Bill C-11 (Historical)

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

An Act respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger

Immigration And Refugee Protection Act

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the report stage amendments to Bill C-11 which have been spoken to previously by other members of our Conservative caucus and addressed very thoroughly by our critic for immigration, the member for Fundy—Royal.

We are discussing something that, quite frankly, I am surprised we would be discussing in this time, place and century. I am referring to the deportation of Canadian citizens. I fail to understand the logic behind deporting an individual to the country they came from who has declined to take out Canadian citizenship even though that person has been in Canada for 25, 30, 40 or even 50 years.

I have many friends and family members who have been permanent residents of Canada for 25 or 30 years. They pay taxes and enjoy all the rights and privileges of a Canadian citizen except that they cannot hold public office. That is the only difference.

Somehow we will say that an individual, after residing in the country 30, 40 or 50 years, does not have the same rights as any other Canadian. Rather than sending them to prison for a criminal offence should they commit one, we would deport them to a country they may no longer have ties with. That is not what being Canadian is about. It is certainly not what I have always thought being Canadian is about.

Amendment and appeal rights would be given to all who have maintained permanent resident status for a three year period before being the subject of a report under clause 44. We have chosen a three year period to be consistent with the length of time one must be a permanent resident before applying for Canadian citizenship. That to me is a straightforward, plain speaking, very smart amendment to this piece of legislation.

We are not trying to be flippant or frivolous. We are not saying that one is given permanent resident status one day and deported the next. We are saying that someone who has been here for three years has some rights of citizenship even if he or she has not applied for citizenship status.

However it takes away from the issue of permanent residents who have been here for 20 years. There are not hundreds of them out there; there are thousands. I would dare say that there are hundreds of thousands. I do not expect that all of them will commit criminal offences. However should that happen, surely in this nation and at this period in our history we would not deport them to a country to which they no longer have ties.

What would Bill C-11 do? As it is, Bill C-11 would deny an appeal to permanent residents who are the subject of a report under clause 44, which I just mentioned. As a result of a single criminal sentencing, permanent residents could be deported without appeal and without consideration of their circumstances. I do not think anyone in this place is trying to justify criminal behaviour. However under the law as we embrace it every Canadian has a right to appeal.

I would further that by saying every permanent resident who has been here longer than three years has a right to appeal. It is a fundamental tenet of Canadian justice that if someone is accused of a crime or even sentenced for a crime then he or she has a right to appeal the judgment. I am not a lawyer and do not pretend to be. However that is a fundamental tenet of fair play and justice. We should surely be no stranger to that in the House.

This would include people who have lived here since infancy, which may be for 20, 30, 40 or 50 years. Immigration officers would be solely responsible for deciding whether deportation of permanent residents is appropriate. Many permanent residents have children who were born in Canada and are Canadian citizens even though the parents may not have obtained Canadian citizenship because, quite frankly, they do not need to. They can enjoy all the fruits and benefits of Canadian society except for and precluding the holding of public office.

Those are the rules as we have defined and made them. To say that people can be deported without the right of appeal because they have been sentenced to a crime is surely a mistake. Once the decision is made the wheels of enforcement turn and there is no review of the officer's discretionary decision.

For all the talk of the department that the decisions are taken seriously and that there will be safeguards to prevent the inappropriate deportation of long term residents, the legislation does not provide those safeguards. The legislation speaks of the possibility of safeguards but there is no safeguard.

I am amazed when the department speaks of an adjudicator making the tribunal decision and of the subsequent possibility of judicial review. It is only with respect to whether the permanent resident's conviction and sentence were proper. We are not appealing it. We are not taking a second look at it. We are asking if it is correct.

There is no jurisdiction for the tribunal or the federal court to look behind the decision to proceed with enforcement. What has been lost by taking away the appeal division's jurisdiction is one of the most fundamentally important parts of Bill C-11. While it may be necessary to remove individuals who renege on the responsibilities that come with having status in Canada, and specifically Canadian citizenship, for reasons of fundamental justice we need to give them a real opportunity to appeal.

That does not take away from the importance of recognizing that a country should have the ability to deport residents who are not citizens. However we need to take into account that there is a difference between someone who has been here three or four years and someone who has been here thirty or forty years. We need to rethink whether we are back in the days of Britain when they sent their convicts to Australia. Is that where we have gone?

Will deportation all of a sudden be one of the chief tenets of the Canadian justice system? Can we deport people because they have committed crimes? Let us take a look at what the crime is.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure I rise to speak to Bill C-11. As the Chair can see by the interest of our party, this is a very serious issue with respect to immigration and the bill now before us. I am pleased to have the opportunity to echo some of the comments made by our critic from Fundy—Royal who has had the carriage of this bill, as well as others like the member for St. John's East.

Bill C-11 is a very important piece of legislation. As I mentioned earlier, my colleague from Fundy—Royal spoke to the salient points. However, it is important that we identify a couple of major issues in the legislation, which are necessary to bring forward because Canadians as a whole must recognize there are some deficiencies. The government itself has not seen fit to change some of those deficiencies in the legislation. Going forward with Bill C-11 as it is now is not going to resolve all of the issues with respect to immigration.

The first issue is with respect to the refugee status. We recognize it in the legislation. The refugee board itself will be reduced in numbers. There will be an adjudicator. Let us see this in proper perspective.

An individual from outside the boundaries of this great country of Canada who wishes to apply for refugee status makes a presentation, not to an adjudication board but simply to one person. That is not to say that the individual will not give full concentration to that one application, but a judgmental decision will be made. One person listening to an applicant in some instances may not hear the full story or may not be apprised of all the issues, may make a decision based upon the judgment of the day, and perhaps the applicant was not as forthcoming as that one individual should have been.

Mistakes can be made. At that point the applicant unfortunately has no further appeal process. The applicant is then told that he or she no longer can file for refugee status in Canada and must go back to the country of origin.

At that point in time the adjudicator in this particular case may be sending an individual back to a circumstance that may well be a matter of life and death. There are other countries in the world that do not appreciate human rights as much and as well as we do in this country. We are perhaps sentencing this particular individual to life or non-life at that point.

It is important that there be another appeal process aside from the adjudication itself. That appeal process is there but it is only a paper appeal. When a paper appeal and not a verbal appeal is made, it is forwarded to the department and we do not know who in the department will be making the final decision.

My party is suggesting that if we are to go through this process we should allow the applicant to make an appeal in person. We never know what types of information or omissions were not given initially to the adjudicator. It is now only one person, not a board of three as before. Let us have the opportunity to make a verbal appeal to the department. It is a simple change that our party feels would enhance the legislation.

My second point deals with the clause that suggests that if a crime is being committed or has been committed and an individual who has landed immigrant status is accused and sentenced for that crime, it is immediate that the individual must then be deported back to the country of origin.

Let us walk through this closely. We all know the process of immigration in this country. People from all over the world have an opportunity to come to Canada. Once they have been given landed immigrant status they have the opportunity to work, raise their families and educate their children. They contribute to the community and to the taxation system of the country. They can do that as a landed immigrant for as many years as they wish.

A landed immigrant can make an application to become a Canadian citizen after living in Canada for three years. If I were a landed immigrant I would make sure that after three years I would make such an application to become a citizen, but others do not. They decide for a lot of good reasons to simply retain their landed immigrant status. People could in fact be landed immigrants for 20 to 30 years and contribute to our society in any number of ways but should they be charged and convicted of a crime after 20 years they could be deported because they are not Canadian citizens.

Our party says that if a crime is committed there have to be consequences, but we also believe that after three years as a landed immigrant, which is the timeline that it would normally take to make an application to become a Canadian citizen, an individual should have the opportunity to appeal. We are simply talking about fairness and equality. People who have been here and in fact have been Canadian citizens in everything but name only should have the opportunity to appeal their case. We are talking about human beings. We are talking about people, families and children who should have rights when they come to our borders and want to become members of our society.

I speak with some passion to the immigration laws. I suspect most members in the House would be able to point to the fact that I would not be here if it were not for the immigration rules of this country when my grandfather immigrated here from another culture. If he had not been allowed to come to this country, I would not have had the opportunity to stand in the House today as a representative in the parliament of this great country.

I thank the House for allowing me to speak to Bill C-11. There should have been an opportunity to make it better. Our job as parliamentarians is to make bills better and to make the best legislation possible so the people who we serve have the best opportunities.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the speaker from the Bloc Party expressing concerns about a number of the amendments shows that if members in this hon. House have so many concerns about the legislation, undoubtedly there are a number of flaws in it.

I want to concentrate on clause 64 and the amendment suggested to it. Perhaps first we should ask what does Bill C-11 do in relation to appeals for permanent residents?

Bill C-11 as it is denies an appeal for permanent residents if they are subject of a report under section 44. Permanent residents can be deported without an appeal or without consideration of their circumstances as a result of a single criminal sentence.

I know it is hard sometimes for people to have patience. We say that people who come into the country should live by the laws and rules of the country. If they do not and they break the law, then they should be expected to pay the price. However, every court in the land has an appeal process. It is only fair that, regardless of how serious perhaps the offence is, at least the person should have the right to an appeal, because no one ever knows what might come up in the appeals process that will throw an entirely different light upon the case itself.

Even if they have lived here since infancy or whether they have been here for 20, 30 or 50 years, immigration officers will be solely responsible for making the decision as to whether deportation of these permanent residents is appropriate. Again, it is an awful onus or pressure to put on immigration officers of having the sole responsibility of deciding whether or not these people should be deported.

Once that decision is made, the wheels of enforcement turn and there is no review of that officer's discretionary decision. For all the talk from the department that these decisions are taken seriously, that they are serious decisions and that there will be safeguards to prevent inappropriate deportation for long term residents, the legislation provides no such safeguard at all.

We are reminded sometimes of the statement “I am from government, trust me”. That is basically what is being said here, that we should not worry about it because there will be no problem. If the legislation does not give any protection, then I am afraid we are depending, as is said, on a rotten stick.

When the department speaks of an adjudicator making a tribunal decision and the subsequent possibility of judicial review, it is only with respect to whether the permanent resident has the necessary conviction and sentence. There is no jurisdiction for the tribunal or the federal court to look behind the decision to proceed with enforcement. That is what has been lost by taking away the appeal jurisdiction, one of the most fundamentally important parts of Bill C-11.

While it may be necessary to remove individuals since they have reneged on the responsibilities that come with having status in Canada, we must for reasons of fundamental justice give them a real appeal opportunity. That is what the amendment asks. Despite the fact that once they cross that line they know what lies ahead, they should in all fairness have at least an appeal.

I believe in 1985 the Singh case set out the importance of the oral appeal and said that people should not be deprived of the rights to have their case heard. Canada prides itself on being a land not only that accepts immigrants. In fact, our country has been built because of people who have come from all over the world, settled here and have contributed so much. We also realize there are people who come here, break the law and must pay the consequence. Being the fair and honest government that we are, the type of free country where we feel everyone is equal, the least we could do for someone is to give him or her an appeal.

What the amendment suggests in this case is that the appeal rights shall be given to all permanent resident who have maintained permanent resident status for a three year period before being subject of report under section 44. The three year period is chosen in order to be consistent with the length of time one must be a permanent resident before applying for Canadian citizenship. Therefore, if within that three year period someone breaks the law, he or she then should at least have the right to an oral appeal.

There is a lot of good stuff in the bill, like most bills, but there are also some weaknesses. In passing legislation that is going to determine how we will treat immigrants coming to the country and how we treat immigrants who will be deported from the country, the least we should do is make sure the legislation is proper and that laws and rules apply in the spirit of the type of country Canada really is.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to speak to Bill C-11, the immigration and refugee protection act.

This is a very important matter for me. I have been interested in it for a number of years, because I sit on the board of the Greater Montreal United Way. We manage assistance for agencies providing help to refugees and immigrants. We know that each is treated in much the same way. Often problems related to the arrival of refugees impact the way we look at immigration.

As my colleague for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel said, legislation adapted to the new realities of Canada and Quebec and the world as a whole is most welcome. The environment has hugely changed the pressures of population movements that are a part of globalization. It is not said often enough, but the arrival in numbers not only in Canada but in all western countries of persons from southern countries is part of the globalization process we speak of daily.

This is an extremely important bill. It is also a bill that calls on the most fundamental values shared by Quebecers and Canadians and that reflects a commitment to international solidarity.

All members will agree that our primary concern with this bill must be to show extreme generosity toward those who, for reasons having to do with their political opinion, sexual orientation or religion, must leave their country to save their lives and those of their loved ones.

This commitment to international solidarity must transcend our concerns when we review Bill C-11. This is particularly important for Quebec and Quebecers, because, as we know Quebec welcomes more than its fair share of refugees on a per capita basis, and we are proud of that.

At the same time, we must, as members representing Quebec's interests, remind this House that there are major costs involved. Quebec must pay some $80 million to provide the necessary assistance to refugees even though this is a federal jurisdiction.

In this respect, Motion No. 9, to which the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel referred and which was moved by the hon. member for Laval Centre, is an absolute priority for us.

Indeed, the system must be much more efficient, not only for administrative reasons, but also for reasons that relate to international solidarity and to which I referred. We need to create the proper environment to make the system much more efficient.

This brings me to a third point. When we talk about efficiency, we must think about the rigour with which we should deal with refugee and immigration issues in general, to admit to Canada and Quebec people who not only have refugee status, but who also meet immigration requirements. We must be able to prevent undesirables from entering Canada and Quebec. This rigour must not mean that the federal government can get around providing appropriate resources to administer the act.

Motion No. 9 deals with this issue.

The proposed legislation could be extremely rigorous, extremely comprehensive with respect to this obligation to show solidarity, this obligation to ensure the safety of residents of Canada and of Quebec, but the government's primary concern in introducing Bill C-11 must not be to make this bill as repressive as possible in order to keep refugees out of Canada and to try to economize on the necessary resources.

In this regard, I think it is extremely important to remind the federal government, the Liberal government, that additional resources are needed to implement any legislation, although I do agree that this legislation must be rigorously enforced.

There is one final point I wish to make before looking at the individual motions. It is clear that the government's wish to introduce this bill is also motivated by a certain pressure from our neighbours to the south, whose view of this obligation to show solidarity towards refugees perhaps differs from that of Canadians and Quebecers.

I would not want decisions taken in the House to be coloured by this desire to comply with our American neighbours, as has unfortunately been the case in various connections in recent months.

In fact, we have noticed a certain anxiousness on the part of the government to comply with pressures that had less to do with public opinion in Canada or in Quebec than they had to do with public opinion in the United States or with what the U.S. government wanted. The missile defence shield, the energy agreement, and so forth, are just a few examples that come to mind.

I therefore think it extremely important that our concerns not be allowed to overshadow our obligation to show solidarity, that the necessary resources be made available to enforce the legislation, and that the toughness of the legislation reflect our values and needs, not those of our neighbours to the south.

It is in that context that the Bloc Quebecois views Motion No. 5, for example, as extremely important in order to better define what constitutes a threat to the security of Canada. As we have mentioned already, we feel that section 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act would be a good basis for defining what is a threat to the security of Canada.

In that law, the definition includes espionage, sabotage, activities detrimental to the interests of Canada, activities in support of the threat of acts of serious violence and activities intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow of the constitutionally established system of government in Canada.

It is clear that those activities would indeed constitute threats to the security of Canada. However, it is also clear that people who defend causes in their countries, who protest or show their disagreement with policy directions, who are doing it democratically whenever possible and with a will to resolve problems peacefully, should not be covered by that definition. In our opinion, the universal charter of human rights should be respected in the spirit of the legislation.

Therefore, we feel that a much clearer and more specific definition of the concept of threat to the security of Canada is absolutely necessary for this legislation to be applied to the fullest extent, but without arbitrariness and most of all without injustice toward people who, in all good faith, defend a cause with which we sometimes are in agreement.

In the same spirit, while we agree with the motion and the amendment to more clearly define through the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act the concept of threat against the security of Canada, we disagree with the idea that the Security Intelligence Review Committee would be the organization that should make recommendations to this effect. We question the appropriateness of involving the SIRC review committee in this regard.

I would like to focus mostly on Motion No. 7, proposed by my colleague from Laval Centre. Its purpose is to maintain a level of appeal for people who have been refused refugee status or admission into Canada on grounds of serious crime, security, violation of human rights or organized crime.

As we know, the present act provides for two stages. When the adjudication division takes expulsion proceedings, an appeal division can hear the arguments that the refugee or the permanent resident might make to challenge the decision. In our opinion, it is very important that this level of appeal be maintained. In this sense, clause 64 of the bill must be removed entirely. Once again, I feel that through clause 64 the government is trying to hide the lack of resources to apply the bill that will eventually be passed by invoking administrative reasons and removing a level of appeal.

In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois hopes that Bill C-11 will be amended to respond to the real values of Quebecers and Canadians.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the proposed motions to amend Bill C-11, the immigration and refugee protection act.

Bill C-11 had a predecessor, namely Bill C-31, introduced during the last parliament, on April 6, 2000.

This is a bill that did not get passed in 2000 for the simple reason that the government decided to call an early election. As a result, more than 400,000 men and women in Canada or elsewhere in the world are still waiting on permanent resident status or permission to come to Canada.

The government has lost a whole year while men and women who view Quebec, for instance, as the promised land where they wish to spend their future, could have been allowed to immigrate to Canada.

The Bloc Quebecois could not disagree with the principle that it was high time to amend the immigration and refugee protection act. This bill allows men and women who qualify as good potential citizens to settle in Canada, while closing the door to all those who, for all manner of reasons, do not and would not have the ability or the right to settle here.

The minister, who described her bill as tough and intended “to close the back door to those who would abuse our generosity—so that we can open the front door wider to the immigrants”, cites fine principles, which we must support. The Bloc Quebecois supports all ideologies aimed at preventing people who are not good citizens from settling in the promised lands of Quebec and Canada.

However, those good citizens in the various parts of the world could still come and enrich our fine country, which has again set as a objective, it must be said, 300,000 new arrivals annually in order to consolidate the fabric of the community affected by the aging of the Canadian population. Canada must see immigration as promising for the future. The objective of 300,000 new arrivals Canada set for itself has never been met.

That means that its immigration policy never met projections or estimates or demands from coalitions made in the course of discussions and dealings with the stakeholders from the various sectors. Finally, it means that the objectives set by the stakeholders, expert and elite, who can represent immigration across Canada, were creditable, but I repeat, Canada has never met its objective. In 2000, barely two-thirds of the objective of 300,000 new arrivals was met. All this to say that it is time we made a major amendment to the immigration and refugee protection act.

With regard to the motions tabled by our wise member colleagues, there are three I would like to comment on. They are the motions in Group No. 2, but I would like to return to the motions in Groups Nos. 1 and 3 as well. I would, by this, like to have the members understand the ideology and philosophy that should underlie any legislative amendment to legislation as important as that on immigration.

With this bill, we should always keep in mind a fundamental principle, namely the principle of coercion, concentration and discussion that has always guided previous amendments to the Immigration Act. All the stakeholders must be given a real opportunity to discuss things together. This is why critical work was done in committee to support the amendments that were tabled regarding this bill.

Motion No. 2 tabled by the hon. member for Laval Centre deals with clause 5(4) of the bill, which would allow the governor in council to make the regulation at any time after the proposed regulation has been laid before each House of parliament. The bill does not include all the components of the important immigration host system or program. This bill does not explain all the host programs. Regulations have been and will continue to be tabled from time to time to improve this legislation.

Regulations are adopted to improve existing acts. Clause 5(4) would allow the governor in council to make or approve regulations that were tabled in the House without first having been reviewed in committee. I can only agree with the hon. member for Laval Centre on this matter. The bill was considered in committee and it has already been the object of a major debate during the last parliament, as Bill C-31.

We have trouble seeing why the governor in council is being allowed to approve regulations tabled directly in the House, without prior discussion in committee, as in the past. I therefore support Motion No. 2 moved by the member for Laval Centre.

I hope that members will understand that the purpose of legislation as important as the Immigration Act must be debated. All stakeholders, all those who have made immigration as important as it is in Canada, must be allowed to continue their work in a climate of consensus. That is the purpose.

The consensus is there. All parties in the House are agreed that they do not want bad citizens settling in Canada, but they do want Canada to reach its objective of taking in 300,000 new arrivals annually, which it has yet to do.

What we therefore need is legislation which will create a climate conducive to consensus and discussion so that immigration may play its rightful role in our society.

As for Motion No. 5, moved by the Canadian Alliance member for Surrey Central, not only must there be the consensus to which I referred in my speech on Motion No. 2, but we must ensure that bad citizens are not allowed into Canada. I think that this is a view shared by all Canadians and recognized by all parties in the House.

Paragraph 34(1)( d ) of the bill mentions:

34.(1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on security grounds for d ) being a danger to the security of Canada;

Obviously the word danger is open to interpretation. Our colleague from Surrey Central submits that it might be worthwhile to replace this wording with the following: d ) being a threat to the security of Canada—

Section 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act provides a definition of threats to the security of Canada. Examples are provided, such as espionage or sabotage, foreign influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada, activities in support of acts of violence. These definitions are far more specific than the single word danger, which can lead to serious confusion.

I will close with a brief discussion of Motion No. 9 from my colleague the hon. member for Laval Centre. The purpose of her motion is to put an end to the interminable delays in processing new arrivals in Canada. As a result of these delays, the provinces often have to meet the costs of supporting people who are already on Canadian territory or, in the case of Quebec, on Quebec territory.

Hon. members must understand that all of us here in this House should support Motion No. 9, which will make it possible to reduce the long delays involved in examining people's status as immigrants to Canada.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

The Act Of Incorporation Of The Conference Of Mennonites In Canada

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

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to take this opportunity to put a few comments on record pursuant to Bill S-25.

I thank the member for Winnipeg South for sponsoring the legislation which, as he indicated, is routine by nature and reflects the will and interests of the Mennonite community to change its incorporation from the Conference of Mennonites in Canada to the Mennonite Church of Canada.

It is an opportunity and a time for us to reflect on the contribution of Mennonites to this country and the work of that community internationally.

I think we often overlook the kinds of inroads that have been made by newcomers to this country and the very important contribution they have made to building this country.

As the member for Winnipeg South indicated, the Mennonite community of Canada has played a very important role in developing this country and in ensuring Canada's responsibility is met with respect to international concerns and disastrous situations facing people around the world.

I want to personally reflect for a moment since my roots with the Mennonite community run deep. I was raised in a Mennonite community in the Waterloo county area of Ontario. I went to school with old order Mennonites where we had many opportunities for interaction. I am also married to a Mennonite. The Leis portion of my name is Amish Mennonite and I carry it very proudly along with the traditions of the community.

Let me put on record the very important contribution of the Mennonite Church and, in particular, the Mennonite central committee in our deliberations on Bill C-11 pertaining to immigration and refugees. The Mennonite community has been leading the charge in terms of ensuring Canada carries on a humanitarian, compassionate approach to refugees, displaced persons and people in need of protection around the world. They have made some very important recommendations throughout our debate. I want to acknowledge the work they have done and I want to add my support and the support of our caucus for the bill.

Immigration And Refugee Protection Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I must begin by apologizing to the member for Laval Centre for my outburst during her speech.

I am sorry for making too much noise and distracting my dear friend for Laval Centre.

Having said that, it is imperative that we go forth with respect to this stage of Bill C-11.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to comment on this bill at report stage, and especially on the second group of motions, Motions Nos. 5 to 8.

I would like to shape the tenor of the debate on this motion in this regard, and I will recite from an editorial that was published in my name in the Toronto Star today. I do not know if the Chair has had a chance to read that particular publication, but given that you have been busy in his present place, I thought I would share some of those words.

These days, the government of this multicultural, multilingual land built on immigration sounds disappointingly less welcoming than it should. The (immigration minister's) proposed to reform the 25-year-old Immigration Act, Bill C-11, falls far short of the standard which Canada should use in treating immigrants and refugees to this country.

As Progressive Conservative opposition critic on an immigration committee, I sat and listened to the testimony of more than 150 witnesses and groups who almost all repeated the very same serious concerns that parts of the bill were “draconian” and in fact even “unCanadian”.

I am trying to utilize the language of this aspect of the report today to shape where I am coming from for my motions.

At the end of the day, the same committee members on the Liberal side who had heard repeated testimony across the country (at the clause by clause stage) voted to allow only minor alterations to a to the flawed bill. While the legislation does include some very positive measures, such as increased fines for human trafficking, we should not settle for legislation that still has very serious problems.

The minister has unleashed this series of “tough measures” which strip rights—including appeal rights—of permanent residents in Canada and removes protection from refugees, under the guise of making our system both fairer and faster. That's where the support of this flawed piece of major legislation falls apart.

We heard commentary that the issue of the expediency of existing legislation is more of a matter of application of the act as opposed to a fault with the act itself. I noted that members from the Canadian Alliance talked about the issue of enforcement.

Before I go into the actual motions and our position on them, I would like to share some language from a former prime minister, the right hon. Brian Mulroney. I would ask all members of the House to reflect on these particular words. He once said in the early days of taking office:

There is no obligation more compelling, 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.

If we allow this legislation to pass as is, including a clause limiting refugee claimants to one claim per lifetime regardless of any drastic change in circumstance, we are not fulfilling the promise of Canada and living up to the legacy of our predecessors.

I find it extremely ironic that the party of Wilfrid Laurier, Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Mike Pearson, which had a legitimate record on immigration, is now perceived to be the party the most reticent to protect these—

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to participate in the report stage debate on the motions in Group No. 2 to amend Bill C-11, an act respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger.

While the bill contains much needed changes to the Canadian immigration system, it also has a series of serious flaws, no matter what the weak Liberal government tries to tell Canadians about the new legislation. It can participate in all the propaganda and sugar coating it wants, but Bill C-11 will not deliver what it intends to deliver without proper enforcement, management and accountability.

Earlier the NDP member from Winnipeg Centre spoke to the first group of amendments. I do not believe he believed in what he said in his speech. The lack of clarity, prudence and real enforcement behind the legislation, despite its wrong tone and content, would ultimately cause more troubles than the legislation it purports to replace.

There is far too much reliance on 89 pages of regulations to interpret the legislation. Much of what is in the regulations could be drafted into the new legislation. The regulations essentially give the minister the option of running the department any way that she or he sees fit. This is not accountability or transparency by government.

The weak Liberal government has a habit of governing not by legislation but by regulations. It not only makes legislation undemocratic but makes it complex and opaque. Being the past co-chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations I can say that with certainty. The regulations cannot be debated in parliament, so I call it governing through the back door.

Let me make it absolutely clear to everyone, including those who have taken the time to watch the debate on TV, that the Canadian Alliance policies are pro-immigration, but we do not want ineffective legislation passed in the House.

The hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River, the hon. member for Blackstrap and I as members of the citizenship and immigration committee attempted to make amendments to make the legislation effective and workable, but the Liberals refused to co-operate. Most of our amendments were rejected by the Liberal dominated committee.

There is history to indicate that the arrogant Liberal government will not accept most opposition amendments to any bill. It has blatantly refused to accept amendments from the opposition to Bill C-7, the youth criminal justice act which we debated a few days ago.

Bill C-11 would replace the 25 year old Immigration Act, 1976. The previous act has been a mess. That is why in many of the constituency offices of MPs major workloads are arising from mismanagement by the department. Sixty to eighty-five per cent of the resources in constituency offices are utilized in many ridings by immigration alone, and that is not fair.

I have difficulty understanding why politicians have to be involved in visitors' visas, for example. MPs are elected by Canadians and represent Canadians, not people in other countries. It should be the responsibility of the immigration officers abroad to make fair decisions, not the politicians but those well-trained immigration officials.

Surprisingly the Liberal candidates, or even the failed candidates, made promises to people to get visitors' visas issued. They should be immediately stopped from making any representations on behalf of Canadians to the immigration officials in our embassies and high commissions abroad. Ministers continue to abuse ministers' permits to oblige their Liberal friends for political support.

In this group there are four amendments.

Motion No. 5, moved by the Canadian Alliance, deals with the inadmissibility clause 34 of the bill. It replaces line (d), “being a danger to the security of Canada” with “being a threat to the security of Canada as defined by section 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act”.

There is no definition of danger or threat to the security of Canada in the act. It is left to the subjective judgment. Therefore, this amendment is very important.

The opinion of those government agencies and officials with expertise in security must be heard and employed. It should not be ministers or politicians who should decide on political lines. The decision should be made by experts, based on facts and logic.

CSIS, RCMP and other law enforcement agencies know who is a risk and who is not a risk. They should be the authority in the area, not the weak Liberal minister.

That is why the finance minister and the international co-operation minister should not have attended the fundraiser by the organization said to be the front for Tamil tigers based on advice from CSIS. That is why this weak Liberal government should not have ordered to shred the report called “Sidewinder” written by a frontline officer, Brian McAdam. He is contacted for advice on security issues by the United States, Australia and many other countries. However, at home the Liberal government applied political pressure and had that report shredded.

Bill C-11 is weak with respect to security risks. It allows for front end security screening, but it only applies to refugees, which in some cases is a physical impossibility. Front end screening does not apply to applicants in general.

The bill promises to deliver better enforcement of security measures for both refugee and immigrant applicants, but there is no plan of action set out in the bill to explain how this will work. No one should be allowed into Canada without proper checks as to his or her risk to the security of our country.

There are no provisions in the bill for improved communications between visa officers, law enforcement and international criminal investigative units. Communication among the RCMP, CSIS and other international criminal investigation units should be mandatory and employed immediately. The auditor general pointed out in his most recent report that this type of communication was imperative. However, without a more open system and a far more communicative department, the bill will not achieve these goals.

We have seen Lai Changxing, the accused kingpin smuggler, land in Canada through queue jumping. He was not detected by the visa officer by even a simple background check. Then there is the example of the fellow who came to Canada with an active case of tuberculosis and exposed some 1500 people to the deadly virus.

Motion No. 6 was also moved by the Canadian Alliance. It deals with loss of status by replacing line 1 in clause 50.

At present, there is no linkage between CSIS and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. Information from SIRC is presently not utilized. CSIS may make mistakes which oversights people's rights. The whole purpose of an appeal may be defeated just because of that. SIRC reviews cases, and it is an oversight committee over CSIS. It could take away power from the minister. Probably that is the reason why many Liberals will not support this. I urge them to look at the merit of the amendment and how effective this will make the bill.

Motions Nos. 7 and 8 were moved by other parties. Motion No. 7 deals with right of appeal. This amendment will delete some clauses and replace some others. Motion No. 8 will add something to clause 64 that a permanent resident would be allowed to state his or her case before being subjected to deportation or refusal of entry, when CIC that saw fit to allow them into Canada in the first place after due processing. These amendments are important.

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

moved:

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-11, in Clause 64, be amended by adding after line 43 on page 29 the following:

“(2.1) Subsection (1) does not apply to a permanent resident who has maintained permanent resident status for a three year period before being the subject of a report under section 44.”

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-11, in Clause 64, be amended by deleting lines 32 to 43 on page 29 and lines 1 to 6 on page 30.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-11, in Clause 34, be amended by replacing line 2 on page 17 with the following:

“(d) being a threat to the security of Canada as defined by section 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act;”

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-11, in Clause 50, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 25 with the following:

“50. A removal order is stayed according to recommendations as set forth by the Security Intelligence Review Committee established by subsection 34(1) of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act”