This bill is from the 37th Parliament, 1st session, which ended in September 2002.
Elinor Caplan Liberal
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
The Library of Parliament has written a full legislative summary of the bill.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-11s:
Grant Hill Canadian Alliance Macleod, AB
Mr. Speaker, let us talk about a specific from Bill C-11.
Bill C-11 calls for refugee claims to be referred within 72 hours but the department does not have the resources to meet this goal. When it tried to do a pilot project, this is what happened: “There are no facilities to keep them. Some of the people slept outside with a blanket”. That is from the people who conducted the pilot.
Will the minister admit that she does not have the resources to do what the bill promises to do?
Elinor Caplan LiberalMinister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, in Bill C-11, as in the existing immigration legislation, we are able to detain anyone who we identify poses a security threat, anyone whose identity we are unfamiliar with and where we have concerns that they will not show up for their hearings.
What Bill C-11 does is strengthen those provisions. The fact is this: we have already taken action. We have improved security at our borders. We have fast tracked a new immigrant identification card. We have begun training for our officers on new security issues and we are looking at old profiles to update security screening.
Stockwell Day Canadian AllianceLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, we have heard it will take six months, not 90 days. We do not see how it will be faster, especially when an RCMP officer responsible for the immigration program told the Senate that in Australia: “--if a refugee comes to their shore without the appropriate documentation....he will be detained up to the time that he is appropriately identified” or “he will be sent home. We do not have that in Bill C-11”.
He went on to say that if we did “--refugees who come to Canada without the appropriate tools and are in question can be detained and eventually deported instead of giving them the green light”--as in Canada--“to go on the street and God knows what happens then”.
Why will the government not give our immigration officers and our police the same tools to protect Canadian citizens that the Australian government gives theirs?
Elinor Caplan LiberalMinister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, in fact the proposals in Bill C-11 streamline the procedures, consolidate our processes, make it easier for us to bar access to the refugee determination system to those who pose a security risk, make it faster for us to identify those who are not in need of our protection, and make it faster for us to be able to remove those who we do not want to keep in Canada.
Elinor Caplan LiberalMinister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-11 is now before the Senate. We are hoping that it will be passed expeditiously. However I want say to the member that Canadians would be surprised to know it was his party's critic and members on committee who actually voted to make it more difficult for us to remove criminals and security threats.
Those are the facts. They did not support it and further they moved motions which would have made it more difficult for Canada to be able to remove criminals and security threats. That is the truth.
Elinor Caplan LiberalMinister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, I point out to the member opposite that he and his party did not support Bill C-11, which says exactly what the United Nations has suggested in its resolution.
Further, we have already begun to intensify security screening, but I want to assure the member that all refugee claimants receive a preliminary security and criminality screening.
Bill C-11 addresses the issue of denying access to our refugee determination system to anyone who would pose a security threat or is inadmissible to Canada because of a criminal record. That is important progress. I am glad they are now--
Paul Forseth Canadian Alliance New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Speaker, the United Nations has made two very clear demands on the government with the passage of resolution 1373: first, prevent terrorists and their supporters from using refugee claims to enter this country and, second, subject refugee claimants to comprehensive background checks to ensure that they are not terrorists.
What real, concrete action is the government prepared to take to answer the UN resolution call and ensure that refugee claimants are screened and terrorists are not allowed to abuse our generosity? It has to be more than Bill C-11.
Elinor Caplan LiberalMinister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is trying to create an inaccurate and wrong impression. Bill C-11, which his party does not support, does exactly what the United Nations resolution suggests, that is give us the opportunity to do the kind of not only weeding out but identifying those who are inadmissible to Canada because they pose a threat or have a criminal record.
Where we do find that someone poses a security threat, we immediately detain. We also detain until we are sure who the individual is. The overwhelming majority of refugee claimants are not criminals.
Elinor Caplan LiberalMinister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, I say to the Leader of the Opposition that in fact Bill C-11 addresses both of the issues that were raised in the UN convention.
One is to intensify and do the kind of upfront security screening that is called for and the second is to deny access to the refugee determination system to anyone who poses a security or criminality threat in Canada. We are doing it.
Citizenship and ImmigrationOral Question Period
September 27th, 2001 / 2:45 p.m.
Progressive Conservative
John Herron Progressive Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration insisted that she needed Bill C-11 to secure the Canadian system from abuse. On September 24, the minister contradicted herself in stating that we have the tools to detain where we feel there is a security risk. She knows that part 3, section 19 of the current act has the tools to detain anyone suspected of terrorism. The minister has admitted that she does not need Bill C-11 to act.
When will the minister address the real problem and demand sufficient funds and resources to enforce the existing law?
Citizenship and ImmigrationOral Question Period
September 26th, 2001 / 2:50 p.m.
Thornhill Ontario
Liberal
Elinor Caplan LiberalMinister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, the critic from the official opposition is either misinformed or just does not understand the law as it exists now. Whenever we have evidence that people pose a security risk to Canada, if we are concerned because we do not know who they are or if we are concerned they will not show for their hearings, we have the ability to detain, and we do. That is the law that exists today.
Under Bill C-11, we have made those laws clear and we have enhanced our ability to remove by streamlining processes.
Steve Mahoney Liberal Mississauga West, ON
Mr. Speaker, my colleague very eloquently put forward some very valid points. She was about to refer to a comment by the member from whatever that organization is, the coalition. I am having trouble keeping track. I think she was about to refer to a comment attributed to the leader of the fifth party in the House, in 1990, which I will paraphrase. He said, during a debate in this place on a decision with regard to the gulf war, that we cannot wait for deliberative bodies to deliberate and act before taking action.
The hon. member made numerous references to the responsibility of the government of the day to act within the constitution to either deploy troops or make substantive decisions that were in the best interests of national security. That was then and this is now. I appreciate the fact that the person I am quoting was at the time under a different understanding of what his responsibilities were.
Let me say first of all that I have been saddened somewhat, as we all have been, by the events of the past two weeks, but particularly saddened, in addition to viewing the tragedy that we have all seen, by some of the reactions of people both in this place and in the media. There is one group in this place that I think has acted responsibly. I have criticized those members in the past for some of their policies and actions but I will not at this time. In fact I congratulate them today because I believe they are acting in the best interests of all Canadians when they use their use their role as members of an opposition party. They are the members of the Bloc Quebecois. It is perhaps a surprise to many of us that this has happened. We might have expected it from other sectors or other people in this place, but in reality their responsibility has been shown by questions in question period, by speeches in debate that focus on the real issues here, the issues that Canadians are concerned and frightened about. They have not all been lobs by any stretch. They have not simply issued a blank cheque supporting the Prime Minister or the government to do as he or it pleases and it is appropriate that they do not.
We all know that the image Canadians have of parliamentarians standing and voting on whether or not to send troops into war is an image that we hoped would never happen, even if we were to agree with it. This is indeed an unusual time in our history, a time when calm resolution is being displayed by our leader and by the leadership of the entire government. What is interesting is that there is now a sense in this debate that the government might act too hastily.
Up until now we have heard particularly from the official opposition that the government is not acting hastily enough, that somehow we should be doing what the Pakistanis and the Afghanis are doing and mustering our troops on the border of perhaps the United States, packed and ready to go. This sense that the government is not taking action is purely partisan politics. What is sad about it is that we are losing the benefit of celebrating what Canadians have done by focusing on debates such as the one today and on comments made by people in this place and in the media. Members should think back to what happened. We closed our skies and our airports virtually immediately.
On the day it happened, after I witnessed the tragedy on CNN and was as dumbfounded as everyone about what I saw, I had a meeting at the Credit Valley Hospital at 11 o'clock that morning and I thought that I might as well go because I had to do something.
I was absolutely astounded to see that the hospital was in full emergency planning mode. So was Etobicoke General Hospital. The reason is that there was a rumour, white hot, at 11 a.m. on September 11 that at least one of the planes being diverted to Pearson international was a hijacked aircraft that could turn into a bomb or a missile. What did they do? These people reacted instinctively, calmly and professionally to ensure that all of their staff were aware of the problem and were capable and ready to take action in case of an emergency, in case injured people showed up at the emergency department of Credit Valley Hospital or Etobicoke General. That is a responsible way to act. That was not led by a government. It was under the leadership of Wayne Fysse and his entire team at Credit Valley Hospital.
We should be celebrating that instead of all the sniping and political posturing that is going on in what I can only say is an unfortunate attempt to hold somebody on this side of the House, aka the Prime Minister, responsible for all of this.
A member opposite accused someone over here of blaming the United States. I have heard members on all sides and I have heard and read media reports that actually blame Canada, actually blame our immigration policies. Our immigration system is not perfect. In fact there are members of the House who sit, or did sit on the immigration committee when we brought in Bill C-11. I recall the complaints from the official opposition critic that the bill was too tough, that we were violating civil libertarian rights and that we were taking away the rights of people to appeal a deportation order just because they were found to be criminals. I heard members from all parties. I expect the former opposition critic for immigration had moved on to another committee, but I am sure these were orders coming out of central party command on what they should be doing in relation to the immigration bill.
If members have heard the latest media report, that bill has been delayed. Why? We held hearings right across Canada on the immigration bill to tell people that it was time we toughened up our immigration laws to ensure that people who are criminals and people who are under deportation orders are actually deported.
The hue and cry from the Canadian Bar Association, propagated in many cases by members opposite doing their jobs as critics which I respect, was quite remarkable. Now those same critics sit here and somehow say, as they do every day, that it is awful that our immigration system is the cause of all this. That is the implication. Do we really mean that when we look all of the immigrants in the eye? Some of them are in this very place. Do we not recognize that immigration is indeed what has built Canada?
Should we be shocked that there are terrorist cells within our borders? Could someone please name one country where that is not the case? I doubt that they can. From what I have seen, Osama bin Laden's network is in some 30 to 40 different countries, and that is only one terrorist group. Of course there will be people within such an open, democratic, welcoming country as Canada who are not here for the benefit of you and me, Madam Speaker, and who are not here to try to build a nation. They are here to further their own interests whatever they may be. Whether they are based on religious fanaticism or political fanaticism, the bottom line is that we know it is fanatical.
The sad thing here is that we are missing the point. There will be debates in this place throughout the entire process. It will be a long, drawn out process to eliminate terrorism and attack terrorism around the world.
I am confident that our government will do what is right. I just wish that we could, like the Americans have done, pull together as one great nation, as one great political entity so that we know where the enemy is. The enemy is terrorism. It is not over there, it is not over here. It is in fact terrorism and we are committed to stand with the Americans to eliminate it from the world.
TerrorismOral Question Period
September 25th, 2001 / 2:40 p.m.
Thornhill Ontario
Liberal
Elinor Caplan LiberalMinister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, fraudulent documentation is something which many countries of the world are working with Canada to combat. We have experts internationally, our immigration control officers, and we have laboratories to look at documents, but one of the very important features that we have is in Bill C-11 which is presently before the Senate. Those who present a fraudulent document with an immigration application, once the bill is passed, will become inadmissible. That means they will not be allowed to enter Canada because they have presented fraudulent documentation. That is a very important provision.
Inky Mark Canadian Alliance Dauphin—Swan River, MB
Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the speech of my hon. colleague across. The events of last week did two things to the people of Canada. First, it brought us all together in support of our neighbour's initiatives to the south. Second, it raised the issue of tolerance. Canadians have known for at least a century that this country is made up of immigrants and the one thing we do not want to do is repeat the mistakes of the past. Therefore, I, like all members of the House, promote tolerance at a time like this.
I would like to make some comments on the hon. member's comments on immigration. The House knows that I have raised immigration issues over this past year, certainly on issues of screening. Even if Bill C-11 was passed this very day, including what the government had said it would do to improve the situation, I believe there would be no improvement. Unless there is a will to put the time and effort into ensuring that we have the relevant data to properly screen the people coming into this country, we will keep making the same kinds of mistakes we are making today.
Even without the bill in place, there could be a rule that government put more money toward hiring more people. I am told that many of our overseas offices do not communicate with each other. In fact, in Canada our own departments do not communicate with each other. That has to change. CSIS, RCMP, other security agencies and national defence have to work together. Does my hon. colleague see screening as the focal issue when it comes to the security of this country?
ImmigrationOral Question Period
September 24th, 2001 / 2:45 p.m.
Thornhill Ontario
Liberal
Elinor Caplan LiberalMinister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, I reject completely the assumption in the member's question. I would also suggest that he look at the facts.
The facts are that Bill C-11 streamlines our ability to process applications. What we want to do is make sure that anyone who is in genuine need of protection is offered assistance in Canada as soon as possible, but for those who are not genuine refugees, for those who pose a risk to Canada, they will not be given access. Canada's refugee determination system is considered a model for the world.