An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (coming into force of sections 110, 111 and 171)

This bill was last introduced in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session, which ended in December 2009.

Sponsor

Thierry St-Cyr  Bloc

Introduced as a private member’s bill. (These don’t often become law.)

Status

Defeated, as of Dec. 10, 2009
(This bill did not become law.)

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Votes

Dec. 10, 2009 Failed That the Bill be now read a third time and do pass.
April 22, 2009 Passed That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

Immigration and Refugee Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

April 20th, 2009 / 11:50 a.m.


See context

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher has five minutes.

Immigration and Refugee Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

April 20th, 2009 / 11:50 a.m.


See context

Bloc

Jean Dorion Bloc Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is my turn now to rise in favour of Bill C-291, introduced by my colleague from Jeanne-Le Ber on behalf of the Bloc Québécois. As my colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert already pointed out, it is absurd that we have a bill here to force the government to fully implement legislation already passed by the House and entitled the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Sections 110, 111 and 171 of this act provided for the creation of a refugee appeal division, which was supposed to enable claimants who were initially refused refugee status to appeal the adjudicator’s decision.

As things currently stand, a single adjudicator judges the validity of a claimant’s fear of persecution if returned to his country of origin on the basis of his race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinions. Sections 110, 111 and 171 creating the refugee appeal division were supposed to be implemented four years ago to enable people to appeal the decisions of adjudicators, but they still have not come into force.

I worked for nine years in the offices of two Quebec immigration ministers. For much of that time, one of my jobs was to deal with the cases of refugee claimants whose applications had been turned down by federal adjudicators and who were now appealing to Quebec ministers to try to find a solution to the impasse they were in. This job helped me understand the terrible solitude of many of these people and how helpless they felt when faced with a sole adjudicator without any chance of appeal.

In many cases, I had an opportunity to read the decisions handed down by the adjudicators very carefully. Some rejections, of course, were perfectly well-founded, but others left me stunned by the ignorance or insensitivity of the adjudicator. When some adjudicators reject nearly 100% of the claims submitted to them, the inevitable conclusion is that they are motivated much more by a desire to get rid of people who, in their view, disturb our society than by the humanitarian principles and compassion that should guide any civilized person or nation.

Because of the way in which the law is currently being applied, or more accurately, is not being applied four years after passing the House, claimants still have no chance of appealing arbitrary decisions based sometimes on bizarre reasons.

We, the Bloc Québécois, are not the only ones calling for the implementation of the refugee appeal division provided for in the legislation. For many years, countless voices have been raised, calling for a refugee appeal division. Before the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act even came into effect, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights was calling for such an appeal division:

Where the facts of an individual’s situation are in dispute, the effective procedural framework should provide for their review. Given that even the best decision-makers may err in passing judgment, and given the potential risk to life which may result from such an error, an appeal on the merits of a negative determination constitutes a necessary element of international protection.

In a letter dated May 9, 2002, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees said that it considers an appeal procedure to be a fundamental, necessary part of any refugee status determination process.

For all these reasons, I urge all members of this House to support Bill C-291 introduced by the Bloc Québécois.

Immigration and Refugee Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

April 20th, 2009 / 11:55 a.m.


See context

Bloc

Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank all the people who have supported this bill and have even campaigned and encouraged all the members to vote. Some organizations have even formally shown their support, and I want to thank them.

I would like to name a few of them, even though I have only five minutes: Amnesty International, its francophone Canada section and the Edmonton and Toronto sections; the Association éducative transculturelle; the Quebec Immigration Lawyers Association, which, God knows, is aware of the gaps in the current act; the Barreau du Québec; the Canada Tibet Committee; the Carrefour d'aide aux nouveaux arrivants; the Centre africain de développement et d'entraide; the Centre communautaire congolais des aînés; the South Asian Women's Community Centre; the Centre de femmes Marie-Dupuis; the Centre d'Éducation et de Développement Interculturel; the Centre des femmes de Verdun; the Centre des travailleuses en maisons privées; the Centre justice et foi; the Centre social d'aide aux immigrants; the Christian Reformed World Relief Committee; the Church of the Resurrection; the Comité régional d’éducation pour le développement international de Lanaudière; the Confédération des syndicats nationaux; the Conseil central du Montréal métropolitain; the United Church of Canada; the Fédération des femmes du Québec; le Groupe Solidarité Justice; the Jesuit Refugee and Migrant Service; the Montreal City Mission; the Coffret; the Maison de la famille; the Mennonite Coalition for Refugee Support; the Mouvement contre le viol et l'inceste; the Quaker Committee for Refugees; the Réseau d'intervention auprès des personnes ayant subi la violence organisée; the Service d'accueil des nouveaux arrivants de Shawinigan; the Legal Aid Services at the Centre francophone de Toronto; the Southern Ontario Sanctuary Coalition; the Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes; the Synod of the Diocese of Niagara; the Toronto Refugee Affairs Council; West Hill United Church; and the YMCAs of Quebec.

I named a few of these organizations because I did not wish to spend all five minutes on it. I wanted to show that people from all backgrounds and organizations, not just organizations that defend immigrants and refugees, support this bill.

First, it is the law. It is surprising to see the Conservatives refuse to implement the law. We are told constantly that it is the law and order party, but the Conservatives are tripping over themselves to avoid implementing the act. The next time they claim to defend the law, we will remind them of this situation.

I was surprised to hear the member for Richmond state that we should get rid of those who take advantage of our system and accept those who genuinely need our help and protection. We all know the problem lies in how to do that. That is why we want a refugee appeal division.

I will use the courts to make an analogy. It would be like saying that we are going to abolish the Court of Appeal, the Superior Court and the Supreme Court of Canada because what is truly important is that criminals go to prison quickly and that those who are not guilty be released quickly. We know that; however, that is not the issue. The issue to how to ensure that mistakes are not made in both directions. My colleague clearly pointed this out. The rate of denial by some board members is almost 100%.

The application by a citizen from my riding, Abdelkader Belaouni, a blind and diabetic Algerian, was rejected by Laurier Thibault, a board member who has denied 98% of the applications he has reviewed. In light of this record, we would have to say that something is not working and that there is no justice.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, other board members accept virtually all applications. At present, not even the minister can appeal this decision. However, if a refugee appeal division were in place, he could do so. We could save precious taxpayer money, as my colleague from Richmond stated. We would all benefit from a more effective, efficient and, above all, fair system.

For this reason, I invite all members to support this bill.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-291, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (coming into force of sections 110, 111 and 171), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Immigration and Refugee Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

April 20th, 2009 / noon


See context

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

It being 12:03 p.m., the time provided for debate has expired. Is the House ready for the question?

Immigration and Refugee Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

April 20th, 2009 / noon


See context

Some hon. members

Question.

Immigration and Refugee Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

April 20th, 2009 / noon


See context

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Immigration and Refugee Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

April 20th, 2009 / noon


See context

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Immigration and Refugee Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

April 20th, 2009 / noon


See context

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Immigration and Refugee Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

April 20th, 2009 / noon


See context

Some hon. members

Yea.

Immigration and Refugee Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

April 20th, 2009 / noon


See context

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

All those opposed will please say nay.

Immigration and Refugee Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

April 20th, 2009 / noon


See context

Some hon. members

Nay.

Immigration and Refugee Protection ActPrivate Members' Business

April 20th, 2009 / noon


See context

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

In my opinion, the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93 the division stands deferred until Wednesday, April 22, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.