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

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to the group of motions which would amend the refugee portion of the new immigration bill.

I have to say that I agree a lot with what the member from the governing party said earlier. However one thing I have found is that what the government says and what is in its legislation is often completely different, and that is the case with the legislation today.

I think everyone would agree that what Canada wants to do with our immigration and refugee system is to make the immigration system work better than it does now for people who we want to attract to this country. Our system has failed miserably in that regard and the changes in the legislation will not fix that up.

I think most Canadians would agree that, when it comes to the refugee system, changes need to be made that would not only allow genuine refugees to be accepted in this country but that we would be able to offer refuge to genuine refugees in other parts of the world living in camps, sometimes for years and years, and those who are identified by the United Nations as genuine refugees.

The system we have now will not do that and the new legislation will not fix it. A very high percentage of people who have been accepted as refugees right now are not in fact refugees by the United Nations' definition or by this government's own definition which is broader than the United Nations' definition.

Canadians also want a much faster process in terms of reuniting families. When someone has been accepted to this country as a refugee or through the independent immigrant stream and they have dependants, a spouse, parents or grandparents, when they want to reunite their families our system fails miserably in a number of cases. Every member of parliament knows about that because we have cases in our offices.

In the case of a family reunification, which one would think would take less than a year certainly, sometimes it is three to four years later and the accepted refugee is still trying to be reunited with family members. That is not Canadians want. I suggest that there are not many in the House who would support anything much different. I think that is widely supported by members from all political parties.

Here we are today at report stage of Bill C-11 talking about the changes to the refugee system. What is in the bill now before these amendments certainly will make our refugee system work better in terms of accepting genuine refugees and keeping out those who are not genuine refugees. The system that is meant to work for those who are not genuine refugees is in the other part of the bill dealing with immigration.

The amendments, quite frankly, will not improve the bill enough to make it good legislation, although some would certainly help in that regard. It is pretty sad, after talking about this new bill, that it is the government's second or third attempt at it. It has been years now since the government brought forth its first effort to reform the Immigration Act. The legislation, which I will speak to tomorrow in a more general way, or whenever it comes back to the House for third reading, will not fix the immigration system.

I would like to say as well that the auditor general made something very clear in his last report and in the report 10 years ago when he said that even if the legislation were fixed to make it a good act that it would not solve the problems this government has in immigration. It would not fix it because many of the problems are in administration and this act would not change that administration.

That is the other thing I think Canadians should not forget. Even if this were a good piece of legislation that would bring forth a brand new act, even if that were the case, which it is not for the reasons I have outlined already, it still would not fix the problems in our immigration and refugee system because administration is a big part of the problem and this would do nothing to help improve administration.

Here we are after all these years, about four years since the government first brought forth the legislation, and the government's own member, the speaker before me, is standing and explaining what he wants from the piece of legislation. He knows in his heart that the bill clearly does not give what he wants in a new immigration act.

Here we are, all these years later, facing a situation where, if this legislation is to pass, which I hope it does not, we will be stuck with an immigration act that will not work for Canadians. It will not work for genuine refugees. It will not work for people who we desperately need in this country and who come through the independent categories. It will not work for family reunification in cases where we are genuinely talking about family reunification.

What has this four years done? What good has it brought? What would the new act do to help Canadians? In certain narrow areas it would make things better. In a broad way it would make things worse. While some of the amendments in this grouping would help if they were passed, we know that the government will pass only what it wants. We know that because that is the way things work around here. Should it pass—it has failed before—we will end up with a bill, after all of this, that just simply will not do what it is intended to do.

I would encourage Canadians to listen to members of the governing party when they are talking about what they want from an immigration system and to compare that to what the new act would deliver should this legislation pass. They will find the two just do not match whatsoever. What that means is that government members themselves know that this piece of legislation will not deliver what the government says it should deliver. It certainly will not deliver what the opposition says it should deliver.

I know my time is almost up so I will just leave my comments at that. I look forward to speaking on third reading whenever that may come up. I would not be at all disappointed if it never comes up.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

There might be. One never knows.

I want to address the issue around refugees, which my hon. friend recently talked about.

One change to Bill C-11 that is really important from the standpoint of refugees is the one year window of opportunity that they will have to sponsor family once they have been accepted as a convention refugee.

That opportunity has not existed in the past. This is contrary to some of the media articles, notably the one by Diane Francis, whom my colleague from Scarborough East greatly admires, in which she stated that all the people who come here as refugees cheat the system and go on welfare, which is what my friend from Winnipeg was saying. The article creates the image that these people are a burden on the taxpayer, whether it be at the municipal or federal levels. I agree that statistics will be available to show that is simply not true. It is an image put forward by some of the more extreme right wingers, both in political circles and in the media, which is most unfortunate.

The fact is that the vast majority of people who come here and apply for refugee status are people who have some stress in their lives. They are either fleeing persecution, torture or possible death. Many of them come from very unstable countries with a military presence.

There will of course be people who try to abuse the system and that is one of the things we are trying to address with the changes in Bill C-11. However for people to suggest that all refugees are in that category is profoundly unfair and it creates a stereotype that is not true.

I have travelled with the immigration minister to our ports overseas to visit with immigration staff and to go to refugee camps. Unfortunately the member from the official opposition has declined to attend, for whatever reason. It is an educational experience to see the situations in Africa, Moscow and other parts of the world where there are terrible economic problems.

One example that will probably stay with me the rest of my life is when I was in Nairobi, Kenya. I sat in on interviews with people who were applying to come to Canada. Through a translator, one woman told a story of how she and her husband were dragged out of their bed in the middle of the night to the front yard where her husband was shot and killed. Her teenage son ran to help his father and he was also shot and killed. A third boy came out and he was put in the back of a truck. She was thrown into the truck and then put in prison for two months where she was gang raped every day by seven guards. To this day she has yet to see the son who was taken away. She does not know if he is alive or dead, being tortured, in a work camp or perhaps sold into slavery. She has no way of finding out what happened to him. While this woman was being tortured and raped in prison for two months, her three children, who were under the age of 10, were left to fend for themselves.

This is a reality that many of these people are facing. As Canadians, we need to understand the terrible suffering and brutality that is going on in the world. As Canadians, we need to find a way to open our doors to these people so we can help them.

This woman was applying for refugee status in Canada. I will never forget the moment when the immigration officer asked the woman's 11 year old daughter what she wanted to be when she grew up. Through an interpreter, she said that she wanted to be an airline pilot. The closest these people would be to an airplane would be 10,000 feet as it passed over them while they were wandering in the desert.

If that young 11 year old girl could arrive in Canada, go to school and have the opportunity for a life, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that she may one day be flying MPs between Toronto and Ottawa on a regular basis. Who knows? It is not beyond the realm of possibility because this is Canada and that is what the bill is about.

The bill is about opening up our doors to people throughout the world who need the compassion, the opportunity, the caring and the help that we as Canadians can provide.

My old friend, Johnny Barker of the United Steelworkers in Sault Ste. Marie, used to say “Don't let your bleeding heart run away with your bloody head”. The point of that is, of course we have these terrible problems throughout the world but does that mean that we should just let our hearts bleed or should we put in place some realistic, achievable goals for trying to help the world's refugee population? If we can once and for all close the back door to the illegals who do abuse our system and our generosity, then we will be able to open the door to people like the lady I met in Nairobi and her daughters.

What I find particularly troubling is that so much of the focus of the debate around Bill C-11, not from the speaker just before me but from the critics for the other parties, is why we are taking away appeal rights for convicted criminals. It is difficult to understand why we are worried about people who have been convicted of a crime that comes with a 10 year sentence and who receive at least two years of actual sentence time as a result of that conviction. They have a right to appeal that through the criminal justice system, to have that appeal turned down, to spend two years in jail and then we have the opportunity as a country to deport these people. There was anguish in committee. Members opposite said that it was awful to treat people like that?

We are not talking about refugees. We are talking about people who are landed immigrants in this country, not Canadian citizens, who commit a serious crime.

Madam Speaker, as a lawyer you would know that to get a two year sentence in this country one has to do something pretty serious in the criminal justice system. We are not talking about minor felons here, we are talking about serious problems.

Why the opposition continues to foster the idea that somehow we should provide greater rights and protection for convicted criminals or potential terrorists in this country is truly mind-boggling. It has been an enormous exercise in frustration to listen to the members opposite put forward that kind of argument. I can only think that they do it because they are opposing for the sake of opposing instead of realizing that the aims in Bill C-11 and the aims of the minister are to deal strongly and forcefully with people who would abuse our system, commit crimes and do things against our society. We can deport them and once and for all not allow them to re-offend.

The bill would bring integrity to the immigration and refugee system in the country. I hope members opposite will see fit to support it.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to add our remarks to this set of amendments regarding Bill C-11. I understand that these amendments deal specifically with refugee issues.

I am happy to take part in this debate for the simple reason that my riding of Winnipeg Centre is the part of Winnipeg where most people who are deemed as refugees or most newcomers seem to settle. The core area or downtown area of Winnipeg seems to be the place where they can find affordable housing and access to reasonable settlement services that help them get their start in Canada.

I am proud Canada plays an active role around the world in providing safe refuge to those who seek sanctuary, whether they have to flee religious persecution, political persecution or whatever their reason may be. There is a certain spirit of generosity I believe that most Canadians share in reaching out to those who need the safe sanctuary of Canada. Other speakers have mentioned groups that are playing a particularly active role which enables these people to leave their troubled homelands and to come to Canada.

Certainly there are church groups within my riding that work day and night to try to sponsor refugees and refugee families. They do fundraising, but their activism does not stop in terms of financial contributions. They also do a lot of follow through. They actually stay with the refugee or refugee family to help them to break into mainstream Canadian culture, to get them over the hurdles and barriers which exist when newcomers come to Canada, to help them find work and get fully integrated. Some of the church groups in Winnipeg do a wonderful job.

I want to make special mention of an organization. It is the Manitoba Interfaith Immigration Council found on Edmonton Street in my riding. I work closely with this organization because it is charged with the responsibility of administering the settlement services that are offered to refugees in Winnipeg. I cannot say enough about the dedication of these individuals. The people there work in conditions that we would all find very taxing. It is an under-resourced organization. I believe it does an awful lot with very little. Its budget has been cut back in recent years in terms of stable core funding, of which we have been very critical.

We believe that we are getting incredibly good value for our dollar by adequate funding to organizations like this because they do so much to alleviate the load from the department officials who would otherwise have to deliver and administer these settlement services. I would speak very forcefully of the restoration of levels of funding to organizations like the Manitoba Interfaith Immigration Council.

They were very vocal and active through Bill C-31 and Bill C-11 in pointing out some of the shortcomings of those bills or putting forth very solid recommendations on how these bills could be improved, not just in the refugee area, but also in areas of family sponsorship.

Even though I know we are on the subject of refugees right now, I want to make a point that I did not get a chance to make under earlier motions. Using the low income cutoff for family sponsorship is fundamentally wrong. It is a flawed way of putting a line in the sand. It does not do the city of Winnipeg any service because large cities like it are lumped into the same category. In other words, if people want to sponsor one of their family members, they have to be at a certain level of family income to undertake that sponsorship.

The family income arrived at is the same in Winnipeg as it is in Toronto, Vancouver or other major cities. I could demonstrate quite easily that the cost of living is a great deal lower in the city of Winnipeg. The cost of housing is about one-quarter of what it is in the city of Toronto. We should not be held to the same standard when it comes to the reunification of families or the sponsorship of families.

Some might think that failed sponsorships put some sort of burden on municipalities in terms of social welfare costs. I can provide some figures from the Manitoba Immigration Interfaith Council. Out of 13,700 welfare claimants in the city of Winnipeg, only 11 of those were actually the result of failed family sponsorships in immigrations. Eleven out of 13,000 is not an undue burden on our city. Those who think that could come about are simply not working with the actual facts.

Another group that has been very active in the advocacy for refugees is of course the Canadian Council for Refugees. They came before the committee for Bill C-31 and again for Bill C-11 with some very thoughtful recommendations on how the bill could be more fair in its treatment of the refugee determination and admissibility of permanent residents. I would encourage government to revisit the brief from the Canadian Council for Refugees. I do not think there is a single organization in this country that is as authoritative on this issue or has worked as diligently to try and develop standards for managing the refugee influx into this country.

It was one of the council's recommendations that brought in the whole subject of gender analysis and how necessary it was that we use that screen for any legislation introduced by parliament. I am very glad the member for Winnipeg North Centre managed to convince the committee that we needed to undertake a comprehensive gender analysis in legislation of this type.

An example which was pointed out was the need to allow women a second hearing in terms of being turned down as a refugee. Sometimes the circumstances that qualify them as a refugee are not easy for them to make public. In the initial application some information may be held back for any number of cultural reasons or personal safety reasons. If this information needs to be heard or needs to be introduced, it would have to be introduced at a second refugee hearing. That is being contemplated now through the hard work of those of the committee.

I want to thank the Canadian Council for Refugees for being the one to really push that issue and the members of the committee for seeing fit to make that one of the priorities.

Another gender issue I would like to point out also has to do with the family reunification. As we do this comprehensive gender analysis I hope this comes forward. In terms of sponsoring other family members women are disadvantaged in that regard as well. Given that there is this income threshold by virtue of which a person is allowed to sponsor or not sponsor another family member, given that women earn only 66% of what men do on average across the country, women or households led by women are less able to sponsor family members than households where the male is the bread winner.

I would suggest this is another amendment that needs to be introduced in the interests of fairness. In the interest of people's chartered rights, this issue needs to be addressed. I would hope the gender analysis that is undertaken is sensitive to that issue now that we have put it on the record.

Another organization that has been influential in advocating on behalf of refugees is the Maytree Foundation in Toronto. The organization has put forward some of the best prepared material on the subject. It was satisfied that there was some recognition of the issues it raised.

The foundation advises that that Bill C-11 includes some positive, but also some negative measures relating to refugee protection in Canada. It speaks to the issue of identity documents. There are times when personal documentation is extremely difficult to access when people flee their homeland under persecution, often in the dead of night. There are places in the world that if refugees need the documents we demand they have to make application for those documents. Then they become flight suspects. When prospective refugees make application to get their marriage licence or birth certificate from the city hall or agency, the spotlight shines on them and they may in fact not be able to get them.

I am honoured to raise the names of the organizations of the Manitoba Interfaith Immigration Council in Winnipeg, the Maytree Foundation, the Canadian Council for Refugees, and the contributions they have made.

[Gurbax Malhi, Liberal, Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to see the government is doing broad based consultations on various immigrant issues. I invite the federal government in the course of these consultations to discuss with the provinces the issue of expansion of family class to include brothers and sisters.

Second, with regard to the recognition and accreditation of an immigrant's professional degree, this issue falls under provincial jurisdiction. This is why I encourage the provinces to come together and create a national standard, making the degree recognition standard across the country. Only with a national standard on degree accreditation can skilled and hardworking immigrants be attracted to Canada and succeed.

Finally, in regard to sponsorship relationships that fall apart as a result of divorce, there are many cases and circumstances when a couple's marriage ends in divorce because of abuse of false immigration conditions. I encourage the government to ensure that Bill C-11 has conditions to protect the vulnerable, and encourage those individuals who find themselves in this type of situation to automatically report the matter to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration so that a proper investigation can be launched immediately.

The government eliminated the landing fee on refugees. I ask the government to consider eliminating the landing fee on all new immigrants.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Winnipeg Centre, who is the NDP immigration critic.

Now it is my turn to give my party's position at report stage of Bill C-11, on Group No. 3, which includes Motions Nos. 9, 10 and 12.

It is a point of fact that the country is not a big Lethbridge, a big Baie-Comeau, a big Hampton, New Brunswick, or even a big Winnipeg. It is a multicultural, pluralistic society that we have been able to build together and garner collectively as one of the most fabulous places to live. The country we have been able to build reflects values that all Canadians share quite dearly.

We are a country that relies heavily on immigration, values human rights and is one of four principal countries that receives convention refugees. The bill does not reflect the objectives or values that Canadians share with respect to immigration.

We have heard Liberal government members give testimony before Canadians across the country about alterations that were required with respect to this flawed bill. However when it came to the clause by clause stage we were only able to garner modest augmentations to the bill instead of making it a pioneering piece of legislation of which we could be proud.

As a lawyer I know that the House has probably heard that the Canadian Bar Association has difficulty with a number of issues with respect to the legislation. It is not only the Canadian Bar Association. Liberal colleagues, along with all four opposition parties, have a problem with the bill as well.

The party of Pearson, Trudeau and Wilfrid Laurier now seems to be the most reticent to protect the rights of refugees and immigrants. I will quote from the immigration committee chair, the hon. member for London North Centre, when he stated “It is lucky that I do not have to vote”. Referring to the opposition, he said “When they start sounding more Liberal than we do, I get concerned”.

The chair had a very open approach at the committee level. He was very encouraging with respect to opposition members and we were able to earn some improvements. However it is not a pioneering bill. That is why it is being panned in urban Canada in particular, which for the most part has been the great reservoir for new Canadians. That is a fact. That is what we must live with when we pass a bill that is not pioneering.

I will speak to a couple of the amendments before us that would augment that aspect. The Progressive Conservative Party will support the Bloc motion de mon cher collègue de Laval Centre which reads:

The Minister shall assume the social and medical costs of refugee claimants at the ninetieth day after the day of the claim and until a decision is made in respect of that claim.

The motion says that refugee claimants whose claims have not been processed would have social and medical coverage while they await a decision.

Essentially the amendment by the hon. member for Laval Centre advocates that we not let these people live in limbo in perpetuity. We must address the issue, particularly when there are children and vulnerable populations involved or if someone is sick and a potential refugee. It is a very noble gesture that my colleague in the Bloc has put forward.

I will skip to the 12th motion, also put forward by the Bloc. By adding the word maximum, the motion would clarify the imprisonment threshold for the potential removal of a permanent resident. Some may call this a housekeeping issue but it would give us an opportunity to raise the fact that the government is stripping the appeal rights of permanent residents which, as I said before, is un-Liberal, un-Canadian and draconian. Other individuals have used that terminology before I did as a member of the Progressive Conservative Party.

There are two other motions in this group to which I will refer, in particular Motion No. 10. I thank my friend and colleague from Winnipeg, the NDP critic on immigration. I also pay tribute to the member for Winnipeg South Centre who was the catalyst for us to improve the second appeal issue.

Members know as I do that the protection of refugee rights is the protection of human rights. If we get it wrong people could die. If we get it wrong people could be persecuted or face injury. That is why it is imperative that we get it right.

Approximately 25% of appeals granted to refugees are approved. That is because we do not get it right the first time. There is a massive envelope that we miss the first time around. Although different, it is the same issue. We want to add an amendment which members on both sides of the House supported. We got almost a semi-compromise amendment from the member for Winnipeg South Centre who helped the NDP critic, the Bloc critic and myself. I am quite sure the critic for the Canadian Alliance was on board for the motion as well.

We are not saying that we would have a new claim for all refugees on a second appeal. It would only be if the relevant circumstances of the claimant had changed since the previous determination or if specific circumstances had prevented part of the evidence from being presented during a previous determination.

That is the issue. Let us suppose a person comes to Canada and is granted refugee status because his or her country of origin is at war. The person goes home and, a few years later, because of the country's volatility, the situation changes. Under existing legislation that person would not have the right to a second claim in his or her lifetime. That is a fact. That is what is wrong and that is what we are trying to fix.

I will try to dovetail the remarks of my NDP colleague who had the advantage of going before me. This amendment is very anti-woman as well. In this circumstance it could be possible that there would be reasons for women who had been persecuted or sexually assaulted not wanting to bring forth that evidence on their first appeal. Only later would that information came to fruition. That is an example where the evidence was not deduced at that time. That person should have the right to a second appeal as well.

Bill C-11 could have been a good bill. It is framework legislation that we got wrong. We are not protecting refugees from persecution and possible death and injury. That is why the Progressive Conservative Party will not be supporting it, however, I ask all members to support that motion in particular.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is an important group of amendments at report stage of Bill C-11. They pertain specifically to the parts of the bill dealing with refugees and refugee sponsorships.

We spent a considerable amount of time on this section in committee. We heard from many Canadians who work directly in the field of refugee sponsorship and helping displaced persons. They ensure that Canada, as has been the case in the past, is a place of refuge, a place of safety for people confronted with political, economic or social persecution and conditions that are unacceptable from the point of view of any notion of being a civilized society.

Our main focus in this section was to try to ensure that Canada continued to be a place of refuge and respectful of our humanitarian and compassionate consideration of such cases around the globe. There was some progress. The bill took into account some of the concerns of organizations involved in refugee sponsorship and moved from Bill C-31 to Bill C-11 with some significant changes.

I also know that during the course of committee hearings the government heard further concerns and made a few changes. However there are some significant areas of concern that remain and need to be addressed.

The amendments before the House today attempt to do that. We tried to do our part at committee with dozens of amendments pertaining to refugee sponsorship and refugee protection that were not adopted by the government and regretfully were disregarded.

Our fundamental concern is that Canada should use this opportunity to ensure that we are fully in compliance with international conventions pertaining to refugees and torture.

The committee heard from numerous groups that are very expert and knowledgeable in this field. They told us that Canada through the bill is still not fully compliant with our international obligations.

It is a terrible shame that in 2001, at this opportune moment when we have a window to overhaul our immigration and refugee act, we are not taking advantage of this opportunity. Something with which we will have to deal over the next number of years and will remain a challenge is how we convince the government of the day to actually take these obligations seriously and act on them.

It was clearly stated to us by numerous organizations that Canada is not doing its part. The chair of the committee rose in the House today to speak about Canada's work on the international front and our role in terms of refugee protection and suggested that Canada was one of four countries that is outstanding in this regard.

First, I want to say that is not enough. Second, that account of the situation does not fully consider the advice and information we received from many groups. We were told quite clearly that we remain negligent in our duties as the Parliament of Canada and have not fully acted on the requirements.

We made some suggestions that we addressed this morning and afternoon such as the right of a refugee to make a second claim regardless of whether there were new circumstances or new information.

Despite what we have heard today, the amendments we proposed to allow second claims were not adopted and the advice was not considered. That continues to constitute a serious burden on some refugees and has a disproportionate impact on women in particular.

On that point, we were successful in convincing the government to agree with our amendment to conduct a gender analysis of the bill within two years of the proclamation of the act. That offers us some consolation and sense of fulfilment to know that at some point the government will do what it ought to have done leading up to the introduction of this bill, and that is a gender analysis. It is something the government promised would be done with respect to every bill introduced in the House. It promised there would always be a gender analysis and that it would always take into account the disproportionate impact of any law, program or policy on women.

It is clear from the advice we received during the hearings that the government did not do a thorough gender analysis of Bill C-11. Women continue to face a disproportionate impact as a result of many provisions of the bill.

One of those provisions has to do with the ability to make another claim after being turned down, regardless of whether there are new circumstances. Women are often not in a position to tell their whole story. The trauma they have experienced cannot necessarily be communicated to their families for risk of losing the family. They often cannot tell their whole story for cultural reasons. They must sometimes live in silence after a terrible and traumatic incident, with no recourse and no way of getting the attention of officials to ensure that their situation and the status of their family is recognized and that they are able to find refuge in Canada.

It was clear to us from the outset that, especially in the case of women, there had to be an opportunity to make a second claim. There had to be a way for women to tell their stories when it was appropriate and when provisions were made for keeping their stories as private as possible. We have not addressed that situation.

The government says it has made changes that make it a bit better. Yes, there are a few things that make it a bit better. However by and large we have not allowed for a genuine process whereby refugees who cannot tell their whole story or who must relive an ordeal are able to seek the attention of officials and get refugee status in Canada.

To help refugees make their stay in Canada a productive one, it is clear to us that the government must do more in terms of sponsoring and assisting groups that care for and nurture refugee families who come to Canada. There is an enormous number of groups here which give all their volunteer time, energies and resources to sponsoring refugees and refugee families from all over the world.

In my constituency one that comes to mind is the North End Sponsorship Team, otherwise known as NEST, a group that has devoted the last 15 years to sponsoring some 60 refugees and refugee families from four different continents. This organization, made up of the Lutheran and United churches, is prepared to take on high risk cases and refugees with large families. It is prepared to do the work that other groups are not always prepared to do, and its efforts need to be recognized and supported.

In a province like Manitoba, were it not for the work of the church community, private sponsorships and the provincial nominee program of the provincial government, there would be no increase in immigrants and refugees coming to our province.

That indicates the failure of federal government policy and this legislation to ensure we are able to continually attract newcomers to every part of the country and to compete internationally in attracting immigrants.

If we begin by addressing the fundamental issues of refugee status, the right to make a second claim, adequate documents and compliance with international covenants and agreements on refugees and torture, we will have done a great service. Unfortunately that is not the case as the bill stands.

I plead with members on all sides of the House, but mainly with government members who have failed to get the message, to act as soon as possible to address these concerns.

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

Mr. Speaker, before question period I was debating the three important motions in Group No. 3 at report stage of Bill C-11.

The situation with respect to immigration in Canada is very serious. About 200,000 people, according to different reports, are illegally staying in Canada. According to the auditor general, 15,000 people are named in deportation warrants and they are missing. Also, 60% of visitors who apply for refugee status in Canada arrive at Canadian ports without any kind of documentation.

Canadian borders are like sieves. We do not have exit control. CIC cannot track those who are missing or are staying illegally in Canada. The situation is very serious.

Since this is the last group of motions in amendment at report stage of Bill C-11 we are missing the opportunity to debate many worthwhile amendments, many of which were put forward by the chief critic for the Canadian Alliance, the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River. The amendments related to consultation by CIC with the provinces, municipalities and other NGOs. They were related to family reunification and one dealt with once in a lifetime sponsorship by a Canadian citizen of related family members.

There were also amendments related to foreign academic degrees, to refugees, the discriminatory head tax, the appeal process and various aspects of the refugee process. The whole appeal process is just like the layers of an onion. We can keep on peeling it. We need to streamline the appeal process. Since the government has not been particularly interested in stressing the appeal process it could only be done through amendment, and the amendments were not accepted.

Other amendments would have fixed the outdated 40 year old health standards in Canada. The standards are so old and incomprehensible that we need to fix them. Those amendments were not accepted.

There were amendments related to improving communication among CIC, CSIS, RCMP, the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of International Trade and various NGOs involved in immigration work. There is no communication. The minister believes that she knows better or more than expert advisers from various organizations like CSIS. That is probably the reason the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister for International Cooperation attended the Tamil tiger fundraising.

In a nutshell the amendments were related to training and staffing requirements, security risks, human smuggling, organized crime, fraud, bribes, the operations of overseas officers and patronage appointments. All these amendments—

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to participate in the report stage debate, Group No. 3, on Bill C-11, an act respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection. I will address my remarks with respect to the four motions in the bill.

Motion No. 9 in regard to the refugee protection section of the bill is a Bloc amendment. It adds new clause 95.1, which states:

The Minister shall assume the social and medical costs of refugee claimants as of the ninetieth day after the day of the claim and until a decision is made in respect of that claim.

Since social and medical costs are under provincial jurisdiction and immigration is under federal jurisdiction, and because of the federal government's mismanagement of the refugee claims and the inefficient refugee claim process, why should the provinces bear the cost? It seems logical, even though the separatist Bloc member may have meant to show patriotism toward Quebec, but it is not fair to assume that the provinces can afford the entire cost of relocation and the medical expenses of refugees who are not yet permanent residents, landed immigrants or citizens.

The Canadian Alliance, through our chief critic for immigration, the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River, moved the amendment that the minister shall consult with the municipality with respect to resettlement for immigrants and integration programs where applicable. This amendment was not accepted by the Liberal government's immigration committee.

The government should be encouraging open and accountable discussion among CIC, Health Canada, HRDC and DFAIT as well as the provinces and the non-government organizations related to immigration. Rather than a co-operative approach, the arrogant, weak Liberal government always uses a confrontational approach with the provinces and territories. We should work with the provinces for policies on the settlement of immigrants. The Liberals are again are missing that opportunity in the bill.

In regard to Motion No. 10, in the convention refugee and persons in need of protection clause, this Tory amendment will add, after the end of paragraph 1 of clause 101:

—Subparagraph (1)(b) does not apply—

That is a claim for protection by the claimant has been rejected by the board.

—and a claim for refugee protection shall be referred to the Refugee Protection Division for a new determination where:

(a) the relevant circumstances of the claimant have changed since a previous determination; or

(b) specific circumstances prevented part of the evidence from being presented during a previous determination.

In fact, new evidence should be one of the very few grounds to create a new hearing.

In Motion No. 11 the Tory amendment again deals with procedure for appeal to the refugee appeal division. In subclause 110(3) it proposes to delete the following the refugee appeal division shall proceed without a hearing, on the basis of the record of the proceedings of the refugee protection division, and may accept written submissions from the minister, the person. Then the clause continues. The amendment proposes to replace that with the refugee appeal division may proceed with a hearing where new evidence may be introduced, the record of the proceedings of the refugee protection division is used, and submissions may be made by the minister, the person. Then the clause continues.

The original clause supports a closed system and hinders the accountability and fairness of the act. This amendment will make the procedure allow a hearing to introduce new evidence instead of disallowing the hearing based on the record of proceedings of the refugee protection division.

The bill does not respect rule of law. Many witnesses, even including lawyers, told the committee that.

Motion No. 12 is a Bloc amendment that deals with pre-removal risk assessment. Under protection in paragraph 112(3)(b), the bill states:

(3) Refugee protection may not result from an application for protection if the person

(b) is determined to be inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality with respect to a conviction in Canada punished by a term of imprisonment of at least two years or with respect to a conviction outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would be punishable by a term of imprisonment of at least 10 years—

Lines six to eight of that paragraph would be replaced by:

—Canada for an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years—

This amendment is a little complicated. It is an extension and it clarifies the original wording. A part of this amendment is just a housekeeping correction and the other deals with the length of term of conviction to justify the magnitude of criminality outside Canada.

This part is so serious and important, particularly in light of the recent reports that more than 200,000 people are staying in Canada illegally. About 15,000 people or more are under deportation warrants, according to the Auditor General of Canada. They are supposed to be deported, but they are still in Canada and they are missing. Also, I am—

[Joe Fontana, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to apologize. I think that last week I might have referred to the member as being from Laval East or Laval West. I want to make sure that it is Laval Centre and she is in the centre politically also.

Before she leaves the Chamber I want to give her some good news. The government will support her Motion No. 12, her amendment, because we believe that the motion introduced by the member is a technical amendment to ensure that serious criminality as defined in this section of the bill is consistent with serious criminality as defined in subclause 36(1). We believe that this amendment does not change the definition of serious criminality or substantively alter the amendment made by the standing committee to this clause, because again the member will know that we have discussed this issue beforehand.

We appreciate the fact that the amendment made by the member for Laval Centre further clarifies the government's intent. We are prepared to approve it, just as we have seen in committee when the member for Fundy—Royal came up with a good amendment and we approved it, and the Alliance critic's, so the committee has been very open.

I want to make one final comment as it relates to what the member for Laval Centre talked about in terms of Canada being generous and compassionate. I want to reiterate what I think all the members of the committee heard. Throughout the country all of our witnesses were proud of the country's heritage, of its proud culture and proud historical contribution toward Canada's generosity in terms of refugee protection around the world. Ours is one of four countries in the world that takes in refugees, is compassionate and understanding of their persecution, of their plight, sometimes in their countries. Our country is one of the most generous on a per capita basis of the number of refugees.

The bill continues to talk about Canada's historical record, about the fact that we believe that Canada has a part to play in trying to resettle some refugees who are being persecuted, around the world. The bill will make it easier for refugees to be processed through the system.

There are a number of changes in Bill C-11 that will allow for quicker adjudication and decision making by single panel refugee board members, by ensuring that the system works really well, especially for those who are in limbo. We have heard of cases where people are still here after eight or nine years but because of documentation problems or a number of different situations they cannot be permanent residents even though they have been given refugee protection. There have been some very positive amendments put forward on Bill C-11 which will make the situation a lot better than it is today.

I also want to tell the member for Laval Centre that the committee has moved on the issue of rehearing a denied refugee claim where there are changed circumstances. Perhaps there was violence in the relationship but the woman could not bring it forward during an IRB hearing because her spouse was there and she was afraid. We have made it possible, thanks to the good work of the committee, to ensure that those facts are reheard by the IRB. While it is not a revolving door or a second kick at the can in terms of a second appeal or a second refugee claim, we appreciate that sometimes there are circumstances that could not be brought up in the first hearing, and under the bill, those changed circumstances would be heard.

I would hope that the member for Laval Centre as well as my other colleagues on the committee appreciate that some of their hard work is found in the amendments to Bill C-11 that they and members of the government have proposed.

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

moved:

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-11, in Clause 112, be amended by replacing lines 6 to 8 on page 51 with the following:

“Canada for an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years;”

Mr. Speaker, I recognize my colleague's usual courtesy. They want me to be the first one to talk. We are now discussing the third group of amendments accepted by the Chair to improve Bill C-11. I am forced to admit that the government is convinced that Bill C-11 is nothing short of perfect.

However, this is not what we heard when we went to the big cities that receive immigrants and refugees. Ninety-nine per cent of those involved said that people are very concerned about how this act will be applied, even more so because there are no regulations associated with the act. Regulations will be drafted later on.

Fortunately, we managed to obtain that the bill would stipulate that the regulations will be tabled in the House and referred to a committee. It is a start. However, as for the amendment that the government should not adopt any regulations before obtaining an opinion, it seems that it has not been accepted since the governor in council will have the power to give effect to the regulations as soon as they are tabled.

There are three amendments in the last group, since one was not accepted. The first amendment, the one I am proposing, is designed to put pressure on the Liberal government.

We know that it takes a lot of time to deal with refugee cases. People have complained about it. Some refugee claimants have to wait for months and sometimes for years before they know where they stand.

I think the federal government is like most people: a bit of pressure helps. If no decision has been made on a claim 90 days after it has been filed, my amendment would require the federal government to assume the social and medical costs.

We know that Quebec is generous. Members need only look at the number of people who decide to live in Quebec when they claim refugee status. It is clear that the future mirrors the past.

However, on the one hand, we hear the minister say that the process should be more rapid and, on the other, the measures in the bill include, for example, the elimination of the appeal or a second refugee claim. We might also need a penalty of some kind. When a contractor does not abide by a contract, there are penalties. Essentially, that is what we are suggesting, a kind of penalty for the government.

I also tend to agree with the second amendment, which has been moved by my Progressive Conservative colleague. He proposes that part of the bill not apply and that a claim for refugee protection “be referred to the Refugee Protection Division for a new determination where the relevant circumstances of the claimant have changed since a previous determination, or specific circumstances prevented part of the evidence from being presented during a previous determination”.

I do not think it will be hard for me to convince hon. members that an individual's circumstances can change very rapidly. We have recently learned of the terrible shooting in Nepal, which wiped out the entire royal family. What is going to happen there now? We do not know, but a week ago things in Nepal were relatively quiet, according to our viewpoint from this side of the world. This is therefore a recognition that, in the real world, individuals' circumstances can change dramatically. The amendment by my hon. colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party is aimed at acknowledging this.

Can we believe that the government is going to support this amendment? If it does what it usually does, I think it will say no. That is its specialty, moreover. If one is convinced that what one already has is total perfection, why say yes to any changes? Yet we are told that the purpose of the opposition in a debate is to improve bills. That is all very fine on paper, but in reality we have trouble proving it.

The last amendment I presented is what certain of my Liberal colleagues would term a cosmetic amendment. It is not really that, for it states as follows: b ) is determined to be inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality with respect to a conviction in Canada for an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years;

The bill speaks of a term of imprisonment of at least ten years, but here we are speaking of a maximum term of imprisonment of at least ten years. Hon. members will grasp the difference. To us it is a very important one, as we do not, of course, want to keep major criminals in this country, yet we do believe that a minimum of justice needs to be applied, and that the terms must be clear. Amendment No. 12 is intended as a clarification to clause 112(3)( b ).

Clearly, Bill C-12 is going to be passed before the summer recess. It is also clear that summer in the House of Commons will begin before June 21. I think it a great shame that this is preventing us as parliamentarians and as individuals from taking decisions which could make the Immigration Act, which, let us remember, is already 25 years old, this being its first overhaul, a piece of legislation whose purpose would truly be to help hundreds of thousands of people, many thousands of families. Yet the government wants to pass the bill as is.

I find this disturbing. One wonders whether the government listened to the various stakeholders who shared their views with the committee. The people who appeared before us are competent individuals.

Those who testified included the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Council for Refugees. We also heard from academics, researchers, and community groups, who are daily trying to meet the basic needs of people who have applied for refugee status, immigrants who are arriving in a new environment and who need help in getting properly settled in Canada and in Quebec.

It is as though the government had decided, from its lofty perch, that all these fine people knew nothing, had seen nothing, and were incapable of analyzing a situation or showing any logic.

If this bill is any indication, logic which is coupled with a sense of humanity must frustrate this government. We on the opposition benches believe strongly in logic, but we believe just as strongly in a sense of humanity, generosity and openness to the world at large.

It is not too late. If, by chance, the government were to pass the 11 amendments under consideration today, that would already be a step forward. Right now, I will not be able to take such a step. I must take my seat.

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

moved:

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-11, in Clause 101, be amended by adding after line 15 on page 44 the following:

“(1.1) Subparagraph (1)( b ) does not apply and a claim for refugee protection shall be referred to the Refugee Protection Division for a new determination where: a ) the relevant circumstances of the claimant have changed since a previous determination; or b ) specific circumstances prevented part of the evidence from being presented during a previous determination.”

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

moved:

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-11 be amended by adding after line 19 on page 41 the following new clause:

“95.1 The Minister shall assume the social and medical costs of refugee claimants as of the ninetieth day after the day of the claim and until a decision is made in respect of that claim.”

[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.