Bill C-11 (Historical)

Balanced Refugee Reform Act

An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Federal Courts Act

This enactment amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, primarily in respect of the processing of refugee claims referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board. In particular, the enactment
(a) provides for the referral of a refugee claimant to an interview with an Immigration and Refugee Board official, who is to collect information and schedule a hearing before the Refugee Protection Division;
(b) provides that the members of the Refugee Protection Division are appointed in accordance with the Public Service Employment Act;
(c) provides for the coming into force, no more than two years after the day on which the enactment receives royal assent, of the provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that permit a claimant to appeal a decision of the Refugee Protection Division to the Refugee Appeal Division;
(d) authorizes the Minister to designate, in accordance with the process and criteria established by the regulations certain countries, parts of countries or classes of nationals;
(e) provides clarification with respect to the type of evidence that may be put before the Refugee Appeal Division and the circumstances in which that Division may hold a hearing;
(f) prohibits a person whose claim for refugee protection has been rejected from applying for a temporary resident permit or applying to the Minister for protection if less than 12 months have passed since their claim was rejected;
(g) authorizes the Minister, in respect of applications for protection, to exempt nationals, or classes of nationals, of a country or part of a country from the 12-month prohibition;
(h) provides clarification with respect to the Minister’s authority to grant permanent resident status or an exemption from any obligations of the Act on humanitarian and compassionate grounds or on public policy grounds;
(i) limits the circumstances in which the Minister may examine requests for permanent resident status or for an exemption from any obligations of the Act on humanitarian and compassionate grounds; and
(j) enacts transitional provisions respecting the processing of pending claims by the Minister or the Immigration and Refugee Board.
The enactment also amends the Federal Courts Act to increase the number of Federal Court judges.

[Brian Goodman, Chairperson, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to discuss Bill C-11, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act.

I know we do not have a lot of time today but, since this is my first appearance before the Committee, I would like to take a minute to introduce myself.

I have been a member of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, the IRB, since 2001. Immediately prior to my appointment to the IRB, I was a member of the Consent and Capacity Board of Ontario. Before that, I was a senior public servant in Ontario, where I served as an Assistant Deputy Attorney General and Executive Lead for Agency Reform. Prior to that, I was Chair of the Rent Review Hearings Board and Acting Mining and Lands Commissioner. I have a Master's degree in Public Law.

Since joining the IRB, I have served in two of the Board's three divisions: first as a member of the Refugee Protection Division, then as Deputy Chairperson of the Immigration Appeal Division. I was appointed Interim Chairperson in March 2007 and I was formally designated in June of that year. I am honoured to be the chairperson of the IRB and to lead such a dedicated group of professionals.

Since its inception 21 years ago, the IRB has gained a reputation--both in Canada and around the world--for its innovative practices, the excellence of its adjudicative support and the high quality of its decisions. In fact, while in Ottawa last month, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Mr. Antonio Guterres, reiterated these sentiments. The IRB has also been recognized by the Federal Court of Canada and by the Auditor General for the thoroughness and professionalism of its training program for new members.

The IRB is Canada's largest administrative tribunal and our members make anywhere from 40,000 to 60,000 decisions annually. Our mission under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, as the committee knows, is to resolve immigration and refugee cases efficiently, fairly and in accordance with the law. We fulfill our functions through three divisions: the Immigration Division, the Immigration Appeal Division and the Refugee Protection Division.

While the Board is funded to finalize 25,000 refugee claims a year, as the minister indicated on Tuesday, the number of claims referred to the Board has consistently exceeded our funded rate for the past several years This high intake of refugee claims and an historical shortfall in the member complement have resulted in a large backlog in the Refugee Protection Division. Measures taken by the government last year to slow the intake, along with an increase in withdrawals and abandonments and enhanced productivity at the IRB, have stopped the growth of the backlog, which sat at 59,000 at the end of March 2010. And I am pleased to report that the IRB has recently reduced the backlog by approximately 1,000 cases, although I must stress that significant new resources will be required if the Board is to substantially reduce or eliminate the backlog.

The RPD is currently operating at nearly full capacity. As of today, it is one member short of its funded complement of 127. This is in addition to the 37 GIC appointees in the Immigration Appeal Division and the 30 public servant decision-makers in the Immigration Division.

All of our decision-makers receive extensive upfront training, mentoring and ongoing professional development, legal support, and country-of-origin and claimant specific research.

The work of an IRB member is difficult and demanding. It frequently involves giving testimony regarding torture or human rights abuses, and decisions are life-changing for the refugee claimants and their families. These factors, combined with the volume of work, result in significant pressures on our members.

I am proud of the way that IRB members continue to meet or exceed the expectations set for them. I believe that our success in this regard can be attributed to the practices, procedures and tools we have put in place at each stage of a member's career. It begins with the selection process, is reinforced during the training and integration phase, and continues throughout the entirety of the member's mandate.

Now I'd like to speak specifically about the proposed legislation, Bill C-11. As this committee knows, the IRB has no role in policy-making, as this is the responsibility of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, but I want to assure you that we have been consulted appropriately during the drafting of this legislation on all aspects that affect the mandate of the IRB. I also want to reassure you that the IRB will implement any resulting legislation professionally and effectively.

While we're proud of the work we do as part of the refugee determination system in Canada, the fact is that the public has lost confidence in the refugee system for reasons beyond the control of the IRB. The minister spoke about this on Tuesday.

The current system is in need of reform--the entire system--so that refugee claims can be heard and determined more quickly, and unsuccessful claimants can be removed more quickly, all the while maintaining procedural fairness. Bill C-11 is how the government has chosen to seek an improved system.

The main elements of the proposed system that impact refugee determination at the IRB include the requirement that a board employee conduct an information-gathering interview on a date fixed by the referring CBSA or CIC officer, in accordance with the IRB rules to be developed. At this interview, a hearing will be scheduled in accordance with the IRB rules, to be conducted by an RPD public servant decision-maker.

If a refugee claim is rejected by the RPD, all claimants except those from places or classes of nationals designated by the minister would have a right of appeal on the merits on all questions to the IRB's new refugee appeal division, RAD, staffed by Governor in Council appointees. The RAD would receive new evidence and, in certain circumstances, would hold an oral hearing. In the event that a negative RPD decision is upheld on appeal, appellants would have the right to seek leave for judicial review of the appeal decision from the Federal Court. The RAD, in addition to upholding an RPD decision, could substitute its own decision to avoid having it sent back to the RPD, or in rare cases may return the case for a rehearing before a new panel.

Members of the new RPD and the RAD, whether GIC appointees or public servant decision-makers, will be selected through a process that ensures they are suitable and qualified. They will benefit from a similar high level of ongoing training and adjudicative support as is provided to decision-makers at present. I also fully expect that we at the IRB will continue to find creative ways to make the system work in the most efficient way possible.

The IRB will remain steadfast in its commitment to high-quality decision-making and will continue to maintain the high standards we have set for ourselves. Above all, our thoughts are never far from the people whose lives depend on the decisions we make, as well as the safety and security of Canadians.

The IRB will deliver, to the best of its ability, on the requirements of the legislation as determined by Parliament, and we will do so within the timeframes given and within the budget allotted, fulfilling our mandate to resolve cases efficiently, fairly, and in accordance with the law.

In closing, I would like to say to the committee that, as it can appreciate, there are still many questions that need to be answered as we prepare for implementation after royal assent. We will have to develop rules and procedures, develop staffing strategies to meet the new requirements, and determine our fit-up needs, to name just a few.

Now I'd be pleased to do my best to try to answer any of your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. This is meeting number 13 of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, on Thursday, May 6, 2010. For orders of the day, we have Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Federal Courts Act.

We have with us today as our guests the chairman of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Mr. Brian Goodman; the executive director, Mr. Simon Coakeley; and the senior general counsel, Ms. Sylvia Cox-Duquette.

Welcome to you all, particularly Mr. Goodman.

I thank you for giving up your time and coming to help us with this bill this afternoon.

I understand you have a brief presentation. You have up to 10 minutes.

Thank you again for coming. You have the floor.

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

One of the things you did—and you mentioned it in terms of burning the midnight oil—was to travel across the country once the introduction of Bill C-11 was brought forward by you in the House, and you went from one side to the other. I'm wondering if you can comment on some of the reactions you received in terms of folks you met, whether they be stakeholders, whether they be media, whether they be those who may come here and actually be witnesses. Could you tell us the reaction you've received in terms of dealing directly with people on this?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

When Mr. Coderre was minister, and he was followed by Ms. Sgro and Mr. Volpe--they all expressed their sincere, I believe, intention to implement the RAD, but they all said it had to happen in the context of other broader streamlining in the system. I have all the quotes, and I agree 100% with what my predecessors said at the time. They were in a difficult bind, because it's not easy to come forward with a comprehensive but balanced reform of the asylum system. It is not easy, believe me. I've been working on this, burning the midnight oil for a year and a half on the policy details here, and this is something that department officials have been working on, frankly, for years, as Mr. Coderre will well know.

The point is this. Everyone has wanted to bring in an appeal division, but within the context of streamlining, and that's what we're able to achieve here. Through the moratoria on post-claim recourses for one year, through the faster first-level decision, and thanks to faster removal at the back end of the system, we believe we can introduce this additional level of administrative fairness in the refugee appeal division without further burdening an overburdened system.

I want to underscore that the refugee appeal division foreseen in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act 2003, and proposed, for instance, in Mr. St-Cyr's private member's bill, does not actually include, as does the RAD in Bill C-11, the ability to present new evidence and in certain cases to have an oral hearing before the appeal division decision-maker. This is an improved RAD. It's an additional level of administrative fairness, but it's not going to happen if we don't achieve the other streamlining in the system that the package speaks to.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Thank you, Chairman.

I'm quite excited to be here, to be working with all of my colleagues on what is a critically important piece of legislation that constitutes part of a broader package to bring balanced reform back to Canada's asylum system.

These balanced reforms will result in bona fide refugees getting faster protection in Canada, much faster than is currently the case, while those who seek to abuse our country's generosity would also, on the other side, be removed much more quickly. These reforms would also enhance the fairness of our system and would ensure that the asylum system actually exceeds our domestic and international legal obligations.

Chairman, as part of the package, we are also proposing to expand our refugee resettlement programs and increase the number of UN refugees and others, who are often living in camps or urban slums and are victims of conflict and ethnic cleansing...we would increase our welcome to those kinds of individuals by some 20%, or 2,500 individuals. We would also increase support for the refugee assistance program for the successful integration of government-assisted refugees by some 20%, the first time that program has been increased in a decade.

In essence, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act focuses on improving our asylum system. The act would introduce a new information gathering interview at the independent Immigration and Refugee Board, would provide for a hearing within 60 days, as compared to the current 19 months, and would also introduce a new refugee appeal division, something refugee advocates have been requesting for a long time.

I would be remiss at this point not to point out the extraordinary and admirable efforts made by our colleague Mr. St-Cyr. I know he was disappointed about the failure of his bill. However, there is finally an appeal section, which is even better than what was provided by the legislation in 2002.

This new appeal division would provide most claimants with a second chance, an opportunity to introduce new evidence about their claim and to do so in an oral hearing, if necessary. And, significantly, Mr. Chairman, the bill would make it possible to remove those who would abuse our system within a year of their final IRB decision.

Bill C-11 would also put in place authority to develop a list of safe countries of origin. Because I recognize that there has been general concern over this issue, I wish to focus my remarks today on the issue of safe countries of origin.

While I referred last week in the House to our current number one country for asylum claims, and the 97% of claimants who withdrew or abandoned their claims, there have been similar spikes in claims from other countries over the past 25 years. I am referring here to Portugal, Chile, Costa Rica, Hungary in 2002, Czechoslovakia in 1997. Each time, the government, be it Conservative or Liberal, imposed visas following spikes in asylum requests from democratic countries, which were almost all denied by the IRB.

A safe country of origin would be a country that is a principal source of refugee claims, the overwhelming majority of which are unfounded. These two criteria would be the starting point for even considering whether to review a country for possible inclusion on the list. There's nothing arbitrary about the process we propose. Countries on the list would be chosen in a way that is fair, objective, transparent, and reported to Parliament. They would be placed on the list only after a thorough assessment based on objective criteria.

Such countries would have a human rights record whereby individuals would be offered protection against persecution, as the convention says, for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group, and whereby persons would not face the risk of torture or death. This assessment would draw on publicly available reporting and analysis from a wide range of independent sources, including NGOs on human rights.

An advisory panel, including representatives from several government departments, would be established to provide advice on designations and advice to the minister. Input and advice would also be sought from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. The panel would also provide submissions recommending removal of a country at any time.

The list of countries would be short, with probably no more than a handful of countries on it at any given time. If you look at the current statistics, only a handful of countries that have a significant number of claims, the overwhelming majority of which are unfounded, would even be considered. The independent panel would then apply the qualitative assessment with respect to human rights practices and the protection of individuals. This is very important, because there are some misconceptions about this. All eligible refugee claimants, including those from designated safe countries, would continue to receive a full oral hearing before an independent decision-maker at the IRB, as they do under the current system, and would continue to have access to the Federal Court. We would continue to exceed our charter and international legal obligations with respect to claimants coming from designated safe countries.

While claimants from such countries of origin would still be able to seek judicial review, as I've said, they would of course not have access to the new RAD. This is because, Mr. Chairman, for the handful of typically democratic and rights-respecting countries from which we receive huge waves of unfounded claims, claims that are not happening spontaneously but are very often organized, we need some type of tool to accelerate the process, as most of the western European asylum systems have, short of having to resort to the blunt instrument of visa imposition, which successive governments of different parties have had to do. As I mentioned, most western European asylum systems have for consideration a country designation process to accelerate claims from safe countries. Mr. Guterres, the UN High Commissioner, said here in Ottawa that, “There are indeed safe countries of origin. There are indeed countries in which there is a presumption that refugee claims will probably not be as strong as in other countries.”

I should mention, parenthetically, that for several years he was Prime Minister of Portugal, where they have a very strong SCO system.

Mr. Chairman, I recognize that my parliamentary colleagues have also expressed concern about this aspect of my proposals, and that is why I am here today. I want to hear from members of the standing committee on this issue. I am extending a hand of openness toward my colleagues to modify the bill to address concerns. I am prepared to discuss the matter in good faith and transparency.

Colleagues, the safe country of origin is a critical tool to manage a spike in claims from countries that observe international human rights norms and obligations and that protect their citizens. The option is not to have a SCO process in the reformed asylum system or nothing at all; the option is to have that as a tool to deal with these waves of unfounded claims or to have access to one tool only, which is the imposition of a visa. I think it's important to keep that in mind.

I'm pleased to see how well these reforms have been received.

The Globe and Mail editorialized, and I quote:

Canada has a crying need for a revamped refugee-determination system, and it is to the credit of the...government that in a minority Parliament it has crafted a bold set of proposals that are fair and respect due process, while also seeking to deter those who would play this country for fools.

The Toronto Star endorsed these reforms, saying that this government “...deserves credit for showing the political will to act on an issue ducked” in the past.

The Montreal Gazette wrote that “Bill C-11...is a solid and sensible attempt...to kick-start a system that is wallowing in disarray” and that it “is a reform whose time has come”.

Experts like Peter Showler, former chair of the IRB and head of the refugee policy forum at the U of O, said, “It is even more difficult to design an entire refugee claim that is both fast and fair. The...government has done just that....”

But most importantly, Canadians support these measures by an overwhelming majority. By four to one, Canadians say that “...more needs to be done to quickly remove from Canada people whose refugee claims are unfounded and rejected”. Eighty-four percent of Canadians say that measures should be taken to reform the refugee system. And “81 per cent agreed that 'all refugee claims should be dealt with more quickly so that genuine refugees can settle in Canada faster and bogus claimants be sent home more quickly'”. This is according to a Decima Research poll.

Mr. Chairman, I want to close by emphasizing this.

I must say the amendments I am putting forward would help us maintain Canada's noble humanitarian tradition as it will allow for the protection of those that are persecuted while expediting the removal of individuals who do not need Canada's protection.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I need to emphasize that should this bill not succeed in getting parliamentary consensus and being adopted, we will miss, frankly, an historic opportunity. I think everyone involved in this system, all of its observers, has recognized for a long time that there were some serious dysfunctionalities within our asylum system. It's not working well enough for bona fide victims of persecution. It's working too well, one could say, for those who come here who don't need our protection and who are able to stay for several years. It's not working for taxpayers.

It needs to be reformed, and if we want to get a refugee appeal division in place, if we want to be able to allocate more resources to resettle more of those who are in dire straits around the world, through our 20% increase in resettlement under the assistance program, if we want faster protection for bona fide refugees, if we want a tool that can help us to consider avoiding the imposition of visas in the future that are injurious to our diplomatic and commercial relations, if we want all of these things, Mr. Chairman, then I submit that this is a sound and balanced package that can be supported by all of those who believe in Canada's humanitarian tradition as a place of refuge.

I am happy to take your questions.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the House is fully aware of the decisions that were made with respect to Mexico and Costa Rica regarding visas.

What I would like to ask the opposition is this. We have Bill C-11 that will go to committee next week to put in place some of the most aggressive refugee reforms we have seen in decades in the House.

I ask that member and I ask the opposition to support that bill at committee. Let us bring it back to the House of Commons, and let us have a vote and send it to the Senate before the summer recess.

Balanced Refugee Reform Act

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand in the House and speak to Bill C-11, known as the refugee reform bill.

I echo the message of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party and other colleagues in the House, who call for the bill to be returned to committee. Amendments need to be made to the bill to truly deal with the issue at hand. The NDP hopes that the legislation will create a fair and fast process when it comes to admitting refugees to our country and when it comes to upholding Canada's tradition of being known as a country of refuge for people who suffer a great deal in many parts of the world.

This is an important issue for me to discuss. I am the daughter of immigrants. My dad came from Britain and my mom came from Greece. They came to Canada, like so many others, for a better future for their children.

We recognize that the experience of people who come to Canada as refugees is one of even greater intensity in the sense that they have had to leave their home country, many of them in a hurry, to escape strife, whether due to war, famine, persecution, or whatever it might have been.

I grew up in Thompson, Manitoba, which was built by first nations as well as newcomers to Canada. Many of those newcomers came as refugees from countries around the world in order to help build my community and to build the diverse communities of which Canadians are so proud.

I would also like to note that this issue is of particular importance to me, given the upfront work that I did as part of Welcome Place. Years ago, while I was going to university, I had the chance to work with a very innovative organization in Winnipeg, Manitoba that provided services for refugees. It also facilitated bringing refugees over from the countries in which they were suffering. This organization connected them with their families and with faith groups that were willing to sponsor them. It truly provided that link.

I cannot tell members how many emotionally charged discussions I have had with family members and with people who had come over to Canada as refugees just recently. I had an upfront look at the challenges these individuals faced when they entered the system. I also saw the hope that they brought to Canada, a country that they know as being welcoming and open to diversity and aware of the role they can play in our country.

That is why I am so concerned about the bill before us.

We have talked a great deal over the years about the need to reform the refugee claimant system, the system by which they come to Canada. We are aware of the way the Liberal government hacked away at the system of supports, which contributed to the immense backlog of applicants.

We know more recently of the Conservative government's failure to appoint people to the Immigration and Refugee Board to deal with the backlog in a timely manner.

This legislation is an attempt to deal with a problem that is essentially built on the past neglect of the Liberal government. The NDP has many concerns about it.

One concern that has been made so clear is the reference to the judgment of safe countries, the idea that we would designate certain countries as being safer than others, looking at refugees on a group level rather than an individual level.

As has been raised in the House on many occasions by my colleagues, we need to recognize that kind of criteria overlooks some of the kinds of persecution some people seek to escape from around the world. Specifically, one example would be the gender based persecution. For example, a woman might come from a country that might overall be considered safe and we might overlook the fact that she has been a victim of tremendous gender based violence.

I go back to the idea that treating claimants differently based on their country of origin is essentially discriminatory. We have heard from many people, third parties, intricately involved in the refugee system. They say that the refugee determination process requires individual assessment of each case and not group judgments.

Another example of persecution that is overlooked as a result of these kinds of group judgments is persecution based on sexual orientation and the homophobia that exists in so many countries. We benefit from the laws and the rights that we fought for in our country. However, we know that while other countries around the world might adhere to certain human rights, in many cases there is great disrespect and in fact persecution of people based on their sexual identity. That would be overlooked in making these kind of group judgments.

A denial of these fair processes to claimants, looking at them on an individual basis, may lead to their forced return to persecution, which is in violation of human rights law. Not only would we be making these kinds of rules, but we would be returning people, who are seeking refuge in our country, to face the exact persecution that Canadians do not accept.

This area causes great concern for us. We would like to see amendments that would counteract these kinds of measures.

Another area in Bill C-11 that we feel is inadequate is it does little to address the problem of unscrupulous immigration consultants. Former Immigration and Refugee Board chair, Peter Showler, believes the expedited timelines will actually drive more refugees to these kinds of consultants.

Whether people are seeking immigration status or refugee status, which in many cases is the most urgent, some immigration consultants undertake the most unethical of jobs and prey on the vulnerability of those people who seek only to have a better life and seek only to come to Canada through the system. People are already frustrated with the existing timelines, but the bill does nothing to correct that. In fact, if anything, the timelines would be extended.

It is important to note that the bill has some merits in terms of establishing an appeal process for some refugee claimants, something for which we have been calling. We recognize that to be important.

We see more funding for the refugee board to clear the backlog. Much of the increased funding will be given to the CBSA to remove the failed claimants and to appoint judges. The NDP would prefer to see more funding given to hire permanent refugee protection officers to clear that backlog.

In my work with Immigration Canada, not in the refugee division but in more general immigration, it was clear the extent to which there was an increased burden on immigration officials. They were finding it difficult to deal with the demands made on the Canadian system. The solution is not to cut back. If anything, we do not need the quotas that we set for immigration. The solution is to look in part at hiring people who would do this kind of job to alleviate the work of those around them in the department and also to assist in this area more specifically.

New Democrats believe the refugee determination process again should be both fast and fair. We believe—

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for this question because, in my 10 minutes, I was not able to talk about all of the problematic elements in Bill C-11.

I spoke about the distinction between safe countries and the other countries, but there is also the problem of timing. It is obvious that it would be unrealistic to hold an initial hearing eight days after a person claims refugee status.

The member gave the example of woman arriving in Canada who had been a victim of sexual assault. Her world will have been turned upside down. Eight days would not be enough time for her to find a lawyer and build her case. As well, like others claiming refugee status, she may have had to leave her country of origin without the necessary documentation, if she ever had it, to make her claim.

There is absolutely no way that this eight day timeline can stay in the bill. We intend to propose amendments to make this timeline more realistic. As the member said, this timeline would not be workable on the ground.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

We can only hope he will come back, although I doubt the hon. member for Outremont feels the same. My point is that we have been waiting for this measure for nearly eight years. This also explains, in large part, the injustice of the current system, which was never completed. I will come back to this later.

We believe that this notion of safe country is discriminatory, because it means that the refugee claims of individuals from so-called safe countries will not have the right to appeal their cases before this appeal division and will have to take their cases to the Federal Court, as is the case right now. We have already seen all the problems and concerns associated with such a situation. We saw the example this week of the pregnant woman from Guinea who, just a few minutes before she was supposed to board a plane for her deportation, was granted a four-month stay of deportation by the Federal Court.

Since the Appeal Division has not been instituted, they will have to keep going to the Federal Court to make sure that the new evidence her lawyer has uncovered is taken into account and she can get refugee status. In this instance, the lady was more or less fooled by a consultant, who did a poor job of preparing her case. She cannot appeal because the Appeal Division will not come into force until two years after the bill passes.

I want to remind the House that a real appeal procedure for refugee claimants should have been instituted as soon as the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act took effect in June 2002. The Bloc Québécois also had a unanimous motion adopted by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on December 14, 2004 asking the Liberal government of the time to immediately institute the Appeal Division.

Despite the adoption of this unanimous motion, the Liberal government did not budge, no more than the ensuing Conservative government. We therefore introduced private member’s bills, including Bill C-280 instituting the Refugee Appeal Division, which was introduced in October 2006.

We were back at it in February 2009 with Bill C-291. It is very sad that the bill was defeated by a single vote, 142 to 143. If it had not been for the notable absence of several Liberals, the bill would have passed easily. I hope they are asking themselves some serious questions in the Liberal Party. Is there really any difference between the Conservative government and the opposition? For my part, I do not think so. I like to say they are like two peas in a pod, but it is not very funny.

If not for the cowardice of certain Liberal members, the Bloc bill would have passed. We are glad all the same to see in Bill C-11 that the Refugee Appeal Division is finally being implemented. Once again, though, we think it is appalling that some refugee claimants will be precluded from the Appeal Division because of the distinction the bill draws between safe and unsafe countries. I think this is discrimination. We will ensure, therefore, that the witnesses who appear before the committee do what they can to enlighten the government and the members of all parties so that this regrettable situation is corrected.

In addition, the minister is playing with words when he says that the claims from people from safe countries will be expedited. The procedure will certainly be accelerated, but only because these claimants will be precluded from any recourse to the Appeal Division. As soon as the immigration official makes his decision, these claimants will be accepted as refugees or will have to leave, unless they take their case to the Federal Court. We will certainly take issue with this.

What concerns me the most is the fact that the bill gives the minister the legal authority to designate safe countries of origin. According to the government, safe countries of origin generally do not produce refugees, have a good human rights record, and protect their citizens well.

Sometimes, even in countries that are relatively democratic, people can be harassed or have their lives threatened because of their sexual orientation, gender or religion.

For all these reasons, we will vote in favour of Bill C-11 at second reading in order to study it in committee. I remind the House once again that we want to see the regulations before proceeding to clause by clause study of the bill.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-11, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act.

First, I would note, as have some of my colleagues, that the refugee claim backlog, which has gone from nearly 20,000 in 2006, when the Conservatives came to power, to over 60,000 in 2009, is essentially a product of the delay in appointing immigration board members. The government is therefore primarily responsible for this crisis. Obviously, the appointments that have been made are not entirely to our taste. I am thinking of Pharès Pierre, for example, and his Duvalierist past. He is now an immigration board member, when numerous Haitians in Montreal have made or will be making refugee protection claims or applying as members of the family class. That is extremely disturbing.

It must be pointed out that the bill contains measures that are worthy of consideration, but it also contains disturbing measures. There is good and bad, and because the Bloc Québécois always works scrupulously, it has decided to send this bill to committee. We will therefore be voting in favour of the bill at second reading in spite of the reservations we have. I have to state immediately that we are expecting the minister to make the substance of the underlying regulations for Bill C-11 available to the committee. A lot of things are being introduced in this bill, such as the concept of safe country, that we do not know the concrete meaning of. The Bloc Québécois cannot give unconditional support as long as its questions remain unanswered.

The concept of safe country is in fact one of the items that seems most problematic to us. There will be good refugees, the ones who come from a country where there are flagrant human rights abuses. On the other hand, claimants who come from countries that Canada recognizes as safe, based maybe on purely diplomatic and geopolitical reasons, will be regarded as bogus claimants, even though they may have suffered intimidation and harassment, and even if their personal safety may be endangered. We consider this to be a discriminatory criterion that must be rectified when the bill is examined.

I said that we hope the regulations will be made available to the committee. To us, that is a need that must be met before clause by clause study of the bill. How can we agree to adopting a new concept, such as safe countries, if we do not know the criteria the minister will be applying to draw up that list?

On the other hand, we are quite pleased that the bill finally creates a refugee appeal division, which we have been calling for since 2002. That is almost as long as I have been serving the people of Joliette as their MP, given that I was elected in 2000. As I recall, when the amendments creating the refugee appeal division were passed, Martin Cauchon was the Minister of Immigration. He left this House a long time ago.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, Canada purports to be a champion of human rights and in many respects it is, but there are failings in Canada's system and one of those areas is the refugee determination system. Now is the opportunity to fix those failings. Now is the opportunity to improve.

Refugees are not just people in need, they are people. They are part of our history, part of our present and part of our future. The life stories of refugees are informative, not only of injustices around the world but of injustices that occur here in Canada with a bureaucracy that can and should be more responsive, more sensitive, more accommodating and more reasonable to the situations in which refugees find themselves.

Who are refugee claimants? They are people who are often fleeing dangerous situations which often are political and sometimes are societal. They seek fairness and justice for themselves and for their families, the kind of fairness we sometimes take for granted here in Canada.

Canada is an extremely wealthy country, a stable country and a country built on human rights principles. Our refugee system is one of the ways we can actually demonstrate to the world that we can be leaders in establishing a fast and fair system. We should hope that our system is duplicated around the world and not derided.

What we need is a streamlined system that avoids backlogs and makes the right decision the first time based on individual merits and without unnecessary rules. We need a system that truly recognizes it is deciding the future of someone's life and which represents our domestic human rights policies to claimants.

New Democrats have a history of advocating for a better determination system, a system that is fast and fair. We need more independence in the system. One way to do this is to use an independent appointment commissioner to hire Immigration and Refugee Board members. Board members should really have relevant expertise. We need to clear the backlog that exists, and we can do this by hiring more refugee officers.

Time after time we see inconsistent decisions being handed down. There is too much discretion in rejecting claims and not enough discretion in accepting claims. We need to create an appeal division that uses law and fact in order to make consistent decisions.

Refugee hearings have been tainted by bad advice from dodgy immigration consultants. These consultants, as we heard earlier in this House, should no longer be invited to the Immigration and Refugee Board hearing room. We should have the resources that allow for proper and fair representation of claimants and provide them with legal aid.

The bottom line is that we should empower refugee claimants, not stigmatize them. How we treat refugee claimants is indicative of the values our country espouses. In a country built on the backs of people from around the globe, our policies should reflect those values of democracy, fairness, human rights and a minimum standard of care and concern for the lives of others.

Here is some interesting and telling context with respect to the contributing causes of our current claimant backlog. The government has greatly contributed to this problem. The concern it shows now is actually pretty late in the game, although we are encouraged by the concern it is showing.

After the election in January 2006, the government, for murky political reasons, stopped most appointments to the IRB and left many vacancies. This was a system that already had many problems, so it is no wonder that over four years later we have an even bigger problem, a problem that could have been prevented. Let us not kid ourselves; change has only been because of a report of the Auditor General. The report said that the system was flawed, was failing claimants and ultimately, it was failing Canadians.

In 2005 when there were more officers, Canada accepted 25,000 refugee claimants living here. For 2010, the minister is proposing to accept only 9,000 refugees in Canada. To fix a backlog that has been created, the government is proposing to use rejection of applications as a means to meet its targets. Simply put, this is a travesty of human rights.

This refugee reform bill is flawed.

The first flaw is the safe countries list which creates two classes of refugees, those with the right to appeal and those without. Where do we find the fairness in that? We should not let this type of inequality exist in a document that demonstrates our human rights system to the world. The safe countries list ignores the reality of things like gender-based discrimination and sexual orientation-based claimants. It is discriminatory. It is likely that many countries we deem as safe will fail a human rights test based on those two categories alone.

Equality rights have been struck from the immigration guide. Changes to the procedure of the refugee claim process should not follow suit.

The safe country rule discriminates from the get-go, and it does not take reality into account. A safe country is not prima facie safe for all of its citizens. The concept that a safe country exists ignores research, social study and first person accounts.

The second major flaw is that the first hearing is not done by people with any independence to the department or minister. Further to this procedural unfairness, which we have gone to great lengths to prevent domestically, is the limitation of access to pre-removal risk assessment within the first year after a refugee claim is denied. The result of this is that most denied claimants will be deported before having access to the risk assessment, as it takes close to two years to have that assessment decision, and this is unacceptable. We cannot have one type of legal or procedural system for Canadians and another for non-Canadians. It is unfair, it is negligent and it is contrary to our human rights codes.

There are several amendments that would make Bill C-11 more suited to the actual needs faced by refugees. The NDP is making proposals that are in the interests of claimants and which respect human rights and procedural fairness.

Those amendments include things like all refugee claimants should have access to the refugee appeal division. We need to remove the provision for the safe countries of origin in keeping with our human rights regime within Canada. Each individual's circumstances are unique and we should respect that. At minimum, the process for determining a safe country of origin should be streamlined and should reflect the realities of people from marginalized communities living in tolerant majorities.

Currently, some claimants can be removed before a PRRA decision is made. This should be stopped and the process should be speeded up from two years to six months. We need to review and provide an independent evaluation of the legislative changes after three years' implementation, and these results should be sent to CIMM and refugee advocates for discussion.

I would like to conclude with a few thoughts. Certainly, New Democrats support efforts to make refugee determinations happen expeditiously, absolutely, but the current plan that has been brought forward is insufficient and we do need those amendments. The plan does not reflect the realities of being a refugee claimant, nor does it adequately reflect that Canada's human rights regime is one of the best in the world, and for a reason: We do not purport to treat people in this country differently just because they are not citizens yet. That is why people want to come here. That is why Canada is seen as a land of equality and freedom.

Our refugee system should be entrenched in those values, the same values that keep me and my colleagues in the House safe every day. We are not a country of double standards or hierarchy and we cannot tolerate it in any of our legislation.

There are flaws in Bill C-11, but I believe we can make this bill better with amendments. I believe we can make it better for the reasons I have outlined, so I look forward to seeing it at committee.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the Conservative government bill that will have a major impact on the refugee determination mechanism. Bill C-11 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Federal Courts Act.

This issue is close to my heart, because as part of my main responsibilities in the House, I have criticized the immigration ministers one by one for the injustices that asylum seekers and refugee claimants from other countries suffer in Canada. Still today, many people come to our offices and ask us to help them. There is a great deal to be done, and this is a long-awaited reform of the refugee determination system. The current act provides for the appeal division, and we have repeatedly introduced legislation in the House to force Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the IRB to implement the refugee appeal division.

The bill introduced by the government does make some improvements. But some provisions of the bill raise questions about whether the government will achieve the goal of the reform, which is to put in place an improved refugee determination system and to deal with the case backlog.

We also wonder whether the government will put the required resources in the right place to avoid backlogs. It did not do so in the past, so why would it do so now? The refugee determination system has been extensively studied for years. Six years ago, in 2004, the Bloc Québécois condemned the lack of decision-makers and the fact that the government was slow to fill IRB vacancies. Despite the will of this Parliament, as expressed in the 2001 legislation, neither the Liberal nor the Conservative government has fully implemented the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. What is more, many organizations are leery of the government's intentions, because they have been fooled before and they do not want to fall for the same thing again. I hope the government is not trying to fool its partners by including provisions on the refugee appeal division in the bill. We expect the division to be put in place as soon as possible.

The minister does not need this new bill to implement the refugee appeal division. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act already makes provision for it. Why should we believe the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism when all the ministers who have come before him have used the most vulnerable people, those who are looking for protection from Canada, to justify their inaction?

I can think of many examples of vulnerable people who have suffered because they were forced to abide by decisions that made no sense. As a member of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, I am responsible for, among other things, studying reports from the Auditor General of Canada, Sheila Fraser. She has been very critical of senior IRB officials and what they have been up to over the past nine years. Never in the history of the IRB have there been such long waiting lists. The backlog is unbelievable.

The Auditor General of Canada has warned the government about the repercussions of this ballooning backlog several times. Nothing has been done about it yet. Despite warnings and opinions from experts in the field of determining refugee status, the government has hamstrung the IRB in order to justify bringing in reforms with major shortcomings and ineffective measures.

Who let the backlog swell from 20,000 cases to over 60,000? Who delayed the appointment of IRB members and kept staffing levels extremely low with a shortage of, on average, 50 board members? I am sure everyone will agree that letting things get this bad is unacceptable.

The government wants claimants to have their interview within a week and their hearing within 60 days. The current system is paralyzed. It has reached the point where it can no longer function because the lawyers who represent clients before the IRB have no way of knowing when they will get a hearing. This proposal would add pressure to the system and would be very difficult to carry out. Interviews typically last four or five hours. Is a week enough time to collect all of the information needed for the hearing?

Currently, the information collected is often incomplete and not always useful to the decision-making process. It is not easy to make speedy decisions about who deserves protection as a refugee. That is why we need a mechanism to evaluate claims based on merit.

We must continue to invest in the quality of the initial decisions.

If a hearing is held when the applicant is not ready or the evidence not available, more bad decisions will be made and they will have to be overturned on appeal. It is better to take the time needed to make the right decision the first time.

Once again, the government is rushing through a bill without widely consulting the main players in the field. I maintain that a bill like this deserves thorough study, given the immediate repercussions on the way the refugee system operates.

We have been waiting for implementation of the refugee appeal division since 2001. Access to an appeal on the merits of a decision is needed in order to correct mistakes that inevitably occur at the first level.

In 2004, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration unanimously adopted a Bloc Québécois motion requiring the federal government to immediately establish the appeal division. On a number of occasions, bills have been debated in Parliament to force the implementation of the refugee appeal division. However, we have reservations about excluding applicants from countries that have been designated as safe by the minister.

In the government's view, its proposals would reduce waiting times, which would benefit the people who really need Canada's protection. The government is publicly arguing that many people fraudulently attempt to enter or remain in Canada by various means. Also, according to this same government, these procedures are costly for taxpayers.

I challenge anyone in Parliament to confirm that the government's proposed model will be less costly and to submit studies to that effect. Which measure will deal with costs in Bill C-11? I have found nothing in the bill dealing with cost.

As for eliminating fraudulent claims, does the bill have effective measures to reduce their number? It has none. There is no provision to prevent these types of claims being received and recorded.

Inevitably, in its reform, the federal government is attempting to implement measures that have been hurriedly thrown together. I appreciate the minister's comments and I hope that we will be able to present an excellent bill.

They are speaking publicly about the concept of safe countries of origin. It is worrisome that the bill does not specify anywhere what is meant by the word “safe”. It is up to the minister to designate the safe countries of origin. Each refugee claim must be examined individually. How can the minister meet that requirement if he agrees to include measures for the processing of claims that discriminate based on their country of origin?

Refugee claimants from countries that are deemed safe face the risk that the government will decide that their claim is unlikely to be justified, since the country they come from has been deemed safe.

Nothing changes for claimants from countries that are deemed safe. They will have no right to appeal their case before the refugee appeal division and will be forced to take their cases before the Federal Court, as they must do now. No new evidence can be presented to support a reversal of the first level decision.

I invite all parliamentarians to have another look at the testimony given by senior officials from the Department of Justice regarding the staffing and performance of the Federal Court. They appeared before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and said there were no problems in that regard, as long as no new evidence, apart from procedural errors, can be presented.

I am deeply concerned about the basic principles of this reform. I am convinced that the proposed measures will not produce the desired results and that they will only lead to new problems in the end, unless the members of the House agree to a number of amendments.

Refugee claims must be processed in a timely manner. However, this must not be done to the detriment of the most vulnerable claimants. The challenge ahead is formidable: a decision must be made as soon as possible regarding the refugee determination process.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-11.

I will focus my comments on the system overall. For many Canadians, and certainly internationally, Canada has a reputation as being a place that is welcoming and open not only to immigrants but to refugees. The NDP believes the cornerstone of any refugee determination system is that the process has to be fast and fair.

In some ways the proof of the system is in the individual cases. While we cannot go into individual cases here, as MPs, we are very familiar with the process as it relates to individuals cases in our constituency offices. I know, over my 13 years in this place, sometimes there is a sense of heartbreak of what people go through in terms of the refugee system, the appeal process, the wait times and the amount of stress and anxiety.

It is really important that we devise a system that is fair to people, a system that is not open to abuse but is fair and fast. This is a primary consideration. As one my colleagues said earlier, we want to ensure that each case is dealt with on its merits. It is very easy to make generalizations.

The NDP has always advocated for a fair and fast refugee determination process. We believe part of that program should be that all appointments to the IRB should be done by an independent appointment commissioner, with very clear criteria for expertise in refugee and immigration matters. It should be a merit-based appointment.

I know that one of our former colleagues, Ed Broadbent, laid out a very clear process for doing this. Unfortunately, it was not adopted by the government. We got to the point where we were so fed up with these kinds of political appointments on very important boards such as the IRB. It is very important to have criteria and to have a merit-based appointment.

I also agree, as my other colleagues have said today, it is important that we ensure the system does not allow unscrupulous immigration consultants to, in effect, exploit people's hardship, anxiety and stress. Ensuring the system works in a way that there is proper legal aid representation for claimants is very important. Unfortunately we do not see measures to that effect.

We also believe it is very important there be an emphasis on clearing the backlog that has accumulated by hiring refugee protection officers to focus on this. I think every government I have ever heard since I have been here has claimed that it wants to address this issue, but it never gets addressed. This is very important to us.

We also think it is very important to set up the refugee appeal division so consistent decisions can be made based on law and fact. We know Parliament has mandated such an appeal division. Since 2001, it has been ignored. There are some provisions in the bill today that would allow this to go forward, but we have concerns about it as well.

To us, the right to appeal is an essential and fundamental element of a fair process. This must be fully contained within the bill and the implementation.

While we agree there are some merits to the bill, such as it seeks to speed things up and it provides more funding, it appears that much of the increased funding would go to the Canada Border Services Agency to remove failed claimants and to the justice department to appoint more federal court judges.

It is also important to note that the required funding needs to be given to hire permanent refugee protection officers to clear the backlog, as I mentioned earlier. Where that money goes in the system and whether it is actually to deal with the individual cases and to help people deal with the processing is very important.

We also have very serious concerns about the bill, and I think this has been articulated very well in the House during the debate on the bill by various parties. The bill would create a refugee claims process that includes the safe countries of origin. Our understanding is that would give the minister the power to create two classes of refugees, those with the right to appeal and those without.

I deal with quite a few organizations in my community that are very knowledgeable. They are advocacy organizations and they have looked over the bill and commented on it. The Rainbow Refugee Committee in Vancouver has done incredible work on helping claimants who are fleeing persecution based on sexual orientation or gender identity and it has very serious concerns. I will quote from its letter to the minister. It states:

—based on a decade of on-the-ground experience with refugees who are making SOGI-based claims, we are deeply concerned about other aspects of the proposed legislation. Our members have fled countries where they have been under surveillance, arrested, imprisoned, extorted, and for some, tortured, because of their sexuality or gender identity. Many have been physically and/or sexually assaulted, often by police or other officials charged with maintaining religious or morality laws. Survival has required keeping silent, being vigilant and remaining hidden.

The organization goes on to state:

Asking those people who have left these kinds of conditions to tell their story to an anonymous government official within eight days, and then rendering a decision within 60 days undermines their chance for a fair decision. People who have lived a stigmatized identity and who have experienced trauma, need time and trust before they can speak about their experiences.

That is one example of some of the concerns about the process now contained in the bill to be implemented, if it is approved. These organizations are very familiar with the history of refugee claims and deal with individual cases and act as advocates. They need to be listened to very closely.

We also know that Amnesty International, speaking on this same question of the safe countries of origin, has pointed out that:

—over the course of nearly fifty years of human rights research around the world we have consistently highlighted it is not possible to definitively categorize countries as safe or unsafe when it comes to human rights. We are also very concerned that decisions about which countries to include on any such “safe country of origin” list will almost inevitably be influenced by considerations other than human rights, including trading relationships and security cooperation with other governments.

I believe this is a very serious question and any bill that confers discretion and power on the minister, especially something as fundamental as a refugee system, and gives the minister the power to say that one country is a country of safe origin and that this one is not could potentially be very problematic. I know there is a lot of concern in the community about the centralization of power to the minister and we want to ensure it is addressed when the bill goes to committee.

The New Democrats believe the refugee determination process should be both fast and fair. There is still debate about whether the bill meets that criteria. We certainly support the intention to streamline and speed up the process, but there are provisions in the bill that would still prevent all refugee claimants from being treated fairly and equally.

In committee we will look to amending this flawed bill to ensure that all refugee claimants receive fair and equal treatment by eliminating the safe countries of origin clause. We hope the government, as it has said, will work in good faith with opposition parties and include some of the groups I have mentioned.

There are certainly others. The Canadian Council for Refugees would be a major one. These people are experts. They know the system. They know what it is like on the ground. They know about helping people with no vested interest. They do not make money out of this. They are not the consultants who can sometimes be very unscrupulous.

It will be very important when the bill goes to committee that we hear from some of these key witnesses. If the bill is about producing a better system, then the proof of that will be in listening to those key organizations and ensuring their concerns are addressed. We are prepared to do that. We are prepared to have this bill go to committee. We are prepared to have that serious discussion at committee and get right into it in a detailed way. That is what the legislative process should be about. At the end of the day, we must ensure that this idea that Canada has a good reputation is actually reflected in the legislation before us.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-11 would do very little to deal with the problem of unscrupulous immigration consultants. In fact, former Immigration and Refugee Board chair, Peter Showler, believes the expedited timelines could actually drive more refugees to consultants, so that defeats the purpose. If we are trying to put some rules and regulations on these immigration consultants, this bill may assist them in gaining more business.

Does the member have any ideas on how we could improve the rules on immigration consultants?

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-11 on immigration.

The Bloc Québécois sees problems with the refugee appeal division. It has always insisted on a mechanism to review refugee decisions.

At first glance, this bill unfortunately leads us to believe that it is based on the typical Conservative ideology whereby we have the good on one side and the bad on the other. This raises concerns about things working properly in future, especially since the bill contains a number of elements governed by regulation. To govern by regulation means that the minister of the moment—not necessarily the current minister—could want to influence decisions.

This bill makes it look like we are attacking the problem of false refugee claimants. This reform is based on a discriminatory principle and one that is fundamentally detrimental for refugees.

I would like to remind the House that people have a right to refugee status. It is a fundamental international right based on the solidarity among peoples and countries. Refugee status is not something to be considered with a certain amount of paternalism. Because our country is richer, it can start distinguishing the genuine claimants from the false ones? That is rather frightening.

Countries often benefit from the refugees they take in. For example, the refugees in France, England, Spain and Italy have made tremendous intellectual contributions and helped these countries broaden their horizons. There have been some major waves of immigration. Refugees left Russia to go to France and England. They made an enormous contribution to their chosen lands. Refugees are often very talented people. We are not talking here about minor immigration. Refugees are people who had to leave their countries because their lives had become untenable.

There were some Chileans who had to leave their country. Would we have considered Chile a good country or a bad one when some people had to leave because of the dictatorial regime that took over? Even some members of the Chilean parliament had to leave and seek refuge in Quebec. We had an extraordinary colony of engineers, writers and musicians, who were all refugees.

Would a bill like this one, but with regulations, have been able to distinguish between false claimants—because there were some—and genuine ones? Can a piece of legislation draw this distinction? I do not think so.

The committee should work very hard on this issue. We should not exclude people who come from countries like Chile. When the dictatorial regime overthrew Allende, I think we would have concluded that Chile respected human rights—not at the very time of the coup but a few months later—and that people there were treated fairly.

In fact, though, people were harassed in the exercise of their duties. They were harassed psychologically because they did not support the new ideology. As I said earlier, some of these people were very talented members of the previous government, while others actually supported Pinochet but were taking advantage of the situation to move to a country where life was especially good.

I provide this example because even though I know the minister is well intended, he will not always be there. There will be other ministers. How will they be able to decide which of the immigrants from a particular country are the good ones and which are the bad? That will be a major problem if we try to distinguish the good immigrants from the bad ones solely on the basis of their country of origin.

I would like to raise another problem, the borders. This bill gives the Canada Border Services Agency 100 additional officers who would conduct investigations, issue arrest warrants and detain unsuccessful claimants. Naturally, we are not opposed to the idea of increasing the number of officers. However, I find it strange that we are not trying to reassign the members of the RCMP who held these border positions. At every border post, the RCMP used to mafia refugees from crossing into our country. Yes, there are mafia refugees, and where I come from, it is a significant problem.

When the Conservative Party was in opposition, it was in favour of maintaining that force. When it came to power, we thought it wanted to restore it, since it was always against removing it. But no, it has never put it back. Since 2006, this has been a taboo subject that it does not want to talk about.

I think we have to divide these new positions up between border services officers and the RCMP. For the bill as a whole, we are in fact talking about $540 million. It seems to me they could have thought about that, since this is part of the immigration we do not want. We do not want the mafia here. We do not want people who belong to the cartels passing themselves off as refugees. We are in complete agreement, we do not want those people.

Why not hire , as was the case before, RCMP constables, who are well-armed, well-informed and well aware of the situation? I am not saying that the border officers do not do a good job, but to each their own job. One group is prepared to deal with false refugee claimants who belong to organized crime groups, and the other group looks after refugees who also may not be welcome for other reasons, but who are not part of the mafia and who are not known cartel members.

Those two issues in particular should be examined in committee. They are important points because we have to be able to tell the difference. Once again, it benefits our country to grant refugee protection to people who need it. We have to reduce waiting times, we completely agree. In my riding, there are people who have suffered unspeakable things. They waited 19 or 20 or 22 months before getting answers. We have to cut that time, I agree completely. But if they had not waited so long to introduce this bill, the problem might not be so serious.

It is nonetheless a bill that we really want to examine in committee, because its principle is worth considering.