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

Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP did support the designation of safe countries in Bill C-11, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, because at that time there was an independent panel of experts making the decision.

I want to put it on the record that there are countries the government could designate as safe, Hungary being one, and yet the government accepted over 160 refugees from there and we know that both the Jews and the Roma communities are being targeted in Hungary right now.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Chair, I call for a recorded vote.

In addition, I have a legal question. The previous Bill C-11 talked about timeframes of 48 hours, 7 days, and 30 days. If memory serves, that was included in Bill C-11 to accommodate the decision in the Charkaoui case, where the Supreme Court had made the timeframes quite clear. Is that correct?

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Moving on a little bit, one of the other areas that's still in relation to expenditures and backlog is the reduction that we've been able to make on the refugee side of things. Explicit under the guise of Bill C-11, there was an investment made to work in the coming year and years towards a reduction from a little over 60,000 to around 45,000. I wonder if you could comment on whether we are going to continue down that road in terms of moving down and trying to get the backlog down. I know that Bill C-31 does start to address it, but from a fiscal and financial perspective we'll have the wherewithal to be able to act on that.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to the comments. One of the unfortunate facets of the Conservatives' approach is they put so many different provisions that have different meanings and applications into one bill and then use that as an opportunity to say, “But you voted against it”.

There are certain aspects of this bill that clearly we agree with. We agree with the notion that the refugee system is broken, which is why we passed Bill C-11. Bill C-11 does an enormous amount to streamline the refugee system in this country and to make it less likely that people could abuse the system.

However, the amendments being proposed to Bill C-11, and the addition of Bill C-4, make it impossible for this side of the House to agree to create a system where we would be making people victims. Even if people are refugees, we do not believe that the government, or any government, should make them victims. That is what this bill would do.

I would ask for the comments of the member opposite.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to say that in the riding I have the pleasure of representing, there are many people with refugee status. There is a lot of confusion, and many people are worried. These people's stories are disturbing, and I am very upset and worried about them.

I have a question for my colleague from Winnipeg North because he is a member of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. First there was Bill C-4, which was studied in the House. Now we have Bill C-31, and before that, there was Bill C-11. Is my colleague concerned that all of these changes will make the refugee claim process even more cumbersome?

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to talk about Bill C-291, which seeks to implement an appeal division for refugee claims, introduced by my Bloc Québécois colleague, the member for Jeanne-Le Ber.

It goes without saying that I wholeheartedly support this Bloc Québécois bill. It is a fairly simple bill, but it is important because it would implement the refugee appeal division. Once Bill C-291 has been passed and has received royal assent, three sections of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, sections 110, 111 and 171, will come into force. These three sections would come into force one year after this bill receives royal assent.

The Bloc Québécois has decided to introduce a bill to ensure full enforcement of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

A proper appeal process for refugee claimants ought to have been put in place as soon as the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act 2002 took effect in 2002. This is one of the significant changes required to ensure that asylum seekers are treated fairly and equitably.

The creation of the refugee appeal division is a matter of justice. To persist in not making this change, as the two most recent governments have done, is to allow a situation that is unfair to asylum seekers to continue.

When the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act was drafted, the refugee appeal division was seen as a fair compromise to satisfy the desire to move from two board members responsible for examining asylum claims to just one. Yet now we have the worst of both worlds. There is only one board member, not two, to examine the files, and there is no refugee appeal division.

The arbitrary aspect of the system is being magnified by the government's inaction and the piecemeal approach to implementing the new legislation. For four years now, the federal government has been stubbornly postponing the establishment of the refugee appeal division, as called for in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. It is time for the Conservative government to comply with the legislation and implement the refugee appeal division.

The federal government claims that a safety net already exists, consisting of the opportunity to request a pre-removal risk assessment—also known as a PRRA—a judicial review by the Federal Court, or permanent resident status on humanitarian grounds. However, unlike a refugee appeal division, they do not offer any protection for refugees. The Federal Court provides only for a judicial review and does not provide for a review of the facts of a case.

There is also a flagrant lack of political will to establish the refugee appeal division, or RAD, which, I would remind the House, is already enshrined in the legislation. After their own legislation came into effect, the Liberals avoided establishing the RAD. Now that the Conservatives are in power, the former immigration minister still has not established the RAD, despite the positions his party took in the past.

In 2004, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration adopted a motion calling on the then Liberal government to establish the refugee appeal division or rapidly come up with a solution. Yet the government has consistently refused to comply with the committee's motion.

The Bloc Québécois tabled an almost identical bill in the 39th Parliament. Our bill was passed by the House on October 16, 2007 and sent to the Senate to be studied. The bill passed third reading stage in the other chamber. However, because of the elections in the fall of 2008, our bill did not receive royal assent and died on the order paper.

Many groups in civil society in Quebec, Canada and the international community are demanding that a refugee appeal division be established. These include the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the UN Committee against Torture, the Canadian Council for Refugees, the Canadian Bar Association, Amnesty international, the Civil Liberties Union, and the KAIROS group.

There are four reasons why the refugee appeal division should be established: efficiency, consistency of the law, justice, and political reasons that I will explain.

A specialized refugee appeal division is a much more efficient means of dealing with unsuccessful claimants than the Federal Court, an application for pre-removal risk assessment or requests on humanitarian grounds. The refugee appeals division can do a better job of correcting errors of law or fact.

The second reason is consistency of the law. An appeal division deciding on the merits of the case is the only body able to ensure consistency of jurisprudence both in the analysis of facts and in the interpretations of legal concepts in the largest administrative tribunal in Canada.

In other words, an appeal mechanism helps the system to make decisions by establishing precedents that will be applied to lower court rulings when the facts are exactly the same.

The third reason has to do with justice. The decision to refuse refugee status has extremely serious consequences, including death, torture and detention. As in matters of criminal law, the right to appeal to a higher court is essential for the proper administration of justice. Because human error occurs in any decision-making process, it should be standard practice to have an appeal process, especially to offset the fact that decisions are now made by a single board member.

As I said earlier, the fourth reason is political. By not establishing the refugee appeal division, the federal government is going against the will of Parliament—which is a serious matter—and of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, which has called for such an appeal division. As I said, this is a serious matter.

The Bloc Québécois is dismayed by the lack of justice shown by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration when dealing with refugees since the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act came into force in 2001.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to place this bill in context.

In 2001, during the first session of the 37th Parliament, the Minister of Immigration introduced Bill C-11 in this House, concerning persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger who apply to enter Canada and receive refugee protection.

Bill C-11 was designed to update the former Immigration Act, which had been passed in 1976 and amended more than 30 times.

Unlike Bill C-11, which was passed in 2002, the Immigration Act, 1976, did not provide for a refugee appeal division. To make up for the fact that there was no refugee appeal division, two board members examined refugee claims.

Claims were granted if one of the two board members ruled in favour of the claimant. However, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act cut the number of board members from two to one.

The refugee appeal division makes up for the absence of one board member and offsets the arbitrary power the remaining board member has in ruling on refugee claims. The Bloc Québécois considered this an acceptable compromise under the new act.

Why was the number of board members reduced from two to one? It would seem it was for the sake of efficiency.

On March 20, 2001, the former chair of the IRB, the Immigration and Refugee Board, Peter Showler, told the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration that:

In contrast to the present model, where claims are normally heard by two-member panels, the vast majority of protection decisions will be made by a single member. Single-member panels are a far more efficient means of determining claims. It is true that claimants will no longer enjoy the benefit of the doubt currently accorded them with two-member panels, and I think that should be noted. However, any perceived disadvantage is more than offset by the creation of the refugee appeal division, the RAD, where all refused claimants and the minister have a right of appeal on RPD decisions.

According to the former chair of the IRB, the presence of the refugee appeal division justified moving from two members to one for asylum claims. However, we still do not have an appeal division.

The act contains three sections to create an IRB-administered refugee appeal division. Citizenship and Immigration Canada briefly defines the refugee appeal division as follows:

The refugee appeal division will provide failed refugee claimants and the minister with the right to a paper appeal of a decision from the Immigration and Refugee Board. Unsuccessful refugee claimants have the right to apply for judicial review in the Federal Court.

More specifically, the three sections that create the refugee appeal division are as follows:

110. (1) A person or the Minister may appeal, in accordance with the rules of the Board, on a question of law, of fact or of mixed law and fact, to the Refugee Appeal Division against a decision of the Refugee Protection Division to allow or reject the person’s claim for refugee protection, or a decision of the Refugee Protection Division rejecting an application by the Minister for a determination that refugee protection has ceased or an application by the Minister to vacate a decision to allow a claim for refugee protection.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that these arguments have persuaded members of other parties, particularly the governing party, to vote in favour of Bill C-291.

[Krista Daley]

On the first comment, so that everyone is aware of this, not all persons with criminal convictions who are permanent residents have a right of appeal to the IAD. There is certain serious criminality that doesn't, and that was dealt with as an amendment at the time of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The average processing time for a removal order appeal is currently 15 months.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to speak on this fine legislation submitted by my colleague from Parkdale—High Park.

My colleague follows a long line of New Democrats who have proposed this idea to the House and who will keep proposing this idea to the House until it becomes a reality. Why? Because it is a good idea, it makes sense, and it will contribute enormously to the future of this country.

Those members who have tried to persuade Parliament to go down this path deserve acknowledgement and congratulations. My colleagues from Burnaby—Douglas, Vancouver East and of course Parkdale—High Park all deserve congratulations for their persistence and perseverance in bringing this forward to the House of Commons.

Because one day the bill will pass. One day the NDP will persuade a critical mass in the chamber that it is worth pursuing, because we are not talking about some outrageous, outlandish proposal that is going to bring this country to its knees. No, we are talking about a proposal that will fact build this country and create enormous potential for ensuring an economically prosperous future for every one of our citizens.

It is ludicrous for anyone to suggest, as has been suggested many times in this debate, that this proposal will cause the floodgates to open and thousands of immigrants will be knocking at our doors and pounding at the immigration system's door and demanding to get in. That is not going to be the case. We are talking about a proposal that would simply expand the definition of family to bring it into the 21st century, a definition of family which recognizes that sometimes it takes a whole group of extended family members to raise children and provide nurturing care because they have to or because they want to.

All the NDP is saying to members today is to get their heads out of their little boxes and think creatively. I want them to think about what it would mean to have aunts and uncles, cousins or other relatives coming to join them if they were alone and isolated in a foreign land. I ask them to think about what it would do for that family unit.

I ask them to think about what it would do to strengthen our communities. I ask them to think about what it would do in terms of providing services and supports that otherwise are required to be provided by the government and would cost the taxpayers money.

As we see this, it is a cost saving that we are talking about, not an added burden on our economy or to the taxpayers of this country. We are talking about strengthening society. That can only be good for us in all senses of the word.

I come from what I would consider probably the most diverse constituency in this country. I am sure my colleague from Vancouver East or others might take umbrage at that, but in fact Winnipeg North has such a great diversity of people that one could say we have the world in one constituency.

Many decades ago, immigrants built our community, whether they were of Ukrainian, Polish or German origin. Now there are waves of new immigrants who are continuing with that pioneering tradition and building the community, including Filipinos, Punjabis and many more. These are people who have contributed a great deal to the province of Manitoba and in fact to this entire country.

I want to say for the Conservative members here, and especially for the parliamentary secretary, that they should go back to a few years ago, six years, when this idea was presented to the immigration committee as those of us on that committee were dealing with Bill C-11, the supposed framework piece of legislation to revamp our immigration legislation and bring it into the modern century.

At that time, the NDP proposed an amendment to that bill to in fact expand the definition of family. That proposal was taken very seriously by the Conservatives, to such a point that they actually voted for the amendment. They joined with New Democrats to send a message to the Liberals to get their heads out the sand and start thinking about what it really means to build community, to give families support, and to create a country that is truly respectful of everyone's differences.

A motion was presented in 2001 during that debate on the bill and it was only narrowly defeated, by one vote, in a vote of seven to six at the immigration committee. Conservative members joined with New Democrats in supporting this idea because it truly is worthwhile to pursue.

Let us remember that we are not talking about a wide open, permanent solution. In effect, we are talking about a pilot project, a test run. We are talking about an idea that actually came from the minister of immigration at the time, Elinor Caplan, in discussions with my colleague from Vancouver East. The minister said that perhaps they could try, on a pilot project basis, this idea of once in a lifetime: that a family here, either citizens or permanent residents, could in fact sponsor a relative who was outside the traditional definition of family.

That was a very important suggestion. Unfortunately, her colleagues in the Liberal Party never pursued it and in fact have vetoed it and stopped it every step of the way.

I want to remind members that it was a Liberal cabinet minister who ran against me in the 2004 election and was defeated at the polls largely because he refused to accept this notion that family has a broad definition, and that if we are truly serious about an open door policy we would encourage this kind of sponsorship, knowing full well that it does not open the floodgates.

It is not going to produce all kinds of illegal immigrants because in fact these sponsorships have to go through the same rigorous rules that now apply to anyone who is sponsored, whether we are talking about a husband, a wife, a mother, a father, a grandparent or a child under the age of 22. We are just saying to open the definition, to try it and see what happens.

Let me say that I am disappointed in the Conservatives. I am not surprised given their record, which is like that of the Liberals, with respect to other proposals dealing with sensible family policies in the area of immigration. This is a government that claims to represent family but turns down a family because one child in that family has a disability.

I have now half a dozen cases on my plate of families that were accepted under the Manitoba provincial nominee program, because their skills were needed in our province and in this country, and they were turned down by the federal government because one child in that family of four, five or six has a disability.

I want to say shame on the Conservatives for that kind of discriminatory anti-human rights policy. If they are serious about building families, they will fix this matter of immigrants who come here with disabilities and stop enforcing this rigorous definition of economic and social demand on our society. We are talking about children with disabilities who are not going to cost our system one penny because they have families and relatives who will support them and help them every step of the way.

I want to say that if the government is serious about family, it will also deal with the backlogs that my colleagues in the House have mentioned today. They will deal with the fact that so many people cannot complete their sponsorships, whether we are talking about mothers, fathers, grandparents or children under the age of 22. They have to wait years because this government, like the previous Liberal government, refuses to bolster the numbers in the immigration department to ensure that all of our offices are properly resourced to provide for decent, humane treatment in our immigration system.

I call upon the government and all members in this House to support this bill. It is the least they can do if they are serious about an open door policy, about attracting skilled immigrants to this country, which we need so desperately, and about ensuring that the family is the bedrock of our society. If we cannot do that, we cannot guarantee a future for our citizens in this country. I would suggest that every member in this House should give this a chance and let it get to committee.

We are not saying that the whole thing must be supported right now. We are saying that for once in the history of this Parliament, after four private members' bills have been initiated in this chamber, allow one of those bills to go to committee for input, discussion and consideration. If we were to do that, we would truly know whether there are serious obstacles to this constructive proposal or whether the government and the Liberal members are simply being destructive and counterproductive in terms of building a strong country that is built on an open door policy and that is founded on the principles of humanitarian and compassionate actions.

I suggest that there is only one way for this Parliament to go and that is to give this bill a try and send it to committee. Let us ensure that we have an immigration policy that we can all be proud of.

Bill C-280—An Act to Amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The Chair is now prepared to rule on a point of order raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform on May 3, 2007 in relation to Bill C-280, An Act to Amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (coming into force of sections 110, 111 and 171), standing in the name of the hon. member for Laval.

In his submission, the parliamentary secretary explained that Bill C-280 proposed to change the manner in which provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act would come into effect. That act was amended in 2001 by Bill C-11, which contained a clause, clause 275, providing that:

The provisions of this Act come into force on a day or days to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council.

This sort of clause is frequently found in bills and is commonly known as the “coming into force clause”.

Some provisions of Bill C-11 have yet to be proclaimed by the governor in council. Bill C-280 proposes to have three such provisions, namely sections 110, 111 and 171 of the act, brought into effect immediately upon royal assent of Bill C-280, and not by way of proclamation to be determined by the governor in council.

The parliamentary secretary noted that the substantive effect of implementing sections 110, 111 and 171 of the act would be to establish the refugee appeal division at the Immigration and Refugee Board and that this would entail significant new expenditures of an administrative nature. He then went on to explain that through its coming into force clause, Bill C-11 gave the governor in council the power to determine at what time the division would be created and the associated expenditures would be incurred.

The parliamentary secretary contends that by changing the coming into force of these sections of the act, the terms and conditions of the royal recommendation accompanying Bill C-11 are being altered. He read from citation 596 of Beauchesne's sixth edition, which explains that the royal recommendation not only fixes the amount of an expenditure but also the way that it would be incurred.

He went on to cite two precedents from 1985 and 1986 to support his arguments that Bill C-280 should therefore be accompanied by a new royal recommendation.

The Chair has examined the two precedents cited by the parliamentary secretary in support of his basic argument that an alteration in the coming-into-force provisions of a bill infringes on the financial initiative of the Crown.

The first precedent, in 1985, concerns a report stage motion to Bill C-23, an act to amend the Small Business Loans Act. The bill sought, among other things, to restrict to 90% the amount of loss sustained by the minister for loans made to small business enterprises after March 31, 1985. The report stage motion sought to maintain the existing law and make the minister liable for the full amount of the loss. On March 26, 1985, Mr. Speaker Bosley ruled the amendment inadmissible because it relaxed a condition of the royal recommendation.

The second precedent, in 1986, concerns an amendment put forward during consideration in committee of the whole of Bill C-11, an act to amend the Income Tax Act. The bill sought to allow the prepayment of a child tax credit in the following taxation year. The amendment would have permitted the prepayment during the greater part of the current taxation year. In ruling the amendment inadmissible on October 17, 1986, the chairman of the committee of the whole simply explained that the proposed amendment infringed on the royal recommendation.

While these precedents may be useful in understanding how programs may be limited or extended in their application, they do not assist us in better understanding the issue at hand.

The fundamental issue in the present case is whether the coming-into-force provision of an act which was originally accompanied by a royal recommendation can be altered without a new royal recommendation.

After considerable reflection on the matter, the Chair would present the situation as follows.

In 2001 Bill C-11 sought an authorization from Parliament to establish the refugee appeal division. As I see it, the action of setting up the statutory framework for the new division required that a royal recommendation accompany Bill C-11 because a new and distinct authority for spending was being requested.

As it happened, Bill C-11 also contained a coming into force provision which would allow the governor in council to decide when the refugee appeal division would be formally established. In the view of the Chair, it is very important to remember that even after the governor in council proclaims the establishment of the division, Parliament would still have to approve spending plans for its operations through the estimates and the subsequent appropriation act.

In this light, therefore, it appears to the Chair that the chief financial components which require a royal recommendation are: first, authorization for setting up the statutory framework for the refugee appeal division, duly provided by Bill C-11 with its original royal recommendation; and the operational funding to be sought in a future appropriation act where financial authority can be duly provided in the usual estimates process.

Although the proclamation of the coming-into-force provision will set into motion the establishment of the refugee appeal division, it should be seen as independent of the royal recommendation and not part of its terms and conditions.

Our rules and practices hold that coming into force clauses of bills have always been open to amendment and a vote. If we were to accept the argument that an alteration in the coming into force provision would somehow infringe upon the royal recommendation, then it should not be admissible for a committee or the House to negative or amend such a clause unilaterally. Such is clearly not the case.

Essentially, it is a question of timing. The royal recommendation originally attached to the bill applies, unaltered, to its provisions irrespective of the point in time at which such provisions come into force and, from a procedural standpoint, the alterations to the coming into force provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, as expressed in Bill C-280, cannot be seen as infringing on the financial imitative of the Crown.

Consequently, Bill C-280 may proceed for debate and a vote at third reading.

I think that the hon. Leader of the Opposition wishes to rise on a question of privilege.

Bill C-280--Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened as my colleague from across the way tried to put up a roadblock to Bill C-280. However, Bill C-280 is not an amendment to Bill C-11. We only ask for implementation. Bill C-11 already received royal assent. It has been voted on and studied. We only ask for the implementation of a measure included in Bill C-11. I do not see where the problem lies.

In concluding, I reserve the right to speak again to the issue.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my point of order I must say that while I recognize I am raising this point of order today, I also recognize the fact that a ruling by yourself will not be made before third reading debate takes place on Bill C-280.

It is on Bill C-280 that I rise today. Without commenting on the merits of the private member's bill, I would appreciate your consideration, Mr. Speaker, on whether Bill C-280, An Act to Amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, requires a royal recommendation under Standing Order 79.

The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act was adopted as Bill C-11 by the 37th Parliament and received royal assent on November 1, 2001. Bill C-11, which was accompanied by a royal recommendation, specified in clause 275 that:

The provisions of this Act come into force on a day or days to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council.

Bill C-280 seeks to amend section 275 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to stipulate that, despite the coming into force provisions adopted in 2001, sections 110, 111 and 171 would come into force on the day Bill C-280 receives royal assent.

The substantive effect would be to establish a refugee appeal division at the Immigration and Refugee Board. This would involve significant new expenditures to cover the appointment of adjudicators to hear appeals; the administrative officers to establish, receive and process applications for appeal; office space to conduct appeal hearings; and other activities required for the operation of a new appeals division.

The Department of Citizenship and Immigration estimates that the initial start-up cost would be at least $8 million and ongoing annual costs would be over $12 million. This does not include the considerable costs associated with the provision of legal aid.

Those estimated costs also do not take into consideration the potential significant costs of implementation should the bill fail to include transition provisions, without which, could potentially lead to an immediate backlog of approximately 40,000 additional cases.

Of course, the creation of a refugee division was contemplated by the original legislation. However, this was accompanied by a qualification in clause 275, that the timing of its creation would be subject to a future decision of the governor in council, namely, when to bring in sections 110, 111 and 171 into force.

The procedural authorities and precedents indicate that the royal recommendation, which accompanies a bill, fixes not only the amount of an expenditure but also the way in which it will be incurred.

Beauchesne's 6th edition, page 183, citation 596, indicates:

...the communication, to which the Royal Recommendation is attached, must be treated as laying down once for all...not only the amount of the charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications. In relation to the standard thereby fixed, an amendment infringes the financial initiative of the Crown not only if it increases the amount but also if it extends the objects and purposes, or relaxes the conditions and qualifications expressed in the communication by which the Crown has demanded or recommended a charge.

On March 26, 1985, on page 3353 of Hansard, the Speaker cited this section of Beauchesne's in ruling an amendment to a government bill out of order because, by eliminating a legislated deadline, it would relax a condition of the royal recommendation.

On October 17, 1986, at page 473 of Hansard, the Speaker ruled that an amendment to an income tax bill was beyond the scope of a royal recommendation, even though it did not change the overall expenditure, because “It changes the intent of the Bill”.

The intent of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, as clearly expressed in clause 275, was that the governor in council would determine at what time clauses 110, 111 and 171 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act would be brought into force. In other words, that the governor in council would determine at what time the expenditures associated with those clauses would be incurred.

This was a condition of the royal recommendation for Bill C-11, which members of the 37th Parliament accepted and which is, therefore, inseparable from the authorization for expenditures for a refugee appeal board.

Since Bill C-280 seeks to relax that condition by removing the Governor in Council's determination of the timing of the crown's expenditure, Bill C-280 is beyond the scope of the original royal recommendation and, I submit, should be accompanied by a new royal recommendation.

Opposition Motion--Citizenship and Immigration

[Raymond Gravel, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will share my time with my colleague, the member for Jeanne-Le Ber.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity today to discuss the Liberal motion before us, which states that immigrants to Canada and persons seeking Canadian citizenship are poorly served by this government.

The Bloc Québécois supports this motion. In fact, immigrants to this country and persons seeking Canadian citizenship are very poorly served by the current Conservative government. Unfortunately, I must also add that they were just as poorly served by the previous Liberal government. The crazy thing is that it is the Liberal Party that introduced this motion in the House today.

There is plenty of proof that immigrants and persons seeking Canadian citizenship have been and are being very poorly served by both the current and former governments.

For my part, I just want to discuss the issue concerning three sections of Bill C-11, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which came into force on June 28, 2002. In sections 110, 111 and 171, the act provides for a refugee appeal division. That division was never created.

Bill C-280 is quite straightforward. It simply aims to implement the refugee appeal division, commonly known as the RAD. Adopting this bill would mean that the three sections already included in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act concerning the refugee appeal division, or RAD, would simply be implemented.

This is a little strange, in fact it is nearly the height of absurdity, since the Bloc Québécois already introduced a bill to implement the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which was adopted in 2001 and which came into effect in June 2002, in its entirety. I am a new member of Parliament, but I did not know that a piece of legislation was needed to enact another piece of legislation.

A proper appeal process for refugee claimants ought to have been put in place as soon as the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act took effect, namely, in 2002. This is one of the significant changes required to ensure that all asylum seekers are treated fairly and equitably.

The creation of the refugee appeal division is a matter of justice. To persist in not making this change, as the two most recent governments have done, is to allow a situation that is unfair to asylum seekers to continue. When the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act was drafted, the refugee appeal division was seen as a fair compromise in response to the desire to move from two board members responsible for examining asylum claims to just one.

Yet, now we have the worst of both worlds. There is only one board member, not two, to examine the files, and there is no refugee appeal division in effect. This results in terrible, irreparable harm to asylum seekers, who are all too often victims of an arbitrary and faulty decision made by a board member, whose competency can be, in certain cases, uncertain, and all this with no appeal process.

The federal government maintains that a safety net already exists by virtue of the opportunity to request a pre-removal risk assessment, through judicial review by the Federal Court and through a request for permanent resident status on humanitarian grounds. But these two solutions do not offer any protection for refugees, because, as my colleague from Vaudreuil-Soulanges pointed out this morning, the Federal Court conducts only judicial reviews, reviews of form, and does not review the facts of a case when someone applies for asylum.

In addition, there is a blatant lack of political will to establish the refugee appeal division, because this division is already enshrined in the legislation, in sections 110, 111 and 171. In June 2002, after their own legislation came into effect, the Liberals avoided establishing the RAD. Now that the Conservatives are in power, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration still has not established the RAD, despite the positions her party has taken in the past.

In 2004, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration adopted a motion calling on the Liberal government at the time to establish the refugee appeal division or rapidly come up with a solution. The government consistently refused to comply with the committee's motion.

Many groups in civil society in Quebec, across Canada and in the international community have called for establishment of the RAD. Among these are the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the United Nations Committee against Torture, the Canadian Council for Refugees, the Canadian Bar Association, Amnesty International, la Ligue des droits et libertés and the KAIROS group.

In a Canadian Council for Refugees report, Professor François Crépeau, who teaches international law at the Université de Montréal, gave four reasons why the refugee appeal division should be put in place. I will simply list them, because my colleague also spoke about them this morning. The four reasons are efficiency, uniformity in the law, justice and politics.

The definition of a refugee or an asylum seeker has long been established in international conventions. The Convention relating to the Status of Refugees was adopted by the United Nations in 1951. More than 145 countries, including Canada, ratified the convention and its protocol.

According to this convention, Canada cannot directly or indirectly return refugees to a country where they will be persecuted. Refugees find themselves in very difficult situations and are very vulnerable.

We must never forget that when a person applies for refugee status, that person is always in a state of vulnerability and helplessness that we as citizens here, for the most part, have never known. This person leaves a difficult situation where their life was in danger for a number of religious, political or other reasons. This person arrives in the country and, in many cases, does not understand the language—neither French nor English. This person also arrives in a precarious economic situation, sometimes with just the shirt on their back. These are fragile, vulnerable and very poor people.

It is our moral duty to welcome these people with respect and compassion. To do so, Canada must do everything it can to ensure asylum seekers a fair process when they arrive in Canada, especially since a negative decision can have tragic consequences and very serious repercussions.

The Bloc Québécois is dismayed by the lack of justice toward refugees demonstrated by Citizenship and Immigration since the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act came into effect in 2002. The worst part is that Bill C-11 in 2002 was intended to correct the former Immigration Act of 1976, which did not include a refugee appeal division. Furthermore, this lack of a refugee appeal division was compensated for, at the time, by the presence of two board members who reviewed the asylum claims. Only one of the two board members needed to rule in favour of the asylum claim for the person to be granted asylum.

Currently, now there is just one board member instead of two, the refugee appeal division, RAD, seems even more important. Without the RAD, the risk of error is even greater and asylum seekers have no recourse if they are victims of an arbitrary negative decision.

Establishing a refugee appeal division would ensure that justice is done. It would also address the inconsistencies in the determination process. Furthermore, the costs of implementing this measure would be minimal. According to Jean-Guy Fleury, the chairperson of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, operating the RAD would cost $8 million per year. When we consider that the financial resources of the IRB are estimated at $116 million for 2006-2007, the RAD annual operating costs would represent only 7% of the total budget. The resulting savings must be considered.

In closing, I would just like to say that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the Liberal motion presented today. While it is true that immigrants to Canada and individuals who seek to obtain Canadian citizenship are poorly served by the government, I sincerely believe that by establishing this principle of fairness and justice for those asking for asylum, we could improve the condition of individuals seeking refugee status. The principles of fairness and justice must come from establishing the refugee appeal division.

Therefore Bill C-280 must be adopted to ensure that the three sections of the 2002 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which have not yet come into force, are implemented.

Statutory Instruments Act

[Inky Mark, Canadian Alliance, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on behalf of the P.C. Party of Canada. Let me first congratulate the member for Surrey Central on his Bill C-202, an act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act, disallowance procedure for statutory instruments.

For our viewers, let me repeat the intent of the bill. This enactment would establish the statutory disallowance procedure that would be applicable to all statutory instruments, subject to review and scrutiny by the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations. In so doing, this enactment would ensure that parliament would have the opportunity to disallow any statutory instrument made pursuant to authority delegated by parliament or made by or under the authority of the cabinet. In other words, the committee would have the right to really have some teeth and scrutinize the regulations that come before the committee.

This disallowance procedure is very necessary to hold the government accountable. Currently there is no provision to disallow badly flawed regulations.

We heard the member from the government side state that the committee could send to the government by resolution the suggestion or list of regulations that should be disallowed. Through the years I have been here, I have not experienced that.

I have had real experience and I have sat on the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations. Back in 1997, when I first came to this House, I really found out how difficult it was to get rid of poorly crafted regulations, thousands of regulations, that came before the committee. One thing I realized was we were looking at regulations not one or two years old, but three, four, five and six years old.

My own opinion is that the joint committee really has no teeth. In other words, because it takes so much time to scrutinize the regulations that come before committee, it takes years and years of work before anything can possibly happen.

If the House is to have some control over the thousands of regulations that are written, then a disallowance procedure is a must. Surely there must be some regulations that are unnecessary. At this time there is no method to disallow other than reporting back to the House. A case in point are the regulations pertaining to Bill C-68. Many of the regulations under that piece of legislation are unnecessary and need to be rejected.

Over the last 30 years we have seen government abuse the use of orders in council to approve all kinds of regulations with no formal scrutiny. In my opinion this is a pure abuse of power.

The government members say that authority is delegated to the government. Yes, I believe they do have lots of delegated power and authority, but all authority needs to be scrutinized at all times.

Today in a world of framework and enabling legislation, which seems to be the kind of legislation we experience daily in this House, legislators have very little control over legislation. As the House knows, it is still the norm that ministers rarely table any regulations with the standing committees. The exception to that is the immigration committee which I sit on. In the last month we literally scrutinized Bill C-11 regulations, which was rather unusual to say the least.

Let me talk a little about regulations per se. As members know, regulations cover all areas of our life and they impact all of us daily. On the fiscal side certainly, regulations are a form of hidden taxation. As they raise the cost of doing business, Canadians end up paying relatively higher prices for goods and services.

They also kill jobs by making Canada less competitive. In fact on the agricultural side, farmers are always complaining, rightly so, about the new taxes they have to pay. Again a lot of it is assessment by regulations.

The government does not always consider whether a new regulation will meet its goal, whether it is the most cost effective method of protecting the public or whether it will have unintended side effects. I guess that is why we have a joint committee to scrutinize regulations, but again if that joint committee does not have real teeth to deal with bad regulations then it really is just exercise in futility.

In some cases less costly alternatives such as negotiated compliance are not considered. A regulatory environment that subjects the economy to regulations only where and when needed is critical to the creation of a vital and vibrant economy. However the regulatory burden imposed on Canadian business acts as a costly impediment on the productivity growth that is essential to an improved standard of living. We hear very little about regulations that impact the economy on the economic side.

The view of the PC Party is that governments should work toward the co-operative elimination of excessive regulations, overlap, duplication and waste in the allocation of responsibilities between the federal, provincial and territorial governments. We are probably the most over-governed and over-legislated country in the world. We love to create legislation without reviewing old legislation. A member from the opposition side asked why a lot of our bills did not have sunset clauses. That is an excellent idea.

Governments should implement an annual red tape budget which would detail the estimated total cost of each individual regulation, including the enforcement cost to the government and the compliance cost to individual citizens and businesses.

Governments should also establish regulatory service standards and devote the resources needed to meet those standards, thus ensuring they do not result in undue pressure being placed upon regulators to improve questionable products.

Governments should also work toward ensuring that user fees which are tied to regulatory approval are limited to no more than the cost of actually providing that approval. Further, those fees should be used to improve services allowing for greater regulatory approval.

In light of the effect it has on the economy of the country and on the lives of people, does it not make sense that all new regulations be scrutinized by the standing committees of the House? That at least should be a minimum requirement. We would require new regulations to be written in a way that is simple and easy to understand. All new regulations should be scrutinized by the standing committees, as I have just indicated.

A Progressive Conservative government would ensure that all proposed regulations are put on the departmental website for 30 days to allow for greater public awareness before they are published in the Canada Gazette .

In closing, regulations impact us daily but the problem is we really do not have an effective vehicle to scrutinize regulations and get rid of the ones that should not be there and that in effect do nothing for the country or for us as people of the country. The PC Party of Canada supports Bill C-202.

Public Safety Act, 2002

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it shows us how seriously the government takes the legislation. It took 20 minutes to get enough of its members in the House to begin parliament. I even question whether there are enough members in here at the present time.

The government introduced the legislation as an anti-terrorism bill in response to September 11. I would argue that the bill is anything but a bill that deals with terrorism.

In his speech on Bill C-42, the minister said the bill was another important step in the fight against terrorism. In the omnibus bill the only common theme, which omnibus bills are supposed to have, was that it centralized the power in the hands of the executive branch of government with little or no parliamentary review. Bill C-55 remains a ministerial power grab.

The Minister of Transport in November 2001, in response to a question by the member from Fraser Valley, said:

When there is a localized one time emergency ministers need to act quickly. That is what happened on September 11. Had there been further terrorist attacks and the country was in a state of apprehension then obviously the Emergencies Act would have been invoked.

This question has to be asked. If there was legislation that allowed the ministers to respond in kind at that time, why do they need this legislation today? I would argue that they want to enhance the powers of the minister and take it out of the hands of parliament.

The amendments that Bill C-55 brings to bear are not exact. It introduces two new security measures. One is about unruly passengers or air rage, and the opposition thinks the measures are a good thing. The other is the requirement of air carriers to provide information on their passenger manifests to various departments.

The difference between the old bill, Bill C-42, and the new one, Bill C-55, is that Bill C-55 is very specific about how this is to be handled. In the old bill the minister was given the discretion through regulations on how to handle this.

Before the Christmas break the transportation committee produced an excellent report on how to handle airline security. It balanced all the details of implementing the system with some discretion for the minister to act. Instead, the current Minister of Transport wants carte blanche to do whatever he wants to do and to be the sole authority on security measures.

It is interesting that the Liberal backbenchers seem quite willing to allow the executive branch of parliament, the cabinet, to take away their ability to be involved.

Another change from Bill C-42 is with regard to the Immigration Act. The new bill deletes parts from the previous bill which referred to the Immigration Act. In Bill C-42 the government introduced amendments to the Immigration Act that it had just put into place through Bill C-11 but which had not been implemented. Bill C-42 would have repealed Bill C-11 changes such as a 72 hour time limit on referrals and a 90 day limit on processing time which would have severely curtailed the appeals process. Bill C-42 removed that.

In February 2001 we had proposals of changes to Bill C-11. In November 2001 we had the elimination of those proposed changes. Now in April 2002, we are now getting rid of the proposed changes to Bill C-11 that would have been done in February. It is no wonder that Canadians have little or no faith in the immigration department, the minister and the Immigration Act. Does anybody over there on the government side know what is going on with the Immigration Act?

Other changes are proposed for the National Defence Act. Some are good, some are bad and some are questionable. The proposed inclusion of armed conflict in the definition of emergency, which already includes insurrection, riot, invasion and war, is presumably meant to ensure that the events of September 11 would be officially designated as an emergency. However it is questionable whether the term armed conflict appropriately defines the terrorist acts of September 11, or a biological or chemical attack, or even a major cyber attack on our computer networks. Rather the government should specifically include terrorism in the definition of an emergency.

The opposition supports job protection for officers and non-commissioned members of our reserve forces. We have been calling for such protection for years however we are concerned that this job protection is only limited to emergencies. What does this mean for the reservists that are called out for peacekeeping duties? Are they not afforded any job protection?

We are also concerned about the creation of controlled access military zones. The government claimed under Bill C-42 and again under Bill C-55 that these controlled access military zones would only protect military equipment and personnel and would not be used to battle public demonstrations. However by changing the section from how it was drafted in Bill C-42 to how it has been drafted now, the government is admitting that these military security zones that were mentioned in Bill C-42 were intended to be used against legitimate protest groups despite the minister's assertions to the contrary.

Since we could not trust the minister then, why would he think that we would trust him now not to be using these special provisions against public demonstrations? It would appear that these measures are designed for protesters and those engaging in civil disobedience, not terrorists.

Why do I come to that conclusion? We must look at the example the minister of defence used, which was the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen by the al-Qaeda in October 2000 where a boat full of explosives was used against the side of a military ship. What would the government do in this legislation? It would use some force and fine the terrorists $1,000. What kind of deterrent is that to terrorists, to fine them $1,000?

In order to fight terrorists we must use lethal force. We do not fine them $1,000 and slap them on the hand. That is why it is clear to me that this is not anti-terrorism legislation. This is to be used against civil disobedience. If the government were to do that, that is fine with me, but it should be upfront, honest and open to the public and say that is what it is attempting to do and not hide it.

We have a problem with the interim orders giving that kind of overwhelming authority to cabinet. We are upset there is no parliamentary oversight and review. That is necessary to hold the government and the executive branch accountable.

I must say this is another attempt by the government to take the responsibility out of the hands of parliament and place it in the hands of cabinet. The government is not willing to allow these interim orders to go before a cabinet committee. It only requires four cabinet ministers to agree. That should not be difficult. It has a hard time getting its members here, but surely it is not that hard to get four cabinet ministers to sit down with legislation that supposedly is designed to fight terrorism. One really has to question the intent.

Our party is quite apt to say that the legislation should be split. That is what this amendment is all about. Let us take the good parts of the legislation, deal with them and forget this thing about it being anti-terrorism. That is not what the bill is all about.

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

Madam Speaker, in this bill, the expression “reasonably necessary” is used four times to define size. The dimensions of the zone are set out in paragraph (4):

(4) The dimensions of a controlled access military zone may not be greater than is reasonably necessary—

And:

(6) A designation or renewal may not be for a period longer than is reasonably necessary—

What will the time limit be for that zone and what area will it cover? Under what conditions do we give to a single individual the authority to determine what is reasonably necessary? One must hope that it will be a reasonable person because, otherwise, we could find ourselves in a bad spot, and that is exactly what is happening.

In Quebec, it is clear what the Bloc Quebecois is asking for will remain unchanged. I hope the other parties will understand that, to preserve a degree of control, the provinces must be consulted and the federal government must obtain their consent, and that applies not only to the Quebec government and the Quebec people, but also to all other provincial governments.

We cannot have controlled access military zones in Quebec without the Quebec government's consent. That is the reality.

That leads us to the last part of the bill. It is not complicated. There are a few paragraphs that give the legislation all its meaning. I could explain, for the benefit of our fellow citizens, the Quebecers who are listening, why the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to those controlled access military zones. Some might have questions for us.

For example, paragraph (12) states:

(12) The Canadian Forces may permit, control, restrict or prohibit access to a controlled access military zone.

So, they are the ones controlling everything that is going on in that area. Moreover, paragraph (14) states:

(14) No action for loss, damage or injury lies by reason only of the designation of a controlled access military zone or the implementation of measures to enforce the designation.

Not only the military will restrict our movements and control us within that zone, but citizens arrested or prevented from functioning or under arrest will have no recourse against the government, and that in spite of the statements made by the defence minister who is telling us “Yes, recourse through the courts is always available to them”.

Give me a break. Once again, I am pleased to read this text, which does state:

(14) No action for loss, damage or injury lies by reason only of the designation of a controlled access military zone or the implementation of measures to enforce the designation.

One can always go before the court to challenge the military zone. That is what the defence minister is telling us. “You can challenge it”. Yes, we can challenge a military zone. But, in the meantime, citizens, Quebecers will be arrested, imprisoned and will have no recourse against the federal government. They will be stripped of their rights and liberties, and they will have no recourse. Again, this is what the federal government wants to do.

This is an attempt by the government, the officer corps or the land staff to centralize in the hands of the defence minister and his staff the power to control more and more the movements of individuals and groups which may want to protest.

They will not be able to protest near a building, a defence facility or piece of equipment, not even near an army vehicle. They will not be able to do that anymore.

They will not be able to protest if someone in the federal government feels threatened. This person will ask the military staff to make a recommendation to the defence minister, who, in my opinion, has not been a reasonable person up until now. The defence minister will then have the power to designate military zones, presumably to protect the interests of the government, all this to the detriment of the interests, rights and liberties of our fellow citizens.

I would like to close by commenting on the third part, which deals with providing personal information. We recall Bill C-42 and wonder why a government would withdraw a bill. Once again, it is because of what the opposition did, and the fierce battle led by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois and all of the members from our party against Bill C-42. We saw that the government appeared to back down.

However, the big question raised at the time that made the government back down—we all remember it—was when we asked the Prime Minister , “What were you not able to do after September 11 that you could have done if you had had Bill C-42?”

The same question applies today. What is the Canadian government not able to do if ever a situation like September 11 were to occur, which would be the worst incident in the history of Canada? What is it that it could not do then, and therefore could still not do today, that it could do with Bill C-55?

We could not get an answer today from the Prime Minister, nor from the Minister of National Defence, nor from the Minister of Transport in his speech. Nobody answered us. When one is politically strong, as is the Liberal government right now, riding high in the polls, everything is fine, everything is coming up roses,and one becomes arrogant. This is what happens when one is arrogant. Mistakes are made, bad bills are introduced. Slight changes are made, and the bill comes back with four more pages than it used to have.

This is how it works, and the government thinks that people will swallow it. The Prime Minister said yesterday in a scrum, “There are days when I am a dictator, and other days when I am not a dictator”. This is what he said yesterday. Unbelievable. This is in Canada, and our Prime Minister said in a press scrum, “Today I am not a dictator, but tomorrow I will be a dictator. I am the one who decides”.

In the end, he is the one who decides. He decided to introduce Bill C-55. He decided that with his Liberal majority, he would succeed in showing that he was right and that, in any case, people will have no other choice. They will accept it and the Liberal Party will not suffer in the polls. This is the reality. This is why we have to deal with Bill C-55 today.

When we questioned the government about Bill C-42 on November 22, 2001, we were told that there were two important elements in this bill. First, there was the information required by the Americans so that Canadian airlines could fly over their territory. The whole section dealing with personal information was taken out of Bill C-42. It became Bill C-44. Bill C-42 had a whole section dealing with immigration. Our listeners will have understood, after watching 60 Minutes , that there are problems with immigration in Canada. Despite anything the immigration minister may say, there is a problem. As some would say, there is a certain uneasiness about the whole issue.

Once again, they took out the part on immigration and introduced Bill C-11 on immigration. That is fine, we supported it. We supported Bill C-44. In fact, this is what the government needed after September 11. It needed a bill that would allow it to give the Americans the personal information they require so that our airline companies could fly over their territory.

But believe it or not, in Bill C-44, the list of information that the American government requires from the airline companies in title 130 of its act, which is equivalent to ours, is not the same list. They require about 15 items. I will come back to this later.

We are having fun today, we are reacting, but in the coming weeks we will have the opportunity to talk about this list. However, Canada is asking for about 20 items of information more than the Americans. This is the reality. We must provide personal information and a schedule was made and tabled.

This schedule is designed to please public officials, who are asking for an increasingly controlling and centralizing state as regards people's privacy. They asked for things that the Americans are not asking for. These things are in the schedule. This is what the minister was telling us. From now on, airlines will be required to provide personal information to authorities. I will say to which authorities, but first I want to read part of the schedule. Perhaps I should begin by reading an excerpt of the act, so people will believe me. We must be careful with the Liberals. They may well claim that I am wrong.

This government's legislation reads as follows:

The Minister, or any officer of the Department of Transport authorized by the Minister for the purposes of this section, may, for the purposes of transportation security, require any air carrier or operator of an aviation reservation system to provide the Minister or officer, as the case may be, within the time and in the manner specified by the Minister of officer, with information set out in the schedule that is in the air carrier's or operator's control concerning the persons on board or expected to be on board an aircraft.

The information that government officials wish to have includes, among other things:

The passport number of the person and, as the case may be, the visa number, or the proof of stay;

the city, country or travel covered by the passenger file;

the cities listed on the itinerary as points of departure or arrival;

the name of the user of the aircraft on board of which the person is likely to be;

the telephone number of the person;

the address of the person;

the type of payment used for the person's ticket;

as the case may be, an indication that the itinerary covered by the passenger file includes any segment that must be travelled by using an undetermined mode of transportation;

the itinerary of the trip covered by the passenger file, namely the points of departure and arrival, the codes of aircraft users, the stopovers and the land portions of the trip.

They want to know everything. When you are travelling, they want to be sure they control you. Of course, the airline company has to keep this information and disclose it to the authorities. This is always done for reasons of security.

That is the beauty of it all. The minister, or a transport department official authorizing what the minister can authorize, can obtain this information. But the government says:

Information provided under subsection(1) may be disclosed to persons outside theDepartment of Transport only for the purposesof transportation security, and it may bedisclosed only to--

When the Department of Transport requests this information, it can disclosed it to:

(a) the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration;

(b) the Minister of National Revenue;

(c) the chief executive officer of the CanadianAir Transport Security Authority;

--it does not exist yet, but it is in the works--and

(d) a person designated under subsection4.82(2) or (3).

The persons designated under subsection4.82(2) or (3) are theCommissioner ofthe Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and the Director of the CanadianSecurity Intelligence Service, or CSIS.

All the personal information mentioned on the form filled out when you buy a plane ticket to go on a trip can be shared with five or six departments, at the whim of the minister.

People will say, “Look, this is the information that the U.S. will be asking for anyway.” I said earlier that the information required by the U.S. is not the same as that required by Canada. Also, pursuant to the following provision, the government can make changes to that list.

(10) The Governor in Council may, on therecommendation of the Minister, by orderamend the schedule.

So, the minister could, on his own initiative, have a talk with the governor in council and decide to amend the list of information to be gathered by the airline company. This is serious.

Again, the government wants to gain control. I am geeting the signal that I only have a minute left, so I will conclude by giving the House an example. I hope no Quebecer and no Canadian will be flying on a plane with a suspect, because we know how things will be done.

Pursuant to this bill, for seven days, while someone is on vacation, all the departments I have just mentioned, including the revenue department, the RCMP and CSIS, will be able to investigate the suspect and determine that he or she presents a security risk. Knowing in which country this individual is, they could have him or her arrested and interrogated in a country that might not have the same respect for human rights than we have in Canada. Again, this is what the Bloc Quebecois will try to fight--

Species at Risk Act

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Madam Speaker, to a certain degree it is with a little bit of trepidation that I rise on this because I was not involved in the committee that studied this issue to the extent that perhaps some other members were.

However I am a member of parliament and must vote on the bill. Therefore I must understand it, take time to study it and look at all the ramifications. As members of parliament we all have an obligation to stake out our positions, whether in support or against the government or whether in support or against the committee.

The previous speaker made a statement and I think he said that absolutely nobody supports the government bill. That is simply not true. Perhaps he heard that statement. I would not accuse that member of saying something that was untrue but it is just not factual.

For example, much to my surprise, the cattlemen's association and the mining association supported the government approach on compensation. I would have thought that those were two groups to which many people, particularly from the west or from mining communities, would listen. There is some support there.

Provinces such as Alberta, Ontario, Manitoba and New Brunswick and all territories are all concerned about the committee amendments that change the balance between federal and provincial jurisdiction. There are members on the committee other than some of the ones who have spoken who will support the bill.

Let me talk, if I might, in terms of the criticisms levied against the government because members of the government caucus disagree with the government's position. It is always an interesting conundrum to hear members opposite and the media say that Liberal backbenchers must stand up and show some spine, that they have to be prepared to take positions against the government. What happens when they do? There are three particular members who have spoken or will speak on this issue for whom I have a lot of respect when it comes to environmental issues. I will listen to their arguments and judge whether or not I agree with them.

Just because I respect their knowledge or positions does not mean that at the end of the day I am always going to agree. Today we are dealing with amendments most of which I will admit are housekeeping but some of which are substantive, When those members stand to speak and stiffen their spines as they are encouraged to do particularly by members opposite people will stand up in this place and say, is it not awful the government will not listen and will not allow their respected members to continue speaking.

We know full well that the opposition would obviously rather listen to a distinguished member of the Liberal Party speak against the government than another member of the opposition. We understand that. That is not rocket science. If I were sitting over there I would probably want to do the same thing. The reality is that these committee members did their work, they put forward their arguments and the committee came forward with recommendations. Now it is up to the government to make a decision.

I am the vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. We just released our committee report this morning in a press conference at 10.30. Members from the government side were forced in many instances to put some water in our wine as it related to that particular bill. There were members in our caucus who spoke out against that particular bill several months ago when it was introduced, when the regulations were introduced, particularly as they relate to things like retroactivity and the new grid that would be used.

I only use this as an example to compare it to this particular bill and to these amendments. If we were to decide at the end of the day that given the rejection of the government of certain recommendations that we as backbenchers in the Liberal government have made, that as a result there is no way in our good conscience we can vote for the bill, then we should stiffen our spines. I have no difficulty with that and I know the government has no difficulty with that.

However in reality this is what we need to do because this is the art of the possible. Is it better to have no bill in this instance? Is it better not to have a process in which endangered species can be offered protection? I think of a place like the Oak Ridges Moraine. One of the recent speakers said this is largely a rural issue. In fact there are many parts of this great country that are going through the transition from rural to urban. The Oak Ridges Moraine in the greater Toronto area is a classic example. If rampant developments were allowed to take place there would be drainage of the water table that would destroy habitat. It would make it impossible for certain species to find food, to reproduce and to survive. With all due respect it is not just a rural issue.

I will grant that in most parts of rural Canada we will find more endangered species because there are fewer of us intruding upon their habitat, but it is still a factor in our own communities. In the Credit River valley, going right through the heart of the city of Mississauga, a city with over 600,000 people, I can assure the House that there are endangered species in that valley ecosystem that we would want to protect.

We need some rules. We need some understanding. We need a process.

I personally had a run in with an endangered species. I have a property in the Parry Sound area where I wanted to build a road. The MNR, the provincial ministry, came in and discovered the nest of a red-shouldered hawk, much to my surprise, on my property within 30 or 40 feet of the right of way where I wanted to build the road. Guess what? We were well along in the process and all of a sudden it was stopped. One red-shouldered hawk put an end to me having reasonable, easy access to my property. I must go by boat to get there as a result of that hawk.

I must say I had mixed feelings. At first, since I was getting older, I wished I could have this. Someone said I could take care of it, but I would not do that. At the end of the day this made my property that much more sacred to me. As a result we found a second nest. This is a very rare hawk which is in danger of extinction. I support the re-establishment of the committee that would come up with the definitions, scientific data and research that is needed to determine whether or not the red-shouldered hawk should in fact be put on the endangered species list. That is what the bill would do.

If we want to throw out the baby with the bath water, or the red hawk with the nest, then by all means trash the bill, but let us face it and look at some of the statistics. There were 334 motions tabled during clause by clause review. I know how grueling that is, having sat through at least that many in terms of the immigration bill, Bill C-11. I know how taxing it is. The committee passed 125 of the 334 motions tabled. That is a lot of work, research, and debate. Of these the government supports 75. The ministry requirement to have an assessment by the committee within 90 days is a substantial improvement to the situation.

I understand the passion and the feelings of those folks within the government caucus who will not be able to vote in support of the bill.

In this business one learns to put some water in the wine. There are victories that can be achieved by working through the committee process, the caucus process and perhaps even at report stage in this place. However at the end of the day a decision has to be made and my decision will be to support the bill.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to understand why the official opposition voted against the budget for security. Why did they vote against Bill C-11 at the time? All these tools were helping us and were allowing us to address these issues.

We took our responsibilities. They should now apologize.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the government has security as its priority, but it is also clear that human smuggling does not occur only in Canada.

Human smuggling is not just in Canada, it is all over the world. We have invested more and more money since December 10. At the same time, what we have accomplished with Bill C-11 and regulations, is that we now have the proper tools to answer those needs.

Supply

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to enter the debate on national security which remains a key concern for all Canadians I believe. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Scarborough--Rouge River.

On behalf of the solicitor general, I assure you, Mr. Speaker, and all members of parliament that national security and public safety continue to be the number one priority and the top priority for the Government of Canada.

The Solicitor General of Canada has a leadership role within the Government of Canada for protecting Canadians and helping them to maintain a peaceful and safe society.

Many other ministers of the government, including departments and agencies, are also key partners in this very important area in the fight against terrorism, including my hon. colleagues from justice, CCRA, CIC, DFAIT, national defence, Transport Canada and Health Canada. We all work closely with our federal partners on a daily basis through a variety of informal and formal meetings to ensure that the government's overall public safety strategy is co-ordinated and effective.

The ad hoc ministers' committee on public security and anti-terrorism as well as the deputy ministers' committee on public safety are prime examples of interdepartmental co-ordination.

The portfolio of the Solicitor General of Canada also co-operates with federal, provincial and territorial partners in a number of ways to share information, consult on major initiatives and to reach consensus on proposed criminal justice reforms. These include, for example, ministers responsible for justice, deputy ministers responsible for justice, co-ordinating committees of senior officials and several subcommittees and working groups to examine specific policy issues.

In particular, a new federal-provincial-territorial deputies committee has just been formed to ensure co-ordination among all jurisdictions in their approach to anti-terrorism and public safety issues.

Strong partnerships with stakeholders is vital to the work of the Solicitor General of Canada. We encourage and actively support co-operation with our non-governmental partners, including provincial and municipal police forces, and emergency firstline responders through consultation, information sharing, exchange of expertise and knowledge, training and the provision of resources.

It goes without saying that since September 11 counterterrorism is a top priority for police and security agencies the world over. It is a top priority here at home too for the RCMP, for CSIS and for law enforcement officials across Canada.

The primary role of the Government of Canada is to lead this fight against terrorism at national and international levels. The government is doing so through new legislation and several important initiatives announced in the last two federal budgets.

Since the year 2000, the Government of Canada has dedicated a total of $9.5 billion to public safety and national security, including $7.7 billion in the December 2001 budget. The comprehensive set of measures outlined in budget 2001 are designed to keep Canada safe, keep terrorists out and keep our borders open. To this end, it includes major investments to equip and deploy more intelligence and frontline investigative personnel, improve co-ordination among law enforcement, intelligence and national security agencies, and to boost marine security and safety to the tune of $1.6 million. It also includes improving the screening of immigrants, refugee claimants and visitors to the tune of $1 billion; creating a new air security organization, assigning armed undercover police officers on Canadian aircraft, purchasing explosive detection equipment and enhancing policing to the tune of $2.2 billion; and finally, enhancing border security and improving the infrastructure that supports major border crossings to ensure the legitimate flow of people and goods, which is so important to our economy, to the tune of $1.2 billion.

Furthermore, under Canada's anti-terrorism plan, key federal agencies responsible for public security, such as the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, will receive substantial new funding to enhance their counterterrorism capacity and priorities.

CSIS will receive an additional $334 million over five years which will be used to boost its frontline security intelligence capacity. The RCMP will receive an additional $576 million which will bring new technology on line and put more officers to work on national security matters.

Under Canada's anti-terrorism plan, specific federal support for provinces, territories and municipalities include the establishment of new integrated national security enforcement teams, INSETs, and increased integrated border enforcement teams, IBETs, by the RCMP with provision for the salaries of INSET members seconded from other jurisdictions.

These are all important measures and, while the focus is on counterterrorism, initiatives undertaken on this front have had ripple effects that will benefit organized crime investigations, community policing and policing and law enforcement in general. What these measures do is establish a framework to ensure a high level of public security and safety for Canadians wherever they live in a national security framework.

Federal anti-terrorism initiatives will clearly strengthen the criminal justice system on a national basis. All jurisdictions will benefit from the resulting tools, expertise, new or expanded programs and infrastructure. These benefits will continue over a long period of time.

As a result of the events that took place on September 11, the Government of Canada and the U.S. administration have been more attentive than ever in ensuring security and safety at our joint border. Both countries have formally agreed to co-operate on border security and regional migration issues and have signed a smart border declaration which includes a 30 point action plan to ensure a safe, secure and efficient border.

The goal is to facilitate the movement of legitimate goods and people while preventing terrorists and undesirable individuals from entering Canada or the United States.

The Government of Canada has long realized that the fight against organized crime is not a task it can take on alone. Since the adoption of the joint statement on organized crime in 1998, we have been working very closely with our provincial and territorial counterparts to address this problem.

The national agenda to combat organized crime identifies a series of new legislative initiatives to enhance the investigation and prosecution of organized crime. Bill C-24 was a good first step and an important first step.

The police community told policymakers there was a need to improve legislation and that is exactly what happened and what we did. Bill C-24 will assist in addressing serious problems like biker gangs and other forms of serious crime.

We all know that criminals are making full use of technological advances to facilitate and provide leverage for their crimes. In order to respond effectively, we need to capitalize on the new technological tools available to us.

An excellent example of this is the Canada Public Safety Information Network which is designed to link criminal justice agencies across Canada to allow for better detection and prosecution of offenders. In October 2001, the Solicitor General of Canada announced that $4.9 million in new money would be dedicated in part to enhancing this program.

Furthermore, encryption technology is becoming cheaper, stronger, widely available and easy to use. Criminals and terrorists increasingly use some form of encryption or password protection to secure their communications. That is why the Department of the Solicitor General has implemented an action plan to provide technical solutions and to conduct a comprehensive legislative review.

Here, as with organized crime, the challenge is for our laws to keep pace with the changing face of technology and crime.

The Government of Canada does not take public safety and national security for granted. As I have just outlined, we have introduced numerous initiatives designed to enhance both national security and public safety.

Parliament and parliamentary committees continue to play a vigorous role in this area. We have only to point to parliament's work on Bill C-36, Bill C-24, Bill C-11 and continuing debate regarding Bill C-42 and Bill S-23.

I look forward to the continued input of all parliamentarians as we work together in this very important area. I will conclude by saying that public security and public safety remain a top priority. As a government, along with all Canadians, we need to work in this very important area to ensure that at the end of the day we secure a safe and good place for Canadians wherever they live in this country.

Terrorism

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, as you know, because of the Privacy Act, I am not able to comment on personal or specific cases.

That having been said, with respect to Bill C-11 and the new regulations, additional powers allow us to fight terrorism even more effectively.

I would like to reassure my colleague that the safety and well-being of Canadians are a priority for this government.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the illegal forms were the Canadian Alliance cards in the riding of Gaspé.

I would like to mention that we made decisions. We took action and when there were problems regarding the IMM 1000, we conducted audits. This is why I announced this week that we would be implementing Bill C-11 and the regulations, and that we were replacing the IMM 1000 with the maple leaf card to prevent this fraud. We are very much aware of the problem.

Immigration

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, of course I will not comment on personal cases, but I am very troubled about those kinds of situations. That is why, through Bill C-11 and regulations, we will have better tools to prevent those kinds of situations.

Species at Risk Act

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to participate in the report stage aspect of the bill, but I must add that given that we have waited for species at risk legislation for over eight years since the government came to power, we now have proposed legislation that has been panned by most environmental groups because of its inadequacies in providing fair and reasonable compensation. It has been panned by landowners. As well, the provinces were clearly not on board beforehand.

I also want to add that the government had a glorious opportunity to utilize a consensus built among environmental groups and industry groups alike. They actually developed a common position paper which ensured that we had the principal aspects of a bill. There was scientific listing, which means that a species being or not being at risk should be based on science and not political choice. We should have mandatory protection for critical habitat on federal lands. We should also include migratory birds. Also, clearly landowners and all stakeholders need to ensure that we have a proper compensatory regime for those situations when writing a cheque is necessary to compensate landowners for loss of income where it can be identified. Clearly that cheque has to be at least fair and reasonable.

I do applaud the Canadian Alliance members and their efforts in committee on these aspects. They teamed up with the Progressive Conservatives and, I might add, the NDP to some degree to at least try to improve some aspects of the bill.

In regard to the motions before us, on clause 1 the amendment by the member for Lethbridge is clearly going in the right direction. It states:

--landowners should be compensated for any financial material losses to ensure that the cost of conserving species at risk are shared equitably by all Canadians--

I think that is a very good amendment.

I might add that there is another aspect of what is wrong with the compensatory regime in the bill. When Bill C-11, the immigration bill, was passed, we saw that it was framework legislation with the details to be provided in regulations some time down the road. If the government truly had its act together on the bill before us and knew what it was doing, the regulations pertaining to compensation would be tabled simultaneously with the bill itself. They should be. The fact is that the reason we do not have those regulations in play is that the government does not have its game plan down with respect to compensation.

We should not be surprised. The minister stated that reasonable behaviour is “something we expect, not something we need to buy”. He was a late arriver on the issue of compensation, which is one of the reasons why we do not have this aspect sorted out in the bill itself.

Other motions in this group include Motion No. 12, tabled by the member for Red Deer, which we do not support. In our view, the Tory view, the purpose of the bill should be to protect species at risk. The hon. member wants to ensure that it is done in a cost effective manner. I am okay with that but it is not the primary purpose of the bill itself. Clearly social and economic implications have to be taken into account during the recovery plan. That is where this aspect is done. Therefore I support the intent of what the member is looking at, but I do not support the language of the motion. Motion No. 13 brought forward by the member for Lethbridge is a similar motion. For the very same reasons we are not on board with it

We are clearly on board with Motion No. 28 in this first group. The motion brought forward by the member for Skeena states:

The agreement shall provide for fair and reasonable financial or material support--

At the committee stage of the bill the only substantive amendment that passed and at least improved the compensatory regime was the language tabled by the Progressive Conservatives on the words “fair and reasonable”. Before that it was entirely vague.

I thank members of the CA, the NDP and some very learned principal members of the Liberal caucus who stepped up to the plate to support the motion.

Moving to Motion No. 103 of the group we are debating at the moment, it has been tabled by the member for Lanark--Carleton. In our view he is trying to ensure that in accordance with regulations full, just and timely compensation is provided to any person for losses. Essentially he is trying to put a time line on it. We think it would strengthen the act and should be worthy of support of the House.

Moving to Motion No. 108, we are on board on that aspect as well. Essentially the member is advocating a strengthening of the compensatory regime. He is referring to the issue of the loss that one suffered as a result of the application of the act. We think that is indeed worthy of support.

Moving to Motion No. 111, it is a very good amendment by the member for Lanark--Carleton. It is more comprehensive than what we saw at committee stage when we went through this aspect. He tried to provide a bit more clarity with respect to what would be and would not be recovered.

He made reference to rules for the recovery of reasonable legal and other costs as a result of the compensation claim. We know that it is more than just the dollars that could be potentially lost. A lot of energy, time, effort and legal costs may come into play for one to win a potential claim with the Government of Canada if it ever gets its compensatory regime and regulations sorted out.

Moving to Motion No. 121, tabled by the member for Red Deer, we are not in support of the particular option. He is advocating that of the cumulative fines a potential landowner may have only one fine as opposed to a person making a series of infractions.

We want the legislation to have balance, in the words of the minister. We need to provide carrots to ensure we have reasonable behaviour by having a very strong stewardship regime and by perhaps even providing tax incentives, scientific capacity and the like.

I refer to the Tory amendment that was passed under the national stewardship strategy plan which outlined some of those aspects. However, if we want to be able to provide those carrots first, we know the stick is a component of strong legislation. We think that Motion No. 121 waters down that aspect. First and foremost we should be providing incentives so that we all collectively get the job done.

The last motion in this group is Motion No. 128. This will conclude my remarks on this section. We will support it. It says the minister shall in all circumstances advise the affected landowner, lessee or land user of the location of a wildlife species or habitat that is at risk.

The Progressive Conservatives had at least two amendments passed in the clause by clause section that were accepted by the committee. I am not sure if that will be gutted or not. We have not reached that section just yet.

To encourage landowners to take reasonable action the first thing we must do is notify them. They need to know there is a species at risk there and that steps may need to be taken. Those steps may just be to provide some very low level efforts to avoid a section of a woodlot or, depending on what particular species it might be, it could be tax incentives. However the first thing we need to do is notify them. That concludes my remarks on this group of amendments.

The Budget

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the 2001 budget debate. I probably should be talking about the many deficiencies in the budget, but that has been amply demonstrated by a number of opposition members, especially the member for Halifax, the member for Regina--Qu'Appelle and my colleague from Vancouver East.

I would like to spend my few minutes talking about something that has not been dealt with a lot in the debate and that is what I perceive to be the Americanization of not only the country but the budget.

Many Liberal members opposite have said that the budget has been reassuring to Canadians. I submit that if that has been the case, it has been only accidental. This budget had one purpose and one purpose only and that was to satisfy the Bush administration in Washington. It is sad and pathetic but I am not surprised.

What did surprise me a little was to read in the Globe and Mail today that the minister told reporters he had briefed his U.S. counterpart, treasury secretary Paul O'Neill, on the budget and had received a thumbs up. Some of us thought that there was secrecy in budgets and that we did not release them before they were released here. Apparently not because Washington was called to ensure that everything was okay with Mr. O'Neill, Mr. Bush and the rest before the government went any further. Does anyone believe that Tom Ridge, the home security minister in the United States, would have been here today if it had not been a very positive budget from Washington's viewpoint?

The Liberals said that they went coast to coast and listened clearly to what Canadians said. They may have listened to Canadians, but the only thing they were really listening to were the signals from Washington. If this was not a budget that was written by the Bush administration, it was certainly a budget that was written for the Bush administration.

Before yesterday we were told in the House repeatedly that the terrorists did not come through Canada to get to the United States three months ago today. In fact John Ashcroft at one point was forced to reverse his remarks and say that. I believe that, but after the pathetic budget, which was delivered yesterday, and the pandering that has gone on here to the Americans, I am beginning to have second thoughts.

We have heard all fall from ministers like the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Minister of Transport that all was well and they could carry out their duties and responsibilities with the legislation and the resources available to them. I would like to read into the record a couple of those references.

On October 30 the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, while talking about Bill C-11, said:

It gives us the ability to streamline our procedures, so that those who are in genuine need of our protection will be welcomed in Canada more quickly and those who are not in need of protection will be able to be removed more quickly.

On October 19 she referred to Mr. Zaccardelli, the commissioner of the RCMP. She said:

Yesterday the commissioner said that he totally disagrees with the notion that we are a safe haven. He said we should eliminate that word from our vocabulary...

Whether we have eliminated that word from our vocabulary or not and whether the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration felt she needed more resources, she got it yesterday. She got $1 billion to ward off illegal immigrants, something she said was well in hand prior to yesterday's budget. CSIS got $334 million dollars, the largest increase in the history of the intelligence security. It is being described in the media as a huge Christmas present.

Money was allocated for overseas immigration officers and $567 million was allocated for the RCMP. What do we receive for this money? When we go out on Parliament Hill we have these ludicrous security checks, costing millions of dollars and benefiting this country not one drop.

It is even worse when we look back at what the Minister of Transport had to say on the subject of air marshals. I would like to go through this. On the first day back in the House on September 17, the Minister of Transport said:

To deploy armed air marshals on flights is a radical suggestion. It poses severe logistical and financial implications and it is not the direction in which we are moving. We are committed to providing enhanced security on the ground, so we will not need air marshals.

It gets better. Ten days later, on September 26, the Minister of Transport said:

The United States is taking a certain measure of action. Having armed personnel on planes, whether they are pilots or air marshals, is not a road we will go down.

Finally, on October 5, he said:

We want to ensure that security measures are in place at airports to prevent the need for putting armed personnel on planes which in itself creates some degree of danger and is not endorsed, certainly not at this point, by the pilot unions in this country. In fact, Mr. Bush has not even agreed to the arming of cockpit personnel on planes.

Mr. Bush has now agreed to the arming of cockpit personnel on planes and so have we. Never mind what the Minister of Transport said on those three occasions. He is getting armed marshals whether or not he wants them. He is getting $2.2 billion over five years being paid for by the travelling public.

Immigration

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I was pleased to receive the committee's report. I have just had a chance to review it.

I noted that it did not call for mandatory detention, but in fact called for detention which is appropriate for both who are undocumented and unco-operative and is already included in Bill C-11, and it was part of the committee's report of March 2000.

While the government will be responding fully to the committee's report, I would say to the member that many of the issues that have been raised in the report are already a matter of government policy. The rest will be looked at very--

Income Tax Act

[Mark Assad, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that Canada's privacy legislation prohibits the government from discussing details of specific cases like the one he raised. The government would not jeopardize the integrity of its own intelligence or that of our neighbour, the United States.

What I can tell the member is that the existing act already contains some of the toughest provisions to deny admission to or deport terrorists regardless of the accusations we have heard in the House. At present we can and do detain whenever we believe someone is a flight risk or a threat to Canadians. If anyone poses a security risk to Canada we detain and argue for continued detention.

Front end security screening coupled with the new enforcement measures of Bill C-11 which was recently passed by parliament would provide immigration officers the tools they need to do their job. They are powerful tools compared to those of the past. They would automatically deny access to our refugee determination system to anyone found to be a security threat. Bill C-11 gave us the tools to deal with security threats more quickly.

We will not let terrorists strike at our core values. These values include a commitment to the charter, which we must always keep in mind; due process, in which we take great pride in the House; tolerance, which I hope is in the heart of every member of the House; and diversity in our immigration and refugee protection program which is seen as a model everywhere in the world.

We will not allow terrorists to push us off course. Canadians want security but they want us to respect our values and traditions. We are committed to the rule of law. This is why we cannot remove persons from Canada after due process has been served. Our system works on the basis of evidence. It consists of checks and balances and due process.

The Government of Canada will not allow persons to take advantage of our generosity by engaging in any kind of terrorism. We are acting to ensure Canada will never be a safe haven for terrorists. We are doing this in ways that are grounded in the rule of law which is the basis of our democracy.

Immigration

[Inky Mark, Canadian Alliance, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, today the auditor general in her report to parliament repeats what has been said for many years about immigration, that is, the government's lack of attention to the report.

Section 12.70 states:

In 1997 we recommended that Citizenship and Immigration Canada review the mechanisms used in applying the eligibility criteria set out in the Immigration Act.

For undocumented claims, the report states that:

Under Bill C-11, the decision on eligibility must be made within three working days--

Why does Bill C-42 propose changes to the 72 hour requirement?

The auditor general is having a difficult time assessing this recommendation of Bill C-11.

The auditor general also found that the safe third country provision made in the 1997 report was totally ignored by the government. So much for listening to the Auditor General of Canada.

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, nothing the minister of immigration says or does could match the flip-flops in the hon. member's question. The measure with respect to Bill C-11 and Bill C-42 was not to fix Bill C-42. It was to advance the bringing into application some of the most effective and meaningful parts of Bill C-42.

If the hon. member were serious about protecting the security of Canadians and their rights, he would be supporting the bill instead of coming up with his ridiculous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. This fall the immigration minister initially said she needed Bill C-11 to speed up the process and fix the system. Then she flip-flopped by contradicting herself and said she already had the existing tools to detain where there was any security risk. Now she claims we need Bill C-42 to fix the mistakes of Bill C-11.

Given her acrobatics as a serial flip-flop artist, does the minister want to give us her preview of what next week's position will be and, moreover, will she just admit that Bill C-11 was a very bad bill from the get-go?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will get his answer by looking at himself in the mirror. He is the one who tried to slow down Bill C-11 and we are the ones who are speeding it up by putting the key clauses in Bill C-42. He has things totally backwards. No wonder he is hidden in the corner down there.

[Inky Mark, Canadian Alliance, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no truth whatsoever to that statement.

The minister said of her much touted Bill C-11 “...we have streamlined procedures because we know that it does take too long”.

What happened to change the minister's mind as we see in Bill C-42? She was the one who insisted on the faster procedures. What happened to change her mind?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of turnarounds, the hon. member, when he was critic for I do not know which party, tabled a motion about Bill C-11 at committee stage to restore certain appeal rights to the appeal division for serious criminals and threats to Canadian security that Bill C-11 had removed to allow for quicker removals.

The hon. member should be allowed to get up again, apologize for this and explain the inconsistent position.

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I am certain that the minister and departmental officials will apply the law with the necessary vigour.

We strengthened the legislation with Bill C-11. I am certain that we are going to work actively and successfully to protect the safety of Canadians.

Anti-Terrorism Act

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

I do not often respond to ridiculous interjections but a Liberal member just said “what about forgiveness”. To forgive somebody who killed 3,000 people and send a message to him that, hey pal, it is not a problem, he will be up for parole; that is not forgiveness following that act, that is stupidity.

The bill does not make it illegal to be a member of a terrorist organization. Those who are thinking of fleeing to a country where they can still be a member of their terrorist organization though banned from doing so in other freedom-loving countries would be welcome here in Canada. That is ridiculous.

By saying “recognized terrorist organization”, I mean one that has met the burden of proof that is set out in the bill to be included in the list of entities. The minister maintains she has done this for the purpose of targeting terrorist acts and terrorist activity, but we are all aware that joining a terrorist organization has only one purpose: to participate in or to facilitate terrorist activity. That is the only reason for joining.

The minister has argued that banning membership may contravene the right to freedom of association. Surely our courts would rule that such misguided tolerance is an affront to the rule of law and abuse of the concept of freedom of association.

By far the most glaring omission of Bill C-36 is the minister's failure to deal with the issue of extradition. The Canadian Alliance long before September 11 had called for prompt extradition of foreign nationals who are charged with acts of terrorism. We will continue to ask the government to take steps to ensure that Canada no longer remains a safe haven for terrorists who come to Canada to escape the consequences of their actions in other countries. These terrorists should never be allowed to exist freely in our society and endanger Canadian citizens.

Canada quite rightly has earned a reputation of being welcoming to people from all over the world who want to come here to love and respect freedom and liberty, to pursue their hopes and dreams and see their children grow up to pursue and achieve their hopes and dreams. That is a reputation of which we are proud. But we also have a reputation of being a haven for those who do not respect freedom and liberties and for those who would tear freedom and liberty from others and those who would destroy life in the process and then would come to Canada knowing that our legislation would keep them from facing the consequences of their actions in other jurisdictions. That is ridiculous. That door must be slammed.

In addition to these shortcomings, unfortunately, the Liberal government has not yet allocated sufficient resources to the military, to police services or to the intelligence activities that we must have if we are going to properly fight terrorism.

It is no secret that the costs of fighting terrorism and organized crime are huge. These are huge costs. In a recent case that was prosecuted in Edmonton, it took $5 million to convict just three members of the Hell's Angels. Convicting terrorists will be no different. They will use every legal loophole and other means available to them to fight their convictions. The cost will be significant.

In a written brief submitted to the justice committee last spring, the Canadian Police Association wrote of the extraordinary fiscal consequences that the police face when they are investigating and prosecuting these kinds of crimes. They said that these fiscal consequences “defy any modern sense of efficiency or effectiveness”.

Although Bill C-36 will to some extent help to combat terrorism, this legislation in itself is not enough to effectively prevent terrorist activity on Canadian soil. Bill C-36 is only one piece of a very necessary puzzle. There need to be other issues addressed also, such as tightening our refugee determination system and giving powers to CSIS to operate overseas.

If we do not tighten our refugee determination system, then the genuine refugees, who should be here in this country experiencing freedom for the first time in their lives, will be jeopardized by those who continue to abuse the system and continue to be allowed to abuse the system because Bill C-36 will not slam the door on that abuse the way it should.

The legislation will be of no use whatsoever if we do not also have the resources in place to enforce it. Norman Inkster, the former commissioner of the RCMP, supports the bill's provisions that allow police to perform preventive arrest, as do we, but there have to be safeguards provided. He has said that other measures must be added, such as stepping up screening procedures at Canada's overseas missions and harmonizing border policies with the United States. He was clear on that and we are clear on that, as are many other associations and provinces.

Mr. Inkster believes it will be easier to deal with this issue offshore than it is to deal with the people when they are inside our borders and that makes ultimate sense. The former RCMP commissioner says that Canada should definitely be gathering information overseas and more important, Canada should be more diligent in whom we allow into the country in the first place.

Another RCMP officer, Sergeant Philippe Lapierre of the National Security Investigation Section, the counterterrorism branch of the RCMP, said at a conference on money laundering in Montreal that some people are sent here with a mission and some people come and are recruited, but once here, they all have the same modus operandi. Then he described what they do when they come here. These are the illegal ones who should not be here, who are allowed to get through and will continue to be allowed to get through by the gaping holes left in the legislation.

He also said that the first step is they claim refugee status, allowing them to remain in Canada as long as their claim is working its way through the cumbersome refugee determination process. He went on to say that the second step is to claim Canadian social benefits, applying for welfare and health cards, to ensure a stream of income. He said that the third step is to become involved in petty crime, such as theft and credit card fraud. Then he said that the fourth step is to launder their money through legal businesses that are set up as fronts. If we are to break this terrorist modus operandi, we must start at the front end and stop false refugee claimants who are security threats from getting into the country in the first place.

Every time we talk about the gaping holes in our refugee determination system, the government assures us that all will be well under the panacea of Bill C-11, but Bill C-11 was in the pipeline long before September 11. It is not a bill designed to deal with the clear and present danger of international terrorists coming into our country.

As a matter of fact, Bill C-11 creates a whole new level of appeals for refugee claimants. In some ways, it makes the matter worse. This vaunted front end screening the minister talks about simply means that we will begin security checks a few weeks earlier in a process that could take 18 months to complete just at the preliminary stage.

What is completely lacking in the bill is the kind of tough measures that are found in comparable U.S. and U.K. legislation.

If refugees arrive in the country on airplanes or on ships without documentation, they must be detained until it can be determined what their true identity is. That has to be checked against existing databases. Then and only then can a determination be made that they are not a security threat, because to have arrived here either by airplane or ship from an international destination, they had to have some kind of document or paper in their possession to get on that plane or that ship. That means somewhere in the process of coming over here, they destroyed their documents. They threw them overboard, tore them up, or did something to them. That automatically makes them suspicious. Those individuals need to be detained until they can be cleared totally of being any threat to security.

Nothing in Bill C-11 addresses these issues. Nothing in Bill C-36 and nothing in Bill C-42 addresses these issues.

In addition to dealing with potential security risks before people show up in the country, we need to provide more resources to the RCMP. The RCMP has served a vital role in the protection of Canadians over the years of our history. This national police force is a source of pride and comfort to Canadians.

Funding problems facing the RCMP during the last decade are well documented. The 2000 Conference Board of Canada report finds that in the past decade, the RCMP lost 2,200 positions and close to $175 million in funding. The report found the results of these cuts were heavy workloads, inadequate operating budgets in the field, loss of trust in senior management and officers who were overworked and demoralized.

Examples of the repercussion of Liberal funding cuts to the RCMP are all over the place. In 1999 in British Columbia the RCMP reported being understaffed and overworked. One 30 month investigation involved numerous hours of unpaid overtime due to an acute lack of financial resources. In RCMP A division, which operates in Ottawa, investigators were denied voice mail, cellphones and pagers. They were even told that they could not spend $20 for new business cards. That is no way to treat the men and women who are serving with their lives to protect Canadians.

In British Columbia the RCMP closed dozens of commercial crime files because there simply were not enough resources to investigate those files. Some officers were responding to calls with their own personal vehicles. This situation existed before September 11. Now post-September 11, we find a massive reallocation of limited resources to the fight against terrorism. What we do not see is a commitment from the government to provide long term, stable and sufficient funding for the force.

This piecemeal approach that the Liberals have taken does not address the severe shortage in human resources that is facing the RCMP. What is most disturbing however is the contradictory messages that we are receiving from the leadership of the RCMP and from those who represent the front line officers.

The front line officers have recognized the desperate situation. They are calling for action. RCMP Sergeant Mike Niebudek revealed that the new war on terrorism has put a severe strain on a force whose resources were already stretched to the limit. David Griffin, who is a Canadian Police Association representative, stated recently: “Before September 11, new squads were being created within the RCMP to deal with organized crime. That priority is being abandoned”. That is what he said. The priority of organized crime is being abandoned. That is simply unacceptable. We cannot simply drop everything that the RCMP was working on prior to September 11, but the funding situation is driving it in that direction.

Statistics Canada just released its statistics for homicide in Canada. It found that over the past five years gang related murders in Canada have more than tripled. The solicitor general must realize that the RCMP needs the resources not only for the fight on terrorism which is so important, but to continue to ensure that Canadians are protected from other threats. What will be done to ensure that in the effort to fight terrorism other responsibilities of the RCMP will not be dropped?

The RCMP has been chronically underfunded by the Liberal government. The Canadian Police Association has recognized this. It passed a resolution at its 2001 annual meeting calling on the federal government to increase funding. The resolution states:

Whereas the RCMP budget has been reduced to the point the force cannot meet its obligations in many parts of Canada,

Whereas RCMP officers are being removed from federal services to augment shortfalls in municipal and provincial complement, and

Whereas the Government of Canada does not adequately fund the RCMP budget as it pertains to areas of federal and national responsibilities, and

Whereas these responsibilities provide vital support to all police agencies in Canada.

The resolution concludes by saying:

Be it resolved that the Canadian Police Association, in co-operation with its member associations, implores the government--

Our police officers should not have to come on bended knees, begging and imploring the government. They are literally begging the Government of Canada “to provide adequate funding to the RCMP budget, to maximize the effectiveness of federal and national policing responsibilities”. The association passed that resolution before September 11.

According to Statistics Canada, there were 5,180 RCMP officers designated as federal in 1994. These officers handled criminal investigations involving organized crime, immigration fraud, money laundering and drug trafficking. Last year that number had dropped to only 4,341 personnel. That is a drop of 839 people through a period now of increased threats from terrorism and organized crime, not to mention an increase in the population.

The threats from organized crime, drug trafficking and immigration fraud did not go away after September 11. They are still here and perhaps even enhanced, yet we hear reports of up to 2,000 mounties being reassigned to investigate terrorist threats. Even Commissioner Zaccardelli has stated that the RCMP is curtailing some work as an effect of the reallocation of these human resources.

We hope the upcoming budget will address the crucial need for more resources for the RCMP. We will be watching very carefully to see that it does.

Another area where the government has shown great neglect, which the bill and actions taken by the government to date have done nothing to address, is CSIS.

Wesley Wark, a University of Toronto associate professor, who was speaking before the justice committee, said that we are at a crisis point in the evolution of Canadian security and intelligence. He believes that parliament has turned a blind eye in the past to security and intelligence matters.

I would only debate with him that parliament has not turned a blind eye to security and intelligence matters. The Canadian Alliance official opposition has had both eyes on that target. The federal government has turned its eyes away from these concerns.

The Toronto professor pointed out that while the United States spends $30 billion a year on intelligence collection and on analysis, Canada spends a laughable fragment of that sum on these matters. That is not acceptable. He also said that CSIS needs more money, something we have been pushing for a long time but to no avail. Even this expert said that money alone is not enough.

CSIS is on the front line protecting Canadians from terrorism. Over the past years CSIS has warned of the threat that terrorists pose to Canada and its allies. However, like the RCMP, funding cuts to CSIS have undermined its ability to operate effectively. According to its 2000 public report, financial resources were $244 million in 1993. In 1999 the figure was down to $179 million. The number of people working for CSIS went from 2,760 in 1993 to less than 2,000 in 1999. This represents a 40% decline in human resources for Canada's counterintelligence service. Today the budget for CSIS is only $194 million and it employs just over 2,000 people.

The lack of both human and financial resources has left the agency and its workers swamped with work, as are RCMP officers. Threat assessments are conducted in years rather than days according to the Security Intelligence Review Committee. The agency simply was not a priority of the government.

According to the solicitor general's 2001 estimates, funding for CSIS would decline further, unbelievably, to $169 million in 2002. This was despite the warning that the terrorist threat to Canada and its allies was at an all time high. This was before September 11.

Paule Gauthier, chair of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, says that the extra $10 million that was announced for CSIS will go largely toward new equipment. What is needed is long term, reliable funding that will enable this important agency to employ the human resources necessary to deal with the mountains of information that must be processed. Dealing with potential threats expediently and efficiently is what CSIS needs to do but it is unable to do that because of the resource cuts the government has hit it with over the last years.

It is the responsibility of CSIS to perform background checks on immigrants and refugee claimants. The Security Intelligence Review Committee reports that CSIS is so overloaded with work it can take years to determine if a person poses a security threat. That is simply not acceptable. The chair of the committee, Paule Gauthier, stated that the agency needed more resources and that it was stretched to the maximum. The screening of refugees and immigrants is one of the most important elements in this fight against terrorism and it requires adequate human resources.

The government's priorities simply must change. We all know the Liberal leadership race is on and the ministers seem to be funding their own pet projects to the detriment of Canada's security. We continue to hear, regardless of what is leaked out in the headlines, that the Minister of Industry wants $1.5 billion for broad band Internet access. Canadians already lead most other nations in the world in terms of personally making the choice to get on the Internet and to have their own personal computers at home. Canadians have done this on their own initiative and yet the minister wants $1.5 billion to enhance chat lines.

The Minister of Justice has asked for an additional $114 million to top up the over $500 million that taxpayers have had to pay out for a firearms registry system that simply is not working.

To put these costs in perspective, we must remember that the total budget for CSIS is under $200 million. We have been told that the accumulated cost of the firearms registry system, which is not working, will be $685 million this year. Where are the priorities? We ask people to think in these terms: $200 million for the war on terrorism and $685 million for the war on duck hunters. The government has to get its priorities in order.

The government must address CSIS funding if Bill C-36 is to be effective at all and not simply a paper tiger.

CSIS also needs, to quote Dr. Wark:

--talent and expertise, and, above all, highly-trained analysts to make sense of the information that is going to be collected by Canadian operatives and be passed to Canada, if we stay in the alliance game, by our allies.

That is absolutely necessary.

He went on to say:

--making sense of the information that comes into a security and intelligence community, putting the pieces of the puzzle together, analysing it well, packaging it in a credible way that will be read and understood.

It is equally and vitally important in Dr. Wark's perspective.

Dr. Wark also believes that there is an enormous deficiency in terms of the way in which intelligence gets to cabinet level for decision making. I feel like making an analogy about intelligence and cabinet level decision making but I am resisting. Dr. Wark ponders the idea of the creation of a cabinet level ministerial position responsible for national security and intelligence. I am not saying I am completely in agreement at this time with that proposition but I do think we need to bring together all the departments responsible for analytical issues in the security and intelligence field. That definitely has to happen.

Furthermore, concurring with the Toronto professor, I believe we need a foreign secret service capacity. Right now under the CSIS Act, CSIS has a restricted mandate for collecting foreign intelligence. That is not good enough today in the war on terrorism.

Dr. Wark goes on to say:

We need such a capacity for a number of reasons, not the least of which is to allow Canada to continue to play a role as an independent actor in the global intelligence business; and, in addition, to allow Canada to maintain its place at the allied intelligence table, which has historically been so vital to any of the successes it has had in that field.

If Canada is not there carrying the weight and carrying the freight, it will be excluded from a position of prominence around that intelligence gathering table internationally. We cannot afford that.

Former RCMP commissioner, Norman Inkster, and former CSIS deputy director, James Corcoran, believe that the CSIS Act requires a full overhaul and they have therefore urged the government to review that 1984 act, and we agree with them.

Under Bill C-36, the CSIS Act has received a minor amendment in that it adds the terms “religious or ideological” to the definition of a security threat. I do not see bin Laden and his troops shivering in fear when they read that.

Appearing before the Senate defence committee, both Inkster and Corcoran said “within Canada needs to be removed from the act to give CSIS a clear international mandate”.

So again, there are still large weaknesses in the powers that are given to the RCMP and to CSIS under the bill, and there is still no guarantee that the resources they will need to be effective, even with this somewhat weakened bill, will be there for them.

Nonetheless, there are provisions in the bill which we support, as I have said, and we will vote for the bill on third reading despite the shabby way the government has dealt with it in the House.

These elements are of grave concern to Canadians, especially in the area of supporting those security forces that need to be there for us.

In 1998, CSIS stated that some 50 international terrorist groups were operating in Canada and that the names included some of the most deadly enemies of peace and democracy in the world today. Some of the groups that were banned by the British terrorism act of 2000 and are known to have operated, and do operate in Canada, are the Babbar Khalsa, the International Sikh Youth Federation, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Kurdistan Workers Party and the Irish Republican Army.

The Kelly report, a recent report from the Senate special committee, stated in 1999 that Canada was a primary venue of opportunity to support, plan or mount terrorist attacks, contrary to what some people wishfully think.

What happened in New York City can happen here, perhaps even worse. Attacks like the New York City attack could be planned and orchestrated from Canadian soil by groups attempting to take advantage of the weaknesses of our legislation.

In 1999, Canada signed the UN international convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism. We need to do more. We need to take extra steps in that regard.

If a government like the United States seeks people accused of terrorism in Canada, we must be convinced that there is reasonable evidence. This is a very important point.

I know some of our colleagues in the House have some sensitivity on this. If there is reasonable evidence, we should turn terrorists over, regardless of the fact that they may face a penalty in that country, for instance in the United States, that would not apply here. That move would require a change in Canadian law to send a signal to terrorists that they cannot take advantage of Canada to avoid facing justice for their crimes.

One can only imagine the outrage if one of the perpetrators of the acts in New York City and Washington, perhaps even the criminal mastermind who so carefully co-ordinated the flight schedules of the terrorists, found his way to Canada and we found ourselves unable to extradite such a person to the United States to face justice. Canadian law must address this possibility now because Canadian citizens will demand it.

Before concluding I must turn to address my friends in the Progressive Conservative/Democratic Representative Caucus Coalition. The Canadian Alliance was pleased that they supported our September 18 motion calling for tough anti-terrorism legislation. At the time and in the days immediately following September 11, they did seem to stand with us in supporting tough action on terrorism, but as the days went by various interest groups started criticizing the bill for giving Canadian police the same kinds of powers as those of police in the United States, Britain and Europe. The interest groups say there are valid concerns about information and privacy rights under the bill and say that we need parliamentary review.

We are pleased that the government has made some amendments in the area, but Canadians deserve tough anti-terrorism legislation to protect them. Our police deserve the powers and resources they need to break up terrorist cells in Canada. Our biggest concern is that the bill is not tough enough in some areas and does nothing to provide the resources that our police and security services need.

Very soon we will all have a fundamental choice. Our colleagues in the PC/DRC will have a fundamental choice. Will they stand with the lobbyists and special interest groups who do not believe in giving police officers the powers they need to do their job or will they stand up for the safety and security of Canadians and our allies? That will be the vital question that we will be asking today, tomorrow and in the days ahead.

We have asked for and received, not perfectly, some of the steps necessary to review the legislation in a proper way at a proper time. In a time of crisis, a time of war, we do recognize that certain liberties we may enjoy at a certain time may in fact be somewhat curtailed because of a crisis that is upon us. That should not be permanent, but it must be in place so that we can prevent the terrible acts happening that otherwise would were it not in effect.

That is why we support the government on the provisions it made. We deplore its complete lack of recognition of the gaping holes that it leaves unattended. We also recognize that there are provisions in place to, at a convenient and proper time, review the legislation and make adjustments if necessary.

The official opposition will continue to ask for the kinds of changes that we feel are necessary to restore confidence to our citizens, confidence in safety and security, confidence in the markets and confidence that we continue to grow both socially and economically.

However, the one thing we cannot afford is complacency. As Edmund Burke famously said, “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing”. Changing laws alone will not stop terrorism. We are legislators and drafting and changing laws is what we do.

Let it not be said after the next horrific terrorist incident that it happened because the good men and good women of the House chose to do nothing.

There was an unfortunate incident that took place in the development and discussion of Bill C-36. It must be addressed. We were all dismayed when we learned earlier that the contents of the bill were actually leaked to the media before being tabled in the House. Our House leader raised it as a question of privilege.

The matter was referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. What is disturbing is that the committee was too quick to give up. More disturbing was the fact that nobody on the government side took responsibility for this glaring act of abuse of the parliamentary process. When the minister leaked the contents of Bill C-15, she took responsibility.

Anti-terrorism Act

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate on this group of amendments to Bill C-36. As we have heard from other of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, we certainly support the amendment before us and other amendments that we are dealing with at this stage, but oppose the bill without some major acceptance of the amendments being proposed.

It is rather ironic that today of all days we are dealing with the heavy hand of closure by the Liberal Government of Canada. All of us will recall that today is the anniversary of our election, whether as a first, second or many term member to the House. It should be a day of celebration, a day to celebrate democracy, not to be sidelined and bowled over by the heavy hand of closure, which is the reality today.

One year ago we were elected or re-elected to stand and represent constituents and Canadians from one end of the country to the other. We were elected to represent, we were not elected to rubber stamp an arbitrary government measure. We were elected to debate and make tough decisions based on the collective good and the public interest. We were not elected to ride roughshod over the rights and liberties of individual Canadians, yet today we are faced with just that.

It is a sad day, a very dark moment in the history of the country, since so much is at stake. So much of what we are dealing with is fundamental to who we are as a nation. The broad, wide, sweeping powers of the legislation, the substantive change that the bill represents are contrary to the fundamental values of Canadians. In no way is it an answer to what the government suggested is the threat of terrorism as we know it today.

I listened very carefully to the member for Etobicoke North and to others throughout the debate. It is clear to me that they are very much trying to defend the indefensible. It is impossible to pretend to be dealing with the threat of terrorism, which we all agree must be dealt with, by stepping over the rights and privileges of Canadians and dismantling the institutions that hold this country together and the values we hold near and dear to us.

In opposing the legislation without substantive amendments, the New Democrats did not vote against improving the security of Canadians. In fact, the contrary is the case. We are expressing our concern with the bill and raising a challenge to the government in order to find mechanisms to defeat terrorism without defeating basic rights enjoyed by all Canadians.

I quote a Globe and Mail editorial on October 1 in response to all those who suggested that Canadians desperately want this kind of bill that stamps all over the rights of individual Canadians, as there is a question as to whether that is the case or not. The editorial said:

Although Canadians desperately want to see evidence that the federal government is taking strong and meaningful measures to improve national security, there is no evidence that Canadians want to hand the government carte blanche to create a nation where important protections may be suspended arbitrarily if it seems handy.

That is the issue we are really dealing with today. It is that balance between protecting Canadians' against terrorism and ensuring their security while standing up for individual freedoms and liberties that we fought so long and hard for.

Many groups and concerned Canadians made presentations and sent us faxes and e-mails to let us know their concerns. Those concerns by and large were not taken into account by the government in a very heavy-handed process through the committee stage and into the House today. Those concerns ranged from preventive arrest right through to the definition of terrorism. I want to focus for a moment on that issue because it overlaps directly with the concerns we heard about Bill C-11 on immigration and refugee policy.

During those hearings concerns were raised around the fact that we do not have an accepted universal definition of terrorist. This makes it a questionable and weak legal term and one that is open to wide abuse. The label terrorist is often used as a political weapon against a government's opponents without any basis in fact. It is often a propaganda weapon used to discredit legitimate opposition. For these reasons my NDP colleagues and I proposed an amendment to improve the effectiveness of Bill C-11 by dumping the fuzzy language and basing our security provisions on sounder security grounds and verifiable evidence.

The definition we are dealing with today in Bill C-36 presents exactly the same problem. It may make us feel good but when it comes to enforcement, the water muddies and it comes down to personal biases and techniques such as profiling certain groups. That is exactly what has been happening. How can the government rationalize a system that holds someone like Ribhi Sheikha in custody for 57 days, 23 of which were in solitary confinement, for no apparent reason except he is Palestinian in origin? I do not need to tell members of the House that many other Canadians have been detained in the same way.

If the police are profiling identifiable groups as potential terrorists, how is the public going to react to those groups? By the religiously and racially motivated hate incidents that we have seen multiplying since September 11. This is totally unacceptable in Canada and is totally predictable with the approach the government is taking.

The government of the day is putting whole sections of our population under suspicion, suspicion by law enforcement officers and suspicion by their neighbours and friends. Children are being targeted with slurs. Families are being made to feel unwelcome in their own country.

We have to say again and again that there is a better way to protect Canadians. However the government has chosen to ignore honest propositions and responsible alternatives from groups all over the country, in particular groups that deal with immigrants and refugees on a daily basis. Many organizations, like the Canadian Council for Refugees, have offered clear alternatives that strike a better balance between security concerns and civil liberties. We can limit terrorist activity to specific internationally recognized offences. That is clear.

Many Canadians have fought long and hard to protect our fundamental freedoms, freedoms that the bill walks all over. One of the greatest threats to our whole political system is the undermining of our freedom of association. Guilt by association breaks down our trust of each other as was so amply demonstrated by McCarthyism in the United States. This bill reeks of guilt by association.

All of us are probably members or supporters of organizations of one sort or another, yet we cannot be expected to know about every connection to other groups. The average Canadian has no idea about all the interlocking corporate connections where their savings are invested, and that is one of the most sophisticated systems in the world. How can we expect every refugee to know as much as our intelligence services do about activities that function on secrecy?

Bill C-36 flies in the face of that basic quest for accountability and openness. It flies in the face of our basic legal premise that people have a right to know what evidence is being used against them in order to offer evidence to the contrary, if they have any. How are persons fleeing persecution with only the clothes on their backs expected to present their cases as refugee claimants without even knowing what or through whose information they are being challenged?

When Bill C-11 was under review many of us in the House, and from other parties as well, fought very hard for legal protections that we value and are enshrined in our charter of rights and freedoms to be applied to our immigration and refugee process. We said at that time and we repeat today that without the right to defend oneself, any hearing or legal process is a sham.

Canadians have spoken and I hope the government will listen. Many Canadians have made these points over and over again but they have not been included or incorporated in the bill. I want to refer to a few Canadians who have expressed concerns in very moving ways. A woman by the name of Margo said:

I am afraid of this legislation as written, very afraid. I am afraid for myself as a concerned citizen, someone who might choose to speak out, or march in a protest against perceived ills in our society or “for” something I believe in; I am afraid for my children who may choose to exercise their once-democratic rights in the future, and who will do so with their rights of expression and dissent no longer enshrined as they always have been. Yes, we need to make our country safe and as secure as possible against terrorism. But not at the price of abrogating our fundamental democratic rights.

Canadians have spoken. I hope the government will listen.

Anti-Terrorism Legislation

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we have been saying and what Bill C-11 says. In fact the existing immigration law gives my officials that authority, wherever they have concerns as to identity, if they are concerned the individual poses any kind of a security risk or criminality risk to Canada or if they are concerned that an individual is not going to show up for his or her hearing. We can and we do detain.

Further, let me tell the leader of the official opposition that an editorial in the National Post states that “Bill C-11 gives immigration officials the authority to deny suspected terrorists access to our refugee system”. That is—

Anti-terrorism Act

[Art Hanger, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say how pleased I am to address the bill one more time but I am not at all happy, of course. Many members on the opposition side, and I would not doubt on the government side too if they would stand up and say it, agree that to put closure on this piece of legislation is not a wise thing to do. There is much more to be discussed yet. Given that, I am going to spend my time addressing some more points on the bill, which I think need to be addressed on the issue of resources.

For the last eight years in the House issues of security have always been of high interest to me, having come from a police background. Resources have always been a key point in getting any job done. The more thoroughly one wants the job to be done, the more boots on the ground are required to do it. Whether that is in intelligence gathering or investigation itself or even in the prosecution courts system, those are the areas where people are required to make things happen.

What concerns me not so much with the legislation but with the posturing on the government side is that the real issue has still not been addressed. We could have the best policies in the world. I for the most part do not disagree with much of what is here; there are some exceptions and my colleagues have addressed them quite adequately previously. We can have the best policy which looks really good on the books and even reads well but if we do not have the resources to make things happen, then that policy is all for naught.

Back in 1994 the issue for just about every enforcement agency, and here we are talking about enforcement again but I will throw defence into the mix, was the need for more manpower, resources and up to date equipment so the agencies could effectively do their jobs. That was the call in 1993 and 1994.

In the last four months I have taken trips not only to the border crossings in the country but also to an immigration office overseas. In speaking with some of my police colleagues and immigration enforcement officers, the message was far more urgent to resource the enforcement agencies than it was back in 1994. I cannot understand concentrating on this piece of legislation when it is resources that are going to make things work. In other words, let us put some money into it. Let us tighten up in the areas where it is not working.

If those two issues alone were looked after, if they alone were addressed by the government, I wonder how much legislation we would really need. What does it take to do intelligence gathering? If we have policy that restricts the use of the intelligence we have gathered, it is necessary to address that restriction. One example is shared information with our neighbours to the south. What are the inhibitors on this side of sharing information with them and what are their inhibitors that would prevent them from sharing information with us? To me, legislation for the most part does not come into play here. Or does it? If it does, it should be changed accordingly.

We can have these policies that address certain issues on terrorism and try to make an impact and make our country more secure, but for the most part the government has fallen far short of resourcing those particular agencies that need help. I am going to address some of those agencies, including the immigration offices.

When I was last in Vancouver, the immigration officers spoke of the need for 140 or 150 people right there at that time just to deal with the issues of increased security and processing of immigrants and refugees who came to those ports of entry in British Columbia. Maybe 140 or 150 does not sound like too many, but that is only one district. The minister has declared openly that she would supply 100 officers for the entire country, but technically that does not even fill the bill for the British Columbia district.

What will happen now? There is no question that with Bill C-36, Bill C-11, with the add-on of Bill C-42, which also has to do with immigration, the pressure will be on those frontline officers to deal with it. If they do not deal with it effectively, there will be a slipshod, haphazard job of security checks done on people coming into the country. Again, it is not because of the legislation per se, all of it, but because it is not being resourced. We are not bolstering up the manpower where it counts.

I will give one example. The immigration department alone, in the words of the immigration minister, presently has 27,000 applications that need security checks and security analysis. These cannot be done overnight. Immediately that puts a burden on immigration, on CSIS and so it should. The burden is undue given that both of those agencies are under-resourced. It also puts a burden on immigration enforcement. The enforcement section is already under-resourced.

There are 27,000 applicants now. On top of all of that, throw in another 20,000 claimants who have abandoned all claims. They have abandoned all claims of attempting to go through the refugee process. Where are those individuals? Who are those individuals? No one knows. No one has a clear indication of where or who those people are or if they belong to a questionable organization. It is an unknown factor.

There is much that can be done in dealing with issues such as these. This is a security issue and should be a priority for the government and for parliament. This gives me the opportunity to address those concerns which the government side is not addressing.

Having talked about immigration, I now turn to customs. The frontline officers are the first contact for individuals coming into Canada. They are the first contact, the front line. Their emphasis has always been on goods and services and the revenue generated as a result. It has not necessarily been on immigration. Although some of those officers do a fine job, their training is outside that whole realm. There is not a piece of legislation necessarily that could change that process and put the emphasis where it should be, again to further protect our country, to further protect those who have come here and those making their home in Canada. That is the situation.

The next agency that needs assistance is the RCMP. I am going to name CSIS as well. There is no question that between those two agencies right now the pressure is on our national police force, the RCMP, as well as CSIS, the intelligence gatherer, the analyzing agency that will disseminate much of what is found to other points and agencies in Canada.

The list could go on and on. It all comes back to the whole issue of resources. It is not so much the legislation, not so much the matter that we have another bill we can throw on the shelf and say that we did our job again. It is not that. It is where is the money and the resources to fund what we now claim to be the best piece of legislation going? That is my question to the government.

Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Burnaby--Douglas spent much of his time discussing Bill C-36, the terrorist bill and now the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca has spent much of his time discussing Bill C-11, the immigration bill. However the bill we are discussing today is Bill C-35, an act to amend the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act.

This proclivity on the part of two members who usually exhibit some knowledge in foreign affairs to ignore the fact that we are debating at third reading stage Bill C-35, is beginning to impact negatively on my self-esteem. Not to sound petulant, but it is my job as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs to try to bring forward a particular bill. My difficulty is trying to get some members to focus on that bill.

That said, I will attempt to reach to the hon. member's strong background and suggest that his idea that we should move out of the Vienna conventions and into an international court, perhaps the international criminal court of the treaty of Rome which has not yet received near the number of ratifications to bring it into existence, is naive. I say that most honestly. The Vienna convention is already established. Many nations participate. To tear that down and begin again as the hon. member is suggesting is something that is almost impossible to commence.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca when talking about refugees arriving here without proper documentation, took the opportunity of a debate on Bill C-35 to actually make comment on Bill C-11, the immigration bill that received royal assent two weeks ago. Since the hon. member has done that, with your permission Mr. Speaker, I would like to rebut his remarks on Bill C-11.

His proposition was that people who arrive in Canada by air who do not have proper identification or have no documentation whatsoever should be immediately turned around and sent back.

I would remind him that in the real world of people fleeing state terrorism, it is very difficult for genuine refugees to get proper documentation. They often travel on false documentation. When they arrive by aircraft, the people who make those false documents often encourage them to destroy that documentation.

What happens is when they land in Canada there is no documentation, false or otherwise, so their identity is in question. What now occurs is they are very carefully questioned to establish what their actual identity is and then they go through the process.

What is at issue is the abuse. Sometimes false refugees arrive and refuse to undergo the questioning that will determine their identity.

During the report stage of Bill C-11, I moved an amendment that was adopted by the House. The amendment determined that all those who refused to co-operate in determining their identity when they had false documentation or no documentation would be detained until deported.

The loophole was plugged at the same time that we, as a compassionate nation, still permit genuine refugees to arrive without proper documentation. If they co-operate they are landed.

When Bill C-11 went through third reading, the opposition party voted against it. So the very party that the member belongs to and who is criticizing the legislation of Bill C-11 that closed the loophole on improper refugees coming in and refusing to co-operate in disclosing their identity, voted against it.

Immigration

[Paul Forseth, Canadian Alliance, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, immigration officials with years of experience said at the Senate committee that even Bill C-11 which the minister boasts about would not help the problem. In fact I have heard that she has a senior bureaucrat running around just releasing people if the per diem bill gets too high.

The minister's own officials warned over a year ago about the criminal and security risk of non-documented arrivals. They had to have something to get here in the first place. We believe that all who destroy documents should be automatically detained until they meet identity and security needs. Australia does this in a humane and very cost effective way. Why can Canada not do that?

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I am very aware that there are many who hold different views than I do. In fact there are many who would agree with me that the existing systems that we have in place need changes. That is why we brought in Bill C-11, the new immigration and refugee protection act, which is a fundamental change in how we approach immigration and refugee determination matters.

Prebudget Consultations

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I have the honour to inform the House that when this House did attend the Deputy Governor General in the Senate chamber, the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill C-14, an act respecting shipping and navigation and to amend the Shipping Conferences Exemption Act, 1987 and other acts—Chapter No. 26.

Bill C-11, an act respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger—Chapter No. 27.

Business of the House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House leader of the official opposition for the question. This afternoon we will continue the prebudget debate that we commenced this morning.

Tomorrow we will deal with the miscellaneous statute law amendment bill introduced earlier today. I understand there is some agreement pursuant to the usual process of passing the bill at all stages. We will then consider report stage and third reading of Bill C-33, the Nunavut bill.

I wish to advise the House that there will be a royal assent later this afternoon on Bill C-11.

Next week we will debate Bill C-39, the Yukon bill. That will be followed by report stage and third reading of Bill C-10, the marine parks bill. When this is completed we will turn to Bill S-31, respecting a number of international tax treaties. If and when Bill C-35 is reported from committee we will turn to its report stage and third reading.

I would like to report to the House that if we have time next week I will be prepared to entertain a second day of prebudget debate or consultation.

I understand that some members will be producing a motion to defer a debate until next week. I am awaiting that process.

I also wish to inform the House that there is ongoing consultation among House leaders, although not quite complete, about having a take note debate next week, possibly on the issue of the World Trade Organization and international trade generally. Those consultations are not yet complete.

Immigration

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the very same top bureaucrat had this to say about Bill C-11 before the Senate, and I quote, “it should be scrapped and started from scratch”.

This top bureaucrat also calls for restoration of the safe third country rule so we do not have refugees coming from a safe country.

Why does this minister not clean up the mess in our refugee determination system?

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what Bill C-11, the new immigration and refugee protection act, does. It gives us the ability to streamline our procedures, so that those who are in genuine need of our protection will be welcomed in Canada more quickly and those who are not in need of protection will be able to be removed more quickly.

That streamlining is extremely important. I wish the Leader of the Opposition would understand that this is exactly what we are trying to do.

Supply

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to comment on the motion before the House. The issue of how we receive and treat refugee claimants at our borders is one that has taken on a different sense of urgency in the wake of the tragic events of September 11.

Throughout the world the terrorist attacks in the U.S. forced a wrenching re-examination of many aspects of life and society long taken for granted. In Canada, as elsewhere, we have been compelled to rethink the ways in which our society functions. We are forced to carefully review and question such fundamental issues as how we protect our society.

Part of the questioning and re-examination has inevitably focused on how we deal with those who come to Canada as refugees.

There is no question that the attacks of September 11 were virtually beyond our capacity to comprehend. How can we make sense of such violence and callous disregard for innocent human life? Yes, we are shocked and horrified by these events but we must not let the terrorists drive us to take actions that result in a turning away from the very values that define us as Canadians.

One of those values is our longstanding commitment to welcome genuine refugees. Who we are as a people and as a nation has been substantially defined by the contributions of those who have come to our shores either as immigrants or as people fleeing injustice and persecution.

Our strength as Canadians is directly tied to the diversity of our society, a society that we have built together. Our world may have become more threatened since September 11 but we must not allow the current situation to lead us toward actions that we will later regret.

How then do we find a balance between ensuring that Canada continues to welcome legitimate refugees while also ensuring the safety and security of our society? That clearly is the challenge before us and the challenge all Canadians want us to grapple with. This balance is reflected in the government's new immigration and refugee protection act, Bill C-11.

Under the new legislation, the refugee determination process would be streamlined and it would enable departmental officials to suspend and terminate the processing of refugee claims where persons are determined to be a security threat. That is a very important change considering what happened last month.

The current Immigration Act authorized detention of a person considered a danger to the public or one who was unlikely to appear for immigration proceedings. Existing authorities also permit the targeted use of detention at a port of entry in cases where an individual's identity is in question or where there are security concerns.

Figures for 2000-01 show that some 8,790, almost 9,000, persons last year were detained under the Immigration Act. These numbers attest to the fact that our officials are being vigilant. We all, nevertheless, recognize the imperative to make our processes work even better.

Bill C-11 would also strengthen authority to arrest criminals and those who pose security threats. In addition, it would eliminate appeal rights in such cases and provide for a streamlined certificate process to remove security threats.

As the hon. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration outlined in her statement of October 12, the government is investing $49 million to strengthen the capacity of her department to do its job. This includes $9 million for additional staff for key enforcement activities like the examination and security screening at ports of entry.

These additional employees will also be carrying out detailed screening of refugee claimants who are already in Canada, along with increasing detention and deportation.

This investment in the safety and security of Canadians is part of an ongoing process. These new resources are in addition to ones identified in the 2000 budget for the citizenship and immigration department, funds targeted specifically for the enforcement program that is so important in this climate and in light of what happened last month.

I draw the attention of hon. members opposite to the $1.8 billion that have been invested by the government in key departments and agencies, such as Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, CSIS and the RCMP, since budget 2000. This investment took place long before September 11, reflecting the government's commitment to provide federal departments and agencies with the tools they need to fight terrorism. This is a fight we must and will win.

The next important step we can take toward that victory is to pass the legislation when it is before the House.

Understandably, Canadians are concerned in these difficult times. We have entered into an era of world events without precedent but we must avoid the temptation to allow our fears to overwhelm us.

As we heard from our leaders, it is important to go out and shop and to go on with our normal lives. I read somewhere, and I think it is true, that the return to normalcy is the greatest affront to terrorism. That is the key. If we want to say no to terrorism, we have to live our normal lives. We have to carry on and be courageous, maybe hug our kids more often. We need to recognize the value and the preciousness of our lives more readily and more completely but we also need to go on with our lives.

Canadians are rising to the current challenge, as they have done in other periods of difficulty and threat, as we have seen too often in the past.

We are firm in our determination to work with the United States and our other allies to overcome the threat of terrorism. We are likewise determined to take the necessary steps that will increase the security of our borders and the safety of our citizens.

The Government of Canada has acted and will act to protect Canadians. Bill C-11 is a major step in honouring this commitment.

I could provide other examples of how this new legislation can and will address the very issues that the opposition has raised in its motion. However how we treat refugees and how we balance refugee claims with the largest security concerns of our society, are matters of fundamental importance. Let us not give the terrorists an additional triumph because we choose to act out of fear. Let us not give in to the temptation to diminish our commitment to welcome legitimate refugees.

The motion before us is neither necessary nor deserving of support. Let us instead stay true to our commitment to compassion and the values that define us as Canadians. Let us show the world that we have become stronger because of the challenge we face.

[David Anderson, Canadian Alliance, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity this afternoon to discuss customs and immigration issues. Canada has an obligation to encourage immigration. Having been given what we have in Canada it is only right to welcome refugees and immigrants to our country.

Most Canadians are descended from immigrants. My grandparents on my father's side came from Scandinavia. They looked for a country where they could have new opportunities. They looked at Canada and decided to come here. My mother decided in the 1950s that she would like to come to Canada. She emigrated from Scotland. She came here as a midwife and became a nurse. We all have immigration in our history.

If we are to have immigration we have an obligation to do a good job. I will ask a couple of questions this afternoon about whether we are doing a good job with our immigration policies. First, if we think we are doing a good job, could we not ask people in the general public what they think of our immigration policies? If we went to the public I am sure people would say our immigration policies are complicated and difficult to understand and that no one knows what the rules are.

People do come here. Last year 225,000 people tried to immigrate to Canada, 35,000 of whom claimed refugee status. People come here to stay because it is a good place to live and a safe place to live. We would like to keep it that way. I will take a few minutes to look at the present legislation to see if it would make Canada a safe place to live.

Bill C-11 has been introduced and is going through the process of becoming legislation. It seems well intentioned. My mother has a Scottish saying that members may be familiar with. She says the road to hell is paved with good intentions. This could be the government's statement of purpose on immigration legislation.

Bill C-11 tries to make the system workable but the government refuses to provide enough staff to make it workable. Bill C-11 tries to speed up refugee processing, or at least as the public sees it. The government's target includes referring refugees to the Immigration and Refugee Board within three days. However its processing time continues to be 90 days, the same as it has always been.

The bill does not address issues like out of date health standards or accountability of appointments, those of citizenship judges in particular. However the real problem with the immigration legislation is the problem at the heart of the Liberal government: it has no accountability.

Canadians are more concerned about the application of the present law than about having new laws. If people can come here, do damage and try to destroy the country, it justifiably causes fear among Canadians about what they may be doing. Montreal detective Claude Paquette said our porous immigration laws have turned Canada into “a Club Med for terrorists”. CSIS head Ward Elcock has said that with perhaps the singular exception of the United States there are more international terrorist groups active in Canada than in any other country. This is a poor place to be second.

Yesterday I rode in a taxi from the airport with a young gentleman who was concerned about the things going on around the world. He was from the Middle East. He said he came to Canada to have peace, not to have the dangers of that world come here. Canadians want to be safe.

Canadians are concerned that the system has been corrupted. We need to look at some of the major concerns Canadians have about failed political candidates being given appointments and jobs in the immigration system, a system in which immigration lawyers stand to make large amounts of money from people who cannot afford it, a system in which corrupt immigration advisers often try to take people's money away before they get to Canada.

To deal with these problems the Canadian Alliance has some suggestions. First, we need to take a serious look at a common perimeter security system with the United States. This is a simple and real opportunity to improve security for both Canadians and Americans. Simply put, it would increase security at our entry points. People cannot swim to this country. They come in through airports and the ports where our ships dock. We need a common perimeter security system.

Why do we need a perimeter security system? We need it for a couple of reasons. First, we need it for our own security and safety. This is the first duty of the federal government. Second, the United States has announced it will be requiring everyone leaving and entering that country to register when they do so. This will be done for several reasons. It will be done partly as a trade restriction, something we do not particularly need.

A couple of weeks ago one of the senators from North Dakota began using the security issue to try again to restrict agricultural products coming into the United States. Some of their bureaucrats and politicians are trying to use the issue to restrict things like softwood lumber and the ability of Canadians to work in the United States. We need to be aware that the United States is concerned about its own security. If we do not have a secure perimeter and cannot be trusted at our borders we will not be able to get through the U.S. border easily.

We have a second suggestion for the government. It should detain refugee claimants until it has properly identified them. That is common sense. We cannot simply let people go and collect their baggage when they arrive at and leave our airports. The Canadian people do not realize how the system is operating right now or they would be rising up and criticizing it.

Arrivals need to have verifiable documentation so the proper checks can be done. It is easy to do security and background checks on people who have the correct documentation. However those without verifiable documentation or who are questionable should be detained until we know whether they are safe. If they prove not to be safe they should be deported. Canadians do not find that unreasonable.

Here are some examples where stricter standards should have been applied. A convicted PLO terrorist lied to get into Canada. He currently lives in Brantford, Ontario, and has lived there since 1987. He is a failed refugee claimant but continues to avoid deportation through court appeals. If the government cannot deport a terrorist, whom can it deport?

A Toronto man who works at a grocery store has been positively linked to Osama bin Laden. He has been identified as a high ranking member of the Islamic terrorist group al-Jihad.

Ahmed Ressam, a failed refugee claimant, assembled bomb material in Burnaby, B.C., and tried to get into the United States. While he was fighting the Canadian refugee process it was discovered he was allowed to travel abroad for more terrorist training before returning to Canada.

A former terrorist wanted for questioning by the FBI for assisting in the bombing of an Egyptian embassy in the late 1980s is living in Canada.

How many other terrorists are hiding in Canada? One of the biggest concerns of Canadians is that the present inadequate screening system cannot tell them that.

One of the more bizarre examples of this occurred on October 7 when a plane arrived at Toronto's Pearson airport with an estimated 30 to 40 refugees from Pakistan and Afghanistan who had come through Germany, a safe third country. These people, I would suggest, were not refugees but rather immigrants. They were processed and released into the general public and immigration officials lost them. Where are they? More important, who are they? People cannot just disappear.

Immigration Canada has been left with insufficient resources to track these people down. Does the government have the will to protect Canadians, either at the beginning of the immigration process or when things go wrong?

John Thompson of the Mackenzie Institute, a Toronto based strategic think tank, says CSIS, our security agencies, immigration officers and police officers cannot act because they do not have the resources or the will behind them.

We have a couple of suggestions regarding customs. First, one of the ways to deal with the problems is to make customs officials full law enforcement officers. The government cannot decide what they are right now. They are expected to protect our borders but are only given the tools to be tax collectors. If our first line of defence is to be our customs officials let us give them sidearms and the equipment they need. If they are only to be tax collectors let us give them calculators.

We have a huge concern that customs officials are left without the proper training. In larger centres they are getting some training but in smaller ones they have less access to the RCMP and little access to police support. They do not have access to quick response training and are often left out of the training schedule, especially lately regarding pepper spray and the use of batons. The people who most need protection and training are the last to get it.

The national vice-president of the Customs Excise Union, Gary Filek, said:

Canada Customs has been under a systematic process of deterioration and dismantling for approximately the last decade.

The Canadian Alliance is suggesting to the government that it restore Canadian confidence by setting up a common perimeter security network, that it detain new arrivals until it knows for sure who they are, that it limit refugee acceptance to real refugees, and that it make customs officials peace officers and give them the proper training and necessary tools to do their jobs.

[Mark Assad, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member asked this whole question previously, I mentioned that the officials of the department were looking into a lot of these aspects.

To get specifically to his question, there is no doubt that over many years there have been some claimants who did not show up for their hearings or whatever. Some may have left the country but we are not sure.

However Bill C-11 was designed to deal with some of these issues. As members know, when we had our parliamentary commission on Bill C-11, it was going to prevent many of these things. In other words, a lot of people who managed to get in by the back door did not take the front door. We are going to speed up the process in the future with Bill C-11, which will prevent a lot of people from exploiting the system by coming in through the back door.

A lot of the measures proposed by the member are already in existence. They will be even better under Bill C-11. It is just a question of time before we get all the aspects together and then we will be able to do a better job.

Immigration

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, both the existing immigration law and the new immigration and refugee protection act known as Bill C-11 contain the provision for discussion of safe third country agreements.

In the past my department has initiated those discussions with the United States. For a number of reasons the United States at that time was not interested in concluding the agreement.

We have indicated our interest in those discussions. It is not the be-all and end-all as far as a solution goes but we do consider it one of the important methods whereby we can ensure that people are given a fair hearing at the first place where they arrive and--

Supply

[Mark Assad, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Alliance has brought a motion before the House. I note that the minister replied this morning to the speech by the Canadian Alliance leader. The motion states:

That, as part of a continental perimeter initiative to secure Canada's borders and protect the security of Canadians and our neighbours, and to protect our trading relationships, this House calls on the government to:

(a) provide both Immigration officers and Customs officers enhanced training and full peace officer status to allow them to detain and arrest suspected criminals or terrorists at the border--

Obviously immigration officers have long been peace officers, meaning they have authority to arrest and detain persons who are inadmissible to Canada. This obviously includes persons they suspect of being criminals or who already belong to terrorist organizations in other countries.

Right now the existing legislation, as well as proposed Bill C-11, contain provisions for protecting our borders. It is completely wrong to suggest that we do not have such provisions. We do. Our officers have all the means at their disposal to protect the Canadian public.

The motion raises another point I wish to address. It states that the government should:

(c) detain all spontaneous refugee claimants appearing without proper documentation until their identities are confirmed and they have cleared proper health and security checks--

Here again I would mention that our immigration officers conduct an investigation as soon as an application for refugee status has been received. I wish to give an idea of the figures. Some 600 to 800 persons are detained every day by immigration officers. It is wrong to say that they are not doing their job. On the contrary, I think they are doing it rather well in the circumstances.

I am not saying the system is completely perfect. As we know, it obviously has its shortcomings but hundreds of thousands of people have been processed over the years. It is therefore not impossible that errors may occur or that someone may slip through.

On the whole, however, there are certainly safeguards. Last year alone over 8,500 persons were detained by the authorities for a full verification of their origins and their past, as to whether they had ever been charged with a crime and so on.

On the whole, as the minister already mentioned this morning, we already have in place a great number of mechanisms to protect our borders. Contrary to what has been said, I do not think a continental perimeter is required. I believe the Government of Canada has considerable experience in the field of immigration. I have visited some of our offices abroad. It may be true that on occasion there was a lack of resources. I do not doubt it. Our immigration officers work very hard. On the whole, I was impressed by both the quantity and quality of the work they accomplish. It is not insignificant. They work very well. This is a fact that we need to mention more often.

I do not mean to impute motives to the members from the Canadian Alliance, but it is unfortunate that the words “terrorist” and “criminal” come up too often when they speak in the House.

If we look at the facts--which is important--we see that Canadians on the whole very rarely use this kind of language.

Since September 11, it is all that people are talking about. We often forget the contributions that immigrants have made to our country. I would like to highlight a few facts.

First, if we look at people's files, very few immigrants have criminal records or have been in trouble with the law. It is very important to acknowledge this, and it is a fact.

Second, once immigrants settle, on the whole, very few of them require employment insurance benefits. It is important to note that these people contribute to our country, they do not abuse the system as some in this House have implied.

Third, we often hear stories to the effect that immigrants abuse the system in another way, with welfare. Obviously, when some immigrants arrive, before settling in the community, they need help. We have a very sophisticated system. Some may believe that it is being abused on a daily basis, but this is not the case. There is a social infrastructure in place to help people get settled. I believe that it is one of the great achievements of our Christian society, if I may use the term.

Another thing we have seen with immigrants over the years is that, in their first five years, the average immigrant will earn less than the Canadian average. After their fifth year of working in Canada, in excess of 50% of them earn more than the Canadian average. Once again, this gives some idea of the effort they put into contributing to this country, and not only for themselves and their families. This gives some idea, when over 50% of them earn more than the Canadian average.

There is another aspect people are neglecting to mention here. The educational level of most immigrants to Canada is higher than the Canadian average. Many are technicians or professionals. In Damascus, I had the opportunity to sit in on an interview with a man who had been working in Syria for four or five years and was seeking to immigrate. It took him about a year and a half. He had a doctorate in biochemistry, a great asset for our country.

Overall, I find that these facts are being forgotten. Too often we have been hearing “immigrant”, “terrorist” and “criminal” used in the same sentence. I do not find this acceptable, when the facts demonstrate the opposite. This needs some thought. As everyone keeps saying, we in this country are all the children or grandchildren of immigrants. We need to think about that.

There is one other point I must mention. We have heard in the past four or five weeks that some members of the U.S. House of Representatives have been pointing fingers at Canada, saying that our immigration policies were not efficient, that many people were getting around the system. I do not know where they have been getting their information, but they are completely wrong.

I would like to give a few important statistics: 40% of people who make refugee claims at the Canadian border are coming from the United States. They are on American territory and come to the Canadian border to make a refugee claim. Are we the ones responsible if they have got into the U.S. and then come to our border to make a refugee claim? How is this a flaw in our system? It is theirs that is flawed.

I would like to mention some of the comments I have heard made by Alliance members in the past weeks. I bring to their attention that quite often in a lot of their speeches they use the word “immigrants” and in the same sentence they bring out the fact that there are criminals and terrorists. That is a little exaggerated on their part and they should be very conscious of it.

What we have achieved in this country has been a tremendous advantage to most Canadians. In the past weeks many Canadians have expressed their profound belief that Canada is a peaceful and highly respected country throughout the world. They know there are problems in other parts of the world and as Canadians they feel that maybe the root causes should be attacked. More than ever we have to show restraint in what we do in Canada. It would be very wise for us to realize that some of the things we do are going to have profound repercussions not only here but abroad and for those who want to come to Canada.

I hope we can keep in mind that we have a tremendous advantage by living in this country. Many people want to come to Canada. However we cannot start making them feel as if we suspect everyone who wants to come to this country and that we want to have investigations. We do not want them to feel that way. We want them to feel welcome here. If in speeches they hear the word “immigrant” is followed every time by “criminal” or “terrorist”, that is highly unacceptable.

In closing, when Bill C-11 was examined in committee, the Canadian Alliance member for Dauphin--Swan River worked a lot with us to find ways to improve our immigration system. We sat over five or six weeks and corrected certain things.

Overall, the Immigration Act will be much more secure, because parts of it will make the system more effective. We will be able to make quicker decisions, because we will have the information at hand.

I just wanted to make these comments and I am prepared to answer questions from my colleagues.

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a real problem with the question and the way it was put forward, not because it is not an important issue for Canadians but because of the insinuations it makes.

My colleague stated that immigration officers do not want to be bothered. Quite frankly, that is anything but true. I have met with people on the immigration board. I have met with immigration officers, many of whom are neighbours and friends of people across the country. They are there to protect our borders. No one in the House should make a blanket statement that immigration officers do not do their job. That is ridiculously wrong. They should be ashamed of themselves for doing that.

Liberals detain people. There is absolutely no question. The hon. member for Dauphin--Swan River, the critic for the opposition party, appeared before the committee working on Bill C-11 to talk about the bill. He tried to weaken the bill the Liberals put on the floor of the House in June. These were his words:

An officer shall not detain a person who is not a Canadian citizen for a term of greater than six months.

Quite frankly Alliance members cannot stand today and say that was not the case. They jump on the bandwagon when they should not. They create fear where it is not and they do not take responsibility for past actions. That is a shame, but that is the Alliance.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as MPs we all know what goes on in our offices regarding immigration. I am sorry if the hon. member wants to insult me personally about my presentation, but I feel very passionately about the issue. I am the longest serving member of the citizenship and immigration committee.

We have people who apply for visitor visas and come to Canada. When that visa expires they disappear. Am I happy about that? No, I am not, but they are not criminals. Many of them are working in the housing industry and in the construction trades. They are also not necessarily refugees.

We have people in Canada and in the United States who are living here without the proper status. Yes, we should try to correct that and Bill C-11 goes a long way toward allowing us to do that. This is a bill that the hon. member's party spoke against in committee and voted against in the House.

[Paul Forseth, Canadian Alliance, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time.

The official opposition has moved:

That, as part of a continental perimeter initiative to secure Canada's borders and protect the security of Canadians and our neighbours, and to protect our trading relationships, the House calls on the government to:

(a) provide both immigration and Customs officers enhanced training and full peace officer status to allow them to detain and arrest suspected criminals or terrorists at the border;

(b) move Customs border officers out of the tax collection agency and into a law enforcement agency;

(c) detain all spontaneous refugee claimants appearing without proper documentation until their identities are confirmed and they have cleared proper health and security checks; and

(d) create a list of safe third countries, including the United States and member states of the European Union, from which Canada will no longer accept refugee claimants.

These basic requests arise from government employees on the line and are reasonably modest.

Since September 11, two changes have occurred that have put increased demand on our national leadership in politics and in business. First, is our declaration to respond to terrorism. Second, is the economic recession. The Liberals have left us unprepared for both. The Liberals cannot manage.

On the economic front, while there is a vital need to increase spending on national security, federal revenues are starting to shrink. The opportunity for the wise choice of reducing taxes and debt to competitive levels, while our economy was being lifted along by a buoyant U.S. economy, has passed us by. It can be said, in view of today's motion before the House, that the Canadian Alliance was right and the Liberals were wrong.

The government is also mean-spirited and dishonest when it claims that we are anti-immigrant or hard-hearted about genuine refugees, for we want an orderly and safe immigration and refugee system that operates with the highest possible level of integrity and reliability.

The government announced up to $250 million, generally for security matters, some of which might help immigration screening. However,100 immigration officer positions is only a start, not a solution. Resources must be utilized in the areas of increased staff deployment and training, enhanced security and background checks and aggressive deportation of failed refugee claimants and others. The immigration system likely needs 500 additional employees in its system around the world to meet our national security needs.

In respect of the citizenship and immigration minister, staff in her department at the lower levels, who have to carry out the system on the line, talked to me of their utter frustration and even disdain of the public relations game played by the minister since the September 11 attack. There is system-wide snickering from immigration officers when the minister oversells the improvements from Bill C-11 or the benefits of the maple leaf card. Although necessary, it is only one of the many holes that must be plugged if Canada has any hope of exercising basic sovereignty of its borders and protecting its people.

The majority of persons who attempt to swamp our protections enter Canada illegally by using passports of countries which do not require a Canadian visitor visa or they use someone else's passport who has obtained a visa. The passports are photo substituted and the person freely boards a plane to Canada.

Capacity creates its own demand and the ability to get through with low risk invites repeated testing of the system. Smugglers enjoy their lucrative business without a care of being caught as they receive only an insignificant punishment if ever prosecuted. The government does not have the political will to make people smuggling unprofitable.

Then there is the trump card played by thousands of people who declare themselves refugee claimants upon landing or a few days later after having disposed of their legitimate looking documents and having been carefully coached by their handlers as they arrive with a request for legal aid, welfare and the medical plan. Most refugee claimants are released into the community without Canada having knowledge about who they really are and what their backgrounds are.

We need to detain all surprise arrivals for whom we have any concern. It should be reverse onus and the burden should be on the claimants to demonstrate that they are indeed refugees and not something else, if they are using that particular category. The evidence for such a need is the high percentage who disappear once they are released into the community.

It is likely that most persons who arrive uninvited at our borders are not true refugees. They are those who do not wish to apply through the proper channels because they know they will not qualify due to a past they want to cover up or they are in groups that we as a nation have said we will not take, which is the policy assumption of the point-merit system of immigration.

Some may be fleeing prosecution and not persecution. Some use the refugee claim as a ruse to enter Canada to cross into the U.S.A. Most true refugees do not even have the means to get to Canada in that way.

In respect to the societal costs of the consequences, it is likely more cost efficient and a lot safer to first detain all refugee claimants. If all questionable people were routinely placed in holding centres pending necessary investigations and hearings, they would receive housing, meals, health monitoring and care. Their stories and the international reputation would be deterrents to the pressures on the system, just like the deportation of the British Columbia boat people which took the pressure off that type of activity.

If detained, claimants could not go on to another province if denied and under another identity begin a second and third refugee claim, as we have seen. Criminal checks could be completed while the person is in custody, if the government ever got serious about access to databases from all available countries rather than just within our own lists.

The voice of one immigration officer says it for many. He said recently:

I could no longer tolerate the frustration of seeing the fraud being perpetrated on the naive taxpayers of this country and which I was impotent to prevent. I have never been more certain of my decision to leave this department as I have since September 11. You have absolutely no idea of the extent of fraud within the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. Immigration officers must be able to do their jobs with confidence and without political influence or interference. A plastic card will not eliminate the fraud-- I'm sure someone is already working on reproducing it. I could easily write a book on this subject. I am certain that 99% of front line immigration officers echo my sentiments, but of course are not permitted to speak their minds and tell the truth.

Canada is a nation of immigrants and has always been enriched by new arrivals to our shores. A Canadian Alliance government would facilitate the current levels of immigration and make improvements to the security, fairness and integrity of the system. The system must meet the high expectations of average Canadians and enhance the welfare of new arrivals. We must ensure Canadian sovereignty on the borders.

We appreciate that Canada is a society built by successive waves of immigration from all sectors of the globe. We need to create a positive immigration policy that is merit based. Administration should take into account primarily Canada' s economic needs. We must introduce greater security and reliability into the system, including enforcement of sponsorship obligations. The federal government must work more co-operatively with the provinces on national policy and settlement costs. We must also affirm the independence of immigration administration from multiculturalism.

Non-citizens of Canada who are convicted of an indictable crime or who are known to engage in serious criminal activity must be deported quickly. By more careful screening of the criminal element, we can protect the integrity and security of immigrants and enhance community crime prevention. Canada should no longer be called a safe haven for international operatives.

We affirm Canada's international humanitarian obligation to receive its fair share of genuine refugees. Refugee status must be determined expeditiously under the rule of law and beyond political interference. To ensure fairness, we should deport failed refugee claimants and illegal entrants quickly, and prosecute those who organize and profit from abuse of the system. To accomplish those reasonable administrative goals, we must reallocate resources to reduce the thousands within Canada who are without legal status or who are on the deportation list.

We also need to review the extra ministerial permit category by seeking to provide transparency and public accountability within the context of the Privacy Act to eliminate government vote buying, patronage and cronyism.

To accomplish anything less is to fail our nation and breaks faith with our young people, for their hope in a bright and prosperous future.

[Inky Mark, Canadian Alliance, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise as coalition immigration critic to take part in the debate on the supply day motion put forth by the Canadian Alliance.

Since September 11 the world certainly has changed and national security is on everyone's mind. We are all aware of the threats to our freedom by terrorist organizations of the world. At the same time Canada must be cognizant that Canada is a land of immigrants.

If we look at our history, Canada was built by immigrants. At this time we must not be pointing figures at legitimate refugees and immigrants, including myself who immigrated to this country before the events of September 11.

The coalition's position is that Canada needs to keep its door open to genuine immigrants and refugees. Our present and future standard of living depends on immigration. We attract the best in the world and we must continue to do so.

Despite the current fear of terrorism we must not repeat the dark side of Canada's history. Let us take a reality check. Over 99% of the annual movement of up to 40 million people between the United States and Canada is by legal people. The vast majority of those who come into Canada use the legal means. In fact terrorists can enter this country as visitors, students, refugees or legitimate immigrants. We need to tighten up our front end screening to detect those who would wish to do us harm.

As coalition critic my job is to point out the holes in the system. Let me take time to respond to the specifics of the supply day motion. This motion is much like an omnibus bill. It covers too much. In principle the coalition supports the motion, but we have concerns about the way it was put together.

Let me address some of our concerns. In the preamble the continental perimeter denotes a North American border, not a Canadian one. While the notion of a secure North American border is a good one, Canada cannot be expected to look after American borders. Nor can Americans be expected to look after Canadian borders. Agreements can and should be made on who looks after what and what jurisdiction we can share and co-operate on.

A continental perimeter does not by default ensure the safety of Canada's borders. Improved staffing levels, better training and better enforcement of existing laws will.

Under the Criminal Code of Canada a Canada customs officer has the authority to be a peace officer already by definition. In fact the criminal code states:

(d) an officer or a person having the powers of a customs or excise officer when performing any duty in the administration of the Customs Act or Excise Act.

According to the 1992 Immigration Act, section 113 states:

Duties of Peace Officers to execute orders--Every peace officer and every person in immediate charge or control of an immigration station shall, when so directed by the Deputy Minister, an adjudicator, a senior immigration officer or an immigration officer, receive and execute any written warrant or order issued or made under this Act or the regulations for the arrest, detention or removal from Canada of any persons.

We agree that immigration officers and customs officers should receive better training in identifying suspicious persons. There seems to be an attempt to arm immigration and customs officers with sidearms. While customs officers at borders should have sidearms, immigration officers at ports of entry should not.

If immigration officers simply use the enforcement tools at their disposal they have every ability to detain and even refuse entry to anyone who is thought to be a risk to the country.

I will comment on part (b) of the motion. This is a clear indication of seeking a sidearm for a border official. We do not disagree with this. However this would in fact make customs officers at the borders police officers. This would eliminate a number of positions across Canada in favour police enforcement.

We already have such a situation with park wardens who have effectively been replaced by RCMP because the wardens wanted sidearms.

We agree with part (c) of the motion. All asylum claimants should be held until their identities can be discovered and they are determined not to be a risk to Canadians. Proper security and health checks should be done to ensure the safety of citizens welcoming newcomers.

We agree with part (d). The safe third country concept has been used in immigration legislation since 1992. While the term and definition have been used to keep refugees and asylum claimants who have already been recognized as convention refugees from other countries from applying for refugee status here, there is no such thing as a list of safe third countries from which we might accept refugees or deport refugees to await identity discovery.

In 1999 a Sri Lankan national was refused refugee status as the claimant was found to already have refugee status in Germany. In 1998 a Liberian citizen was refused conventional refugee status since the person already had such status in Sierra Leone.

It is the broader sense of the legislation that is not being applied. A list of countries from which asylum seekers could come to claim such status or be detained while waiting for the outcome of such an application has never been compiled. It is believed that the reason for this is largely due to a lack of agreement on who decides which nations are considered to be safe. The safe third country concept does not guarantee the detection and apprehension of potential terrorists.

The auditor general made some very enlightening discoveries in his December 1997 report on the Immigration Refugee Board. Since 1993 over 99% of all claims were judged to be eligible by CIC officials. The claimants were then given the necessary documentation for filing a claim with the IRB and allowed to enter Canada.

Today there is still a 30,000 case backlog. With the passing of Bill C-11 all claims in the system that are not finalized will be nullified. All other claims will have to be started over again regardless of the stage of review. That will only create more backlog.

It was noted that over 90% of those denied refugee status remain in Canada, according to the auditor general. These problems have not gone away. They pose a real risk to Canada's security. The government has to account for how the IRB operates, recognizing and acknowledging that the IRB is a patronage vehicle.

I have tried over the last year to convince the immigration minister to set up front end screening of refugee claimants. I will close by making a few more comments on front end screening. I have indicated that the RCMP, CSIS and CIC need more staff.

No one can board a domestic or international flight without identification and in some cases travel documents. The fact that people arrive in Canada without such documentation should be grounds for immediate detention. The minister alluded to over 8,000 persons who were detained for an average of 16 days in the year 2000. What she forgot to say was that she personally okayed 3,989 otherwise inadmissible individuals, most hardened criminals, entering and remaining in Canada for a period of time.

The 3,989 people were obviously security risks to Canada since without a permit from the minister they could not have entered Canada. With no entry or exit data kept on persons coming and leaving Canada, it is impossible to tell whether those who are ordered out actually leave.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the debate and to put a viewpoint on the record on behalf of the New Democratic Party.

I am sure it will come as no surprise to the authors of the motion before us today, the members of the Alliance Party, that New Democrats will oppose the motion. I am sure that causes no revelations for the members beside me.

However they may be somewhat surprised when I say that I and my party welcome the debate. It gives us an opportunity to clear the air, to deal with some very contentious issues in Canada today and to move toward a more responsible, effective solution to the very difficult circumstances we are facing today.

Let us begin by agreeing on one thing: We all deplore, with every breath we can muster, the heinous events of September 11. There is no question about that. I want members to keep that in mind as we discuss options, alternatives and solutions for dealing with this very difficult situation.

There is no one in the House who is not prepared to stand and condemn with every ounce of energy the heinous acts of the terrorists who struck in the United States on September 11. Every one of us here are grappling with solutions to prevent the spread of terrorism and to bring those terrorists to justice.

The motion before us today suggests that Canada must look at its own immigration and refugee policies as part of that solution. That is not a point of contention for us. We are all prepared to look at Canada's policies on every front, whether we are talking about immigration policy, airline security, cross-border crossings or our own ability to respond to bioterrorism. On each and every aspect of terrorism we have an obligation and a responsibility to assess the situation, to determine if Canada's policies are effective in that regard and to make suggestions based on any flaws or weaknesses in those areas.

We have done that on numerous occasions. We have been vigilant since September 17 about proposing solutions and making suggestions.

As members know, we proposed a motion to deal with the uprising of incidents of racism and intolerance in our society as a result of the terrorist acts. We made suggestions in the House repeatedly over enhanced resources and supports for being prepared in the event of a bioterrorist act.

Today I am prepared, on behalf of my colleagues, to make some suggestions with respect to immigration and refugee policy. I want to be clear that the most important item for us to deal with today is to avoid feeding any mythology around Canadian immigration and refugee policy. Our responsibility today is not to feed this notion that Canada is a safe haven for terrorists.

I am not suggesting for a minute any malicious intent on the part of the Alliance but I certainly have serious grievances with its recommendations. I am here to suggest that since September 11 there have been a number of commentaries, opinions and statements made that do feed the notion that Canada somehow is a safe haven for terrorists. The implication touches us even more given the feelings people have that terrorists are refugees and refugees are terrorists.

We cannot allow that kind of talk to go on. We must address the fears and concerns of Canadians without feeding hysteria. We must be responsible in our response to the events of September 11.

I only have to turn to some of the newspaper articles, however few and far between they have been with respect to this issue, to make the case and help ensure that the House puts all this in perspective.

I want to touch on an article written by Haroon Siddiqui which appeared in the September 16 issue of the Toronto Star . The headline was “Don't scapegoat Canada for terrorism in America”. He wrote:

While we grieve with Americans in the aftermath of their single biggest death toll since the civil war, and pray for the dead as well as the living, it needs to be said that Canada's border is no more porous than America's. In fact, Canada has a tighter perimeter than the United States; far fewer illegal immigrants come here, even proportionately speaking, than there.

Canada may also be less of a haven for terrorists or terrorist groups than America, the centre of monetary and military sustenance for the Irish Republican Army and the hub of anti-Castro adventurism, among others.

I may not agree with everything the author of the article wrote but I can say he identifies a very serious issue and that is, if we make generalizations based on the events of September 11 and make wide, sweeping generalizations about our policies, we will have done no great service to combat terrorism. We will have done what so many have cautioned against, which is we will have stooped to the level of the terrorists themselves and sacrificed our fundamental principles of peace, security and freedom.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs himself made exactly that kind of statement. He said on one occasion recently that if a battle against terrorism must be waged, we must be sure we do not undermine our principles of an open society founded on democracy. If we do that we will have given terrorists, and I am paraphrasing, a victory.

That is one commentary that was in the paper. I also want to read from an article by Hugh Winsor in the Globe and Mail on October 15. I do not always agree with this commentator but he made a very important observation:

In the current atmosphere, there will be a lot of pressure to dilute the broader fundamentals of Canadian justice in pursuit of the tiny minority of dangerous people trying to get into Canada as refugees. That would be a mistake.

We use that kind of wisdom to bring caution to the debate and urge that we do not destroy the fundamentals and values that hold the country together, the glue of Canadian unity, in the interests of looking for easy solutions and quick targets. That is what the motion does today.

Speaking of the generalization that Canada is a safe haven for terrorists, I remind members what the RCMP commissioner told the immigration committee just last Thursday. In response to a question I raised about these broad, sweeping generalizations, he said that even the word haven is a terrible word to use because it implies that we somehow support or nurture terrorists to stay in the country. That certainly is not the case. He went on to talk about how Canada is no different from other countries that are dealing with the same kind of threat and is no different in terms of precautions we take on the security front.

It is very important for the House to remember the makeup of the country and the traditions we hold so near and dear. We went through this in great detail during the debate on Bill C-11. The debate on that bill was very heated. We were struggling to find the balance between respecting our open door policy and humanitarian traditions with the need to ensure that proper security measures were taken to prevent people who had malicious intents and agendas to get into Canada. We struggled very hard to balance those interests.

From my vantage point I am not completely happy with Bill C-11. I do not think we achieved that balance, but I can say that the debate was thoughtful and should enlighten us today in our discussions. One of the conclusions we on all sides of the House made during that debate was that Canada's legacy and history is about diversity.

We said time and time again that it is not just about the number of people who have come here from so many places, it is about how we deal with one another in the context of being a mosaic. Our tradition and our values have shown the way. Canada is a model for the world in terms of respect for differences, for not imposing one view or one way of thinking or one way of life on our immigrants and the people who make up this country. Our way is one of easy going acceptance, generosity, tolerance and respect for differences. We do not impose some uniform identity on the immigrants who come to Canada.

Those sentiments are as important today as they were when we were debating Bill C-11 last spring. We have new circumstances to deal with. We have to make adjustments and review policies, but we do not sacrifice our fundamental understanding of this country and how we have come to grow together as a multicultural nation.

Since September 11 in many ways we have started to show suspicion about one another. We have started to question on the basis of racial makeup. We have started to look behind us and see trouble in the shadows. We have started to create a climate of fear when we should be doing the opposite. I urge members to put this all in perspective and to come up with solutions that actually work.

The motion deals so much with the issue of refugees. One of the themes of the Alliance Party these days seems to be to point fingers at Canada's policies on refugees and to suggest that we have bad policies and bad programs and that we need to put a moratorium on refugees coming into Canada. That is what part of the motion actually does when it talks about detaining all refugees who come into Canada. In effect it is quite a major difference from the practices and traditions we have today and is not necessarily one that would ensure greater security for Canadians.

In that context I want to put on the record some of the concerns of the organizations that work on a day to day basis with refugees. These organizations care deeply about the flight of the millions of refugees around the world. They know that Canada has a responsibility, an obligation and an interest in ensuring that we offer a safe haven for people fleeing persecution on the basis of political, religious or economic reasons.

On September 14 the Canadian Council for Refugees issued a statement. This is part of it:

In the wake of the horrific terrorist attacks this week in the United States, the Canadian Council for Refugees offers its condolences to the victims and their families. As an organization committed to the protection of human rights, the Canadian Council for Refugees condemns these attacks on civilian lives and urges Canadians, as well as immigrant and refugee communities, to speak out against violence and intolerance in our society.

That was a very important statement for all of us to hear and understand. I hope members in the Alliance Party also heard and understood the meaning of that statement. All Canadians from whatever walk of life condemn the terrorist attacks and now look for solutions that work to make sure that we rid this globe of terrorism so we can live in peace, freedom and security.

The motion before us today denies the responsibility we have in terms of refugees. It denies some of the experiences that organizations such as churches, non-profit organizations and volunteer groups have with respect to creating a home for refugees and newcomers and integrating them into our society. It denies the sentiment expressed by the people who run Romero House in Toronto when they said:

When Canadians meet refugees and hear their stories, they are usually impressed by their courage, resourcefulness and enduring capacity for joy. Refugees are brave people who have escaped to Canada from traumatic and often horrific situations in their homelands. They have experienced, or been in danger of, torture, arbitrary detention and death. Although many of them have escaped with little more than the clothes on their backs, they do not come empty handed. They bring to our country the gifts of courage, hope and strength.

Let us not forget that in the debate on this very important issue.

We have concerns with all four aspects of the motion before us today, beginning with the preamble and the suggestion that we need to establish a North American fortress, that we need to have perimeter security. The motion is premised on this notion. All of us need to question the validity of this so-called continental perimeter initiative. We should question it as a concept and assess it from the point of view of loss to Canada of our sovereignty, loss of our ability to make decisions pertaining to our own foreign affairs policy and our economic policy and hence every aspect of our day to day lives.

We are very concerned with the parts of the motion that deal specifically with detention of refugees. I have already touched on that. The Alliance Party is not taking into account the fact that the American policy of detention has not necessarily been successful. It has not necessarily achieved the kind of results which I think the members of the Alliance are hoping to achieve with this motion. It has not been helpful and it has been hurtful in many other ways.

The Alliance members have not taken into account that many refugees come to Canada without proper documentation precisely because of the kind of country and government they are fleeing. In particular, people from Somalia and Afghanistan do not have documents because the dictatorial, repressive regimes they are fleeing from would not allow for those documents to be processed and to try to obtain those documents would be even more harmful in terms of their future well-being.

We are very concerned about the suggestion that we need to change the role and responsibilities of immigration officers and customs officers in order to make the country more secure and deal with cross-border issues. As has been noted already in the debate, those two provisions miss the critical issue at hand here. There is an issue that has to be addressed and I look to members on the government benches to ensure that this is heeded.

The issue is one of resources. During the hearings on Bill C-11 and now during the Senate hearings on Bill C-11, during this debate, and since the events of September 11 time and time again we have heard about the lack of resources in terms of immigration officials and customs agents. Going back to the serious cuts of 1993, I think the Alliance probably supported those kinds of cuts back then in the interests of smaller government. The number of immigration officers was slashed from 7,000 to 4,000. Similarly the customs and excise union has reported how at least 1,200 new customs officers are needed to do the job. Let us assess the situation for what it really is and deal with the root cause of the problem.

It is very important to acknowledge difficulties with the fourth part of the motion which calls for a list of safe third countries, including the United States and member states of the European Union, from which Canada will no longer accept refugee claimants. For the record, it has to be said that that is a very serious recommendation that would have all kinds of ramifications for Canada's role in the United Nations and for ensuring that we live up to the convention on refugees. I hope to have a chance to deal with this during questions and comments. It is a very negative suggestion and would not have any basis in terms of being a good solution. It would take us in the opposite direction of our responsibilities with respect to the international convention on refugees.

Finally, as we pursue the debate and look at solutions, let us look at some other options. Let us look at the immigrant investor program where people can actually buy their way into the country and not face the same kind of scrutiny as people seeking to be united with their families or people coming to work in Canada. That is a serious shortcoming. There are many solutions and issues that need to be addressed and we can do that here today. I do not think the answer is found in the Alliance motion. I look forward to ongoing discussion.

[Inky Mark, Canadian Alliance, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the member for Waterloo--Wellington. Unfortunately the government seems to know how to do the talking but there are very little results from the way it walks the talk.

The minister indicated this morning that the current legislation allows for removal and deportation. Unfortunately that is rarely exercised. Over the last months we have heard the immigration minister repeatedly tell Canadians how important it was that Bill C-11 be passed.

I was glad to hear that the member for Waterloo--Wellington gave us some numbers in terms of people entering Canada who were detained due to fraud or improper identification. In fact in the year 2000--

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, this is an important debate. It is well worth the consideration of the House in terms of what we as a government have done in the last while in terms of Bill C-11 and other measures.

For many years the countries of North America have discussed and worked together on initiatives born of a common desire to make our continent more prosperous and competitive on a global scale. Sadly the current initiative to fortify our respective borders is born of terror and bloodshed.

It is Canada's hope that all nations of the continent will do what they can individually to respond to the needs of the collective. Bill C-11, it goes without saying, is a major move forward for Canada in upholding the enforcement of our borders. It is a good bill and it is worthy of support.

Today in the House we are considering a motion that requests that the government work more diligently to secure our borders. The government has responded to that demand by bringing forward Bill C-11 and making it an utmost priority, and rightfully so.

The motion before us requests increased powers of detention for customs and immigration officials. I find it passing strange that a short five months ago the Canadian Alliance immigration critic tabled a motion in the House to amend Bill C-11 at report stage. Motion No. 5 would have watered down the definition of security threat to determine who is admissible to Canada. The motion was supported by all members of the Alliance.

I find it strange that one thing was said then and quite another is said now. Our definition of Bill C-11 includes activities outside Canada and indirect threats. The Canadian Alliance motion included only direct and active threats. The Alliance went further. It tabled a motion at committee stage to restore certain appeal rights through the immigration appeal division for serious criminals and threats to Canadian security. Bill C-11 has removed these to allow for quicker removals from Canada.

I am not sure what that is called. The word flip-flop comes to mind. The ability to detain and arrest at the border suspected terrorists or individuals who do not provide proper paperwork for identification is already in place. Bill C-11 works to increase the capabilities of our frontline officers by giving them early access to security screening processes and enhanced exclusionary mechanisms to remove undesirables from the process. The people who handle refugee cases now have more tools with which to work.

The Canadian Immigration Act currently allows customs and immigration officers and officials to detain anyone they determine to be a security risk to Canadians. Bill C-11 provides a means to strengthen the ability of officials to bar entry to Canada of potential terrorists whether they commit terrorist acts in Canada or in other countries.

On October 12 the minister of immigration announced a five part security strategy as part of Canada's anti-terrorism plan. As part of that plan the government is strengthening immigration measures in light of the terrorist attacks that took place on September 11. The minister has announced that we are increasing detention capability and hiring up to 100 new staff to enforce upgraded security at ports of entry. As a further sign that the government is committed to this initiative, and rightfully so, cabinet approved funding of $4 million to cover these needs in the coming months.

The issue of detention has been a delicate one indeed. The government is attempting through Bill C-11 to find the proper and acceptable balance between protecting the citizens of Canada and maintaining an even-handed approach with those legitimately attempting to gain entry into Canada.

Customs and immigration officers are fully trained to perform their duties effectively. They are aware of their duty to uphold the values of fairness, openness and protection that Canadians across this great country of ours hold dear.

Of course of the 100 million people who come to Canada each year not all are seeking to get in illegally by way of refugee status. However it must be noted that in the 2000-01 timetable for which data is available over 8,700 individuals were detained for a total of 136,000 days.

This is a tremendous success for the officials patrolling our borders. On any given average day the number of individuals in detention under the auspices of the Immigration Act ranges from 400 to 800 people. That is a significant number when looked at over the long term. I am saying to the House and the Canadian people that the system in place works efficiently and effectively in most of the cases most of the time.

Immigration officials do not work alone. Canada has nurtured working relationships with CSIS, the RCMP and foreign immigration and law enforcement agencies such as those in the United States, Great Britain and the European Union to prevent criminals and people who are considered to be a security risk from entering Canada. We have worked closely with our partners not only within Canada but internationally as well. These networks of information are crucial to maintaining our level of security and safety.

The United Nations security council recently passed a binding resolution regarding elimination of terrorist financing. Two paragraphs contained therein demanded that the United States tighten its refugee regulations. Canada will continue to welcome refugees and will adhere to the resolution passed by the United Nations. Canada has commenced work in this regard with Bill C-11.

We have implemented a screening process for all refugees that is stringent yet fair. We have made it clear to all who appear at our country's doorstep that no individual involved in terrorist acts will be welcomed here. Furthermore, they will be ineligible to make a refugee claim in Canada.

As was mentioned on an earlier occasion, the Immigration Act currently allows for interdictions abroad. Canadian officials overseas work closely with the transportation industry to examine and evaluate the paperwork of immigrants and visitors coming to our country. Embarkation is denied when necessary and when required.

Over the past two years Citizenship and Immigration Canada increased the number of control officers from 31 to 48. This network of immigration control officers abroad in the last year alone intercepted 6,000 improperly documented travellers that were attempting to fly into Canada. Over the last six years approximately 33,000 people attempted to enter Canada fraudulently and they were detected and stopped before they departed their country of origin. The interdiction program is successful and the department can be very proud it.

These are trying times not only in Canada but around the world in terms of what took place on September 11. However we had foresight with respect to Bill C-11. The minister in her wisdom brought forward a very good bill which we as a government supported. It has proceeded through committee and ultimately through the House. It was fortuitous for us to do that in keeping with the values of Canada, in keeping with what we needed to do by way of security measures at our borders and with respect to people coming into Canada.

We will not allow people who are terrorists, who harbour terrorists or who want to wreak havoc on Canadian soil to get in. However, what we will do is be fair and evenhanded to genuine people of refugee status who want to come to Canada. We will support them in the way that Canada has always supported them.

At the end of the day we will keep building a country of significance where values are built on common sharing, caring, compassion and tolerance. That is our Canada, the Canada that seeks to enhance the very fundamental core of those Canadian values that are so dear to people across this great country of ours.

At the same time we will ensure that we are safe and secure not only in our communities and neighbourhoods but in the country as a whole. That is what Canadians and parliamentarians want. We as a government will ensure that while on the one hand we will be fair and evenhanded and ensure that the charter is respected as it should be, on the other hand we will also bring forward the security measures required.

Bill C-11 does that. It does it in a way that is in keeping with those great Canadian values. I am very proud that the government brought that legislation forward with the foresight that was required.

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Waterloo--Wellington.

Let me begin by getting right to the point. The opposition motion is, I believe, a simplistic reaction to a very complex set of issues and concerns. It looks for a quick fix where a range of efforts and instruments are both required and in fact already at work. The motion is uninformed, ill-considered and, in my view, impractical. Therefore, in short, it should be rejected by the House.

First let me be clear about the facts. The current Immigration Act already contains some of the toughest provisions to deny admission or deport terrorists and they are used frequently. Bill C-11, the new immigration and refugee protection act, would make a series of improvements that would allow us to intensify our fight against those who would threaten Canada's security. It clearly spells out a range for grounds for inadmissibility in a comprehensive code that would replace the current act's 50 different grounds scattered in 4 different lists. The new bill, called Bill C-11, contains comprehensive measures that would further strengthen national security, which is of course a priority not only for the government but for my department.

The new immigration and refugee protection act would add new grounds of inadmissibility. It would strengthen the authority to arrest criminals and individuals who present a threat to security. It would eliminate appeal rights in these cases and streamline the removal process for persons who are security threats.

Bill C-11 would provide our immigration officers with a set of up to date tools, the tools they need to bar entry to those who pose a threat to national security or engage in acts of terrorism or are part of a terrorist organization. Bill C-11 would bar entry to those who have committed human rights violations such as war crimes or crimes against humanity. It would also bar entry to those who have been convicted for serious criminality in or outside Canada.

Canadians have told us what they want in immigration and refugee legislation. Let me say that we have listened and we have acted. The training on these new provisions and their subsequent application is already taking place. It is underway, as we anticipate the bill will be passed, hopefully soon, in the Senate.

I want to be clear about Canada's relationship to immigration. Immigration is an important face of Canada's future, just as it has been in the past. Immigrants will help us to sustain our standard of living and replenish our labour market as the baby boomers begin to retire.

Let us consider for a moment some of the demographics. In just 10 years immigration will be the only source of labour market growth. In just 20 years Canada's only source of population growth will be from immigration. Of this there is no doubt. Canada needs immigrants for our future growth and prosperity if we are to compete in a global economy and continue to grow and prosper. Yes, have no doubt about this, but we do and will crack down on criminals and security threats. We will do everything in our power to fight and defeat the scourge of terrorism, but we cannot and we will not turn Canada into a fortress. Our economy, our society, and our way of life are too important to us to sacrifice them in this way.

Part of my mandate as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, in partnership with the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, the RCMP, CSIS, the customs agency, the Department of Justice and the solicitor general, is to help maintain the safety of Canadian society. Canadians are of course naturally disturbed and worried and feeling insecure and fearful because of last month's activities. They should know, and I think do know, that their government has acted and was right to have taken the action it has. They were concerned that criminals might be slipping into the country. They were concerned that the safety and security of Canada's borders might be compromised. That is why I announced my department's recent four-pronged strategy as part of the government's anti-terrorism plan.

My department's share of the emergency fund would amount to almost $50 million. That is a considerable sum for my department. It would strengthen the department's ability to move quickly on such key measures as the new maple leaf card, a permanent resident card for new immigrants that will be fraud resistant, tamper resistant and secure. The first step has already been initiated in intensified security screening of all refugee claimants, enhanced detention and increased deportation activity.

My department and its partners are working together to protect Canada's borders. We are working with the United States to protect our common border to ensure security and the important flow of trade between our two countries.

Canada is only one among the countries which find themselves facing the new and emerging terrorist threat to freedom and justice. As clearly illustrated by the terrible attacks on the United States last month, our terrorist opponents are highly motivated, highly skilled, funded networks of fanatics with access to intelligence and technology. Its members can change identity and location to elude authorities. They often use expertly forged documents.

We must be aware when we act emotionally or out of fear that above all we must guard against turning our fears against our own best interests. It is in our interest to continue to welcome immigrants, those who have helped build this country and who will be needed in the future to help us continue to grow and prosper. It is in our interest to welcome genuine refugees. Canada is proud of its humanitarian tradition. We despair about some of the dark moments of our history and do not want to make those mistakes again.

While no country is immune to the dangers, perhaps no two countries work more closely on the common goal of ensuring the safety of their citizens than Canada and the United States. The Government of Canada reacted and responded immediately to the horrendous acts of September 11. Immigration officers have increased their vigilance and tightened border controls. Our officers have been on high alert and are conducting intensified security screening of all arrivals on both sides of the border.

We work together more closely than any two countries in the world. That is why we will not unilaterally declare the United States to be, in the vernacular terminology of the Geneva convention, a safe third country. That has special meaning.

The opposition motion assumes we would do so without the consent of our American partners. It assumes we would begin sending back to the U.S. large numbers of refugee claimants who come to us through the United States. That is simplistic. Such arrangements rely on negotiated bilateral treaties. We are open to such discussions as we are open to discussions about a range of instruments and procedures to help make our system more compatible and efficient.

Why is my esteemed colleague determined to cast a pall over the country's good reputation? I am here today to assure him and all Canadians that there is every reason to speak confidently about Canada's role in the battle against terrorism. Canada is a world leader in detection and deportation. If we take the example of perpetrators of modern day war crimes and crimes against humanity, Canada has long voiced its strategy in this regard. My colleagues from around the world come to Canada to ask for our advice and look at what we do and how we do it. Canadians should be proud.

I will put the challenge in context. Over 110 million people enter Canada each year. Despite these numbers our enforcement officers have produced tremendous results. I am proud of the effort of the people who have been working in my department on this important initiative.

Our enforcement officers reported 65,000 people, 7,300 of whom were serious criminals, in the year 2000 alone. We have increased resources for overseas interdiction. We have one of the best immigration control officers networks anywhere in the world. It is a model. Our officers are placed at airports around the world and they train airline staff. They are doing an outstanding job.

We will continue to make every effort to stop people from coming to Canada who do not belong, who have murder in their hearts or terrorism on their minds or have committed serious crimes. We will do everything we can to protect Canadian interests. We will continue these efforts but we will not accept simplistic, quick fix proposals like the one proposed by the opposition today.

Immigration

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, in fact we have listened and introduced Bill C-11 in the House. It is before the Senate at present.

We know that we have to do things better and that we have to be faster, but we are determined to remain fair, to give due process of law and to make sure that when people come to Canada making a serious claim of persecution we do not prejudge the claim and we do listen to them, because we are proud of our humanitarian tradition.

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the preamble. We know that there are many people who have all kinds of opinions about the bill, but there is no question that Bill C-11 is a big improvement over what exists today.

[Art Hanger, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister continually hides behind Bill C-11 as the panacea to fix this problem. Yet the problem time and time again centres around the administration of what is in the present act and the enforcement of such. That is the problem.

Two days ago Sergeant Philippe Lapierre of the RCMP's counterterrorism section said at a conference on money laundering in Ottawa that terrorists in Canada follow a similar pattern. Here is an authority who says--

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, in fact Bill C-11 gives us the tools that we need to be able to tell those who are inadmissible to Canada that they will have to leave Canada more quickly. It gives us the ability to do that.

We received the additional resources to implement the bill. The member knows full well that what she has said is false. Bill C-11 is a complete overhaul. It will do the job for Canadians.

[Lynne Yelich, Canadian Alliance, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the former ambassador said:

Bill C-11 is a disaster. It plays into the hands of professional smugglers. It leaves Canada wide open for easy entry of undesirables. It seems designed to ensure that the bad buys can never be sent home.

We agree.

When will the minister admit that her legislation is out of step with reality?

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the member sat through the hearings at committee. On no occasion did she suggest the bill was not tough enough. In fact everything we heard from that party and that member was that Bill C-11 was too tough.

It is a tough bill. It is a complete overhaul of the immigration and refugee determination system. It will allow us to be faster, while we continue to be fair to those who come to us and ask for protection. I reject absolutely the characterization that the member has put on the record.

[Lynne Yelich, Canadian Alliance, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, let me quote from a former Canadian ambassador, who said:

Bill C-11 will make it easier for asylum seekers to enter Canada and much more difficult to remove them after they get in. In normal circumstances, this failure would be deplorable. After September 11th, refusal to implement immediate reform of our system borders on criminal irresponsibility.

Will the minister accept responsibility for this bill which threatens the integrity of our immigration system?

Anti-Terrorism Legislation

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, we are making the system work better and faster. We are keeping it fair. I want the member to know that whenever we have a concern about the identity of an individual, we can and we do detain. That is in the existing act and it is also in Bill C-11. He is creating the wrong impression.

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada will never allow terrorists to hurt our commitment and our humanitarian tradition to help those who are in genuine need of our protection. We stand firm on that.

However we recognized that the immigration and refugee protection act needed amendment and I brought that forward. We believe that Bill C-11 gives us the tools to determine who is in genuine need of our protection and who is not, factored in a fair way. We want to be able to remove those who are inadmissible to Canada as quickly as possible.

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, we are taking steps to improve the integrity of both the refugee determination and the immigration system. Bill C-11 requires security screening for refugees at the first instance. That is the first step in the procedure. The new legislation stops repeat claims, which was an abuse and we recognized that. It also clogged up the system.

The minister will be able to intervene in cases where we believe someone is inadmissible to Canada. The inadmissibility provisions in Canada state that if someone poses a security threat, is a criminal or a terrorist, the person is inadmissible to Canada. If we have evidence--

Anti-Terrorism Act

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to support Bill C-36 this evening. I add my voice to the many voices from all sides and corners of the House that have spoken of the importance of the bill which is meant to address incredibly foundational issues touching our democracy at this time.

I will talk a bit about the Canadian response, the challenge of facing terror in a democracy, the measured response the bill presents and the areas of review we will be entering into in the House and in committee.

The Canadian response to the evil of September 11 has been widespread and has unified us as a country although we have heard different expressions of how we should respond. I and my constituents in Vancouver Quadra join all Canadians in expressing our horror and deep felt sympathy for the families of the victims.

Our response, starting with the some 30,000 passengers diverted from American flights to Canada on September 11, has been extraordinary. That has been recognized across the United States and around the world. Canadians did not know at the time whether the planes harboured terrorists, had bombs on board or were a threat to Canada but we willingly opened our skies and airports to take those people in.

On September 14, 100,000 Canadians met on Parliament Hill to express their deep concern and sadness over the evil event. Within a day of the horror of September 11, ministers across a whole range of departments were working to add new resources and expedite and tighten up security measures to deal with the new reality.

In the House we have had more than 60 hours of debate on various aspects of the terror and our response to it. In all the debate there has been a common cause: to ensure we reach a proper balance in our democracy between security and freedom in the face of this type of terror. That is the challenge in front of us. It is a challenge Bill C-36 tries to address.

The balance is a delicate one. There can be no democracy without security. There can be no freedom without security. If we have only security we are imprisoned. There can be no security unless we have freedom, otherwise we have anarchy. This delicate balance must respect the reality of the times, and the times have changed for us all as the reality of September 11 has struck home.

It is the section 1 limits of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that we must turn our attention to in Bill C-36. Our rights and freedoms are subject to “such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”. We must always keep that limitation in mind as we measure our response.

Bill C-36 is complementary to a whole range of other initiatives and pieces of legislation. It would complement and add to the criminal code which covers the whole range of offences a terrorist might commit. However it specifically focuses on terrorism. It would supplement and build on the initiatives set out in Bill C-24, the organized crime legislation passed by the House in the spring.

Bill C-36 would add breadth, strength and definition to the provisions of the United Nations Act which allows us by regulation to implement United Nations security council resolutions. It would also build on the Immigration Act and give more definition to the provisions of Bill C-11 on immigration.

In terms of our international responsibilities and our responsibilities to our neighbours in the United States, Bill C-36 would allow us to ratify and implement the last two international conventions on terrorism: the international convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings and the international convention for the suppression of terrorist financing. This would bring us into the position of having ratified and implemented all 12 UN conventions on terrorism. That is immensely important.

It is also important that Bill C-36 would build on the hate propaganda provisions of the criminal code. It would make hate propaganda a crime and allow it to be deleted from public Internet sites.

Bill C-36 would build on the money laundering and proceeds of crime legislation we have in place to deal with criminal organizations. This legislation deals mainly with enterprise crime but could clearly be focused on terrorist organizations.

Bill C-36 is a measured response and an immensely important part of the democratic exercise we are involved in. Its balance is shown by a whole range of ministerial responsibilities. We would need the permission of the attorney general before initiating the investigative hearings, the preventive arrest provisions or the Canada Evidence Act certification which would allow the CSE to intercept communications which are targeted at foreign sources but enter Canadian airwaves.

The listing provision would need the recommendation of the solicitor general and the approval of cabinet. It would need to be reviewed every two years and could be challenged by the courts in judicial review.

As well, judicial oversight is woven into the whole bill. Investigative hearings reviewing the listing and preventive arrest provisions within 24 hours of being brought before a judge would provide effective judicial oversight.

Most important, the legislation comes out of the collective wisdom of the House as expressed over the last 30 days. There are issues that are still open for serious debate, and the Prime Minister and Minister of Justice have indicated their intention and desire that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights review these concerns in detail and provide further advice.

These will touch in particular on the important new provisions regarding preventive arrest, investigative hearings, the whole process of listing and delisting, parliamentary review, and the definition of terror. This is the first time terror has been defined and it is an immensely important centerpiece of the legislation.

It has been suggested in the House that some of the provisions, particularly the new ones, be made sunset clauses. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will be considering ways in which the legislation can be properly tracked over the next short period of time to consider whether it is achieving its objective, whether there are unintended consequences or whether there should be amendments.

I am confident in supporting Bill C-36 that it responds to the common objective and common cause of every member of the House: to deal with the horror and evil of terrorism in our democracy in a way that finds the proper balance between security and freedom.

Terrorism

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-11, which is before the Senate at this time, does exactly what the member opposite is saying today that he would like to see happen: streamline our procedures and make it more easy and more efficient for us to be able to remove those by denying access to the IRB and by removing appeal rights.

They voted against the bill. Further, they tried to reinstate appeal rights for security tests to Canada. They cannot have it both ways.

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that in Bill C-11 we have actually eliminated the right to an appeal of the immigration appeal division for those who pose a security threat to Canada.

Do members know what happened on June 4? That member and members of the opposition voted to restore the appeal rights to make it more difficult for us to pursue those who pose a security threat to Canada. That is the fact.

Privilege

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, unlike many of the debates that we have in this place, this is an issue that Canadians are fairly seized with. The number one question that most Canadians would ask is: How will this affect me? Will this bill give broad sweeping police powers to the state and interfere in my everyday activity, or is this a bill that will provide safety and security for me and my family?

It is important that we discuss this bill in the context of both of those questions. Bill C-36 is in fact an anti-terrorist bill. It is not an anti-immigrant bill, anti-refugee bill, anti-Muslim bill, anti-Afghani bill, anti-Pakistani bill, or anti any of those things because if it were it would truly be anti-Canadian. Unfortunately the debate around this entire issue is in some quarters, mostly the media, focused on this aspect.

There have been many times in this place when my friends opposite and I have disagreed, sparred and had vociferous debates. However this is a time when parliamentarians an all sides of the House have shown that their number one concern is for the safety of Canada.

I congratulate the Leader of the Opposition and the other leaders of the opposition, even the leader of the NDP. Even though we may not agree with her particular position on this matter, there is a constituency within Canada that shares her viewpoint. This democratic place called parliament is the place where those kinds of countering viewpoints need to be put forward.

I am interested in some of the suggestions made by the previous speaker regarding sunsetting. There is a section of the bill that requires it to be revisited and redebated in three years time. Whether it is an automatic review in three years or a cancellation of certain policies, unless they are reaffirmed in this place they are all issues that can be fairly and effectively dealt with in committee. They are technical aspects as to whether or not certain search and seizure aspects of the law should be continued or discontinued.

Should there be a wiretap that lasts one year instead of 90 days? Should there be intrusive abilities to monitor situations within this country, abilities that we would probably not have supported on September 10 of this year?

Since September 11 we have had to look at life through a different prism. Canadians are frightened and justifiably so. However, what concerns me is some of the hysteria that has literally thrown gasoline on an open flame.

I refer to recent allegations in the media last week which said that 50 refugees from Afghanistan and Pakistan had been allowed into the country without any security checks whatsoever. I can say that the switchboard, if we want to call it that, in my constituency office lit up. People were concerned and outraged as to how this could happen.

I too was concerned as to how we would allow someone in, particularly today but at any time in our history, without a reasonable security check and so I investigated. What did I find? I found that there was not one refugee from Afghanistan or Pakistan.

On that given day at Pearson airport there were indeed 29 people who applied for refugee status, which is not an unusual occurrence. The largest volume of refugees come through Pearson airport. Each and every one of those people was fingerprinted, photographed, checked through CSIS and cross-checked through the RCMP. No one was allowed to enter the country without a security check.

I will not be critical of anyone in particular in this case. However some members have said that when refugees come to this country and are a security risk or a flight risk, meaning they will not turn up for their hearing, then they should be detained. They are detained if those determinations are made.

I can take anyone who wants to go to a number of motels in the Brampton-Mississauga community that have been acquired as detention centres by the federal government to see families languishing. If there is a problem in our refugee system, and there is, it is in the length of time it takes to process the applications to provide a fair hearing.

We believe that Bill C-11, which will be before the House after it passes through the Senate, would help in that regard because it would allow single person panels instead of the three people needed to hold the hearings now. That should triple the number of hearings and should speed up the process dramatically. That is a case of human rights that need not interfere with this bill or any bill that targets anti-terrorism.

I wholeheartedly support Bill C-36. It is a response that our government has put forward in a timely, thoughtful and well researched way which says to Canadians that the government will fight terrorism with its friends in America, Great Britain and around the world. We will stand united as members of NATO as we have in other conflicts in the world.

A clause was invoked as part of our agreement with NATO known as article 5. Article 5 states that when a member of NATO is attacked all members are attacked. It is an all for one clause. If any Canadian falls through the cracks of discrimination in our zealous attempt to fight terrorism, the attack on that individual Canadian citizen is an attack on all of us. I caution that it can and does happen.

Let me share with the House the experience of a gentleman by the name of Mohamed Abdel-Aziz Attiah who was an engineer on contract with AECL at Chalk River. He was a Canadian citizen for 27 years. He is married to a Canadian citizen and has four children born in Canada. He moved from Mississauga to work at the Chalk River facility.

He was interviewed recently by CSIS and the RCMP for 90 minutes after which there were no charges, but because his name was Mohamed Abdel-Aziz Attiah they remained suspicious. They were concerned about security. There were no charges laid against the individual but after he went out for lunch and arrived back at the facility that he had worked at for some time, and at which he was being offered a permanent position, he found that his security card had been cancelled with no explanation and no reason. Today he languishes without a job, without an income and with a wife and four children, trying to understand.

Is it because of his name and heritage that he was fired? He asks what he did wrong. They trusted him before September 11. He wants to know why they do not trust him now. Is it because his name is Mohamed?

I know no one in this place would support that, yet it is a current case. It is an unjust case and in passing an anti-terrorism bill we must ensure that people like Mohamed and others are not discriminated against. This is not McCarthyism in the 1950s. It is clearly a united attack against terrorism that can come in any nationality, any skin colour and from anywhere in the world, even right here in Canada.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very clear in my answer.

In the existing immigration bill and in Bill C-11 the ability to negotiate a bilateral safe third agreement is there. A number of years ago there were discussions but given the fact that more than 40% of refugee claimants in Canada come to Canada through the United States, the United States was not interested in pursuing that agreement.

Immigration

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, after the events of September 11 I instructed my department to intensify security screening at our ports of entry. This was purely an operational matter within the legislative scope that is available under the current law, requiring no new legislative authority.

While the current law does have grounds to bar access to the refugee determination system, it does require multiple steps and poses significant delays. That is why with Bill C-11 we have streamlined so that those who are eligible to make a claim will be identified--

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in a September 26 CBC radio interview the minister of immigration said she had given the order to do indepth security screening of entrants. She said this had begun and that they had not waited for Bill C-11.

Could the minister of immigration tell us, since Bill C-11 has not passed, under what or whose authority she is acting?

National Security

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, it was this government that recognized the need to update our immigration laws. It has been 25 years since we have had a new law. It was that party that initially delayed Bill C-31 and voted against Bill C-11.

Many of the provisions the member has suggested are actually included in Bill C-11, which is now before the Senate. We are hoping to see royal assent this fall. We are ready to go, virtually ready to go with the regulations which have already been before committee. I look forward to his co-operation on implementation.

[Paul Forseth, Canadian Alliance, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the citizenship and immigration minister has now less than 90 days to implement UN security council resolution 1373, which calls for effective border controls and the issuance of identity papers and travel documents to prevent forgery or fraudulent use.

Bill C-11 is certainly not strong enough on that score. Will the minister use her administrative powers today to implement the United Nations resolution?

Terrorism

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, members of this caucus did vote against the bill because frankly it is too weak.

It is now clear that there are far too many weaknesses in the legislation the government has introduced to reform our refugee system.

Will the minister encourage the Senate to return Bill C-11 to the House of Commons for consolidation and improvement by the elected representatives of the people?

[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, Liberal, Minister 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 Alliance, Leader 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, Liberal, Minister 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, Liberal, Minister 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, Liberal, Minister 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, Liberal, Minister 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, Liberal, Minister 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 Immigration

[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?

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister 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.

Supply

[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.

Terrorism

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister 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.

Supply

[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?

Immigration

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister 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.

[Paul Forseth, Canadian Alliance, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the immigration minister is overselling the merits of Bill C-11.

The American ambassador told us all this week that no nation can be sovereign without being secure. The minister knows that her own department has really failed on that score.

Why is the government not taking a leadership role in either meeting or exceeding American or other countries' refugee screening standards?

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, we were very clear in Bill C-11 and we have the tools in order to detain wherever we are unsure of anyone's identity, wherever we believe there is a fear of flight or, most important, where we feel there is a security risk.

We can and we do detain whenever we believe that someone falls into any of those three categories, but particularly if they pose any security risk to Canada we detain and we argue for continued detention.

[Paul Forseth, Canadian Alliance, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the immigration minister.

The government's own backbench MPs recommended that all surprise refugee claimants be detained either until they are accepted as legitimate or deported.

Why did the minister refuse to accept the recommendation of her own backbench in the writing of Bill C-11?

Refugees

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, Canadians are very proud of our response to people who are fleeing persecution. We will continue to honour those humanitarian commitments.

In Bill C-11 we are streamlining the refugee determination procedures because we all recognize that it takes too long. I also want to assure all members of the House that whenever we have evidence that someone poses a national security risk we have the powers to detain and argue for continued detention, and we do that.

In the new Bill C-11 we will also have the ability to deny access to the refugee determination system for those who are inadmissible to Canada. For those who need our protection, we will continue to do that.

Immigration

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows the protection of Canadian documents and security protection for Canadians is a priority for the government. In Bill C-11 we referred to a new permanent resident card which will replace the IMM 1000. That has policy approval and we are hoping it will move forward as quickly as possible. It is under development.

Points of Order

[The Speaker]

Order, please. I would now like to deal with the point of order raised on June 12, 2001, by the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough relating to the use of the provisions of Standing Order 56.1. The hon. member stated in his argument that an abuse of process had occurred which was “tantamount to a breach of the rules and the intention and interpretation thereof” when, earlier that day, the government used Standing Order 56.1 to move a motion to which unanimous consent had been previously denied. The motion in question concerned the disposition of business for the final two sitting days prior to the summer adjournment, including the voting method to be followed on the last supply day of the period ending June 23, 2001.

I would like to thank the hon. the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville, the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons for their contributions on this matter.

At that time I ruled that the terms of the motion would stand, having been adopted by the House some eight hours before the hon. member raised his point of order. However, I also indicated my intention to return to the House in the fall with a statement on the use of Standing Order 56.1 and I am now ready to address the House on this matter. House of Commons Procedure and Practice , at page 571, describes Standing Order 56. 1 as follows:

If, at any time during a sitting of the House, unanimous consent is denied for the presentation of a “routine motion”, a minister may request during Routine Proceedings that the Speaker put the motion. For that purpose, a “routine motion” refers to motions which may be required for the observance of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the management of its business, the arrangement of its proceedings, the establishment of the powers of its committees, the correctness of its records or the fixing of its sitting days or the times of its meeting or adjournment. The motion, which is neither debatable nor amendable, is immediately put to the House by the Speaker. If 25 Members or more oppose the motion, it is deemed withdrawn; otherwise, it is adopted.

Standing Order 56.1 was adopted by the House in April 1991. At the time of its adoption concerns were raised about the implications of a rule that provides a mechanism for overriding the very unanimity of the unanimous consent mechanism that the House often uses to expedite its business. Speaker Fraser ruled on April 9, 1991, at page 19236 of the Debates :

However, this “over-ride” provision can operate, as the Chair understands it, only with respect to a certain very limited range of motions offered at a specific time in our daily agenda by a minister of the Crown...Based on the fact that we have similar procedures existing with respect to other types of motions and given the very limited application of the new proposal, the Chair cannot accede to the request...that paragraph 20 of the motion respecting the Standing Order amendments be ruled out of order.

It should be emphasized that at the time of its adoption it was envisioned that the standing order would be used for only so-called routine motions as defined in Standing Order 56.1(1)( b ).

Now let us examine how the rule has been used since its adoption 10 years ago. The government sought to use Standing Order 56.1 in 17 cases and failed in two instances.

Between 1991 and 1995 it was used six times to authorize committee travel. This falls squarely within the terms of the standing order. From 1995 to 1997 it was used on the following four occasions to arrange the sittings of the House: in March 1995 and April 1997, to suspend the sitting of the House for the sole purpose of a royal assent ceremony; in March 1995, to enable the House to sit over the weekend to consider government orders Bill C-77, an act to provide for the maintenance of railway operations and subsidiary services, a bill already under time allocation; and in June 1995, to extend the sitting to consider government business beyond the extension already provided for under Standing Order 27(1).

Here again, these four examples illustrate the intended use of Standing Order 56.1 for routine purposes, that is, to enable the House to fix the times of its meetings or adjournments and to arrange its proceedings.

From 1997 there are signs of a disturbing trend in which Standing Order 56.1 was used, or attempted to be used, for the adoption of motions less readily identified or defined as routine. Let us review specific examples of this trend.

On December 1, 1997 the standing order was used for the first time to dispose of back to work legislation at all stages, Bill C-24, an act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services. In March 1999 the government attempted to use Standing Order 56.1 for back to work legislation on Bill C-76, an act to provide for the resumption and continuation of government services. This attempt failed, as did a second attempt three days later. Eventually the legislation was dealt with under a special order after the government moved the same motion which it had placed on the order paper under government orders.

In June 1998, the government attempted to use Standing Order 56.1 to rescind a decision previously taken by the House concerning Standing Orders 57 and 78(3). The undertaking failed and members raised objections to this attempted use of the standing order. They argued that rescinding a unanimous decision of the House was not a routine motion and, as such, should not be permitted under this standing order. The Speaker allowed it, although he expressed misgivings, and he urged the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to examine the appropriate use of Standing Order 56.1.

Far less problematic are the two occasions where Standing Order 56.1 was used to enable the House to schedule take note debates, in both cases providing for the House to sit beyond its normal hours: in February 1998 to debate Canada's participation in a possible military action in the Middle East, the gulf war; and in April 1999 to consider the situation in Kosovo. So long as we continue to respect the distinction between emergency debates under Standing Order 52 and take note debates, using Standing Order 56.1 for scheduling purposes does not appear to violate the spirit of the standing orders.

The government again used Standing Order 56.1 in June 2001 to dispose of all stages of Bill C-28, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and the Salaries Act.

Finally, on June 12, 2001, the government, under Standing Order 56.1, moved a motion to dispose of business over the following two sitting days. In this instance the motion provided for the disposition of third reading of Bill C-11, an act respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger, and Bill C-24, an act to amend the criminal code (organized crime and law enforcement) and to make consequential amendments to other acts, and to dispose of Government Business No. 7, the summer adjournment motion.

In addition the motion provided that once a recorded division had been taken on the main estimates, all subsequent motions to concur in any vote or votes on the main estimates shall be deemed moved and seconded and the question deemed put and agreed to on division. The effect of this was that there was a single recorded division on the first of 190 opposed items standing on the order paper and the remainder were deemed agreed to on division.

At this point I would like to draw to members' attention the following reference at pages 571-2 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice :

On April 9, 1991, Speaker Fraser, while pointing out that the range of motions to which the proposed procedure would apply was very limited, also suggested that the new Standing Order was to be understood as another procedurally acceptable mechanism for limiting debate: "There are certain similarities also between the proposal and existing Standing Order 78 respecting time allocation in that both use a ladder-like type of approach depending upon the extent of agreement forthcoming to securing the right to propose the motion".

I would advise hon. members to be very cautious in their reading of this passage. In his ruling, Speaker Fraser drew a parallel between Standing Order 56.1, which requires a prior attempt to gain unanimous consent, and Standing Order 78, the time allocation rule, which requires notice or prior consultation. It seems doubtful to me, having read the ruling in its entirety, that Speaker Fraser really meant to suggest that Standing Order 56.1 was to be understood as another procedurally acceptable mechanism for limiting debate.

The expanded use of Standing Order 56.1 since 1997 causes the Chair serious concern. The government is provided with a range of options under Standing Orders 57 and 78 for the purpose of limiting debate. Standing Order 56.1 should be used for motions of a routine nature, such as arranging the business of the House. It was not intended to be used for the disposition of a bill at various stages, certainly not for bills that fall outside the range of those already contemplated in the standing order when “urgent or extraordinary occasions” arise. Standing Order 71 provides in such cases that a bill may be dealt with at more than one stage in a single day.

Likewise, a motion seeking to reverse a unanimous decision of the House is a serious undertaking and should in no way be viewed as a routine motion. It was never envisaged that Standing Order 56.1 would be used to override decisions that the House had taken by unanimous consent.

In the most recent use of Standing Order 56.1, a motion was adopted which provided for a recorded division on the first opposed item in the main estimates. However, all subsequent opposed items were then deemed moved and carried. The effect of the motion adopted pursuant to Standing Order 56.1 was to predetermine the results of all the votes following the first recorded division. It is clear to the Chair that this application of the standing order goes well beyond the original intent, that is, for the presentation of routine motions as defined in Standing Order 56.1.(1)( b ).

The standing order has never been used as a substitute for decisions which the House ought itself to make on substantive matters. In addition, if the House from time to time should agree by way of proceeding by unanimous consent as, for example, on the application of votes, one cannot assume that such agreements would automatically fall into the category of routine matters as defined in Standing Order 56.1.

As I previously indicated, I allowed the motion adopted on June 12, 2001, to go ahead because there were no objections raised at the time it was moved. By the time hon. members expressed concern to the Chair some eight hours later, the Chair saw no alternative but to proceed with the terms of the motion. However, to speak frankly, had the objection been raised in good time, I would have been inclined to rule the motion out of order. This situation serves again to remind members of the importance of raising matters of a procedural nature in a timely fashion.

In the three years since my predecessor urged the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to examine the appropriate use of Standing Order 56.1, we have seen further evidence of a trend away from the original intent of this rule. This would seem all the more reason for the committee to consider the standing order at the earliest opportunity.

In the meantime, based on close examination of past precedents and the most recent use of Standing Order 56.1 as a tool to bypass the decision making functions of the House, I must advise the House that the motion adopted on June 12, 2001, will not be regarded as a precedent. I would urge all hon. members to be vigilant about the use of this mechanism for the Chair certainly intends to be watchful.

I want to thank all hon. members who intervened to raise this point before the House at this time.

Attack on the United States

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am saddened to have to stand today to ask a question of my colleague. I think it was an extremely good intervention. As we have seen, an extraordinary turn of events in the past week has also affected us as Canadians in so many ways. Perhaps none of us ever imagined that such a day would come, that on the first day back after a period of time off we would be deliberating on an issue that has affected our families, our friends, our neighbours and our brothers and sisters, not just here in Canada and around the world, and most important, there are the efforts of our brave firemen, policemen and those who have suffered as ignominious victims of this brutality in New York.

As chair for several years I have tried to bring to parliament a realization of the awareness of what Islam and the Muslim faith are all about. I am encouraged by the comments made by so many of my colleagues, including the Prime Minister and the leaders in the House, to ensure that no revenge is sought. I too have a letter from constituents, young Muslim girls who are worried about retaliation. Events this week throughout my region and throughout Toronto have suggested that there is a great deal of tension, perhaps much of it misguided.

The hon. member's comments with respect to ensuring that we do not respond or act in a vengeful way and that we guard what we are doing, that we wait to see the outcome of this, interest me. I too am interested in looking at that as a viable option because of the modernization of evil, conventional forces and all the thinking, the missile defences and all these wonderful ideas we have had in the past to combat this problem. The social problems that are behind it cannot be ignored.

I would like to ask in the spirit of goodwill, the spirit of ensuring that God does indeed have a presence in this world and that evil also has a presence in this world, if the hon. member could give us an illustration of what he would like to see, perhaps with respect to Bill C-11, the immigration act. Are there ways in which the hon. member would have a willingness to co-operate to ensure that Canada plays a role to ensure that terrorism is at once snuffed out, but at the same time that the war takes a different form and that we wage war against those who wage war against peace?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to keep my comments short to allow others an opportunity to speak as well.

This is a sad time for everyone everywhere, not just in the U.S. and Canada. The whole world is crying over the terrible terrorist attack that happened last week. Our hearts go out to the United States, to our American friends and neighbours. I am sure all of us have friends living somewhere in the United States and are worried about what is coming today or tomorrow.

Our hearts go out especially to those who lost their lives and the loved ones they left behind. The TV coverage that was so extensive over the last week showed many sad people in tears, people who had lost their children or firefighters and policemen who had lost their colleagues. The images were so explicit that no matter how tough some people might like to think they are, I do not think there was anyone in our country or in the world who did not shed a tear while watching them.

Death and destruction are never pleasant, but what happened last Tuesday was extraordinarily disgusting. Wanton killing, the murder of innocent people, destruction of property and terrorism have no place in the civilized society we all cherish in our country.

What took place in America's airways in New York City, Washington and western Pennsylvania was inexcusable. Those who planned, perpetrated and carried out the acts must be found and punished. Those who harbour them, give them comfort and offer them assistance are equally guilty and must be punished as well. God willing, they will be.

This is our resolve. Canada is a democracy. It is a constitutional, fair and free society. It opens its doors to offer hope and opportunity to everyone. However our values and hospitality must not be abused, and they have been. As a result Canada, along with the United States and free people everywhere, has been cast into a worldwide struggle against the forces of darkness. It is a battle from which there is no turning. There can be no alternative but absolute victory.

Let us therefore renew our commitment to respect others, our commitment to peace, order and the rule of law. Anything less diminishes all of us.

We also have work to do here at home. We must tighten the rules of entry into our country. We must ensure that our borders, so accessible for so long, serve as a barrier too.

Bill C-11, our new immigration bill, would do much of that. It was started long before the acts of terrorism last week. Changes are in the making but they need to happen sooner rather than later. We must screen out those who wish us ill and who use Canada as a staging ground for terrorism. We must be more focused on identifying illegitimate entrants. We must find a way to speed up the process of ridding our country of those who we have determined have no right to be here.

Bill C-11 would do exactly that. It would allow people to come here who legitimately apply and who have a right to come to our country. It would make sure that those who have no right to be here are removed much faster. We must deny charity status to groups that fund terrorism. We need anti-terrorism legislation and we will all be working in the committee to ensure it happens sooner rather than later.

We must make it a special priority to work together with our great neighbour and dearest friend, the United States of America, to counter this scourge. We must be certain the Americans can absolutely depend upon us not to be a conduit for terrorists or for any individual or group bent on illegal or criminal activity.

At this time of reflection and making of resolutions we must also be alert to, and act forcefully against, unfair treatment of those whom people consider different. The openness of our society has brought the widest diversity imaginable to our population. We celebrate that diversity because it reflects our true values.

I am fortunate in York West to represent a riding that comprises about 120 different cultural groups. All of them live together in peace and harmony in my riding and in our city. As I stand here and speak about what is coming tomorrow, they are all worried. As worried as they are about what is coming from outside, they are worried about what will come from inside. I urge all members to think deeply about the people in our country who are Canadians and who want to live in peace and hope. We must all ensure that it happens and that we live that way together.

The opportunity given to all of us who share in the bounty of this land, who were fortunate enough to be born here or immigrate here, must be that we work together to ensure that discrimination is eliminated and equality prevails. There could be no better monument to this terrible tragedy than to ensure that justice, decency and fairness to all are the hallmarks of the Canadian people and our way of life. We must fight for that as energetically as we battle the forces of darkness.

When I was entering the House a little while ago a group of people outside with placards and signs was playing music, singing and asking us to make sure that peace reigns in our countries. We must not underestimate our immense responsibility here today and in the upcoming decisions that will be made. It is imperative that we represent the views of all our citizens and ensure that safety is the number one priority. We must protect our citizens and not make snap decisions. We must use all possible influence to ensure that justice is done, but it is not done by killing millions of people.

The people in my riding of York West are worried, including my family. My husband Sam, my daughter Cathy and her husband Graziano, my other children Deanna, Lou, Sam Junior and Claudia and my four wee grandchildren are all worried. Yesterday when I said I was flying to Ottawa my grandchildren asked why I could not drive. I said I was tired and that it would be easier to take a plane. They were worried. They wanted their nona to come back.

For those of us who were born here, who have never experienced war and who have children or grandchildren, when we banter this word around it is very frightening. We must be careful about the decisions we make. We must do what is right and in the interest of society and all the people.

When we pick up a newspaper such as today's Toronto Star , the second paragraph on the front page reads:

New terrorist attacks could target “every subway, every port, every ship, every crossroad, every large gathering of human beings,” U.S. Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld said.

People who have lived in a safe country all their lives are now living in fear. It is an awful feeling for many people. It makes us all stand back and think about whether we are at peace with ourselves. Have we made sure to thank our families and friends and tell them we love them? The people who got on those planes or went to work in the World Trade Center thought they were on business or vacation. They did not expect to never have the chance to call their families and say they loved them.

One thing we should all be trying to do as members of parliament is make sure we are leading our communities in being at peace with ourselves, with God and with each other. I look forward to working with all my colleagues as members of parliament on behalf of our country.

[Paul Forseth, Canadian Alliance, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my constituents of New Westminster--Coquitlam--Burnaby and all freedom loving people to extend the deepest heart felt condolences to the many Americans, Canadians, British and others who are direct or indirect victims.

I concur with the motion before the House that states:

That this House express its sorrow and horror at the senseless and vicious attack on the United States of America on September 11, 2001;

That it express its heartfelt condolences to the families of the victims and to the American people;

That it reaffirm its commitment to the humane values of a free and democratic society and its determination to bring to justice the perpetrators of this attack on these values and to defend civilization from any future terrorist attacks.

Freedom will always have to be defended from senseless acts of terrorism or in the face of the complacent.

As Canadians watched in horror and tried to understand the incomprehensible, I find it difficult not to think of the possible Canadian connection. Indications may or may not be valid but regardless, the fact that Canadian law and administration continues to allow non-Canadians with terrorist ties to reside in Canada is just not acceptable.

Canadians find it bewildering that CSIS, the RCMP, the Canadian media and even U.S. TV networks have reported for years about the ease in which criminals can gain access to our country due to our insufficient federal institutional protections. Change begins with the recognition that a problem exists.

Canadians want the government to admit that it has a problem so we can get to work. Instead of the Prime Minister saying this week that no improvements are anticipated and the immigration minister claiming that Canada is okay, Canadians want some contrition at this time from the cabinet about its misplaced priorities on security.

Canadians have cause to be angry over the culpability of the Liberal government for the historically poor administration of national security. Problems with Canada's immigration system policies are well known. There is an historical pattern of reports from our loyal public employees about Canada being either a haven for terrorist operations, a place where they raise funds or a place to be used as a gateway to the United States.

It is a matter of longstanding public record that whenever it is an issue of enforcement per se, whether it is ports' police providing higher levels of security training and manpower to customs' border guards, appropriate levels of military personnel or providing people with the resources and technology to airport security, the Liberals have squeezed and starved this whole line of resourcing.

The government needs to admit that all along our party in the House has been correct on these matters over the years and the government has been wrong. My constituents want to know what the minister of immigration's plan of action is beyond just implementing Bill C-11 next year. We need many people at every level to deal with what mainly is at this point a people security problem.

On December 31, 1997, there was a legislative review report published called “Not Just Numbers: A Canadian Framework for Future Immigration” that was presented to the former immigration minister. After much discussion and caving into the advocates in the immigration industry, the Liberals took an agonizing three years, until February 21, 2001, to bring forward the compromise Bill C-11 that was passed in the House of Commons on June 13 and is now in the Senate.

Bill C-11 does appear to partially tighten up procedure but the overall resourcing shortfall of manpower in the immigration ministry today remains a scandal. Consequently, public confidence in the Liberals to manage the nation's affairs or to run a well managed immigration system in all its complexity is far below public expectation.

It is well known that much could be reasonably accomplished if there were the appropriate political will for governance. The Liberals have never had the needed ideological grounding in accountability or in orientation to manage according to the public will.

The current state of affairs with the system is another testimony to that record, that the Liberals are not competent to govern. The world may not be more dangerous now than it was last week but we certainly have proof from Tuesday's events that it is a much more dangerous world than the Liberals have been willing to admit.

The increased international flow of goods, capital and labour makes it easier than ever before for terrorists to create links, set up bases in key locations and raise money in places like Canada for their offences.

It is amazing that people can arrive on Canadian soil and claim refugee status here in Canada, yet roam free for years. Most claimants are just released into our communities to do as they will for lengthy waits for their refugee hearings. Then there are insufficient resources to verify the stories of these surprise arrivals from their claimed countries of origin. Further, even if they are unsuccessful claimants, they can appeal for up to about seven years before the system deports them, most living free in our society to be or not to be law-abiding. Moreover, thousands of claimants just disappear once they are released into our communities as that was their planned method to sneak in.

Given the weakness of our current procedures, we can only say that we are lucky so far that crime has not been worse.

It is time for the government to get real, stop its denials, stop the defence of name calling put downs against the official opposition and just re-allocate personnel resourcing.

Most countries that accept refugees accept about 10% to 15% of claims but we are so inadequate in our background checks that we accept about 50% or even more. It is no surprise then that CSIS says that most of the world's terrorist groups have established themselves in Canada for operations. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service has a mandate to monitor threats to Canada. On June 12, it said:

Terrorism in the years ahead is expected to become more violent, indiscriminate and unpredictable...There will likely be terrorist attacks whose sole aim would be to incite terror itself...Canada a potential venue, for terrorists attacks.

The auditor general gave another wake up call in April 2000 saying:

Visa officers feel they are not only going against their own values, but also making decisions that could carry risks that are too high, and that could entail significant cost for Canadian society.

In response, the government remained complacent and thereby, by definition, perhaps complicit.

Some people coming into Canada found that the way the system is presently designed it allows them to perform their own malevolent goals. Without sufficient incentive to comply with removal orders or reporting conditions, arrivals will continue to stay on and become lost in the system. People smugglers bring their victims with little fear of prosecution.

Sadly, by the turn of events this week, we are reminded again of the need for the systems to act more promptly and with much greater care for the public safety. The courage to act requires a much better allocation of human and financial resources and the best available information systems for protection and enforcement. Without these pragmatics the best speeches by the government today will never be effective or save us from any tragedy.

Dealing with the volume of arrivals and sorting them out, it is a very intensive people business. To more effectively cope with these realities, it is reasonable to do two things. Properly resource the agencies whose practitioners at the line level have been begging for relief. Give the needed trained personnel and also harden the entry points to reduce the swamping of our system.

One of the flaws in Canadian politics is the traditional difficulty in just mentioning immigration, refugees, border controls and so on. The censorship practised by the finger pointers and name callers against my party hurts the whole country. Nevertheless I will not relent but I will say that in our party we firmly believe that the government must give account for the way security programs are met.

September 11, 2001, will be remembered forever. The attack upon the United States changes how we think of the world. Civilization has been attacked and freedom everywhere has been hurt. Our prayers will continue with the victims and their families.

I end my remarks by saying that we in the official opposition of the Canadian parliament offer our Prime Minister assistance to do what we can, for this week's tragedy is of international scope. I have expressed our concern and support to the U.S. embassy and we send our condolences to the American people. I am also mindful that there are Canadians and other nationalities who perished in the attack. While our hearts are broken in this time of grief, I will do my duty to serve to protect what is good and fulfil my part to preserve peace and order.

Technology and the machines of war can neither detect nor eradicate the hatred in the heart of a radical. Anyone willing to commit suicide as a martyr for their evil idea is a potentially more dangerous than the most sophisticated weaponry.

We have looked into the face of evil. It is an idea clothed in pride. It will be overcome by revelation clothed in love. Our only long term hope for peace and an end to fanaticism are changed hearts through faith in the redemptive love of God.

Immigration

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the premise of the member's question is not accurate. Anyone who comes to Canada as an immigrant must have a full security and criminality screening before they come. That is a statutory requirement today.

I will say that Bill C-11 gives us important new tools to ensure that we are able to do things such as up-front security screening and to bar access to the refugee determination system for anyone that we believe poses a security threat to Canada. We need the bill. His party did not support it. I hope they have changed their minds and will encourage the Senate to pass the bill quickly.

[Paul Forseth, Canadian Alliance, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, our leader rose in the House and was very critical of Bill C-11. Canadians are feeling very vulnerable. The auditor general says that people are admitted through our immigration system without assurances that they have not committed crimes abroad. That is what the auditor general says.

What has the minister done to close this absolutely huge gap in our security system?

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the protection of the citizens of Canada is a priority, particularly security threats. We are all concerned and want to do everything we can to fight terrorism.

I would say to the member that Bill C-11 which is presently before the Senate will give my department new and important tools. Just weeks ago members of his party said the bill was too tough. I hope he will agree today that we need it and that the Senate should pass it as quickly as possible.

Attack on the United States

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, we are only six days from the morning of September 11, 2001, a new date which we all know will live on in infamy. On that day, in a few harrowing hours, the world was changed forever.

None of us will ever forget where we were in the moments we first heard that planes had struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, but for many people, including hundreds of Canadians, that awful moment will never end. There will always be a missing daughter or son, husband or wife, or mother or father who will never return.

It is to the victims of these barbaric acts, to their families and to their loved ones that our hearts, our minds and our prayers must go first. We must let these families know, those who have suffered these losses, that we are with them, that this parliament is with them and that Canada is with them.

Last week's horrific attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania have shocked everyone in the civilized world. These mass hijackings and suicide attacks were more than a crime; they were barbaric acts of war. They were aimed straight at the heart of our society. I say society because these attacks were not aimed just at New York or even just at the United States. They were aimed at everyone in the world who believes in democracy and freedom. They were aimed at everything we hold dear here in Canada also.

Our first thoughts must turn to those who were lost in this horrific attack and to their grieving families: the passengers and crew of those airplanes, the men and women working in the office towers, the pedestrians below those towers, and the brave firefighters and police who rushed in only to be killed themselves. Our thoughts are with these brave souls. They died because they lived in freedom and freedom was targeted for attack.

The very next day following the awful attacks in New York, the people of New York, hurting and feeling great pain, returned to their jobs. Many opened their shops, some of which were covered in ashes, and with their hearts aching but their heads held high they said to a watching world “We are bruised but we will not be broken”.

Let us join them in that spirit to do what must be done to stop the forces of terror and tyranny and to keep open the doors of freedom and peace.

Our hearts go out to all our brave neighbours in the United States, that great beacon of hope and freedom to the world, our greatest ally and our closest friend. When Canada has needed it in the past the United States has been there for us. When the world has needed it, the United States has been there. Along with Canadians, the brave men and women of the United States crossed the Atlantic and Pacific in the second world war and stopped tyranny. Their determined valour was exceeded only by their friendship in the peace that followed.

Now is the time for Canada and Canadians to stand by our great friends and great allies as never before.

I want to thank the Prime Minister and the foreign affairs minister for their words of solidarity toward the United States. During this crisis it is important that MPs from all parties put forward a united front. I will do that. Others will do that.

Today I know that every member of parliament from every party would call himself or herself a Canadian, an ally, a friend, not just a member of a particular party.

The Prime Minister has my full support as we stand shoulder to shoulder with the United States.

I would also like to pay tribute to the thousands of Canadians, from RCMP officers and customs agents to airport personnel, firefighters, doctors, nurses, and citizens who donated blood, who responded with such compassion and concern in this crisis. They have shown that Canadians will stand with the United States, our greatest friend and ally, in its hour of need.

On behalf of Canadians, the Prime Minister called for a national day of mourning last Friday. We deeply appreciated that opportunity to express our sorrow and show our unshakeable support for our American neighbours and for Canadians who suffered loss. In a great show of Canadian solidarity and support on Parliament Hill last Friday and in similar ceremonies across the country, Canadians sent that message. The only element missing from that ceremony was the acknowledgment, in this time of sorrow and heartbreak, of our Creator, because in the days ahead it is only with divine wisdom, grace and understanding that we shall overcome.

As we join with the people of the United States and especially with the families of the victims to remember the dead, let us now dedicate ourselves to protecting the living. The events of September 11 were not merely tragic, like a train wreck or an earthquake. They were evil, as the Prime Minister has said. We must make sure that this kind of evil shall not prevail.

President Bush has rightly called this struggle the first war of the 21st century. Make no mistake. The war on terrorism is not merely the moral equivalent of war, like a war on drugs or a war on poverty. This is a genuine war, which can only be won, as Sir Winston Churchill said of another long struggle, with blood, toil, tears and sweat. Canada, in invoking article 5 of the NATO charter, has joined with our allies in declaring that this attack on the United States is an attack on ourselves, the first such declaration in the 50 year history of NATO.

This is not just an American struggle, for the terrorist war is aimed not only at America nor is it being fought only in America. It is being fought throughout the world, including here in Canada. The suicide bombing of the World Trade Center is an attack on Canada as well. Terrorists have declared war on the entire free world and the entire free world must declare war on terrorism.

This is a war not with ghosts but with real people. Osama bin Laden has been publicly identified as the prime suspect behind these murderous acts. He has been sheltered, if not aided and abetted, and time will tell on that question, by the Taliban regime of Afghanistan. The free world must tell all states that no matter what their ideology, supporting or condoning terror against civilians will never, ever be tolerated.

However, while bin Laden's al-Qaeda movement or other radical groups from the Middle East may be guilty of these infamous acts, we know that the overwhelming majority of Arabs and Muslims here in Canada and around the world deplore and abhor these attacks as strongly as we do.

I have discussed this matter with my colleague, the member of parliament for Edmonton--Strathcona, whom I believe is the only Muslim member of the House. He has told me of the sensitivity of this issue in Canada's Muslim community at this difficult time. The true meaning of Islam is surrender to God. The religion of Salaam, or peace, is diametrically opposed to these kinds of evil acts. The Islamic beliefs in peace and brotherhood are among the elements which make our Canadian communities strong and caring places in which to live. At this hour of darkness, let us reach out in a special way to our peaceful Arab and Muslim friends and neighbours here in Canada and let us reject any backlash against the innocent even as we strive to bring the guilty to justice.

The true teachings of Islam are diametrically opposed to the terrorists' interpretations of them. I am therefore calling upon the public to reach out to our Arab and Muslim friends here in Canada and to reject all forms of discrimination toward innocent individuals.

Let us not allow the barbarism of a few extremists to taint an entire community or religion. There must indeed be justice, but only for those who are guilty.

Canadians do not dwell often on thoughts of war. We are thankful for having enjoyed a long season of peace. When we consider our role in the world, we are more likely to think of Canadians keeping peace than waging war.

Some in this country have already begun to say that talk of war is overblown and irresponsible and that we must instead address the root causes of terrorism. This is true. Root causes must be addressed, but it is sheer folly, let there be no mistake, when we say that the root cause of terrorism is the terrorists themselves. The hatred that moves them to massacre the innocent can never be negotiated with or reasoned with.

It is not a matter of shades of grey when it comes to these barbarous acts of evil. It is set in black and white. This is not a time for moral ambiguity. It is a moment of moral clarity. As Canadians, as subjects of this peaceable land, we did not seek this conflict, but however much we might tell ourselves that we are not targets, that we really are not involved and that this is not our war, the reality is that we cannot avoid it. As I said last week, there are no rearguard positions in the struggle against terrorism, only front lines. Canada is on the front line whether we want to be there or not. In the words of Prime Minister Blair:

People of all faiths and all democratic political persuasions have a common cause: to identify this machine of terror and dismantle it as swiftly as possible.

In the past when summoned to action in World War I when we were a nation of only some eight million people, 625,000 soldiers went into action from Canada. In World War II we again made a huge effort, especially in relation to the size of our population. As well, in Korea and in the gulf, Canada proved itself ready. We joined with our allies and did our share, sometimes at great cost.

Now it is no different. The war on terrorism will require real sacrifices and new priorities. Now we must face the difficult question of whether Canada is ready to face this new struggle. Canada is a free and democratic society. It is precisely because we are a free and democratic society with values and desires to protect our way of life that we cannot avoid the awful responsibility of joining the war on terrorism.

The form of democracy we are privileged to enjoy is the Westminster parliamentary system. In our historic form of democratic government it falls to the leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to ask difficult and at times painful questions and to pose alternatives as to what the government should do.

In my address today and in the speeches from Alliance and other opposition members of parliament, we will pose important questions as to whether Canada is sufficiently prepared to face this challenge that has been thrust upon us. For several years the official opposition has consistently raised issues of border security, the integrity of our refugee identification system and the need for more resources for military, security and intelligence purposes. We have drawn attention to terrorist activity within Canada. In our view the government unfortunately has not always responded as fully as it should have to these concerns, but the world has changed since September 11, 2001, and what was an important if sometimes overlooked concern before September 11 has now become an absolute moral imperative since September 11.

Addressing these issues of national security must now become the single highest priority of the Parliament and the Government of Canada.

Today, the official opposition does not wish to rehash the past, to dredge up past mistakes by the government; instead we wish to propose concrete and constructive solutions for the future.

The official opposition does not want to fix blame. We want to fix the problem.

Today I would like to propose three important changes that would better equip the Canadian government to engage in its battle against terrorism.

First, we must equip ourselves with anti-terrorist legislation.

Second, we must ensure that we have secure borders and airports, by protecting ourselves against professional terrorists.

Third, we must provide our army, police and security intelligence service with the needed resources to engage in this battle as well as a clear mandate.

If Canada was inadequately prepared in some of these areas before September 11, the question before us now is how to respond adequately, now that we know we cannot avoid this fight.

In 1996, in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing, the United States brought in comprehensive anti-terrorism legislation in the form of the anti-terrorism and effective death penalty act signed by President Clinton. In Canada the interdepartmental intelligence policy group reviewed the U.S. legislation but concluded “that the need for such a scheme or its potential effectiveness could not be established”.

In 2000 the United Kingdom, which already had strong anti-terrorism legislation on its books to deal with the threat of the IRA, brought in new sweeping anti-terrorism legislation to deal with international terrorism operating within the U.K.

The official opposition has pointed to the British terrorism act 2000 as an example of the kind of effective legislation that we feel Canada needs to deal with the threat of terrorist groups operating within our borders.

Both the U.S. anti-terrorism act of 1996 and the British anti-terrorism act of 2000 took concrete steps to name and outlaw specific terrorist organizations operating within those countries and to ban any fundraising or other support activities on their behalf.

Yet in Canada the government has avoided the approach of naming and banning specific terrorist organizations and their front groups. This is a step that no longer can be put off.

Canada is a signatory to and indeed helped to draft the 1999 United Nations international convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism, which calls for a complete ban on all forms of fundraising for terrorist organizations. Unfortunately Canada has not ratified this convention and has not yet tabled legislation to give it force and effect.

Bill C-16 which allows the government to strip charitable status from groups raising funds for terrorism is a first tentative step, but it falls short of an outright ban on terrorist fundraising.

Bill C-16, which is being debated in this parliament, would make it possible for certain groups financing terrorism to be stripped of their not for profit organization status.

This is a step in the right direction, but we are still a long way from having true anti-terrorist legislation that would ban the financing of terrorism in Canada and eliminate such groups from this country.

We know that terrorist groups such as Babbar Khalsa, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, the Kurdistan Workers Party and the Irish Republican Army have all raised large amounts of money in Canada and continue to do so. Indeed in 1998 CSIS reported that there were some 50 terrorist groups operating in Canada. In testimony that year before a Senate committee, CSIS Director Ward Elcock said:

As only a partial list, individuals and groups here have had direct or indirect association with: the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, suicide bombings in Israel, assassinations in India, the murder of tourists in Egypt, the Al Khobar Towers attack in Saudi Arabia and the bombing campaign of the Provisional IRA.

He went on to say that we cannot become, through inaction or otherwise, what might be called an unofficial state sponsor of terrorism. We cannot allow that to happen.

Giving the solicitor general and the CCRA the power to strip charitable status from these organizations and their front groups is not good enough. Governments must name these groups, define them, publicly outlaw them and ban all fundraising on their behalf.

The government should have the power to freeze and seize the assets of terrorist organizations and their front groups. We look forward to more input in this particular area of legislation and we look forward to the government response in this particular area. We must deal with this issue.

The second broad area I will address is the security of our borders and airports and how we can better screen people arriving in Canada to prevent possible terrorists from reaching Canada in the first place.

The security of Canada's borders and airports is a vital national and international security issue, but it is also a vital economic issue. Canada relies on a billion dollar a day flow of trade to and from the United States as a linchpin of our economy. Last week's airport and border shutdowns and delays will likely cost our economy tens of millions of dollars.

The fact that our two countries share the world's largest undefended border is not a right but a privilege. If we expect to maintain the kind of access to the United States and it to us that we have enjoyed in the past, we must now take steps to show our American neighbours that we are every bit as concerned as they are about maintaining security and preventing terrorism and organized crime.

We remember the threat posed to the Canadian economy by the illegal immigration reform and immigrant responsibility act passed by the U.S. Congress in 1997. It was only significant and hard lobbying by the Canadian embassy and others that won changes to the legislation to exempt the Canadian-U.S. border. Will that be the case after September 11, 2001? We must work in this regard with all diligence.

What kind of measures may be necessary to ensure security at our points of entry? Our critics in that area have been working diligently with security forces and others to help identify the things that must be done. We will consider the various ideas being brought forward and suggested, whether it is increased implementation of electronic passport screening or the idea of air marshals and other steps that must be taken to grant security on our airlines.

At our land borders Canada customs officers should be issued the right training and equipment to deal with the increased security that will be required there. Our critics in that area will bring forward specific items related to those areas.

There is no question that these steps and others will cost more money. The United States Congress has already authorized $40 billion in spending as simply a first instalment on clean up measures and anti-terrorist activities.

The official opposition will support new spending in these areas, even if it means going beyond certain current spending plans, as long as we are assured that other spending in low and falling priority areas is carefully pruned.

Most of these changes can be done through a reallocation of resources and an attack on wasteful spending. This type of scrutiny is difficult with a government which has refused to table a full budget, but that will be the subject of another day. We are focused on these issues. We are focused on solutions.

We also must look at tougher screening systems being put in place to keep people who pose security risks to Canadians and others from entering the country in the first place. For those currently in the refugee identification system who have not yet received landed status or citizenship we need better tracking to make sure we are able to locate possible security risks. To do that rapidly this should be an immediate priority. We need the resources and the will to do that.

We are known as a country which welcomes with open arms refugees who are seeking freedom and democracy. Unfortunately we are also known somewhat to be soft in not identifying and dealing rapidly with those who are a risk. Refugee claimants who break the law or people who enter this country illegally, especially where there are concerns about security risks, should be immediately detained or deported, not simply asked to check in at an Immigration Canada office once or twice or month.

We must take the proper steps in this regard. We need to do this and we need to do it with all diligence.

Bill C-11 which is currently before the House does not address many of these concerns. It represents in some ways a step backward from the previous Bill C-31 which died on the order paper before the last election. Bill C-11 should be amended to include broader measures to ensure the security and integrity of our refugee system and should be returned to the House.

As U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell has pointed out, the war against terrorism in which we are now engaged will be unlike other wars. The enemy is both at home and abroad. They do not take openly to the battlefield but hide in shadows. While this effort may involve conventional warfare against states who harbour or sponsor terrorist cells, we must recognize, as has been identified, that they are also present inside Canada and the United States.

Fighting the multi-headed monster of terrorism means attacking all its operations and doing it simultaneously. We will address in detail the area and concerns of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service which has lost 28% of its personnel in the last decade. We will address the areas of the RCMP and its situations related to lost resources. Of course the largest infusion of resources will have to go to the beleaguered Canadian armed forces.

Over the last year the Canadian forces has declined from 90,000 to 55,000 personnel and is on track for further declines. This is a dereliction of our duty. We must support our armed forces and send that message to our NATO partners around the world.

Last week NATO invoked article 5 for the first time in its history. President Bush made it clear that he is building an international coalition to combat not only terrorist cells but their state sponsors. We must work with and be part of that coalition. Unfortunately the Taliban regime in Afghanistan has resorted to belligerent rhetoric about its support for Osama bin Laden rather than co-operating with the United States. The prospect of a conventional military campaign is not remote.

If and when the need arises for military action, the United States and NATO will expect Canada to provide a commitment. We must be willing and prepared to provide it. It is for this reason that I am asking the Prime Minister to be crystal clear regarding our commitment to the United States and NATO up to and including, if necessary, military involvement within our capacity to do so.

NATO is perhaps the most successful military and political alliance in history. Its decisions on military action are made with both care and deliberation. We are obliged to be part of that. Now more than ever Canada's voice and vote of commitment needs to be heard in the clearest of terms, both in the camps of our friends and the hidden dens of our enemies.

This weekend we have heard the menacing threats. We have heard warnings against freedom loving nations not to assist the United States in any military action. Our government must be clear. It is not the time to give any signal to the barbaric enemies of freedom and democracy that we will do anything less than stand shoulder to shoulder with our friends, the Americans and our NATO partners, in the face of this insidious threat.

This is not a time for half measures. It is not a time to bring forward previously announced initiatives and relabel them as anti-terrorist measures. There are some positive elements in current proposals like Bill C-16 and Bill C-11, but they do not go far enough. We must carry them forward. We must do everything that is within our power and will to do.

We will continue to bring forward constructive criticisms and suggestions. They will be put forward in a spirit of unity and solidarity with the Prime Minister and his cabinet as we enter this first war of the new century.

I hope the Prime Minister will accept these constructive criticisms and suggestions in the spirit in which they are given: for the furtherance of our common goal to defeat terrorism at home and abroad.

Over the next few weeks there will be times to discuss and debate whether we are moving fast enough or far enough in certain areas. There will be times to debate whether Canada could have or should have been more prepared. However today is a day to show unity and resolve.

We show unity in standing with our American neighbours, especially the families of the victims of these horrible attacks. We show unity in mourning our own Canadian dead. We show resolve in facing the enemy of international terrorism and announcing that terror in all its forms will not be allowed to stand.

Last week the world saw the face of evil. However good may yet be able to arise out of the evil if the citizens of the free countries of the world rise as one, say that this evil shall not stand, and work together to eliminate it from the earth.

In closing, I would like to say that I am proud to join with the government in supporting this motion. I trust it will be first of many actions we will take together as parliamentarians and as Canadians, united in this war against terrorism.

In these next days and weeks may God grant wisdom to our Prime Minister and to this parliament. God save our Queen. God keep our land glorious and free.

Immigration And Refugee Protection Act

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

Mr. Speaker, the member's speech was full of rhetoric but not much subject matter, which, coming from that member, is typical.

The leader of the official opposition as well as the official opposition's chief critic for immigration articulated the immigration policy of the Canadian Alliance very well.

Could the hon. member tell us about the other side of the bill which would not close the back door but in fact leave it quite open? I would like to ask the hon. member about the RCMP, which is allegedly, under the Liberal government's nose, probing 32 federal immigration employees for criminal offences at 21 Canadian embassies. Another 16 immigration staffers are allegedly facing internal investigation by department officials for alleged offences.

The RCMP are also assisting in a probe of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Most of the individuals and families admitted to Canada from Kenyan refugee camps since 1995 have had to pay bribes to come to Canada. They are genuine refugees but they could not come through the front door.

Where in Bill C-11 can I find something that will counter and effectively control corruption and close the so-called back door? I do not see anything in Bill C-11 that would curtail corruption and bribery. Where is it?

[Inky Mark, Canadian Alliance, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first let me thank the member for Fundy—Royal for being very unselfish in sharing his time with me today.

I am very honoured to take part in the third reading of Bill C-11, the new immigration act. I have said to the House before that as a third generation immigrant to this country, I am very privileged to be here, and that includes the 44 other members in the House who are also Canadians by choice. I believe we are all very thankful that this country has taken us in.

Unfortunately we still have a long way to go. A new immigration bill is long overdue. The bill is called an act respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger. Unfortunately the contents of the bill do not reflect the title.

Also at this time I want to thank my deputy critic, the member for Blackstrap, for her due diligence and hard work as we travelled throughout the country seeking public information.

I also want to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, members from all sides of the House, for their tremendous co-operative spirit, which was demonstrated throughout all stages of Bill C-11. There is no doubt that we as a committee wanted what was best for this country in our attempt to write the immigration laws for the next decade.

I want to thank the capable chairman of the committee, the member for London North Centre, for his relatively non-partisan approach. I believe he has not forgotten that he, like I, immigrated to this country in the 1950s as a young child.

Also at this time I need to thank the clerks and the parliamentary support staff for all the hard work they displayed in keeping us organized and moving.

We have heard from all sides of the House about how important immigration is and how immigration built this country. Immigrants have been coming to Canada since the 1500s and they have shaped this country. Canadians from all walks of life can relate in some manner to the immigrants who came to Canada seeking a better life.

The manner in which Canada welcomed these newcomers was not always friendly. In my brief intervention here I would like to quote from a book called Whence They Came: Deportation from Canada , written by Barbara Roberts. The foreword was written by Irving Abella in 1988 and I believe this is a good time to reflect on our history of immigration in Canada. Mr. Abella states:

Canada is a peculiar nation. Peopled by immigrants, it is a country, paradoxically, which hates immigration. Every single public opinion survey over the past fifty years indicates that most Canadians—including by the way, most immigrants themselves—do not want any substantial increase in the number of people admitted to this country. This attitude may surprise Canadians, but historically it should not.

It is one of our great national myths that Canada has a long history of welcoming refugees and dissidents, of always being in the forefront in accepting the world's oppressed and dispossessed, of being receptive and hospitable to wave after waves of immigrants.

We Canadians like to think that racism and bigotry are European or American in origin and play little part in our history, tradition or psyche. We see ours as a country of vast open spaces and limitless potential which has always been open and available to the proverbial huddled masses yearning to be free.

Yet as the recent history in Canadian literature has shown, the Canadian record is one of which we ought not be proud. Our treatment of our native people as well as our abysmal history in admitting blacks, Chinese, Japanese, Indians, and during the 1930s and 1940s Jews, should lay to rest the myth of our liberalism and enlightenment on matters of race and immigration.

Let us face facts For most of our history Canadian immigration laws were racist and exclusionary. We knew precisely what kind of people we wanted, and how to keep out those we didn't. Until the 1960s our immigration policies divided the world into two - the “preferred” races who were always welcome in Canada and the “non-preferred” who rarely were. The former were of British and European stock; the latter included almost everybody else.

The central problem of Canadian immigration policy is that for most of our history we did not have one. Since 1867 the country has had precisely four immigration acts. Nor has there ever been in Canada—neither now nor in the past—any clearly articulated national consensus about what immigration should be or what it would be. Except for one constant—its discriminatory aspects—our policies have had little consistency.

Even today when we look at 1% as the target, we still do not know why we use that as a target.

The integrity of Canada's immigration system is determined by processes that are used to determine who would be allowed to immigrate to Canada and under what conditions they would be allowed to reside in the country. It is essential that the checks and balances be in place to ensure that decisions are just, because no system can ever be perfect.

Enforcement of immigration laws can and does have severe consequences. It causes a separation of parents from children, spouses from one another and individuals from a country that was their home. To ensure that Canada has a balanced immigration system, Canadians need a process that is responsible, compassionate, equitable and fair.

Bill C-11 fails to preserve the process that is necessary for ensuring reliable and just decision making for immigrants and refugees to this country. The bill strips away the progress that Canada has made in creating review processes that help bring balance to our national immigration policy. Some of these come down to seemingly simple procedural issues but are critical for the administration of a fair and just immigration system.

The Canadian Alliance cannot support Bill C-11. It just goes against the values of being Canadian. I thank the member for Fundy—Royal for sharing his time with me.

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

Madam Speaker, as we know, the twelve to eight split was unbalanced. Although we did not get what we wanted out of Bill C-11, there was goodwill on both sides of the House during the presentations from over 150 witnesses. The hon. members for Mississauga West and London North Centre provided very solid contributions.

I also wish to pay tribute to the Bloc Quebecois immigration critic, the member for Laval East, and to the New Democratic Party spokesperson and the member for Dauphin—Swan River, all of whom made an important contribution to consideration of this bill.

Our country was not built by a big Sussex, New Brunswick, or a big Lethbridge, Alberta, or even a big Winnipeg. We built it together. A very multicultural pluralistic society built one of the best nations in the world, one that is the envy of the world.

I am very proud of the Progressive Conservative background and our history of embracing immigration, which is an economic necessity to grow our vibrant society. We also embrace the welcoming of human diversity in a protection of refugees. Canada is one of the four countries in the world that accepts convention refugees. We should be applauded for that.

I would like to pay tribute to members such as the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester who was a member in the former prime minister, Brian Mulroney, government. Immigration rates tripled from about 88,000 to about 240,000 over the nine year regime of that government.

The Liberal Party of Canada has a very well-deserved history with respect to immigration. Look how it opened its arms to Canadians through the era of statesmen such as Wilfrid Laurier, Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau. That is the traditional position of immigration with the Liberal Party of Canada.

Looking at Bill C-11, it would seem that the Liberal Party of Canada is the most reticent among the political parties in the House to embrace massive immigration and to provide the necessary tools to protect refugees. Clearly there was a divergence of opinion between the member for Dauphin—Swan River and the Leader of the Opposition with respect to their speeches, but I will leave that issue aside.

In summary, we have some problems with the bill. There is a lack of entrenched appeal rights for permanent residents and sponsors. A clause in the bill specifies that a refugee may make only one claim per lifetime no matter how drastic the change in circumstance. We have a problem with the fact that the final appeal for a refugee is a mere paper appeal. We believe that refugee rights are human rights. We should determine if a person could be persecuted, or tortured or perhaps die by not granting refugee status. We should look that person square in the eyes when we make that determination, as opposed to a mere paper appeal.

The bill has been rushed through. We essentially have had closure on debate. We are fast-tracking the bill as we head back to our ridings for the summer months.

One initiative was taken and I want to compliment my colleagues on the opposition benches in particular. After hearing 150 witnesses from coast to coast and travelling this great country, we said we needed an opportunity to reflect on the information we had received. We needed to have a week to prepare our amendments. I put an amendment forth to force the government to move in that direction. However to the credit of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and her colleagues on the Liberal benches, they saw the wisdom of that particular motion as we headed to the latter days. In fact we were able to table some amendments that actually had a modest augmentation to the bill.

Essentially what we are looking at with respect to the legislation is an opportunity to have a pioneering piece of legislation, one of which Canadians can be proud, which would replace an outdated piece of legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak against Bill C-11, as I have done on behalf of the New Democratic Party throughout the entire legislative process dealing with this bill on immigration and refugee policy.

The bill was touted as constituting a major overhaul of the Immigration Act. It was supposed to be a long awaited replacement for a law that has been in place for more than 22 years. We all know that it replaces Bill C-31, which died on the order paper when the federal election was called, so the government had a second chance to get this right but refused. It had an opportunity to get up the courage and lead with some vision, but it failed miserably.

It is rare in my experience to deal with a government bill that is so seriously flawed as this one, so universally opposed as Bill C-11. Certainly I know that in our committee discussions there was universal opposition to the bill on the opposition benches. That was before today, before the leader of the Alliance Party rose in his place and appeared to be contradicting the good work, on many different levels, of the Alliance critic for immigration.

I hope the wisdom of the critic for the Alliance will prevail and that we will see a co-operative effort on this side of the House in continuing to apply pressure on the government to improve the bill and to think twice before allowing it to come to a vote today. I know that seems a bit far fetched, but the sentiments we heard from Canadians from coast to coast to coast were very clear and precise. Canadians do not want to see this kind of rigid, restrictive and punitive approach and are very disappointed in the Liberal government.

This is an area that is sensitive. We know that. We know, based on how immigration issues are raised in the House and the concern on the part of Canadians to ensure a balanced approach, there is a need for leadership by the government to help educate and inform Canadians about the need for immigration.

On a matter of such importance as immigration policy, population policy, which really is fundamental to the whole policy area, it is hard to imagine any government proceeding without considerable backing, without even qualified support from the opposition benches or without some community organization leaping to its defence. However, that is exactly what the government is doing. It is plowing ahead despite repeated concerns, suggestions and criticisms raised by Canadians, by individuals, immigration advocates, refugee sponsors, ethnocultural organizations and people who advocate and work in the field day in and day out.

It cannot be said that efforts were not made to improve the bill. It is not for the lack of trying that we end up in this position today with a bill that is virtually unchanged from the start of the process to the end. The committee worked hard. It has been acknowledged. Canadians worked hard. Throughout the committee process we heard from over 150 different groups from coast to coast to coast. Almost in unison they spoke against the bill.

We proposed hundreds of amendments at the committee level during clause by clause. There were over 80 amendments from the NDP alone. Yet with the exception of perhaps a handful of amendments, a few small changes, the bill remains flawed. It remains a document with many offensive and troubling aspects.

I want to make it clear that for the NDP, at least, this bill is problematic not because of one or two offensive clauses but because as a whole it goes in the wrong direction. I think this is the case for other opposition parties and it had been the case for the Alliance Party as well.

The bill is contrary to the very values that Canadians hold so near and dear. The bill as a whole, in all of its parts, is a disappointment. It is a lost opportunity and is regressive in many ways. Many have told us that bill would in some cases actually make the situation even worse. Imagine that. After all the consultations and the successive bills presented on this matter, it is not even possible to draw the conclusion from all groups involved, including experts and concerned citizens, that the bill is better than the present 22 year old law. That is what we are hearing.

Imagine a Liberal government bill being so roundly criticized not because it offends, with the exception of the Leader of the Opposition and a few others, the extremist elements of our society, the right wing elements or the conservative doctrine in the country, but because it violates fundamental principles in the areas of democratic rights, civil liberties and humanitarian ideals. That is astounding.

As so many told us throughout the whole process, the bill, when all is said and done, is un-Canadian and undemocratic and it is certainly un-Liberal. Liberal members in the House today should be ashamed for supporting this bill and for refusing to rise in their places and speak against this very regressive legislation.

Legislation in the immigration and refugee policy field should flow from our history, our traditions and the values of Canadians and it should be based on population needs. In terms of history, as many have said in the House, this country has been defined by the waves of immigration that have taken place over a long period of time.

We have all said in the House that except for Canada's aboriginal peoples all of us or our ancestors came from somewhere else. We are all immigrants and we value the fact that our society is diverse. We see Canada gaining strength from adversity in terms of our climate and our geography and also from our diversity in terms of the successive waves of immigration and the ethnocultural diversity of the country.

I think it is fair to say that Canada is one of the most ethnically diverse societies in the world. It has certainly been stated that way by Gwynne Dyer, who wrote a wonderful piece in Canadian Geographic in the February 2001 issue, in which he said:

What is truly remarkable is the ethnic profile of the immigrants to Canada, which is unique in how closely it matches the global distribution of the human population...Canada, more than anywhere else, is truly becoming the world in one country.

Canada's legacy, Canada's history, is about that diversity. It is not just about the number of people who have come from so many different places. It is about how we treat and deal with one another in the context of being a mosaic. It is our tradition and our values that have shown the way. Canada is a model for the world in terms of respect for differences, for not imposing one view or one way of thinking or one way of life on our immigrants and the people who make up this country. Our way is one of easygoing acceptance, of generosity and tolerance and respect for differences. We do not impose some uniform identity on the immigrants who come to this country.

One would think, based on our history, traditions and values, that today we would be at a point of advancing openness and tolerance in the form of the bill before us.

That happened about 30 years ago. That was a significant part of our history. The government of the day under Pierre Elliott Trudeau actually looked at this as an important policy area that had to be addressed. We saw legislation introduced that allowed for the doors of our country to be opened up and for immigrants to come to this country from all over the world.

Here we are today in the year 2001, the start of the millennium, with the hope that we could build on that history and that tradition. Instead we are looking at probably one of the most restrictive and punitive pieces of legislation that parliament has seen in a long time. It is certainly out of character in terms of Canadians' expectations with respect to Liberals in this country.

Some of the recent developments illustrate what kind of situation we are dealing with. It is not just a regressive, restrictive, punitive law but also a fortress mentality that is deeply entrenched in the system. Although the minister is addressing this issue, we saw the treatment of Tinuola Akintade, the British citizen who received such rough treatment at an airport in this country, thus showing us that legitimate visitors are sometimes treated like criminal suspects in the country today.

We have also learned some lessons from the whole episode with respect to establishing honorary citizenship for Nelson Mandela. Although it is very important for the government to have taken this initiative, and we have supported it every step of the way, we certainly were appalled at the one or two Alliance members who objected to recognition for Nelson Mandela.

We are also galled by the decision of this government to make such an important statement at the same time that it is bringing in a bill that, if we were able to repeat history and he was seeking refuge from his particular circumstances, would have denied Nelson Mandela the ability to enter this country in the first place. As we have heard from many organizations and certainly from my colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, who made this point repeatedly during the process pursuant to Bill C-31, Nelson Mandela would have been denied entry into this country because he would have fallen under the definition of being a terrorist.

This point was made so well recently in an article in the Globe and Mail written by Sharryn Aiken and Andrew Brouwer, who stated that for many individuals the provisions of Bill C-11 actually mean:

—that merely associating with known suspects, sympathizing with a national liberation struggle or doing some community organizing in Canada will be enough to get a person labeled “member of a terrorist organization,” if the cause in question happens to be on the government's informal...blacklist. By permitting such findings of guilt by association, the provisions violate international standards and principles of criminal law, bringing to mind some of the worst excesses of the McCarthy era.

The other important point in this debate is the need for this legislation to reflect population policy, for it to be based, to be founded, on our vision as a country in terms of numbers, in terms of where we want to go, how we want to grow and at what speed, and how we meet the needs of citizens in this nation.

Canada can no longer count on a steady stream of prospective immigrants knocking at our door seeking admission. We are just not competitive any more. We are not competitive because we have moved so far toward a very punitive, restrictive process.

The numbers say it all. We have heard so much from the minister about opening the front door. We have heard so much about trying to get our immigration and refugee population up to 1% of Canada's overall population.

If that were the case today we would be at about 300,000 new immigrants or newcomers to Canada. According to the latest statistics, we are not even close. The numbers are a little higher than they were in 1967 when a Liberal government opened the doors and brought in legislation at that time.

We are not making great progress toward meeting that minimal goal of 1% of our population. We are not meeting that goal in terms of immigrants or refugees. We are not contributing in a major way, as many Liberals have stood up in the House to suggest, for Canada to be a home for displaced persons and people in need of protection. We are told over and over again how Canada is a model in terms of refugees, yet when it comes down to the actual numbers, for the last year for which we have statistics, we are at about 25,000 refugees. I do not think that is something to brag about. It certainly points to the possibilities for more openness when it comes to both immigrants and refugees.

We are a large country. We have the second largest land mass in the world. With only a little more than 30 million people, we can do better than this in opening our doors to people who want to come to Canada. We have to do better if we are really serious about renewing ourselves as a population and ensuring that we continue to meet the economic and social needs of Canadians.

We heard from many groups that made that point, especially people from Manitoba such as the Manitoba Interfaith Immigration Council and the Citizenship Council of Manitoba. Both organizations have said time and time again that our demographics show that we are both aging and we are not having enough offspring to replace our current population. This was a point made by the minister today.

Then the question is what is the action to deal with that situation, and why have we not taken more steps to open our doors? Is this what Canadians want? What affect will this have on our social and economic well-being? Can we survive as a nation if we cannot be competitive because of a stagnant population? Is this truly the kind of vision we have of Canada in terms of the global community?

The point of all the presentations we have heard was to base our policy on history, values, traditions and on population needs. We have failed to do that through this bill. We have lost an important opportunity.

What the government is really doing with this bill is protecting Canada from the world instead of uniting and re-uniting families and building a nation. It seems to me that the bill is predicated on that fortress mentality of keeping out the bad guys and protecting Canadians from negative elements in the world. The bill fails to do what is fundamental to the task at hand, which is to ensure that we allow families to be re-united and that we build the country on the basis of the contributions that each individual and each family make, just as our ancestors did, and that in the process we build and unite this country.

What we are doing in the bill is the worst possible thing of all. We are responding to an anti-immigration sentiment that is a very small part of public opinion these days and declining with every day that passes. There is a pandering to prejudices tone in this bill that does in fact lead to xenophobia and racism. That is the last thing this place should be about. This is the last thing the government would want to do I would hope.

We are debating a bill that is keeping people out instead of re-uniting families and building a nation. We tried very hard to expand the definition of family class. We proposed adding grandparents, brothers and sisters. It was a tie vote until the chair had to break the tie and kept with Liberal policy, which was unfortunate.

Equally unfortunate is the fact that the government refuses to look at the whole restrictive approach to visitors visas which is probably cause for the greatest number of concerns and cases that MPs hear in our constituency offices.

The bill refuses to deal with the head tax which does restrict immigrants from less developed and poorer countries around the world. It is discriminatory because of the head tax. We tried very hard to get that deleted.

It falls short in dealing with the whole issue of foreign credentials and ensuring that we recognize people with training, skills and education from other countries. It fails to, as we tried to do, eliminate and replace the live-in caregiver program, which is so repugnant in the treatment of women and the perpetuation of the notion of women being cheap slave labour. It denies people the right to pursue their democratic rights for appeals to the courts. We heard that over and over again. It does not live up to our international conventions on refugees and torture. It is a disappointment on many fronts.

I would like to conclude with one sentence that asks the question: In this world of globalization and rapid technology, does this have to mean harmonization and homogenization or would it not be better to ensure that the strength and the spirit of individual communities and ethnocultural populations is supported, enhanced and able to contribute to the strength of this country?

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

Madam Speaker, Canada and Quebec are havens. The Immigration Act should enshrine this welcome in a fair and equitable manner so as to respond as humanely as possible to the needs of new arrivals, be they immigrants or refugees, in accordance with international conventions and the values held by Canadians and Quebecers.

However, the anchor point for Bill C-11 is the harsh treatment accorded illegal immigrants. Much of the bill focuses on the closing of the door on potential immigrants, through the consolidation of measures intended to prevent fraud, reveal false declarations and abuse and deny criminals and people representing security risks access to the country.

Initially, it would appear from the bill that Canada has been invaded by criminals of all sorts; in a word, the door is open too wide. Not only is there a need for a bolt, but for an impenetrable alarm system as well.

The Bloc Quebecois does not agree with this position. While it is important, indeed vital, to prevent criminals, especially those in organized crime or who have committed crimes against humanity, from entering the country, we must remember that these individuals represent a minuscule fraction of the people immigrating to Canada. To do otherwise is to reinforce the prejudice against refugees and immigrants.

I will quote to you, if I may, Madam Speaker, from an open letter from the Centre justice et foi de Montréal on Bill C-11:

Bill C-11 was introduced in an essentially negative and defensive light: campaign against the snakeheads, major increase in penalties, increased powers of detention, reinforced interception measures abroad, reduced possibilities of appeal or review.

In our opinion, this represents a serious and dual perversion of the entire Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. First of all, it is situating immigration—an asset to society, a plus, even a demographic necessity in the case of Canada—in a reverse perspective, as a threat from which we must protect ourselves. Also, it is displacing the function of protecting those in need—the refugees included in the title—to protecting Canadians from the potential risk or abuse connected with these new arrivals.

...The logic of repression is everywhere, without escape and without end, and even if officially only certain immigrants and refugees are targeted, it will end up spilling over inevitably to all immigrants and all refugees.

That, in my opinion, is a very good summary of the general feeling of almost all individuals and organizations we met with during the committee hearings.

Yesterday the House awarded honourary citizenship to Nelson Mandela. No one can ignore the paradox and irony of the contrast between yesterday's Motion No. 379 and today's bill.

If the new legislation had been in effect 40 years ago and Nelson Mandela had sought asylum in Canada, as a member of an organization for the subversion by force of any government, to use the wording of clause 34, he would have been inadmissible. He would have been sent back to South Africa and there is a good chance that he would not have ended up the Nobel Laureate we now know.

During the committee review of the bill, the Bloc Quebecois introduced an amendment to paragraph 34( b ), so that only those who engage in or instigate the subversion by force of a democratically elected government be inadmissible. It seemed logical that the government should support this amendment. I do not have to tell members what the government's answer was. True to itself, it rejected the amendment.

The process for appointing board members is another major component of this bill. The bill does not include any changes to the appointment process. However, for several years, the Bloc Quebecois has been criticizing the Liberals for constantly making political appointments to the commission. It is essential to set up a transparent appointment process that will ensure full impartiality and a selection based on the qualifications and professional experience of the candidates, and not, as is often the case, on their political connections.

Since the bill provides that the decisions will be made by a single member, it is even more critical that decision makers all be extremely competent. Unfortunately, the amendments that we proposed in this respect were rejected. Yet, the government did not have to look very far. It could have looked at the appointment process for Quebec's administrative tribunals.

A brief was presented to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration by two lawyers and a psychiatrist. The Bloc Quebecois endorsed the proposed changes. By presenting them, we felt we would solve the problem of the political appointments of members by proposing the use of objective criteria guaranteeing the competence and independence of members. But the Liberal Party does not want this. It prefers to continue to appoint members in a totally arbitrary fashion, thus significantly reducing the moral and legal authority of these administrative tribunals. How dare the government toy in this way with the life, safety and freedom of these applicants?

Board members have an important responsibility, and it is no exaggeration to say that they have the power of life and death over those appearing before them.

Early this year, a bad assessment had tragic consequences. Everyone remembers the tragic situation in which the federal government placed Haroun M'Barek, a Tunisian who requested refugee status but was sent back to his country of origin, even though all signs were that he might be tortured there, which was in fact what happened. Too late, Canada recognized its mistake. In this case, the Bloc Quebecois' pressure on the government certainly played a role in Canada's interceding for Mr. M'Barek, but it would have been better if Canada had not had to intervene and Mr. M'Barek had been recognized as a political refugee.

The Bloc Quebecois finds regrettable the hard line taken by the government in introducing this bill and the accompanying public announcements. Through its approach to this issue, we believe that the government, which seems to be trying to reassure the Canadian right, is reinforcing prejudices towards refugees and immigrants. It is thus encouraging division and heightening xenophobic and racist sentiments in society.

In recent years, the Bloc Quebecois has frequently argued that the Canadian system for granting refugee status should include two essential characteristics: it must be prompt and fair towards the person rightfully seeking asylum, and it must dissuade those who clog the system with unfounded applications.

The slowness of the claims process is the cause of unacceptable human tragedies and puts people and families in extremely difficult situations. Is it acceptable that, at the end of December 1999, in Montreal alone, over 7,000 individuals seeking asylum were still awaiting a hearing?

I should mention that, although the bill proposes changes to claims for refugee status, nowhere does Ottawa agree to assume the administrative costs. If the government is so sure the measures proposed in the bill are effective, it should agree to assume the cost of them until the persons involved have been declared refugees and obtained permanent residence or left the country.

In February, Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia criticized the federal government's handling of the movement of asylum seekers, demanded major remedial action be taken and called for the federal government, which is solely responsible for the refugee determination process, to assume all the costs of it.

We must remember that it costs Quebec alone over $100 million a year to look after persons awaiting a federal decision by the IRB.

In closing, I would like to express to you a concern over the Canada-Quebec accord. The importance of this agreement lies in the fact that Quebec, aware of its responsibilities to protect French, can and must promote francophone immigration. It is no secret to anyone that the English language minority in Quebec is part of the vast anglophone majority in North America.

Quebec's anglophone minority can absolutely not compare itself to French language minorities in the rest of Canada. We are obviously concerned, and so is the Quebec government, by paragraph 3(3)( e ) of Bill C-11, which reads as follows:

3.(3)( e ) supports the commitment of the Government of Canada to enhance the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada;

Could it be that this paragraph challenges what had been agreed to in the 1991 Canada-Quebec accord relating to immigration and temporary admission of aliens?

In her presentation on this amendment, the hon. member for Saint-Lambert indicated on behalf of the government that the purpose of this added provision was to ensure that the spirit of the Official Languages Act would be respected, and to help Canada's official minority communities, and to reflect the spirit of the report of the Commissioner of Official Languages, who hopes that the Official Languages Act will be acknowledged in one way or another in every bill.

Indeed, the Official Languages Act stipulates that:

The government is committed to enhancing the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and supporting and assisting their development. It is also committed to fostering the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society.

The anglophone minority in Quebec cannot, however, flourish at the expense of the francophone majority, which is far more threatened and hemmed in on all sides by a North American anglophone tide.

The 1991 Canada-Quebec accord introduced a new and important objective for Quebec, to preserve the demographic weight of Quebec within Canada and to ensure the harmonious integration of immigrants into that society.

This addition to the Canada Immigration Act might also be in contravention of the spirit of Bill 101, which sets out criteria giving precedence to immigration by persons with a knowledge of French.

There is a consensus within the population of Quebec to the effect that it is imperative to ensure the survival of the French fact in North America. Need I remind hon. members that only 2% of the population of North America is francophone?

This threat to the survival of French was noted by UNESCO in 1999, when it judged that Quebec was entitled by law to restrict access to English schools because this was an appropriate way of preserving the French fact in Quebec. Even the Canadian ambassador to UNESCO stated in his argument:

In the specific demographic context of Quebec, the precarious situation of francophones and the preservation of their cultural identity in North America, and more specifically in Canada, required a legislative intervention tailored to their unique situation.

Could it be that wishing to support and assist “the development of minority official languages communities in Canada” and enhance “the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada” within the framework of immigration legislation could have the direct effect in Quebec of favouring the English-speaking minority in Quebec to the long term detriment of the very existence of the French-speaking minority in Canada?

Since 1951, Statistics Canada figures have shown a constant decrease in the size of Canada's French-speaking population.

It will therefore be important for the Government of Canada to enforce clauses 8 and 9 of this bill so as not to threaten Canada's French-speaking minority, most of whom reside in Quebec.

In closing, I cannot help regretting that the third reading of Bill C-11 has been rushed through in under two hours. This shows a complete lack of respect for the people of Canada and of Quebec. It also shows a lack of respect for those men and women who dream of coming and building a better future in Quebec.

I hope that the bill can be amended in the near future so that it meets the real needs of the public.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Madam Speaker, I rise to participate in the third reading debate of Bill C-11, the act respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or endangered.

I appreciate the initiatives and the efforts of members from all parties to actually improve this legislation and the hard work they have done on this committee. At the risk of sounding partisan, I especially appreciate the hard work of the Canadian Alliance MPs who had considerable input on this.

The bill would replace the 25 year old Immigration Act of 1976. There are some much needed changes in the bill but unfortunately it has a series of serious flaws.

Immigration to Canada should be simple. Either one meets the criteria to enter Canada or one does not. The legislation should be clear, transparent, comprehensive, precise, democratic, accountable, efficient, effective, enforceable, easy to interpret and helpful to legitimate immigrants, while maintaining the integrity and security of Canada and Canadians.

Let me make it very clear that the Canadian Alliance will pursue a policy of open and transparent immigration. The nation is strong because at one time either ourselves, our ancestors, our parents or grandparents all immigrated here. Even many of our aboriginal peoples, anthropologists tell us, at one time found their way across the Bering Sea to what we now know as North America. We all immigrated here at some time. The strength of our nation will continue with a good and sound immigration policy.

The legislation may be well intended but the outcome may unfortunately not serve its stated purpose. Lack of clarity, prudence and real enforcement behind the legislation may ultimately cause more troubles than the legislation that it purports to replace. There is far too much reliance to interpret 89 pages of regulations that are in the legislation. Much of what is in the regulations should in fact be in the legislation itself.

Regulations really give the minister the option of running the department any way he or she sees fit. That is not accountability in government, but the present government is not known for its accountability. The Liberal government has a habit of governing by regulation and not by legislation. Regulations cannot be debated in the House of Commons and so in a way it is governing through the back door. It not only makes legislation undemocratic but makes it complex, opaque and difficult to understand.

The Canadian Alliance attempted to have amendments passed that would have made the legislation effective and workable but the Liberals refused to co-operate. Most of the amendments presented at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration by the Canadian Alliance member were rejected by the Liberal dominated committee. There was no true freedom for members on the government's side to vote and support common sense amendments to the legislation.

There is a history of the government not accepting most of the opposition's amendments to any bill. A government should be open to amendments that make sense. It does not weaken the government in the eyes of the public. It strengthens it when the government shows that openness. We on this side are open to pointing out times when the government does that which is good. We point that out and we give it credit. We think correspondingly it should respond to amendments from the opposition that make sense and would improve the legislation.

There are many examples where the government did not seem capable, certainly not willing, to do this. For example, in Bill C-7, the youth criminal justice act, the Liberals refused to accept amendments from the opposition and eventually passed yet another ineffective piece of legislation.

We all know that on Bill C-15 the government refused to accept an opposition suggestion to split provisions that would protect children from Internet predators, which we all support. It would have split the bill into other pieces of legislation which we were willing to debate separately, but the government was not. The official opposition had a number of suggestions for improvement that we wish the government had incorporated into the bill.

As a general principle we have suggested that the minister should establish an ombudsman to receive complaints from Canadians on all matters pertaining to immigration. The ombudsman would report annually to the House of Commons. We feel that was a valid proposal, one that would not hurt the government but strengthen it. It seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

Ministers should consult with municipalities. Wherever I go across the country, and as members of the Canadian Alliance visit with mayors and municipalities, we see the need for a consultation process with the federal government with respect to resettlement for immigrants and integration programs where applicable. The municipalities have to bear not only the responsibility but the cost of this, and there needs to be consultation with the federal government. A Canadian Alliance government would do that.

The government should encourage open and accountable discussions between a variety of agencies, as well as the provinces and non-government immigration organizations. In this bill the government has missed the opportunity to truly strengthen and have a vibrant immigration policy. Our party would work with the provinces for policies on the settlement of immigrants.

The Canadian Alliance supports the current immigration levels but we would like to see immigrants in the jobs that they were trained to do. We would like Canada to attract the best and the brightest from around the world, not just those who wish to come here so we can fulfil a quota but those whose skills correspond to the needs of our economy.

Physicians and nurses are not on the list of occupational needs required by Canada despite acute shortages in those professions. This is an obvious deficiency in the bill. Even if a doctor or a nurse were to immigrate to Canada, he or she might not be allowed to work in his or her field of endeavour for up to two years or until the minister granted a work permit. Whether they are doctors or nurses, qualified immigrants should be able to find work in an expedient way in the occupations in which they were trained. They should not have to work below the level of their qualification.

When it comes to families, we support the expedient reunification of family members. The bill purports to help family reunification, but without the proper enforcement and the staff to handle the changes proposed in the bill, the line-ups of people waiting in the system may be even longer. The system may become further clogged, which is not the way to reunite families.

In order for people to have their spouses or fiancés immigrate to Canada, they must be financially responsible for them for up to five years. That means the spouse or the fiancé is not allowed to work in Canada until his or her application is processed.

A real case in point is when a Canadian marries an American. They both work in the high tech industry and they wish to return to Canada. The American spouse can be sponsored but will not be allowed to work even though the need and the demand is here. He or she can apply for independent status but will not be able to work for up to a year while the application is being processed. These kinds of discriminatory provisions should be removed.

I might add that the discriminatory right of landing fee, also called the head tax, is not a signal to families that we want to see them reunited. The costs are shamefully high, especially to low income families wanting to reunite their families. That is inappropriate and we are opposed to that.

Bill C-11 is also a direct attack in some ways on legitimate refugees. We support and reaffirm our policy of taking in our share of genuine refugees. However paragraph 3(2)(d) states that Canada is:

—to offer safe haven to persons with a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group, as well as those at risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment;

This translates into meaning that every criminal or otherwise undesirable entering Canada who claims to be a refugee would be under Canadian protection from extradition to another country if there was reason to believe they would be under threat of any harm. The list of undesirables includes international terrorists, murderers, members of organized crime, sex offenders and child abusers.

The key changes include referring refugees to the Immigration and Refugee Board within three working days. What is key here is the processing time of a claim would still remain at 90 days. There is no improvement whatsoever and that is unacceptable.

The unnecessary appeal processes need to be curtailed. The onion layer effect of appeals actually causes more problems than it attempts to solve. The definition of a refugee needs to be clearly defined. Most Canadians know what a true refugee is. We support doing our part to help those who are truly in need, but keeping them clogged in the system is not helping them, especially when they are found not to be genuine refugees and are deported. Their lives are ruined after so many months and years in the system.

The bill would also give refugees, as well as refugee applicants, full charter protection. If for any reason someone is either denied access to Canada or refused refugee status, that person would be entitled to an appeal. It also means refugees would be given full rights as if they were citizens of Canada, appealing possibly all the way up to the supreme court. No other country in the world does this.

It has been reported recently that some 15,000 individuals facing deportation warrants are missing and Canadian authorities have no idea where they are. The government's record for tracking landed immigrants is abysmal. We do not keep exit reports on those who depart and this is something that needs to be addressed. There are 89 pages of regulations and the government does not have the ability to keep track of exit reports.

The Canadian Alliance, along with most Canadians, supports the deportation of undesirable individuals without question or delay in cases of criminal activity or non-compliance with the Immigration Act.

Bill C-11 would completely strip the minister of his or her right to deport those who have either broken the law or have come to Canada to escape the law. The Supreme Court of Canada ruling in Minister of Justice v Burns and Rafay, which came down on February 15, applies to those individuals who face the threat to their person if deported from Canada.

According to the ruling, all convicted or charged criminals can now seek asylum in Canada and the minister has no visible authority to deport them. There is nothing in the legislation to address this supreme court ruling. This is a grave deficiency and the minister will not address it.

The bill would allow for so-called front-end security screening but it would only apply to refugees, which in some cases is a physical impossibility. Front-end screening would not apply to applicants in general.

The bill promises to deliver better enforcement of security measures for both refugee and immigrant applications but there is no plan of action set out in the bill to explain how this would work. It appears that it would be at the whim of those who administer the program.

No one should be allowed to enter Canada without proper security checks as to his or her risk to the country. All persons entering Canada should be subject to a security check at all ports of entry. All persons entering and leaving Canada should be recorded as deemed to have entered or left Canada.

Shortage of staff and inadequate training create a security risk. This was evidenced by Mr. Lai Changxing, the accused kingpin smuggler who landed in Canada through queue jumping, who was not detected by the visa officer by even a simple background check. This is just not acceptable.

In relation to human smugglers, the government should send a strong message to these individuals who exploit and prey on vulnerable people. Our actions should be stronger than words. We need tougher laws and the will to implement them by levying longer jail sentences and higher fines. All vehicles, be they ships, aircraft or automobiles, used in the illegal transportation of human cargo should be immediately seized and impounded for at least one year.

There is no penalty for knowingly submitting a false application for immigration to Canada. Individuals may submit as many fraudulent applications as they like. A mechanism needs to be put in place that would prevent repeat fraudulent application submissions. The bill contains no deterrent from repetitious and fraudulent applications. This will continue to cause endless paperwork for visa officers.

Bill C-11, regardless of its intentions, does not deliver what it is promising without better enforcement, accountability and management. There is no action plan in the legislation to achieve these results. The good points in the bill are unfortunately outweighed by its flaws, flaws which we in the opposition parties have identified. We have proposed amendments to improve the bill but they have been rejected.

Unless the Liberal government is willing to entertain amendments to strengthen and improve the bill, I cannot support it. We want to support a good, transparent, open policy of immigration in this country, but the bill will not do it.

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

moved that Bill C-11, an act respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I stand before the House today to introduce third reading of Bill C-11, the immigration and refugee protection act.

We have all worked hard and fruitfully to bring the bill to this stage. As members know, Bill C-11 is the product of extensive consultation and dialogue. For the past four years we have spoken and exchanged views with the provinces, the territories, non-governmental groups, the legal profession, law enforcement agencies and interested Canadians.

Before we crafted the bill we consulted with committee, not once but twice, and have made many adjustments along the way. A number of ideas and clarifications suggested by the standing committee have been incorporated into the bill and I thank the members of the standing committee for their efforts.

The extensive period of consultation to clarify the policy intent of Bill C-11 has improved the bill and has provided us with new legislation for which we can all be proud.

My goal as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is and has always been to ensure we have legislation for the new millennium that will give us the tools we need to curb abuse while encouraging increased immigration to Canada. We want faster but fair decisions for refugee claimants. The bill would help us achieve these objectives.

Bill C-11 would give Canadians the balanced approach they asked for. It would ensure openness to those who would contribute to Canada and our collective future and ensure tough penalties for those who would abuse our generosity.

I want to be clear. The bill would not be tough on the immigrants and refugees who built this country in the past or who would help us build it in the future. However, it would be tough on criminals, terrorists and those who are threats to our security in Canada.

I assure all members of the House and all Canadians that everyone will receive due process, fair treatment and the protection of our charter of rights and freedoms.

Canadians have told us clearly that it takes too long for us to do many of the things we do. They have told us that it takes too long to remove those who are not welcome in Canada.

The bill would give us a clear, responsible and balanced new law that would help us continue to build the country. In particular, it would allow us to say no faster so we could say yes more often to the immigrants and refugees Canada will need to continue to grow and prosper in the years ahead.

I again remind and assure the House and all Canadians that even as we say no faster to those who are not welcome in Canada, we would ensure there is full respect for due process and for the laws of Canada of which we are so proud.

As I mentioned before, this is framework legislation. It would enshrine rights, key policies and key principles. It would provide our immigration program with the flexibility needed to manage in an increasingly complex and continually changing environment. It would enshrine our agreements with the provinces which recognize immigration as an area of shared jurisdiction.

Our shared work on the bill has extended to proposals for the regulations that would support it. Work on the regulations is already underway and, as committee members know, the results are posted and updated on a regular basis on our website.

I want everyone to know the website address in case interested Canadians would like to visit it and get the most up to date information. Visitors to www.cic.gc.ca can receive all the information about the legislation and other programs and policies of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. Information can be viewed on the website by members of parliament, non-governmental groups, the legal profession and anyone who has an interest in the evolving proposals for the regulations concerning immigration and refugee determination.

I think members will agree that the process is, has been and will continue to be a transparent one. Following a suggestion made at the standing committee, proposed regulations would be tabled in both Houses of parliament as part of the normal pre-consultation phase before they are finalized. This would underline the transparency of the process and ensure parliamentarians an important role.

The regulations would include a strengthened program for overseas refugee resettlement, an expanded family class and new selection criteria to attract more skilled and adaptable independent immigrants. They would also include an in-Canada landing class for temporary workers, foreign students and spouses who are already established in Canada and wish to stay.

It is important to state clearly for the record that the great majority of immigrants and refugees who come to Canada come here legally. They respect our laws and we welcome them. At the front door there is a big welcome mat as we say to those who come to Canada “Respect our laws. You are welcome. We need you. We want you here and we welcome you”.

They come here to make a contribution. They make an important contribution to our society, our economy and our communities. Refugees and immigrants built this country and will continue to do so in the years ahead.

Canadians want a new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that respects our laws and traditions and, above all, continues our tradition of welcoming newcomers. We must continue the humanitarian traditions of openness and compassion that have made this country so proud. Bill C-11 and its accompanying regulations would do just that.

Many who participated in the development of the bill deserve recognition and acknowledgement at this time. I acknowledge the important contribution of my parliamentary secretary, the member for Gatineau. I thank him for his support and hard work in bringing the bill to this stage.

I also acknowledge the important work of all members of the standing committee, particularly the members of the Liberal caucus who engaged in consultations in the very early developmental stages. All members of the House were welcome to participate and did so at the standing committee with the kind of thoughtfulness that is very important.

I also thank members of the opposition. I know the member opposite is surprised to hear that because he was a little concerned that I was too partisan in my remarks. I thank the members of the opposition parties who asked very thoughtful questions. Even though I was surprised by some of the positions they took, I believe the hard work of all members of the House helped produce a bill which should be supported by all members of committee and of the House.

I am aware that what happened at the very end of the committee process was quite collegial. I was surprised to hear that the bill might not be supported by everyone in the House who participated because it deserves their support.

I also acknowledge the officials in my department, led very ably by the assistant deputy minister of policy, Joan Atkinson. I think anyone who participated at the standing committee or who reads Hansard will agree with me that she gave clear and detailed explanations of very complex and often difficult policy implications and objectives. She answered all questions from all members thoughtfully and articulately and has put on the record for future consideration the bill's policy intent.

I hope all members of the House will agree with me that Assistant Deputy Minister Joan Atkinson did an outstanding job of not only defending the bill but ensuring that all members of the standing committee understood the policy intent and implications of the legislation. I also thank all presenters who came before the standing committee and all who sent in detailed briefs.

I also acknowledge the many individuals and groups who met with me personally. All that consultation, input and advice has resulted in an excellent piece of legislation that will stand the test of time.

Many individuals check our website regularly. Many do not. Those who have an interest in citizenship and immigration and in the important work we do should know they are always welcome to contact members of parliament on both sides of the House. They can contact the department or the website, and the questions they have will be answered as quickly as possible. We want to ensure that people know and understand why we have the policies we have, what their intent is and how we go about implementing them in a way which is consistent with our Canadian values and in a way which has become a model for the world.

When I visit our visa posts around the world and meet with officials from countries with which we have bilateral relations, they all ask me about our open and transparent approach to immigration in Canada. They are interested in our new point system. They are interested in the fact that everything is on the Internet and that people are encouraged and welcome to apply. They are envious of our record of independent adjudication at the Immigration and Refugee Board. They are interested in the fact that we have an arm's length IRB with three divisions, one of which sorts out refugee claimants. We know that even though Canada has a different approach than other countries, at the end of the day many countries in the western world ultimately have the same approval rates that Canada has. There are different mechanisms and ways of getting there but we know, and I know this because I have met bilaterally with world leaders, that at the end of the day following due process, the difference for Canada is we make those decisions sooner in a transparent and arm's length way. We give people access to judicial review. We make sure that all risk conditions are considered. We give them landed status and encourage those who are in genuine need of protection to get on with their lives in Canada as quickly as possible, to integrate in our society and feel welcomed.

We know that there are some people who come to us who are not in genuine need of protection. The challenge for the IRB is to make those decisions and then tell those people who are not at risk of leaving Canada, who are inadmissible to Canada or who are not in genuine need of our protection that they must leave Canada. That is always difficult.

We can understand why people want to come to Canada. We are proud of the fact that for the seventh year in a row the United Nations has declared Canada as the best country in the world in to live. One important parts of our immigration program is family reunification and our commitment to do that.

This bill, as I said in my remarks before committee, strengthens our commitment to family reunification, both for immigrants and for refugees. By leaving the application open for a year, we will encourage refugees' families to reunite more quickly. By having an in-Canada landing class for spouses, we will encourage husbands, wives and partners to be together and have status in Canada as quickly as possible.

We know there are many challenges that face us but, after almost two years as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, I want to state clearly to the House the confidence that I have in my officials around the world at the visa posts. They do their very best to make good decisions, to make decisions that are important for Canada because it is about nation building. They are the ones who interview the applicants. Those immigration officers on the frontline are the ones who make a decision as to whether an interview is needed at all. They do this in the face of significant challenges. We know that they often see documents that are not real. We know that since the photocopier was developed we are seeing an increase in fraudulent documents. That poses a great challenge.

That is why in this legislation we have made an inadmissibility category, that if persons present fraudulent documents to Canada they will be inadmissible to Canada for a period of two years. That is supposed to be a deterrent because we want people to respect our laws. We want people to come to Canada, obey our laws, do it the right way and come through the front door where there is a big welcome mat.

However, the door that we want to close is the back door to serious criminals, to terrorists, to those who pose a risk to Canada, to failed refugee claimants and to those who are not in genuine need of our protection. At that back door there is a deportation order waiting.

Canada has one of the best records of removals of any country in the world. Last year over 8,600 people were removed from this country. Of those removals one-third, over 1,700, were those who were criminally inadmissible to this country. However the other two-thirds were failed refugee claimants, people who had overstayed visitor's visas and those who had no status in Canada, no right to remain in Canada.

It is important for us to know that if we are going to open that front door wider, to reunite families, to welcome the refugees, to encourage applications from around the world, to bring the immigrants here that we will need to continue to grow and prosper, we must give Canadians the confidence that we are able to say we want our laws respected. We will treat them fairly but we want them to obey our laws. We want them to come in the front door, not to try to sneak in the back door.

As difficult as it is for us to tell people that it is time to leave Canada, we know it is an important part of the integrity of the immigration program.

My department has two mandates that are reflected in the bill. That is why I say the bill is balanced. The priority for my department is to bring in the people Canada needs, to reunite families and to welcome those refugees who are in genuine need of our protection. However, my department also has an enforcement mandate to ensure that our laws have integrity and that those people who have no right to remain in Canada are stopped from coming. That is called interdiction.

We have a network of immigration control officers around the world who do their very best in often difficult circumstances and with people who are not often telling them the truth when they try to come to Canada surreptitiously. Our immigration control officers, we call them ICOs, are the frontline to try to prevent access to Canada by those who have no right to come here. However, because we have the largest undefended border in the world and are dealing with human judgments, we know that people are sometimes able to come into Canada. Then it is important that the enforcement side of the department does its job.

When I say Bill C-11 is balanced, that is what I mean. It is balanced with a tilt to welcoming and encouraging those people to who we will need in the future to come to Canada. We are a small country with just a 30 million population.

We know about the dependency ratio. By the year 2010 there will be five people working for every one person retired. By the year 2020 there will be only three people working for every one person retired. That poses a great challenge for the government and for all of Canada. Why? Because we are not having enough babies.

I jokingly can say I have done my part. I have four children and six grandchildren. I look around the House of Commons and I do not think I can count on everyone here to go out and start producing the people we will need, although I can hear some members opposite say they have done their part as well.

The reality is that we need people in every region of the country. We need people in the urban and rural best kept secrets of Canada, the small and medium sized cities. We have to tell the world of the wonderful communities ready to welcome immigrants and refugees because they want them to succeed and buy homes. They want them to succeed and pay taxes that will support our public education and health systems. We need them to bring their families because it is families that build communities.

There are some who would suggest that the family class does not contribute, but I would say they are wrong. The family class, the parents, grandparents and dependent children who come together to create families and communities and contribute today but also in the future to the building of the country, is the reason why family reunification is such an important cornerstone of our immigration policy.

As I conclude my remarks on Bill C-11, I want to assure the House that it is an extremely important piece of legislation because it sets the framework for the immigration program for the new millennium. We know the world has changed since the last piece of immigration legislation was adopted by parliament almost 25 years ago. We know we are in a different world. We know there are all kinds of communications, not only the kind of communication available through the Internet, telephones and fax machines, but the kind of communication that is available by getting on an airplane and travelling around the world.

I visited Pier 21 in Halifax. I know it has special meaning for Madam Speaker and for the over 40 members of the House who came to Canada as immigrants, often as children, and many of whom arrived at Pier 21. That historical museum, that monument to the immigration, tells us the story of how this country has changed. It has changed in many ways because of the contribution of those people who came to Pier 21, but it has also changed because of our environment, a global world where people are on the move. That is the challenge for all of us in Canada.

Bill C-11 responds to that challenge. It is a thoughtful, reasoned approached, a bill that balances the duel mandate of my department. That bill is worthy and deserving of support of all members of the House. It is my hope that I will be pleasantly surprised and that we will see support from the opposition parties who were instrumental when assisting at committee, but then walked out the door and started to advocate for greater rights and longer processing.

One thing this piece of legislation does is attempts to streamline so we can make decisions more quickly when it comes to refugee determination and faster but fairer processing for refugee applications. We also want to be able to remove people more quickly.

Some amendments from the opposition party which would have made it more difficult to remove those people who posed a risk to Canada or those people who had committed heinous and serious crimes disturbed me. We have a tradition in this country that only Canadian citizens have the right to remain in Canada. Even Canadian citizens can be extradited if they commit a serious crime in another country and that country succeeds in making an extradition application. That is done through the Department of Justice. Everyone is assured due process.

Those people who are not Canadian citizens, who come to Canada, commit a serious crime, who pose a threat to the safety and security of our country should, in my view, be removed as quickly as possible. I was disappointed that that view was not shared by members of the opposition party. That surprised me. I think if their constituents knew that, they would insist that they support the government's goal of trying to remove those who have committed serious crimes and who are a threat to Canadian society as quickly as possible.

The vote we will have this afternoon will be for third reading of Bill C-11. I appreciate the opportunity to participate. As minister, I have seen first reading, second reading, full debate at committee and all consultations.

I would like to acknowledge and thank my predecessor for the important work she did in conducting the consultations that led to the development of the bill. It was the foundation of those important consultations over a period of four years which led to the development of the bill.

It is my hope that when we have the vote this afternoon, Bill C-11, which is so worthy and deserving of support, will receive unanimous support by all members of the House.

Nelson Mandela

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very great honour for me to take part in this historic debate today. I would like to thank the hon. member for Markham for his leadership in introducing this motion.

Last week, I had the honour of seconding the motion when it was made but unfortunately not passed.

It is a great honour to be here today to join with the leader of my party in paying tribute to an extraordinary citizen, not just a citizen of South Africa, but a citizen of the world and hopefully soon to be an honorary citizen of Canada. Canada would indeed be the first nation to recognize Nelson Mandela as an honorary citizen. I think it is appropriate that we take that historic step.

I am proud that my colleagues in the New Democratic Party in this and previous parliaments, and indeed before the founding of the NDP in the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, worked tirelessly along with people in the church movement, the labour movement, social movements and in many other movements in solidarity with the struggle against apartheid.

I would also like to acknowledge the contribution made by the former prime minister, Prime Minister Mulroney, as well as Prime Minister Diefenbaker, in helping to free Nelson Mandela.

I recall, as I am sure all members who witnessed it would, watching television on the 11th of February in 1990 as Nelson Mandela took those historic steps out of prison. I also had the privilege, along with the Deputy Prime Minister and others, of meeting Nelson Mandela when he came to Canada later that year. He has dedicated his life to justice and to ending the scourge of racism and institutionalized racism. His biography A Long Walk to Freedom tells his incredible story.

I had the privilege in 1994 of joining in the official Canadian delegation to witness the first free and democratic elections in South Africa. What an extraordinary experience it was. I was with the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore.

I will never forget one occasion as we witnessed the voting in a small village outside East London. A young man came up to the voting station with an elderly woman in a wheelbarrow. He indicated that he had been pushing this woman, his mother, for many kilometres. They had come down from the mountains. I asked him what drove him to take this incredible step. She pulled out a rumpled piece of paper, and it was a photograph of Nelson Mandela. She said “I've waited my whole life to vote for this man”.

That is the kind of inspiration that he provided not only to his own people but to people around the world. Indeed, last August my partner Max and I had the privilege of travelling to South Africa and visiting the prison just outside Cape Town on Robben Island, where Nelson Mandela was in prison for 27 long years. We saw the rock quarry where he was forced to break rocks and we saw his tiny prison cell.

We had the opportunity to meet with some of his fellow prisoners. What an incredible story they had to tell, a story of courage and of vision. What an inspiration to people around the world, that spirit of reconciliation, the spirit of forgiveness and healing, as my leader said, after 27 years.

Last week Nelson Mandela was described by the member for Calgary West and indeed by the House leader for the official opposition as a communist and a terrorist. As for communists, Nelson Mandela himself has acknowledged that the South African Communist Party played an extraordinary role in the struggle against apartheid as indeed did the government and people of Cuba and Fidel Castro, so we take no lessons on that at all.

In closing, I would also like to point out the irony to which my hon. colleague from the Bloc Quebecois referred, that there are provisions in Bill C-11 which would have kept Nelson Mandela out of Canada. This is unacceptable.

In closing, I want to say again on behalf of all of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party what an honour it is to recognize this outstanding citizen of South Africa, of the world and, hopefully soon, of Canada with the highest honour our country can bestow, the honorary citizenship of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased, as the Bloc Quebecois critic for citizenship and immigration, to speak today to Motion No. 379 tabled by the member for Markham to award honorary Canadian citizenship to a great hero of democracy, Nelson Mandela.

To date, only one person has been given this honour: Raoul Wallenberg, the Swedish diplomat who saved thousands of people from Nazi death camps during the second world war.

I cannot ignore the symbolism of this motion a few hours before passage at third reading of Bill C-11, an act respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger.

Nelson Mandela is an example for those who lead the fight for democracy in the world.

In 1944, he joined the African National Congress, the ANC. In 1948, the National Party won the election in South Africa. Its platform was unequivocal “The Black man in his place”. From then on, the policy of apartheid got tougher and introduced one of the most racist and undemocratic regimes in modern history.

Nelson Mandela was once asked when he decided to fight for freedom. He replied:

I cannot say exactly when I became politically active, when I knew that I would spend my life fighting for freedom. Being an African in South Africa means that we are politically active from the moment we are born, whether we know it or not. African children are born in hospitals reserved for Africans; they go home in buses reserved for Africans; they live in neighbourhoods reserved for Africans and they go to schools reserved for Africans, that is if they go at all. When they grow up, they can only get jobs that are reserved for Africans, rent houses in townships reserved for Africans, travel in trains reserved for Africans—

—I never had a defining moment, a revelation, a moment of truth. It was the accumulation of thousands of insults, humiliations and forgotten moments that led me to revolt, that gave me the desire to fight a regime that held my people captive.

In June 1955, the ANC adopted the charter of freedom which, in addition to criticizing apartheid, proposed the creation of a democratic and non-racial South Africa. At the end of that same year, Nelson Mandela was arrested for high treason, an offence punishable by death. He and 91 other ANC members were put on trial, a trial that was to end with their acquittal in 1961.

In June 1961, the ANC decided to take up arms to fight apartheid by setting up an organization known as the “spear of the nation” and led by Nelson Mandela.

In August 1963, Nelson Mandela was again arrested and charged with treason, conspiracy and sabotage. He was to come out of prison only 27 years later.

In 1991, Nelson Mandela became president of the ANC. His negotiations with the president of South Africa ended the racist system of apartheid. In South Africa's first free election in 1994, Nelson Mandela was elected president, a position he held until 1999.

By making him an honorary citizen, parliament is paying tribute to the exceptional contribution this man has made to democracy and, through him, to the rightful struggle of those throughout the world who are fighting for democracy and equality.

However how can we ignore the paradox of Motion No. 379 and Bill C-11? Tomorrow, the act respecting immigration to Canada will make a future Nelson Mandela an undesirable citizen in Canada. If Bill C-11 had been in effect 40 years ago and Nelson Mandela had sought asylum in Canada, as a member of an organization for the subversion by force of any government, to use the wording of clause 34, he would have been inadmissible. He would have been sent back to South Africa and accordingly to prison.

On behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I thank the member for Markham for his initiative. Democracy and the equality of all citizens are the paramount values in our society, but democracy is all the more precious for being fragile. We are all responsible for keeping it alive. Many have given their lives for this ideal. Charles de Montesquieu, an 18th century philosopher, wrote “To love democracy is to love equality”.

Nelson Mandela will remain one of the strongest symbols of democracy in the 20th century. May his life be an inspiration for our democracy.

World Refugee Day

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

Mr. Speaker, on June 20 the world will celebrate the first ever World Refugee Day. The theme this year is respect, respect for the rights of refugees worldwide and for the contributions they make to our societies.

This year is the 50th anniversary of the 1951 refugee convention, born out of the horrors of World War II and the will of the international community never to witness them again. Fifty years later, the convention still remains a necessity today. Millions of people are living in refugee camps under difficult conditions or are trapped within the borders of their home countries unable to escape the horrors of conflict or persecution.

We owe it on this day to ensure our laws enshrine the values of justice and fairness for all refugees and we can start by bringing Bill C-11 in line with our international human rights obligations.

Let us honour the first World Refugee Day by strengthening our commitment to refugee protection and welcoming those who come here in search of the freedom and security we take for granted.

Business Of The House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I have been asked by some members to clarify the business statement, given the time of year, and perhaps I could take a moment to give an updated business statement, particularly for the benefit of all House leaders.

Assuming that the debate on Bill C-25 is completed at third reading and Bill C-24 is completed at report stage later today, the business for Monday would be as follows: Bill S-11, respecting business corporations; Bill S-3, respecting motor vehicles; Bill S-16, respecting money laundering. I understand those three bills are perhaps briefer than others. We would follow this with the third reading stage of Bill C-24, regarding organized crime, which I know is of considerable interest to many members. If any time is left it would be taken up on Bill C-11, respecting immigration, and Bill C-6, respecting bulk water.

On Tuesday, of course, it will be a supply day. It is my intention at the present time to call any unfinished business for Wednesday and the debate on the modernization committee report.

Sir John A. Macdonald Day And The Sir Wilfrid Laurier Day Act

[Inky Mark, Canadian Alliance, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Madam Speaker, the question I asked of the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration was about why Canada continues to harbour the criminal elements of the world.

Canadians have read in the newspapers throughout these last few years about the illegal criminals entering the country. Canadians are asking why are we allowing these criminals to enter the country?

Canadians have also heard names like Gaetano Amodeo and Lai Changxing. In fact they have become household names in the country over the last few years. We have put a lot of effort into protecting these criminals who enter the country. While we do this, we put other Canadian citizens at risk. We put Canadian visitors at risk. An example is the Sklarzyk family who was recently deported back to Poland. Who is looking after their rights? Who is looking after the rights of Serge Kisluk? This gentleman passed away just recently.

I would like to quote Marsha Skrypuch from a newspaper article. She is a children's author and met Kisluk while researching a novel about a girl whose grandfather was accused of war crimes. She said that she was appalled at the process that had been used to condemn Mr. Kisluk. She stated:

These are 50-year-old cases, and evidence won't hold up in a criminal court, so they use the immigration rules instead. The reality is that there just isn't enough evidence. Innocent people get hurt. You end up with a bunch of little old men trying to defend themselves against the state.

Who is defending his rights? Who is defending the rights of people like Oberlander and Odynsky? How many criminals are there in Canada? I do not think anyone knows. What we do know is that there are at least 15,000 warrants out for people who are in the country who should not be here. They should have left a long time ago.

We are letting too many criminals through the front door. Why? Because the front door is wide open. The Canadian Alliance has said for a long time that there should be necessary screens put in place to screen out the undesirables so they do not enter the country. Certainly with technology that should not be an impossible task. In fact the standing committee recommended that in its last report to the minister.

In closing, I would say that Canadians support an open immigration policy but not at the expense of national security. The minister, as the auditor general has said in his report, can improve the system without Bill C-11. In fact Bill C-11 would do very little. It would basically penalize the legal migrants and refugees to this country. So instead of just talking about doing the job, I would only hope that the immigration minister would walk the talk.

Business Of The House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, pursuant to an order made earlier, the House will conclude third reading of Bill C-28, the Parliament of Canada Act amendments. Tomorrow we will deal with third reading of Bill C-25, the Farm Credit Corporation amendments, as well as report stage of Bill C-24 with respect to organized crime. Those are the only bills I expect to deal with tomorrow.

On Monday we will then consider third reading of Bill C-24 regarding organized crime, then Bill S-16, the money laundering bill, followed by Bill C-11, the Immigration Act amendments, Bill S-11 respecting business corporations, Bill S-3 respecting motor vehicles and Bill C-6 respecting bulk water.

On Tuesday we shall deal with an allotted day for the consideration of main estimates at the end of the day. There has been consultations among political parties, and I would hope to take a few minutes on Tuesday to debate and hopefully receive the consent of everyone for a motion regarding Mr. Mandela.

Later next week, we will deal with any bills listed that are not yet complete, as well as the report of the modernization committee. I will consult my colleagues, the House leaders of official parties regarding business for Wednesday and the days beyond, should there be such dates. This ends my report.

Immigration

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

Mr. Speaker, the government's new immigration Bill C-11 has been described as seriously flawed, draconian and even un-Canadian. Most of the 154 witnesses before the immigration committee said the bill strips the rights of permanent residents and does not provide for the protection of refugees.

The committee chair from London North Centre said at clause by clause:

It's lucky I don't have to vote...when they start to sound more Liberal than we do, I get a little concerned.

Why is the Liberal Party of Pearson, Laurier and Trudeau so unwilling to entrench the rights of permanent residents and properly protect refugees in Canada?

Citizenship And Immigration

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the immigration bill, as the legislation that has been in place for 25 years, has in place discretion available to the minister and the government to ensure that cases such as Nelson Mandela's are dealt with at the highest levels of government.

However I also want to point out that Bill C-11 which is presently before the House is no different from the legislation that has been in place for 30 years. The intention of the bill is to give Canadian authorities the opportunity to stop those who are inadmissible, at the same time allowing those such as Mr. Mandela access to our country.

Immigration And Refugee Protection Act

[The Speaker]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the report stage of Bill C-11. The question is on Motion No. 1.

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

Madam Speaker, it is once again a pleasure to rise on the grouping of three of the amendments that have been put forward on Bill C-11. I would like to again congratulate the member for Fundy—Royal, who has put his heart and soul into this piece of legislation, Bill C-11, and who has in Group No. 3 one of the amendments we are talking about today.

When the member for Mississauga West talked about his particular issues on Bill C-11, he did not quite focus on the amendments in Group No. 3. He talked about other benefits of the legislation. However, he should have been here when we talked about the first and second groupings of the amendments. He probably could have talked more passionately and certainly more knowledgeably to those amendments instead of just talking to the bill in general.

However, on Group No. 3 the member for Fundy—Royal has put forward Motion No. 10. I believe it was the member for Mississauga West who tried to get across to members of the House the importance and the urgency of being able to deal with the status of a refugee who is coming to our shores.

We Canadians too often take for granted what it is that we have in this great country of ours. Sometimes we do not think of the challenges this globe presents to the majority of people away from our own country. It was mentioned that in refugee camps all around this globe there are people who legitimately have fear and concern for their own safety and the safety of their children, their spouses and their families. It is those people we are focusing on in this grouping of amendments.

When people make application as refugees in this country, there are some who do so illegitimately and there are systems in place to ferret out those applications, to certainly not allow in those who are not persecuted and do not have fear for their own lives and the lives of their families in their country of origin. In some cases mistakes are made and some get through the process.

For the most part, as was mentioned by the member for Winnipeg Centre, the people who do come to our shores and apply as refugees do so legitimately. As was mentioned, there are some examples, but very few examples, of those who try to circumvent the system. That is what we are talking about here: legitimate refugees coming forward to this country, not only to attempt get refugee status, landed status, but ultimately to get citizenship status in our country.

We talked earlier about how the majority of the refugees who come to our shores and to this country do, through the process, become contributing members to this society. These refugees do contribute, not only to our social systems but to our economic systems. In fact, we as a country depend not only on the immigration side of this piece of legislation but also on the refugee side for the people who come into this country and become Canadian citizens and exist thus far.

I would read a quote to the House. It simply says “A truly humanitarian country is judged not by how it treats the most privileged, but rather on how it protects the disadvantaged. Immigrants and refugees are among the most marginalized and the least powerful by virtue of their status and the circumstances upon which they arrived in this country”. Truer words could not be spoken.

They are the people for whom we in the House must put together a piece of legislation that will protect them. We must protect not only the immigrants who apply but also the refugees.

There are three amendments in this grouping, two from the Bloc. The first one from the Bloc, Motion No. 9, would add new clause 95.1 after clause 95, which deals with the conferral of refugee protection. This new clause 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.

I said earlier that there are refugees leaving their country in circumstances that unfortunately we as Canadians cannot even relate to. They are being persecuted and their families are being persecuted. It could be a matter of life and death, so when they come to our country they do not necessarily have all the necessary papers. They do not necessarily have all the identification. They do not have all the paper trail that Canadians would normally take for granted. They do not have the birth certificate, the driver's licence, the medical insurance card. They are coming to our country with nothing except themselves and their families, looking for a place that they can call home and that they can contribute to.

When they come here, as the Bloc has identified, when they do not have all of these documents, they sometimes find themselves in limbo. It is hard to be able to find out who they are in this big, wonderful world of ours and where they are coming from. We have to see whether they have legitimate refugee status.

In the meantime, the Bloc has suggested that after the 90th day the department should be responsible for the social and medical needs of a refugee. That is laudable and certainly can be supported by our party. Given the opportunity to think about this logically, it would also mean that the government could say that there is now some urgency to work toward a better timeline and timeframe to ensure that these applications are dealt with in a timely fashion. Our party will be supporting Motion No. 9.

Motion No. 12, as I understand it, is a technical motion. It simply adds the word “maximum” to the clause. We will be supporting Motion No. 12.

In Group No. 3, the motion that speaks to the bill is Motion No. 10, which was put forward by the member for Fundy—Royal. There were a couple of issues with respect to Motion No. 10. The amendment would refer a claim to the refugee protection division. It would not necessarily be done in all cases but where there was a new determination.

However, there are two caveats: First, where the relevant circumstances of the claimant have changed since a previous determination, and that is very important, the claim could then be referred to the refugee protection division for a new determination; and second, where specific circumstances prevented part of the evidence from being presented during a previous determination. We have talked briefly about that.

Let us put ourselves in the position of a refugee claimant who might experience problems with language, education not quite at acceptable levels, or a fear of cultural differences, authority and bureaucrats. I do not believe there is anyone here who does not fear bureaucrats but when we put ourselves in the position of a refugee claimant this is all very difficult to comprehend. There are a number of things that could happen. There could simply be an omission of fact from the claimant because of the circumstance itself and how he or she deals with that kind of stress and pressure.

There is also the cultural issue, especially when a husband, wife and family make an application. There may be information that any one family member may not wish to bring out and put forward to an adjudicator for any number of reasons. It could have been a circumstance that happened previously that the wife may not want the husband to know about. These things do happen. In those cases it is necessary to allow for a new determination.

The last issue which the amendment deals and which I find is only logical is the fact that right now the law says there can only be one refugee claim per lifetime. If people come to our country and are granted refugee status, we believe they should have the opportunity to go back to their own country at some point in time. If they do so and find that the circumstances have exacerbated the problems, they cannot come back to this country and make a second claim. The amendment would stop that.

I congratulate the member for Fundy—Royal for all his work on this particular file. I know we will have an opportunity to speak to that at third reading.

[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.

[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”

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-11 today. There is no question that it has been a long time in coming and contains comprehensive changes. However, as my colleague from the NDP indicated, the bill does not contain enough changes for us to support it. We still have great concerns about many areas in the legislation and I will reflect on a few of those.

The people who work in Citizenship and Immigration Canada have been absolutely excellent for the most part when my staff and I have dealt with them. They are extremely helpful and go out of their way to try to resolve issues. Problems tend to arise not because they do not want to help or do their best but because of the policies and processes that have been put in place. As a result, some people have come into the country who should not be here. There have been instances where people have not acted their best while in Canada. As the saying goes, one bad apple spoils the whole bunch.

Those cases have not been blown out of proportion, but a number of them seem to have been. As a result, people immigrating to Canada, especially in the last few years, have been attacked by people with certain agendas. As a Canadian, I am disappointed to see that because I expect more.

I grew up in a Canada that was quite different. In rural Saskatchewan where I grew up there were often only one or two obvious minorities or other nationalities. Other than first nations people and the usual European mix of people and French speaking people whose parents or grandparents had come over, there was only the odd obvious minority.

However I grew up with a very great respect for multiculturalism in Canada. It was taught in our school system. I grew up respecting the diversity of cultures and not expecting everybody to be the same. I grew up respecting people's differences and understanding that we were all here to enjoy Canada and be active participants in the country.

As I said, my experience with departmental officials has been for the most part very good. However there are extreme failures in the system. One of those failures, which has not been touched on in this or previous debates, is the fact that changes within the department have led to case files of people who enter the country being dealt with by people who are not always the most qualified or experienced. As a result, we do not necessarily have the best outcomes.

I am not blaming the individuals. However the experienced people are not dealing with the files or not enough people are dealing with the files and as a result things do not flow as smoothly as they should.

I will comment on some cases I have personally dealt with within my office. I apologize to the minister because I have never discussed the cases with her. I often intend to because I have certain views of how things happen but I have not had the opportunity. These cases are not ones on which the minister has been made aware but it is obvious that there are other such cases or we would not have these clauses in the bill.

One of the major issues is in relation to gender and race. I was quite surprised to get the impression, from a number of cases I have dealt with through my office, that women from certain countries do not get treated the same.

That has been hard for me to handle. The first situation was regarding women in Russia who want to come to Canada. In one case there were teachers in Canada who were willing to sponsor a young woman. The woman worked in Russia as a teacher. She was single and probably in her late thirties. The teachers had known her for some five years. They went over and visited regularly as part of an educational program in Russia. I had the opportunity to see how that program worked when I was in Russia so it was a great experience for me.

I think the young woman paid the equivalent of $50 Canadian to apply to come and visit the teachers in Canada. She was denied outright. The Canadian teachers told me this was an ongoing problem whenever they wanted to bring someone over for a visit, even when they signed on the person's behalf. There seems to be an impression that a Russian woman coming to Canada does so for only one reason: to somehow try to stick around, stay in Canada and not adhere to the rules.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I do not think that is very flattering. It is unparliamentary at the very least. I will continue anyway. I have fairly thick skin.

The member for Winnipeg North Centre has done an admiral job at the committee to try to move amendments and improve some of the shortcomings in the bill. One of the significant changes that she put forward, which was in fact passed, was having a gender analysis done of the bill.

This is something that should happen automatically. It is in keeping with federal government policy since 1995 that for new legislation an adequate gender analysis should be conducted to review whether there is a disproportionate impact of any piece of legislation we might undertake, to review whether it affects women differently.

We succeeded in that. We had that amendment passed and I think it will improve the bill, because there are issues. When we talk about family reunification and about income requirements to sponsor family members, there is a gender factor. As we know, women make 66% of what men make. If a person's ability to sponsor a family member is to be tied to their income, then certainly we must have some sensitivity in that regard.

The one thing not addressed in the amendments at the committee stage is a shortcoming we have pointed out many times, that is, there was no mention of eliminating the right of landing fee, which we believe is one of the biggest barriers to attracting new Canadians to our shores. We have been calling for its eradication ever since it was introduced by the Liberal government, to tell the truth. We finally convinced the government to eliminate the right of landing fee for refugees, but it still stands to this day for other classes of new Canadians. In fact, we are also calling for the elimination of the administration fees that are still being charged to refugees. We were not successful in that, but we will continue in our campaign to have those charges and fees eradicated.

We also pointed out a number of shortcomings in the bill. One of the flaws we pointed out and wanted to change is that too much in this bill is left to the regulations. We were very concerned that members of the House and members of the committee would have very little input into the drafting of the regulations. It was the member for Winnipeg North Centre who moved agreement at the committee stage that the regulations would in fact be put before parliament for approval. This is huge. This is a really innovative change.

Again, I compliment the member for Winnipeg North Centre for having the foresight to bring that forward, because it was glaringly obvious to all of us who read the bill that a lot of the details that will affect the day to day operation of the immigration department will be found in the regulations and not in the act. As members of parliament we want some ability to have some say in how those regulations are crafted. With the bill, they would come before the House of Commons.

There is another thing that should have been cleared up. I appeal to the minister and the department to address it, even after Bill C-11 passes. There is very little in the former act or in Bill C-31 or Bill C-11 that helps to clear up the definitions of terrorists, criminal activity, what level of criminal we are trying to bar from entry to the country and what sort of membership and what kind of terrorist organization one must have taken part in to be barred on those grounds. The bill is very vague. It leaves far too much to the discretion of officers who may have varying ideas of how this is to be implemented.

We pointed out that if we are too absolute in barring people who may have taken part in or may have been members of terrorist agencies, if we are too strict in our enforcement of this, we could be barring people like Nelson Mandela, who was a member of the ANC, which was called a terrorist organization. Now it is called the government of the day, but at the time it was a terrorist organization that took up arms to fight for freedom.

Surely this is not the intention that the architects who drafted the bill had in mind, but it is one of the byproducts of being negligent by not being very clear about what we are seeking to achieve when we try to bar people who may have been involved in some kind of terrorist activity at some point in their lives.

Also, the smuggling of people is a very top of mind issue. I have pointed out a number of times that sometimes smuggling of people is done for humanitarian reasons, in order to get people out of harm's way, to save their lives in many senses.

The underground railway through which American slaves were smuggled was a trafficking in human beings. When we talk about cracking down on smugglers, yes, we want to stop people from exploiting people and trading in human cargo but let us keep in mind that sometimes these actions take place for humanitarian reasons. Smuggling of people can be done with the best intentions of keeping people from harm.

I appreciate being able to add my remarks on Bill C-11. We will be voting against the motion as it stands.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to join in the debate on Group No. 1 at report stage of Bill C-11. As the former spokesperson for immigration issues for my party, I was very much involved in the development of Bill C-31, which as we know is now known as Bill C-11. It will make changes to the Immigration and Refugee Act.

As is well known, our party has been quite critical of the shortcomings of Bill C-11 and the former Bill C-31. We were very open in our criticisms. We disagreed with both the tone and the content of the bill in many ways. We felt the bill dealt far too much with enforcement issues. We felt that the whole immigration policy dealt far too much with enforcement. It dedicated much of our time and resources to keeping people out of the country rather than trying to attract people into the country. This is the type of tone or the type of content that we now see in Bill C-11.

We pointed out that much of the impetus or rationale behind this tone found its origin in an overreaction to the Chinese boat people who drifted up on the west coast of British Columbia. The public hysteria whipped up by the Reform Party and by the Canadian Alliance Party would have us believe that the country was under siege or being invaded in some irresponsible way.

Many of us remember the reaction of members of parliament from the Reform Party in British Columbia when those boats started arriving. They were saying: “Turn them around and send them back in these rusty old tubs. Who cares if they drown at sea? They do not deserve sanctuary on our shores. They do not even deserve to have a hearing to determine if they are actual refugees”.

There were press conferences in which Reform members were saying such things. They used what was really an anomaly of 600 people within a relatively short time arriving on our shores for their own political purposes. It was an anti-immigration stance.

I am very critical that somehow the ruling party, the Liberal Party, seems to have allowed itself to be pulled around by the nose on this issue. This is the attitude or reaction that we found more and more. All they want to talk about in the bill is enforcement: how to keep people out, how to keep our borders secure, and how to stop criminals from getting in.

[Mark Assad, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, during the review in committee of Bill C-11, the hon. members for Laval Centre, Mississauga West, Dauphin—Swan River and other members of the committee truly co-operated to ensure that this bill would reflect the best interests of Canadians.

I am indebted to my colleagues, because during the clause by clause review, I learned a great deal about the Immigration Act and the immigration process as such.

I had previously had the opportunity to visit various offices abroad, where potential immigrants seek Immigration Canada's assistance. I was impressed by the work of our immigration officers. Again, I learned a lot.

Like many Canadians, I realize that we are a privileged nation and it is no surprise that a large number of people all over the world wish to settle in our country.

In the clause by clause study, several issues were addressed. Of course, many of these issues were debated in a spirit of co-operation. We really wanted to end up with a bill as in sync with the Immigration Act as possible.

Many things can be said and many comments can be made about the most positive elements of this bill, but three things caught my attention. The goal here is to make the Immigration and Citizenship Act much more effective.

When we try to make changes to legislation to make it more effective, people sometimes say “To speed up the process, you might have to scratch some significant elements. I do not think that is the case here.

The bill includes very positive measures for refugees, like new appeals to the Refugee Appeal Division. Measures are being taken to ensure that refugees have the opportunity to integrate into Canadian society. I do not think the changes proposed to the legislation ignore this issue. Quite the opposite, we have made access to our country easier for refugees.

Many concerns were raised during consideration of this bill, and rightly so. There are people who come to our country and apply for refugee status because, unfortunately, they have been victims of torture in their country of origin. Therefore, in response to initiatives by Canadian NGOs and the United Nations, we incorporated an element about torture into the bill, meaning that people who are or have been victims of torture, or who are at risk of being tortured, may be able to qualify to become Canadian citizens, provided that they meet other criteria.

We have also introduced a new measure: risk assessment before removal. There are occasions when, unfortunately, people claiming refugee status do not meet all our criteria, which are very compassionate. Nonetheless, such people have a second chance, as it were, to have their case reviewed. If the circumstances have changed in their country of origin such that it would be dangerous for them to return, that is one of the factors that could work in favour of their being accepted into Canada. However, I do not wish to dwell any further on this.

As I have already mentioned, several other members have comments to make on this bill. As a general comment, as immigration evolves in our country, we know that it is extremely important for our future and for the prosperity of our country. With this evolution, there will be changes in the regulations, and the parliamentary committees will be able to examine all these regulations. I am sure that this will be done in the future.

I am grateful to all those who helped draft this bill. I learned many things along the way. It should also be pointed out that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has been very open, always ready to explain or clarify elements of the bill. I believe that this bill is a great improvement, and that there will be others in the future.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe this is the appropriate time for me to say that there have been consultations among the parties and I believe you would find unanimous consent of the House to have the report stage motions for Bill C-11 in the name of the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River transferred to the name of the hon. member for Surrey Central.

Business Of The House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue debate on the Bloc opposition motion.

On Friday we would like to commence consideration at report stage and third reading of Bill S-24, the Kanesatake legislation. We would then take up the report stage of Bill C-11 on immigration, followed, if there is any time, with the report stage of Bill C-25, the Farm Credit Corporation legislation.

When we return on Monday, we will commence debate at report stage and third reading of Bill S-17, the patent legislation.

On Tuesday, we will proceed with third reading of Bill C-11.

On Wednesday, we will take up report stage and third reading of Bill S-16, the money laundering legislation, followed by report stage of Bill C-25 if necessary.

I know all members have been reading with attention the report of the commission, chaired by the hon. Ed Lumley, on compensation which was tabled earlier this week. I hope to continue consultations next week and would hope that we could find a way to deal with these issues at that time in relation to the report provided to us by Commissioner Lumley and others.

Immigration And Refugee Protection Act

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, thank you for allowing me to take part in debate on Bill C-11, even if my time will be quite limited.

Bill C-11 deals with immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger.

I am very glad to have this opportunity to speak to this bill. I remind the House that when I was the critic for my party a couple of years ago, I had the opportunity to debate this bill, which was called Bill C-31 at the time.

The purpose of Bill C-31 was to amend Canada's immigration law, which dated back to 1976.

We all agree that the time has come to review the legislation. Why? Because, as my colleague from Laval Centre pointed out earlier, those who live in an urban riding, especially in Quebec and in the greater Montreal area, realize that many citizens and families must face incredible tragedies and go through hardship because of the inconsistencies in the current immigration legislation.

With regard to the Immigration and Refugee Board, the minister tells us that from now on it will take 72 hours for a refugee claim to be filed with the IRB, which will have to bring down its decision within six to nine months. Why do we support an improvement in the process? Because the present system is much too slow.

IRB figures from December 1999 indicate that the average time to process a claim is about ten months. Right now, there are 7,000 asylum seekers waiting for a decision from the Immigration and Refugee Board, and this is in Montreal alone.

We can imagine that while a person is waiting for a decision from the IRB a certain degree of integration into the Canadian and Quebec society inevitably occurs, and we must not be indifferent to that. We agree that it is important to reduce the processing time.

Motion No. 2, brought forward by my colleague from Laval Centre, is an attempt to prevent the government from making regulations outside the legislative process. We would like the government to include these regulations in the future federal immigration act. Why? So that the legislation will be understandable and consistent with needs.

When I was my party's citizenship and immigration critic, I remember meeting privately with organizations such as the Canadian Council for Refugees, which is located in my riding. I took the trouble to meet with them in my office.

I started off by asking them “What do you think of the bill to amend the Immigration Act?” Representatives of these organizations replied “This is not an easy question to answer, because the bill is difficult to evaluate. The government wants to pass a series of regulations, rather than include important measures within the bill”.

This is why the member for Laval Centre's Motion No. 2 is important. As parliamentarians, we must not be cut out of the loop. We must ensure that the bill is as complete as possible and not leave a large number of measures outside the process, outside the bill, in draft regulations.

Another important aspect of this bill has to do with automatic detention. It will be recalled that when the minister announced her bill a few weeks before the last election was called, her intention was clear. She was introducing a tough bill. Why? Because she naturally wanted to respond to the repeated demands from certain provinces west of Quebec seeking a tougher law.

This is consistent with other legislation, such as Bill C-7, which aims for tougher treatment of children. When I asked the government in committee to exclude minors from the detention process, I was told that this would be included in future regulations. What I wanted was for this to be a provision in the act. This would be a clear sign of the government's willingness.

A number of international conventions are mentioned in the bill. I am thinking of the convention on the rights of the child—

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to participate in the report stage debate on Bill C-11, an act respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger.

Before I begin I would like to thank the 150 witnesses, a broad spectrum, who appeared before the committee. They have given us insights into the practical life of dealing with immigrants and into the various angles or perspectives from which they looked at the immigration process.

I would also like to extend my thanks to the members, the staff and the researchers of the committee. Appreciation is also due to the chair of the committee, who has been very fair so far. I guess he would have been more fair if he had accepted all 30 amendments put forward by the official opposition, but I appreciate the work done by all the members as well as the co-operation that existed. The process was very productive and positive and really it was fun to work with the committee.

However, I am really disappointed that the output is not proportional to the input in the committee. Everyone worked hard, but the outcome could have been much better. I am a little disappointed with the efficiency ratio of output versus input in the committee.

While we are on thanks, I would also like to thank the chief critic for the official opposition of Canada, the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River, who really worked very hard on the committee. He put forward over 30 amendments. All those amendments were to the point. They were very serious and non-partisan amendments and I regret that most of them were not accepted by this weak Liberal government.

While the bill has much needed changes with respect to immigration to Canada, which I acknowledge, it also has serious flaws. I will be talking about those flaws at third reading of the bill if I get the opportunity. For the time being I will say that while the legislation may be well intended its outcome may not serve its stated purpose.

Immigration to Canada should be simple. It is a matter of common sense. Either the criteria to enter met or are not. When legislators are working hard on the bill they need to use common sense and put various aspects of the bill in perspective.

The lack of clarity, prudence and real enforcement behind the legislation will ultimately cause more trouble than the legislation it purports to replace. Bill C-11 will not deliver what it intends to deliver without proper accountability and management in place.

The minister has been talking about front door and back door scenarios. Let me remind the House, although I am sure members who have been here for a long time will remember, that when I was first elected in 1997 I gave an analogy in my first speech on immigration that the immigration system in Canada was just like a home.

When a person knocks on the door or rings the doorbell the owner of the house has the opportunity to open the door and invite or welcome the person into the home. Sometimes the person is offered tea or coffee, a conversation may take place, and he or she becomes a guest.

On the contrary, it is surprising if the homeowner wakes up one morning and finds a stranger sitting on the couch in the living room having a cup of coffee. Perhaps the stranger discovered that the back door was opened, entered the house while the owner was asleep and sat on the couch.

I remind the House that with respect to our immigration process we have to open our front door so that legitimate immigrants similar to the ones who built the country can enter Canada through the front door and be productive. We should welcome them. We should also welcome legitimate refugees who come to Canada through the front door.

At the same time we must close the back door because we do not know who is entering through it. It could be a criminal, a bogus refugee, or anyone who is not wanted in the country.

In my speech in 1997 I urged the then immigration minister to open the front door and monitor them but to close the back door and plug the loopholes.

The minister borrowed my analogy and repeatedly made references to the front door and the back door. However she installed a revolving door between the front and back doors and prospective immigrants are caught in it for a long time because the system is plugged. The plumbing system in the immigration system is comparatively clogged.

There are many instances of appeal after appeal, just like someone peeling an onion one layer at a time. Sometimes people are caught in the system for eight, nine or ten years. I have given a list of 40 of my constituents to the minister who have been caught in that revolving door for 10 years or so. I am a little disappointed. To use my analogy, the minister should eliminate the revolving door, close the back door and open the front door.

There are four motions in this grouping. I will deal with Motion No. 4 first. It is an amendment to the French version. It is technical in nature. It is a housekeeping type of amendment. I do not have any problem supporting it.

Motion No. 3 in the name of the hon. member for Laval Centre deals with the right of entry of a permanent resident and reads as follows:

That Bill C-11, in clause 19, be amended by replacing line 11 on page 11 with the following:

“resident or a protected person to enter Canada if satisfied following”

In her amendment the words protected person and resident are added. Those who are under Canadian protection are refugees. They should be afforded the full extent of our protection. It should not be limited to those with status only.

When talking about refugees, Bill C-11 is a direct attack on legitimate refugees. We support and reaffirm our policy of taking in our share of genuine refugees but subclause 3(2)(d) states that Canada is:

—to offer safe haven to persons with a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group, as well as those at risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment;

This translates into meaning that every criminal or otherwise undesirable person entering Canada who claims to be a refugee would be under Canadian protection from extradition to another country if there is reason to believe they would be under a threat of harm.

Motion No. 3 would improve the effectiveness of the bill. Our party will support the amendment.

The definition of refugee in the bill needs further clarification. Most Canadians know what a true refugee is. We will do our part to help those who are truly in need. Keeping them clogged in the system is not helping them, especially when they are found not to be genuine refugees and are deported. Their lives are ruined after so many months and years. The bill also gives refugees, as well as refugee applicants, full charter protection.

Motion No. 2, also in the name of the hon. member for Laval Centre, takes away the regulation making authority by order in council. Regulations should be made in committee. I was the co-chair of the standing committee on scrutiny of regulations. I can say that the government is in the habit of governing through the back door and not by debating regulations in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity, especially at this point in time, to speak to Bill C-11 at report stage.

I have concerns with respect to the legislation which we are discussing at report stage. The Liberal Party of Canada has had a very strong reputation with respect to new Canadians throughout its history. After all, this is the party of Wilfrid Laurier, Mike Pearson and indeed Pierre Trudeau. From what we saw at committee for the most part, the irony was the Liberal Party of Canada was most reticent to support the rights of permanent residents and immigrants and moreover, the human responsibility with respect to refugee protection. As we go through report stage we will flesh out a couple of those issues on which clearly we should have spent more time.

I want to compliment the hon. member for London North Centre. He was very welcoming and collaborated in putting our debate together. The two immigration critics for the Canadian Alliance, who represent ridings in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, provided first class representation. I saw that across the board with the Bloc and very much with the NDP. We had an opportunity to have a very pioneering piece of legislation.

The reality is this the bill falls short of that particular mark. These days the government of this multicultural, multilingual land built on immigration sounds disappointingly less welcoming than it should. The minister of immigration's proposed reform of the 25 year immigration act, Bill C-11, falls far short of the standards which Canada should use in treating immigrants and refugees to this country.

As Progressive Conservative opposition critic on the immigration committee, I sat and listened to the testimony of over 150 witnesses and groups. They almost all repeated the very same serious concerns. They were concerned that parts of the bill were draconian and even un-Canadian. Even Liberal members on occasion referred to the bill as being un-Liberal. That was the result of the testimony which we heard.

We had a myriad of caring Canadians, who embraced human diversity and human rights, say that this bill missed the mark to protect refugees to the degree that we should. I would like to add quite clearly and succinctly that refugee rights are in fact human rights. Our inability to protect refugees in need, and by perhaps not having the appropriate checks of due process in place, can result in the torture, injury and even death of individuals. That is why due process is a fundamental aspect of our judicial system. That is why due process is something we believe this particular piece of legislation is short on. I will have more to say as we proceed toward the next days.

I will refer to the particular motions in play that we have.

The first motion, Motion No. 1, by the government is somewhat technical and replaces lines 1 to 7 on page 3 of the bill. The original legislation stated “to promote international justice, respect for human rights and security”. The government is advocating a reversal of that. It is saying that we would, in co-operation with the provinces and territories, and of course we would agree with that part of it, secure better recognition of foreign credentials of new Canadians to make their integration more accessible.

Essentially the first motion, by reversing the language, speaks to the potential security risks as opposed to the well-being and the good fortune the country has with respect to immigration.

The second motion, proposed by the Bloc, refers to lines 1 to 4 on page 5, clause 5. The motion calls for the Government of Canada, parliamentarians and particularly the immigration committee to have far more input and a much larger opportunity to participate with respect to reviewing the regulations.

Members may be aware that this piece of legislation is framework legislation. This means that it is not necessarily what is in the act that governs the bill, it is the regulations themselves. If these issues were done order in council and not scrutinized by the committee, the role of parliament would be usurped.

I commend the chair, and the immigration minister who is doing something that is quite uncommon. She is willing to provide the regulations to the committee for scrutiny before they are implemented and published in the Canada Gazette . That is not very common. I must give proper credit to her for what I consider a very progressive, yet conservative initiative.

I would like to refer to Motion No. 3 which is also a Bloc motion. It is an amendment to clause 19 on page 11, at line 11, which is the right of entry of permanent residents. This initiative actually dovetails with an amendment passed at committee which was introduced by the Progressive Conservative Party. I want to thank all members of the committee who supported that initiative.

Essentially it would provide a status document to all permanent residents. Once they obtain that particular position it would ensure that they could travel, work and make a valuable contribution, and their children could go to school in certain circumstances. As we know, there are a number of individuals who are sometimes caught in limbo and do not have the capacity to work or to educate their children and so on.

The Bloc motion refers to the right of entry for refugees in addition to permanent residents so that they would have a status card, a travel card so that they could actually have the capacity to re-enter Canada. This recognizes that in this global world people do travel. Those people are protected. Those refugees clearly need to be able to get on with their lives after they have escaped persecution.

The fourth motion is quite simple. It is a technical amendment on an issue related to translation.

The wording must be consistent in both official languages, which is why the Progressive Conservative Party is in favour of this amendment.

I thank the House for the opportunity to participate in debate on Group No. 1. There are two more groups to go. We look forward to the debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on report stage of Bill C-11 and to put on record our continuing deep concerns with the legislation.

Before proceeding I want to indicate how positive the process was at the committee level. It is not often that we have reason to make positive comments about the standing committee process in the House of Commons. However, in the case of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, the chair, the member for London North Centre, provided very good leadership. The participation of all members from all parties on the committee was productive and respectful.

I want to put on record our thanks for all the work done by the staff tied to the committee and for the help we received from the research staff of the Library of Parliament and from the drafters in the legislative counsel office who provided us with remarkable turnaround on our proposed amendments. I also want to put on record my thanks to two individuals in the legislative office of the House who did an incredible job of writing and drafting some 80 amendments in a very short period of time for myself and my colleagues in the New Democratic Party. Those two individuals are Amadou John and Susan Manion.

We were operating close to the wire. We were under considerable pressure to move quickly after the public hearings. We had very little time to craft our amendments and to have them drafted properly. Again I thank the two individuals I have mentioned and many others. We were able to ensure that thorough consideration of the bill was executed and that many amendments were proposed.

It was a pleasure working with colleagues from other political parties such as the chair, the member for London Centre and the member from Mississauga. I also want to mention the member for Dauphin—Swan River, the member for Laval Centre and the member for Fundy—Royal. We worked hard and covered a lot of material in a short period of time. One of our greatest regrets was that the bill was pushed rapidly through the process, and we did not have adequate time to deal with the significant topics at hand.

I too want to thank the 150 or more witnesses who gave serious and thoughtful testimony before the committee regarding the bill. We had a remarkable committee process covering many parts of the country. It was an enlightening experience for all of us.

However, given these niceties and having congratulated and thanked members for a productive process, we failed in making a bad bill into a good law. We all say that we failed in improving a piece of legislation that was seriously flawed and was far from visionary. It is far from the kind of bill we thought was necessary after the 25 year period since the bill was first introduced and passed in the House of Commons.

We tried hard to convince the government to improve the bill. It was not for lack of trying. In the case of the New Democratic Party, we proposed over 80 amendments. However most of them were defeated by the Liberals at committee. I am grateful for the few that were accepted. However the amendments which were approved at committee were relatively minor in nature. Our concerns about the bill remain.

We have to put on the record the concerns of Canadians. In reviewing the evidence presented to us at committee and the testimony of the 150 or more individuals and organizations, there was very little support for the bill. Canadians who spoke out on Bill C-11 were very upset, disturbed and angry that the government failed to use this golden opportunity to put forward a bill on immigration and refugee policy that was visionary, progressive, inclusive and clearly a benefit to Canadians who wanted and believed in maintaining our traditions for an open immigration policy and always operating on the basis of humanitarian, compassionate grounds.

It has always been the vision of members of my caucus that we maintain as much as possible an open immigration policy, that we be respectful and responsive to the needs of refugees and displaced persons around the world, that we always, at all costs, ensure due process and that human rights are respected and adhered to. On all those grounds we failed.

The bill does not meet the task at hand. The amendments before us today go a little further toward improving the bill. We will support them, but we have not dealt with the fundamental flaws of the legislation. We hoped Bill C-11 would dramatically improve our immigration and refugee policy and programs, which are under serious scrutiny and evoke great concern on the part of Canadians. This has placed us in some disrepute internationally because of our failure to abide, in full force, by the international conventions to which Canada is a signatory.

We analyzed the bill from the point of view of several perspectives.

First, was it true to Canada's traditions and set of values around openness to immigrants and refugees from around the world? Did it fulfil our commitment to celebrating, respecting and enhancing the multicultural diversity of this land? That was the first criteria we brought to the bill.

The second was the issue that was raised by my other colleagues this afternoon already and that was: Did the bill, the new law, which we would have for many years to come, ensure that the authority rested in this place and that true democratic process was followed and adhered to?

The third criteria we brought to the bill was the belief that no bill could be entrenched into law that maintained any kind of bias, whether we were talking about gender, race or undue emphasis on wealth and economic position in society. If so, that bill would have to be changed to reflect those concerns.

I want to end on the three points I raised as priorities, which were: progressive immigration policy, along with of course an open humanitarian approach to refugees; legislative authority in this place with democratic process and adherence to human rights and civil liberties; and the eradication of any bias within the law itself. Those were our objectives and we failed miserably. The government failed Canadians by not ensuring that we went forward with a bill that had addressed all those concerns.

I look forward to continuing the debate and trying to improve the bill with the time remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of television viewers and perhaps of members in the House, I would just like to briefly recap how the minister introduced Bill C-11 in February.

What the minister said at that time was that Bill C-11 was a bill that could be described as tough. Its purpose was, of course, to open the door wide to the hundreds of thousands of people who want to come here and whom we need if Canada and Quebec are to continue to make progress. However, the government also wanted that door to be tightly closed to people unacceptable to our societies.

What I can say is that the great majority of the witnesses we heard were in agreement with the minister. The bill is extremely tough. In fact they are concerned. People are concerned.

In committee, we considered the bill clause by clause. There were hundreds of amendments presented by the opposition parties or by the government.

I must agree with my colleague for London North Centre that there have been improvements. I acknowledge that. They are not enough, however. They are very much insufficient, and this bill continues to be an object of concern. It is perhaps the fashion, however, in this Liberal government, to take a hard line. Last night, for instance, the bill we voted on in third reading, Bill C-7, was another fine example of this hard line.

In the first group there are four amendments, two presented by the government, which I can assume will be passed with great unanimity. Two others are presented by the Bloc Quebecois.

The first amendment by the party in power, which I shall read for the benefit of our audience, is really within the framework of what this bill is about. The amendment proposed by the minister at clause 3(1)( i ) is to promote international justice, and I quote:

—and security by fostering respect for human rights and by denying access to Canadian territory to persons who are criminals or security risks;

Understandably, no one can be opposed to such an addition, and this focuses on the importance Canada attaches to human rights. We can only hope that the proof of this will be forthcoming in future years, and that there will not be any slip-ups as far as the respect of human rights is concerned.

What the second part of the Liberal amendment is really about is replacing the word néoquébécois, which is not anywhere in the bill, with the term permanent resident.

The second amendment, this one brought forward by the Bloc, is much more important. My colleague from London North Centre mentioned that under this bill the minister will have to table the regulation in the House and refer it to the committee.

All of the witnesses we heard were concerned about the fact that much of the enforcement measures will be dealt with in the regulation. The legislation itself is rather vague.

However, in the bill as amended in committee, under clause 5 that stipulates that the regulation will be laid before the House and then referred to the appropriate committee, we have noticed that a small provision, clause 5(4), was tacked on, which reads as follows:

5.(4) The Governor in Council may make the regulation at any time after the proposed regulation has been laid before each House of Parliament.

Therefore, the governor in council would be able to make the regulation as soon as it is tabled. In some ways, this provision undermines that amendment agreed upon in committee.

What we want is for clause 5(4) to be completely deleted. Since the previous speaker referred to this amendment, I do hope that the government will understand that clause 5(4) needs to be deleted.

The third amendment is also from the Bloc Quebecois. I may still be naive and somehow that makes me proud, but I truly believe that we will have the unanimous consent of the House on this one, because all it does is add the words a protected person. Clause 19, which this amendment deals with, refers to the right to enter and remain in Canada. The current provision only mentions the right of entry of permanent residents.

What we are proposing is that the officer allow a permanent resident or a protected person to enter Canada, a protected person being someone who has refugee status, if satisfied following an examination on their entry that they have that status.

It must be noted that in committee the minister clearly indicated that obtaining refugee status could indeed be considered as a travel document. Therefore we think this amendment must be passed by the House.

Finally, the last amendment in this first group is from the government. It is rather interesting, because it is of a cosmetic nature. We have before us a most important bill that affects people and families, that will have an impact of the future of tens of thousands of people, and the government is bringing forward a cosmetic amendment. It is replacing the word travail by the word emploi in the French version.

Now that I have gone over the four amendments, I will continue to speak about this bill, which is aimed at dispelling certain theories that we hear out there, particularly in western Canada. What we hear is that Canada has really become a haven for people who have something to fear from the justice system, very often for good reasons.

It is perfectly understandable that a country such as Canada would not want to have such a reputation. However, this has nothing to do with reality. Recently, we had the Amodeo case. Clearly, he should never have entered the country, but he did.

However, does a single case become a majority? No, there are a few cases, as there are everywhere. We have to realize that people in organized crime and professional terrorists are highly intelligent and very capable and that the best organized law will probably never keep them out entirely.

The dangerous part in this bill arises from our desire for an impenetrable border, which means we risk rejecting honest people who want to contribute to Canada's economic and social growth. In this regard, for Canada to do without this essential support, which is a bit like oxygen, is a very poor choice.

As I said earlier, at the moment hundreds of thousands of people are awaiting approval. Will they or will they not be able to come to Canada? Four hundred thousand people is a lot. We know the minister puts the figure at 300,000 a year. We never reach it.

The aim of the bill is to perhaps improve the record management process, and we support this goal, because everyone here, especially members from large cities, knows that we have an incredible number of people waiting months and years.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise at report stage of Bill C-11. I will begin by complimenting all members of the committee who undertook some very hard work in a very short period of time.

The last time Canada had a good look at the Immigration Act was in 1978. The committee acted in a very co-operative manner, as critics from the Alliance and all the other parties have suggested. As we travelled we were impressed by the commitment of Canadians to immigration. They spoke in glowing terms about the value of immigration to the country in terms of its history and how it has contributed to our social, economic and cultural well-being. They spoke about how Canada had been built by immigration from all parts of the world and how much that immigration had been appreciated.

Bill C-11 and its predecessor Bill C-31 would build upon our great tradition of inviting people from all over the world and continue our great historical tradition of being one of four countries in the world that recognizes its responsibility to protect refugees, people who are persecuted or displaced, people who find difficulties where they live and resort to all kinds of unusual methods to leave their homelands.

The fact that this great country has been home to thousands of refugees is a tribute to the generosity of all Canadians in each and every region of the country. When we travelled that is exactly what we heard from witnesses. They told us how we could improve Bill C-11. They told us that our present Immigration Act was a great foundation but that we needed to move forward.

Bill C-11 would do that. It would open the front doors even wider. It would make it possible for families to be reunified because it would expand the definition of family class to mothers, fathers, parents and grandparents who would be able to be sponsored. It even talks about working with our partners, not only the provinces but stakeholders, municipalities, all the communities that have a part to play in welcoming immigrants and helping them resettle.

Throughout our trip from Vancouver through to Montreal, and speaking also to the people in Atlantic Canada, I heard one constant message: We need more immigration. We need to make sure the front doors are opened wider in terms of the family reunification independent class to attract the best skilled people and professionals from around the world.

We have a great need for people who can help build our economy, meet the needs of our businesses and meet our labour requirements. Most people indicated that we need more immigration, not less, and that we ought to do more in terms of the compassionate part of the bill, which is refugee protection.

The amendments introduced by the opposition and the government at the committee level have improved Bill C-11. We can recognize the great worth of immigration and make sure permanent residents who want to be Canadian citizens are further protected.

We all heard a term that was rather un-Canadian. Everyone who was not a citizen would be referred to as a foreign national. We heard loud and clear that this was not how we wanted to define ourselves. We have amended the bill to recognize the status of landed immigrants and permanent residents who we hope will want to be citizens. Everyone else who comes to our country on a temporary basis, be they visitors or students, would be referred to as foreign nationals because it is a term that is recognized around the world.

The bill would also give landed class opportunities to students or temporary workers who come to Canada and decide to stay. The process must be improved so we can process the paperwork better, more efficiently and more fairly.

We hope the committee will talk about resettlement and resources that we give to our foreign posts. The committee heard loud and clear from people across the country that they want to be involved and they want the committee and parliament to be involved in the regulatory aspects of the bill.

Motion No. 1 from the minister says that one of the bill's goals and objectives is to acknowledge that people, when they come to Canada with great professional attributes, be they doctors, nurses or skilled workers, should have their accreditations quickly recognized. Even though accreditation is a provincial jurisdiction, we must work closely with provincial governments, stakeholders, organizations, regulatory bodies and associations to make sure that people who come to our country can achieve their full potential.

We need to work with our partners to make sure we do a better job. Motion No. 1 would ensure that people's professions and careers are recognized and that they will be able to work in their professions in Canada.

Motion No. 2 from the member for Laval Centre and Motion No. 3 in terms of regulations were well received. For the first time our committee will be very involved in the making of regulations. We will be able to hold public hearings before regulations are put in place because we understand that the regulations will determine how we implement the bill.

The bill is framework legislation. It talks about values and principles but the regulatory framework is perhaps the most difficult and challenging. We must be very vigilant in reassuring the hundreds of witnesses, who talked to us about the regulations, that the regulations will be set up in a fair, equitable and compassionate manner. The committee will be involved in the fall with the make-up of those regulations. It will invite members of the public to again look at the regulations and it will put in place a process to ensure the regulations are fair and equitable to all people.

The bill, in its final form as we debate it today, with the amendments the government and members of the opposition have put forward, has been greatly improved. We wanted to make sure that people who, for one reason or another, were denied a refugee claim but whose circumstances had changed or who could not disclose the true reason they were being persecuted, could receive a second hearing.

We have built into the bill another layer where a second hearing could take place to ensure that a person who was perhaps denied protection or had been denied a refugee claim but could not put forward all the reasons could essentially come back for a review.

The bill would provide greater assurances in terms of permanent resident status. As we know, the old act says that if people leave the country for 180 days they could lose their permanent resident status. The bill now says that permanent residents do not have to worry if their jobs or families take them out of the country or that they have to be in Canada two years out of five.

We understand the global economy and that people have to travel. Sometimes people have to leave Canada but at the same time they have not given up on Canada. Their families and businesses are here. We must understand that in a global economy people have to be mobile. That is why we would protect permanent residents by assuring them that if they are outside Canada they do not have to worry about losing their permanent resident status.

The government has put forward a number of positive amendments in the bill. I look forward to debate on the other amendments members will put forward, but there is a good reason we cannot support them. In fact we believe we have taken them into consideration under Bill C-11.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-11, in Clause 30, be amended a ) by replacing, in the French version, line 7 on page 15 with the following:

“30. (1) L'étranger ne peut exercer un emploi” b ) by replacing, in the French version, line 14 on page 15 with the following:

“exercer un emploi ou à y”

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

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-11, in Clause 5, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 4 on page 5.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-11, in Clause 19, be amended by replacing line 11 on page 11 with the following:

“resident or a protected person to enter Canada if satisfied following”

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-11, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 7 on page 3 with the following: i ) to promote international justice and security by fostering respect for human rights and by denying access to Canadian territory to persons who are criminals or security risks; and” j ) to work in cooperation with the provinces to secure better recognition of the foreign credentials of permanent residents and their more rapid integration into society.”

[The Speaker]

There are 12 motions to amend on the notice paper with respect to report stage of Bill C-11.

Motion No. 11 is the same as an amendment presented and negatived in committee. Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(5), it has not been selected.

The Chair has considered and reviewed all the other amendments and finds them to be in order and accordingly they will be grouped for debate as follows.

Group No. 1, Motions Nos. 1 to 4.

Group No. 2, Motions Nos. 5 to 8.

The voting patterns for the motions within each group are available at the table. The Chair will remind the House of each pattern at the time of voting.

I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1 to 4 to the House.

Committees Of The House

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on Bill C-11, an act respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger.

Immigration

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for the plug he just gave to Bill C-11. I would like to thank the committee members for all their work. I understand the bill will be reported to the House next week.

I look forward to support from that caucus for a piece of legislation that would close the back door to those who would criminally abuse both the immigration and refugee determination system, open the front door wider to those who respect our laws and help us build our country in the tradition of immigration to Canada.

Business Of The House

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, we will continue this afternoon with the debate on the opposition motion.

Tomorrow, we will begin second reading of Bill S-24, the Kanesatake agreement legislation, and resume debate on Bill C-27, the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act.

When we return on May 28 we will complete consideration of Bill C-7, the youth justice bill. I will be seeking advice from members opposite about wrapping up that debate. As backup we would have Bill C-27, if necessary, and Bill C-19, the environmental legislation.

Around mid-week we hope to commence report stage of Bill C-11, the immigration legislation.

Thursday, May 31, shall be an allotted day.

Immigration

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the member knows full well that Bill C-11 in fact expedites and allows us to remove criminals, those who have committed serious crimes in Canada and those who are inadmissible to Canada because of criminal activity, even faster.

I will say to the member opposite that if he or any member of the House wants to make representation on an individual case where there is concern, I am always happy to share all the facts of the case and review that case to ensure that no one is improperly removed from this country.

If they should be given another opportunity, I am certainly prepared to hear that.

Business Of The House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is the first opportunity I have had to respond to the hon. member in that capacity. Let me begin by congratulating her on the position she holds.

This afternoon we will continue consideration of Bill S-11, followed by Bill S-16 respecting money laundering. As a matter of fact the debate on Bill S-11 may have collapsed just before question period. That means we will start with Bill S-16 respecting money laundering, followed by Bill C-14, the shipping legislation. Afterward, if there is any time left, we will resume debate on Bill C-10 regarding marine parks.

On Friday we will begin consideration of Bill C-22 respecting income tax amendments at report stage and third reading. We will then return to the list I have just described should we not have completed Bill C-14, Bill C-10 or Bill S-16, for that matter.

On Monday next, if necessary, we will resume consideration of Bill C-22, followed by Bill C-17, the innovation foundation bill, at third reading. We will then return to the list that I described a while ago.

On Tuesday it is my hope that we will be able to commence and hopefully complete the third reading of Bill C-26, the tobacco taxation bill, as well as the second reading of Bill C-15, the criminal code.

Next Wednesday it is my intention to call Bill C-7, the youth justice bill at report stage. We also hope to deal next week with Bill S-3 respecting motor vehicles, Bill C-11, the immigration legislation, if reported, and Bill C-24, organized crime. As well there has been some discussion among political parties and hopefully we can deal with Bill S-24 respecting the aboriginal community of Kanesatake at all stages in the House of Commons, provided that it has been reported to the House from the other place.

Bill C-11

[Inky Mark, Canadian Alliance, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration has just completed a week of public hearings across Canada.

The witnesses who appeared before the committee stated that the new immigration bill, Bill C-11, was anti-immigration, unCanadian and showed disrespect for the rule of law. Bill C-11 even refers to permanent residents as foreign nationals.

Canada was built by immigrants. Canada's past history is really a history of immigration. Canada's future will depend on progressive immigration legislation.

Bill C-11 is out of balance. It penalizes legitimate refugees and immigrants to Canada. All members of the committee agree that the bill needs some major changes so that it does not jeopardize a fantastic asset to the country. The Canadian Alliance will not support any legislation that is anti-immigration like Bill C-11.

Immigration And Refugee Board

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, if anyone has a concern about competence of a member, the appropriate route to take is to discuss that with the chair of the IRB who has the tools. Under Bill C-11 the provisions are there for him to make recommendations if he has concerns about the competence of a member.

However, I will say that anyone is welcome to apply, whether they are Liberals or members of the other parties. In fact, given the fact that so many people supported the Liberal Party it would not be unusual to see people with Liberal connections appointed. That is appropriate.

I do not know whether the hon. member would qualify but he is certainly welcome to apply.

Computer Hackers

[Carole-Marie Allard, Liberal, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to take part in the debate on this motion. I will not be supporting the motion because, in my opinion, the criminal code provisions already deal with the offences referred to in the motion.

As a matter of fact, a separate category of offences dealing with hackers was created in 1985 under subsection 342.1 and provisions dealing with mischief under subsection 430.1 specifically cover the transmission of computer viruses.

Even though no amendment is necessary as a result of this motion, I believe it is reasonable to conclude that the Department of Justice reviews its acts on an ongoing basis to ensure they are up to date.

Earlier my opposition colleague asked that we show leadership. I believe the government has shown leadership in the past and again yesterday when it announced new bold measures and the allocation of new money to fight organized crime.

The government was following up on a commitment made in the throne speech. This commitment reflected the work of the House of Commons subcommittee on organized crime and was in response to a number of issues raised by the federal, provincial and territorial justice ministers at their last meeting, in September 2000.

In September 2000 ministers of justice declared organized crime a national priority to be dealt with at all levels through a multidisciplinary approach.

The ministers have agreed to a national program on organized crime, with a very strict timetable in four areas, including national and regional co-ordination, research and analysis, legislative and regulatory instruments, as well as communications and public education.

The criminal code is a national statute that is very important to keep the peace in this country. Therefore, we must amend it with caution. As my colleague was saying, since 1997 the government has not hesitated to amend it when necessary. In fact, it amended it eight times.

It did not hesitate to amend it to give increased powers to police officers with regard to search and to impose restrictions on release on bail. It did not hesitate to amend it to enact provisions dealing with organized crime, including creating a new offence that makes participation in the illegal activities of a criminal organization an indictable offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison.

That particular piece of legislation broadened the investigative powers of police officers, by making it easier, for example, for law enforcement agencies to use electronic surveillance. It also increased public protection by reversing the burden of proof for a person accused of an organized crime offence who is requesting bail.

This government did not hesitate to amend the criminal code to modernize Canadian anti-drug legislation. It also enacted provisions so that persons found guilty of organized crime activities would not be entitled to any sort of accelerated parole review.

In March 1999, new offences under the criminal code connected to fraudulent telemarketing were created. Canada's power to extradite fugitives and to address the problems relating to borderless crimes such as organized crime, fraudulent telemarketing and Internet fraud, was enhanced.

Last year, the government enacted proceeds of crime legislation, which made it mandatory for financial institutions and middlemen to report suspicious transactions and cross-border currency movements.

The act also created the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada to receive and administer the information provided.

More recently, in February 2001, the Minister of Immigration introduced Bill C-11, the immigration and refugee protection act. This bill proposes fines of up to $1 million, and a maximum sentence of life imprisonment for people smuggling and trafficking in human beings.

As can be seen, this government was not afraid to adopt measures to strengthen these laws, to strengthen the ability of existing agencies to fight organized crime. In 1997, 13 joint integrated proceeds of crimes units were created. In 1999, $115 million went to the RCMP to modernize the Canadian Police Information Centre.

In June 1999, the RCMP received $15 million to fight organized crime at the three major international airports: Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver.

Again in 1999, we invested an additional $78 million in an anti-contraband initiative to provide resources to the RCMP, the federal Department of Justice and the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, to help these organizations target contraband and distribution networks at Canada's border.

In budget 2000, an amount of $584 million was allocated to the RCMP, over a three year period. I should also point out that our government passed the Witness Protection Act in 1996. Under that legislation, a formal national program was set up to help protect people who risk their lives to help the police in its investigations.

Incidentally, the new measures announced yesterday by the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General of Canada provide that an additional $200 million will be allocated to the fight against organized crime. The amendments to the criminal code are major ones.

We are proposing to create three new types of offences and impose harsh penalties on those who participate, in various degrees, in gang activities; to improve the protection of people in the judicial system against acts of intimidation against them and their families; to streamline the current definition of criminal organization; to expand the powers of those involved in law enforcement activities; to confiscate the proceeds of crime, particularly the profits of criminal organizations; and to seize the goods used to commit a crime.

We are also proposing measures to establish an accountability process to protect law enforcement officers against any criminal liability when they take actions relating to an investigation or to undercover activities in a criminal organization.

Clearly, this government is taking on its responsibilities, and I am convinced that it will continue to do so whenever it identifies a need for new measures to prevent the type of crime mentioned in the official opposition's motion.

These are the reasons why I will not support the opposition's motion.

Committees Of The House

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations and I think you would find unanimous consent to deal with the following committee travel authorization. It is a single committee authorization. I move:

That the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration be authorized to travel to Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto and Montreal from April 29 to May 4, 2001 in relation to Bill C-11 and that the necessary staff accompany the Committee and that the Committee be authorized to televise its hearings.

Immigration

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the citizenship and immigration committee is hearing witnesses on Bill C-11 to help rewrite the Immigration Act for the first time in 25 years. It deals with issues such as visitor visas, landed immigrant status, permanent residency and refugee determination.

We want to hear from as many Canadians as possible. Our plan was to travel to Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal and London, Ontario to hear people's concerns. Schedules were laid out, but the Canadian Alliance says it will not go. Instead we will be relegated to hearing people who can get to Ottawa and to teleconferencing.

The Canadian Alliance now wants to hijack committees the same way it has hijacked parliament. Canadians are fed up with these tactics. Instead of listening to concerns from across the country, the Canadian Alliance would rather throw mud and destroy parliament. It is doing a disservice to the country.

Education

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on such a very important subject. I commend the member for Surrey Central for bringing the matter to the attention of parliament and for proposing a constructive solution to a longstanding problem that has been festering in communities right across the country for many years.

This is an issue about fundamental rights and liberties and about how we view our immigration and refugee policies. I think the motion has been put forward in that context. It is not about jurisdiction or accumulating more power in terms of the federal government. It is a positive solution for co-ordinating efforts around this matter and ensuring a measure of co-operation.

We have a problem that all of us have had to deal with time and again in our respective constituencies.

Who among us has not experienced having to come face to face with an individual who is trained in a particular profession such as the medical profession, has a commitment to serve people in a particular area and has been denied totally the opportunity to practise, to give of one's talents in that area?

The member for Surrey Central is not exaggerating when he talks about individuals who are trained as doctors, nurses or engineers ending up having to eke out a living by driving a taxi or delivering pizza. That problem has been identified by all of us through our personal experiences. It is a problem that has been identified by reputable organizations that work in the field of immigration and refugee policy.

I would like to quote from the Caledon Institute May 2000 newsletter entitled “The new immigration act: more questions than answers”. The institute makes some very important observations. The first one states:

There are many examples of problems arising from short-sighted immigration policies. One of the most frustrating for many skilled immigrants now living in this country is the disconnect between the Canada presented to them while still overseas and the reality they face upon arrival. In trying to attract immigrants, Canada actively seeks people with higher education and who are qualified to practise particular trades and professions. Once these immigrants arrive, however, many discover that the very degrees and training that helped them qualify for immigration to Canada are nearly worthless in the labour market here. Doctors end up driving taxis, engineers delivering pizzas.

That is a very real problem that we deal with on a regular basis, and it is at the heart of the motion. It is about how we, as a country that has a tradition of welcoming people from around the world and encouraging people to settle here justify policies and practices that exclude people from practising their chosen career and engaging in a profession for which they have deep commitment and actual training and education.

The motion before us offers a way to co-ordinate efforts nationally to ensure that we address that problem. It is not about denying or not recognizing the fact that provinces have jurisdiction in terms of setting credentials and governing professions. It is about trying to pool our resources, our knowledge and expertise, and coming to grips with a very significant problem.

The federal government has time and time again said it has done all it can do. It has said it is primarily a provincial responsibility. It is not that simple.

The call today is for the federal government to take up the challenge and to offer some leadership on this front. A crying need has been identified by provincial governments to participate in such a process. Coming from the province of Manitoba where the problem is very much recognized, attempts have been made to review the whole system of recognition of foreign credentials. We would very much appreciate participating on a more collaborative basis with other provincial governments.

If we leave it as the government would have it with the provincial governments and offering very little federal leadership, we would not only do a great disservice to our proud tradition in terms of immigration and refugee policies, but we as a country would fail to address some critical shortages in many professions.

One cannot leave the debate without referencing the very significant shortages that exist now and are being projected for the future in terms of doctors and nurses. It would be remiss of us if we did not recognize the need to pool together our resources and our efforts to deal with that shortage.

It does not make any sense for us to operate as 13 separate entities raiding one another to acquire the necessary professions. It does not do anyone a service. It would make more sense if we collaborated and found one way to deal with the shortage that would include recognition of credentials acquired in other countries around which there seem to be many barriers.

If we do not do that we will not only continue a shortage in the health care field, which will have dire consequences for Canadians, but we will also fail to be competitive internationally in terms of immigration. As it is, we are already losing out in terms of a very competitive situation around the world for immigrants. We are not able to compete because we have policies like the one we are dealing with today which sends a signal to some countries that their citizens are not welcome and that their dreams and aspirations will not be attainable in Canada.

If we want to be competitive in terms of seeking and encouraging immigrants and refugees to come to the country, we have to do our part. One of the ways we can do that is by reviewing how we handle recognition of foreign credentials. Is there a bias in our system? Do we apply a double standard? Is there a failure to recognize that sometimes through additional training and education we can actually find a way for people to practise in their chosen profession?

We have not done a complete job. The suggestion today is a good one. Other countries have taken action and the member for Surrey Central has referenced activities in Europe. For the record, we met recently with a delegation from Denmark. That country has put in place a new institution for evaluation of foreign educational qualifications. That is a positive step because it recognized a problem and did something about it.

We have to do the same in our country. It is not good enough to say that we cannot because it is provincial jurisdiction. We have to avoid getting into the sort of jurisdictional dispute over something as fundamental as ensuring that the country continues to be a welcoming place for people from all over the world. That means we have to work very hard at improving recognition of foreign credentials. There is no other alternative.

However we also have to do other things. We are addressing some of these issues in the debate on Bill C-11 pertaining to immigration and refugee policies. We have to look at the whole issue of family reunification because we can be sure that if individuals come to our country and cannot work in their chosen profession immediately, it does not help the matter if they cannot even have family around them or participate fully in our society.

There are many other solutions to the problem. The contribution today is an important one and we should take it seriously. I offer my support in that regard.

Youth Criminal Justice Act

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to thank our justice critic, the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, for the work he has done on this which extends way beyond this parliament.

As hon. members well know, this bill has been introduced and reintroduced. In fact, it goes back to three parliaments ago when it was originally brought in to update the Young Offenders Act, which we know has been a very troubled piece of legislation since its inception. I point out that the Young Offenders Act has gone beyond the life of young offenders. It is 17 years old.

The member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough pointed out on a number of occasions that the present Young Offenders Act does not deserve much of its present reputation. The government could do a number of things to improve the act.

He pointed out that Bill C-7, the youth criminal justice act, from the outset looked very encouraging. It talks about early intervention. It talks about preventive measures on youth who could be embarking on a life of crime. That is of course what we want to prevent. A reversal of one's behaviour can come about only by interventionist activities on the part of professionals that can help steer young people in the right direction. That is very commendable.

However it is the shear complexity of the bill with which most of us have some major concerns. The previous speaker had a copy of the bill in his hands. The physical size of the bill is double the size and the complexity of the existing legislation, the Young Offenders Act.

Quoting from a previous speaker, the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, in remarks made in the House on February 14:

This particular bill in its current form is so complex, so convoluted and cumbersome that were it to be enacted it its current form, the delays, the interpretations, the legal jargon and the manipulations that would result would be astronomical.

He and other members have mentioned the convoluted nature of this piece of legislation. That has been borne out by judges and others who have worked in the youth criminal justice system over the years. A number of opinions have been rendered on that. They simply say that interpretation of the act would be very difficult for some of our most skilled members of the legal profession.

We have other examples of what we should do and how the bill could be reconstructed, but basically the problem we see is that the present government has refused to give to police the tools needed to do their jobs and the proper resources to effectively implement the present act, let alone any new act. The government's failure to address the problem has allowed the Young Offenders Act to become synonymous with the problems involving youth crime in Canada. There is a need to restore public confidence in the system.

As I mentioned earlier, we have had over seven years of delay and numerous promises in regard to the bill. Originally the government, back in the early nineties, introduced it as Bill C-3. That was replaced with Bill C-68 in the last parliament. We are still talking but nothing is happening.

The bill was criticized by all parties, including the Liberal Party, and all youth justice experts around the country. The reasons were that the bill was too long, too complex and too expensive for the provinces to implement. If the provinces do not have the financial resources to implement the bill, what good would it be, despite its good intentions?

As a result of the frustration of members of parliament in the last parliament during committee hearings on the bill, the member for Berthier—Montcalm filibustered for 27 hours in a determined effort to derail this particular bill. The bill to which we are speaking has only minor technical amendments. Experts still think the bill is too long, too expensive and too complicated.

One of the models we often point to is the province of Quebec. Certainly in terms of the treatment of young offenders, it has a lot of which to be proud. Quebec is certainly miles ahead of the rest of the provinces. The bill attempts to reflect that but without giving the provinces the resources to do it. It is going to complicate and exaggerate the differences between a province like Ontario with that of Quebec.

Bill C-7 does not offer any real disincentive for youth criminals. The Liberals say that crime rates are falling and that opposition parties are only fearmongering when speaking about the need to crack down on violent crime in Canada. Last July Statistics Canada announced that crime rates had fallen to their lowest level in 20 years. However, it did not mention youth crime.

The overall decline in crime masks a sharp increase in violent crime and a staggering rise in youth crime. While less serious crimes have petered off, violent crime is actually up by 57% over the last 20 years and violent youth crime is up by over 77% in 10 years. It is quite obvious that this is not fearmongering. It is a real problem when we look at an increase of 77% in 10 years.

I will not end there because the numbers get even more disturbing. Violent crime by young girls has risen 127% since 1988, with most of those statistics coming from categories such as murder and hostage taking. Obviously we have read about stories like that. There was one in the National Post on July 20, 2000, if anyone is interested.

Lack of accountability for the crimes committed by young offenders is no deterrent. Even when young criminals are convicted, they are often given a custodial sentence which can often be served at home. They are sentenced on average to a single month. It is not much wonder that 40% of all young offenders are repeat offenders.

Almost half of the convicted youths between the years 1998-99 were simply placed on probation. Seventy-five per cent of custody sentences were for three months or less, and 90% of those sentences were for six months or less. Only 2% of these convicted offenders got more than a year. We are talking about serious crime, not petty crimes. Only 0.1% of youth crimes made it to adult court between 1998-99. I believe the last point or the numbers are precise. Forty-eight per cent of those convicted had at least one previous conviction.

If we ask frontline police officers if things are getting easier, their answer is absolutely not. They say so called minor youth crimes are not being reported due to an overworked police force that is stretched to deal with too much crime. Too many young offenders are being dealt with through what they call extra judicial measures. They do not become part of the government's statistics. If it is not reported, it did not happen.

Frontline victim groups are upset that under Bill C-7 crimes such as common assault are not considered by the government to be violent in nature. That would not be included in the violent crime statistics, thus helping to further massage the government's statistics to support its theory that violent crime is decreasing.

It is hard to believe that children under 12 years old are committing serious crimes and many of them are not being charged at all. I would like to give the House an example.

On August 23, 2000, Ms. Margaret Moore, an elderly woman in Calgary, was mugged and beaten at noon hour by two young girls aged 11 and 13. The 13 year old faces one charge of robbery and the 11 year old is too young to be charged under the Young Offenders Act. That is an important point to make. It is obviously a flaw in the Young Offenders Act.

Another example is an 11 year old boy walked into an Edmonton bank in broad daylight a few weeks ago and proceeded to rob it. The young boy was wearing a ball cap, sunglasses and carried a knapsack. He handed the teller a note demanding money. Being only 11 years old, the system has no means of dealing with this young offender.

Children under 12 and older youth are expected to be dealt with through provincially administered programs which are supposed to receive 50% of their funding from the federal government. Obviously they do not because every province, including my home province, is complaining about the lack of funds from Ottawa to help in rehabilitation. Under the present government, the provinces have seen their 50% share drop to as little as 30%. This decreased funding equates to children not receiving the services they need and rehabilitation does not occur. That is the key. If we want to look to any part of the country where rehabilitation has worked we would obviously look to the province of Quebec.

Victims of youth crime could give us stories behind these statistics. They could give us stories about the lives that have been taken and the hurt that has been caused. They could give us stories about the victims who have been left behind to fight for recognition from a Liberal justice system which is concerned more with the rights of the young offender than with the pain of the victims and the need to be accountable to the public, which is scared that these young offenders will continue to get off with a slap on the wrist.

There are not many weaknesses in Bill C-7. However, if we are reintroducing or bringing in a new bill, we have to provide the provinces with the tools and resources to implement it. The bill simply puts an impossible burden on the backs of the provinces, especially the poorer ones.

We have a couple of things that could happen.

First, judges could be given more power to impose mandatory treatment or therapy for troubled youth. The key is obviously treatment and therapy.

Second, serious violent crime offences involving young offenders could be automatically transferred to adult courts.

Third, we should enact a parental responsibility act to make the parents of young offenders financially responsible for the criminal acts of their children.

Fourth, we should lower the age of accountability to include violent criminals of all ages. Currently, as we well know, violent offenders below the age of 12 face no punishment for their crimes. At least in cases involving serious crime, the justice system should be able to bring a child under the age of 12 into the youth justice system in the same manner that a young offender can be transferred into the adult system for serious crimes.

Our party, although we risk being accused of this when we speak in such terms, does not intend to incarcerate youths in inhuman or cruel facilities. None of us want that. However we do support mandatory youth access to adult criminal rehabilitation resources and increased accountability for violent youth crime.

Through such services we hope to prevent young adults from continuing a life of anti-social criminal activity. We can make a positive change in the area of law enforcement by making a commitment to action in at least three areas.

First, we should reform the youth criminal justice system.

Second, we should build safe communities through the promotion of anti-violence and by providing adult mentors for our young people, especially our youth at risk.

Third, we should give law enforcement agencies the resources they need to do their jobs.

In the last parliament, as the House is well aware, we put forward a number of amendments. We will do the same in this parliament. We put forth amendments to Bill C-3 and Bill C-68, and we plan to do the same for Bill C-11.

The bill should be scrapped, but Liberal members are obviously unwilling to listen to the public. We hope they will at least take a close look at our amendments which aim at improving this piece of legislation.

Right Of Landing Fee

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today on Motion No. 231 tabled by my colleague from Winnipeg Centre, which reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should eliminate the Right of Landing Fee (ROLF) on all classes of immigrants to Canada.

We all know in this House that Quebec and Canada are the number one destination for many immigrants. Thousands of immigrants choose Canada or Quebec as their adopted country to improve their lives and reach their full potential.

As we know, Quebec and Canada both need immigration to at least maintain their current population. Therefore, the government regularly sets targets regarding the number of immigrants to be received. Last year Canada received 226,837 immigrants and refugees.

For 2001 we should be receiving 200,000 to 225,000 immigrants and refugees and these numbers will increase by 10,000 for 2002.

However these people must pay certain fees which we think limit the possibility of immigrating to Canada and constitute an undisguised form of discrimination for some.

We also think that the right of landing fee, or ROLF, also known as head tax, is an unacceptable constraint.

It is interesting to note that the term head tax comes from a tax imposed on Chinese immigrants by the Canadian government at the end of the 19th century.

Starting in 1880, many Chinese workers took part in the building of the CPR. Once the railroad was built, the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed. Between 1885 and 1923, Chinese immigrants, unlike European immigrants, had to pay quite a substantial head tax to come to Canada. From $50 per person in 1885, the head tax increased to $100 to finally reach the astronomical amount of $500 by 1903.

To say it was a staggering amount of money at that time is an understatement. In fact, it is estimated that by 1923 that awful tax had generated $23 million for the Canadian government, which would translate into about $1 billion nowadays.

The current landing fee of $975 per adult immigrant coming to Canada was set by the current Liberal government in 1995. At the time, the fee applied to both immigrants and refugees. Public outcry prompted the government to stop collecting that fee from refugees in February 2000.

However it still applies to other immigrants who have other expenses to pay when they come to Canada. Besides the landing fee set at $975 per immigrant over 19 years of age, the permanent residence application costs $500 per immigrant over 19 years of age and $100 for anyone younger.

Everyone agrees that this tax is clearly unfair and prohibitive. While the government is raking in surplus after surplus by diverting the surplus of the employment insurance fund, it is still collecting a landing fee from immigrants. Two thousand immigrants at $975 each make for a lot of money. It comes to about $200 million a year.

These actions by the government show once again its insensitivity toward the poor in our society. Indeed, many people want to immigrate here but do not necessarily have much money. This tax does not at all take into account the economic resources of individuals or the economic conditions in their country of origin. In the end, the door is wide open but only for those who have the means to pay.

While the federal Liberal government is accumulating surplus upon surplus, Quebec is welcoming some 12,000 refugees annually. The slowness in the processing of claims by the federal government results in staggering costs for Quebec. It is estimated that it costs about $100 million annually to take charge of people waiting for a ruling by the Immigration and Refugee Board and the federal government will not consider reimbursing Quebec for these costs. It is too poor. Clearly, the only reason for this landing fee is to put money in the federal treasury.

Another worrisome thing about this tax is that it is an impediment to what the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration considers one of her priorities: the reunification of families.

We know that many immigrants are not necessarily rolling in money. For those who apply to sponsor a member of their family, this tax is a major obstacle.

It is clear that Bill C-11, which is now before the committee, would allow us to examine this tax and the government's real objectives. It is essential that the federal government significantly lower this tax or, better yet, abolish it.

[Mark Assad, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak on Motion No. 231 from the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre on the right of landing fee.

This past week the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration introduced Bill C-11 in the House. The bill does not change the right of landing fee provisions and the reasons are rather simple. It is meeting the legitimate policy goal that the government has set for it and other fees for a range of federal services. There is no meaningful evidence that it has harmed Canada's ability to attract immigrants. Moreover when it comes to questions of how best to use money for our immigration program, dropping this fee is far less important than putting funds into better and faster processing.

First, let us be clear on what we are talking about and where this fee comes from. Back in 1995 the government made a series of important decisions that were necessary to get Canada's public finances back into shape. One of the most fundamental was that we decided that we needed to do more so that people who clearly and directly benefit from programs and services pay a portion of the costs associated with those services.

That is how the right of landing fee was introduced and set at the reasonable rate of $975. It was decided that fee would be paid by newcomers to Canada aged 19 and over.

It is charged to people coming to this country as qualified workers, entrepreneurs, business people, investors or members of the family class, regardless of the country of origin and the province of destination. If for some reason someone who paid the required fee does not get permanent residency in Canada, that amount is reimbursed.

The government decided to introduce the fee because the direct beneficiaries of immigration are those who come to Canada themselves. These people benefit from efficient immigration programs and services. They certainly benefit from the opportunity to prosper in Canada.

In the early 1990s, the immigration program was subjected to the same budget cuts as the whole of government. Then, in the consultations the government undertook in 1994 about what improvements should be made to immigration, it asked Canadians what they thought about the idea of introducing a fee that would help support immigration programs and services. According to a poll conducted on the subject in 1996, at least 72% of the respondents were of the opinion that this was a good idea and that the amount was reasonable.

The government examined the costs of providing these services and came to the conclusion that an amount of $975 was fair and reasonable. Therefore, in the 1995 budget the Minister of Finance announced the creation of the right of landing fees. Under this initiative, a loan program was introduced to help those who were unable to pay the fees immediately but could repay it later.

I believe that was a very important element. It was not considered as a burden for the newcomers. They could take their time to pay back this amount, as they were now living in a much more prosperous country than the one they had left.

For example, not everyone gets admitted, while others decide not to continue their application for different reasons. Citizenship and Immigration Canada had to manage a substantial refund process. It had to work with fluctuating currency rates and similar difficulties. From April 1997 we allowed clients to pay the fee at any time up until they received their visa. That has made financial arrangements simpler for everyone concerned.

The second major change came in the 2000 budget. That was when the government lifted the right of landing fee requirement from refugees. Effective February 28, 2000, the government recognized that these people have faced enormous difficulties and hardships. It knew that lifting the fee would help their resettlement and yet mean just a reduction of about $15 million a year in revenue from the fee.

The member for Winnipeg Centre thinks we should go further. He wants Canadian taxpayers to pick up the whole tab for services to immigrants. He would be happier to take away the $131 million a year from settlement programming to implement his proposal. He is quite happy to see the people who directly benefit from these services, most of whom are skilled workers, entrepreneurs or business immigrants, not paying any kind of fee.

Obviously we cannot agree. The facts tell us there is no compelling argument to change a system that works. Has the right of landing fee reduced Canada's attractiveness to potential immigrants? Far from it. There is no evidence that the fee has had any impact on application levels at all. If anything, the application levels are rising. There is no evidence that potential applicants are ignoring Canada as a possible destination in favour of places that might have lower fees.

Let us recognize that there are many fees being charged by other major immigrant receiving countries, much higher than those in Canada.

The Canadian public still strongly supports these fees, which ensure that those who benefit from a very important service help to pay part of the costs involved.

If we decide to eliminate an entire source of revenue in one area, there are in fact only two options left if we do not want to modify the general financial balance. We can compensate by digging a little further in somebody else's pockets, or we can reduce the services that this revenue is supposed to support.

During the consultations on immigration carried out recently by the government, the following question was asked: “If we had more money for immigration, what would you like to be done?”

Three suggestions came out: to reduce or eliminate the landing fee; to direct spending on faster processing of the immigration applications submitted by the men, women and children who want to settle in Canada; or to sustain higher levels of immigration.

The top priority by far was to accelerate the processing of the immigration applications, which speaks for itself.

As members of parliament, most of us hear complaints from constituents and can see just how long it can take sometimes to process an application.

We know that the people on the front line of our immigration system work real hard but there are often delays due to the background checks, health information and security assessments that are required. It is not surprising that reducing processing delays is a top priority. In fact, the delays are mainly due to the great number of applications. Those who travel around the world know that Canada is the best country in which to live.

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has said that the new bill and some associated changes will lead to the system working better. Of that we are convinced.

Several client service improvements are already being tested. This will lead to faster processing and is entirely consistent with what the minister has learned from Canadians, including people who deal with immigration issues on a daily basis, like most of the members in the House.

Quite simply, there is no reason to accept this motion. Let me summarize some of the reasons. The right of landing fee applies to people who receive the direct benefit of immigration to Canada. That in itself is a tremendous benefit.

It does not apply to refugees who come from badly stricken areas of the world. It has no impact on immigration levels, far from it, and where necessary people can take out loans to cover the immediate cost of the fees, loans that are repaid. Canadians agree strongly with the principle of ensuring that immigrants pay at least some of the direct costs of their programs and services.

Finally, people have recognized that we would gain far more important impacts and benefits from any new money for immigration by putting it into a faster processing system.

I know this has been a concern for many people, but I would like to point out that in the last few years we have seen people coming to Canada under incredible conditions, in the bilge of boats. We know that real criminals brought these people here by boat. These people paid $8,000, $10,000 or $15,000 to come here under extremely terrible conditions. This shows that $975 is very little compared to these amounts.

Immigration And Refugee Protection Act

[The Speaker]

Pursuant to order made earlier this day, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the second reading stage of Bill C-11.

Business Of The House

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If you seek it, I believe you would find unanimous consent that the vote on Bill C-11, deferred earlier this day until the end of government orders tomorrow, instead be considered at the end of government orders today.

Immigration And Refugee Protection Act

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will start by congratulating you on your appointment to the chair. It is a real honour for me to be able to speak to this piece of legislation, Bill C-11.

I will first talk about what Canadians want from an immigration system. Second, I will address what they do not want. Then I will go through the legislation and point out 28 different areas that must be focused on and seriously looked at, at committee level. Those areas must be examined and in many cases modified through amendments to make the legislation something which serves what Canadians want and helps prevent what they do not want.

What do Canadians want? They want a system that works first for economic and independent immigrants. The current system clearly does not work well. Any one of us as members of parliament could point to individual cases and lots of them. In each constituency across the country there are hundreds of cases where the system has failed people and where it has taken them too long to work their way through it. The result has not made sense. These are not isolated cases. They are very common.

Our system in the past worked extremely well. I think about my constituency. I think about the immigrants who developed the area of Lakeland constituency. In the latter part of the 19th century immigration to Canada began with immigrants from Britain and then expanded to include Germany and almost every country in western Europe.

In the late part of the 19th century we had a Lebanese settlement which is still prominent in Lac La Biche and in parts of our constituency. They are a well established part of the community. They have helped build the community. In the late 19th century and in two other instances, after the first world war and the second world war, we had Ukrainian immigration from eastern Europe.

These immigrants have built our country. I think we all recognize this point. Every member of parliament could point to his or her constituency and to how immigration has worked in the past.

Why do we not learn from what has happened and what has worked in the past so that we can build a system that will work better in the future? That is what Canadians want in terms of independent categories.

Canadians also want a system which will reunite families quickly. When families are separated, either because family members have come as refugee claimants or have come under the independent categories, Canadians want a system which will reunite families quickly.

Again, every member of parliament in his or her constituency can point to dozens of situations where a member of a family came to the country and where a spouse or dependent children have not been allowed to come. The process has taken months and even years in many cases.

I can point to situations in my own constituency where husbands and wives have been waiting to be reunited for more than three years. Canadians want a system which will allow that to happen much more quickly and in a fashion that is expected from a well developed country like Canada.

Canadians also want a system which will accept genuine refugees. There is no doubt that Canadians support accepting genuine refugees. I have heard nothing but support for that from people from across the country. They want it right now. They know our system is failing genuine refugees.

For example, fewer than 5,000 of the 23,000 refugees that we accept each year are actually chosen from camps overseas where they have been designated as refugees by the United Nations. We bring in fewer than 5,000 of those people a year, and most of the people we bring in are not actually from camps. They are brought in from overseas, but they have been rejected by the system in another country. Very few actually come in from camps each year. Canadians want the system to focus on genuine refugees, and it is not doing that.

Canadians do not want a system which would allow abuse of our immigration system. Canadians do not want that. They do not want queue jumpers abusing the goodwill of our country and pushing aside others who would go through the system properly. That happens all too often. We all know that and I do not think there is any real doubt about it.

Canadians do not want people, who are not genuine refugees and who have been rejected by the system, to be allowed to stay in our country. Yet that happens. While our official acceptance rate for refugees is something like 50%, which is many times higher than the rate of most other countries, only 15% of all people who come to Canada claiming to be refugees are ever known to leave the country. That is what makes Canadians angry about our system and about the way the government allowed our system to fail. That is what Canadians do not want.

I want to read into the record the Canadian Alliance policy on immigration. The Canadian Alliance is a new political party. We are only slightly over a year old, so we do not have policy that is completely fleshed out in a lot of areas. There is a lot of work to be done. We are looking forward to our convention about a year from now where we will have a lot of policy fleshed out in a lot more detail.

Here is exactly what the Canadian Alliance policy book says about immigration. I am proud of it and I want Canadians to know about it. I do not want the misinterpretations and the false statements made by members of other political parties, by the media or anyone else to be allowed to stand, because they should not stand. Here is our policy:

We see Canada as a land built by immigrants and will continue to welcome new immigrants. We support sponsorship for immediate family members. Our immigration policy will take into account Canada's economic needs and we will introduce greater fairness and security into the system, including enforcement of sponsorship obligations. We will work co-operatively with the provinces on the settlement of immigrants.

We want to protect the integrity of the valuable contribution made to the fabric of Canada by millions of law abiding immigrants. We will not allow their good reputation to be jeopardized by non-citizens who engage in criminal activity and will speedily deport such individuals once their sentence has been served.

We affirm Canada's humanitarian obligation to welcome genuine refugees and are proud that our country has provided a safe haven for distressed people from across the world. To ensure fairness and end queue jumping, we will immediately deport bogus refugees and other illegal entrants, and will severely penalize those who organize abuse of the system.

That refers to people smugglers, people traffickers and that kind of thing. It continues:

We will ensure that refugee status is arbitrated expeditiously, consistently and professionally. We will end the abuse of refugee claims as a fast track to gain the benefits of landed immigrant status.

That is the Canadian Alliance policy on immigration, and I am proud of it. This policy came from the membership and all our members support it. I think we had the support of roughly three million Canadians in the last election. I am not sure of the numbers but 25% of all Canadians supported us in the last election. I think every one of them would be proud of our immigration policy. It is something we should all be proud of and I do take pride in it.

I will now get a little more specific. There are 28 areas of the bill that I believe require careful scrutiny by the committee. Now 28 is a large number, and every one of them is important, but I have only targeted the ones that I feel are important. As my time allows, I will quickly go through and point out the areas that must be carefully scrutinized by the committee. The committee must also have expert witnesses come in to present their views. This information will be valuable to make the legislation better.

First, the objective section of the bill, which is at the very beginning, says, in general terms, that what the immigration act is based on is new. That is one of the things that is new about the legislation. It is important that it is carefully discussed and scrutinized by the committee.

Some of the aspects of the new bill concern some very specific areas while other areas are very general and cover many different clauses of the bill. I wanted people to understand that as they are listening to these comments.

Second, I will deal with charter considerations. Clause 33(d), without much doubt, seems to be offering Canadian charter protection to non-citizens. No other country in the world does that. People who are not Canadian citizens and who do not even live in our country would be granted protection under our charter. How could a country do that? That protection is in the bill and it needs to be carefully scrutinized and changed as required. I encourage the committee to look at that.

A third very broad aspect of the legislation deals with what is actually in the legislation and what is left to regulation. A regulation can be changed by a minister or by department officials who tell the minister to change it. It can also be changed through order in council at any time without ever passing through the House.

This piece of legislation is very general and leaves far too much to regulation. There would be a void of accountability resulting from the legislation. That will become very obvious as I move ahead in my comments.

The fourth general area is the federal-provincial agreements and the consultations with the provinces. The agreements are referred to in the bill but there are no assurances that the provinces will have to go along with what the federal government proposes and what is put forth in regulation. The government only says that it will listen to the provinces on these issues. It will not necessarily demand the approval of the provinces. I think that is a concern. When we have an issue such as this, which has such a profound and direct impact on each province, the provinces should have a real say in what is in the immigration law.

The fifth point is the whole area of economic immigration which is the backbone of our immigration system. The independent categories of immigration consist of people who can very quickly add to our economy and make our country a stronger and better place to live. It is the guiding principle in the selection process that I will refer to first.

I find it of great concern that the single most important and a valuable component of Canadian immigration, the economic category, is only dealt with by a single sentence in the bill. It is hard to believe that there is only one sentence.

The single sentence in clause 12(1) would be the guiding principle on which countless regulations would be developed. The law in fact would be created through regulation. It is not in the bill. This is a real concern to me. How can we hold departmental officials, the minister and the cabinet accountable if there is no assurance that changes will be made by passing them through parliament?

I fully understand and accept that certain aspects of any legislation have to be left to regulation, but the balance in this legislation is way out of line.

The sixth area deals with the attempts made to streamline the immigration process. I have listened to new immigrants from one end of the country to the other, particularly from the greater Toronto area. Half of all immigrants settle in the greater Toronto area.

I actually set up a task force there over the past few years and had input from hundreds of new immigrants. Having listened to them, I found there was a recurring theme. People said that immigrating to Canada takes a painfully long time; the system does not work well; it is bureaucratic; and the people they deal with just do not seem to care. These were common sentiments. I am sure every member has heard these sentiments from people they have met or helped who had gone through the system.

The bill does not address in any way the effectiveness of the immigration department. It places no legislative requirement for setting or meeting stated immigration goals. How do we know whether we are succeeding if we do not have the goals clearly laid out in the legislation? It is not here and I think that certainly creates a real problem.

Guiding principles on family class immigration is the seventh point. The bill is excessively vague on who could be considered family. Only clause 12 actually defines family. The details are left to regulation through clause 14. That is the fact of the bill. As with the economic class, there are a few guiding principles regarding the family, which are laid out pretty much in one sentence in the legislation. Subsequently everything else would be left to the interpretation of the bureaucrats, the minister and the cabinet of the day.

Relying on regulation to guide Canada's immigration policy has failed thus far. It has failed Canadians and the people applying to come to our country alike. We must change the system so that we have clear principles laid out in the legislation which define the family, and I would encourage the committee to ensure that happens.

The eighth point is family class immigration reunification. It is important and goes along with defining a family and family reunification. It is important to determine whether a situation is actually a case of family reunification. If grandparents are brought to Canada, for example, when the majority of the family still lives in the country of origin or in another country, is it family reunification to bring the grandparents over to live with one child in Canada? That question has to be examined very carefully. It will be important for the committee to look at it and determine that.

The ninth point is a more narrow one. It is the issue of the common law spouse provision. In keeping with the first draft of the bill, Bill C-23, and this is the third draft, the minister has included a provision to define a family member as a common law spouse. This raises more questions than it answers.

Presently the immigration department has a very difficult time verifying a legitimate marriage. The department cannot deal with the huge problem of verifying whether a marriage is a marriage of convenience to accommodate immigration or whether it is a genuine marriage. How on earth would we deal with that when we allow a common law marriage to be used under the bill? It is an administrative impossibility and an administrative nightmare.

The tenth point is the authorization to enter and remain in Canada, the dual intent as it is laid out in the bill or the in Canada landing class. The legislation outlines a provision which would allow for that depending on the regulation. We do not know how wide or narrow it might be. It would allow a foreign national to enter Canada with the dual intent of visiting and then immigrating later.

Furthermore, the same section of the bill would create an in Canada landing class. This was taken out several years back because when it was in place it created a nightmare. It is exactly the same as it was 15 or 20 years ago in the old Immigration Act. The last major situation was created about 11 years ago in 1990. This exact situation led to a mass amnesty for anyone who came into the country illegally by the immigration department. These amnesties have not served us well. We are letting everyone in those situations, no matter what their background and without scrutiny, come into the country. This change would lead to the need for another amnesty.

I have only dealt with 10 out of 23, but I know I will have a chance to deal with the legislation in the future. I will close with a 30 second comment which has to do with the suitability of the current immigration minister to remain as minister.

She made comments about three million or more Canadians who supported the Canadian Alliance. She referred to Canadian Alliance members as racists, bigots and Holocaust deniers. I question whether that person has any right to remain as a minister of the crown, particularly the minister of immigration. I want her fired. I expect nothing less.

[Randy White, Canadian Alliance, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-11. Earlier in the debate one of the members from the government side asked for specifics. I am here to provide some. My riding is one of the areas with the highest rates of immigration. I have helped many individuals get into the country

I will not speak to that aspect today. I will speak to how the refugee system has failed us and how criminals take advantage of it. I will also talk about what can be done in legislation to fix the situation.

I have already heard from members opposite that these kinds of things have to get fixed, but in all fairness I do not think the government is headed toward fixing this problem. I also do not think it has the desire to do so. I will point out several specific cases with regard to that.

I wish to congratulate you on your appointment to the chair, Madam Speaker. I will go back a ways on immigration and talk about how criminals abuse the system. I choose to talk about criminals because I spent a lot of time as justice critic and now as solicitor general critic on these kinds of issues. I seem to be one of the few who is fighting them. I have spent many hundreds of hours fighting these kinds of cases on behalf of victims. Each and every time I have been involved in them, I have been asked to intervene on behalf of the victims.

I refer to an article that appeared in a trade magazine printed in Central America, the United States and Mexico. I raise this because it emphasizes in my mind how other countries think of us. The following paid ad appeared in the magazine: “Guaranteed immigration to Canada with the purchase of a Fleet Rent-a-Car franchise. Total investment of $50,000 Canadian, approximately $30,000 U.S. You are guaranteed”, and the word guaranteed is underlined, “immigration to Canada even with a criminal record”.

I pursued the particular ad because it gave an address on Bathurst Street in Toronto and a phone number. I had an organization interview these people under the auspices of being from another country and having criminal records. Sure enough, they validated exactly what they said in the ad. They essentially said that they could fix it up for those with a criminal record who wanted to get into Canada. Then they were asked questions about how such people could get into Russia, England, Canada and so on. The most outstanding point was: “Just get your foot on their soil and you are in”. In fact that is true.

I recently spent some time with police in an area well known for its drugs. We stopped and picked up three Hondurans. They were asked for their papers. All three individuals came to Canada illegally. One had been here for 10 months. He had two criminal convictions and one outstanding charge for trafficking. One was here for something like six months. He had an outstanding charge for trafficking. One had just arrived in Canada, I believe under a train car from the United States.

We have a situation where these young men are selling drugs to our kids, sending the money back home and not being deported. Therein lies part of the problem with our refugee system. I will go through the reasons it has to be fixed. I have no illusions about it. I have spoken to these issues time and time again in the House and they do not get fixed. I am putting on the record today that the problem still exists and I do not think the propensity is on the other side to deal with it.

A fellow from Cuba came into our country a very short time ago. I was asked by parents to look into the situation because they had an underage child. I should say that the child used to be underage but both the Conservative and Liberal governments took it upon themselves at one time to change the age of consensual sex from 16 years to 14 years. This child, who is now legally able to have consensual sex is 15 years old and the fellow who is dealing is 32. The parents asked me to intervene, so I did.

We are not sure how he got into the country. Nobody was ever really sure. Once he found out that I was on the job on this particular issue, I knew what would happen. He was advised to apply for refugee status. Word gets out pretty fast to apply for refugee status and get into this morass that lasts forever and keeps a person in this country, so first of all I applied as an intervener at the refugee hearing.

He, at his discretion, tried to keep me out of the refugee hearing. I had to apply to the refugee board to get into the refugee hearing. I had to fight that battle. I won that. It is preposterous that a Canadian citizen cannot sit in a refugee hearing at his or her own discretion and that an individual applying for refugee status in Canada, regardless of whether he or she is a criminal or not, has the option to kick out a Canadian citizen. That is just preposterous.

I won the right to be in the hearing. In the refugee hearing, since I was allowed to be there, I was my own intervener. I am not a lawyer. I have only picked up the basics of this through self teaching. In the hearing I was passed a document—from the right source—that identified this fellow as being wanted by the FBI in the United States for trafficking. He was wanted in Nevada and California.

There he had a 15 year old child from Canada, the parents did not want him, we did not want him, he was trafficking and the Americans were after him. We found out that he had been living in the United States for four years, but at his own discretion when the heat was on in the United States he skipped across the border to Canada to say that he was applying for refugee status, solely to avoid the law in the United States, not as an applicant from Cuba, although that is what his application said.

I fought this in the refugee hearing. I asked what we were doing to ourselves and why did we not ship this fellow the next morning over to the States and let him pay his dues, but no. We had more than one refugee hearing. We were to have numerous refugee hearings on this guy. The parents were beside themselves, not quite understanding why it was that Canada was even entertaining a refugee hearing in the first place, much less a refugee hearing on an individual who had been living in the United States for four years.

As time went on we actually won the battle and the refugee board declared that he was not a genuine refugee. After the board did so, I said to the refugee board that the guy had better be put in holding because he was going to jump. No, the board did not want to do that because then his rights would have been violated. So the board told him he was not a refugee and what did he do? We do not know where he is today because he skipped, exactly as I told them he would and exactly the way it has happened countless times when I have fought these issues.

A person has to wonder what bright light comes on at the immigration and refugee hearings such that people will not listen to reason. I recently found out as late as last week that this person has absconded with the young girl. The parents are wondering why we even entertained the refugee hearing in the first place, much less not holding the guy once he was declared deportable.

What is wrong with that philosophy?

Let us turn to more examples. There is a fellow by the name of Chander in my riding. He arrived in 1996 as a visitor from India and quickly got married. He beat up his wife several weeks later, but he was married and figured he was going to stay in Canada. I was asked by his wife to intervene. The moment I intervened, this individual, charged with assault and in Canada basically under false pretences, applied for refugee status.

It is just the common thing to do. I have even heard immigration adjudicators say that if a deportation fails the person can always apply for refugee status. It is used for the wrong reasons by some people.

This individual started to fight. He tried to kick me out of the hearing. I had to fight to make sure I stayed in the hearing. I did that. It was the same thing. It was the same advice they get from all their legal aid lawyers. It was identical.

We fought the case all the way to the refugee board and the board found that no credible or trustworthy evidence was available on which to base a convention refugee claim. I said he had better be kept behind bars because I could tell the board where he was going and that he would not be around on the day he was to be deported. He has gone. We are not sure where he went.

However, there is a little law that says if everything fails on the application and if a person returns to his or her country and comes back here after 90 days, he or she can re-apply.

About six months later I got a call, from Calgary this time, not Abbotsford, British Columbia. Guess who re-applied for refugee status? By luck I found out. Had I not found out, it would have been clear sailing.

So we went through it again. He applied to kick me out of the hearing. He did not want the public involved. He had the right. I fought that and won. We went to the refugee hearing in Calgary, fought there and won a second time. For the second time I advised that if the person was to be deported he should be locked up because he would disappear and he would claim again somewhere, maybe in Halifax next time, who knew? That could not be done because that was against his rights. Today we again do not know where he is. Very likely he has already had another refugee claim that I have not heard about, or he is about to and I may not hear about it.

The system is used and abused.

Get the logic he used. This fellow even claimed that he was a refugee from India—a democratic country yet—because he was being persecuted. He failed in his refugee application, then came back and had the audacity to lie at the second refugee hearing. He said he went to India, stayed a while and came back in. He was asked if he was persecuted there. He was asked why he would go back if he would be persecuted. He did not have an answer.

This is going on every single day, time and time again every day in our country. I cannot believe how preposterous this system is getting. Yet when we stand up here and talk about an immigration act, there is no mention of these difficulties.

In our sorrowful areas where we see a lot of drug use and abuse, on the downtown east side of Vancouver, we have many individuals trafficking in drugs who are non-Canadians. Some of them have not 2 or 3 charges and convictions but 20, 30 and 40. I have the records. They are not deported. They are selling drugs to our children and they are not deported. If we try to deport them they claim refugee status, and the deportation and refugee boards do not talk to each other. One will say that is their business, not ours. Then when they jump over from deportation to refugee board application, the refugee board says yes, that is our business and not theirs. However, it is the business and concern of all of us.

While there are many genuine people coming into the country as immigrants and as refugees, and we are happy for that, there are those who are blatantly abusing the system. It must be dealt with. It cannot be dealt with by tabling legislation and not talking about it. It cannot be dealt with by someone like myself standing up and trying to defend the rights of victims who have been abused while someone else over there is saying I must be a racist because I am talking about the immigration system not working.

I have been asked to speak about these issues on behalf of victims, some who have been raped by some of these individuals. One individual, a friend of mine now, was raped by a man from El Salvador. He was ordered deported. We shipped him out to El Salvador on the condition that she drop the charges. She agreed in order to get him out of the country.

After he was escorted out—we flew him to El Salvador—she was getting gas for her car in my community six months later and guess who was gassing up beside her? The very guy who raped her, who we shipped out. Do members know what he did? To avoid being deported again, he stood up with his legal aid lawyers, two of them this time, and said he was a refugee. We went through the whole process for two years. For two long years this girl went through this. He was one of those individuals, by the way, who refuse to take a test for HIV; that is her problem.

If the House wants specifics from the other side, I have them and dozens more stories like this. I am not trying to paint a picture of a terrible, chaotic system. I am telling the government for the umpteenth time in the House of Commons that there are problems that need to be fixed.

Victims are hoping that we in the House of Commons do something about it rather than standing up and saying that all is well, that we want everything to continue on the way it has been with a couple of changes. There are people who need our help.

Criminals in our country and in all other countries see us as a haven. That is not made up. All we have to do is pick up the FBI directory or the CIA documents in the United States. They will tell us that criminals see Canada as a haven, because once they get here they are entitled to the charter of rights and freedoms and they get legal aid if they get into trouble. What is the worst that can happen in Canada? Conditional sentence, suspended sentence, stay of proceedings, charges dropped? Even if they do a couple of years in prison they are seldom deported. We can look at the disgusting track record on that.

A Czechoslovakian sexually assaulted a very good friend of mine in my riding, Joan. Joan is 63 years old. The man served time in prison. It was only after spending three long years with government officials and Corrections Canada that we basically forced them to ship him back to Czechoslovakia. That should not happen.

A person who is a non-citizen and comes into the country has to obey the laws. For goodness' sake, that is all we ask.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-11, which deals with immigration. This is an extremely important topic for the various parties, although differences can be seen in the speeches made so far.

I wish to add my voice to that of our immigration critic, the member for Laval Centre. I will not make the same points she did because, in my view, she gave an excellent speech.

I wish to speak as a member of the subcommittee on human rights. This subcommittee has not yet begun its work, but we are interested in the problem. The House will understand my sensitivity to the issue, particularly the situation faced by refugees.

Refugees are people who have involuntarily left their country because they had no other choice in the circumstances. Often, they do so under rather dramatic conditions. Having read on the topic and followed the newspapers, at least since I became an MP, I am aware of certain problems.

I wish to respond to the comments made by the member who preceded me to the effect that some people are not even able to produce identity papers. In some situations, when refugees leave their country, they do so in a panic.

When they are being pursued, or feel they are being pursued, they are not always in a position to prove their identity or to provide some document or other. Such situations must be given careful consideration. When the person coming after you is armed, you do not always have the time to go home looking for the documents you need.

I am pointing this out because yesterday I was in a meeting where people were describing the difficulties experienced by people currently in Canada who had come as refugees and did not have documentation they needed from their old country in proving their identity.

This is a fairly exceptional situation which should be brought to the attention of the House. Some people have been here for a dozen years or so. They have refugee status, but not the documents to prove it. This means they cannot return to their own country obviously, because they left it after they were persecuted or felt they were. So they cannot go back. They obviously cannot visit family who remained there. Neither can they have members of their family coming from their old country visiting them here. In certain cases, they can simply not travel abroad, even to a country that has no link with their home country.

There is also the loss of the usual entitlements of a citizen of Canada or of Quebec. For instance, they have greater difficulty finding work or obtaining a work permit, as it is very complicated, and they are not entitled to university bursaries and scholarships. The person I referred to and with whom I spoke yesterday was a woman whose children were of university age but, lacking documents and unable to obtain them, did not qualify for student loans or bursaries under the same conditions as any Canadian or Quebecer could.

This is the situation despite the fact that, under the 1951 United Nations Convention on Refugees, countries accepting refugees under these particular conditions must issue documents entitling them to certain rights, restoring their rights, but such is not the case here.

The Prime Minister of Canada often tells us we are living in the best country in the world. I beg to differ, in this connection at least, when this government is not capable of respecting the international convention of the United Nations relating to immigration that has been in place since 1951.

In this House, I have often questioned what point there was to having laws or regulations if they are not applied. In this case, however, what is involved is a treaty, but an international convention. Canada is not applying the rules the convention requires.

I would invite the committee members, including my colleague from Laval Centre, who assured me she would bring up this kind of case, to make sure that Canada respects international treaties. Before passing any new legislation, or while doing so, like this bill, which makes considerable changes to the system, this is something we must take into consideration.

There is a second aspect. I would point out that sometimes, and not this morning, not today, certain people speak of Quebec sovereignists as somewhat xenophobic. I am not saying that I have heard such a thing today. I would, however, like to testify to the fact that Quebecers are very welcoming to refugees. Throughout our history, we have always given a very proper welcome to refugees, including the latest waves.

As proof, yesterday I just happened to read Pierre Bourgault in the Journal de Montréal . He is a staunch and very persuasive separatist and makes no effort to hide the fact. He offered the following thought. If the rules on refugees are too tough, if a closed door attitude is adopted, will western countries such as Canada not in fact see an increase in the numbers of illegal immigrants crossing their borders? People wishing to flee their country would have no choice but to use the services of professionals and professionals means criminal organizations and so forth. The result achieved would be the opposite of the one sought.

As we know, and this is true with any piece of legislation, we must always be on the lookout for the down side. Mr. Bourgault quite rightly pointed out this risk. Furthermore, when we read the backgrounders provided when the minister introduced the bill, we can only be amazed at the hard line she takes. She talks of closing the doors, of making this bill tougher in response to the public perception in certain quarters that Canada is a preferred point of entry for criminals.

I am not questioning whether in fact criminals manage to slip past the IRB and are perhaps already here. In connection with this problem, I think that what are needed are removal provisions in the bill for the cases when this comes to our attention. Clearly, we must not encourage this sort of activity. At the same time, if we put too much emphasis on this aspect of the problem and if we shut the door too much by tightening the rules, we may get the opposite effect and prevent genuine refugees whose lives are threatened because of their political or religious convictions from entering Canada. Or we may prevent people whose rights, as recognized by the Canadian Charter of Human Rights, the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, are violated from entering Canada.

I wish to add my comments to those made by my colleague yesterday. I am concerned about another aspect of the bill. Many people come to my office, to all members' offices, to bring up immigration matters. Perhaps we see only one aspect of the issue, namely the most problematic cases. After close to eight years, I have come to realize that, depending on the cases reviewed by a board member or by any other person, interpretations may differ. I am not saying it is necessarily the case with all those who currently hold these positions, but if one looks at past appointments, one wonders about the need to continue to make such political appointments.

In my view, this is one area that requires a great deal of skill, impartiality and training, because it involves highly judicial and legal issues. In the future, we should make sure that, above all, such appointments are not political ones. I add these remarks to those of my colleague and I am sure that she shares them with me.

The bill should deal with the appointment process. We need a tighter process that would at least give the impression that the system is very impartial, very fair and more effective, particularly in light of the number of claims pending.

For example, I am told that there are 400,000 people in the world who are awaiting a response on whether they will be accepted into Canada. Obviously, this is not just refugees, but the whole spectrum of immigration.

There are extensive delays in obtaining a response. I wonder why Canada—and the bill is still not clear enough in this regard—despite the warning from the UNHCR about imprisoning minors, continues to imprison large numbers of children and teenagers automatically when they are refugees without documents.

We know that there is child labour in a number of countries. Then, when they arrive in Canada, the best country in the world according to the Prime Minister and certain hon. members over there, they face the possible imprisonment as refugees, just because they are minors and because it would appear that we are not fully prepared to take them in, because they lack documents and we lack the staff to examine their files promptly.

Those are the points I wanted to raise. I do not want to extend my speech needlessly. I would like to remind hon. members in conclusion that we are amazed at the hard line attitude taken when this bill was introduced, when it is so important for both Canada and Quebec.

Although the Bloc Quebecois members agree with the principle behind the bill, we feel that Quebec's authority with respect to immigration is not clearly enough defined. This is where we have a problem.

As the House knows, Quebec signed an agreement with the federal government allowing it to select its own immigrants, so-called economic immigrants. At the present time, however, authority for refugees is left entirely to the federal government.

Once again, I repeat, we are very open to cases of this sort, if only out of a sense of humanity. Quebec is very aware of what is going on in certain countries and in certain circumstances. However, the Bloc Quebecois feels that it would be a good idea to spell out Quebec's authority under the immigration agreement.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-11.

I want to preface my remarks by saying that I, like many people in the House, am an immigrant. Back in 1968 my parents moved my brothers and me to Canada. At that time, they had a choice of moving to a number of countries. At great personal sacrifice to them, they chose to move to Canada. They had the option to move to the United States, Australia and a few other countries but they chose Canada because they wanted to give their boys a better future. Indeed it is a debt that I could never repay. Canada has given myself, my family and my brothers a future that could never be surpassed anywhere in the world. It is a debt that I could never repay to this country.

In 1993 I joined the then Reform Party with a view to doing a number of things. One of the things that attracted me to this party was the pragmatic view to improving our immigration system. I think the fact that this caucus has the most ethnically diverse caucus in the House reflects the fact that the now Canadian Alliance strongly supports a strong, effective immigration policy. That is something that perhaps is not widely known because we have been accused of doing something very different.

My party believes very strongly that immigration is one of the pillars of Canada. Waves of immigrants over the years have ensured that Canada is a leader in so many areas. These immigrants have contributed to Canadian society in ways that are countless and too long to articulate in any one speech. It is something from which we all benefit.

Unfortunately over the years our immigration system has declined so that it does not enable Canadians to have the best immigration system they deserve. Indeed it does not enable people who wish to come to the country to have the best opportunities to immigrate to Canada.

We believe in an immigration system that is fair and effective; that enables true refugees to come to the country; that believes in true and rapid family reunification; and that believes in an onus and emphasis upon the independent class of immigrant, the ones that built the country.

That is what I will address in this speech, as my colleagues have done. The member for Dauphin—Swan River has given the government constructive and effective solutions to ensure that Bill C-11 will do all that we ask and what the Canadian public demands.

The first issue I want to deal with is the issue of refugees. The riding of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca had the refugees who came over from fujian province a summer ago. It was a big issue for all of us.

Here are some ways that we could improve the system. The first one is to try to differentiate between true and false refugees at source. Individuals who come to the country, and indeed most of the people who are false refugees, actually come by plane and through our airports.

It is estimated that we have about 30,000 false refugees. They are economic refugees, and frankly who would blame them? Many of us would do the same if we were in their shoes. However, it is our responsibility to differentiate between true and false refugees. One thing we could do is to ensure that it is up to the people who are claiming refugee status to produce their identification. Rapid identification at entrance to Canada is important.

The bill provides for a 90 day hearing in the IRB. That is too long. People deserve a rapid hearing and a rapid identification and determination to assess whether or not they are true or false refugees.

Another issue is the independent class of refugees. We need to put a greater emphasis on it. A little while ago I was looking at the list of professions required by Canada. It was shocking that it has not been updated in a long time. One profession that is glaringly absent is nursing. Nurses are not on the list, yet our country is faced with a crisis in nursing. We need to update that list of professions and skills required to build what the minister wants and what we all want: an effective skills set within our economy.

Refugees should be assessed for that in an effective way and those people should be expedited to come to the country. Let us update the skills set to make sure it is equal to the needs of our country. It has not been done for a very long time. I hope the parliamentary secretary takes that back to the minister. It is wanted on the ground. It is wanted in the country. It should be done as soon as possible so that we will have a better immigration system.

On the issue of charter of rights, when people come to the country they are protected by our charter of rights. They have the same protection as Canadian citizens. No other country in the world allows that to happen. We should protect all individuals who come to the country under the same basic norms that protect all citizens of the world, the norms of human rights guaranteed under the UN charter. Those basic norms of human rights should be provided for everyone in the country, particularly so for individuals who are immigrating to Canada.

Human smuggling is an international problem. It is linked with international crime gangs. These people are criminals and we are very happy that the minister put extra penalties in the bill. There are $1 million in penalties to individuals who are profiting from the human misery that goes with human smuggling. The people who are engaged in this activity are organized criminals. They are profiting from human misery. We need to work with our partners on this matter.

I have a suggestion for the government. The summit of the Americas is taking place from April 20 to April 22 in Quebec City. Since this problem is an international problem, it should be placed on the floor of the summit. Let us have a transhemispheric approach to the trafficking of human refugees. Let us work with our partners, work with international legal offices such as Interpol, and use the CSIS and the RCMP. Let us work with other nations so we can block this at source. It will require a multinational approach to deal with these individuals. It should be raised at the summit of the Americas. It is a good start to expand into other countries.

My colleague from the NDP asked a very good question on the issue of dealing with a lot of the economic refugees. Economic refugees would not be coming to our country if they had strong, stable economies where they live.

I just returned from Colombia with the secretary of state, who did an excellent job there representing Canada on the issue of tariffs and the issue of freer trade. It is extraordinary that we claim we want to improve the situation in many of these countries abroad, and yet we engage in tariffs and blocks to the ability of those countries to provide for themselves. We block their ability to have a strong economy, and yet we claim we want one.

If we were honest about trying to improve the situation in impoverished developing countries, we would eliminate barriers to trade for them as well as for us. We would eliminate the tariffs. We would provide for freer trade. We would eliminate double taxation laws which say that if a company wants to invest in another country it is not only taxed in its country of origin but also taxed in the country it works in.

That is absurd. That should not be allowed. If we removed these obstacles to economic trade we would have fewer economic refugees. Then developing countries would be able to improve their lot at home and require less trade and less emigration from their countries. They would be able to provide for themselves and develop a strong economy, which would provide for regional and international security, if they are allowed to do it.

At the summit of the Americas from April 20 to April 22 let us show some leadership. Let Canada bring this issue to the floor of the summit. Let us talk about freer trade. Let us talk about a transhemispheric free trade zone. Let us remove those barriers to trade and let us enable these countries to stand on their own feet. That is the best thing we could do for decreasing economic refugees that wish to come to our country.

Governance and corruption are issues of an international nature. We have to work with our partners in dealing with issues of corruption. My colleague from Alberta is doing innovative groundwork on dealing with corruption. He is working internationally, as well as with members of the government and other parties, on putting together an integrated plan on dealing with international corruption. We could be leaders in governance and anti-corruption laws, which would help to improve economic security and global security for everybody.

On the issue of CIDA and development, we should be focusing on primary health and education in developing countries as well as placing a greater emphasis on microcredit, small loans that enable individual people and small groups to get up on their own feet to provide the commerce which provides security in impoverished areas.

My colleagues have raised the issue of criminals time and time again. Why should criminals be allowed into the country? Recently we have heard repeatedly of criminals who have come through our borders because of our complete and utter lack of ability to secure our borders and to differentiate and identify them from those who are true refugees. We are not working with Interpol. There is a lack of communication among CSIS, the RCMP and Interpol. As a result individuals who are criminals are allowed to come into our country.

The United States has legitimately criticized Canada for not being able to secure its borders in this fashion. As a result many of those people have gone to the U.S. It is telling Canada to get its act in order, to secure its borders, and we will all benefit.

When individuals who are wanted by Interpol are found at our border we should arrest them, put them in jail and send them back to their country of origin where they can engage in a fair trial. Canada must not and cannot become a haven for criminals, which is what has been happening.

On the issue of health testing, the list of diseases that we test for is 40 years old. It is the responsibility of the department to secure the health and welfare of all Canadians and people who wish to come to Canada.

Immigrants and Canadian citizens do not want diseases to run through our country. Let us make sure that people who wish to come to our country are tested at their country of origin and that we upgrade the list of diseases.

I also bring to the attention of the government another issue which was raised before, the issue of listening to the hard working people in the department. They are a wealth of information. They are the ones in the trenches who bear the brunt and interface with the people who want to come into Canada. They deal with the wishes, desires and the laws of Canada. They are getting it from both sides. They are finding it very difficult. The good side is that they are a wealth of constructive information.

This issue has been raised in the House before, but I ask the secretary of state and the minister to listen to those employees. They should not listen only to the many qualified ambassadors but should listen in an unthreatening environment to embassy staff who have to deal with these problems.

They have great ideas on simplifying the system. They can provide information in a secure fashion to individuals who want to know how they can immigrate to Canada. This is basic information. I know there are some very good reasons it is not provided, but by not providing it a great deal of work is created for many MP offices across the country.

This is avoidable by simplifying the system to ensure that we are listening to our people on the ground. The minister could have an anonymous suggestion box. It could be sent directly to the minister's office through normal diplomatic channels. In that way effective simple solutions could be put forth that would enable us to have a more effective immigration system. This would certainly make our lives easier as MPs and make the work of hard working staff a lot easier.

Canada is a land of opportunity. We have an obligation to work with our partners to ensure that we have an effective immigration system which puts a greater emphasis on the independent class of immigrants so that we have a true refugee system. This would also enable us to have a system that is fair to all.

One issue we are continually confronted with that I think is grossly unfair to people who immigrate to Canada is the period of time they cannot work. Why do we not allow people who are immigrating to Canada to work when they get on our shores? The best social program we could ever have for anyone is a job. These people want to work. They want to work hard. They want to contribute to the country they wish to be a part of. Let them apply. Let them work.

If we were keen on dealing with true refugees we would seek them out through sources such as Amnesty International and others that provide effective and accurate information on people who are truly persecuted and are in danger and wish to live their countries of origin. We could do the humanitarian thing by providing a safe haven for them in Canada. We could seek out those individuals and provide them a home under our refugee banner. If we do that, we will be saving lives.

We could also become an effective tool in improving the lot of countries. I address issues such as tariffs and free trade. We also need to deal with the World Trade Organization. Many individuals and groups complain and vehemently oppose the WTO. It is interesting to listen to what they are saying. Many individuals who are opposed to the talks in Seattle, the Davos talks that occurred and many others, are the ones who are complaining about the people who are trying to do exactly what they want. They are the ones who are talking about environmental protection. They are talking about safe standards for workers. They are talking about labour codes. They are talking about improving the lot of individuals in developing countries. However part of the reason we are seeing a lot of individuals complaining is that there is a lack of communication and transparency.

Just a few days ago in committee we spoke about this with a group from the Bundestag, the German elected house. It asked us why people were complaining about the WTO and other organizations. It wanted to know if free trade was that bad. No, free trade and fair trade is good. The problem is that we do not have a transparent process.

My party supported a movement by the Bloc that would have ensured that free trade agreements would come to the House for a transparent and public analysis of what was in these agreements. I will go further than that. I suggest that the government could do a lot to dispel and decrease opposition to its efforts to improve free trade, which the Canadian Alliance supports. It could ensure that discussions, which have taken place behind closed doors, become publicly known. It could bring those people who are complaining about the free trade agreement into the decision making process. It could listen to what they were saying and act on it. The government could make its position in these talks public.

If we make what we do public and transparent we will have far fewer complaints. At the end of the day many of the people who are complaining will know that the people who are meeting behind closed doors at the WTO, the MAI and in the Davos talks are actually trying to pursue a common agenda.

In closing, I hope that the government listens to the constructive suggestions that have been put forth by members across political parties, that it listens to its own members and acts. The bill is not good enough. There have been constructive solutions put forward to build a strong, effective immigration policy for all Canadians.

[Paul Forseth, Canadian Alliance, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government is bringing Bill C-11 before us for debate. Its title states that it is “an act respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger”. This bill would replace the existing immigration act. The minister claims that the bill would provide clearer legislation to ensure that Canada's immigration and refugee protection system is able to respond to international challenges.

The government's handling of immigration has not developed a lot of confidence in our country. If we listen to talk in the local coffee shop or on open line radio, the national mood is clear: the government does not have a great administrative reputation. It seems the Liberals cannot administer a system that has the confidence of average Canadians, especially when we think of fairness, adequate protections or a system that is well run. Nevertheless, I am pleased that the government seems to be trying to improve things with this bill.

The government claims some rather lofty things in regard to the bill. The minister says that the bill provides for objectives that reflect the values of Canadian society. That is a big one to swallow.

The next claim is that there will be effective reporting to parliament through a complete consolidated annual report. There will also be agreements that facilitate co-operation with the provinces and foreign states.

The bill outlines a description of the major classes of foreign nationals: economic class, family class, convention refugees and persons in similar circumstances. There is a recognition of Canada's commitment to the principle of the best interests of the child.

There is an attempt at a clear, objective residency requirement for permanent residents.

There is the objective of a strong refugee protection program that incorporates the protection grounds of the Geneva convention, the convention against torture and the grounds of risk to life or of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

There is talk of a more efficient refugee determination process through greater use of single member panels. Additionally, a refugee appeal division within the immigration and refugee board is described, to enhance fairness and consistency in decision making.

There are supposed to be tightened ineligibility provisions for serious criminals, security threats and repeat claimants who seek access to the refugee protection process of the immigration and refugee board.

There is a formalization of a pre-removal risk assessment to review changed circumstances related to risk of return.

The bill also outlines inadmissibility provisions for criminals, persons who constitute security threats, violators of human rights, and persons who should not be allowed into Canada because of fraud, misrepresentation, financial reasons or health concerns. The bill attempts a clear detention criterion with authority to further clarify detention grounds in regulations. There are also enhanced procedures for dealing with security threats through admissibility hearings and the security certificate process.

There are offences for human smuggling and trafficking, with a maximum penalty of life in prison. There are penalties for assisting in obtaining immigration status by fraud or misrepresentation. There is also an immigration appeal system that is supposed to enhance effectiveness while maintaining fairness and legal safeguards.

These are all big claims. Unfortunately, the House has heard those things before from the government and in past parliaments. However, here we are again, trying to improve the legislative base for a system that has a poor reputation across the country.

Indeed, we must try to do better as a nation. We have some suggestions for how the bill can be improved, for we come at this problem from a principled base. The Canadian Alliance affirms that it supports genuine refugees and immigration where it is a positive source for economic growth. We in the Canadian Alliance see Canada as a land built by immigrants and we will continue to welcome new immigrants.

We support sponsorship for immediate family members. Our immigration policy takes into account Canada's economic needs. We have promised to introduce greater fairness and security into the system, including enforcement of sponsorship obligations.

We are on record to work co-operatively with the provinces on the settlement of immigrants. We also want to protect the integrity of the valuable contribution made to the fabric of Canada by millions of law abiding immigrants.

Therefore, greater attention must be paid to realistic, enforceable processes so the average immigrant's good reputation will not be jeopardized by non-citizens who engage in criminal activity. We are committed to solving the legal and logistical problems to speedily deport offenders and perpetrators of fraud.

We affirm Canada's humanitarian obligation to welcome genuine refugees and are proud that our country has offered a safe haven for distressed people from across the world. However, to ensure fairness and end queue jumping, we have been saying for a long time that Canada must do better at deporting bogus refugees and other illegal entrants and there must be enhanced deterrent penalties for those who organize abuse of the system.

We would also ensure that refugee status is arbitrated expeditiously, consistently and professionally. That requires an improved legal base and sufficient resources. We are committed to ending the abuse of refugee claims as a fast track to gaining the benefits of landed immigrant status.

Canada needs a system in which we can all have confidence. That will only happen when there is a good legislative base for wise administration, one that is thoroughly professional rather than political.

Bill C-11 claims to make these things more efficient, reduce lineups and provide more security, both for residents of Canada and for immigrants. However, without a more accountable system and a far more communicative department, none of this will ever be a reality.

For example, there are no real measurable and accountable standards for the operation of our overseas offices. The standard health tests need to be updated and the credibility of reports needs to be thoroughly background checked. Visa officers need better training in order to be equipped to spot fraudulent applications and criminals and also themselves in regard to being beyond local corruption.

The overwhelming fact of the department is the lack of staff to operate at a functional level. Perhaps a full departmental audit is needed for classification structure, employee supervision and promotion and the appropriateness of overall staffing levels.

The Canadian Alliance is supportive of current immigration levels, but we would like to see immigrants more fully in the careers they were trained to do in their countries of origin. Medical doctors should not be driving taxicabs to make a living in Canada.

We would like to see Canada attract the best and the brightest, not just those who show up at Canada's door. Can we not change general operations from being reactive to becoming more proactive?

We support the expedient reunification of family members. We support and reaffirm our policy of taking in our fair share of genuine refugees. We would work with the provinces for policies on the settlement of immigrants, whereby settlement money should follow the person rather than government.

The Canadian Alliance supports deportation of undesirable individuals without delay in the cases of criminal activity and non-compliance with the Immigration Act. Bill C-11 purports to do this, but the recent supreme court decision complicates Canada's immigration defences. There is no indication in this legislation to deal with the supreme court ruling.

No matter what the Liberal government tries to sell about the new legislation, the lofty goals are an impossibility without better enforcement, accountability and management. Staffing levels needed to fulfil mandates seem completely inadequate. As well, there are problems operationally. We have seen a stream of people coming into our constituency office because of immigration. The immigration hotline does not work, as it is overloaded. My office has to communicate to our embassies around the world since the department is not doing its job on basic information requests. Local immigration offices are not responsive and they are not giving the service needed in community relationships.

An MP's office should be involved in only very special circumstances and should not be an extension of the immigration department. I also suspect the department is heavy with Ottawa mandarins who do not spend sufficient time in the field throughout Canada or abroad to fully appreciate the operational problems.

We engaged this immigration debate to be constructive because Canadians have asked us to do so. It must be noted that when we as a party began to seriously reflect the national mood in the House years ago, specifically about the incredulity and apparent ineptness of the government in managing the immigration system, we were attacked as being racist. However, despite the lies about us, we persisted and now it is socially acceptable in the House to point out the administrative foul-ups by the department. Formerly it was a taboo subject.

The problems were so grave and monumental that we took the abuse and kept raising the issues we were being asked to raise. Now it is acceptable to require the minister and the department to justify to Canadians their mandate and performance, without being called racist, at least by those who are honourable. The auditor general certainly has been critical of the immigration department. Consequently we have continued to bring the voice of the community to this Chamber. The government has slowly recognized that legislative improvements are needed, and the voice of the community is at least recognized.

Nevertheless we must be very careful to assess the motives and the honour of anyone who would dare to say about the Alliance that there is any whiff or nuance of xenophobia in our party policy or from our members of parliament. Sadly the pejorative term xenophobic hysteria was directly ascribed to us by a member of the NDP yesterday in the House. That term means having a morbid dislike of foreigners. It reminds me of the outrageous meanspiritedness of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration directed at my party during the last election.

However, beyond the finger pointing, we can observe, with our counterparts from the U.S., Australia, China and Europe, that there is indeed a real desire to move together toward solutions such as a United Nations agreement to fight against human smuggling. We cannot allow those who traffic in human beings to succeed by misusing our refugee protection programs. Under law, legitimate refugees, those at risk if returned, should be allowed to stay permanently albeit through due process. Those who are not refugees should be removed quickly. That was not the experience that the minister gave to British Columbia in the last few years.

We say that it is possible to uphold the charter of rights and freedoms, not just for some people some of the time but for everyone in Canada all of the time, and yet still be able to control our borders. For sadly, in the international people trade we must admit that capacity creates its own demand. Consequently we need streamlined procedures that are fast but still fair.

Immigration has been a positive force in the life of the country for centuries. It has made us who we are and it will make us who we will be. Canada has historical accomplishments with immigration, as we have and continue to be mostly a land of destination rather than a land of departure for the disadvantaged. Yet in our society, as personal accomplishment is achieved Canada suffers a brain drain to the United States because of the mediocrity of governance under which we suffer.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada's mission is to build a stronger Canada by deriving maximum social and economic benefit from the global movement of people, maintaining Canada's humanitarian tradition by protecting refugees and others in need of humanitarian protection, defining membership in Canadian society and supporting the settlement and integration of newcomers.

As a result, the department must evaluate the international and domestic events that could affect the benefits of immigration. For example, changes in the push and pull factors for immigration, source countries, the qualifications of prospective immigrants and domestic labour market circumstances all have an impact on the level and mix of immigrants seeking to enter Canada, as well as their settlement needs.

In addition, the social and economic conditions that newcomers encounter upon arrival can have a major effect on whether newcomers successfully integrate into the Canadian way of life.

International migration is related in many complex ways to basic environmental stability. The scarcity of resources such as famine and energy sources, environmental degradation such as pollution and deforestation, natural disasters such as earthquakes and epidemic diseases, and severe climate changes such as drought and flooding can displace large numbers of people and be important push factors for international migration.

The perceptions of Canada's abundant natural resources, wide open spaces and clean environment have also played a role in attracting newcomers, in addition to the broader consideration of a somewhat democratic society and an economy that offers a measure of opportunity.

Globalization means that international travel and migration are likely to increase. From an environmental perspective, increased mobility increases the potential risk of new foods, plants and organisms being introduced into sensitive ecosystems. There is also the risk of new strains of disease spreading more quickly between populations. Although these issues are of serious concern and are subject to various domestic and international screening processes, the risks must be balanced against the benefits of globalization and the freer international movement of goods, services and people.

For example, the recruitment of highly skilled workers means that Canada should benefit from skills and technologies. Similarly, international students can be agents of technology and knowledge transfer. Immigrants also bring with them different values and practices that offer positive and new social perspectives.

Attaining a sustainable future requires a commitment to a healthier environment and an economy that can enhance the social well-being of Canadians. Only through the recognition and consistent consideration of the web of issues that I mentioned can we develop a beneficial legal context for immigration make the informed choices necessary to build Canada's future.

The Canadian Alliance is pro-immigration. We hope the government will accept our amendments for improvement in operational accountability and transparency so that there develops greater political legitimacy for the operations year in and year out.

The government's lofty goals for the bill are rather great. Let us hope that there will be more than sound and fury from the government and that resources and professionalism will be greatly enhanced so we have a system of which we all can be proud.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly welcome the comments of the hon. member across the way.

I acknowledge that some provisions of the legislation before us, Bill C-11, are an improvement over the existing legislation. The provision that allows for family reunification for children based on a wider age limit is certainly an improvement.

The point I was making and the concern we have in the NDP is one that has been expressed to me by many organizations that deal with immigration rules and policies on a day to day basis. People in such organizations really see the system as it is. They are concerned that the overall definition of family class is still very restrictive in terms of the kinds of family members who can be sponsored.

The whole idea of once in a lifetime was generated because we had restrictions on how we define family class. There was and still is a great momentum within the community to see a broader definition that would allow for family reunification.

Some say that we must have some definition, that we must be able to define the family in some way. That is very true. However, in western society we tend to make such definitions very narrow and very linear, whereas in many cultures where immigrants come from the definition of family is much broader. We really need to look at that.

I will respond to the other point very briefly in terms of the quotas. It is true, because I saw the announcement and the press release and so on, that this year, for the first time in many years, Canada met its target in terms of applications that came to Canada. If one looks at it in a longer term, overall we have done a very poor job.

I hope there is a real commitment from the government to not only meet the targets but to look at the targets. If we read any study about immigration we will see that it contributes to our economic activity, to our economic strength and to the strength of the community. When we say that we should open the doors wider, I hope the member would agree that we should look at the target and say that it should be increased. However, if we look at it over a number of years we have not been meeting the target, even though we might have last year.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-11 for the NDP. First, I thank my colleagues who spoke earlier, our current critic of immigration and refugee policies, the member for Winnipeg North Centre, and the member for Winnipeg Centre. Both members did an outstanding job in presenting the concerns and position in the NDP about not only the former Bill C-31 but the current piece of legislation before the House. They have done a very good job in working with local and national organizations to understand what some of the fundamental concerns about the proposed legislation.

Coming from Vancouver East I have to begin by saying that I represent a riding, like other members of the House, which is symbolic and reflective of the cultural and ethnic diversity of Canada. Vancouver East is a community that has been built on immigration, something of which we are very proud. It has been a community that has welcomed working people from around the globe, people who have sought to come to Canada to provide a better opportunity, to look for a better quality of life and to provide a good future for their kids.

Every day in my riding of Vancouver East, whether it is in Strathcona, Mount Pleasant, the downtown east side, Grandview-Woodlands or Hastings-Sunrise, I meet families who are first generation, sometimes second or third generation, who have established their new roots and homes in this community. I am very proud to represent a riding where that kind of diversity is actually valued. It is an enrichment of our community that people of many different backgrounds, languages and classes have come to Vancouver East to make it their home.

There are probably few countries in the world where immigration and refugee policy is as significant and as fundamental as it is in Canada.

I am an immigrant myself. Like other members of the House, we came to Canada because we knew it was a very great land. We came because our parents brought us as children and we established ourselves here.

The policies and legislation enacted by the government and debated in the House go to the core of what we believe as Canadians. One of the concerns that we have expressed in the NDP is that the legislation the minister has now reintroduced is a reflection of the public mood that has become more negative about immigration and refugee policies.

I want to highlight one issue in particular because it is something that is very pertinent to Vancouver and to East Vancouver. More than a year and a half ago we saw the arrival of what has been commonly referred to as the boat people, economic migrants who are becoming involved in human smuggling out of desperation. They put themselves at grave risk and danger. They travel huge distances in very dangerous conditions, seeking a way to escape the environment they are in.

The experience we had on Canada's west coast has been reported widely in the media: the arrival of about 600 so-called boat people from the Fujian province of the People's Republic of China. It was very interesting to see the reaction in the media and the general public mood around the issue.

There are concerns about human smuggling. We have to prevent these kinds of situations from taking place. In working with local organizations I visited some women who were detained in the Burnaby women's correctional facility. At that time about 33 women were detained in jail. They had not committed a crime. They had not been charged with anything. They were incarcerated because they were considered to be at risk for flight if they were released.

In visiting those women in jail I was very taken by the situation they were in. They had inadequate access to legal representation, to appropriate cultural language interpretation, to phone calls and to any connection or visits with their children who had been taken away and placed in care. It may surprise some people to know that more than 18 months later there are still about 25 individuals incarcerated in British Columbia as a result of arriving on Canada's shores.

It is easy for us to look back historically at events that happened 40 or 50 years ago when people arrived and were not allowed entry. We can look back and say it was racist or xenophobic, that we had a fear of others arriving, but when it happens in contemporary society today it is something that is very worth debating in terms of how we react to it.

One of the concerns of my colleagues in the NDP and I is that we feel much of the response from the government is based on a very strong reaction to the arrival of the boat people. I find it unacceptable that 18 months after they arrived individuals are still incarcerated and trying legitimately and legally to file their applications for refugee status. We have a concern that this is an underlying pinning of the bill. It is a bill that seems to be based more on keeping people out rather than acknowledging the incredible role immigration has played in the country.

I have been very concerned over the last few years that the government's own targets for levels of immigration are not being met. It is very easy to play to fears in the community. It is easy to dramatize and highlight individual cases of refugees where there have been illegalities and where people needed to be deported rather than focus on the incredible positive contribution of not just new immigrants but of refugees to the country.

Although the bill does have some measures that provide for family reunification, the NDP believes there should be a much greater emphasis on family reunification and expanding the family class. We should be saying that Canada welcomes people from around the world, and that we should not be so suspicious.

I deal with hundreds of cases in my riding every year of families who are desperately seeking assistance in order to get through the system as it exists today. I am sure we have all had cases where we really feel the frustration and the anxiety that people have gone through in trying to deal with the system. Officials have incredible discretion in denying people and in deciding whether a family member can come to Canada.

I had a campaign in my riding called once in a lifetime. It was actually an idea that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration floated around about a year or so ago. She suggested that there might be a special provision, a once in a lifetime provision, whereby any Canadian would be able to sponsor someone who would not normally qualify in a family class. Unfortunately the idea was just dropped.

Local organizations in my riding, such as Success, collected more than 15,000 signatures in support of the idea of once in a lifetime. Then it was dropped like a hot potato by the minister. However, I decided to keep the idea going. We actually had a petition and a campaign on once in a lifetime, which received tremendous support. The reason we received support is that the current definitions are so narrow and restrictive that it becomes very difficult to undertake family reunification under the present policies.

Some of the other concerns we have, which have not been addressed in the bill and which we will be following up on when it reaches committee stage, are the problems around the live in caregiver program. I have had cases in my own community where women who have come into Canada through the live in caregiver program have basically been exploited. They have had their rights violated and have been placed in very vulnerable and precarious positions because of this special provision by which they gained entry to Canada.

We believe that the current legislation fails to address the gender issues that are involved in the live in care program. It bears a thorough examination to ensure that women who are coming here under the live in caregiver program are not being exploited by the system or by the situations in which they find themselves.

We have also expressed concerns about some of the provisions in the bill that, albeit an improvement over the status quo, need to go much further. I have met with organizations in my riding that have done a lot of work and analysis on the provisions for same sex relationships.

Although the minister and the government are finally recognizing, along with other changes in legislation that have come before the House, that we need to treat same sex relationships with the same kind of legal provision and equality that we treat any other conjugal relationship, unfortunately in the current bill these provisions are contained in the regulations and not the bill itself. I have had this expressed to me as a concern in terms of it leaving the community still vulnerable to any future changes in regulations.

The other matter I want to speak to involves refugees. It was very timely that yesterday the Caledon Institute and the Maytree Foundation, under the sponsorship of a human rights committee of the Senate, brought a very notable and prestigious speaker, Professor Goodwin-Gill from Oxford University, to Parliament Hill. He came to speak to a number of people who were assembled yesterday about Canada's practice of violating a UN convention as it relates to the status of refugees in this country.

Professor Goodwin-Gill, an internationally renowned expert on refugee law, has taught at Carleton University, so he is very familiar with Canada's legislation and how we process and treat convention refugees.

He expressed grave concern about the practices that have taken place in Canada which deny people access to travel or deny them other resources and programs within Canadian society based on their refugee status. He zeroed in on the fact that Canada does not meet its international obligations under the UN convention, in particular articles 25, 27 and 28 having to do with refugee ID documentation.

I feel this is a very serious situation. For those members of the House and of the Senate who were present yesterday at the speech by Professor Goodwin-Gill, I hope very much that what he said to us will be reflected in our debate and will be reflected in the amendments once the bill reaches committee and there is an opportunity to receive amendments.

To dramatize the real experience of convention refugees in Canada, present at the meeting yesterday was a young woman who is a convention refugee. I believe she was originally from northern Somalia. She is the mother of four children. She described to us with a great deal of candour and honesty the feeling that she had of being in prison because she could not access the things she needed to provide for her family.

She cannot put her teenage children through post-secondary education because she cannot afford to pay for it. She works but earns a low income, so neither she nor her children are able to access the Canada student loans program. She is established as a convention refugee, but because of the way we treat convention refugees she and her kids cannot access post-secondary education.

Those are illustrations and examples of what it means to live with the kinds of policies and procedures we have had in place. Having the bill before the House is an opportunity to redress some of those situations and to look at the real experience of what happens to refugees in the country and to say that we will not put up more barriers.

I think the real tragedy of the situation is that there is abuse in the system, as we heard yesterday. There is abuse in every system in the country, but in this area the abuse becomes the reason for setting up very punitive barriers and rules that then deny the vast majority of convention refugees full status in Canada.

That is the wrong way to do business and to approach the issue. We should recognize that the vast majority of convention refugees are here as positive contributors to the local communities in terms of work, in terms of enrichment, in terms of volunteerism, and in terms of all the things we would characterize as being a part of society. To place barriers before people and make it more difficult for them to become fully participating members of the community seems a very negative attitude and something that definitely should be changed.

We in the NDP have very strong concerns about the bill. We want to be constructive in the way we approach the bill. It is a very significant piece of legislation. It was long overdue for changes, but those changes and how they impact on Canadian residents who are here now in terms of bringing over family members from another country, or on people who wish to immigrate to Canada, are obviously of great significance.

We should take the time to be thoughtful about the bill. We should make sure it is not just a response to what is being fuelled in the media in a very negative way in terms of characterizing refugee claimants and to some extent immigration generally.

As members of the House we should have the courage to stand and say that we want Canada to be a place that welcomes people. We want the system to work fairly. We want to be able to find ways to provide family reunification. More than that, we want to look at some of the historical wrongs that have been done.

One of the flashpoints of our history in immigration has been the head tax. There has been an ongoing campaign. People in my riding of Vancouver East have been very involved in trying to eliminate the head tax. They also want recognition of the historical wrong that was done and to seek redress for it in terms of community contribution and compensation.

Unless we can do that I have grave concerns about what the new bill will be and whether we will be repeating the kinds of policies we have had in the past. Our history is based on racism and fear of others. Somehow we must change that.

The bill is very important. We have very serious concerns about it. We want the bill to be a positive instrument that will support and strengthen Canada's immigration policies in a way that is fair and equitable and does not further stigmatize or set up barriers against refugee claimants. We want it to send a message that Canada is a welcoming place that truly works for diversity and cross cultural understanding.

[Lynne Yelich, Canadian Alliance, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand before you in the first sitting of the 37th parliament. I take this opportunity to congratulate you on the esteemed position to which you have been elected by your peers and colleagues here in the House of Commons.

At this time I respectfully acknowledge my late parents, John and Olga Zdunich, and my husband's parents, George and Katherine Yelich. I also acknowledge my husband Matt and our daughters Elaina and Ivana.

I thank all whose support and encouragement has brought me here today: my campaign team, the hardworking volunteers, my friends and family members, and especially the people of Blackstrap for the vote of confidence that they have given me. It is an honour and a privilege to represent them in the House of Commons.

The riding I represent is called Blackstrap. The name itself has been a constant conversation piece and a point of interest. People continually ask me where the name Blackstrap came from. Local legend is that during the years of prohibition a rum runner was not aware that one of his kegs had sprung a leak and he travelled the valley leaving a trail of blackstrap molasses behind him. The legend is so popular that some people actually believe it. The real story behind the name is not quite so colourful.

Until filled with Diefenbaker lake water in 1967, making it into a reservoir, Blackstrap Lake was a long, narrow slough filled with black reeds. From atop its steep banks it resembled nothing so much as a long black strap.

Today the area of Blackstrap is a 540 hectare provincial park with a manmade lake at the centre. The provincial park is a resort area that provides year round activities. In the winter the manmade mountain is the centre of a winter activity sports park. In the summer it provides a place for swimming, camping and fishing.

Geographically situated near the centre of the province of Saskatchewan, the riding of Blackstrap is bordered on the west by the South Saskatchewan River and on the north by the Yellowhead highway. It encompasses over 11,000 square miles, is home to approximately 72,000 people and is a riding unique in its broad diversity. This is the riding I call home.

My roots in this riding are almost as old as the province of Saskatchewan. My grandparents immigrated to Canada from the tiny village of Lovinac in Croatia as part of the massive land settlement program of the early 1900s when Sir Clifford Sifton, then minister of the interior, offered land to new immigrants for settling the prairies.

Their move to Canada took a huge leap of faith. They left all that was familiar because they believed a better life could be found in Canada for themselves and the generations to come. I will always be grateful for the courage they showed and what it has meant to me to be raised a Canadian. Living and working in this riding, which was developed almost solely on immigration, I know how important it is that we aim to improve our system, which I will speak to.

Much has changed since the turn of the century when a bright new future could be found with the turning of soil on 160 acres of raw prairie land. At one time the riding of Blackstrap was almost totally dependent upon agriculture. However, as we embark on a new century, the face of the prairie economy has changed drastically, perhaps no more so than in the area I call home.

Throughout the riding are examples of how the people of Blackstrap have shown their resourcefulness in the face of crisis. There is no other word to describe what has happened to the agricultural industry in the past two decades. One such example is the Pound-Maker feedlot in Lanigan, where it decided to integrate its existing feedlot into an ethanol plant.

In Canada as a whole, approximately 55 million litres of ethanol are produced each year; 17 million are used in fuel and the rest go to industrial uses such as toiletries, cosmetics and medications for external use. The Pound-Maker facility has the capacity to produce 13 million litres each year, or one-quarter of Canada's total, in addition to being a 28,500 head cattle feedlot.

Only a few miles away, Drake Meat Processors is a huge successful meat processing plant where over 50 people are employed in what was at one time a co-operative locker plant. They have now developed product lines sold exclusively in Saskatchewan.

Across the riding the pork industry is aggressively expanding with the continual construction of new facilities producing thousands of pork each year for the Canadian marketplace. Much of this started with innovations by three individual pork producers who decided to combine their energies and embark on a new direction. Their start-up barn in Outlook has grown to include 17 community based pork operations with a current capacity of 500,000 pigs a year.

Farmers surrounding Lake Diefenbaker have dedicated thousands of acres to irrigated potato production. In Outlook a mint-herb processing plant is currently under construction. The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool in Watrous has initiated a crop development farm where new breeds of canola are bred and tested.

In almost every community, market gardens have become commonplace as the people fight to keep their rural communities alive in spite of negative farm incomes. To their credit, hundreds of people in this riding have risen above the challenge of the agricultural crisis and successfully built a diverse economic base. I applaud them.

Obviously the agricultural industry is an important part of what makes up Blackstrap, historically and in today's economy, but it is not the only industry.

The magnitude of the different industries that survive and thrive are what make this area an anomaly in the prairie economy. We are home to five potash mines, the IMC Kalium Mine and the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Mines, PCS.

PCS in itself is an interesting study in the opportunities that arise through diversification. At one time, PCS was a money losing crown corporation that cost the taxpayers of the province hundreds of millions of dollars. It was privatized in the late 1980s and sold to employees and other investors. Today, PCS is the world's leading producer of potash and has 20 plants in North America, Chile, Trinidad and another underway in Brazil.

We have six automotive retail businesses in the riding. When the auto mall currently being constructed on the south side of Saskatoon is completed, our riding will be home to the largest automobile sales group in Saskatchewan.

Through the use of community development bonds, the people of Manitou Beach and area invested in their own community. The area brought the Manitou mineral spa back to its glory days, not seen since the early twenties and thirties.

Building on its natural therapeutic qualities unique to North America and found only in two other places in the world, Karlovy Vary in the Czech Republic and the Dead Sea of Israel, the committee initiated what has grown into a multimillion dollar facility. Today at Manitou Beach there is a convention centre, mineral spa and entire resort village that is a tourist destination for visitors from around the world.

Blackstrap is home to a national defence base in Dundurn which has the largest ammunition depot in the country. The Whitecap Dakota/Sioux First Nation dates back to the eighteenth century and inhabits the northwest corner of the riding. I should mention that it was the Dakota/Sioux Indians who immigrated to Blackstrap from the United States.

In Canada as a whole, we are all too aware of the problems our aboriginal communities are dealing with, yet this particular reserve is a powerful example of innovation, prosperity and economic stability.

We are forward thinking, inventive, innovative and courageous Canadians. I believe these qualities came with the early settlers to this part of the country and live on in our generation. These are the people of Blackstrap. The people gave me a mandate to come to Ottawa and represent their interests. They have a message that I brought here with me today. I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to articulate to all my colleagues in the House of Commons, in all the political parties, what the people of Blackstrap riding have to say.

There has been a lot of attention recently focused on what has been coined western alienation and talk of separation by the west. It would be easy to get sidetracked. However, I know how important Confederation is to the people of my riding. I know how passionately they love the country. In fact, my esteemed colleagues, I believe the focus on separation is backward. What I hear in my riding is not so much that people want out, they want in.

The people I represent want the message brought here to Ottawa that their voices are a part of Canada. When there is talk about equality, there is an intrinsic emphasis put on rights, which is not necessarily the message that needs to be heard. As westerners, we believe in balance and the responsibilities that come with being a balanced partner in Confederation.

The people of Blackstrap want it known that while they willingly and lawfully hand over their hard earned tax dollars, they are frustrated by continual reminders that the federal government does not manage the country's economic situation with the same diligence it manages its personal finances. They want balance brought back to the taxation system.

The people of Blackstrap are frustrated by a legal system that has taken the place of what should be a justice system. They want balance in the laws that govern us as citizens.

The people of Blackstrap are frustrated by regional differences that are treated as divisions by the federal government instead of opportunities for co-operation. They want to see a balance in the regional interests within a federal system that provides the opportunity to work together to overcome those challenges.

When my grandparents immigrated to Canada, they knew nothing of eastern, or western or central Canada. French speaking and English speaking Canada was not an issue.

They came to Canada because they believed in Canada and what it represented, hope for a new future, opportunity, room to grow and contribute. Thousands of people just like them took what Canada had to offer and built a country that has a distinctive label of being the greatest country on this planet.

I have personally sponsored refugees and worked with many immigrant families. The Canada they see is the same Canada that beckoned my ancestors.

I hope and pray that those of us in the House will never lose sight of that vision of the gift it is to be a Canadian and that they will work co-operatively to build on the initial framework that our country's forefathers put together.

As we speak to Bill C-11, the citizenship and immigration bill, we will address how to improve our existing system. We will work on answers to my constituents' questions, such as why does it take so long for people with skills to immigrate to Canada? How can we clear these backlogs? I have spoken to dozens of people with stories of how long it took to get their spouses to Canada. Why is the department cutting staff? How can we stop illegal human smuggling?

My constituents in Blackstrap certainly appreciate the value of immigration, as does my party, as a positive and dynamic force, one that is vital to the economic and cultural growth and diversity of our country. We must continue Canada's longstanding humanitarian tradition of resettling genuine refugees. Canadians have concerns about our present immigration system. We need to restore public confidence.

There is a saying that holds particular significance for me and my family. It sums up what I feel is the essence of what immigration should and can be. The saying is coined as follows: “Croatia gave the strength, Canada the opportunity“. That statement reflects the importance immigration has had for my constituents. I will endeavour to work very hard on their behalf.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the privilege of addressing the House today. I look forward to the years ahead as we work together for the people who have put their trust and faith in us.

Immigration Act

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today on Bill C-11 dealing basically with immigration and refugee protection. I am rather familiar with this bill, on which my colleague very eloquently expressed her point of view just a few minutes ago. This bill is quite similar to former Bill C-31.

I want to address a number of issues during my speech, including the population movements which occurred in the 20th century and which were important often for economic reasons, but also for political reasons.

I also want to talk about the detention of children. During consideration of Bill C-31, I was among those who thought it was crucial to address this particular issue for all kinds of reasons, for instance, because Canada has signed the international convention on the rights of the child. In my mind, it was important to uphold the rights of the child, but also the international conventions signed by Canada.

I think the whole issue regarding the detention of children should be clarified in Bill C-11, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and not in future regulations, as the government intends to do.

I would also like to touch on another issue, namely the administrative slowness of the Immigration and Refugee Board. This is a reality we have to deal with in urban ridings. It is part of our life. People come to see us in our constituency offices because they are facing unacceptably long delays, which, we have to admit, causes terrible human tragedies.

Families are often the main victims of this administrative slowness in the application review process by the Immigration and Refugee Board.

I will also say a few words about illegal immigrants. When the government introduced Bill C-31, it was more or less responding to an alleged new reality that was emerging mostly in western Canada, where more and more illegal immigrants were coming to our country, particularly from Asia.

Members must realize that this phenomenon, which is indeed new, is marginal. It is not true that the majority of those who want to come here, either as permanent residents or as refugees, do it by illegal means. Yes, this phenomenon exists, but it is marginal. Unfortunately, the government is trying to use legislative amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to respond to a new current in western Canada even though it is in fact a minor problem.

Another aspect of the question are the costs entailed by the slowness of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada process. I will come back shortly to a number of figures that are specific to the Montreal offices in terms of claimant waiting time and the number of claimants waiting.

Inevitably, this time frame and the slow administrative pace result in significant administrative costs to the provinces and the Government of Quebec for which the federal government should assume responsibility at some point, insofar as the law does not speed up the process and satisfactorily address the claims currently before the Immigration and Refugee Board.

The last part of my speech concerns the objectives Canada is setting for itself in terms of immigration, the number of new immigrants.

We know that the government has just reached, for the first time in many years, its immigration objectives for Canada.

Quebec too has its objectives, it must be pointed out, which go far beyond the thirty thousand or so immigrants it would like to take in. Often, the slow pace of the process blocks claims currently being made abroad.

I am thinking, among others, of immigration and the embassy in Paris, where Quebec would like to attract francophone immigrants. Unfortunately, Quebec cannot achieve its objectives because of the substantial amount of time involved in the administrative process.

I come back to what I was saying before. The first point concerns the matter of population movement. The movement of people in search of a land of refuge has been a striking phenomenon of the 20th century, which, far from improving, has increased in recent years, through an increase in situations of organized violence, of violations of human rights, of wars and of conflicts on the international scene.

In 1996 the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees estimated that there were 26 million refugees in the world and 30 million displaced persons. Because western countries will take them in only in very small numbers, the great majority of refugees head for the poorest nations, those close to their own.

Nevertheless the governments of these nations are beginning to feel that the demand exceeds what they can offer. Many have adopted very restrictive deterrence measures which have shifted the demand to other countries.

Today Canada is one of the rare western countries to which those in danger may still try to apply for asylum under the Geneva convention.

The Geneva convention confirms the right of an individual to request asylum in a third country, but does not oblige the country to which application has been made to grant the request, in accordance with the rights and privileges of nations, whence the common notion that asylum is not a right but a privilege.

However, the welcome reserved for those seeking asylum is becoming increasingly limited, as can be seen from policies and procedures with respect to entry, application for refugee status and permanent residence, and from the policies regarding the support programs and services for which they are eligible.

The 1980s saw an increase in the number of people requesting asylum in Canada. The average since 1989 has jumped from 25,000 to 30,000 a year, one third of whom have settled in Quebec.

While they only represent a small proportion of the world total, these people in distress, who are largely from southern countries and therefore more visible than those who came in previous decades, because of their unfamiliar cultural and linguistic profiles, did disturb government authorities and the public in general.

That is when we politicians, the media and the public, in Quebec and throughout Canada, began using expressions such as phony refugees, abusers of the system and cheaters. Ten years later, these expressions are now commonly used but are not enough to move public opinion. This is why the government must now also protect the public against terrorists and criminals.

This is one of the new arguments used by Canada to justify the implementation of increasingly harsher policies against people seeking refuge here. The major argument used remains the economic weight of these asylum seekers.

While recognized throughout the world for its humanitarian traditions, Canada quickly developed, in the eighties, a tendency to restrict its open door policy for these people.

Today those who apply for refugee status from abroad or in Canada must overcome numerous obstacles before being allowed to settle here. The federal government has put in place measures to intercept, in transit areas abroad such as airports, people who have fled their country without first obtaining the documents required by Canada.

Yet those who flee their country often do not have access to these documents, either because they would risk their lives if they tried to get them from the authorities that deliver these documents, or because there is no place where they can get these documents given the country's political instability or state of war.

When they finally make it to Canada, the people are faced with a cumbersome and very slow legal process that can have a severe anxiogenic effect on them. First, the refugee status claim process is complicated and also costly since the claimant needs legal counsel to prepare and present his or her claim before the Immigration and Refugee Board. Then, the operations of the board need to be taken into consideration, including the way the hearings are carried out, the attitude of the commissioners and the nature of the arguments presented if a claim is rejected. Also, when a claim is turned down, no appeal on the merits can be made, the claimant can be sent back to his country of origin even if his life is in jeopardy because his country is at war or is guilty of massive violations of human rights.

It is important to note that Canada no longer deports claimants to Burundi as of June 1993 and to Afghanistan and Rwanda as of April 1994. Following many representations by the Canadian Council for Refugees and the Table de concertation des organismes de Montréal, Canada stopped deporting claimants to Algeria and the Democratic Republic of Congo, formerly Zaire. However, Canada has found a way around its commitment by sending back to the U.S. claimants who have come here through the United States, who have no qualms about deporting them to their countries of origin.

Even when claimants are granted refugee status, after being either selected overseas or recognized by the Immigration and Refugee Board, policies concerning permanent residency applications and family reunification can become a major disincentive to settle in Canada.

In short, precisely when asylum seekers are most in need of services they are not entitled to them. During the crucial period when they begin to adapt to their new environment and build their own perception of this new society, they are denied the right to be supported.

When they are destabilized the most, and when the risk of experiencing mental and physical health problems is the highest, they would be completely shut out, were it not for the human and social conscience of non governmental organizations working for the recognition of their rights. This is another issue I dealt with when Bill C-31 was debated.

I raised another issue in committee, and I remember asking a number of questions to the government, the officials and the minister. It had to do with the detention of minors and children.

Canada has signed the international convention on the rights of the child, which prohibits the detention of children in a number of situations. I asked the government to recognize this protection in a clause of the bill, and not in regulations, like it intended to do. I am forced to recognize that this will not necessarily be done this time around either.

I will point out that this bill, and this is important, must in this respect correspond to a number of articles and not simply lead us back to a number of regulations.

What is basic is to have this bill correspond to the convention, and more specifically to article 37( b ) of the convention on the rights of the child, which provides that States Parties shall ensure that:

No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily. The arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child shall be in conformity with the law and shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time;

The other aspect of the convention is article 22, which provides:

States Parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure that a child who is seeking refugee status or who is considered a refugee in accordance with applicable international or domestic law and procedures shall, whether unaccompanied or accompanied by his or her parents or by any other person, receive appropriate protection and humanitarian assistance in the enjoyment of applicable rights set forth in the present Convention—

We want this protection enshrined in the law. Naturally we will have work to do in committee, and I am sure my colleague will see that these guarantees are clearly written into the law so that Canada may be consistent with the convention it signed.

The other aspect is the whole issue of the Immigration and Refugee Board. This bill and the minister's statements clearly show a willingness to improve the claim review process by the board.

We are totally open to this willingness to improve. Looking at the current situation, it is clear that the system is not working. We do not have to watch our words because it is clear. All those of us who have had to deal with refugee claimants in our ridings know that the system is not working.

In the Montreal office of the Immigration and Refugee Board, the average time for processing claims is estimated at ten months. People have to wait an average of ten months to have their claims processed. This means that, while these people wait, terrible human tragedies unfold. The other aspect is the whole issue of claimants. Their number exceeded 7,000 in the Montreal office at the end of 1999.

Overall, we are open to this bill. We hope the willingness shown by the government will lead to positive results in the application of the act. We will certainly work to improve this bill in committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I can boast here a bit. I have extensive experience dealing with immigrants. My constituency of Surrey Central is the largest constituency in Canada in terms of population since the constituencies are divided based on registered citizens who can vote, the electors. It has a high population of immigrants.

I went through Bill C-11 very thoroughly. I also attended the minister's briefing. The briefing was very good. I appreciate that. The minister mentioned that the bill is going to committee. We appreciate the opportunity to come forward with amendments, but I hope the minister will listen to those amendments.

Last time when we were debating the same bill in its previous form, Bill C-31, we did not have opportunity for the minister to listen to us properly and accept our amendments. Our chief critic for immigration came forward with very good amendments but they were not accepted. That is why we are in this mess and dealing with it again.

Also the minister mentioned that Canada is a leader in removing the people who do not belong in Canada. That is not true. According to the auditor general we have 15,000 people still in Canada but whose whereabouts are not known. Could the minister track those people? No, she has been unable to track those people. They do not belong in Canada but they have been consumed in the system. They are hiding but they are there somewhere and we cannot remove them.

According to the auditor general's report, 60% of visitors who come to Canada to apply for refugee status come without documents. When they board the plane they have documents because the airlines will not allow them to board without them, but when they land in Canada 60% of them land without documents. What has the minister done about it? Nothing. The auditor general's reports for the last 10 years have been critical one after the other, but the minister has chosen not to take any strong action.

During this debate we are hearing some good intentions, but we appeal to the minister to come with a proper action plan. Let her address the real hot buttons in the bill so we can make the system more efficient, effective, absolutely accountable and clear.

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I think I need unanimous consent to go on for another 10 minutes, but I will try to finish in the little time I have.

I want to mention the accountability part, which is another very important aspect of the bill. Positions on the Immigration and Refugee Board along with all positions within the Department of Immigration, such as citizenship judges, department physicians and visa officers, need to be publicly advertised before people are hired. It should not be up to the minister to appoint someone to these important positions, because the criteria lack accountability, clarity and efficiency for the system.

Another thing I want to mention is that the minister in her speech this afternoon mentioned regulations. There are 89 pages of regulations attached to the bill. When we have a bill in the House with not much solid content, where only the intent is there but there is no solid plan of action, we have to govern ourselves, or the legislation has to be effective through the back door, which I call regulations. That is never effective.

I have been co-chair of the House and Senate Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations. There are over 900 regulations in the pipeline. Hon. members will be surprised to learn that many of them have been in the pipeline for the last 25 years. They have also not been tackled.

Governance by regulation is not the right way to do it. All those regulations should be brought back to the House in their respective bills so that we can debate them in the House. We cannot debate the regulations. None of the members in the House will ever get the opportunity to see those regulations and debate them.

Another important aspect is about a court decision. The Canadian Alliance supports deporting undesirable individuals without question or delay in the cases of criminal activity or non-compliance with the Immigration Act. Bill C-11 purports to do the same. However, the minister, who had little power to do so before, is now completely stripped of her right to deport those who have either broken the law or have come to Canada to escape the law. The Supreme Court of Canada ruling in the case of the Minister of Justice v Burns and Rafay, which came down on February 15, 2001, applies to those individuals who face a threat to their person if deported from Canada. I believe this ruling will limit the minister's authority to deport any undesirable element from Canadian society.

I could make more points, but I will leave some time for members to ask questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to participate in the debate on Bill C-11, an act respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger.

The purpose of the bill is to replace the Immigration Act of 1976. The current bill takes into account various facets of the standing legislation and attempts to make the legislation much stronger. While the legislation may be well intended, our analysis shows that the outcome will not serve its stated purpose. That was very eloquently mentioned by our chief immigration critic in his speech a while ago.

Before I analyze the speech in depth, I would like to tell the House and Canadians who are watching that I am a new immigrant to Canada.

The Canadian Alliance and I respect the multicultural diversity of our country. I and my party also respect the contribution made by immigrants to our great country. Canada is a country of immigrants.

Contrary to remarks made earlier by some members in the House during debate, our policies are pro-immigration. I would remind the House that approximately two to three years ago I moved a motion at the immigration committee that the discriminatory head tax should be removed. Government members in committee opposed the motion. The government has taken away the head tax on refugees. The discriminatory head tax still continues for immigrants. That shows that I and my party supported the right measures whenever we needed to.

In the past I spoke to Bill C-31 a few times, probably at all readings. In my first speech three years ago I used the analogy that we should open the front doors to immigrants but diligently monitor them. I also mentioned that we should close the back doors, including the windows and ventilators.

Today in the House the minister used my analogy. She said that she intends to open the front doors and close the back doors. However, I believe that by messing with the act she has lost the opportunity to fix it again. She has not opened the front doors, nor has she been able to close the back doors.

I will justify what I am saying. The minister has installed a third door in the House, a revolving door. The people who enter through the back door are stuck in a revolving door in Canada. People trying to immigrate to Canada through the front door are also stuck in the revolving door, as are their sponsors. There are unnecessary delays. People are harassment on medical grounds. Those people suffer various kinds of harassment.

The minister has not been able to open the front door or close the back door, but has instead installed a revolving door in the bill which will cause further problems.

I will talk about the kind of approach we should take to the immigration legislation. We need an immigration system that is faster, but we also need fairness in processing. We need a system that shows openness to newcomers but also addresses abuse of the system. We need a system that demonstrates clearly our social and humanitarian values but gives due consideration to Canada's economic interests. Therefore we need a balanced immigration and refugee legislation to meet our immigration needs.

On the weekend, at the consultations in Ottawa for the World Conference Against Racism, the statement by the immigration and refugee caucus expressed huge dissatisfaction with Bill C-11. According to the statement, of which I have a copy, the criticisms are due to issues ranging from negative language and stereotypes to discrimination against certain groups. They also mentioned the lack of protection for stateless persons and the detention and imprisonment of children.

The statement also highlighted that Bill C-11 falls short of Canada's international commitments to human rights. I was surprised when I saw that even at the World Conference Against Racism the legislation was not appreciated. It received criticism from all over, including from the auditor general.

The bill has little transparency. So many things in it are not clear. The lack of real enforcement behind the legislation will ultimately cause more trouble than the legislation it purports to replace, simply due to a lack of clarity in the bill and its reliance on a myriad of regulations.

The bill has not addressed the discriminatory head tax placed on prospective immigrants. It also has not addressed the recognition of foreign academic credentials by the immigration department, by other departments and by industry.

The recent supreme court ruling also has serious implications on any power the minister of immigration had in the past to deport people. Therefore the efficiency, effectiveness and toughness of the bill is nullified.

The bill allows extended absence from Canada. It will limit the number of humanitarian and compassionate applications to one per year. As well, the sponsorship period for new prospective immigrants has been reduced from 10 years to 3 years.

Some things in the bill are reasonably good but let us see how we can make the existing system work. The way the Liberals run our immigration system is like a clogged plumbing system in a house. It needs to be cleaned up and made workable. Improvements, additions and elimination of overlap need to take place.

Staff at immigration postings is in short supply, inadequately trained and overworked in coping with the demands. That creates unacceptable delays and mess ups.

An important aspect of the bill is security. Staff problems also create security risks, as we have seen with Mr. Lai Changxing, the accused kingpin smuggler. He landed in Canada through queue jumping and was not detected by the visa officer. There is also the example of a fellow who came to Canada with an active case of tuberculosis and exposed some 1,500 people to the deadly bacteria.

Having enough well trained staff to enforce the legislation is a must in order to effectively do the job. Visa officers, our frontline defence team, need to be properly trained to identify undesirables from immigrating to Canada. They should have clarity of law and a clearer criterion for processing immigration cases. In her speech the minister mentioned front end screening. This security clearance check only applies to refugees and not to immigrant applicants. This is what we heard when department officials gave us a briefing.

There is no indication in Bill C-11 as to whether or not staff will get the proper training to enforce this security clearance check. The bill contains no deterrent from repetitious fraudulent applications that cause endless paperwork for our visa officers.

There have been numerous incidents of fraud by the staff, particularly locally hired staff, in our foreign missions abroad. In certain instances they can make more money than their whole year's salary by defrauding a single immigration case. There is no punishment in the bill for the applicants or the staff committing fraud.

The bill promises to deliver better enforcement of security measures for both refugees and immigrant applicants, but there is no plan of action set out in the bill to explain how it will work.

There should be mandatory communications among the RCMP, CSIS and other international criminal investigation units. I do not see anything mentioned in the legislation about that. That is very important, particularly in the light of the question during question period about someone who came to Canada without being detected at the entry port.

The auditor general is critical in his report that this type of communication is imperative. Mr. Lai Changxing may never have got into the country if there was communication with Interpol because he was one of the most wanted persons on the Interpol list.

No one should be allowed into Canada without proper checks concerning the possible risk they may pose to our country. That is a legitimate request that we have for the minister.

Immigration into Canada should be simple: either they meet the criteria or they do not. It is one of the two. There is nothing in between. Either they meet the criteria or they do not meet the criteria.

Immigration is an important aspect. We have to look into the bill very seriously. If we do not meet the immigration targets or quotas promised by the Liberals in any given year it is not a crisis. Quality must not be compromised or sacrificed for quantity. We have to be careful who are coming to Canada. Of course we welcome genuine refugees with open arms. We welcome immigrants with open arms, but it is the bad apples we are talking about that should not be entitled to come to Canada and put our citizenry at risk.

The government should be encouraging open and accountable discussion that needs to take place between CIC, Health Canada, HRDC, DFAIT, as well as the provinces and non-government immigration organizations, the NGOs. It is missing that opportunity with its proposed changes to the bill.

The criminal code would include human trafficking and smuggling as federal offences for a change. Conviction of this offence would be life imprisonment or a fine up to $1 million. Repeated offences of these crimes, such as possessing fraudulent passports, visas or any other travel documents, would also receive monetary fines and jail time. That is a good thing in the bill.

The bill proposes a very stiff penalty for human traffickers.

Individuals convicted of political crimes or other serious crimes can now be considered for risk of removal assessment. This may turn Canada into a haven for those criminals.

In regard to refugee processing, one of the key changes proposed in this bill includes referring refugees to the immigration refugee board within three working days. However, the processing time of the claim will remain the same, at 90 days or more. Our experience has shown that the UN convention relating to the status of refugees is simply too vague. The refugee definition needs to be clear.

Most Canadians know what a true refugee is and we support doing our part to help those who are truly in need. Keeping them clogged in the system is not helping them, especially when they are found not to be genuine refugees and are deported. Their lives are ruined after so many months or even years.

I know this from practical experience in my own constituency. I have been dealing with about 45 refugee cases where those refugees are in the revolving door I mentioned; they have been in the revolving door for seven, eight, nine or ten years. In the meantime, they cannot unite with their families, they cannot work properly and they cannot have peace of mind. They are in the revolving door. They do not see the world the way the rest of us do.

The bill also gives refugees as well as refugee applicants full charter protection, so if someone is either denied access to Canada or is refused refugee status for any reason, he or she is entitled to a full set of appeals. It is like the layers of an onion; he or she can keep peeling one layer after the other. It also means he or she is given full rights as a citizen of Canada. No other country in the world does that, not a single country in the world.

The bill of course provides an elimination of appeal for those who are serious criminals, for people who present security risks, are members of criminal organizations or war criminals, and for both fraudulent and seriously criminal applicants.

Health testing is another important ingredient for prospective immigrants when they come to Canada. There is no provision in this legislation to update the standard tests performed on all immigrant applicants, nor is there anything in the bill to increase the number of department physicians, either here in Canada or abroad in our missions. There are currently 22 department physicians, 11 here and 11 abroad. These physicians are responsible for the paperwork at the completion of the health testing. They are also responsible for contracting out to local physicians who do the actual testing.

These standard tests I am speaking of are up to 40 years old. We know how the world has changed in 40 years and how technology has evolved, particularly in the medical field, in the last 40 years. Often, local doctors abroad are not aware of the criteria that need to be met for admittance into Canada.

Foreign local doctors also need to be periodically audited to ensure that no form of malfeasance is occurring. There have been many complaints in my constituency office about the ethics of the testing physicians abroad, from bribery to all kinds of malpractice.

Currently Canada will accept applicants who do not pose a danger to the Canadian public or place a strain on the Canadian health system. A list of what conditions and ailments we will and will not accept is needed and it is not in the bill.

There is nothing to streamline medical testing for families. I have seen a number of cases in my constituency office where medical testing of all family members was not co-ordinated. They tested one member of the family, waited for three or four months and then started processing. By that time, the medical testing has expired. Then they went on to the other members. They keep on juggling the medical tests, sometimes for four years. I have one applicant in my constituency office whose family has been medically tested three times. They passed every time. Each time they had to go for medical tests it cost them money, real money in their country's local currency. It not only puts unnecessary financial strain on prospective immigrants but also causes long delays.

As I am running out of time, Mr. Speaker, let me sum up.

Under discretionary powers in the bill, the dual intent of the applicant is now recognized. That means someone can be a visitor to Canada and an immigrant to Canada at the same time. I believe this will put a strain on the visitor visa. The visitor visa, which is never addressed in any of the legislation, will have serious problems.

Without a more open system and a far more communicative department, the bill will not achieve its intended goal.

There are no set standards for operation of any of our overseas offices.

The health standards, as I mentioned, have not been updated.

In the end, I would like to say that the Canadian Alliance would increase the number of staff, as I mentioned earlier.

Bill C-11 promises to modernize the selection system, but unless the amendments are accepted we will be unable to support the bill.

Immigration And Refugee Protection Act

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to have the opportunity to participate in this afternoon's debate.

I, like the critic for the NDP, have just taken on the responsibilities for our party for cartage of the immigration file. I must say that there is indeed a large learning curve which I have been rather proactive at trying to acquire over the last little while.

Before I begin my remarks I want to compliment the minister on the tenor of the approach she has taken so far with respect to this particular debate in seeking input and listening to the different perspectives from all members of the House.

The Conservative Party and the government will concur in a vast majority of the bill, but it is also our job in opposition to point out where the bill goes in the wrong direction, where it needs improvement and, in some cases, where sections of the bill may not be as warranted as they could be.

The tenor of the minister has been quite co-operative but I wish to send a signal that my colleague from the NDP touched on as well. I caution the minister and people within her department not to get drawn in or eclipsed by the debate surrounding immigration.

I was quite concerned when I read the very first press release out on the bill. It states that the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration tabled the immigration and refugee protection act in the House of Commons today reaffirming her commitment to be tough on criminals first, while strengthening efforts to attract skilled immigrants.

I do not believe that to be the tenor of the minister on this particular issue but immigration in this country is a Canadian necessity. It is something to which we should extend our hands in welcome. We need to have more confidence in and respect for human diversity so that we do not get sucked into the debate of always having to add the word criminal in a paragraph related to immigration. I would like to flag that particular aspect.

The object of the bill is to provide an efficient framework for immigration while at the same time ensuring that Canada, being the society that we are, remains a safe haven for refugees who are escaping persecution for a myriad of reasons. That is our job, our human responsibility, as a responsible society.

Today I am going to talk about areas in which the bill progressively steps ahead with measures that are great additions to the country's immigration and refugee protection policy. I would also like to discuss some problems that are not part of the bill which should be included. They are problems of status quo which the bill does not necessarily resolve.

I would like to touch on the refugee issue. I refer to the Singh decision of 1985. We as a society established for the first time that we needed to have immigration and refugee board so individuals could make oral presentations that could have an effect on their lives. It was a step in the right direction. Before that decision, I am sad to say that we made those determinations based quite often on files and paper. At the end of the day when it comes to refugees, we are actually dealing with people. That is what this particular aspect is about.

We know that immigration is a demographic necessity for Canada. We must continue to improve the framework which administers this very important aspect of our society. The importance of Bill C-11 has exponentially increased due to such things as the fact that as Canadians we are human resource hungry.

Baby boomers are very well aware of the fact that not too long from now that they will begin to retire en masse. We are going to need to attract many individuals in order to address that demographic shift in our economy so that our society and our country can continue to grow in a manner that is necessary.

The key foundation of Canada's program is that it is colour blind. We have access points across the world to enable immigration and refugee protection. That is the noble goal of this egalitarian policy but the administrative reality is quite different.

I would like to point this fact out to the minister. Of all the offices that Canada has abroad, there are very few in regions where we take in most of our immigrants and refugees. They are in countries such as Africa, India, the Philippines, China and even Hong Kong. There are offices in big cities like Manila, Bangkok, Beijing, Shanghai and New Delhi. There are offices in African cities like Nairobi or Pretoria, despite the fact that there are over 30 countries in Africa.

How can we expect thousands of people to make their way across borders to a few places where Canada actually has an office? We cannot simply state that we have a colour blind system, if we do not make access to the system much more universal. Canada needs more offices and access points for immigrants, now. The minister needs those resources in order to do just that.

Not only do we have few offices in areas swamped with immigrants and refugees but those that do exist are swamped. The auditor general in his April 2000 report said:

We found that immigration offices abroad are overtasked. They have much difficulty in coping with the volumes of work and responsibilities assigned to them. Immigration levels set by the government not met and applicants are waiting longer and longer for the applications to be finalized.

I can point out another red book promise. The other day we voted down a red book promise but I will try to keep this on the straight and narrow for this particular debate. This red book promise states:

A new Liberal government will move Canada's immigration levels closer to 1% of the population each year and ensure that sufficient resources are available to help families settle properly in Canada.

I hope the minister appreciates the favour I am doing for her in this speech. The political heat that she is taking at this moment is clearly an indication that the minister does not have the financial resources abroad or domestically in order for her to carry out her mandate, as required and as outlined by the Liberal Party of Canada. The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada is always very willing to help the Liberal Party and show it the way as we did with free trade and other initiatives in that regard.

Latest figures show that around 225,000 immigrants or refugees landed in the year 2000, with expectations of a slight increase for the upcoming year.

The auditor general also pointed out one deficiency which should be highlighted. The audit revealed:

—significant weaknesses in the management of medical assessments or prospective immigrants. Since our last audit in 1990, the Department of Health Canada have been unable to take a position on whether changes to standards for medical examinations are required to determine if an applicant poses a danger to public health and safety, or could place excessive demand on health care systems.

During the context of debate, we are going to have to address this particular issue in terms of what tests, what diseases and what maladies should or should not be tested for. It is imperative that we bring this forth and look at this in the context of the year 2001. The fact is we are really using a framework that is essentially a quarter of a century old.

I raise this particular issue because I know the government is going to be somewhat uncomfortable with the fact. The Progressive Conservative Party and a number of opposition parties find it very draconian that the government still has its $975 entrance feel. I hate the term, but like it or not, this is still a head tax on new Canadians. If this $975 were an administrative fee, it would be in a stand alone account. It would be utilized as a servicing account to provide for language training and other things which new Canadians need assistance with. If money goes into general revenues and is not set aside, by definition it is a head tax.

Another aspect which I would like to speak about is the issue of credentials. However, to be honest I believe this is outside the purview of Bill C-11. I applaud the government in its approach to this. It has gone away from an occupation based criteria in attracting economic immigrants to a skill based scenario. Skills need to be transferable in the context of a modern economy. That is a step in the right direction.

I would ask the minister to work in collaboration with the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Human Resources Development and the provinces to ensure that the credit agents, whether they be from engineering, or medical or other professional designations, have some way of being integrated into our Canadian economy. That way immigrants will have a larger capacity to make more of an impact right from the start. They will be able to contribute to the growth of this great nation.

I would like to raise a concern that the Progressive Conservative Party has with respect to division 4, clause 36(3)(b) of the bill which states “inadmissibility cannot be based on a conviction in respect of which a pardon has been granted”. How can we judge if it is a valid pardon. What about violent crimes? What about situations where an individual has been pardoned within some form of regime for consistent and habitual spousal abuse or something of that kind?

Clearly, the minister would have the flexibility and the purview to block that particular issue because she could conceive that the individual could be of a violent nature and a harm to Canadian society.

I would like to see during the course of committee an amendment or something with respect to the pardon. If an individual has been pardoned for a serious or violent crime, he or she should go through a higher degree of scrutiny than is outlined in the bill. This is something the minister should consider as we debate this.

Another clause I am concerned with, although I think the government is in the right direction in its approach, is a when foreign national, other than a permanent resident, is inadmissible on grounds that another family member is inadmissible. I am talking about a situation where an individual has lied or misrepresented the facts in some shape or form and that individual was deemed to be inadmissible and sent back to his or her country of origin.

Let us envision this situation. As it is in the bill right now, family members, whether they be a child or a spouse, would be deemed inadmissible as well. Also, there might be a situation where a 20 year old has in Canada for quite some time. However, after a long time we find out that one of his or her parents should not have been granted admissibility into Canada. That 20 year old could be sent back to the country of origin. That child could have lived here all his or her life. We are concerned about that possible connector. We think that would be wrong.

I give credit to the minister and her department in that there is less room in this bill for regulations compared to the previous attempt in Bill C-31. There is a fair amount of legislative license afforded to the minister. We would like to be able to find out a little more about the regulatory regime before we have a blind faith in the bill. The minister has been quite genuine in that she would share that regulatory regime with us. We will clearly take her at her word. We will work in conjunction with the regulations and the bill. It is a step in the right direction.

We applaud the government's initiatives with respect to stopping multiple claims, where foreign nationals, other than the permanent residents, must answer truthfully all questions put to them and produce all documentation that the officer reasonably requires. This particular initiative is something that deserves some accolades as well.

Another house cleaning item in the bill, which the Progressive Conservative Party firmly supports, is the government would update the statute for same sex partners. That is a step in the right direction and is in the context of the modern, open and tolerant society.

Bill C-11 goes on to conclude that people would be inadmissible if they lie or omit information, or if they commit an act referred to in the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, or if they are convicted of a crime or an offence outside of Canada which would be punishable by more than 10 years of imprisonment in Canada. Some individuals who may actually consider that particular approach to be draconian. At the end of the day, if a person has been sentenced to a crime of that nature, it is clearly in the purview of the Canadian government to take appropriate steps and deport that individual immediately.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's remarks and the fact that she did stay to listen to all of the critics speak about Bill C-11.

As we were dealing with Bill C-31, the predecessor to Bill C-11, we were often told that the issues we raised would be dealt with in the regulations and that we should not be concerned because we would probably get satisfaction on our issues. We never did get a chance to get to that stage with Bill C-31. In a sense we were being asked to buy a pig in a poke because we had no real assurance or any guarantee that the issue would be dealt with.

If what the minister says is accurate, and I have no reason to believe it is not, would she table the draft regulations now at this early stage of Bill C-11 so that we might have a more informed review of them rather than what happened to us with Bill C-31?

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I have been in the House listening very carefully to the critics from the opposition parties. I will start by saying that while I do not agree with everything that was said, I do appreciate the thoughtfulness of the presentations and I am looking forward to answering their questions and to being at committee for a full review.

The predecessor to Bill C-11, Bill C-31, was referred to committee last June but it did not have the kind of full public debate and hearing at committee, as members know, because of the election call. We had the opportunity, over the course of the summer and the fall, to give careful consideration to briefs received by the department and by my office.

I believe Bill C-11, which is before the House today, responds at great length to many of the issues and concerns that were raised regarding the original immigration and refugee protection legislation.

Having listened to my very thoughtful critics, I believe there are a number of areas, which they have addressed, that are actually addressed in the bill, or which could and would be addressed by the regulatory package that would accompany the bill.

For those people who are unaware of parliamentary procedure, it is important to know that the formal regulation making process does not begin until after the bill is enacted. However, I have made a commitment, as I did with the previous legislation, that we would have a discussion paper at the committee so that we could start to discuss what the regulations would look like and how they would inform the debate and the policies enshrined in this framework legislation which is so important.

I thank my critics for their thoughtful comments. I look forward to debate at committee. I wanted to take this opportunity during questions and comments to say how much I appreciate everything that they have had to say and look forward to further discussion at committee.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by complimenting the member for Winnipeg North Centre for an excellent first speech in her new critic area as the NDP caucus critic for citizenship and immigration.

She very accurately laid out some of the concerns we in the NDP have about Bill C-11, not just about content but, as she said, in tone and about the overall impression we are sending by a bill that is overwhelmingly preoccupied with enforcement.

In fact, we have been critical for years. The Liberal government seems to be yielding to the voices of those who are against immigration, period. It is yielding by putting a disproportionate allocation of energy and resources to keeping people out of the country or to catching people who may have been sneaking into the country rather than promoting Canada as a destination for more immigration.

It is the clear point of view of the NDP caucus that we welcome immigration. We recognize immigration as an engine for economic growth. In fact, in areas like the ridings of Winnipeg Centre and Winnipeg North Centre we feel we are not getting our fair share of new Canadians. By ratio and proportion, Manitoba should in fact be getting 8,000 to 10,000 new immigrants per year as our share of the overall number of people who come to Canada. We are actually getting less than one half of that.

Certainly in our ridings and in our world view we welcome more new Canadians. We would hope that the government would use the introduction of a new immigration bill to send that message to the world: that Canada has an open door policy and we welcome new immigrants and the contributions they can make.

We are critical as well of the tone of the bill, which seems to concentrate on welcoming people with specific skills to fill specific skills shortages. In other words, it is immigration driven by the labour market. This illustrates a fundamental shift in policy over the years. This never used to be the case. We would invite immigrants to come to our country and, regardless of their skills or literacy levels, they could begin to make a contribution the very day they got here by being active consumers and purchasing goods. Then they could make the contribution they were able to make as they grew with our economy.

Today it is amazing how many entrepreneurs, business people and people who have made enormous contributions started from those humble roots. I believe that by being too selective not only are we limiting the overall numbers of people we are welcoming, but we may be missing a lot of awfully good talent. I am fond of reminding the people from the Canadian Alliance that Einstein was a refugee. A lot of skilled and qualified people are. Our own Governor General was a refugee. Members of my staff were refugees. No one asked them what their post-secondary education was before they were welcomed here. They started making a contribution when they arrived on these shores.

We were hoping that Bill C-11 would be fundamentally different from the previous Bill C-31. We did hear a number of quality presentations at the committee stage where shortcomings of Bill C-31 were cited. The minister took note and we thought that we had pretty broad agreement, at least on some of the issues.

To be fair, one of the things that we would have moved as an amendment was incorporated into the new bill, that is, considering parents as part of the family class. Family unification is one of the three legs of immigration policy in this country. We certainly welcome that change within the bill and not just within the regulations.

There are other things that we do not see addressed. We pointed out repeatedly the aspects of the bill that would bar entry to any person who had been convicted of a serious crime. By definition, a serious crime is one that is punishable by 10 years in prison or if a person serves two years or more of a penalty of up to 10 years. A person who has been convicted of a crime like that in their country of origin would never be allowed entry into this country. We pointed out the anomaly, in that somebody like Nelson Mandela would have been barred from entering this country as a refugee.

We have to recognize that some people who have been branded criminals in their own country are political dissidents who are standing up for the rights and principles that we would be proud to have in our own country. We should be recognizing the fact that many of the migrants in today's world are decent people who were forced into activities that may be considered criminal in that country. There is no denying that Nelson Mandela was part of an armed insurrection to overthrow a despotic state. That is just one example.

The increased penalties and the absolute zero tolerance rule for anybody who is engaging in any kind of trafficking of human beings can also be unfair. Canada is proud of its history with the underground railroad. What was that if not the trafficking and smuggling of people from persecution into freedom? The people who hid Anne Frank in their attic would have been guilty of taking part in the illegal trafficking and movement of people.

We have to recognize that there are political situations in the world today where desperate people are taking desperate measures to seek asylum and freedom. We do not see the protection in the bill where we recognize the realities of many places in the world.

We believe that Bill C-11 should have taken steps to change the previous Bill C-31 and to modify other aspects. It was pointed out by a number of people who made presentations to the committee that risk assessments should be conducted by CIC officials rather than the Immigration and Refugee Board. We fail to see that recommendation incorporated into Bill C-11 even though we thought there was broad consensus that it would be an improvement.

We also point out that Bill C-11 should have responded to the numerous presentations that we heard which would spell out specifically that we do adhere to the United Nations convention against torture and that under no circumstances would we ever send anyone back to a situation where they would face torture. When challenged at the committee stage, where officials came and made representations, as to whether they could point out a single other country in the world, which is signatory to the UN convention against torture, that even contemplates the idea of sending people back to where they may face torture, they were unable to answer. They said that they could not think of a single example where that was the case. Again, we were hoping that Bill C-11 would have reflected that at least.

Another amendment we would have made dealt with the UN convention on the rights of the child. As was pointed out in the speech by the member from the Bloc Quebecois, we fall short of the language called for in the UN convention. It says that the rights of the child must be the primary consideration for any decisions made on the future of the child. We say that the UN convention on the rights of the child must be of principal consideration. Not being a lawyer I do not know how that would hold up when we compare the absolute primary consideration versus a principal consideration. I think it is far weaker. I do not know why we would hesitate to use the strongest of language in that laudable concept.

I want to share the concerns voiced by the member for Winnipeg North Centre. We do not want to pander to the xenophobia that we saw in this country, where it raised its ugly head just 18 months ago when the Chinese boat people landed on the shores of British Columbia. At that time we saw the Canadian Alliance members stand up and call for Canada to not follow through with the supreme court's decision on the rights of a refugee, which was that when they placed a foot in Canada, they should be given a hearing.

Members of the Canadian Alliance held a press conference saying that the refugees should be put on a boat and sent back to where they came from. They said that we should not waste money on jail time or feeding these people while they waited for their hearing. They wanted to put them on that leaky tub and did not care if it sank. That was the kind of hysteria we saw whipped up by irresponsible people in the Reform Party or Alliance Party, and that is what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was making reference to.

We do not want policy shaped by xenophobic hysteria whipped up by people who are simply against immigration period.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Winnipeg Centre who has served as the NDP critic for immigration and citizenship over the past year. He has played a very important role in providing insight into the forerunner of the bill. He will continue to play a role in ensuring that we get the best possible legislation out of this process.

I am very proud to be here today as the new NDP critic for immigration and citizenship. I have much to learn as we begin this process. I am sure the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and other colleagues in the House will understand if I make any errors of fact, or if I have not clearly understood all of the issues at hand. I trust that there will be understanding and patience as we work on it together.

I want to indicate what drives me and what perspective I bring to this debate. It is a perspective that I share very much with the member for Winnipeg Centre partly, because of the kinds of constituencies we represent. It is fair to say, if we look at the ridings of Winnipeg Centre and Winnipeg North Centre, that together we represent two of the probably most diverse areas in the country with a very high number of ethnocultural groups represented in our communities.

Winnipeg North Centre has an incredible diversity of ethnocultural groups. It is an area with very strong multicultural roots that has always welcomed immigrants from every continent. Historically it experienced a large influx of people of Ukrainian, Polish, Jewish and German heritage. More recently immigrants have come in large numbers from the Philippines, India, Portugal and from many Asian, Latin American, African and Eastern European countries.

My constituency is home to many ethnocultural groups, many multicultural organizations, and many services involved in the preservation and the celebration of our rich and diverse heritage.

Together, those kinds of contributions, that kind of makeup, make for a very active, very vibrant community working to ensure an understanding of the differences among us and a respect for one another. There are many churches, synagogues, temples, gurdwaras, service groups and volunteer associations, all devoted to immigrant settlement, refugee sponsorship and anti-racism programs. I very much value the contributions of those organizations to my community and I value what they have taught me in terms of understanding the broad parameters of policies pertaining to citizenship and immigration.

In the course of this debate and the committee meetings to follow, I hope I will be able to reflect and represent the values of my constituents, which I believe are the values of Canadians everywhere. Having listened carefully to the critic for the Alliance, who was very careful in his choice of words around the policy issue, I would dare to say that if there is one thing that unites us in the House today it is that we all very much believe in the value of multiculturalism in the country today. We all want to continue the tradition that Canada has established for itself around the world in terms of being a country that is open to new citizens and that operates on the basis of humanitarian principles, offering refuge for people seeking asylum, for people in need and for people wanting to be reunited with family.

I also bring to this debate a personal conviction from my own background. Many of us in the Chamber today have a makeup of many ethnocultural backgrounds, each and every one of us. In my own case, I am proud to say that my mother is Dutch, married to a Ukrainian Canadian, and that I am married to an Amish Mennonite. I say that because for me it is part of who I am and part of what I bring to this debate and what I hope to transmit to other members in the Chamber. It is something I value and cherish.

I raise this also because I get concerned when I hear members of the media or even members of the House suggesting that we have to be watchful and mindful of all the different pockets of ethnocultural groups in the country today because that can lead to a patchwork of groups across the country and take away from the goal of national unity.

I look at it from another perspective. I think this is where my colleague, the critic from the Alliance, and I will have to disagree. I tend to believe that the richness of my background and of so many other Canadians in terms of ethnocultural diversity is a positive, an added benefit, something to be celebrated, not worried about. In fact I feel I am doubly endowed as a Canadian with the kind of background I have.

Rather than worrying about pockets of ethnocultural groups, I think we need to reflect on the value of diversity. We then need to work to ensure that our policies encourage the celebration of that diversity so that we, as a nation, gain strength from it and are able to meet challenges we would not otherwise be able to meet.

I say all of that because my biggest worry about Bill C-11 is the same worry that my colleague for Winnipeg Centre raised with respect to Bill C-31, that is, it seems to be more preoccupied with keeping people out of the country and protecting Canada from the world as opposed to reuniting families here in this country and ensuring that we respect our humanitarian traditions.

I know some changes have been made by the minister. I know she has made some improvements to the bill based on suggestions by members of the House and representations from various groups, but there is an overriding concern that we all share, at least those of us in the NDP caucus, about the tone and tenor of the bill and its focus on protecting Canada from the world as opposed to reuniting families in Canada today.

Sometimes that happens, in fact, when members in the House, as has happened quite regularly with the Alliance, tend to focus on the exceptions to the rule, on those few examples where a criminal element has entered our society or where people may have brought a disease into this country, as opposed to looking at the benefits from the thousands and thousands of immigrants and refugees who have helped to make this country what it is today.

Because of that focus and that kind of dominant thrust the minister is facing daily from the Alliance and other extreme elements in our society today, I worry that we will in fact lose sight of the important humanitarian role Canada has played on the world stage and of the extent to which those who have received sanctuary have contributed to our country's economic, social and cultural development.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe I have only two minutes left to give some opening remarks on the bill. I do want to say that there are a number of concerns which have to be addressed in the process surrounding the bill. I hope the committee process for receiving the bill will in fact be open to the many organizations and groups that have great knowledge and enormous interest and expertise in this area.

The NDP will be looking for some answers on issues not addressed by the bill. For example, there is the whole question of visitors' visas, an issue we deal with on a daily basis in our constituency offices. There is the issue of the ongoing head tax. Although the government has lifted it in regard to refugees, it still is an ongoing concern in terms of it being a barrier to people who want to come to Canada and settle here.

We will be raising concerns about the live-in caregiver program. We will be raising concerns about the adherence of this country to the Geneva convention around refugees in ensuring that our country provides the appropriate travel documentation for and acceptance of refugees here in Canada.

We will be raising concerns about the family class issue, acknowledging that the minister has moved parents into this group. This is a concern we have raised before and we appreciate the change. However, given the need in this country for a significant increase in immigrants, we still wonder why this government is not looking at a broader definition of family class and why we are not taking more steps to reduce the barriers to immigrants and refugees, to ensure that in fact this country is respectful of our past and is prepared to celebrate the diversity that makes it so strong.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the citizenship and immigration critic for the Bloc Quebecois, I am pleased to rise at second reading of Bill C-11, an act respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger.

This bill, introduced for first reading on February 21, is almost identical to Bill C-31, which was introduced in March 2000, in the previous parliament.

I will come back later on to the differences between Bill C-31 and Bill C-11 now before the House.

The current immigration act came into effect in 1976 and has been amended about thirty times since then. It is therefore important to undertake an indepth review of the legislation in order to meet the needs of immigrants and refugees in the 21st century.

In early February, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration tabled in the House of Commons her department's projections for the levels of immigration to Canada in 2001 and 2002.

A brief review of the figures for the last 20 years shows that 150,000 applications for immigration were approved in 1980. In the next five years, the number of landed immigrants dropped. In 1985, there were less than 100,000 immigrants. Starting in 1986, the number increased, until it reached an all time high in 1992, with well over 200,000 immigrants. In the following years, the number decreased to fewer than 175,000 people.

According to the department's estimates, Canada will receive 200,000 to 225,000 immigrants and refugees in 2001, nearly 18% of whom will settle in Quebec. For 2002, the estimates are increased by some 10,000.

Canada and Quebec are welcoming nations. The bill before us should be aimed at establishing a fair and equitable framework to meet the needs of newcomers as humanely as possible, whether they are immigrants or refugees, in accordance with international conventions and with the values that are important to both Canadians and Quebecers.

With free trade, with the break up of political structures, like in Eastern Europe for example, with serious conflicts raging in Asia, Africa and Europe and with the globalization of communications, more and more people will be tempted if not forced to embark on the adventure of trying to starting a new life in a new country.

This new legislation should open the door so they can contribute to the enrichment of the community of which they will become part. Their skills, their experience and their personal qualities are all essential to the development of both Canada and Quebec as nations.

The Bloc Quebecois supports the principle of the bill. However, we will have to look at this bill more closely in committee because certain aspects of it need to be changed.

As was the case with its predecessor, Bill C-31, the main thrust of Bill C-11 is harshness towards illegal immigrants. Indeed, a large part of the bill puts the emphasis on closing the door to illegal immigrants, strengthening the measures designed to fight fraud, false statements and abuse, prohibiting criminals and those who present a security risk from entering Canada, and imposing harsher penalties.

At first glance, this bill, as drafted, seems to suggest that Canada has been invaded by all kinds of criminals and that the door is too wide open.

The Bloc Quebecois does not share that view, which can only serve to reinforce prejudice against refugees and immigrants.

With this bill, the minister is seeking among other things to respond to a strong current of public opinion in the United States which feels that Canada has become a kind of Club Med for terrorists.

Among the measures aimed at discouraging illegal border crossings, the bill includes the imposition of heavy penalties, namely fines of up to $1 million and a life sentence for human traffickers and smugglers.

Revision of the act, as well as cracking down on illegals, is also intended—and this is good news—to lighten the load on a system that does not allow Canada to achieve its annual objective of 300,000 newcomers.

At this time, there are more than 400,000 people within Canada and elsewhere who are awaiting word on whether they will be able to settle in Canada. Canada is a popular destination. So, there is a problem with delays and I am sure that many members of this House could provide examples in their own ridings.

Speeding up the refugee determination process is one of the most positive measures contained in this bill. Indeed, the minister has indicated that, from now on, it will take 72 hours instead of 3 months—this is nothing short of extraordinary—for a refugee claim to be filed with the Immigration and Refugee Board, which will have to bring down its decision within six to nine months.

The minister also pointed out that her bill would significantly streamline refugee claim processing in order to reduce the maximum time frame from five to two years.

New measures will also be put in place to modernize the procedure for selecting skilled immigrant workers and temporary workers. It must be said that these measures will never apply in Quebec, since under the Canada-Quebec agreement of 1991, Quebec selects its own economic immigrants.

Refugee selection and family reunification remain under federal jurisdiction. It is time, however, the law explicitly recognized Quebec's jurisdiction. In this regard, section 10 of the current law is very weak.

As a signatory to international human rights documents, Canada has obligations as well with respect to the rights of non citizens. The new bill must take the standards established in these texts into account. Unfortunately, and although it refers to them, the bill does not incorporate the relevant texts.

There are three international conventions. The first, the 1959 convention relating to the status of refugees, provides that the mandate of the high commissioner for refugees to protect refugees falls as well to the countries signing the convention, including Canada.

The basic instrument, indeed the cornerstone of the international refugee protection system, is respect for the principle of non return recognized by the countries and enshrined in article 33, which provides that “No Contracting State shall expel or return, refouler, a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion”.

The bill currently before the House should also include sexual orientation, specifically, as grounds.

Subclause 97(1)( a ) of the bill refers to the convention against torture and provides for the protection of persons threatened with torture, as defined in article 1 of the convention. However, the bill does not fully respect article 3 of the convention, which prohibits the return of any individual to face torture. In fact, the present bill does not prohibit returning people deemed inadmissible for reasons of serious criminality and security.

Article 3 of the convention on the rights of the child requires governments to give the child's best interest primary consideration in all actions that concern him or her. Bill C-11 proposes that the best interest of the child be taken into account.

This bill provides for the automatic detention of any person entering Canada as part of an organized operation. The previous bill gave no special status to refugee status claimants who were minors. Under Bill C-11, a minor child shall be detained only as a measure of last resort.

I have many more quotes concerning the rights of children that I would love to read to the House, but since I have several pages left in my speech, I will not do it. However, I would be more than glad to provide them to any member interested.

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights recently published a report on the Canadian refugee determination system. Bill C-11 before us today addresses two of the report's recommendations by linking the appeal on the merits for refugee status claimants to the pre-removal risk assessment part of the decision taken by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada.

However, there are many other recommendations which the bill completely fails to address and which aggravate the existing situation. For instance, the report recommends that the decision as to admissibility should be the responsibility of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. The bill widens the categories of people whose claims will be deemed inadmissible and who will therefore never have an opportunity to be heard by the Immigration and Refugee Board.

The Bloc Quebecois is particularly concerned by the fact that the bill provides for the automatic detention of any person who arrives in Canada in the context of an operation organized by traffickers.

The Bloc criticized Bill C-31 because it did not grant any special status to refugee claimants who are minors, in spite of the fact that the UNHCR recently pointed out to Immigration Canada that it was contrary to the international rules governing the detention of young refugees, except in certain cases and for very short periods of time.

The minister seems to have heard the message since Bill C-11 provides for the detention of young refugees only as a last resort. However, the notion of “last resort” has yet to be defined.

In addition to illegal immigration, the bill mentions three main reasons for detention, namely the risk that the person will flee the country, the fact that the person may be a threat to public security, or cases where it is not possible to establish the person's identity. These three reasons are already included in the current act. However, in several respects, the bill broadens the scope of the provisions on detention.

The bill gives new powers to immigration officers to detain individuals at points of entry for purposes of “administrative expediency”. The officers may also detain people when they have reasonable grounds to suspect that they are inadmissible on grounds of security or on grounds of human rights violations. One might wonder whether this addition of new grounds for detention based on expediency and suspicion is not a cause for concern. It seems to us that the grounds of danger to the public and the risk of failure to appear already cover all the situations in which detention is necessary.

The bill also broadens the provisions with respect to detention on grounds of identity. Any requirement to provide proof of identity poses a serious obstacle for many refugees. In fact, these people are often forced to flee without their papers because their identity is precisely what exposes them to persecution.

At the present time, detentions for lack of identification can only take place at entry points. With this bill, a person will now be able to be detained within the framework of any procedure covered by the law if he or she does not establish identity.

This means, for instance, that refugee claimants could be detained if they do not establish their identity at the hearing to determine refugee status.

In Bill C-11, what are presently two distinct decisions, refugee status determination and review of the risk of removal, will be a single decision made by the Immigration and Refugee Board. For every claim for refugee protection, and every application for examination of risk of removal, the board will decide whether the claimant is a convention refugee, whether the claimant is a person in need of protection, that is to say a person who would be subject to a danger of torture in their country of origin and, finally, whether the claimant is a member of a class of persons whose need for protection is recognized through regulations.

It should be noted that the exception clauses in the convention on refugees apply to refugees in the meaning of the convention, and to persons in need of protection. These exceptions are aimed at criminals, those who have committed serious common law crimes in another country and anyone convicted of actions contrary to the goals and principles of the United Nations.

The centralization of decision making within the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada will no doubt make for a more effective and rapid process.

Reference to the convention against torture is new and significant. We should note, however, that the definition of protected person contained in the bill is not absolutely consistent with the provisions of the convention against torture, which, unlike the convention on the status of refugees, contains no exclusion clause. Article 3 of the convention against torture prohibits the return of any person who may be subject to torture, regardless of what the person may have done in the past or may do in the future.

According to the bill and consistent with the situation currently, only claims for refugee status approved by citizenship and immigration may be heard. However, the bill provides that an examination of an applicant's criminal records potentially leading to an inadmissible claim will now be conducted on entry into the country and no longer at the end of the process, once the claimant has been given refugee status. The bill also expands the categories of persons whose claims are deemed unacceptable, which means they will not be referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada for a hearing.

At the moment, the claims are inadmissible only for reasons of criminality and if the minister issues a certificate of public danger. Now, claims will be considered inadmissible if the claimant has been found guilty in Canada of a crime punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years and for which a sentence of at least two years was imposed. A claimant will also be ruled ineligible if he has been convicted of an offence outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence under an act of parliament that may be punished by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years.

It is important to point out that automatically excluding persons convicted of offences outside Canada poses a threat to refugees. Too often, the criminal justice system is used as a means of persecution. It is not unusual for victims of persecution to be sentenced on the basis of false accusations manufactured in order to convict them of crimes they did not commit.

Under the bill, applications for protection will be heard by the refugee protection division. Applicants will have a hearing before a single board member, whereas at present a panel of two hears the case. Appeals against a decision by the refugee protection division may be submitted to the new refugee appeal division by the applicant or the minister. This division will not hold a hearing, but will base its decision on written submissions. We also deplore that this bill does not include any change to the appointment process of board members.

Over the past several years, the Bloc Quebecois has repeatedly criticized the Liberals for making political appointments to the Immigration and Refugee Board. We believe it is essential that any change in the asylum claim process should seek to guarantee the integrity of the refugee status determination system.

In order to achieve that, it is critical to establish a transparent process to appoint and replace IRB members, so as to ensure full impartiality and selection based on the candidates' qualifications and professional experience, and not, as is often the case now, on their political affiliation. Since the bill provides that the decisions will be made by a single member, it becomes even more important and in fact essential that all the decision makers have the highest qualifications.

The introduction of appeals on the merits addresses one of the fundamental weaknesses of the present refugee determination system. The absence of an appeal mechanism was very recently criticized by the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights in its report on the Canadian refugee determination system. It should be noted, however, that the proposed appeal provides only limited protection to refugee claimants because it is based on written submissions only.

A large percentage of claims are ruled ineligible on grounds of credibility. It will therefore be extremely difficult to challenge such rulings of non-credibility in writing. Furthermore, written submissions also raise the problem of claimants without representation, which is often the case because of the inadequacy of legal aid.

The bill provides no guarantee of the independence of the refugee appeal division or of the greater expertise of its members with respect to refugee determination. If an appeal is to adequately correct the errors of the first level, the appeal division must obviously be a distinct and higher level.

In fact, it seems hard to guarantee the impartiality or appearance of impartiality of the process when the members of the appeal division are called upon to judge decisions made by their own colleagues in the section of first instance. Such a structure, in which members of the division are required to review themselves, does not imply a critical eye and cannot therefore in our opinion present the necessary guarantees of independence.

The Bloc Quebecois regrets the harsh tone used by the government in presenting this bill and in the related public announcements. The government's approach seems designed to reassure the Canadian right and strengthen prejudice against refugees and immigrants. It is thus encouraging division and fanning the flames of xenophobia and racism in society.

In recent years the Bloc Quebecois has said on several occasions that Canada's refugee determination system should have two essential features: it must be quick and fair to a person who is legitimately seeking asylum and it must deter those who overburden the system with unjustified claims.

This slowness in processing claims results in unacceptable human tragedies and puts people and families in extremely difficult situations.

For example, the average time to process a claim at the IRB's Montreal office is 10 months. Moreover, at the end of December 1999, there were over 7,000 asylum seekers in Montreal alone who were waiting for a hearing. That is one third of all cases in Canada.

We also believe that the new bill on immigration does not reflect explicitly enough the actual scope of all the powers gained by Quebec in this area. According to Quebec's former minister of public relations and immigration, Robert Perreault:

The act will have to include firm commitments in this regard. Provisions will have to be added to the current bill to ensure, among other things, the respect of Quebec's powers regarding the selection of immigrant workers or the maintaining of a distinct program for immigrant investors.

The bill will therefore have to contain a specific provision to this effect. In addition to the issue of Quebec's jurisdiction, it is important to mention that, although the bill proposes amendments with respect to refugee claims, nowhere does Ottawa undertake to assume the costs resulting from its handling of those claims.

In fact, if the federal government believes in the effectiveness of the measures proposed in its bill, it should be able to undertake to assume these costs, and to do so until those affected have been granted refugee status, have been granted permanent residence, or have left the country.

Last year, in February, it will be recalled, Quebec joined with Ontario and British Columbia in criticizing the federal government's handing of the movement of asylum seekers, calling for major changes, and demanding that the federal government, which is responsible for the entire refugee determination process, assume all the costs of providing services to these individuals, including social assistance, legal aid, education and so forth.

I would remind members that, right now, it is costing Quebec over $100 million annually to look after people waiting for a ruling from the federal government's Immigration and Refugee Board.

In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois is greatly concerned by the fact that many crucial points are relegated to the regulations rather than being part of the bill itself. This means that the government is basically excluding these rules from the scrutiny of the House. This also opens the door to many changes, at the whim of the government, or because of public pressure or discontent with a court decision.

At second reading stage, the Bloc is supporting the principle of this bill. However, a lot remains to be done. We sincerely hope that, instead of just rubberstamping the legislation, the Liberal government will consider improvements to it, at committee stage, in order to meet the needs of those who have chosen to settle here to build a better life for themselves.

[Inky Mark, Canadian Alliance, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take part in the second reading of Bill C-11, an act respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger. The bill is really the reintroduction of Bill C-31 which died on the order paper with the call of the last election.

As this is my first lengthy speech in the 37th parliament, I thank the constituents of Dauphin—Swan River for returning me to the House. Congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker, on your election to the chair and belated congratulations to all members of the House. I welcome my two deputy critics who will assist me in this portfolio, the new member for Blackstrap and the member for Surrey Central.

I will outline to our viewers how I intend to use up the next 40 minutes in debating Bill C-11. I will touch on the Canadian Alliance immigration policy, discuss why immigration is everybody's business, examine the current problems that are daily encountered, review the harsh words of the auditor general, and look at what needs to be done to improve the system.

Before I begin I want to tell the House how privileged I am to be able to stand in the House in 2001 to debate the subject of immigration. Not only am I proud to represent the Canadian Alliance Party. I am proud to say that I am an immigrant to this country.

My grandfather was a Chinese railway worker who arrived here in the late 1800s. My father came in 1922, a year before the implementation of the Chinese Exclusion Act, which incidentally happened right here in the House of Commons. The Chinese Exclusion Act refused the entry of Chinese immigrants for the next 24 years. The act was repealed in 1947.

I immigrated to Canada in 1955 as a seven year old. I do not believe for one minute that my grandfather would ever have envisioned that some day his grandson in the future would be standing in the House of Commons debating immigration legislation. I am doubly honoured to rise in the House today.

It is most unfortunate that a minister of the crown during the last federal election made some disparaging remarks about the Canadian Alliance. It was possible that these remarks were made in the heat of battle. We all do that from time to time. Unfortunately these remarks still irritate over three million Canadians who voted for the Canadian Alliance Party. I hope I am correct in saying that the minister did not mean what she said. I only wish the minister would do the right thing to resolve this issue.

The Canadian Alliance Party is pro-immigration. I will read our policy statements on immigration from the past election. Canadian Alliance promised to welcome new Canadians and at the same time keep out the criminals. Canada is a nation of immigrants. We have always been enriched by new arrivals to our shores. A Canadian Alliance government would maintain the current level of immigration. We would make it easier for immigrants who possess advanced skills and training to enter Canada, and we would make the family reunification process truly responsive.

Canadians are also angered by policies which have let dangerous criminals into our country and unscrupulous human smugglers who bring in illegal migrants, jumping the queue and hurting the integrity of the system. The Canadian Alliance immigration policy would accommodate legitimate immigrants and their families who seek to contribute to Canada, while locking it tight to those who would abuse the system.

Immigration is the story of Canada. Immigrants have been coming to Canada since Cartier and Champlain. Canada was built on the backs of the immigrants who came here from around the world. We are fortunate that after the 1900s, Canada adopted a somewhat open door policy to immigration.

Yes, as a country we have had our bleak moments, starting with the aboriginals, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Jews, the Ukrainians and the blacks. Despite all these bleak moments in history, we have fared quite well. Certainly over the last 50 years Canada has become an example to the world. Our diversity is a strength and not a weakness. We have shown the world that people from around the world can live and work together under one tent.

We should always see ourselves as Canadians first before our country of origin. Otherwise we will become a patchwork of ethnic communities, which will weaken our resolve as a nation. I agree with the author John Boyko who in his book entitled Last Steps to Freedom wrote:

Unity should be the goal of diversity rather than diversity existing as an end into itself.

In my opinion this is basically the weak link in Canada's multicultural initiative.

I applaud the member for Kitchener—Waterloo for his principal stand during the 36th parliament in his advocacy for those of us who are Canadians by choice in the citizenship act debate. There is no doubt the House will hear more from the hon. member for Kitchener—Waterloo when we debate Canadian citizenship in the future.

Canada needs to attract the cream of the crop around the world. In today's global economy, all countries are competing for skilled labour.

Canada's only option for population growth is through immigration. Smart immigration policies will create the opportunities for the country to create wealth. We need to keep better track of the different groups to determine how they are doing in the country, both in the short and long term.

The Canadian Alliance believes there needs to be a balance between access to Canada and security of our country from the world's criminals and terrorists.

We need to emphasize integration into Canadian society for both immigrants and refugees. The act mentions integration but does not specify how it is to be carried out. Canada has had many integration initiatives, both long term and administered by the government. They all have some level of success and failure.

However, with a larger number of both refugees and immigrants we need to look at a consistent approach to helping immigrants integrate into Canadian society. We know that most refugees have many needs including language. A clear plan of action should be in place to ensure that refugees receive basic needs, language training, education and skill training so they can become integrated into all aspects of Canadian life.

There is a desire by the populace to see that new Canadians are distributed throughout the country so that they do not all end up in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal. All parts of Canada need population growth. The federal government must come up with a new integration program in consultation with the municipalities and provinces.

The parliamentary secretary, the member for Gatineau, and I along with other members had lunch with a Danish delegation to talk about immigration issues. It was interesting that the Danish government had put in place new legislation called the integration act.

The Danish integration policy is based upon the fact that immigrants and refugees on the whole, and especially the newly arrived, have a disadvantage in linguistic and vocational fields which prevent them from participating in society on an equal footing with the rest of the population.

The Danish policy was necessary, while respecting the principle of non-discrimination, to implement special integration measures which aimed to ensure that immigrants and refugees would be able to participate fully in education, the labour market and all other areas of society.

The integration act shifted responsibility for integration measures for the newly arrived from the federal level to the municipal level, which it felt had the best capacity for implementing a comprehensive and co-ordinated set of integration measures concerning housing, community information, education, vocational training and an introduction to the labour market.

That makes a lot of sense. In Canada it is unfortunate that after the first year of arrival most immigrants somehow end up in big cities like Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal. It will be interesting to see the results of the Danish initiative.

The Canadian Alliance Party believes Canada needs to do its part in taking in refugees. We understand that refugees are not immigrants. Immigrants choose to move to another country. Refugees are forced to flee, often leaving family and belongings behind.

Eighty per cent of the world's refugees are women and children. In refugee determination, Canada should enforce section F(b) of article one of the United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees, which states that refugee status should not apply to those who have committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his or her admission to that country. Canada cannot afford to take in another country's criminals regardless of whether they are an immigrant or a refugee.

The government calls the new Bill C-11 a framework document. I agree that all it has is the frame. It is short on content. This type of enabling legislation leaves a lot to be desired. Unfortunately the regulations are authorized by order in council and sometimes have little resemblance to the legislation. Enabling legislation like Bill C-11 leaves too much authority in the hands of the minister.

Let us take a reality check on immigration happenings in Canada. As the House knows, I was appointed the Canadian Alliance chief critic for citizenship and immigration last August. Since that time there has been no shortage of immigration stories.

Most Canadians would agree that our immigration system needs a serious overhaul. Will the new Bill C-11 do the job at this stage? I do not think so. These stories occur almost daily and show the shortcomings of our immigration system.

Let us look at some of the problems that have occurred over the last year. Last August the supreme court ruled on the human smuggling trial in British Columbia. The trial should have sent a wake-up call to the federal government that it must revamp the immigration system. The federal government continues to tout its tough federal legislation, but after the verdict there is no doubt that Canada will remain a number one target for human traffickers.

In Bill C-11 there is a $1 million penalty, but the problem is catching the culprits. Enforcement is the key problem. All the legislation in the world will not help if there are no resources to see things through. The staff must be commended for the job they do in spite of waning resources. It takes a long time to process those coming ashore, and quick action is needed to determine whether the immigrants are bona fide.

Foreign nationals without status should not be under the protection of the Canadian charter. The new immigration act will broaden the definition of who can become a refugee in Canada, which goes well beyond the United Nations' definition of a refugee. If they are criminals they should not be accepted by Canada as refugees. That is within the convention.

While most other western nations are working to tighten their laws, Canada will remain the easiest target in the developed world. We must not forget who is paying the bill: the poor taxpayer.

The government has learned very little since boatloads of illegal migrants from China made their way to Canada's shore last year. The auditor general's report of April 2000 noted serious deficiencies in the management and delivery of the Canadian immigration program. Such deficiencies led the auditor general to conclude that the program's integrity was at risk and to question whether the department could handle applications and ensure compliance under the act.

Last August 28, the media reported corruption allegations at Canada's high commission in Hong Kong amid reports that immigration officials accepted gifts while working in Hong Kong. There were also reports that the RCMP official who blew the whistle on the scandal may be fired. That should have been reason enough to call for a third party probe.

In September the department had to deal with health problems associated with testing. Following the report of a malaria outbreak in Quebec, the government should have beefed up standard health testing for refugees and overseas applicants.

The auditor general called 10 years ago for serious upgrades of health standards. Medical staff to conduct such crucial tests has been reduced and the results are outbreaks like the one we heard about in Quebec.

In the April 2000 report from the auditor general, several deficiencies within Canada's immigration program were brought forward. Questions were raised about the standard health tests used by the immigration department and the number of physicians involved in checking for infectious disease. Some 240 refugees who came to Canada from central Africa in August were exposed to the malaria virus. Several of them started turning up in hospitals after joining host families when they arrived.

Again in September the minister stated that she would act on Health Canada's recommendation to test immigrants for HIV and reject applicants who tested positive.

The threat of AIDS is nothing new. The government has failed to protect the health of all Canadians by not acting sooner. In 1994 the hon. member for Calgary Northeast raised a motion in the House calling for AIDS testing and the government voted it down.

Is that the kind of leadership Canadians can trust in the 21st century?

Five years ago there were 44 physicians to check for infectious disease. Today there are something like 22 and they are expected to process over 200,000 claims. The government has failed to address the work overload thrust upon immigration department physicians.

By November Canada had become the home of Mr. Lai Changxing, arrested for allegedly having smuggled billions into China. It was discovered that he had been residing fraudulently in Canada for the past 15 months.

Mr. Lai is a prime example of what is wrong with our immigration system. A wanted criminal from China simply walked into Canada without the benefit of a background check and in doing so compromised the safety of the people of this country. If he is a proven criminal beyond a reasonable doubt, then he should be deported to his home country which is eager to welcome him home.

The supreme court decision on deportation has really thrown a monkey wrench into the case. A wanted criminal of Mr. Lai's stature should never have been allowed into Canada. The court's decision served only to send a message that if people break the law they can hide here. That is why Canada is the most attractive destination for the criminals of the world. Under the current system people can claim to be refugees and immigration Canada will allow them to remain in the country regardless of their criminal record.

Are we about to create a new category called a criminal refugee?

My colleague, the hon. member for Provencher, the former attorney general of Manitoba and our Canadian Alliance justice critic, expressed strong disapproval at the Supreme Court of Canada ruling in Minister of Justice v Burns and Rafay.

The member for Provencher said it would create a haven for any violent criminal, Canadian or otherwise, who would come to Canada to escape the death penalty in the United States or any other country. He also stated that after this precedent setting decision Canada would become a sanctuary for murderers and other violent criminals, putting the safety of law-abiding citizens at risk.

I agree with the member for Provencher. I believe the decision rendered by the supreme court, if it was to have been made, should have been made in the House. There is no doubt the decision has tied the hands of both the immigration minister and the immigration legislation.

In December the people of Hamilton received a scare when it was reported that some 1,200 people had been exposed to a deadly strain of drug resistant TB carried by a new immigrant. That is another example of the quality of screening that takes place before entry into Canada. Again, the first priority of the government should be to protect the lives of its citizens.

Even after the Hamilton scare I wonder if immigration has fixed the problems relating to health testing standards. The auditor general in his April 2000 report made recommendations to improve co-operation between the immigration and health departments, to make adequate resources available to enforce the testing process, and to have a clear definition of what tests should be administered before entry into Canada is allowed.

The auditor general has been telling the immigration department there were serious risks and flaws in the system as far back as 1990. I believe very few improvements have been made since then. It is time the auditor general's advice was taken seriously. We need a defined list of diseases to be tested for, both here and abroad, and resources need to be made available to employ adequate numbers of physicians.

At the very least there must be a very clear and definitive minimum standard of health requirements for entry into Canada, a set of diagnostic procedures for each test administered and an accountable process to monitor immigrants admitted into Canada while undergoing treatment.

Other questions that need to be addressed regarding the health screen process followed by Immigration Canada in granting entrance to immigrants and refugees are: How is it kept up to date? Are there minimum standards? How are they enforced? Is there a process for follow up?

The auditor general made further recommendations for improvement, and here they are. The first one was to ensure in establishing a regular review system that the current list of prohibited diseases keeps pace with world health issues.

The second was to establish, review and ensure a minimum standard of health requirements for entrance into Canada that is strictly enforced.

The third was to establish minimum qualifications and requirements for physicians completing or interpreting test results that would certify an applicant's admissibility.

The fourth was to establish a minimum of diagnostic procedures that must be completed before entry is granted, i.e. TB skin tests, chest x-rays and blood tests.

The last was to establish standards and guidelines for follow up of those who are allowed entrance while undergoing treatment.

In April 2000 the auditor general also said:

We are also very concerned about the lack of rigour and consistency in the overall management of medical assessment activities, including the procedures for supervising the designated local physicians who perform medical examinations of prospective immigrants abroad.

I ask members of the House what is more important in immigration than health standards. Perhaps it is time to incorporate these core principles into the act.

Last week federal statistics were released which show the number of deported individuals is up and that there are about 15,000 missing individuals with warrants. Of the 8,640 deportees in the last year 2,000 were violent criminals who required a personal escort by Canadian officials as they posed a threat to the public. The missing 15,000 are believed to have gone underground and into hiding.

That should come as no surprise to anyone who follows the news. Rarely a day goes by without an article on immigration. Canadians should know that we do not keep exit data. We do not know how many foreign nationals are here at any given time. Even if they came into the country on a visa, we do not know if they left the country when their visa ran out. Why would Canadians therefore be surprised at the high number of individuals with warrants?

Canada is the number one destination for criminals to hide out from the law. We should not be surprised that with the recent supreme court ruling on deportation the numbers being deported will dwindle.

It looks like Canada will become the destination of choice for the world's criminals. Even Toronto police chief Julian Fantino agrees. He said “You commit your crime in one place, you run from consequences and accountability and where do you go? You go to a place like Canada”.

In Bill C-11, the government borrowed from private member's bill, Bill C-333, an act to amend the Immigration Act and criminal code, refugee or immigration applicants convicted of an offence on indictment. This was tabled in the 35th parliament by the member for Vancouver North.

I liked the tough talk from the minister last week in the media about deporting criminals. Unfortunately, it is tougher walking the talk, especially now that we are living in a post-supreme court period.

As recent as last Friday the Montreal Gazette reported that a suspected Italian Mafia hit man moved freely across the Canadian and U.S. border while courts in Europe were charging him with murder. Immigration Canada alleged that the man knew about the charges but failed to mention them while renewing his visa, a violation of Canada's Immigration Act.

According to the papers it appears that Canadian security and Interpol did not compare notes on this dangerous criminal. What will happen at this deportation hearing if this man claims harm and fears for his life if deported? The examples are endless. They all show the same thing. Our immigration system needs a major overhaul beyond the creation of a new act.

Even the lawyers in the country are not happy with the current immigration system. I will quote from the August-September 2000 issue of the National , a publication of the Canadian Bar Association. In fact, the minister of immigration is in that very publication. This was what some of the members had to say when asked what was wrong with Canada's immigration system.

The first quote is from Allen Ruben of Fredericton, New Brunswick. He said “The 1994 budget cuts at the immigration department sliced away one-third of its human and financial resources, leading to processing delays of up to three years in the entry of urgently needed foreign workers”.

The second quote is from Isabelle Dongier of Montreal. She said “The immigration rules are so complicated and hard to understand that they are very irregularly applied and interpreted. If you present a case at the border you can sit there with five different officers and have five different interpretations of the same situation”.

The last quote is from Michael Greene of Calgary. He said “There is hardly any regulation for unscrupulous immigration consultants, some of them disbarred lawyers who prey on ill-informed and vulnerable immigrants. It is astounding that a government department would take so little care of the people it deals with, especially when they know they are dealing with people who are particularly ignorant of our laws and customs”.

Even the lawyers are frustrated with our immigration system. The most reliable scrutineer of the government of the day, as we all know, is the office of the Auditor General of Canada. Much of what was said 10 years ago by the auditor general on the immigration file was repeated in his April 2000 report.

For the record, I will read the auditor general's news release dated in Ottawa on April 11, 2000. It was titled, “Immigration services abroad are in trouble and need urgent attention”, chapter 3. It said:

In his Report tabled today in Parliament, the Auditor General of Canada, Denis Desautels, notes serious deficiencies in the management and delivery of the economic component of the Canadian Immigration Program, whose aim is to recruit skilled workers and business immigrants. Immigration offices abroad are overtasked, controls to protect health and safety of Canadians are deficient, and the Department is vulnerable to fraud and abuse. In addition, the Department is open to criticism of the quality and consistency of its decisions.

“Immigrants provide a steady flow of talent and new skills to our labour force. The deficiencies we noted in our audit seriously limit Canada's ability to get the economic and social benefits that immigration affords and seriously weakens the level of protection for Canadians intended in the Immigration Act”, said Denis Desautels. He added that it is highly questionable whether the Department has the capacity it needs to meet the annual immigration levels set by the government.

We know that immigration levels have been set for the past two years at between 200,000 and 225,000. In 1999 approximately 190,000 immigrants were admitted to Canada; 56% were economic immigrants, skilled workers, entrepreneurs, investors and self-employed workers.

Among the findings of the report were the following. First, selected criteria and process were not conducive to a rigorous selection of immigrants who were highly qualified and able to contribute to our economy. Second, applicants could wait up to three years for a decision. That is intolerable. Third, there were significant weaknesses in medical assessment of prospective immigrants. The same routine tests have been required for the last 40 years, despite the emergence of new diseases. Canadians should be concerned about their health. Fourth, some immigrants were admitted to Canada without reasonable assurance that they had not committed crimes abroad. Fifth, there were inadequate controls over revenue, visa forms and computer systems in offices abroad.

The auditor general urged the department and the government to take immediate action to address both policy and administrative issues. The statement of Mr. Desautels from April 2000 went on to say:

“It is disappointing to note that several of the problems we raise today are similar to those reported in 1990”, said Denis Desautels. “Employees responsible for processing applications in offices abroad are deeply concerned about the present state of affairs and I share their concerns”.

As hon. members can see, our immigration system is in dire need of a major overhaul. The question is how will the new act fix the old problems that go as far back as 1990? How accountable will the minister be in getting these problems rectified. The buck does stop at the minister's desk.

The old saying goes that it is always easier to criticize. In other words, what would the Canadian Alliance do to fix the problems? Let me, on behalf of the Canadian Alliance, present some solutions. Let me begin by saying that we will make the system work. The current system of immigration is workable. It is just very badly mismanaged and underfunded.

The department works with at least three other federal departments; health, foreign affairs and human resources. Better co-operation and communication among all these other parties would be a good first step in correcting what is wrong with the department.

Staff at all levels need to be better educated as to their role. The roles need to be standardized across the board. Those with the most experience in security, for example, should probably handle security matters. If the RCMP and CSIS are on board to help at all immigration offices around the world, then their expertise in determining security risks should be utilized. If the RCMP and CSIS are not using their expertise in determining security risks, then it is high time they were.

It is long overdue for an overhaul of the Immigration and Refugee Board system, beginning by making this system more transparent, less partisan and more credible. Members of the IRB should be hired on merit, not politics.

The department needs to undergo a full financial audit to determine areas of overlap and waste. There is currently not enough staff to handle the workload. The latest budget cuts have reduced the medical staff both in Canada and overseas assignments. It is interesting that the auditor general made these same complaints 10 years ago. There must be put in place an evaluation process to determine whether the system is working as a unit. There is no doubt that better co-ordination needs to take place between overseas offices as well as those in Canada.

The definition of what a bona fide refugee is must be clear. We need to follow the UN convention to which we are a signatory. As is currently happening, almost anyone entering Canada can claim refugee status. By the time they are processed and heard, many years have passed. Most Canadians agree that refugees should not be detained for long periods of time and that the determination process must be compressed.

Canadians want an immigration system that protects their borders from the criminals and terrorists of the world. Our security system needs to be addressed. Proper training in criminal background checks and risk assessments should be mandatory for all these officers.

As I have illustrated throughout this debate, there are numerous problems with the issue of security. The question which is always raised is how did these undesirables get here in the first place? Our research shows that there is very little communication or information sharing, sometimes none between the RCMP, CSIS and other international security agencies such as Interpol. A recent Montreal case is a good example.

Another problem we learned is what information is shared is sometimes undisclosed in a court during an appeal on an application. Therefore, visa officers are reluctant to decline applications on the basis of inadmissibility for security reasons. It is very difficult to prove the standards of inadmissibility. Further, there is no deterrent against applicants repeatedly submitting false applications, therefore increasing their chances of getting through the system. There needs to be sharing of information between RCMP, CSIS and visa officers.

The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration in its report entitled, “Refugee Protection and Border Security: Striking a Balance”, recommended that the Government of Canada increase resources for Citizenship and Immigration Canada, the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service and the RCMP so that they would be able to meet the challenges posed by traffickers in people and ensure the safety and security of Canada and its people. Perhaps it is time Canada stationed members of both the RCMP and CSIS permanently at our overseas locations.

We believe that once an applicant has been found to have willingly turned in a false application, which is a breach of the act, that person should not be allowed to reapply for entry into Canada. If we take our security seriously, the penalty for lying needs to be equally harsh. The minister should have the authority to deport an individual or decline the entry of an individual based on criminal, violent or terrorist acts without question or appeal.

The whole system of processing refugees must be addressed. We need to process refugees expediently. It is inhumane to detain or lock up refugees for long lengths of time, as was the case on the west coast where foreign nationals who claimed refugee status were locked up for over a year.

We would make the process work smoother if we adhered to the definition as written by the United Nations, that a refugee arrives, not by choice for economic gain but is here due to persecution based on race, religion, ethnic origin or political opinion. I must say that 95% of the refugee claims are credible. It is the 5% that we are concerned about and many of them are criminals who we do not need.

One way of dealing with these criminals who claim refugee status is that we should not be giving them full charter status until they have been declared bona fide refugees. Canadians wonder how foreign nationals can have full charter protection when they are foreign nationals before being declared bona fide refugees.

Penalties for those abusing the refugee claimant system should be steep and serve as a deterrent for all future would be fraudulent claims.

There is another point I would like to raise. Perhaps it is time that Canada should keep exit data so that we know who is in the country. Otherwise Canada is a pretty easy place to hide once inside its borders. Maybe it is time to photograph all those entering across our borders.

The minister must be more accountable for the operation of her department. Canadians are tired of hearing immigration problems almost daily on the news. They are asking the question, who is minding the store. There is a consensus that the immigration system in the country needs a major overhaul. Bill C-11 is only one step to help rectify the problems. It is long overdue that the government of the day to introduce new legislation since this current act is of 1976 vintage. The bill needs changes like all bills at second reading.

I close by saying that immigration is everybody's business. I would say that most Canadians can relate personally to immigration, if not in their immediate family, then certainly in the heritage of their parents, grandparents or great-grandparents. We all know that immigration will play a major role in the future of the country.

The Canadian Alliance will take a constructive approach to Bill C-11 at committee. We will continue to hold the government accountable for its lack of action. We will put forth amendments to strengthen the bill. We will listen to Canadians as they come forth with their ideas for improvement. Immigration is everybody's business. All Canadians need to be aware that a new immigration bill is in the making. Persons wanting a copy of the bill should contact their member of parliament.

I invite our viewers and all Canadians to communicate with their members of parliament, or with me as chief opposition critic, concerns and changes that they would like to see in this draft piece of legislation called Bill C-11.

The standing committee will be travelling across the country, probably in the spring, to listen to Canadians. Perhaps anyone who cannot attend these hearings would like to send in a written presentation to the clerk of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, and anyone who would like to appear before the standing committee could please contact their member of parliament, myself or the clerk of the standing committee.

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

moved that Bill C-11, an act respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present Bill C-11, the immigration and refugee protection act to the House for second reading. When the business of the House came to a close because of the election call, the progress of Bill C-31, the previous immigration and refugee protection act that I introduced in the House last spring, was of course brought to a halt.

This time however has given me the opportunity to review in detail the many discussions that ensued and the many submissions which were received subsequent to the introduction of the previous bill.

In particular, the time has given me the opportunity to consider carefully what Canadians were saying about the bill, both in its broad orientation as well as in specific detail. I can say I was pleased to note that Canadians were generally quite supportive of the previous bill known as Bill C-31.

They also expressed a few concerns. I am happy to say that I have addressed many of those concerns and the issues that were expressed. In Bill C-11 we have addressed what I believe were the most serious of those concerns. I have incorporated a number of recent proposals and I will describe those momentarily. I want to be clear that Bill C-11 maintains the core principles and the provisions of the previous bill.

This is important legislation, legislation which will be of great benefit to the country. The reason why is quite simple. By saying “no” more quickly to those who would abuse our rules, we will be able to say “yes” more often to those immigrants and refugees who Canada will need to grow and prosper in the years ahead.

This new legislation flows from four years of consultation. We had consultation with our constitutional partners in immigration matters, the provinces and the territories and with others interested in immigration matters. Those consultations have been both substantive as well as extensive.

The provinces have been quick to point out that we will only be able to increase our overall immigration levels, as the government is committed to, if we are prepared to improve our ability to absorb and to integrate those increased numbers. I understand and I accept this completely.

We have also consulted wisely, widely and substantially with many non-governmental groups and others involved in the business of settlement services for immigrants and refugees. I have met with Canadians, with permanent residents, with those who have been here for generations and with those who are newcomers. We have consulted as well with business leaders about the need for skilled workers. We have worked out innovative new ways to see that highly skilled workers on the move around the world will identify Canada as their destination of choice, our communities, our culture and our society.

Our economy has benefited enormously from immigration in the past. The evidence is seen all around us. We must continue to welcome new arrivals so that Canada will continue to grow and prosper and continue to be recognized in the years ahead as the best place in the world in which to live.

Of course we know that Canada is increasingly being challenged by other countries that are competing for the world's best and brightest who are seeking opportunities abroad. This competition will only grow more intense in the years ahead as more countries desire the benefits of immigration and experience the demographic changes that I believe and I know most western countries are facing.

The new century will belong to those who are best able to develop and expand their collective human capital. The knowledge based economy has become a reality. If Canada is to compete and succeed, we must continue to attract skilled workers from across the globe, to share their knowledge and their skills and to build bridges with the rest of the world. This means attracting not just skilled and hardworking individuals, it means reuniting them with their families as quickly as possible and welcoming them into the Canadian family. It means honouring our proud humanitarian tradition which begins with our commitment to provide safe haven to those in genuine need of our protection.

In the recent Speech from the Throne the government committed to modernizing and streamlining Canada's immigration and refugee protection systems. With Bill C-11, we are doing it. The bill simplifies the current Immigration Act. It enhances the safety and security of Canadians and of Canada's borders. It strengthens our ability to attract the immigrants we need and reaffirms our traditional openness to newcomers.

In short, it provides us with all that we need to fulfill our dual mandate, which is to close the back door to those who would abuse our generosity and not obey our rules, so that we can open the front door wider to the immigrants and refugees like those who came before them, who came here to build this wonderful country.

The bill will enable us to meet the challenges and take advantage of the enormous opportunities that the new century holds for this country.

Bill C-11 remains a tough bill. However, I want to emphasize that it is tough on criminal abuse of our immigration and refugee protection systems. The bill creates severe new penalties for people smugglers and for those caught trafficking in humans. These are deplorable activities. There will be fines of up to $1 million and sentences of up to life in prison for persons convicted of smuggling and trafficking in humans. It will also allow our courts to order the forfeiture of money and other property seized from traffickers.

The bill clarifies our existing grounds for detention and our criteria for inadmissibility to Canada. It provides immigration enforcement officers with the tools they need to see that serious criminals, threats to national security, violators of human rights, participants in organized crime and members of terrorist organizations are barred entry to Canada.

Bill C-11 will introduce front end security screening of all refugee claimants, fewer appeals for serious criminals and suspension of refugee claims for those charged with crimes until the courts have rendered a decision. This is what Canadians want and this is what we have delivered.

Bill C-11 will also streamline the refugee determination process. Referrals to the immigration and refugee board will take place within three working days of a claim. By consolidating several current steps and protection criteria into a single decision at the IRB and, moreover, by combining increased use of single member panels at the board with an internal paper appeal on merit, we will see faster but fairer decisions on refugee claims.

Combining grounds for protection at our IRB, Bill C-11 will maintain due process and a fair hearing for refugee claimants, while offering fewer opportunities for protracted judicial review at the federal court. Once again, this is a good example of streamlining.

I should note that Bill C-11 does not expand on the existing grounds for protection. It simply consolidates several current protection criteria and corresponding protection decisions into a single step. Grounds for protection will remain the same as they are at present in keeping with Canada's international human rights obligations.

Bill C-11 also takes steps to address the frustrating revolving door syndrome that has become associated with repeat claims. Failed claimants removed from Canada after receiving a fair hearing and due process, should they return to Canada to make a repeat claim, will no longer return to the immigration and refugee board. Instead, if they return to Canada seeking protection after six months, they will be given a pre-removal risk assessment to determine whether circumstances relevant to their previous claim have changed. Before six months, they are entitled to seek refugee protection only at our missions outside of Canada.

Bill C-11 will also strengthen the integrity of our immigration system. It will tighten up sponsorship provisions to see that those who sponsor new immigrants are both able and willing to meet their financial obligations. They will be required to keep their promises.

Bill C-11 will improve our ability to recover the costs of social assistance in the cases of sponsorship default. In regulations to accompany Bill C-11, we will deny sponsorship to those in default of spousal or child support payments, those on social assistance and those convicted of spousal or child abuse.

Bill C-11 will also establish a new class of inadmissibility for those who commit fraud or misrepresentation on immigration applications. It will create a new offence for those caught helping anyone to gain status in Canada through fraud or misrepresentation.

New arrivals would be required to demonstrate reasonable attachment to our country in order to maintain permanent residence status. Bill C-11 would require physical presence in Canada for at least two of every five years for new immigrants to maintain their permanent residence status.

These changes are very important for one very simple reason. It is about respect. In my many discussions with individuals and organizations across Canada, I can assure members that this point has been made abundantly clear. Canadians want a system that is based on respect, both respect for our laws and our traditional openness to newcomers. Bill C-11 would do just that.

I spoke of the steps to close the back door, but equally Bill C-11 would allow us to open the front door wider. We would improve our ability to attract skilled workers and speed up family reunification. In regulations authorized by Bill C-11, we would modernize our selection system for skilled workers. Independent immigrants would be selected for their adaptability, level of education and training, language skills, experience and general level of employability.

In today's rapidly evolving labour markets we need people who are best able to adapt to new occupations as the needs of the labour market shift over time. These are people who would thrive and contribute to our prosperity in the economy of this new century.

Bill C-11 would also provide easier access for highly skilled temporary foreign workers so that Canadian businesses can stay competitive and seize every opportunity for expansion. Many skilled workers who come to Canada on a temporary basis are subsequently offered permanent positions.

The regulations to Bill C-11 would allow these workers to apply for landing from within Canada under certain conditions, just as it would allow foreign students who have graduated and worked in Canada also to apply for landing from within Canada.

Bill C-11 also recognizes that family reunification has always been a cornerstone of Canada's immigration policy. Canadians know that new arrivals establish themselves more quickly and much better when they have the support of their extended families. Bill C-11 and its supporting regulations would allow spouses, partners and dependent children to apply for landing from within Canada provided that they are already here legally and that they made appropriate admissibility provisions.

I started my remarks by making references to the improvements I made in the bill to address some of the concerns that had been raised in relation to Bill C-31. I will say a few words about the changes.

One key concern that I heard was that the previous bill had to do with the idea of framework legislation. I understand the concern but I consider it all the same. Framework legislation remains essential to the efficient administration of the immigration program, particularly in the context of changing global environment in which it operates and would continue to operate. Framework legislation allows us the flexibility to make changes through regulation when sudden, unforeseen circumstances require. However I made a commitment to see that all key principles and policies are set out explicitly in the act rather than in regulations.

Bill C-11 enshrines in the act the principles of equality, freedom from discrimination and the equality of English and French as official languages of Canada. It also makes explicit the provision that parents are members of the family class. There is, moreover, an explicit provision now in the act that sponsors spouses, partners, dependent children and refugees resettled from abroad, along with their dependents, would not be denied admission on grounds that they would create an excessive demand on our medical system.

Bill C-11 also affirms in legislation the principle that children should only be detained as a last resort. It provides a clear definition of permanent resident to distinguish the rights of permanent residents from those of other foreign nationals.

Oral hearings have been reinstated for those facing loss of permanent resident status, and provisions have been clarified for allowing new evidence to be presented at those appeals.

Bill C-11 would also facilitate the return of permanent residents with expired permanent resident cards if they have been outside Canada for less than one year.

We have built in a higher threshold for examination within Canada related to inadmissibility and immigration officers would now require a warrant to arrest a permanent resident on any immigration matter.

Before denying access to the refugee determination system to persons convicted of serious criminal offences outside of Canada, the bill requires a ministerial danger opinion. This provision is a safeguard to protect those who may have been convicted of politically trumped up charges.

The bill makes explicit our policy that people refused refugee resettlement overseas by a Canadian visa officer would nonetheless be able to apply for refugee status from within Canada.

Finally, I am happy to say that the United Nations high commissioner for refugees will be allowed to observe IRB hearings and participate as an intervener in cases before the refugee appeal division. I believe these improvements both strengthen the bill's integrity and protects the rights of individuals before the immigration and refugee protection systems.

Bill C-11 gives us a balanced approach to immigration and refugee protection policy.

Since the initial passage of the current Immigration Act in 1976, I know we all agree that the world has changed dramatically. More than ever before, people are on the move for trade, tourism, investment and education in order to develop their skills, to share their knowledge, to pursue their dreams, to find safety and to reunite with family.

Canada has been the enormous beneficiary of this global movement of people.

The swift passage of Bill C-11 into law would allow us to modernize our immigration and refugee protection systems. It would allow us to meet the challenges and take advantage of the opportunities that lie ahead.

Let me assure the House that regulations in support of Bill C-11 will be developed in as an open and consultative manner as this bill has been developed. It will give members of the House, key immigration stakeholders and individual Canadians ample opportunity to share their views.

Issues of immigration and refugee protection are very important to the country. They take us to many of our core values that we as Canadians share. An open and transparent regulatory process would ensure that Canadians support the rules that are put in place.

Let me also assure the House that Bill C-11 recognizes that immigration is an area of jurisdiction that the federal government shares with the provinces and territories. Bill C-11 would commit the Government of Canada to continue consulting and working with our partners, the provinces and territories, in these matters.

The government is fully committed to the social union framework agreement and recognizes that immigration does impact on areas of provincial jurisdiction, such as health care, education and social services.

However, immigration also brings enormous social, cultural and economic benefits to Canada, its provinces and cities, benefits that must be weighed against the short term costs. Indeed, it is one of the reasons that so many of our provinces are currently looking to attract more immigrants. They know as we all do that immigrants and refugees built this country.

Under the new provisions of Bill C-11, immigrants and refugees would continue to help build the country in the future. I am proud to move adoption and second reading of Bill C-11.

Business Of The House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope the opposition will co-operate to ensure that we pass all the meaningful legislation that we have. I will take the comments of the opposition House leader as representation to his own colleagues to do just that.

This afternoon we will debate second reading of Bill C-9, the administrative amendments to the Canada Elections Act brought by a decision of the courts.

On Friday it is my intention, following Bill C-9, to debate Bill S-2 respecting marine liability.

On Monday we would like to commence consideration of the very important and excellent piece of legislation Bill C-11, the immigration bill. This would be followed by Bill C-12, the Judges Act amendments and Bill C-5, the species at risk legislation which is equally important.

Thursday, March 1, shall be an allotted day.

I am presently discussing with counterparts in other parties a proposal to reaffirm the powers of the Speaker to select for debate amendments at report stage in a manner that is fair to members and in the manner that it was intended when that procedure was adopted. Subject to consultation, I hope to be able to ask the House to consider this proposition some time next week, possibly early next week.

Immigration And Refugee Protection Act

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-11, an act respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)