Debates of June 4th, 2001

Patent Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

At the request of the government whip the vote is deferred until later today at the end of government orders.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-16, an act to amend the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) Act

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, for the Minister of Finance]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

At the request of the government whip the vote stands deferred until later today at the end of government orders.

The House resumed from June 1 consideration of Bill C-11, an act respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 2.

Immigration And Refugee Protection Act

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Motions Nos. 5, 6 and 7 at report stage of Bill C-11 respecting the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The bill has raised a lot of concerns at the hearings that have gone on across the country. A lot of people have expressed opinions on the immigration bill. The bill talks about the granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger. It also talks about supposedly bringing the Immigration Act into line after such a long period of time.

One of the problems is that our immigration policy requires a tremendous amount of review. The current legislation has not been implemented in the way it should have been. If it had, we would have no need for a haphazard bill that is trying to address the issue but failing to hit the key point.

[An hon. member]

They are our amendments too.

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

That is right. Our amendments were made after consultations with many groups across the country. My colleague who is the critic for immigration brought in amendments to address what is viewed out there to be a very flawed bill and an immigration system that needs a complete administrative overhaul. We do not need a legislative overhaul; we need an administrative overhaul.

The cuts that have taken place have resulted in a situation where the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is having a difficult time meeting the growing needs of what has become an attractive place to which to come. We are happy that a lot of people want to come to Canada. Nevertheless, sitting in my office I have seen my workload in immigration increase. I am sure every member of parliament has seen an increase of immigration inquiries in their offices.

This is a direct result of the cuts that have taken place, which threw the burden on members of parliament to try to address the concerns. I had an opportunity to travel with the minister of immigration and I have seen firsthand the problems. Even spousal applications, which the minister said should take six months, have extended to the level where they are taking eight or nine months.

When we make inquiries of the department or of our missions overseas the delays are longer. The typical response is that they do not have the resources to address the growing need. What is the solution to all these things? The bill tries to address some of them, but it fails to provide for effective administration of our current policy which would see cases of legitimate immigrants and those who jump the queue, who bypass the system, handled expeditiously. If they have a legitimate claim they can stay. If they have an illegitimate claim they should leave.

We are mired in so much bureaucracy, so much red tape and so many issues of a smaller, frivolous nature that genuine immigrants are finding it difficult. Those who abuse our system are taking advantage of these lax laws and the result is that Canadians are losing confidence in our immigration policy.

We are all immigrants. This is a land of immigrants and immigration will be a focal point in Canada for years to come. Let us do it right. Let us get the confidence of the Canadian people. Let us attract the people we want to attract. Let us give hope to refugees who are fleeing their homes and do it in such a manner that the message goes out that yes, Canada is a land of opportunity which welcomes genuine refugees and genuine immigrants.

However because of the cuts, the way administration is done and the haphazard laws that are brought in, confidence in immigration is evaporating. This is true not only for Canadians but for prospective immigrants who would come to the country, build it and bring prosperity to it.

I have spoken to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I have heard from a lot of people that we have a system in which they do not feel comfortable. When they apply we go through a process that is too long, a process where we challenge small things. It is interesting that the focus is on smaller administrative issues and ignores the bigger picture, which is that we have almost 230,000 immigrants coming into the country. All the resources are focused on smaller issues while ignoring the real objective: making the process easier and faster for the legitimate immigrants Canada needs.

Let us be realistic. There is competition out there to attract good immigrants. There is competition from Australia, Britain, Germany and the U.S.A. They are streamlining their procedures. They are out there aggressively trying to attract good immigrants. What do we do in Canada? We work slowly. We are mired in small administrative issues that in the long term would not have a major impact.

We should rightly be concentrating on those who are queue jumping. However we have dragged it out so long, as my colleague said, that we now have a higher load of refugees in Canada whose issues have not been addressed.

The opposition parties have called on the government to look at the issue to see if amnesty can be given so that we can clear the backlog and carry on. However, as the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has said, it would mean rewarding those who come through the back door.

However they have come through the back door because our system allows that to happen.

Our appeal process allows it to happen. Smugglers and others have used the system and this has eroded confidence in it. We need to restore confidence in our immigration system so that everyone is comfortable with it and can trust and have confidence in it.

It is difficult to achieve this with the bill the government has brought in. As usual, it is a haphazard band-aid solution. My colleague will speak to it further.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will say a couple of words at this stage of the debate about immigration and Bill C-11 that is before the House today.

Our party, through our critic from Winnipeg North Centre, has moved at the committee stage some 80 amendments to the bill. I will make a couple of general comments and observations about the bill.

We have somehow along the way lost our vision in terms of immigration and the value of immigration to this great land of Canada. Many of us in the House are either immigrants or sons or daughters of immigrants. My father emigrated from Sweden in 1910. My mother's parents both came from Britain at roughly the same time. I am a first generation Canadian on my father's side and a second generation Canadian on my mother's side.

Saskatchewan is a tremendous province that has been settled by immigrants. A lot of people from the Ukraine, Russia, Germany and many countries around the world came to Saskatchewan and founded the province in 1905. In doing so they joined with the first nations and Metis people who were there well before the Europeans and people from other lands came.

During those days, following the great national policy of Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir Wilfrid Laurier talked about the value of immigration and how we had to bring in skilled people from all over the world to build this great country with its vast regions, vast resources and lack of population.

We had that vision of the country for 50 to 80 years. We welcomed immigration as much as possible and tried to build this great mosaic of people from many lands and cultures along with our two great languages and first nations people. That was the whole vision of the country.

I remember the Trudeau years in the House of Commons. I was elected in 1968 when this vision was recharged. It started recharging during the Pearson years from 1963 to 1968. The vision was about what the country could be in terms of bringing in immigrants. The Official Languages Act, which was enshrined in our constitution, established the two official languages of Canada. In 1982 the charter of rights and freedoms enshrined in our constitution multiculturalism, which was a reflection of those who came or whose ancestors came from other lands; languages; and the rights of first nations people. These included treaty rights and a reference to the Metis people.

That was the whole dream, to create this big cultural mosaic. Canada became like a pearl necklace with all these beautiful pearls, all of them a bit different and all of them connected to form this great country of Canada.

Somehow during the Mulroney years and then continuing on through the most recent government, this dream and this vision seems to have been tightened up. We seem to be looking at obstacles to uniting families and bringing skilled people into the country.

During the committee stage our critic, the member for Winnipeg North Centre, moved several amendments to try to recreate the vision and the dream, which is what the bill was supposed to be. It was supposed to an overhaul and a revamping of the Immigration Act. We in our party believe it has fallen far short of doing that. Before the bill becomes law, we encourage the government to seriously consider taking a look at some amendments that would once again make our country more visionary in terms of immigration.

I would like to give the House a couple of examples. What we see in the legislation is the continuation of a landing and administration fee commonly referred to as the head tax. This is something that is repugnant in a modern day society and in fact came in a number of years ago because it was not part of our general practice in terms of immigration in Canada. The bill does not address the issue of a head tax and it should when we are talking about a major revamping of immigration laws.

There is a failure in the bill to expand the family class category. This is one of the amendments suggested by my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre that would expand the family class category to include an immigrant's immediate family, such as brothers, sisters and grandparents.

This is particularly important when we look at provinces like Saskatchewan or Manitoba which have populations of slightly over one million people apiece. When immigrants come to Canada they tend to go to the larger centres, such as Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver, and, to a lesser extent, to places like Ottawa. It is more difficult to get people to go to Saskatchewan or Manitoba. However, by changing the family class category it would be easier through family unification to get immigrants into smaller towns in rural Canada and to provinces like Manitoba, Saskatchewan, the Atlantic provinces and so on. This was a suggestion made by our party and we believe these are some of the things that should be done.

The United States, Australia and in some cases western Europe are winning the battle to get more highly skilled and educated immigrants into their countries. We should look at being more aggressive in terms of getting more highly skilled and trained people into Canada because it would have a direct impact on our economy.

Canada is the third largest country in the world and yet its 30 million people are spread over various parts of the country. Canada is a country with vast resources and reserves that could be spent bringing in more people from around the world and creating a more dynamic and exciting country in the process.

Canada has the greatest potential in the world. It is still ranked number one by the United Nations. We should not be hesitant in revising the Immigration Act to ensure that we bring in more highly skilled immigrants and unify families. We should get rid of the head tax and all kinds of discrimination based on economics or whatever and create a great mosaic.

I spent much of last weekend in Regina going to what is an annual tradition in that city. It is called a cultural mosaic. This year there were some 17 pavilions celebrating the heritage of people from places like China, the Philippines, Hungary, Ukraine, Austria and Germany. There was also a francophone and first nations pavilion. This has become an event with tens of thousands of people lining the streets waiting to go into the pavilions to taste the traditional foods of these countries.

On Saturday night I could not even get near the Ukrainian pavilion because it was so popular. People were lined up around the block. There were hundreds of cars containing people who wanted to see the shows, the dancing and the traditions as well as looking at souvenirs from these countries.

This event has worked well in bringing people together in a celebration of a great cultural mosaic that Canada really is. This cultural mosaic has made us more tolerant as a nation in terms of preserving our two official languages and in terms of enshrining some rights for first nations and Metis people in Canada.

I urge the government to be a bit more generous in terms of the legislation and the proposed amendments.

In conclusion I would like to make reference to Alex Kuziak who is over 90 years old and lives in Yorkton. He was the first Canadian of Ukrainian descent to be a member of a cabinet in Canada. He was a member of the CCF cabinet of Tommy Douglas back in 1948 in the province of Saskatchewan.

I was here in 1969 when that act came in and there was a great division in the country over it. Mr. Kuziak was a very strong supporter of the Official Languages Act. What he said to me has always remained in my mind. He said that because our country was more tolerant of diversity and was open in terms of immigration of people from all lands, it made us more tolerant in other ways as well, including recognizing that Canada has two official languages.

There is a lot of wisdom in Alex Kuziak's words. He referred to diversity and how it made us a more tolerant, loving and caring nation in terms of how we treat all peoples from all over the world.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle is indeed a learned member of this institution. I do however want to square part of the immigration comments he made with respect to the Conservative government.

I remember former prime minister Brian Mulroney stating that there was no obligation more compelling and no duty more irresistible in Canada than to ensure that our minorities, linguistic and otherwise, live at all times in conditions of fairness and justice.

The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle probably remembers Gordon Fairweather as well. In that regard it was the Mulroney government that initiated the IRB concept because refugees' rights are indeed human rights and by no means do we want to determine on mere paper the future of individuals, whether they live or die, or face persecution. Establishing the IRB and an oral hearing was a testament of that time and ironically it is the Liberal Government of Canada that now appears to be the most reticent of any political party in the House to protect the rights of permanent residents and protect refugees in that perspective.

The amendment that we are advocating would ensure that permanent residents who have been in Canada for at least three years would have the capacity to apply for an appeal should they face being removed under the criminality clause of Bill C-11. Permanent means that there is a right to due process and we should embrace that particular issue.

On Motion No. 5 the Canadian Alliance wants to be able to define danger to security. Right now it is far too broad. It wants to utilize the definition used in the CSIS Act, and we support that initiative.

Motion No. 6, which would amend clause 50, deals with removal orders and enforcement. The initiative is supported by groups such as the Maytree Foundation. We consider it to be a question of accountability. It is an important issue that a ruling made by SIRC would be utilized should CSIS step out of bounds. The intent is that SIRC is supposed to be a watchdog over CSIS in the event that it makes an intervention which is potentially over the top, unfair or just not Canadian. That is a good initiative.

In short, a watchdog must have teeth to serve any protective function and that is why our party supports the Canadian Alliance initiative in that regard.

Finally, Motion No. 7 is the compromise amendment that I spoke about a few moments ago. It would provide permanent residents the opportunity to have appeal rights if they maintain residency status for three years.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Group No. 2 at report stage of Bill C-11.

The amendments being proposed in Group No. 2 deal with very fundamental concerns with respect to Bill C-11. The concerns pertain to our ability as a nation to ensure that all people on Canadian soil are guaranteed basic rights and liberties. We are talking about the application of the charter of rights and freedoms for all people on Canadian soil, which is one area where Bill C-11 falls down very seriously.

I do not need to encapsulate the numerous presentations made by many presenters on Bill C-11 but we do need to talk about how to make the bill better. It is a seriously flawed bill and it must be amended in order to bring us in line with our traditions, both in terms of being a compassionate humanitarian nation and in terms of applying the charter of rights to all our citizens.

One of the most egregious sections in Bill C-11 is clause 64. One of the amendments before us today tries to deal with that serious problem in the bill.

We heard from many groups, not just the Canadian Bar Association, about the problems with clause 64. I hope the minister and the government will read those broad ranging concerns because, in the view of my NDP colleagues and in terms of members in all opposition parties, the notion that is contained in clause 64 is repugnant. It is a denial of the rights of citizens with permanent resident status in this country to pursue normal appeal procedures in the event that they face a deportation order. The clause reads:

—on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, serious criminality or organized criminality.

As many groups said to us in committee, no one condones any criminal actions nor believes that we should ignore or be lenient regarding any such charge that falls into one of those categories. What we are talking about is the right of an individual to appeal a decision and the right to pursue through the courts what we have come to accept as a normal course of action pursuant to a civilized society.

It is not just the Canadian Bar Association that has raised those concerns. Earlier today we debated and discussed in collegial terms Bill S-25 pertaining to the Mennonite Church of Canada. I want to put on record the concerns of the Mennonite Church of Canada and, in particular, the Mennonite Central Committee regarding Bill C-11, particularly the clauses that we are trying to amend today and the clause that deals with human rights and civil liberties.

The Mennonite Central Committee noted very clearly that Bill C-11 would create inadmissible classes of people in an unjust and unnecessary manner. Grounds for inadmissibility include: security, human or international rights violations, serious criminality, organized criminality, poor health, being poor or being from a country against which Canada has imposed sanctions.

The committee went on to state that those provisions would take us beyond the limits called for in the United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees. It also stated that the provisions would take us beyond what is necessary for a humane and just society.

That is what we are talking about today: how to make sure that this bill has the provisions for taking all the necessary actions in terms of criminal elements while assuring that we adhere to the principles of the charter of rights and that applied basic rights of appeal and rights for proper review be incorporated into that process.

Time and time again Canadians came before us at committee as we dealt with Bill C-11 and told us that we will have missed a golden opportunity if we allow Bill C-11 to go forward as drafted. What has caused Canadians so much concern is the tone of the bill. It is not just the tone in terms of words and rhetoric, but a tone that is carried through into the actual application of the law. Time and time again Canadians and organizations in the country who appeared before the committee and have written to all of us on numerous occasions have said “Goodness gracious, we have operated for 25 years under an old law that needs revamping”. They said that we have new circumstances to deal with, the world has changed and Canada is missing the boat by not coming forward with a visionary piece of legislation that will take us forward into the millennium.

The questions for us today are threefold. First, how do we uphold and maintain Canada's past involvement in terms of offering refuge for Canadians and ensuring that we operate always on the basis of humanitarian and compassionate grounds? Second, do we always, at every step of the process, ensure that the charter of rights applies to everyone on Canadian soil? Third, are we able to compete for immigrants internationally, globally, in a very competitive world?

I think what we have all come to conclude from discussions on the bill is that we have missed the boat on all three of those fundamental issues. We have missed the opportunity to be visionary and to educate and challenge Canadians about the most fundamental reason for having an Immigration Act for the next century.

Some of the concerns that we heard during our committee hearings had been brought to the attention of the government earlier, when the previous minister of immigration actually embarked upon a major consultative approach and heard from Canadians in the spring of 1999. That was a process to hear from Canadians in order to revamp the legislation and resulted in a report called “Not Just Numbers”. That title says a lot about what we are supposed to be about as a country and where we have missed the boat here today with Bill C-11.

It should not be just about numbers, but about our vision for the future and our responsibilities on the global scene. It should be about our adherence to international conventions pertaining to refugees and torture. It should be about shaping the kind of society we want, not only for this country but the kind of example we want to pursue globally.

If we could go back and do this again, I would say this to the Government of Canada: listen to the voices of Canadians who have spoken out so clearly on this bill. I do not think we can point to any voices at all in Canada who are absolutely satisfied with Bill C-11. To the contrary, most people who have paid attention to this matter and are concerned about immigration and refugee policies feel that the bill is a bad bill and should not become law today.

If we are talking about entering this millennium with vision and with commitment to the principles that have built this country, then we have to reconsider. That is why we in the NDP feel so strongly about the bill, why we tried so hard to amend it and why, unless the government listens to some of the concerns being raised today, we will have to oppose it. It is not good public policy. It is not good legislation. It will not ensure that Canada is able to deal with the need to attract immigrants, the need to be welcoming to newcomers and the need to ensure that we play our role globally in terms of people in need of protection. Not to carry out that fundamental objective is to do a great disservice to parliament and to the country.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I actually was not going to say much here this morning but I feel I must respond to the comments of the two previous speakers to the bill, the critic for the NDP and the critic for the Conservative Party.

When they talk about the fact that the government is not living up to its charter of rights obligations and that it is taking away appeals from people, I think there are a couple of things that are conveniently left out. One of them is who it is we are talking about here in terms of permanent residents who are facing deportation. A permanent resident is a landed immigrant. I am sure everyone knows that no government would in any kind of a light fashion institute deportation proceedings against someone who has attained landed immigrant status. It would have to be pretty serious, and what exactly does it mean?

There is a rule in the bill that we refer to as the 10 and 2 rule. The people we are talking about who could, may or might face deportation proceedings in this instance are people who have committed a crime for which they have been charged, tried, convicted and sentenced. The sentence must be a minimum of 2 years and the crime must allow for a maximum of 10 years. It is the 10 and 2 rule.

If the crime is serious enough to have at least a 10 year sentence applied and the decision by the judge is that the person who has been convicted, and that is very important, must serve at least 2 years out of a possible 10, then the person has committed a crime that the ministry would see as serious enough, possibly, to institute deportation proceedings. It is not automatic. A notice would have to be sent.

The suggestion that people do not have a right of appeal is just patently false. What they do not have a right to do is jam up our federal courts in appealing. They do not have a right to come out after their sentence is over and they are facing deportation proceedings and then jam up the judicial system while they continue to stay in the country, avoiding the deportation order and perhaps reoffending.

Members opposite say the government has not listened to Canadians. I am sorry, but I represent a riding, Mississauga West, where immigration is one of the hottest issues. I can tell members that Canadians have told me loud and clear that they do not want Canada to be seen as a safe haven for criminals, convicted felons, violent perpetrators, terrorists or subversives.

Some would say this is against the charter of rights. Come on. There is a right within the bill for people who have been convicted and sentenced. By the way, they would most likely have appealed it, so they would have gone through the criminal justice system appealing everything all the way. If the appeal did not set them free, they would have been incarcerated. When they get out this government wants the right to say that it no longer wants those people in the country continuing with those kinds of offences. That is number one. Let us be clear about that. The government has done the test on whether or not the bill will stand up to charter challenges and it is absolutely convinced it will.

Canadian people have a right to feel safe in their communities. One of the arguments I hear from the Progressive Conservative critic is that people who come to this country could be here for 20 to 30 years and then the government would turn around and deport them because they have committed a serious crime. If they have been in the country for 20 or 30 years and have not sought Canadian citizenship that clearly is their option. There is no obligation on them to become citizens, but if they want to become citizens and a productive part of our society then we welcome them to do that. If they choose not to do that and they simply maintain the status of being landed immigrants or permanent residents, as it is referred to in the bill, then they run the risk, and they should know they run the risk, following a conviction on a 10 and 2 crime, a serious enough crime, that they may well be deported.

They can appeal that decision to an independent adjudicator, who will make a decision as to whether or not that deportation order should be upheld. The decision of the independent adjudicator is judicially reviewable in the courts. If the order continues to be upheld, it can be appealed under humanitarian and compassionate grounds, which is also judicially reviewable in the courts. I count that as four reviews.

Members opposite would paint some kind of a clandestine approach to this, as if we are simply saying, no, they are out of here, they get the boot and they do not get a chance to have their cases reviewed. That is simply not the case.

Yes, the Canadian Bar Association did come before the committee and appealed to it to allow for continued extensive use of the court system. Frankly, in the bill we have listened to Canadians. They do not want these people abusing our court system while they are free to reoffend. We as a government must have the right to make sure our citizens are safe.

I have one final point with regard to refugees. The member for Fundy—Royal, the Progressive Conservative critic, wrote an article that was published in one of the Toronto dailies on Friday, wherein he said that refugees only get to apply once in a lifetime. I do not know why he would say that when he knows that in fact is not the case, that if there are changed circumstances a person can reapply every six months, not just once in six months but every six months. With new evidence, new information, with changed circumstances, refugees can apply again and again.

For people who have applied for refugee status and have no change in their circumstances, the bill does not allow appeal after appeal. We have all seen and heard of the abuse and we know about such situations. In fact there have been some recently mentioned in the media, about people who have stayed in the country illegally for five, six or seven years while they abused the system and used the appeal system.

To suggest that the bill is flawed because we have stripped people who are on Canadian soil of their rights is just fundamentally inaccurate, in my view, and is not a fair portrayal of the bill. Canadians have told us that they want our immigration system to be open and welcoming to immigrants and refugees who need our protection and who will come here and help build a greater Canada, but they no longer want to tolerate the kinds of abuses they have seen where people have been free in our society to reoffend, to commit additional crimes. We have lost some of our best young people to such tragedies as the Just Desserts file and many others. We will simply not tolerate it. That is what Canadians have told us and that is what the government intends to do.