House of Commons Hansard #34 of the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was afghan.

Topics

Citizenship and ImmigrationCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:50 a.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Citizenship and ImmigrationCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

All those opposed will please say nay.

Citizenship and ImmigrationCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:50 a.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Citizenship and ImmigrationCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #42

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:30 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

I declare the motion lost.

Order, please. The hon. Minister of Justice on a point of order.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:30 a.m.

Conservative

Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON

Mr. Speaker, maybe there was a little bit of confusion in the minds of the opposition. We are supposed to be debating Bill C-14, which is the government's anti-crime and anti-gang bill. That was supposed to be on the order paper today. All these people here purport to be supporting the government's anti-crime agenda. When they had the opportunity today, they got together and went back to their old habits. They all got together—

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:30 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

I do not think the minister is really raising a point of order. It sounds like a matter of debate. He may want to participate in the debate that is before the House now, because we are about to resume debate on a motion to concur in a committee report.

There is no point of order. There was a motion to adjourn the debate. The motion was defeated, so we resume the debate.

I cannot imagine how there could be a point of order. We had a vote and the vote result has been announced. We have not heard one so far, and I can see that other members are getting up to argue about something that in my view is not a point of order.

Is there a different point of order from the House Leader of the Official Opposition?

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:30 a.m.

Liberal

Ralph Goodale Liberal Wascana, SK

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice may not have been aware of discussions among House leaders. Pursuant to those discussions among House leaders earlier this week, I wonder if there would be unanimous consent in the House that we would agree that by the end of the day today we will send Bill C-14 to committee.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:35 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Is there unanimous consent?

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:35 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:35 a.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB

Mr. Speaker, could you put the question again, please?

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:35 a.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Is there unanimous consent that Bill C-14 be referred to committee after second reading at the end of today's sitting?

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:35 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:35 a.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Order. When the House voted on the motion, the time for the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration had expired, so we will now move on to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Mississauga South.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:35 a.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech by the hon. member and I have a couple of questions.

As the member knows, the House has just been presented with a concurrence motion on the second report, which only gives the conclusion. I had asked the mover of the motion earlier and I would ask the parliamentary secretary now to confirm that it is the committee's view that the persons referenced in the cases in the United States would be charged with the criminal offence of desertion, notwithstanding that they volunteered for the original service but the complication or grey area has to do with being asked to or ordered to serve a second tour or more.

I would ask the parliamentary secretary if he could clarify for the House the concerns that were raised on their status and whether there are any other substantive reasons the House may not be aware of that argue in favour of or opposed to the motion.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:35 a.m.

Conservative

Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly our position that, as a general rule, military deserters from the United States are not genuine refugees under the internationally accepted meaning of the term. This position has been upheld, as the member may know, by three independent tribunals: the IRB, the Federal Court, and the Federal Court of Appeal.

As the member knows, the committee is certainly of its own volition in terms of the position it may take. I also know the member is fully aware of the fact that a majority of the members who sit on that committee are in opposition. I can inform the member that the report certainly was reviewed and delivered to the House. It was also delivered with a minority report from the government, which opposed the recommendations held by the committee.

I think he is fairly aware of the government's position on this issue. The committee is of its own will, but that does not necessarily make the votes of the opposition within that committee the correct interpretation of this government.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:40 a.m.

Bloc

Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC

Mr. Speaker, Canada decided not to take part in the war in Iraq because it considered that war illegal and unjust. At least that is the opinion of most Quebeckers, Canadians and members of this House.

We know that the Prime Minister and the current Leader of the Opposition were in favour of the war in Iraq at the time, but that no longer seems to be the case.

Does the parliamentary secretary believe this war is just or unjust? Does he, like most Canadians, believe it is an illegal war because it is not sanctioned by the UN?

Does he feel it is right that Kimberly Rivera is facing several months in prison and is separated from her family and her children, including a four-month-old who was born in Canada and is therefore a Canadian citizen?

Does he feel it is fair that this person faces a prison term because she refuses to take part in a war that everyone in Canada considers illegal?

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON

Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate that whenever situations of this nature arise there are going to be impacts, not just on the individual, but impacts that may go a bit further than that with respect to family.

I appreciate the question. I think it is a fair one in terms of understanding the issue and the situation we face. I would say to the hon. member that people's decision to desert, to go against their commitment to both their country and their colleagues in war, is one that they have to make on their own. They are certainly free to do that, but they have to understand also that the consequences of that decision will have an impact on them individually and will have an impact on their family or their potential family. That is a decision they make. It is not one that we make for them; it is one that they have made on their own.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:40 a.m.

NDP

Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member raised the question of delay of crime bills. I want to ask him if he feels that the Prime Minister was delaying crime bills, since there has not been a government bill in front of the justice committee for over a year now. The reason has been that, first, the Conservative chair of that committee at the time refused to let the committee function. Then we had the election call by the Prime Minister, who then prorogued Parliament, and we are still waiting.

As recently as Monday, Bill C-14, the gang bill, could have been before the House.

I am wondering if he feels that, on each of those occasions, his party and the representatives of his party were delaying the advance of crime bills in this legislature.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON

Mr. Speaker, I wish I had another 20 minutes to respond to that question, because it brings up a whole host of issues that I certainly would like to respond to.

The member for Windsor—Tecumseh and I both sat on the justice committee during the 39th Parliament, and I certainly understand why we had delays at that committee. It was not because this side of the House did not believe in its crime agenda and did not want to move motions forward. All we had were frivolous motions brought forward by the opposition to deal with issues that were completely unrelated to the job and requirements at hand at the committee to bring back legislation to the House so that it could be voted on third reading.

The member knows full well what those motions were and why they occurred. We had an election because this Parliament, based somewhat on the issues that were faced at the justice committee, could not move justice legislation forward. We had an election for those reasons. That is exactly why.

We are now back in the House, and today is a perfect example of how we could have moved justice legislation forward. Not one person on this side of the House wants to delay justice, wants to delay legislation, wants to delay what the people of this country have said they wanted.

Every person on that side of the House did that this morning, and hopefully we can get back to doing what is right in this country and putting justice legislation forward that means something in the House, that means something for the people in Toronto, that means something for the people in this province and for this country.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:45 a.m.

Liberal

Maurizio Bevilacqua Liberal Vaughan, ON

Mr. Speaker, I want to briefly comment on the comment made by the parliamentary secretary, with whom I worked on the citizenship and immigration committee, in reference to the justice issue.

Members probably saw just a few minutes ago in this House the leadership of the member of Parliament for Wascana, who actually proposed that the bill now go straight to committee. I think that shows that on the issue of justice, we as a party understand its importance, understand that the issue needs to be studied, and we also understand that action is required on that file.

I also agree with the previous speaker from Windsor who said that in fact there has been a delay. We can now focus on the justice issue and move forward, and provide the best justice legislation we can as Canadians to a population that deserves better justice legislation.

Today we are of course debating the issue of the concurrence motion which recommends that the government immediately implement a program to allow conscientious objectors, and their immediate family members, partners and dependants, who have left military service related to a war not sanctioned by the United Nations, and do not have a criminal record, to apply for permanent residence status and remain in Canada, and that the government should immediately cease any removal or deportation actions it may have already commenced against such individuals.

I come to this issue as an individual who sat around the cabinet table during the decision not to enter the Iraq war. Back then, the former prime minister said in an address to the House of Commons that the decision on whether or not to send troops into battle must always be a decision of principle, not a decision of economics, not even a decision of friendship alone. That is what Mr. Chrétien said.

As I said, I was a member of that cabinet that decided not to participate in the Iraq war. We took a stand against military intervention in Iraq. The decision not to engage was the right decision, a decision that Canadians strongly supported. In many ways, that decision was a defining moment in Canadian history.

I believe that the decision made by members of my caucus and other members of the opposition to support war resisters is the right decision as well. It is a decision that is based on the sound values of fairness, justice, understanding, and compassion for these individuals who are in fact engaged in the Iraq war.

There is a bit of an issue here. I have paid attention of course to the debate, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration have to understand that we cannot be looking at the Iraq situation now as being the same as the past. These are different conditions.

We have a new administration in the United States of America, and of course I note that Secretary Gates has signalled a change to that provision for the future, but that is for the future. We need to look at present conditions. We need to look at individuals such as Kimberly Rivera and her Canadian-born infant who are faced with different conditions. To be revisionist as it comes to the issue of time does not really be apply to this issue.

We also feel, on this side of the House, that the whole issue of compulsion of a stop loss provision in the United States is simply not consistent with values that we as Canadians hold, in the sense of fairness and justice for individuals.

For the benefit of the House and for Canadians who perhaps did not watch the press conference that was held yesterday in support of Kimberly Rivera, I want to read into the record of the House of Commons what I said, because what I said at that press conference embodies how I truly feel about this issue, this individual, and the actions that we have to take as a Parliament.

I said, after Kimberly Rivera spoke and as I listened to her speak and tell her story, that I was really struck by her sincerity and her honesty and integrity, as well as I think her principled position on the Iraq war. It is a position that I share. It is a position that a vast majority of Canadians share. It is a position that the ramifications of that war have been very serious on a number of fronts.

I said that I was a member of the cabinet that decided not to participate in the Iraq war. We took a stand against military intervention in Iraq. The decision not to engage was the right decision, a decision Canadians strongly support. It was a defining moment in Canadian history. A decision taken by the Liberal Party and other members of the opposition to support Kimberly Rivera is the right decision as well, a decision based on sound principles of fairness, understanding, compassion and justice. The element of compulsion and the stop loss provisions in the U.S. are not consistent with these values. We note that Secretary of State Gates has signalled change to this provision for the future. This is a critical point of distinction.

Canadians understand fairness and Canadians understand justice. What Canadians fail to understand is a Conservative government that essentially, with its action, wants to separate this mother from her Canadian born infant child and potentially send her to a military prison for having made the decision to follow her conscience. That is essentially what it is, following her conscience under the circumstances that existed at that time.

Canadians do not understand that. They do not understand why we would put Ms. Rivera through all this because she opposed the war that the Prime Minister has finally admitted was absolutely an error, and I am quoting him.

I want the government to immediately intervene and let Kimberly and her family stay in Canada, a place where she feels at home. I hope that the Prime Minister and his government will understand that deporting Kimberly Rivera, for holding views that the vast majority of Canadians believe in, is wrong.

The Prime Minister needs to understand that the critical point is the element of compulsion and the stop loss provisions in the U.S. I ask him to intervene, to act with justice and fairness, and let Kimberly stay in Canada and her Canadian born child and family. It is the right thing to do.

I felt it was important for me to put that on the record because as members of the opposition when we were holding the press conference, we could see the humanity of this issue.

Parliament and public life is not necessarily sort of a neat package where everything fits in perfectly. There are times when we as individuals need to look at ways to help people by using a different perspective to address the plight that these people face in their reality.

There have been a number, and time does not permit me to go through all the issues related to this particular matter, but I know that other members who are sharing the time with me, like the member of Parliament for Etobicoke Centre, will address some of the other issues. I just want raise a couple of points.

Some people question that when these individuals go back everything in their lives will be just fine. When we look at Robin Long, who was deported by Canada in July 2008, he received a lengthy prison sentence of 15 months in military prison and received a dishonourable discharge.

James Burmeister, who voluntarily returned to the U.S. from Canada, was sentenced to nine months in military prison and given a bad conduct discharge equivalent to a felony conviction.

So, this notion that they go back and everything is fine and that they go on with their lives is actually inaccurate. We as individuals here in the Parliament of Canada need to factor all these things in as we contemplate a fair response to the challenges that these individuals face.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:55 a.m.

St. Catharines Ontario

Conservative

Rick Dykstra ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his speech and his comments both on the issue of our justice legislation that has now been held up because of this concurrence motion and on the issue of American war deserters.

I would like to ask him a two-part question.

First, I asked the member for Trinity—Spadina whether or not she had faith in the new President Obama administration that justice would be served and fairness would be served on how deserters would be treated, in terms of not only a court of law but also in terms of fairness. I would ask him to respond as to whether he thinks that will not be the case.

I would also like to ask him, in issues that surround personal difficult decisions like these, are not the individuals who make the decision to desert not responsible for the actions that they take, and I know that this can, and has, become a very emotional issue. Despite that, when we deal directly with the impact of the decision that they have made on their own, in consultation with their family, or not, is it not incumbent upon those individuals to clearly understand, before they make that decision, the impact that decision would potentially have?

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:55 a.m.

Liberal

Maurizio Bevilacqua Liberal Vaughan, ON

Mr. Speaker, I think we in this House, as elected officials, understand the responsibility of our actions and the consequences of our actions. In the same way, I think that we need to understand the consequences of our actions as parliamentarians when we are dealing with this particular issue. This is an issue that requires reflection and action at the same time.

In reference to the new American administration and my faith in it, I thought I was very clear during the press conference that it was important to note that Secretary Gates has signalled a change to the stop loss provisions, as well as compulsion. I brought it to light at the press conference because I thought it was the right thing to do, to tell Canadians and the reporters present that in fact there is this change afoot in the United States. What we will need to do, and this is to the parliamentary secretary, is to look at the changes--

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Order, please. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber.