make it more just, more fair and much more responsive to the needs of all Canadians, whether they are new or currently reside here.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when all is said and done, Canada accounts for 0.5% of the world's population and 10% of the refugees taken in to any country. The only country that takes in more than us in numbers is the United States. Given those numbers, I wonder if my colleague could comment on the position that Canada plays in the world in the refugee situation overall.

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that very important clarification and question because Canadians are proud to welcome so many refugees. Quite frankly, our track record has been noted throughout the world. As I said in my remarks, the United Nations has singled us out for our generosity in refugee retention and acceptance.

The Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism was recently in Winnipeg at an event to discuss the new bill. He spoke at length about how Canada opens its arms to new Canadian refugees. We are proud of the government's record and we will continue it with a more efficient and effective system.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter the debate on Bill C-31. The Liberal Party believes that it is very reasonable to review, consult on and update refugee and immigration laws from time to time in order to address ways in which they may no longer meet the public interest, address issues that have come up since the last revisions and make improvements. The Liberal Party supports that, but Bill C-31, unfortunately, has some very serious flaws.

The fact that the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism is the only person who will decide what countries of origin are safe will mean that there is no accountability and no recourse available, and the refugee system will become dangerously politicized.

We see that playing out from accounts in the media about the immigration minister himself and funds potentially being used to organize partisan fundraising from immigrant communities. It is a very dangerous precedent.

The goal is to give one person in this country the power to determine which people will be eligible to claim refugee status and which people will not.

That is dangerous.

This bill will allow the Minister of Public Safety to decide which groups of people are irregular arrivals, and thus gives him too much discretion but no accountability.

The elimination of an appeal process for people who come from a country on the safe country list or for people designated as part of an irregular arrival does not guarantee that the law will be applied uniformly.

Our party opposes long-term detention without warrant, and opposes an unfair review process where the first examination is not held for 12 months. The proposed policies amount to cruel and unusual punishment.

It is clear that, while supporting improvements to make the laws more timely, more fair and more effective, there are many ways in which these are dangerous changes that put unaccountable power in the hands of ministers who have, allegedly, been abusing that power.

The Liberals believe that creating two classes of refugees is not acceptable and that the bill undermines the compassion and support Canada has historically provided to those seeking refuge from situations of risk, danger and abuse in their home country. It punishes selected refugees both by branding them in negative ways as security risks when, in most cases, that is not the case, and by locking them up for long periods of time and treating them much more harshly. This punishing of refugees is an unacceptable way of reforming our system and very likely open to charter challenges.

I will talk about two parts of the context of this.

My daughter was in Sri Lanka seven years ago at the time of the tsunami, which was a humanitarian disaster of massive proportions in Sri Lanka. She was, fortunately, not harmed. She was part of a convoy of aid that citizens had pulled together to drive down in trucks to the areas most affected. What she told us when she came back was that it was extremely dangerous. There were huge security measures that the group needed to take. These convoys of aid were at risk of being hijacked by government forces and by Tamil forces at various times. It was a dangerous situation where there was a civil war and the Tamil citizens were victimized by forces in their own country.

A few years later, the civil war came to a head. There were reports in 2009 that 10,000 citizens were killed and that 280,000 Tamil citizens were displaced in their own country and living in refugee camps. That is the framing for the arrival in British Columbia.

As the member for Parliament for Vancouver Quadra and a British Columbian, I was aware of the humanitarian disaster leading to people leaving the country and coming as refugees to Canada at that time. One boat arrived in October 2009 and a further boat arrived shortly thereafter.

I have an interesting analysis of the arrival of the boat bringing Tamil community members whose lives had been at risk, whose family members had been probably killed by either the government or Tamil rebel forces and who literally were the kind of humanitarian asylum seekers who Canada has a responsibility to accept and to support and has done so successfully in the past.

I will read a couple of sentences from the abstract of the analysis in the Canadian Journal of Communication, No. 4, 2011, by Ashley Bradimore and Harald Bauder of Ryerson University. This analysis looks at 32 articles. It does a careful analysis to ensure that this is a representative sample of the articles in the Vancouver Sun, Toronto Star and National Post. It analyzes the framing, representation and identity in these articles, showing that there was an overall negative representation of the Tamil refugees. The press emphasized issues of criminality and terrorism and constructed the refugees as being a risk. The sentences read:

The discussion established security—rather than human rights—as a focal point and portrayed the immigration system as both “failing” and “abused” by “bogus claimants”.

This security-oriented framework provided a discursive background for the refugee reform Bill C-11, Bill C-11, which has been replaced by Bill C-31.

We see a context in the discussions across national discussions that are not talking about the humanitarian issue or the situation with people arriving from Sri Lanka in these Tamil boats. The discussion centres on illegality and a lot of negatives. In fact, the analysis of the news articles at the time showed that some 66% of the articles sampled had negative terms in the headlines to describe the events, such as “terrorism”, “suspected”, “illegal”, “apprehended”. That is how between 50% and 67% of the headlines characterized the situation of the Tamil refugees coming to British Columbia.

Why was it characterized so negatively? Was that just the media portraying refugees from a known n country where there had been abuses and humanitarian tragedies? Was the media just being negative or was there a government hand in all of this?

It turns out that, in this analysis of articles, between 50% and 68% of the quotes and references in these articles were either from government sources or the police. The government sources were very widely quoted in these articles. What is the significance of that? It turns out that the immigration minister of the day came out very early on with some very negative comments. For example, the minister signalled, “there should be no rush to unconditionally embrace as refugees the 76 men, believed to be from Sri Lanka”. Another one reads, “We obviously don't want to encourage people to get into rickety boats, pay thousands of dollars, cross the oceans and come to Canada illegally”.

Another one reads:

Without prejudice to this particular group of people, [...]

We want to ensure that we don't end up with a two-tier immigration system, one tier for legal law-abiding immigrants who wait patiently to come to Canada the legal way, and another that [encourages] false refugee claimants to come through the back door.

These comments played a significant role in changing the discourse in the media from what was once centred on the humanitarian to talking about illegality, the bogus and queue jumping. That then becomes the basis for putting forward Bill C-31, which is an attack on refugees. First the Conservatives lull the public and then they attack the refugees, perhaps with impunity. However, the Liberals will be speaking out against it.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech, which expressed great humanity, as always.

She referred to injustices. All we see in this omnibus bill that my colleague has talked about, and which Bill C-4 has been rolled into, is a double-standard system.

That is the bit that I react to most strongly, given that there are two classes of refugees: those who arrive by land and those who arrive by boat. We are also talking about other unfair aspects, given the powers that are put into the hands of the Minister of Immigration, and we are also talking about violating the rights of refugees by using arbitrary detention, where children can be detained for a year or be separated for a year from their parents who are detained so their identity can be verified.

Refugees are criticized for having no identity papers, when they are already in shock. They are fleeing precisely because they are in danger. They do not have time to think about bringing papers with them. These are all injustices. I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her comment.

The combination of the two elements she just mentioned is exactly what is so disturbing. On the one hand, there are injustices toward refugees, and on the other, more powers are being given to Canadian ministers.

It is a toxic combination when the government takes these unilateral powers that would affect the lives of people in Canada and their families abroad. It politicizes and creates tremendous risk for intimidation and abuse of the immigrant communities by the government through fear.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, can my esteemed colleague tell us how Bill C-31 blatantly violates the Canadian charter and several international treaties? I would like her to summarize the most obvious violations.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Certainly there are elements in the bill that would be violations of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but that is not the key issue here. However, a second key issue is the absolute lack of consultation, such as when Bill C-11 came forward.

Groups affected by this were not consulted.

There were some big mistakes in Bill C-11. Some consultation was then done and those things were changed. However, under Bill C-31, the amendments were rolled out again. Therefore, this is a very similar process as with many of the other bills that the government has put forward.

The Conservatives have shown that they are not interested in the public good or the best interests of the people because they did not consult groups in such a way as to ensure a good bill. They drafted it without consulting anyone because they want more power over immigrant and refugee groups.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to offer my contribution to this vital debate about the future of Canada's internationally renowned immigration system.

I am sure all hon. members in the House can agree that it is crucial to Canada's national interest that our immigration system functions fairly, effectively and with integrity.

If enacted, the measures in Bill C-31, otherwise known as protecting Canada's immigration system act, would help ensure that the immigration system would continue to function in a just way.

Let us not mince words. Our immigration system is one of Canada's greatest assets. It is one of the reasons we have the great country we do today.

I think of my own riding in Barrie, Ontario and of some of the people from Barrie who have come to Canada recently. They represent some of the best values to which we could ever aspire.

I think of Beethoven Crasco who, when he first came here, was working two jobs to support his family and still found time to volunteer at our local hospital.

I think of Tahir Nawaz who within a few years of coming here organized a large fundraiser for the Red Cross as he wanted to give back and be engaged in the community.

I think of Aaron Sureshkumar who, after coming from Sri Lanka and working tirelessly, managed to not only find a job, but created and opened his own factory producing hot tub covers, which are now being sold all across North America. Coming here with very little, he now employs dozens in Barrie and is opening an expansion.

That type of work ethic embodies the Canadian spirit unequivocally.

I know most MPs go to citizenship ceremonies. We can never have better example of why we appreciate immigration than those ceremonies. I remember going to my first one when I was on city council 12 years ago and seeing a new Canadian cry at the thought of getting her citizenship. It really is inspiring. It reminds us of why we live in such an amazing country.

Immigration has brought countless newcomers and their descendants to our shores, immigrants who have brought immeasurable benefits to Canada's development, have contributed to the richness and diversity of our country and have helped make it the free and prosperous society it is today. Therefore, it is our duty as legislators to ensure that we enact laws that protect and ensure the strength of our immigration system.

The measures in Bill C-31, once enacted, will do exactly that, so I am happy to support this legislation.

I would like to speak today about one of the important pieces of the protecting Canada's immigration system act. The measures in this legislation will enable the introduction of biometric technology for the mandatory screening of temporary resident applicants.

As members know, Bill C-31 would also help carry out long needed reforms to the refugee system and would help crackdown on human smugglers who may try to abuse Canada's generous immigration system.

Regarding biometrics, the Montreal Gazette had this to say in a recent editorial on the bill we are debating today. It wrote:

The collection of biometric information is a sensible security precaution that will be a valuable tool in preventing people from slipping into the country with false identities.

I agree with this analysis. I would go even further and echo the words of our Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, who has described the implementation of biometric screening of visa applicants as a “historic” development in Canada's immigration system.

Under our current system, when individuals make immigration applications, in most cases they only need to initially provide written documents to support their applications. A modern immigration system can do a better job in ensuring security. How? Let me provide an explanation of how this new system would work.

Essentially, the legislation under consideration today, and the regulations that will follow, will allow the Government of Canada to make it mandatory for travellers, students and workers from prescribed visa-required countries and territories to have their photographs and fingerprints taken as part of their temporary resident visa study permit or work permit applications.

That is it in a nutshell. It will simply mean the photos and prints will be collected as part of a standard visa application process. For overseas applicants, they would be collected before the applicant arrives in Canada. This will help with processing visa applications and later with confirming the identity of visa holders when they arrive at our borders.

The introduction of biometrics as an identity-management tool and our immigration and border control system is a welcome development that has been a long time in coming and long overdue. It is also something that will bring Canada up to speed with what is quickly becoming the international standard in this domain. Many governments around the world have already introduced biometric collection in their immigration and border programs. Here are some examples: the United Kingdom, Australia, the United States, New Zealand, Japan, the European Union, South Korea, the United Arab Emirates, Indonesia and Malaysia to name a few.

Although it is a long time in coming for Canada, the fact that so many other countries have already adopted biometrics brings a side benefit. Many visa applicants to Canada will already be familiar with the process. This will make for a very smooth transition to the system. Also, because other countries have already gone through the transition to biometrics, we already know that there is normally only a small, short-term drop in application volumes following the implementation of biometrics.

It would be difficult to argue that what I am describing here is anything but efficient, effective and a straightforward process. In terms of the security of the immigration system, implementing biometrics will help stop known criminals, failed refugee claimants and previous deportees from using false identity to obtain a Canadian visa.

Biometrics will help improve the integrity of our immigration system and will bolster Canada's existing measures to facilitate legitimate travel by providing a fast and reliable tool to help confirm identity. This will greatly help our front-line visa and border officers to manage high volumes of immigration applicants and the growing sophistication in identity fraud. It will provide great benefits to the Canadian officials making visa applications and border entry decisions.

At the same time, it will be beneficial to applicants because in the long run the use of biometrics will facilitate entry to Canada by providing a reliable tool to readily confirm the identity of applicants. For instance, in cases where the authenticity of documents is uncertain, biometrics could expedite decision making at Canadian points of entry. Using biometrics could also protect visa applicants by making it more difficult for others to forge, steal or use an applicant's identity to gain access into Canada.

Finally, Canada has committed to the exchange of biometric information with the United States beginning in 2014. This will help both Canadian and U.S. authorities spot failed refugee claimants, deportees, previously refused applicants and applicants using fraudulent identities before they get to North America. This initiative is part of our two countries' action plan on perimeter security and economic competitiveness, which provides a practical road map for enhancing security, while speeding up legitimate trade and travel across the Canada-U.S. border.

Let me give a few practical examples of why biometrics is fundamentally necessary in Canada. Let us take the example of Esron Laing and David Wilson, who were convicted of armed robbery and forcible confinement. They returned to Canada on three different occasions. In fact, they are known as the “Yo-Yo Bandits” because just like a yo-yo, they kept coming back.

I know that three times does not seem like a high number, but I am sad to say that many serious criminals are deported and manage to return to Canada many more times than that. For example, Anthony Hakim Saunders was convicted of assault and drug trafficking. He was deported on 10 different occasions. That is right, an astonishing 10 different times. Just like the “Yo-Yo Bandits”, he kept returning.

Edmund Ezemo was convicted of more than 30 charges, including identity theft and fraud. He was deported and returned to Canada eight times.

Dale Anthony Wyatt was convicted of trafficking drugs and possession of illegal weapons. He was deported and returned to Canada on at least four separate occasions.

Unfortunately this is only a tiny sample of the examples I could use to illustrate the number of people who are not eligible to come to Canada but do.

The many benefits of introducing biometric technology for screening visa applicants makes it a welcome and historic development for our immigration system. Furthermore, the use of biometrics is increasingly becoming the international norm. By passing Bill C-31, protecting Canada's immigration system act, we will be ensuring that Canada keeps up with the many other countries in the world already using this system.

For this reason and many others, I will be supporting the bill wholeheartedly. I encourage all members of the House to do the same.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Barrie spoke a lot about biometrics, and there is good and bad to that. There was a parliamentary committee researching the issue of biometrics. It was hearing witnesses and receiving expert testimony.

Why does the member and his government think the Montreal Gazette's opinion is more important on this than actually letting the parliamentary committee finish its work before introducing legislation on the subject?

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague in the House has referenced the Montreal Gazette. The Montreal Gazette and dozens of other papers and professionals in the country shared the opinion our government had that it was long overdue. Obviously, the parliamentary committee had ample time to study all aspects of this legislation.

If we look at where Canada is, we see we have already waited too long. If we look at other countries that have already done this, we see that on most occasions Canada is a leader in security issues, a leader on the field. However, in terms of biometrics, as I mentioned in my speech, there are dozens of examples of other countries that have already implemented this as a no-brainer, as a necessary aspect of the immigration system. We are already behind the United Kingdom, Australia, the United States, New Zealand, Japan, the European Union, South Korea, the United Arab Emirates, Indonesia and Malaysia, which have already implemented it. It is necessary for Canada's security and for maintaining the integrity of our immigration system.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Barrie for his excellent speech and his in-depth understanding of some of the content within Bill C-31. I also want to compliment him as chair of the Canada-India Parliamentary Association. He has done an outstanding job of reaching out wherever necessary, both in his riding as a representative and in the city of Toronto as a liaison for the South Asian community.

From his meetings and discussions with that community, I wonder if he could comment on what its support or comments on the bill have been and what direction the committee could take from them in terms of moving this bill forward.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I might add that I do not think anyone has been more hard working on improving Canada's immigration system than the member for St. Catharines and he does an incredible job in the House of Commons.

I attended the Canada India Foundation annual dinner on Saturday night, and one of the topics was that this was long overdue. It is a sense in many new Canadian communities across Canada that it is a needed reform. For people who have worked hard, waited a long time and invested in coming to Canada, the last thing they want to see is cracks in the immigration system or loopholes where people can cheat, abuse or sneak their way into Canada. It is essentially jumping the queue ahead of the people who have waited so long for the chance to live in the best country in the world. Those I spoke to at the Canada India Foundation unequivocally support this legislation.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across the way likes to talk about international situations and how we are following the good lead of other countries, but he must know that on the issue of smuggling, Australia put temporary protection visas on their books for many years and it did not stop anyone. In fact, we know that mandatory minimums do not actually form a deterrence. There is already a maximum life sentence for smuggling. There is no convention for smugglers.

I want to know from the member opposite if he really believes that smugglers are suddenly going to listen to the Conservatives' new rules and stop their egregious behaviour.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, of course they will, because the profitability will be taken out of the system. I was with the Prime Minister in Thailand last month, where we had a one-day session on human smuggling. This is a real issue around the world, and we need to do everything possible to make sure those who profit from human smuggling do not have an avenue to do it in Canada. It takes advantage of the most vulnerable.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, Research and Development; the hon. member for St. John's East, Justice; the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, Health.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, human smugglers are not profiting from human smuggling here in Canada. They are profiting from it in the countries in which they ply their trade. We need to be clear on that, and I do not think the government is.

However, I am honoured to be here in this place today, as I am every day that I am here, to represent the people of my riding of Davenport, in which we have a very diverse community. More than 50% of the people in my riding were not born in Canada, and in fact we have refugees living in our riding.

I want to tell the House a little story about some of the people in my riding. There is one gentleman, and I cannot name him, but he came into my office. He runs and owns a bakery; in fact he owns two. He owns a house, his kids go to the local school, he is involved in volunteer activity and he is involved at his local church. He came to my office because he is living in fear. He applied for refugee status, his claim was denied and he is awaiting a decision under humanitarian and compassionate grounds. However, under this bill he has lost all his protection. He is very worried that he is going to go back to the country of his birth and face the situation for which he left in the first place.

The government likes to talk about scammers of the system. We need to realize that people who essentially take their lives into their own hands and flee their home countries are doing it because they absolutely have to. This member of my community is a strong part of the fabric not only of the riding of Davenport, but this is an example we could talk about right across the country. This is one reason and this is an example, a human story.

I would challenge any members across the way, if that were one of their constituents, that they would not be going to bat for that constituent. In fact, if the members across the way had those stories coming into their office, how could they not respond? As we have heard from the government many times today, it has a proud tradition, an internationally lauded position on human rights and immigration. However, the government does not seem to like to remind Canadians that it is all in the past. Today it is a very different reality.

I know the government does not like to listen to experts. We know that, but I get this time and I am going to talk about expert opinion, and one of the beauties of this place is that government members cannot stop me.

The Justice for Refugees and Immigrants Coalition consists of Amnesty International Canada, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Council for Refugees. It supports an immigration system that is fair, independent of political considerations and affordable. In its view, Bill C-31 is unconstitutional, undermines our humanitarian traditions and violates our international obligations and it should therefore be withdrawn.

One has to wonder if the government ever chose to consult expert opinion. I know that it gets out the white pages, phones some lawyers and gets some juicy quotes, but does it really speak to the organizations that have dedicated their lives? I have met many people who work in these organizations. They could be pulling in six figures on Bay Street, but they are there in the trenches working with refugees.

Refugees today are Canadian citizens of tomorrow. I started my speech off with the example of the constituent in my riding who has a business, has a family and has bought a house. His family in his home country is constantly under threat of violence and he is worried sick that he is actually going to have to pull up roots and go back.

It is one of the enduring ironies of the government. It loves to go on and on about the whole idea of family values, and yet it has crafted legislation here that is going to pull families apart. A family is a family is a family. It does not matter where it comes from or how it got here. It is incumbent upon us, here in this place, if we want to talk about family values, to try to keep kids with their parents, notwithstanding all the other issues that the government and others bring up around immigration.

I also want to remind the members opposite of something, because I think some of them occasionally forget this. I remember a minister of education in the government of Ontario years ago, and I am sure he is a good friend of many members across the way. In fact, he served closely with many of them in the cabinet of the government of Mike Harris. The education minister said we have to create a crisis and then we can blow the thing up. He did not quite say it like that. I am paraphrasing. It was a long time ago.

However, essentially, the government talks about the wait time. Many members, certainly on our side, who do the tough work in their constituencies know that we get many constituents coming in with issues around immigration and refugee hearings. However, the government seems to think, therefore, let us starve the system of resources and then completely change it, all in the name of something it calls efficiencies. We all know that is a code word for privatization and for staff reductions.

I also want to bring up the issue of designated countries. In my riding and in the downtown core of Toronto, we have many Roma who came to Canada as refugees, many in 2008. The situation for Roma in Europe has not got any better. We know we have tight relations with the European Union and we are currently negotiating a free trade agreement behind close doors with the European Union; but if we look at the first round of elections in France yesterday, we can note a distinctly hard right anti-immigration thread going through the politics of Europe. That has filtered down to the most vulnerable and historically vulnerable communities of Europe, one being the Roma. We have a large community of Roma and they are hard-working, peace-loving human beings who we have embraced. Are we just going to tell them the deal is up and we are going to send them home?

There are so many issues that the bill does not address. We have a lot of work to do on this. I urge the government to consider some expert opinion and to work with us on this side to create a humanitarian, fair, cost-effective system.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his remarks and evident concern for the plight of refugees. However, I am concerned with what I regard as a clear lack of balance in the way the member and his colleagues in the NDP approach this issue. They speak about asylum claimants as though they are all refugees, when in point of fact some two-thirds of the asylum claimants in Canada turn out not to be in need of our protection. According to our very fair and generous legal system, they do not have a well-founded fear of persecution. Does he not acknowledge that it represents a problem?

He just spoke about European asylum claimants. Will he not acknowledge that nearly 100% of the European asylum claimants abandon or withdraw their claims of their own volition? Since we gave visa exemptions to central European countries, 95% of those claimants have not shown up at their hearings. It is telling us through their volition that they do not need our protection.

Does he not think we need a more efficient system that is able to address large waves of unfounded claims, claims that are not necessarily being rejected by our fair legal system, but are being withdrawn by the claimants themselves? Is he not the least bit concerned about this apparent abuse of our system and its generosity?

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government loves to pull the most egregious examples and then craft legislation around those examples, but that is not the way to do it. That is what we are trying to say on this side.

Many Canadians, many experts, have a lot of concern about the very fact that the minister of the day would have essentially carte blanche on some of these decisions. There is a real concern around the way these decisions would be made. It is fair and reasonable for Canadians to be concerned about the process and the lack of transparency and accountability on the part of the government through this proposed legislation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in Bill C-31 there are three areas we need to explore and discuss and I look forward to doing that in committee.

The old bill, Bill C-4 will die because Bill C-31 replaces it. There were significant challenges brought forward by lawyers across Canada who said that Bill C-4 had some serious legal aspects. They challenged its worthiness to even pass in a court of law in Canada and said that it was unfair to refugees. That is one component of the bill.

A second component of the bill deals with legislation which this House passed but the government is trying to amend so as to no longer have an advisory committee. The minister wants to have the power to designate countries as safe countries. Rather than having an advisory board, the minister wants that power.

I would like the member to comment on the third component, which deals with biometrics. Does the NDP have a position on the use of biometrics in regard to visas?

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North likes to keep us waiting for the question.

On issues such as biometrics and other matters where the government talks about cost savings, there are provisions in Bill C-31 that are very costly. For example, mandatory detention of irregular arrivals for a minimum of one year could cost up to $70,000 per claimant. Refugee claimants from designated countries would not be able to apply for work permits for at least six months and they would be forced on to social assistance. These are the parts of the bill where the economics absolutely do not make any sense.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to this legislation. It is something that my constituents ask me about on a regular basis. I have communicated with them several times on some of the great initiatives which the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has put forward in the past. Those measures were always warmly received. Our minister is doing a great job. Not only is he a great minister, but he is a great representative of Calgary Southeast and our home province of Alberta.

Canadians are rightfully proud of Canada's long-standing humanitarian tradition and the fact that we are one of the top countries in the world to offer protection to those who sincerely and genuinely need asylum. At the same time, reasonable Canadians would not disagree that our refugee system is in some need of reform.

As we see time and time again, genuine refugee claimants wait far too long for a decision on their claim. That is because those who seek to use our asylum system as a back door to get into Canada do so at the expense of genuine refugees.

Illegitimate claimants clog our refugee system and create unnecessarily long wait times for those truly in need of Canada's protection. This leaves in limbo those who are genuinely in need. Long delays also encourage individuals who are not in need of our protection to use the refugee system as a way to remain in Canada. Essentially, delays allow those who do not really need our protection to abuse our system and our generosity.

Last year processing times for a decision on a claim before the independent Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, affectionately known as the IRB, could take more than 20 months. Because of the resources available, it could take an average of four and one-half years from the time a claim is made until a failed refugee claimant has exhausted all legal avenues and is removed from Canada. This is completely unacceptable.

This makes Canada an attractive target for illegitimate claimants since they know that they can remain in Canada for several years while their claim is processed, during which time claimants can access our generous taxpayer-funded social benefits and perhaps obtain a work permit. In other words, these individuals basically establish themselves here in Canada without knowing if they are going to be approved as a refugee or not. Illegitimate claimants come here at a huge cost to Canadian taxpayers. The average unfounded claim costs about $55,000. Last year alone bogus refugee claimants cost Canadian taxpayers $170 million.

We need to send a clear and unmistakable message to those who seek to abuse Canada's generous asylum system that if they are not in need of protection, they will be sent home quickly.

The protecting Canada's immigration system act seeks to address these problems with our refugee system by providing faster protection to those in genuine need while quickly removing those who are not.

To help reduce the attraction of coming to Canada, these new measures would further accelerate the processing of all refugee claims, particularly for nationals from designated countries that generally do not produce refugees. This policy would provide the government with an important tool to respond to spikes in claims from countries that one would not normally expect a refugee to seek or claim asylum from.

This legislation would also reduce the options for resources available to failed claimants. Currently, these options permit failed claimants to further delay their removal from Canada. Even though many failed applicants know they will be unsuccessful, they also know these avenues of appeal will help them prolong their stay here where they can continue to have access to our generous system.

Let me be very clear about one thing. Under these new measures, all eligible refugee claimants would continue to be entitled to a fair hearing before an independent decision-maker. However, there would be no automatic stay of removal for claimants from designated countries of origin once a negative decision had been rendered by the IRB and the claimant had applied for judicial review to the Federal Court. This means that failed claimants could no longer use the Federal Court process to further delay their removal.

As I said, it currently takes an average of four and one-half years before a failed claimant has exhausted all avenues of appeal and is removed from Canada. In some instances it has taken over a decade. All the while, failed claimants have access to our generous tax-supported services such as health care and other social benefits.

Canadians work hard to support these services. They do not appreciate it when their hard-earned tax dollars go toward supporting foreign nationals who should not even be here in the first place, who come here under false pretenses knowing full well what they are doing.

The success of the new system hinges on our ability to speed up the current processing times for refugee claims. This is essential because the less time claimants spend in Canada awaiting a decision, the less incentive there is for people to abuse our generous asylum system and queue-jump the regular immigration process. Also, if we can speed up the current processing times for refugee claims, genuine refugees would get our protection more quickly.

Hearings at the IRB for claimants from designated countries of origin would occur within 30 to 45 days. Claimants who are not from designated countries of origin would also have their hearing timelines accelerated. It is proposed that these hearings would be scheduled within 60 days of being referred to the IRB, compared to the current system which takes over 1,000 days. It is no wonder that Chris Selley from the National Post said that the immigration minister is:

--certainly showing more guts than we came to expect from his Liberal predecessors....

Blame whomever you want, these timelines are completely preposterous. And they are one of the two biggest reasons that so many asylum-seekers make for Canada....But if a refugee claim was processed in, say, two months, instead of a year or two or five, the incentive for people with weak claims to give it a whirl would be massively reduced, as would the overall burden on the system.

John Ibbitson from the Globe and Mail also spoke positively about the bill:

I think we need a system first of all that doesn’t cost too much. I mean if you spend four years processing a bogus refugee claim, that’s the taxpayer who pays for it and that person may also be on welfare and other forms of social assistance during that time. So I agree. And I think there is broad public support for the idea that we need to process refugee claimants fairly and swiftly.

Finally, John Ivison from the National Post stated:

I was talking to somebody today who was saying within four days of a claimant landing in Toronto, they can be claiming welfare. Now that’s an obvious magnet for refugees all over the world. We have the most generous refugee system in the world. We have an acceptance rate of something like 50 per cent. Nowhere else in the world comes close to that.

Well, how many people do you need to consult to figure out that Hungary should not be our leading source of refugees? What had happened was that the ten, the top ten countries that we receive refugees from did not figure in the UN’s top ten list of refugees.

These new measures would be accomplished without affecting the fairness of our generous refugee system and without compromising any of Canada's international and domestic obligations with respect to refugees. By improving the refugee system in these ways, this legislation would also ensure that the refugee claimants who really do need our protection would get it even faster.

These proposed measures would continue to meet our domestic and international obligations. They would also maintain the balance and fairness that are the foundation of our refugee system. I am confident that they would honour the spirit and support for refugees that Canadians value.

In supporting this legislation, my hon. colleagues in the House can help to provide a quicker, more secure beginning for victims of violence and persecution around the world and help deter abuse of our refugee system. I urge all hon. members in the House to join me in supporting Bill C-31.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my colleague's speech. I wish to thank him for his speech. However, unfortunately, the hon. member seems to believe in magical thinking, as do most of his cabinet colleagues.

It is a very serious problem, because Bill C-31 repeats some aspects of Bill C-4, for example, concerning the 12-month mandatory detention of foreign nationals who are arbitrarily designated by the minister. In the end, we all agree that we are talking about a measure that could be a deterrent, as long as the people detained are informed of it and can weigh all of the consequences.

Elsewhere in the world, experience has shown that this does not work, but that is not the most serious aspect. The worst aspect is that, if this bill passes, it could be formally contested under section 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which has to do with arbitrary detention. Thus, we will be back at square one.

Considering the cost of this kind of detention and the possibility that it will be abolished, how can my colleague justify this kind of spending and such a waste of time, not to mention the suffering of the people detained?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I can say without any hesitation how my constituents feel about the current system. The current system completely fails them.

I do not know how many members of this House, I am assuming all members, get the same chain emails that I get, saying that pensioners would be better off if they left Canada and came back and applied as refugees. It does not matter if perhaps some of the information in the email is misinformed. It is the spirit in which it is sent. The spirit behind that is our system is currently too wide open to abuses.

We can sit here and discuss the merits and the technical merits of the bill. Detention is there. It is currently provided for if individuals are in need of detention when they come here as asylum seekers. With the legislation, they can be held in detention for a certain period of time. That would not change under the new legislation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share something with the member. Maybe he has had the opportunity to read the press release that was issued by the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers in its response to Bill C-31.

In the second point, it states that “the draconian measures of C-4 are rolled into this new bill“, obviously referring to Bill C-31 and that “C-4's proposed mandatory, unreviewable, warrantless, year-long detention is patently unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of Canada decided this issue in the clearest of terms.”

The second point being, “family separation for at least 5, and up to 8 or more years, will have a disastrous consequence for refugees.”

This is in fact what Bill C-31 is proposing to do.

This is not the Liberal Party or the New Democratic Party saying this. These are individuals who have represented refugees for many years. This is a professional organization. Would the member comment on that statement by the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's question. It would be like asking the defence lawyer association of Canada about Criminal Code changes. However, the reality is some of that $170 million, I suppose, would be going to some of these lawyers in terms of fees and would be a burden to the taxpayers of Canada.

The reality of the system is if we want something sped up, the changes that the minister is proposing would take processes that take over 1,000 days now, years, and reduce them so that people who are genuine refugees would actually get the protection that they need.

I would think that anybody of moral virtue purporting to represent people who are genuine refugees would appreciate the legislation here. Somebody who would be losing the 1,000 days of endless appeals might not have that same view.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-31 on immigration because much of my campaign last year focused on the idea of having an immigration system that is as transparent as the justice system. Unfortunately, Bill C-31 does not meet these expectations of offering something fairer—not at all.

I received a lot of feedback in Quebec City after Bill C-31 was introduced. Many community agencies, citizens' groups and voters have spoken to me about this issue. They think it is completely ridiculous. It goes too far. We cannot leave everything in the hands of the minister, as the bill intends.

For the Quebec City agencies that are crying for help when it comes to this bill, there is a clear lack of resources to help immigrants in distress. People get lost in red tape and are discouraged most of the time because they do not understand. They see visas getting rejected for strictly administrative reasons—bureaucracy. It is under this government no less.

At first glance, the changes in Bill C-31 seem only to make clarifications to the existing legislation. However, this bill makes draconian changes to situations that are already precarious.

The first thing that jumps out and that I must highlight is the arbitrary power that the minister has clearly given himself. With this discretionary power, he can overturn any decision that has already been made. It is obvious that this will not resolve the issue I am being asked about: why does it take three years for one immigrant to obtain citizenship, and ten years for another? There is a lack of transparency. It is not clear.

The change that scares future immigrants the most, and which we hear about regularly, is the rejection of applications and the pure and simple cancellation of most of the economic class applications. People have been waiting for 7, 8, 9 and even 10 years for positive news about their file, and their applications are going to be returned with a refund of the initial payment—a matter I will not get into at this time—because the minister wants to eliminate the backlog of applications filed since February 2008.

Rapid changes in the demand for labour in Canada would explain this situation. However, what about the people, the human element, the people who have held out hope all these years? The minister will say that they can resubmit their applications and that, if they meet the criteria, they will be chosen quickly. However, what is not being publicized is the fact that, since these people applied, the program has undergone some fine tuning and the law of natural selection now comes into play: the cost of applying has increased. There is no guarantee that the application will be accepted. Hopes are crushed.

Another change would see refugees sent back to their country of origin if the situation there improves. This is what organizations in my riding and people who call and email are telling me. People come here and adapt to life here. They start their lives over in Canada. They make friends and find work here. Their children are raised in Quebec or Canadian culture. Yet the government would send them back to a country they no longer know, a country they fled under difficult circumstances, in most cases. They left everything behind, hoping for a better life. And Canada, which invited them in to give them that opportunity for a better life, would deport them just like that because things have improved in their country? They can live peacefully here. They will want to adapt to our customs. They certainly have the right to that opportunity.

Bill C-31 has yet more shortcomings. For example, there is no mechanism to challenge blunt refusal with respect to family reunification. Families separated by time and borders that are frequently not their own are denied the opportunity to bring their spouse and children because they did not list them when registering. Registration happens in refugee camps where people live in terrible conditions. Once they arrive, they are given a vague one-year window to declare another individual on their application. That makes no sense. Bill C-31 does not address that, but it happens.

Immigration is much more than bringing people through the nation's door, welcoming them and then letting them go.

I recently met with a group of immigrants from my riding. I invited them to my office to discuss their concerns and the problems and issues they faced when they arrived in Quebec.

It is quite simple: they waited and they hoped. They lived the dream and were happy, but even after years, their diplomas are still not recognized and they are still having a hard time finding a good job. Reality bites. There is not enough support. When we really look at it, it seems as though the government believes that it has allowed them in and filled its quota, and now they have to get by on their own. Of course, this summary does not apply to refugees, but I heard this from the mouths of qualified workers who have come here to keep our economy moving and whom we are abandoning. We are not helping them fit in to our Canadian way of life.

Canada is a dream that is often inaccessible and sometimes incomprehensible. People fill out forms, answer questions, put up with delays, and still more delays, pay money and are eventually given the opportunity to fulfill their dreams, and this is all priceless. They are asked to leave everything behind—their house, their culture, their lives—to be submerged in a foreign culture, and they are asked to act like us, to be like us and to thank us. But what tools do we give them?

Just a few hours of French lessons and everything should be perfect? What about life in our society and what about our values? What about support, follow up and a real helping hand? Bill C-31 does not address any of that. Yet that is definitely a reality that many of my hon. colleagues must face in their constituency offices—they must see people going from tears of joy to tears of despair, and get all kinds of calls from people who want to know where to turn.

We see families separated, years of waiting just to be rejected, and hopes dashed. Fortunately, some situations end well. We help people achieve the dream of reunification and staying here. However, I always wonder. I hope everything will go well for them, but we never know. We are in the process of giving the minister more and more discretionary power and that makes no sense.

I also condemn this blatant lack of provincial-federal and interdepartmental dialogue. The government is certainly not known for listening to the provinces. There is no shortage of examples of problems that are only going to get worse under this Conservative government. People have simply lost everything. The federal government requires one thing, the provincial another. One accepts things when the other refuses or vice versa. Costs keep piling up. A federal-provincial dialogue would help people.

The same goes for a dialogue between the federal departments. Is it normal for a person to have his work permit rejected because there is a delay in processing claims at Human Resources and Skills Development Canada? No, that is not normal. The person is not responsible whatsoever for any such delay. The surprising thing is that he has to pay for these delays out of his own pocket every time and usually more than once. As far as I understand, the applicant is certainly not reimbursed.

This Bill C-31 does not reflect our values. This Bill C-31 does not help refugees. This bill is putting everything into the hands of the minister. That is not really a good thing.

I will close on a more positive note because that might be what we should focus on. Recently, in my riding in Quebec City, I met a newly arrived immigrant couple. In fact, it was a spousal reunification. The wife had waited years for her husband to finally be able to join her. To see such happiness is priceless. There are human beings behind all this paperwork.

We have to think of the people.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know exactly what the member was talking about, because it was really not Bill C-31. She expressed reasonable concerns about integrating newcomers. On that subject, I must inform the member that since 2006, this government has more than tripled federal investments in integration services for newcomers, in Quebec and throughout Canada, in particular for francization, language training and job searches for newcomers.

With respect to resettled refugees, we are increasing the number we accept by 20%. We are also increasing support for those refugees under the refugee assistance program. So we are doing a great deal to help newcomers.

We are also reforming immigrant selection at the federal level so they are able to arrive in Canada much faster with jobs organized before they arrive.

Is the member aware of these investments? Does she think that tripling investment in integration is important or not?

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for that question because it shows very clearly how the Conservatives think. They have invested, so that is supposed to do the job. They have put money into it, so everything should be fine.

What I wanted to do was bring a human perspective to it. In fact, I am not surprised to see that the minister also failed to grasp the main point after the human element, which is the dialogue with the provinces to solve the little problems I wanted to raise when I decided to talk about immigration, because this was the opportunity to do just that.

I very sincerely hope that this government will live up to its responsibilities and that it will be able to engage in dialogue to improve things. This is not just a question of investment or of doubling the number of hours. There are human beings behind it. Everything possible must be done to make it work. They cannot always set up an F-35 secretariat, or a veterans committee, to solve things.

It is very distressing to see that the minister wants to give himself more responsibilities, because that makes us wonder whether a committee or a secretariat is going to be created. We are wondering how far it will go. So far, I really am not sure that it is going to go well.

Thus, Bill C-31 certainly does not reflect what we on this side expect, and what Canadians expect.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, at the end of her speech, the member said that she would like to leave it on a positive note and she talked about the reunification of a couple. I would like her to comment on one aspect of Bill C-31. The Minister of Immigration is putting into place a situation where refugees, after a year of detention, will need to wait an additional four or five years before being eligible to sponsor a spouse left in a country that they left because of fear for their life. Under this bill, they will wait years before being reunited with their family.

I would ask the member if she could provide comment on that aspect of the bill that would prevent people from being reunited in a more timely fashion.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank my hon. colleague for allowing me to expand on this point.

The power that the minister wants to give himself is indeed a matter of great concern. It is an excessive power that is going to allow him to designate countries of origin. In view of changing political situations, which can improve, there would be a decision not to take this refugee or that refugee now.

No matter which countries he chooses, it will certainly complicate things in family reunification cases for families from certain countries. It seems to me that what we have here is the very definition of discrimination.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join everyone here today to speak to Bill C-31, protecting Canada's immigration system act.

I thank the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism for not only bringing forward this much needed act, but for being here in the House while the bill is being debated to answer questions, explain what the act entails and how it would improve upon the refugee claimant system that we have here in Canada. I also thank his parliamentary secretary for the work he has done in carrying this bill and ensuring we have this fulsome debate here in a democratic process.

I often hear from constituents in my riding of Selkirk—Interlake how important it is that we fix the refugee system. We always hear stories of people who come in and abuse the refugee system. They take dollars out of Canadian taxpayers' hands and use it in ways that benefit them personally but do not broaden the economy or culture of Canada. There have been a number of emails circulating on the Internet that find their way into the offices of members of Parliament and it is about time that we address some of the concerns that constituents have had. There are emails that have been going through cyberspace and letters to editors that have been written over the years that address the situation of whether people are legitimate asylum seekers, how many dollars are attributed to those individuals as they sit in the queue waiting to have their refugee claims heard, and whether or not they gain access to Canada or are denied and have to be returned to their country of origin.

I do not think anyone in this House could disagree that Canada has the most fair and generous immigration system in the world. However, as I said, no one has tolerance for the abuse that the Canadian refugee system has undergone over recent history.

However, for people to think that our government is trying to crack down on refugees and that there would also be a crackdown on overall immigration, I can say that is absolutely false. Since we have come to power, total immigration into Canada has gone up 15% on a year over year basis. That has helped Canada in finding skilled workers, finding people to work in our health care system and bringing people into our communities to help us continue to grow and prosper as a country. There is no doubt that immigrants who have come to Canada and call it their home have contributed significantly to our economy and helped us to get through the economic downturn.

Bill C-31 is a follow-up to what we have already done under Bill C-11, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act. I do not think it has been said enough here that we have committed as a country to increasing the overall number of refugees we take in every year by 2,500 per year. That is almost a 10% increase of where we were last year and it is still generous. It means that we are still reaching out to help those who are in need and that we will help people who are in countries where they are being persecuted, prejudiced, possibly facing genocides and other atrocities to have the opportunity to come to Canada. We want to make it faster for refugees to come through the system and get safe asylum.

We will do that through a number of different ways. We will establish the safe countries list. By having a safe countries list we hope to reduce the backlog we have today of over 42,000 refugee claimants who are seeking asylum in Canada. Bill C-31 would reduce the overall processing time to 45 days for those people coming from the safe countries list. Right now, claimants coming from safe countries are seeing an average processing time of 1,038 days. We would dramatically reduce that time.

Second, as was mentioned earlier by the member for Barrie, we would bring in biometrics and follow suit with what so many other countries have done. We would bring in digital photographs and fingerprinting, as well as give people seeking asylum the opportunity to make their application in their own countries at Canadian consulates and embassies to get their names into the system along with data. By allowing them to make those claims in their own countries before they come to Canada would expedite the process.

The third important thing here is that we are going after the human smugglers. We do not want to see people profit from other people's disadvantage. We do not want people going out and extorting thousands of dollars from people to bring them to Canada, even though they come from countries where they can make those refugee claims. It is important that this bill addresses that.

As the minister has already said, we are not going after the actual bona fide asylum seekers. Rather, we are going after those who are out to abuse our system. We use the word “bogus” a lot and it gets thrown around but there are those who absolutely abuse the system.

All we need to do is look at the facts that we are dealing with today. The European Union, western world countries, democracies with human rights and established rules of law, account for 23% of all claims coming to Canada. In 2011, 5,800 refugee claimants came from the European Union, which is 14% over 2010, and, more important, it is more than we are getting from Africa and Asia where there are countries that have dictators, where we know people are being persecuted either because of their religious belief or race or are being disadvantaged because of their gender.

It is just amazing that we are getting so many claims from the European Union. Out of those claims, and this is where the word “bogus” comes in, when they actually need to appear before the Immigration and Refugee Board, 95% of those claimants never show up to defend their case. They are saying that they are sorry that they have wasted our time and have taken our money but that they will go back home now. What we are hearing is that they are getting off the plane or the boat, coming from countries like Hungary, the Roma in particular, saying that they are a refugee and then ask for the cheque. They are not even attempting to go through the process of proving that they are disadvantaged in the country that they reside.

The Roma coming from Hungary are essentially 18% of all the claimants that Canada faces. They are the large majority of those coming out of the European Union. That accounts for over 4,400 people, which is an increase of 50% from 2010. Last year, 4,400 people from Hungary tried to claim refugee status here in Canada.

People In the European Union have the freedom to move around without visas and without passports. They get to go back and forth and work in each other's jurisdictions. Therefore, how can these people be economic refugees or political refugees, or be persecuted under a system where they can go anywhere they want within the European Union, where we know there are some great democracies and leaders in human rights and the rule of law?

Belgium only received 188 people from Hungary in 2011. The U.S. only received 47 applicants. France and Norway only received 33 each. We are dealing with 4,400 refugee claimants from Hungary. How is that a fair system when we have people applying who are coming from legitimate countries where they want to get away from war, from government-forced famines or from being persecuted because of their religious beliefs?

This would have a huge savings cost wise for the Canadian taxpayer because we would be removing these people who are just using the system but, more important, it would speed up the system and open the door for legitimate asylum seekers. Those are the ones we want to reach out to and to see overall numbers increase by 2,500 refugees a year, so that Canada's generosity and compassion will still be second to none in the world.

Again I congratulate the minister and his department for their foresight and for going ahead and making these changes so that we can once and for all do away with a system that is broken and allow us to address the real needs of those seeking asylum around the world.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what we are being told makes no sense. One of the aspects of Bill C-31 would allow the minister to designate so-called safe countries.

I am a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade. Not only are we not being given the opportunity to debate at length the free trade agreements signed with minor countries that trade with Canada—such as Jordan, Panama and Honduras—but we also face great challenges. The government obviously is pushing hard to sign these agreements with countries that have serious problems and that cannot guarantee, among other things, the rights of workers, the elimination of problems related to money laundering or, as in the case of Honduras, a solution to the problem of gang violence.

I would like to ask my colleague opposite what there is to gain from allowing the minister to draw up a list of safe countries when government priorities already allow countries whose safety is questionable to make trade agreements with Canada? This makes absolutely no sense to me.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is one thing that is being thrown out, that essentially there is going to be political direction given in determining which countries are on the list. There are going to be thresholds established. There is a process established. There is always the democratic way to ensure that regulations are brought into place, are properly sounded and that the public has a chance to respond to regulations.

Under the protecting Canada's immigration system act, the minister would have the authority to designate countries of origin, but with no sub-national or regional areas designated. Therefore, he has to designate the entire country, not just parts of it.

However, there are triggers for review based on rejection rates, withdrawal and abandonment rates, or qualitative checklists for countries with few refugee claims. For the quantitative criteria, a high rejection rate, which includes withdrawn and abandoned claims, would trigger a review for designation. The actual thresholds would be settled by ministerial order. The government is proposing a threshold of a 75% rejection rate and 60% withdrawal and abandonment rate. Those quantitative triggers would be established through ministerial order, so that allows the regulatory process to go through the gazetted review.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, with the previous Conservative speaker, I raised the issue of a press release issued by the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers in response to the bill. The association did not respond very favourably to the bill and the member seemed to give the impression that this was to be expected. It was implied that the people who would have authored this press release would have received more money under the current system. Therefore, one would expect them to oppose the bill.

Would the member acknowledge that the government's position is that the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers is in fact in conflict of interest and therefore anything it has to say on the bill is worth nothing?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quote from Richard Kurland, who is an immigration lawyer. He appeared on CTV's news channel on February 16. He said:

Finally someone recognized that the open wallet approach of the past, offering free education, free medicare, and a welfare cheque to anyone who touched Canadian soil making a refugee claim was not the right thing to do. So I’m glad to see today that finally, after several years, someone has the political courage to take the political risk of saying, if you’re from a European country and you can land in London or Paris or Berlin, fill out paperwork, and legally live there, work there, pay taxes there, you shouldn’t be allowed to make a refugee claim in Canada. Buttress that with this reality check. Over 90 percent, and in some years 95 percent, of the target group, the Roma claimants, didn’t even show up for their oral hearings. They rode on the taxpayer.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I begin my comments, I want to acknowledge the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism. It was important enough for him to come to Canada's tenth-largest city, and for those who do not know that is London Ontario, to be able to make some statements directly about Bill C-31 and the positive impact that it would have for people who would be affected by this. I wanted to acknowledge to him personally how much I appreciate that. As I make more formal comments, I appreciate the efforts of his department and the parliamentary secretary for ensuring the work that they have done provides us with what is a strong, fair and good bill.

As I rise today to discuss the importance of Bill C-31, I want to talk about this legislation, which ultimately is intended to strengthen Canada's already renowned immigration and refugee systems. It is quite evident that Canada has the most fair and generous immigration system in the world. However, our government and fair-minded Canadians have no tolerance for those who would exploit our generosity and take unfair advantage of our country's immigration and refugee system. As a result, we are taking action to crack down on this abuse by strengthening the integrity of Canada's immigration system through Bill C-31.

This bill proposed by our government is targeted to make our refugee system faster and fairer and at the same time to put a stop to foreign criminals, human smugglers and refugees who abuse our generous immigration system so they can receive lucrative taxpayer-funded health, welfare and other social benefits. In fact, the ratification of the bill would save Canadian taxpayers at least $1.65 billion over five years, while providing protection more quickly to those truly in need. Through these improvements to the asylum system, the bogus claimants who are from countries with democracies that have respect for basic rights and freedoms will be weeded out.

The fact is too many taxpayer dollars are being spent on people who are not fleeing genuine persecution, who instead seek to manipulate and take advantage of Canada's generous asylum system to receive lucrative taxpayer-funded health care, welfare and various social benefits.

In its initiatives to ensure Canada does not become a magnet for abuse, some of the clear measures in Bill C-31 include the following.

The first is fast-tracking refugee claims and ensuring failed claimants are promptly deported. However, people deemed in need of protection will not be returned to their country of persecution regardless of what country they have fled.

The second is implementing biometric identification such as fingerprints and photos for people who apply for visitors' visas for the reason that this important change would guard against the use of false identities.

The third is preventing the attraction of fleeing to Canada through means of illegal human smuggling operations by: increasing the penalties for human smugglers, ensuring the lucrative benefits refugees receive are not more generous than those received by the Canadian public; preventing human smuggling associated individuals from applying for permanent resident status for a period of five years, given that they successfully apply for refugee status; and preventing those individuals from sponsoring their family members also for a period of five years.

Canada has a well-deserved international reputation for having the most generous and fair immigration system in the world and, since 2006, our government has welcomed the highest sustained average of immigration in Canadian history. Canada provides protection to more than one in ten refugees resettled each year worldwide, more than almost any other developed country in the world. Conversely, given the stated inefficiencies and flaws that are currently infecting the integrity of our system, Canadians have given our government a strong mandate to improve Canada's immigration system through Bill C-31, which would help us put a stop to those who seek to abuse that generosity.

Effective response measures to these detrimental abuses are needed now more than ever in order to restore the integrity and public confidence of our system. Our current system calls for the need for a faster and fairer refugee determination process, resulting in effective and efficient protection for legitimate refugees and faster removal for illegitimate claimants.

My constituents in London West and all Canadians expect that our borders and shores are protected and secure and our generous systems are protected from abuse.

Canada's current refugee system is flawed as it is vulnerable to abuse. Due to this, too many taxpayer dollars are being spent on people who are not fleeing genuine persecution, but are seeking to exploit Canada's generous asylum system to reap those benefits. For example, in 2011 Canada received 5,800 more refugee claims from the democratic and human rights-respecting countries, otherwise known as safe countries of the European Union, than from Africa or Asia, which was a significant increase, 14% from 2010.

Former Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has recognized the legitimacy of designating certain countries as safe and ultimately even advocated rejecting all claims from those countries, which Bill C-31 does not propose to do.

This is a popular misconception of the bill, which is that by creating a process that allows certain countries to be designated as safe, Bill C-31 creates a two-tier asylum system and therefore violates the UN Convention on Refugees and/or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, that is completely false. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as the 1951 UN refugee convention require that all refugees be given the opportunity to have their claims heard. The process in Canada goes above and beyond its domestic and international obligations and that would not change under the proposed act.

Canada has and will continue to have one of the most generous refugee systems in the world. All refugee claimants will continue to have their cases heard by the independent Immigration and Refugee Board. Furthermore, every failed refugee claimant will continue to have access to at least one level of appeal.

On February 26, Paul Attia of Immigrants for Canada stated:

Immigrants for Canada (IFC) represents the views of countless immigrants across our nation who hold strongly to the view that Canadian immigration policy should always be in Canada's best interests. The immigrants IFC represents worked very hard, and sacrificed much to arrive on Canadian shores, and who chose to do so in an honest and legal way. Accordingly, these same immigrants welcome legislation that works to ensure that people who have no valid claim to our protection are not able to use the refugee determination system to obtain permanent residence in Canada.

Under the act, our government can put a stop to those who seek to abuse our generosity, save a substantial amount to Canadian taxpayers, give protection to genuine refugees in a much more timely manner and allow the quick removal of illegitimate claimants who cheat the system and abuse our generosity.

Bill C-31, protecting Canada's immigration system act, is truly in the best interests of Canada and of genuine refugees themselves. That is what we are talking about here. Canadians have given our government a mandate to improve Canada's immigration system and our government is acting on that mandate.

I emphasize the importance of the bill and urge the support and ratification of it as it stresses tough but fair measures to stop those who would abuse our generosity from becoming part of Canadian society. I do sincerely hope that my hon. colleagues across the floor will agree and join me in supporting this crucial legislation.

When we talk about the integrity of our immigration system, it is critical that we look not just at what a political position might be, but that we look at what the integrity of doing the right thing is intended to do. If members opposite look at doing the right thing, they will look deeply at this. They will look at this legislation and say that this is right for people who are not cheating the process, that this is right for people who are trying to do their very best to come to Canada the proper way and make a honest contribution to Canada and make our country a better place.

That is why I am so sincerely appreciative of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Perhaps for the first time we have found a minister who has the guts and the forthright approach to make this the most fair and transparent system, the right system for Canada. I would like to applaud him and I thank him on behalf of all Canadians.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I am going to disappoint the hon. member for London West by saying that we are not going to come on board on this.

Let us talk about some basic levels of fairness. Under this legislation, people coming here from a designated country would be given 15 days to complete the personal information forms and then 30 days to prepare for a refugee hearing. We are talking about people who are traumatized, people who have perhaps fled their country because of violent sexual assault, people who are extremely fragile. We are going to tell them that we want them to complete all of this complicated paperwork in 15 days and then come back with a fully formed argument and defence for their position.

How can anyone in the House believe that is fair treatment for refugees?

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of thoughts that come to mind. First, I will share his disappointment that they are not coming on board. If there was an opportunity for them to do that in a thoughtful way, we would certainly appreciate that kind of support. As we go forward, who knows what can happen? However, it may not happen in this case.

Let me say what is not humane. What is not humane is when people, through the system that we have, base their hope on something that is not real. There may well be people who come in through the back door as bogus refugees and I think we would find consensus on both sides of the House that if inappropriate refugees come into Canada and redirect the focus away from people who have done it genuinely, we would want to get rid of those bogus refugees. I think we could find support in that.

What is really the challenge and really inhumane is when people are in the system for years and years and do not have their cases heard because of the significant backlog. That is what is wrong. What we are going to see through Bill C-31 is a significant streamlining that is humane and fair and treats refugees with greater respect.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member would be well advised to recognize that a couple of years ago all parties in the House of Commons acknowledged the need to speed up the process. That is why legislation was passed back then that would have done just that.

Having said that, I would ask the member to imagine a completely legitimate case. Let us imagine that a man comes from a country where his life has been in danger, lands in Canada and becomes a refugee. That is wonderful. Then, after being stamped, he now has to wait to sponsor his wife, which could take another three or four years under the current system. It is being mandated under this particular bill that a qualified refugee is going to have to wait that period of time.

Does the member feel it is in the best interests of a legitimate refugee, who fled a country because of being afraid of losing his or her life or being tortured, to have to wait another three, four, or five years before being able to sponsor a spouse?

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, from my perspective, what is in the best interests of refugees who come to this country is to ensure that their cases are heard quickly, in contrast to the current circumstance. By virtue of the backlog and the folks who come in through the back door and do not come in genuinely, the biggest challenge in the system is the massive backlog.

If the member opposite would support streamlining this process, I think we could find accord with the third party as well. That would be very appropriate, and I would encourage him to support it for the very reason he is saying: to streamline this process. That is the humane, fair and right thing to do for refugees.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to debate Bill C-31, the Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act. The title of this bill is misleading because the only thing the bill protects is the Conservatives' paranoid ideology.

Once again, the Conservatives have a repressive agenda. They want to muster support by making people feel that they are under threat. This is the same kind of tactic we see our neighbours to the south using against illegal immigrants, an easy target for those seeking to drum up support for certain intolerant politicians. As we are seeing with Conservative policies, Canada is quickly becoming Americanized.

To perpetuate the illusion that their Canada is still a different country, the Conservatives are placing disproportionate emphasis on the monarchy and past wars, but those symbols are not relevant to Canadians' day-to-day lives. The Canada we love is an open nation that respects everyone and protects its people from arbitrary rule. We are proud of our past, but we live in 2012, so, back to this bill, which has a lot in common with American policy from the 1960s.

Bill C-31 targets a group of people who are fleeing persecution and suffering. These people are easy targets for the Conservatives because they have no legal status in Canada and no right to vote. The Conservatives can demonize them without suffering any consequences come the next election.

Instead, the Conservatives should tackle human smugglers, those who make money by exploiting human misery and breaking our laws. Illegal immigrants already take huge risks to escape misery. The threat of penalties will not dissuade them from entering Canada illegally. In other words, this bill will just cause more problems for refugees and will do little or nothing to punish smugglers. Do I have to remind the House that these smugglers typically treat illegal immigrants as slaves once they get here? The government should target those who stand to gain from the crime, not victims and desperate people.

I am extremely concerned about several aspects of this bill. First of all, I would like to note the changes to the deadlines that refugees must meet in completing their forms, the basis for their claim. Refugee claimants will have only 15 days to complete and file their applications. That is not long enough. Claimants need to obtain legal advice and must have time to prepare their cases and, above all, to become familiar with how things work in Canada. It is therefore unreasonable to give them only 15 days to complete their applications.

Another aspect of the bill that concerns me is giving the minister the power to create a list of designated countries of origin. Without having to consult any experts, the minister can make decisions that will have serious consequences. This seems arbitrary to me and, considering how the Conservatives have behaved in this House and during the election, many Canadians are worried about this measure.

As I already asked, why is this bill being so hard on illegal immigrants? Under this bill, anyone who arrives in a group will be detained for one year, even 16-year-olds. This typically Conservative “solution” is completely ridiculous. It will not stop illegal immigrants from entering Canada. They are often desperate and are being manipulated by human smugglers. They will not even be aware of the risk of imprisonment that they face when entering Canada illegally. It is unlikely that refugees will have read the Canadian legislation before coming here.

In other words, this will have no deterrent effect. Furthermore, who will have to pay for these detentions? Canadian taxpayers, once again. Before the Conservatives make Canadian taxpayers pay the cost of putting more people in prison, do the Conservatives have even one study that says that this will be beneficial in any way?

This government is looking more and more ridiculous because of its lack of professionalism and rigour. What is unfortunate about all of this is that taxpayers and refugees will be the ones to pay the price.

And what will happen to the young people under 16? They will try to reach Canada with their parents, who will be in prison. Who will take care of the young people? The state, of course, and it will fall to the provinces once again. In other words, the Canadian taxpayers will be on the hook again.

Why impose a 12-month minimum prison sentence? Why send the bill to the provinces yet again? This measure seems both unnecessary and expensive. Of course, increasing the age of imprisonment to 16 is better than throwing a seven year old in jail, but again we have to consider the effects on the children of having their parents in prison for such a long time. What is more, those who will be imprisoned will not even be able to appeal the decision.

The Conservatives are making the provinces pay again. For example, as a result of the Conservatives' policies, Quebeckers will have to foot the bill for creating a new firearms registry, building prisons, taking care of the children of imprisoned illegal immigrants, for the losses resulting from the expropriation of certain copyrights and for using the new Champlain bridge.

The Conservatives also want to balance the budget on the backs of the provinces. By constantly dumping their problems onto Quebec, the Conservatives are only providing ammunition to those who believe federalism is doomed to fail. Even separatists describe the Conservative Prime Minister as a great sovereignist.

Furthermore, those who are deported because their application has been rejected will be barred from applying for permanent residency status for five years. If we add this to the minimum one-year detention for immigrants who arrive from a designated country of origin, it will take more than six years for a person to immigrate. I do not believe that this measure is necessary. Are there studies that suggest this is the approach to be taken?

This bill raises another question. Is it constitutional? The withdrawal of permanent resident status from a person who loses their refugee status without committing a crime seems excessive. It is very likely that there will be Supreme Court challenges because those with refugee status are also protected by our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Legitimate applicants may be detained longer than necessary, which contravenes their right to freedom and legal rights. In addition, detaining someone for a minimum of 12 months without reviewing their file contravenes the Charter because it limits that person's right to legal recourse. Minimum detention of 12 month is also cruel for both children and parents and does not allow judges to decide whether or not the risk of reoffending justifies such imprisonment.

To conclude, I would remind the House of how much the Conservatives hate expert opinions, and that this is bad for Canada. In this case, the government is questioning the intelligence of judges and immigration experts. With this bill, the minister and the Conservative Party are claiming to be better qualified to decide the fate of immigrants smuggled into Canada than the experts are. Once again, this is a right-wing policy designed solely to create fear and exacerbate xenophobia. Yes, unfounded refugee claims must be rejected, but our government must not send the message that the doors to Canada are closed—quite the opposite. Imposing a minimum sentence, allowing the minister to decide what countries are acceptable and what countries are not, and separating children from their parents for as long as a year are not acceptable policies.

Regardless, we know that the Conservative government will not admit it is on the wrong track and will not amend its bill.

We must make efforts to prevent human smuggling and to punish smugglers, not the people who are fleeing human misery. It is unfortunate that we are again debating a bill that will not achieve its goal, simply because it is aiming at the wrong target.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the member who has just spoken. That is why I am certain that he did not write the speech he just delivered. I imagine that his speech was written by a member of his staff, a young, misinformed and ideological member. It certainly does not reflect the values of his constituents.

I was recently in Montreal, meeting with some of his constituents from the Canadian-Italian community in Montreal. This issue came up. They wanted to know why it was that the number one source region for asylum claims in Canada now is Europe, more than from Africa or Asia. They could not understand, as people of European origin, why folks who can move around with full mobility in a space of 27 democratic countries would be coming to Canada, and Canada alone, to make asylum claims and why virtually none of the claimants actually show up for their hearings, almost all of them abandoning and withdrawing their own claims.

He used some very strong and, I would argue, demagogic and irresponsible language, saying that this approach encourages xenophobia. Does the member not appreciate the fact that we need to address highly organized waves of false claims? Does he not agree with his constituents on that? Is he not willing at least to admit that the government is actually accepting more resettled refugees per capita than any other country in the world and that we are increasing the number of such resettled refugees by 20%, as well as the support we give them? Does he believe that reflects xenophobia?

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for his question. I have just a couple of clarifications.

He may have been in my riding, but I do not think he met with any of my constituents. Not all Italian-speaking Montrealers live in my constituency. Most of those he met do not live in my riding.

I think it is a general concern, not just in Montreal but everywhere, that we do have to try to minimize some of the refugee claims coming in. In my speech, I did not speak about the refugees who are coming in and making false claims. What I have a problem with is the refugees who are coming in par des passeurs, meaning the people who are organizing these refugees to come in. When a refugee comes in, even if he pays somebody to go around the system, he does not know the Canadian laws. He does not sit there in front of his computer, reading Canadian laws and saying “Once I get to Canada, I am going to be able to get around the refugee act”.

What I have a problem with is that a refugee comes here, has 15 days to prepare for his hearing and, if he does not prepare it appropriately, is going to be detained for a year. That is without speaking about the kids who are going to be sent with another family.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask this question in terms of those who are designated irregular arrivals. I am pretty sure that if I am in a war-torn country where my life is threatened, I am going to pay whoever, however, to get out of that country to save the lives of myself and my family.

What I would like to ask the hon. member to comment on is this. Should those people be penalized who are legitimately fleeing for their lives, who do not have the time to sit there, leaf through a book and say “Okay, I have to do things this way”, who want to get out and who will pay somebody to get them out? Somebody will take advantage of that situation and take advantage of them.

Should those people be penalized in the way the government is looking to penalize them, by having their children stripped from them and being jailed for up to a year?

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that most of the people who are desperate will do desperate things, will pay whatever it is and do whatever it is. They are not going to sit in front of their computers or write a letter to the Minister of Justice, asking him what the refugee laws are before they come to Canada, asking if they meet the criteria and whether they should go or not go.

It is totally unacceptable that these people who are actually coming here from a war-torn country, the example the member gave, be penalized and separated from their kids on top of everything else, after some of the tragic circumstances they may come from.

The premise of this bill is that it is starting on a bad footing. I have no problem sending a bill to committee, but when it starts on a negative footing like this, where there are tons of people who are already against it and do not see how it is ever going to be fixed, how can one support a bill of such a fashion?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all members who have participated in this debate over the course of some 23 hours of debate over 5 parliamentary days, 64 members having spoken to the bill, in addition to which this bill was preceded, in part, by Bill C-4. Bill C-31 is subsuming Bill C-4. If we combine the amount of debate on the two bills, we have had 41 hours of debate over 14 days, with 137 speeches, a very fulsome debate, and I do hope that this important bill, an act to protect the integrity of Canada's immigration system, will be referred for close, detailed study to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

Allow me, at this point, to respond to some of the concerns and criticisms levelled by opposition members against this balanced effort to protect the integrity of our fair and generous immigration and refugee determination systems.

First, throughout the course of this debate, particularly today, we have heard a level of demagogic rhetoric that I personally regard as being irresponsible.

Thankfully, in this country, we have a broad public consensus in favour of immigration and refugee protection. Thankfully, we have avoided the kind of heated and divisive politics of immigration we see, for example, in certain western European countries. I believe it is incumbent upon all of us as elected representatives to maintain the breadth of that consensus through a responsible and balanced discourse on these issues, not to say that we will always agree on particular features of our asylum or immigration systems but that we should engage in the debate in a responsible way.

I hear opposition members saying, as the deputy leader of the NDP did, that this government is “beating up on refugees”.

When I hear members like the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel say that we are promoting xenophobia, when I hear that the bill is against immigrants and that the government is creating fear, I am in fact hearing irresponsible voices in a debate that calls for us to be very careful and very cautious at all times.

This is really outrageous. Xenophobia, beating up on refugees and anti-immigrant are the kinds of terms we could fairly ascribe au Front national de la France, to the British National Party or to the xenophobic parties of western Europe that are against immigration and refugee protection.

However, here are the facts. This government, objectively speaking, based on the facts, based on the evidence, is the most pro-immigration government in the history of this dominion. Since 2006 we have admitted, on average, 254,000 permanent residents. That represents an increase of 14% over the levels of the previous Liberal government, which admitted 222,000 permanent residents, on average. This represents, under this government, the highest sustained levels of immigration in Canadian history, adding nearly 0.8% to our population per year, the highest per capita levels of immigration in the developed world.

As the Prime Minister has noted, this was one of the only developed countries in the world to maintain robust levels during the global economic downturn, as opposed, for example, to the government of one Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who cut immigration levels almost in half during the early 1990s, or the government of Jean Chrétien, who cut immigration levels from 260,000 under this minister and his colleagues in 1993 to 175,000 in 1995. Those are the facts. The opposition asked us to have evidence-based policy. Here is evidence.

Here is more evidence. We already accept one out of every ten resettled refugees from around the world. According to the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees, we receive more resettled refugees per capita than any country in the world, already, under this so-called xenophobic, anti-refugee government.

However, guess what. Because we so profoundly understand this country's unique vocation as a land of protection for victims of persecution, of ethnic cleansing, of violence, because we understand that from the united empire loyalists to the black slaves who came north through the underground railroad to the victims who fled communist totalitarian states throughout the 20th century, because it was a Conservative government that opened the doors to the Vietnamese-Indochinese refugees in 1979, because we understand that this is in our DNA as a country, this government is increasing the number of convention refugees we accept from around the world by 20%, and we are increasing at a time of fiscal restraint. We are increasing the integration support we give to them by 20%, so we will be far and away the number one recipient of resettled refugees in the world. Therefore, I say to my friends in the opposition how ridiculous and shameful it is to characterize that record as one of xenophobia and promoting “beating up” on refugees.

What the bill before this place seeks to do is to take a balanced approach to refugee protection that exceeds both our charter and UN convention obligations. Our obligation under the charter, as defined by the Supreme Court in the 1985 Singh decision, is very simple. It is to provide to asylum claimants an oral hearing before a competent decision-maker where credibility is an issue. We exceed that requirement by giving all claimants access to a full hearing, regardless of which country they come from or whether such country has been designated by the minister or not, regardless of the means through which they came and whether they came in a smuggling operation or not.

Notwithstanding most of the speeches from the opposition, every single asylum claimant will have access to the same full, fair, independent hearing at the quasi-judicial IRB, in full compliance with natural justice, due process and the requirements of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which system, according to the UN High Commissioner on Refugees, is the model system in the world for refugee protection. We are maintaining and in fact enhancing that system through the creation, for the first time, of a new full, fact-based appeal and oral hearing afforded failed claimants at the newly created refugee appeal division.

When I hear the hypocrisy about this from my colleagues in the Liberal Party who were in government for 13 years and refused to create a full appeal process for failed refugee claimants and who criticize this government, which is increasing the number of refugees we accept and creating for the first time a refugee appeal division, I say to my friends in the Liberal Party that they should be ashamed.

Our record speaks for itself. We are adding additional procedural protection for failed asylum claimants, but in this context we must deal with the reality that there are far too many who seek to abuse our generosity and that of our asylum system. Nearly two-thirds of asylum claimants are determined or deemed not to be well-founded claimants. Many of them, if not most, are manifestly fraudulent claimants who come here. They ought to come through the regular immigration procedures but very often are advised by consultants and maybe lawyers. We have had lawyers actually charged recently for coaching people to make fake asylum claims. People who are coached sometimes unwittingly go along with this to make false claims when they do not actually have a well-founded fear of persecution, which is the test in the convention for refugee protection. This has become an acute problem coming from certain democratic countries.

No country in the world is perfect. Certainly, none of the countries in the European Union are. However, it is a space that allows full mobility within 27 democratic member states, so why is it that Canada would be getting 90% of the asylum claims from around the world from the European Union? Why is it that almost 100% of those claimants do not show up for their own claim but rather abandon and withdraw the claims of their own volition? This is rather clear evidence that there is a highly organized wave of unfounded claims. That is not to say that their lives are perfect in Europe, but clearly by their own admission they do not need our protection. That is why we propose an accelerated process with limited appeals for people coming from designated countries. That is not to say that the minister would interfere in the decision-making process. That is nonsense. This is a full, independent, quasi-judicial decision that every claimant would benefit from.

I would further point out that this bill would allow us to give protection and certainty to bona fide asylum claimants in two to three months rather than two years. It would also allow us to remove from Canada false asylum claimants who have had the benefit of due process in a few months rather than several years, allowing them to restart their lives back in their countries of origin instead of abusing the generosity of Canadian taxpayers.

This is a balanced approach that respects our moral and legal obligations toward refugees. I am proud to support it.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. minister’s speech. My concerns were not addressed.

One very important aspect that we have discussed quite often and that, unfortunately, has not been addressed satisfactorily is the question of designated foreign nationals in the context of a system of countries targeted as unsafe. The minister and the government are claiming that this approach in itself is going to combat this method of illegal immigration, but they are unable to show us how that might be done.

In the past, they used as their pretext examples of mass illegal immigration, including the arrival by boat of smugglers who exploited the good faith of people who wanted to immigrate to Canada. Then they hand us a bill like this, when a life sentence can already be imposed on people convicted of human smuggling under the existing legislation.

Given that we are unable to prevent this kind of immigration at present, probably because of a lack of resources, how can the minister guarantee to this House that this legislation will really resolve the situation if we do not have the resources to enforce it?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for the question, but, frankly, I am not entirely sure I understood.

I can say that we are increasing prison sentences for human smugglers. For example, fines are imposed on the boat owners who help smuggle people into Canada.

The problem is that it is very difficult to apply Canadian law to the smugglers who live overseas. That is why we need to include deterrents in the bill for the potential clients of the smugglers. That is why we are proposing a five-year temporary residence period instead of permanent residence for immigrants who arrive here illegally and who are recognized as protected persons. We have to have deterrents for the clients in order to reduce the human smuggling market.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is wrong on many points. When he makes reference to the most generous government in terms of immigration into the country, it is not this minister and not this government. If he does not have the facts I can provide him with a copy of the facts, which I would be more than happy to table. The most successful immigration program in recent history is the provincial nominee program which had nothing to do with the current minister or prime minister. It was a Jean Chrétien program. It is in fact the best, fastest growing immigration program.

I have a picture of the Minister of Immigration standing on a ship with the Prime Minister, at the time of the Ocean Lady and the Sun Sea, talking about how tough he is going to be on profiteers and human smugglers. In reality, this bill is going to do more damage and make double victims of legitimate refugees who come to our shore. He is making refugees victims again. This is a minister who has a power grab. It is this minister who wants to--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please.

I know it has been two weeks, but I would just remind hon. members that the time allocated for questions and comments is limited and they may want to keep about one minute for a question, and a response is in order. Then more hon. members would have the opportunity to pose a question.

The hon. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, here are some points of fact. The average number of permanent residents admitted from 1993 to 2005 under the previous government was 222,000. Since this government took office in 2006, we have admitted on average 254,000 permanent residents per year, the highest sustained level in Canadian history. With respect to the PN program to which the member referred, in 2005, 4,700 PNs were admitted to Manitoba and this year, 12,000. We have tripled the number of PNs going to Manitoba. We have increased the program overall nationally tenfold. We have increased those numbers.

Finally, why is it that the Liberal Party has not yet offered a single concrete or positive idea to deter human smugglers from putting people's lives at risk by targeting Canada as a place for their odious commerce?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate with the hon. member for Mississauga South, I will let her know that I will have to interrupt her at 15 minutes after the hour as this is the time allocated today for government orders.

The hon. member for Mississauga South.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have this brief opportunity to discuss Bill C-31 and how it proposes much needed reforms to secure our immigration system.

A number of my colleagues have spoken on this matter and illustrated a number of safeguards Bill C-31 contains to ensure that Canada will take a prudent and balanced approach to protecting the immigration system from abuse. Both the government and opposition parties have noted with pride that Canada has a long tradition of providing protection to those who are in need of it. With Canada accepting 1 out of every 10 refugee claims made in the world, it is very clear that the Canadian system is the most compassionate and generous in the world today. As a government, members on this side of the House have every intention of continuing to build on that great tradition.

Refugees who make honest claims and come to Canada because they truly need protection have nothing to fear. There will always be a place in Canada for them for as long as they need it. Canadians have given us a strong mandate to protect Canada's immigration system. We are acting on that mandate. We are creating a faster and fairer immigration system.

The Globe and Mail editorial board has applauded Bill C-31. Listen to what it had to say:

[The] Immigration Minister...['s] refugee reforms, aimed at making the process more efficient and decisive, are generally good. If implemented, they will improve an unwieldy asylum program...

The legislation rightly focuses on weeding out claimants who are not genuine, and stemming the flow of asylum seekers from countries such as Mexico and Hungary that are democracies with respect for basic rights and freedoms....

Fast-tracking refugee claims from these countries, and ensuring failed claimants are promptly deported, is an excellent way to ensure Canada does not become a magnet for abuse. The bill will also implement biometric identification, such as fingerprints and photos, for people who apply for visitor's visas. This welcome change will guard against the use of false identities.

What I would like to see acknowledged by the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party is the fact that the system should have a mechanism in place that allows Canada to deal with refugee claimants who were not honest in their claims and gained permanent residency in our country through fraudulent means. The opposition MPs keep rising in the House and exclaiming that this rule is taking away people's rights. We are committed to preserving the place of people who are legitimately persecuted and make honest refugee claims. Canada will continue to protect these people. Their rights are not in question now and never will be.

The so-called rights in question, the rights that the NDP is trying to defend, must then belong to those who made fraudulent claims. This is patently absurd. It is not a right to defraud the Government of Canada. It is not a right to defraud Canadian taxpayers. It is not a right for refugee claimants to provide false information to the government to gain permanent residency in Canada and with it gain access to Canada's generous system of health and social benefits. The total savings to taxpayers as a result of this bill would be $1.65 billion over five years. If we do not pass this bill, then we will continue to pay up to $170 million per year for bogus EU claimants.

The NDP does not understand this approach and how it will save taxpayers money. Instead, the NDP approach to dealing with someone who manages to sneak by the system, who is able to swindle the system and Canadian taxpayers, is to do nothing. If it is found out that refugee claimants have cheated the system, the NDP wants to reward them by letting them stay in Canada and letting them claim social benefits at the expense of working families for even longer. This is wrong.

We are making sure that fraudulent refugee claimants do not get to benefit from their deception. The comments from NDP members suggest that they are intent on protecting people who cheat the system. The government is trying to close this loophole. Immigration lawyer Richard Kurland has even called the minister a loophole closer. He went on to say:

Finally someone recognized that the open wallet approach of the past, offering free education, free medicare, and a welfare cheque to anyone who touched Canadian soil making a refugee claim was not the right thing to do. So I'm glad to see today that finally, after several years, someone has the political courage to take the political risk of saying, if you're from a European country and you can land in London or Paris or Berlin, fill out paperwork, and legally live there, work there, pay taxes there, you shouldn’t be allowed to make a refugee claim in Canada. Buttress that with this reality check. Over 90 per cent, and in some years 95 per cent, of the target group, the Roma claimants, didn't even show up for their oral hearings. They rode on the taxpayer.

The government has said all along that Bill C-31 would make the immigration system faster and fairer. If members read the bill, they would know that is exactly what we are doing. Just as we are making the immigration system faster and fairer for legitimate refugee claimants who are truly in need of our protection because of persecution in their homeland, we are also making it more efficient to remove those refugee claimants who face no such persecution and those who have managed to cheat the refugee process.

Canadians do not want what the NDP wants, which is to let fraudulent refugee claimants stay in Canada. We must take action to crack down on the abuse of our generous immigration system. Our government is committed to strengthening the integrity of Canada's immigration system.

The protecting Canada's immigration system act would make our refugee system faster and fairer. This bill would put an end to foreign criminals, human smugglers and bogus refugees abusing our generous immigration system and receiving lucrative taxpayer-funded health and social benefits. At the same time, this bill would provide protection more quickly for those who are truly in need. Canada has always made a place for those who have needed our protection. I encourage everyone in this House to support this bill.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 6:15 p.m., pursuant to order made on Monday, March 12, 2012, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #182

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the amendment defeated.

The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?