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.

Balanced Refugee Reform Act

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

moved that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Federal Courts Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise here today to speak to Bill C-11, the balanced refugee reform act.

This bill and related reforms would reinforce Canada's humanitarian tradition as a place of refuge for victims of persecution and torture, while improving our asylum system to ensure that it is balanced, fast and fair. The bill would ensure faster protection of bona fide refugees, reinforce procedural fairness by implementing a robust refugee appeals division at the IRB and ensure faster removal of those who seek to abuse Canada's generosity by making asylum claims.

Canada has always been a place of refuge for victims of persecution, warfare and oppression. English Canada was founded by refugees fleeing the American revolution, the United Empire Loyalists. Canada was the north star of the underground railroad for escaped slaves from the southern United States.

In 1956, Canada welcomed some 40,000 refugees of Soviet communism fleeing the invasion of Budapest. In 1979 and 1980, Canadian churches and families welcomed some 50,000 Vietnamese or Indochinese boat people, creating the magnificent foundations of our privately sponsored refugee program.

Having said that, there have been moments when we turned our backs on those most urgently in need of our help. We think, of course, of the example of the European Jewish refugees during the second world war who Canada refused to accept, detailed in the great historical work None is Too Many written by Harold Troper and Irving Abella.

We must learn from the mistakes of that period so that we never repeat them. I believe we have learned from those mistakes, because Canada has welcomed some one million refugees to make a new start here in Canada in security and with our protection since the second world war.

There remain an estimated 10.5 million refugees, according to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, around the world. Every year, some 20 developed democracies resettle about 100,000 refugees, and from that number Canada annually resettles between 10,000 and 12,000 or 1 out of every 10 refugees resettled globally, second only to the United States with 10 times our population.

The government is also active with our international partners to help those in need. Take, for example, the government's commitment to resettle up to 5,000 Bhutanese refugees from Nepal over several years. We have already welcomed more than 850 Bhutanese refugees in several communities across Canada. In addition, we have also completed the resettlement of more than 3,900 Karens from Thailand.

I was very proud last year to announce a special program to welcome to Canada over the course of three years some 12,000 refugees from the conflict in Iraq. I visited some of these families in Damascus, Syria, last May and I must say I still remain touched and deeply moved after hearing their stories of violence and persecution, often on religious grounds.

Everywhere I go across the country, I encourage community groups, church groups, faith groups and others to participate in our privately-sponsored refugee program to help rescue those Iraqi refugees and other people in need of our support around the world.

In addition to all those things, we have increased our support for the UNHCR in its important work to help displaced populations on the ground. In fact, to quote Abraham Abraham, the UNHCR representative to Canada, “Canada, a major settlement country and a major donor to UNHCR activities worldwide, has for the time in its funding of UNHCR's global operations worldwide reached a new level of over $51 million, making this the highest ever annual Canadian grant to the UN refugee agency”.

I am proud that happened under this government.

In spite of our many achievements, I believe that in the context of balanced reform to our refugee system, Canada can and should do more to help those in need of our protection. That is why, as part of this broader package of reform to our refugee systems, including our asylum system, I have announced our intention to increase the number of resettled refugees welcomed to Canada by 2,500 individuals, to 14,000. We would continue to lead the world and set an example for other countries.

I propose, in the context of refugee reform, that we increase by some 20% or $9 million the refugee assistance program to provide initial assistance for the successful integration of government-assisted refugees typically coming from UN camps. I have also announced, as part of these increases and targets, an increase of some 2,000 positions for people to come through the very effective, privately sponsored refugee program.

Bizarrely, these huge increases in Canada's generosity that I announced were criticized by one individual claiming to speak on behalf of refugee organizations, demonstrating that there are some in this debate who are neither objective nor balanced in their approach. However, I must say that I was gratified to see the overwhelmingly positive response from those who actually work with refugees, not just issue press releases but actually do the practical work with people who need a new start.

For example, Mr. Abraham of the UNHCR said, “This is an encouraging move in the right direction that yet again demonstrates the humanitarian commitment of Canada to provide protection to needy refugees for whom resettlement is the only solution enabling them to rebuild their shattered lives with respect and dignity”.

Mr. Tsehai of Canadian Lutheran World Relief expressed his “sincere appreciation and deep gratitude for your announcement to increase the PSR target to a 6,500 annual level”.

A coalition of sponsorship agreement holders, groups that bring the refugees to Canada, said they were “thrilled with the news”.

There can be no doubt that this government is committed to continuing Canada's proud humanitarian tradition of protecting those in need, but let me turn my attention to the asylum system.

We also have, as all members will know, a very robust, highly regarded and extraordinarily fair charter-compliant legal system for the consideration of asylum claims made by refugee claimants arriving in Canada. Unfortunately the system has many serious, longstanding problems and everyone knows it.

I would like to credit the member for Vaughan, the official opposition immigration critic, for having raised this issue as early as 18 months ago and doing so in a non-partisan fashion. I would also like to commend the Leader of the Opposition for having pointed to the problems in our asylum system, which must be addressed.

One of the problems is that we have had long, very large backlogs in asylum claims as a permanent feature of the system. The average size of the asylum backlog in our system over the past 10 or 15 years has been 40,000 people waiting for a hearing on their applications for asylum protection in Canada. That means that, typically, people have been waiting about a year to get even a hearing. Right now the backlog is as high as 60,000 people waiting for a decision or a hearing on their applications, meaning that people have to wait 19 months for a hearing. This is not acceptable. We must do better.

If someone manages to escape one of Ahmadinejad's prisons in Iran and he arrives at one of our airports with the scars of torture fresh on his back, we do not offer him a quick pathway to security and protection in Canada. We give him a form and say we will check back with him in 19 months.

That is not good enough. Frankly, those who defend the status quo, who say that these permanent, huge backlogs and the large number of false claims, which contribute enormously to those backlogs, are acceptable, have taken the wrong position with respect to our moral obligation to provide speedy protection to those in need of it.

The truth is this. Too many people try to use our asylum system as a back door to gain entry into Canada, rather than wait patiently to come here through the immigration process. The result is that too many people abuse our system in an effort to jump the immigration queue. There are a number of problems with the current system, which encourage unfounded claims.

How do I make this assessment that there are many unfounded claims? In the last two years, we have seen that some 58% of the claims for asylum made in Canada were subsequently deemed to be unfounded or not in need of our protection. Many of those claims are actually withdrawn by the claimants. I will give one example.

I suspect if we went to any of our constituencies and asked people what they think is the most likely source of refugee claims in Canada, they might say Iran, North Korea, Somalia or Iraq. In point of fact, it is an EU democracy, Hungary. Last year, there were 2,500 claims. Subsequently, 97% of claimants from that European democracy went on to withdraw or abandon their own claims, indicating to us that they do not need our protection. Why they came and went through the asylum system is a good question. A clue may be found in a criminal investigation into allegations of human trafficking involving many of these claimants who are being victimized, allegedly, by a human trafficking ring.

However, of the 2,500 claims made from that EU democracy, only 3 claims were found to be in need of our protection. Therefore, with six out of ten claims being made, which were subsequently found not to be in need of Canada's protection, and with Canada receiving one of the highest levels of asylum claims in the world with a 60% increase in the number of claims filed between 2006 and 2008, all of this to me indicates that Canada has become, regrettably, a country of choice for those who seek to migrate, not through the normal legal system, but by inventing claims often facilitated by unscrupulous agents and third parties in the immigration industry.

These problems are serious. Even the Auditor General has pointed to the backlogs creating this pull factor for false claims. What we seek to do in these reforms is to create and reinforce balance that respects our obligation to provide due process that is compliant with the charter and with the United Nations conventions on torture and refugees to asylum claimants, balance that does not restrict access to the asylum system for those who believe they have a need for our protection but balance that will provide faster protection decisions for legitimate refugees while providing faster removals for the many who actually come here seeking to abuse Canada's generosity.

How do we propose to do that? First, there would be an initial information gathering interview that would provide earlier contact with an officer from the IRB than claimants now have. Although these officers would not decide on claims, they would be able to identify claims that appear well founded and could recommend expedited processing for them. What this means for people who have managed to escape persecution is that they would not have to wait a year and a half for protection but could receive it in a matter of weeks.

I understand that some claimants may be too traumatized to explain what prompted their claim. That is why during an interview if the officer determines that a claimant is in this situation, he or she could have the discretion to postpone the interview until the claimant could receive the appropriate guidance and support.

The information that officers would gather, coupled with solid facts about the nature of their claim, would lead to hearings at the refugee protection division, staffed by a highly trained, independent public servant, within 60 days. In cases where there is a good reason for delay, there would be that flexibility, but an information gathering interview within eight days and a hearing at the IRB within sixty days would be the norm.

The proposed new system would also include, and this is very important, a full appeal for most claimants. Unlike the appeal process proposed in the past and the one dormant in our current legislation, this refugee appeal division, or RAD, would allow for the introduction of new evidence and, in certain circumstances, provide for an oral hearing.

By the way, that is responding to a demand from some of the opposition parties for a very long time. I should point out that when the Liberal government was in office, three subsequent immigration ministers and the government took the position that they could not implement the RAD until there was a streamlining of the overall asylum system. We are now providing that streamlining. It is time to say yes to the appeal division in the context of a more efficient but still fair system.

I will now turn my attention to one of the more contentious aspects of the legislation, which would be to allow for the designation of certain countries as being safe. The nationals from those countries, under these reforms, would still, and I emphasize still, have the same access they currently do to our asylum system. They would still have access to an appeal by our independent judiciary at the Federal Court. They would still have access to a fully charter compliant process that actually exceeds our international obligations but the consideration of those unfounded claims from designated safe countries would move somewhat more expeditiously, reducing the process by about four months by not allowing them to make two appeals, the first one being to the refugee appeal division.

Someone said that this is unfair or inappropriate. No less authority than the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Antonio Guterres, said here in Ottawa on March 24, “there are indeed safe countries of origin. There are indeed countries in which there is a presumption that refugee claims will probably be not as strong as in other countries”.

He went on to say that we could not deny access to the initial hearing, which we do not in our proposed reforms, and that it was important to have a fair and transparent process for designating these countries, as do most western European asylum systems whose example we are emulating in these reforms.

I wan to be absolutely clear that the proposition is not to create a comprehensive list of all countries designated as safe or unsafe. To the contrary. The criteria would be the following. A country would need to be designated as safe. We propose that this designation process would be in the hands of a panel of senior public servants who would make consultations with UNHCR and would refer to independent human rights supports by NGOs. The criteria would be: if a country is a principal source of asylum claims to Canada, the overwhelming majority of which are unfounded; and if such a country is a signatory to and in compliance with international human rights instruments, which has a strong human rights record and which offers state protection to its citizens, including vulnerable individuals.

Why do we need this? The reason is that periodically we see huge spikes in unfounded claims from democratic countries. Twenty-five years ago it was Portugal, not under a dictatorship, but a social democratic government. Thousands of claims were received and almost all of them were found to be false. What did Canada do? It imposed a visa.

In 2000, it was Chile, not under Pinochet, but a social democratic government, the most stable and prosperous democracy in South America. We received thousands of claims and almost all of them were found not to be in need of Canada's protection. How did we respond? We imposed a visa on Chile. In 2003 and 2004, it was Costa Rica, the most stable and prosperous democracy in Central America. We received thousands of claims and almost all of them were found to be not in need of our protection. Canada imposed a visa. In 1997, it was Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Thousands of claims were received and almost all were unfounded. We imposed a visa. Now I mention the situation with respect to Hungary.

When we see these spikes, it is important to understand that these are not just happening spontaneously. We have solid reason to believe that behind these waves of unfounded claims from democratic countries, there are often networks encouraging, facilitating, advising people, commercial networks, the bottom feeders in the immigration industry or sometimes there is evidence of even criminal networks.

All we are saying is that we need a tool other than the imposition of visas to address those spikes in unfounded claims. I appreciate the support and agreement of the Leader of the Opposition in this respect. Last August, in Saint John, New Brunswick, he said, “I want a legitimate, lawful refugee system that to get to the openness point welcomes genuine refugees”. He then said, Look, there are a number of countries in the world in which we cannot accept a bona fide refugee claim because you do not have cause, you do not have just cause coming from those countries. It is rough and ready but otherwise we will have refugee fraud and nobody wants that, including bona fide refugees”.

The Leader of the Opposition may have gone a little bit too far in suggesting that we deny access to the asylum system to claimants from safe countries, but his general concept is entirely sensible and has been endorsed by virtually every newspaper in the country, for example, that has editorialized on this matter.

As I said, these reforms have been broadly endorsed. Eighty-four percent of Canadians say that the government should take steps to reform the refugee determination system,. Eighty-one percent of Canadians agree that refugee claims should be dealt with more quickly so that genuine refugees can settle in Canada faster and bogus claimants can be sent home more quick. By a margin of four to one, Canadians agree that more needs to be done to quickly remove from Canada people whose refugee claims are unfounded and rejected.

The Toronto Star has said, “the government deserves credit for showing the political will to act on an issue ducked by many of our predecessors”. The Globe and Mail says, “Canada has a crying need for a revamped refugee determination system”. The Montreal Gazette says, ”these reforms are a solid and a sensible attempt to reform the system”. Peter Schowler, former IRB chairman and head of the refugee think-tank at the University of Ottawa says, “the Conservative government has managed to propose a system that is both fast and fair, striking a reasonable balance between the two”. The Canadian Lawyer Magazine says, ”the lawyers in the immigration field probably support these reforms”.

These are balanced, reasonable reforms that I believe all members in all parties can support. I will be open to reasonable amendments that achieve the objective of a fast and fair system when this bill gets to committee. I hope that on this urgent issue we will all put aside partisan politics to some degree to allow our humanitarian tradition to prevail so that we can improve and protect the important humanitarian tradition of providing protection to those in need of it.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the minister knows, I have been consulting with my colleagues on the Liberal side extensively on this particular bill and, as with any public policy debate, there are those who are against and those who are for. Even when there are criticisms, they vary.

I have some very specific questions. Is the minister willing to be flexible in the following key areas? To ensure the initial process is procedurally sound and fair and does not cause unnecessary delays at later stages, is the minister willing to look at the feasibility of the timelines in the refugee package, as well as possible provisions to ensure claimants have appropriate legal requirements? On that same point, is the minister willing to provide further clarity around the independence and qualifications of the proposed bureaucratic first line decision makers?

On the issue that he raised, the designated country of origin provision is possibly the most controversial provision of the bill. My colleagues, in their consultations, have brought forth concerns relating to the actual establishment of the designated country of origin list, its criteria, purpose and potential to compromise the protection of legitimate refugees. They have also taken note of the concern cited by the UNHCR, which I am sure the minister is well aware of.

I would also like to know if the minister is open to further measures to increase the transparency and accountability of the designated country of origin process, as well as the currently proposed degree of ministerial discretion.

Finally, is the government willing to look at introducing more flexibility into its proposal on the accessibility of applications on humanitarian and compassionate grounds to ensure that nobody will fall through the cracks?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Vaughan, the official opposition immigration critic and a distinguished member of the House, for addressing this issue with a great degree of responsibility and openness to the need for reform and for having been the first member of this place to raise the need for reform 18 months ago.

He has asked a lot of very substantive questions. I am not sure that I can give him an adequate detailed answer in the moments available, but my general answer to all four questions is, yes. The government is disposed to having a serious dialogue on this at committee to consider and to accept reasonable amendments as long as they meet the objective of a system that is both fast and fair. I think the broad consensus is that we need to get to that.

With respect to the timelines, we propose in the bill an eight day triage interview so that claimants can directly give to a highly trained public servant at the IRB the nature of their claim and the basic facts about their claim without prejudice to the initial hearing that they will have, on average, some 60 days subsequent.

These timelines are actually longer than in many other western countries and their asylum systems. I should also mention that many other countries, like the United Kingdom and the United States, detain nearly 100% of asylum claimants upon arrival. We are not proposing to do that or to increase the use of detention in our system.

However, with respect to timelines, I am open to arguments on this point but I believe that it is essential. If we want to remove the incentive from the tens of thousands of false claims made in the country, the system must be fast. People know they cannot stay in Canada for years and use our public resources if they are not bona fide claimants, which is why I will make an argument at committee that we need to maintain the ambitious timelines.

I look forward to giving the member a very detailed explanation at committee of the independence and the nature of the hiring, training and pay levels that we anticipate for the independent public service decision makers at the refugee protection division of the IRB. I would also invite the member to call before the committee the chairman of the IRB who could give him details on this issue.

With respect to the transparency for the designation of safe countries and the criteria, I would like to signal our openness to reasonable amendments on that point in particular. I would be quite prepared to share with the committee our draft regulations that will frame the process for designating safe countries. I would also be prepared to accept an amendment at committee that clearly states in the legislation what the criteria is for the designation of safe countries.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, the minister's speech this morning is very helpful in this discussion.

He was right to point out that citizens of Canada are very active participants in our refugee system. The private sponsorship program is one example of that. However, he knows there are many individuals and organizations in every community in Canada that are actively engaged in refugee resettlement and sponsorship. I am glad the minister said he is open to reasonable amendments to the legislation, because there have been many suggestions around that.

Unfortunately, this is a refugee bill that was presented without significant prior consultation. In the past, the pattern has been that there has been specific consultation on proposed legislation. That did not happen this time.

It has generated many requests to the minister that before we begin this second reading debate, the legislation be referred to committee so that the broadest possible discussion could happen, the broadest number of revisions and suggestions could be considered at committee. Unfortunately, by beginning the second reading debate this morning, the minister has clearly denied that request and said that there will not be that very open and broad discussion at committee.

I am just wondering why the minister has apparently shut the door on that kind of consultation and vigorous discussion of the legislation at committee.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, regrettably, I have to correct the member.

Many people, including many stakeholders in the field of immigration and media observers have commented on the fact that the government's approach to consultation on this bill prior to its introduction was a model of reaching out and trying to build consensus based on consultation.

Lorne Waldman, no friend of this government, one of the most prominent immigration lawyers in the country, wrote in his op-ed last month, “I have to praise the government for the consultation”.

The Toronto Star, no friend of this government, said that I have “drawn on years of analysis and research by his departmental officials” and I have “also consulted widely and pledged to co-operate with opposition MPs on constructive amendments”.

The Lawyers Weekly said “Bill C-11, tabled in the Commons March 30...won instant praise from the bar for its goal of accelerating the delay-plagued refugee determination process”, et cetera.

I have pages and pages of quotes from stakeholders. There is one stakeholder in this field who, as I mentioned, was even critical of the government's increase in support for refugees and our increased resettlement targets. I cannot account for those who are neither balanced nor objective in this debate.

I am pleased to say that the consultation is probably unprecedented. The member could speak to his party's immigration critic, a very competent critic, who was given a briefing on this bill before it was introduced. I do not know how often that happens. Not very often is the answer.

The bottom line is we are open to reasonable debate and amendments at committee. We are proceeding with this in the normal parliamentary fashion, which is that we have a debate on the principles of the bill at second reading, it then goes to committee where amendments can be considered, and I have already signalled our willingness to accept some, and then it comes back to the House for further consideration at report stage.

There is no curtailing of consultation. To the contrary, I think this is a model of how a minority Parliament can and should work. We hope the NDP will play a constructive role in that.

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Minister of State (Sport)]

Madam Speaker, first of all, let me commend the minister. This issue is something I have felt passionate about.

Madam Speaker, you and I would both remember people coming to the west coast years back. We did those people no service or justice as it took years to process them and they all ended up going back after admitting being economic refugees.

I would like the minister to boil down, for the people watching, in real terms, how long it takes under the current system, for people to go through all appeals, and what will happen after the legislation?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, it takes at least four to five years for a false claimant to have run through all of the procedures in the current system. Under the new system the claimant would be removed within a year of a failed appeal decision.

We reduce by several years the period during which a false claimant stays in Canada. On the flip side, a bona fide claimant would go from having to wait for 19 months for a protection decision to a few weeks or two to three months maximum under the proposed reforms.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is critical that we examine the legislation before us and ensure that the refugee system reform measures will fix the refugee system challenges our country faces. Let us put the system into its proper context.

Today we have a backlog of 63,000 refugee claims. People in genuine need of protection wait about 19 months for processing claims. We have witnessed the drastic 50% decrease in the number of finalized claims and an almost 50% increase in the cost to finalize a single claim. The estimated cost to taxpayers is approximately $29,000 for processing each claimant.

There was a delay by the Conservative government in filling vacancies at the Immigration and Refugee Board which negatively affected the performance of the board. The minister's 2009-10 report on planning and priorities states that the shortfall in decision makers has contributed to the growth of the pending case inventory and to increased average of processing times. In addition, the Auditor General, in the March 2009 report of the Auditor General of Canada, chapter two, asserts her concern for the need to timely and efficiently appoint and reappoint decision makers to the IRB.

These facts and others made the case for comprehensive refugee reform very obvious and an absolute priority. Although reform of the refugee system is needed, we must ensure that it is fair, efficient and just. While the reform package incorporates some Liberal recommendations such as the refugee appeal division, we have to do due diligence on the bill. After all, there are concerns about what has occurred in the past four years, such as slow processing times and longer wait periods for persons claiming refugee status so, caution is in fact warranted.

Therefore, before any refugee reform legislation is implemented, we will ensure that it meets our standards of procedural fairness, that it is just, fast and efficient and that it does not undermine the trust many people place in our system. Obviously, as the minister alluded to, Canadians cannot afford further poorly implemented band-aid solutions like the imposition of visas on individuals from countries such as Mexico and the Czech Republic as happened last summer. This is the reason we will seek assurances that this reform package is going to meet the highest standard of public policy-making.

In 2004, the former Liberal government implemented changes to the appointment process for the Immigration and Refugee Board. Changes included an advisory panel made up of lawyers, academics and others involved in the refugee process which screened all applicants for the IRB. When the present government came to power, unfortunately it delayed appointments. Everyone knows the result of that has been a ballooning refugee backlog. This is what the bill is also trying to address.

In addition to the growing backlog of applications, there has been concern expressed about the integrity of our system. As I said earlier, recent spikes in claims from certain countries have resulted in an ad hoc use of visa restriction to constrict application volumes. As mentioned earlier, significant examples of this occurred last summer when in response to a spike in claims from Mexico and the Czech Republic, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration imposed visa restrictions on both countries. When we impose visa restrictions, we can jeopardize or strain relationships with countries, in the case of Mexico with one of our North American economic partners. In the case of the Czech Republic, there were also bad feelings created in the European Union as a result.

The government's justification for the bill is focused on streamlining the system to deal with the growing application backlog, providing further flexibility to the minister to deal with the unusual spikes in refugee claims from democratic source countries and streamlining the removal process for unsuccessful applicants.

The bill proposes changes to almost every stage of the in-Canada process. Currently, people with successful claims are waiting an average of 19 months for a decision and it takes an average of four or five years to process and remove an unsuccessful claimant.

Information is currently gathered within 28 days through a personal information form. Under this bill, personal information would be gathered within eight days of a claim through an interview process. It is hoped that this will avoid delays related to incomplete forms and late paperwork. However, there have been significant concerns that this timeline is unrealistic and will result in claimants being unable to get appropriate counsel.

Possible changes around timelines and appropriate legal aid protection should be considered. We cannot afford to have a system where legal counsel is effectively denied and where a poor decision will lead perhaps to a number of time-consuming adjournments.

In the current system, a first-level decision is made by a governor in council appointee within about 18 months. Under the new process, the first-level decision would be made by an IRB public servant within about 60 days. Other countries that have public servant first-level decision makers tend to have higher rates of successful appeals. This can make the process less efficient overall and undermine trust in the refugee determination system.

For instance, the UNHCR has expressed concerns that administrative decision makers in the United Kingdom are inadequately trained and are not producing quality credibility assessments at hearings. Although CIC officials claim that the decision makers in the new system would be senior level and would be highly trained, there is no guarantee of that in this package. The fact that decision makers are housed in the independent IRB may alleviate some concerns regarding their independence, but close assessment of their qualifications, training and hiring processes will be required.

Concerns have also been raised about the 60 day timeline, whether it is realistic and whether it will limit a claimant's ability to obtain representation and compile a proper case within this timeline. Review of these timelines and possible further legal aid support will be required.

There is currently no appeal within the IRB and review is left to the Federal Court. It should be noted that the concept of a refugee appeals division was part of the initial Liberal plan for the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The bill would create a new refugee appeals division, RAD, staffed by governor in council appointees to review negative first-level decisions. The target for the appeal process in this case would be within four months. Most of the appeals would be paper based, but there would be an opportunity for an oral hearing and the introduction of new evidence that was not available at the time of the first hearing.

In the United Kingdom, 89% of the initial 2007 decisions were appealed and 23% of those initial refusals were overturned. This has led to a huge court backlog of 450,000 cases as of 2008 in the United Kingdom, which may take between 10 to 18 years to resolve. By comparison, in Canada only 1% of asylum appeals are currently successful.

Guidelines are expected to clearly set out when an oral hearing is necessary and when an appeal should proceed in writing. The adjudicator's decision to proceed in writing or not would create an additional administrative decision that could be appealed to the Federal Court.

The primary concern about the introduction of the RAD would be to ensure that the first-level decision is conducted in a way that protects procedural fairness and fundamental justice sufficiently to avoid the RAD becoming another bottleneck in the process.

The system does not currently include a designated country of origin list. The bill would provide the minister with discretion to create designated countries of origin. This is one of the most contentious proposed changes.

The UNHCR has already expressed concern that any such process must take into account the gender and sexual orientation persecution issues in many democratic countries. This may also create diplomatic problems as countries lobby to be put on the list or may be insulted that they have been left off.

UNHCR has previously indicated that safe country of origin practices are acceptable as a procedural tool provided we have safeguards in place. The bill would remove access to the RAD for individuals from designated countries of origin. However, claimants can still have a negative decision reviewed by the Federal Court.

There are still unanswered questions about the process for adding countries to the designated country of origin list. Although we have been assured that this will be used as a last resort to avoid the imposition of visas in countries in good human rights records, issues of fairness and fundamental justice will have to be addressed.

Legal experts are pointing to a major difference between Canada's proposed legislation and that of European countries. The word “safe” does not appear anywhere in the relevant section of Bill C-11. This omission, they say, places too much legal discretion in the hands of the minister and raises serious questions about the law's potential use. It may be appropriate to look at the process by which countries are designated and incorporates some level of independence for selection or parliamentary oversight through amendments.

Currently a claimant has access to multiple appeal processes, including the Federal Court, after each additional rejection. The bill would restrict access to other avenues of appeal for one year following the last negative decision. That means that once the IRB, or RAD, if triggered, has rendered its decision, post decision processes will be barred for one year to allow for removal within that year. Applicants would retain the ability to appeal to the Federal Court. For the information of members, barred avenues include pre-removal risk assessment, section 25, a humanitarian and compassionate grounds application, applications for temporary residence and administrative deferrals of removal.

There would also be a ban on concurrent applications under the refugee protection system and under section 25 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Prior to the first level decision, applicants in the refugee system would be required to select which stream they would like to pursue. Unsuccessful refugee applicants would be banned from section 25 applications for one year from their final IRB determination. After one year from the final IRB decision, the section 25 avenue would again be reopened or open to the applicant. Any time bars to accessing pre-removal assessment or humanitarian and compassionate applications would still need to be reasonable and procedurally fair, as the life, freedom and security of the applicant could be at stake pending the outcome of these decisions.

The humanitarian and compassionate review process operates as an avenue of last resort for persons who do not fit into any of the categories in IRPA to appeal directly to the minister. Limiting access to humanitarian and compassionate grounds could lead to people being deported in the face of humanitarian injustices and safeguards. This will require close review. This issue will require further study to assess the practicality of closing all these avenues of recourse.

The reform package proposes $540.7 million over five years and $85.4 million in ongoing funding. The $540 million is broken down into $324 million over five years for the development of the new refugee system, $126 million to address the backlog and $90 over five years to increase the number of refugees resettled from abroad.

The concern we have, and I have stated this to the minister, is that these funds were not set out in budget 2010 and the Conservatives told us program spending was frozen for the next several years. The minister has stated that these funds are in the fiscal framework, so it will have to be determined what will be cut to take into account these new expenditures. For instance, according to budget 2010, CBSA was actually identified as a source of savings of $54 million in 2011 and $58.4 million in 2012-13 through streamlining and cuts, but had been allocated $142 million in new money under this plan. Questions about transparency and accountability of funding are of concern. We want to ensure that the investment Canadian taxpayers make actually goes where it is supposed to go.

There has been a wide variety of reaction to the tabling of Bill C-11 and even prior to the introduction of the bill. For example, the UN High Commissioner was concerned prior to the introduction of the bill about the countries of origin idea. He stated that the new measures must recognize such things as “sexual preference”, are “grounds for persecution even in democracies”. He also noted other potential issues about gender.

Another individual, Professor Peter Showler, notes that the requirement that the first hearing take place within 60 days after a very quick interview is too quick and impractical. It is impractical in the sense that the refugee will not be able to find a lawyer, inform the lawyer, let the lawyer gather the evidence and present that evidence at the hearing. If that first hearing is not a good hearing, the entire system will unravel fairly quickly. He suggests that 120 days would be a more realistic time frame.

Lastly, the Canadian Council of Refugees does not agree with any of the major changes in the bill, stating that the introduction of a list of “safe countries of origin” is a mistake and has basically criticized the entire approach.

The Liberal Party and the Auditor General of Canada have noted the need to reform the refugee system for a while now. We must address some of the flaws that I have stated, however, there are some positive steps in this bill regarding needed refugee reform.

We must examine the effectiveness and fairness of the timelines for the first decisions so that they are realistic and ensure that the refugees are adequately represented. Refugees may face logistical challenges in acquiring the necessary materials to support their cases due to poor infrastructure in source countries or translation requirements. We must ensure the fundamental justice of vulnerable people involved in the system and ensure a flawed first-level process does not result in a backed up system at the appeal level, like they are struggling with in other jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom. It is important that we ensure that all claimants have equal and fair access to the appropriate legal representation.

In the case of the quality of first level decision-makers, it is important that the government provide more specific details about the independence and qualification of the proposed first line decision-makers.

Clause 12 of Bill C-11 would give the minister the authority to designate a country, or part of a country, or class of nationals of a country, according to criteria to be established by regulation. Persons from designated areas of classes may not appeal negative refugee protection decisions to the Refugee Appeal Division. Nor may the minister appeal cases involving these people. Instead applicants and the minister would need to seek leave to appeal the first level decision from the federal court. The designated authority of origin clause may be problematic in its design, as it may present concerns of transparency and accountability.

Several lawyers and academics have raised concerns about the specific wording of the provision in Bill C-11, which refers to “designated countries of origin” rather than “safe countries of origin”. They argue that the current wording provides the minister with too much discretion in designating countries and that it is susceptible to politicization.

Bill C-11 would make several changes to the humanitarian and compassionate grounds for foreign nationals in Canada. For instance, according to subclause 4(1), the minister may not examine requests to remaining Canada's permanent residents on humanitarian and compassionate grounds if less than 12 months have passed since the final negative IRB decision.

It is obvious that we have presented a credible case for changes to a number of elements of Bill C-11. As Canadians, we take pride in the fact that our country offers a safe haven to so many who are victims of fear, discrimination or persecution in their home countries. Throughout this parliamentary debate, our focus must be on creating the best possible refugee system.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague, the hon. member for Vaughan, for his thoughtful and constructive remarks. I have a couple of comments more than questions.

First, his suggestion that the current problems in the system are the result of a lack of appointments too the IRB by this government, I would like to respond to that. In point of fact there has been a permanent backlog in the system. On average, the backlog has been 40,000 cases.

When our government took office, we inherited, from our predecessors, a backlog of some 20,000 asylum cases pending decisions at the RPD. In the subsequent three years, there was a huge growth in the number of claims. In fact, the IRB, when fully staffed and fully funded as it is, can finalize about 25,000 protection decisions a year. Between 2006 and 2009, the number of claims exceeded the maximum processing capability of the IRB by about 20,000 cases.

Therefore, we inherited a backlog of 20,000. About 20,000 cases in the current backlog are as a result of an excess of claims over the fully funded capacity of the IRB to render decisions.

It is true, however, that a percentage, about one-third of the current backlog, could be attributed to a temporary shortfall in appointments, which was not arbitrary. It was the result of our government accepting a more rigorous pre-screening process.

I would like to commend the member for York West, former minister of citizenship and immigration, for her positive improvements to the pre-screening process for IRB members. I think we enhanced those.

In fact now, only 10% of the people who apply for membership to the IRB are actually referred to the minister for consideration. Since I became minister, some 16 months ago, I have recommended, and cabinet has accepted, the appointment of 65 new members, 34 reappointments, for 99 appointments to the IRB, and the refugee protection division is now at 99%, 126 of 127 members. Therefore, we did everything we could. The basic architecture of the system needs to change.

I have one other comment. On the issue of public service decision-makers at the refugee protection division, what we have proposed is exactly the same thing that exists on the other side of the IRB, the immigration division, which is what the Liberal government adopted as a structure for decision-making when it brought in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in 2002. Essentially we are following the template of our predecessors in that respect.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his continuous consultation throughout the process. We may disagree on who is responsible for the backlog, but one thing we do agree on, which is extremely important, is the fact that the status quo is not an option and that improvements need to be made to regain confidence of the refugee system that simply does not work. It does not work for the refugees. It does not work for our reputation as a country. It is simply a system that we really need to roll up our sleeves and make improvements on.

Toward that end, I want to take this opportunity to thank so many members of the Liberal caucus who throughout the process have given me input on this area. I was very glad that earlier on, after the minister delivered his remarks, I brought to his attention four major points with which my caucus was concerned. They related to a number of issues from the safe country of origin to the quality and independence of the decision makers to their concern about the decisions being hasty decisions, which would result in bad decisions that perhaps would create even further backlog within the system as well as some of the concerns raised in reference to the one year ban on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

The openness of the minister on those four issues augers well for further parliamentary debate. Ultimately our goal is to build the best refugee system possible.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was particularly interested, and I think the House would be interested, with respect to the safe country of origin classification as it applies to refugees. The member mentioned issues such as sexual orientation and the issues related to gender, but one thing that has come up, and I am sure the minister would be aware of this, is that those who have been involved in persecution as a result of their role in fighting drug cartels in Latin America and the Caribbean are coming under that similar umbrella. It seems they are being caught up. I wonder if the member would like to comment with respect to the implications of that.

Here we have people who are standing up in their own countries, in law enforcement fashion, and are being persecuted and in fact victimized. They have applied for refugee status. My worry, and I am sure the House's worry, would be that they would be precluded. I hope I am wrong in that respect. I hope I am wrong that the minister does not intend that. I would just like to hear either a confirmation or affirmation with respect to the principles that we are going to apply.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am quite certain that any present or future minister would view this particular issue in light of the definition of refugee. If in fact it falls within those parameters, then of course they certainly deserve to be looked at.

I think the hon. member is quite sensitive to this particular issue because he clearly understands that there are people in many countries who stand up for justice. Sometimes when they do stand up for justice against very powerful organizations, they risk their lives and feel persecuted in their own country.

The hon. member has raised this issue in this past. It is an issue that I am sure this minister and other ministers will look at as they look what defines a refugee and the changing dynamics that are occurring in countries. The world is forever changing.

I will just end by saying that the system needs to adapt to the new realities.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, I wanted to ask the member about the refugee appeal division.

We have heard about a refugee appeal division for quite some time. It was part of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that was passed in this House in 2001, but a Liberal government and the Conservative government have refused to implement it. There were all kinds of excuses. At one point it was said to be too expensive to implement that particular appeal, even though information that was provided said that it was not a particularly expensive level of appeal to establish in the existing refugee legislation.

I would just like to ask the member why he thinks we should have any confidence that the new proposal for a refugee appeal division would be implemented, when it has been the law since 2001, and no government has actually put it in place?

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

Madam Speaker, as a member who has been around this House for 21 years, there has to be a sense of operating in good faith and there has to be an element of trust. If that leaves parliamentary debate, if that leaves the essence of what public office is truly about, then we have a bigger issue to deal with.

What I will say is that in conversations with the present minister of immigration and past ministers of immigration, including the members for York West and Eglinton—Lawrence, I have always been a strong advocate of the refugee appeal division because I think that refugees should have a right to have access to appeal the decision rendered at the first level. I think it is a step in the right direction. It is something that we discussed a great deal. I am glad that it has been included in this bill.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise here today to speak to Bill C-11.

I would like to begin by saying that the Bloc Québécois will support sending this bill to committee so it may be studied more thoroughly, along with all issues pertaining to immigration and refugees.

This bill raises a number of concerns. We have already pointed out several inconsistencies relating to refugee status.

I would like to talk about two people I know personally from my riding. A man and woman, now married, are refugees from Tanzania and they are still waiting for their children. They have been fighting to bring their children to Canada for five years. They were asked to submit to DNA testing. The UN even had to intervene to do a comparative study and ensure that these children really are the children of this refugee couple in Canada. Now that we have received the results, we hope things will speed up, but there are still some obstacles.

When the children of legitimate refugees in Canada spend five years in refugee camps, we have every right to wonder if the measures proposed by the minister are rigorous enough to ensure that refugee claims under the family reunification program are being assessed correctly.

A number of countries are considered safe. We have a major problem with this provision in the bill. Who can determine with certainty whether or not a country is safe? Apparently Mexico is considered a safe country. However, on the Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada website, Canadians travelling to Mexico are discouraged from visiting certain regions of the country because doing so would put their lives at risk.

If it is too dangerous for the lives of Canadians and Quebeckers, is it not too dangerous for the Mexicans living there? Why are Mexicans who want to be free from the shackles of the drug wars and power struggles throughout their country not allowed to claim refugee status? Are we perhaps underestimating the safe nature of that country?

Yesterday, a new government was elected in Hungary. At first glance, that country seems safe. The right wing government has two thirds of the seats. With that many seats, it can implement measures to advance its program without having to consult other political parties. Hungary may have been considered safe yesterday or today, but tomorrow human rights there might not be respected the same way and the situation might change.

The House has passed a bill on free trade with Colombia. And yet there is a call for greater respect for human rights in that country. If a Colombian citizen applied, could he be considered a refugee in Canada if we have a free trade agreement with his country? We have to wonder.

In Colombia, abortion is illegal and punishable by a prison sentence. In more than 70 countries around the world, homosexuality is illegal and even punishable by death in some countries. What would happen if people from those countries came here? We know what our Conservative colleagues think about homosexuality. In a country where homosexuality is legal and part of our daily lives, a minister who offered a subsidy for Toronto's gay pride parade was rebuked and put in her place.

Therefore, we have good reason to ask whether giving the minister the latitude to designate safe countries without consulting this House is an acceptable measure.

On the other hand, we are pleased that the minister wants to speed up the refugee claim process. However, we must not move too quickly and we must be careful. We all know that a refugee is often someone who has left their country in a hurry with nothing, without documents or money, and is truly destitute. When a person leaves their country with absolutely nothing, it takes a little more than eight days to obtain the necessary documents.

We might be able to do something, to make some changes to the bill so that the person's first appearance is scheduled more than eight days later. This would allow the person to obtain documents, think about what he wants to do, how to do it and better understand what is happening. The person would have the opportunity to consult the various organizations in the community that could help him.

It has also been noted that there are some changes in the bill with respect to the refugee appeal division and we are pleased that it is finally being implemented. In fact, the Bloc Québécois has introduced two bills to create and implement the refugee appeal division, even though it was contained in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that this House voted on. Neither bill was successful. One version even died after being adopted by the Senate. When it returned to the House, the bill died because, if I recall correctly, the House was closed for an election.

It is unfortunate because, since 2005, the number of people applying for refugee status has more than doubled, from 20,000 then to 60,000 today. That is truly a lot of people claiming refugee status.

On the weekend, I got a call from a psychologist who works with victims of rape, incest and sexual abuse. She told me about a woman who had been imprisoned last week because she claimed refugee status and was not believed. This woman is from Guinea, where customary marriages are still common. She was married at a very young age to a much older man, who abused her sexually and physically. She had very obvious signs of torture on her body, and even a scar from an iron on her breast. The hospital here in Canada was able to determine that this woman really had been abused.

This woman claimed refugee status, and after having lived in Canada for some time, she met a man from her country of origin, fell in love with him and married him. After getting married, she pursued her claim for refugee status, but she was told that her marriage with this man was not genuine and she was accused of fraud. She was told that she had only married this man to obtain refugee status and sponsorship, although they had been legally married in front of the entire community. They are together, they are married, and they are now expecting a child.

Last year, at the beginning of the economic crisis, the Minister of Labour said that if there was no work in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, workers should go out west, where there is work. This woman's husband listened to the minister and went out west to support his family. The couple was then told that their marriage was not genuine because he went to work out west to support his family. That is unbelievable.

Last week, this 42-year-old woman, who has type 2 diabetes, was put in jail. She is now at the immigration detention centre in Laval. On April 28, she is going to be sent back to her country, where nobody will take care of her or her soon-to-be-born baby. Yet this very day, G8 ministers are in Halifax talking about maternal and child health, and the Prime Minister wants to introduce a maternal and child health initiative.

We cannot even take care of people here who are suffering and who could die if they return to their home countries because they will not receive adequate care. They could die. In Guinea, there are no doctors to provide the care that this woman will need until she gives birth because she has type 2 diabetes and is obese.

In reviewing the immigration system, we have to begin by making sure that public officials and judges have solid reasons for turning down applications from all individuals who have legitimate claims.

People have all kinds of reasons for wanting to stay here. A claimant might be a man who just wants to support his family. In contrast, a claimant might be a woman who says that she was forced to marry and will be found guilty by her ex-husband's family if she goes back to her home country. In these countries, women are held responsible if their husbands die. They can be charged and may suffer greatly.

How can we justify sending people back to countries like those whose values differ so dramatically from our own? Why would we support women in developing countries and save their lives when we do not support women and save their lives when they come here to ask for our help? I would really like to know. I am really confused about this, and I would like an answer to that question very soon.

I hope that this woman will be allowed to stay here. I hope she will not be sent away before her baby is born. It would be inhumane to send a woman in such a high-risk situation back to her country.

The refugee appeal division should have been implemented earlier so that this women could really appeal the decision made against her. Unfortunately, we are told that the refugee appeal division will come into effect by 2013 or 2014. That is three years from now, three long years for people who are suffering and wondering whether their claim will be heard. I hold out very little hope that this will happen.

I have often heard the minister talk to refugee, immigrant and other groups, and I believe he tells the truth. But I would like that honesty to extend to the measures he introduces.

I know that it is not as easy for a party to be in government as in opposition, because it has to take budgets and other factors into account. But the government members also have to consider what their colleagues are saying and calling for.

I hope this minister will do what he needs to do to ensure that all genuine refugee claimants can obtain refugee status. Too many people around the world are suffering. Moreover, we signed the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which means that we must not take refugee claimants' sexual orientation or country of origin into consideration, or what they are or what they do.

All we must consider is what they need.

We will support Bill C-11 so that it goes to committee and we can suggest amendments and correct measures that we feel are slightly random, unjustified or unjustifiable. I hope that everyone who is watching today will support what the Bloc Québécois is doing so that all refugee claimants can obtain refugee status.

In conclusion, the men and women who sit in the House have ideals and values similar to our own in some areas. I am certain that we will make the right decisions. We will do everything we can to ensure that the parts of the bill that we are not happy with are amended. Otherwise, the bill will not meet our expectations or refugee claimants' needs.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her speech, her work and her compassion for refugees and immigrants. She is an extremely compassionate woman.

First of all, I would like to confirm that one of the criteria for designating a safe country of origin is a very low acceptance rate for asylum claims from that country.

The member used Colombia as an example. At present, the IRB accepts 76% of asylum claims from Colombia. A country with such a high acceptance rate will never be included on the list of safe countries of origin. I am talking about countries with much lower acceptance rates. For instance, one country's acceptance rate is under 1%, while Colombia's is 76%.

Most European countries, even France, designate safe countries of origin in order to speed up the processing of claims. It is not meant to prevent anyone from accessing the system, but simply to speed up the process. France has 14 countries on its list of safe countries of origin.

The final point I would like to make pertains to the refugee appeal division. The member was mistaken when she said this division would be implemented in 2013-14. As soon as the new system is brought in, a new appeal division will thoroughly review most of the cases of claimants who have been denied by the IRB. We want to establish this division immediately.

I am pleased that the Bloc wants to send this bill for review in committee, where reasonable amendments can be proposed. In the end, however, we must ensure that these amendments help create a system that is both fair and effective.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Madam Speaker, it was my understanding that the refugee appeal division was a pilot project that would be run in the greater Toronto area and would only be accessible to certain refugee status applicants. It was also my understanding that the real appeal division would be put in place in 2013-14.

In my view, that means that the appeal division does not exist because it would not apply to Quebec for the time being. That is why I stated that the appeal division will only be operational in 2013-14.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the intervention of the member in this debate. I want to ask her about the vulnerable refugee claimants that she was speaking about in her speech. She was talking about women who were victims of sexual assault and that was part of why they had sought refuge in Canada. She also mentioned gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender folks who might have faced violence in their home countries and who were fleeing to Canada to find safety and security.

There has been concern raised about the eight day timeline for the original interview and that many people coming to Canada, especially the people who are most vulnerable, like the people she was talking about, would have difficulty in that interview, talking with an authority figure when, in their home country, that was probably the last kind of person to whom they would give the personal details of their situation.

Could the hon. member talk about any concern she might have about the timing of that original interview, given the vulnerabilities of some of the people who will be making refugee claims in Canada?

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

The fact that the timeframe is so short is one of our concerns. Eight days is a very short period of time. We are proposing at least 28 days, a period that would not be that much longer but long enough to make a difference in the life of a person.

Moreover the first people to meet with refugee status applicants are now public officials. That also makes a big difference. The second person they will meet with is a judge. We have been asking for a long time that the applicant not always be referred to the same person. If a person has refused to grant refugee status once to an applicant, this same person will not have changed their minds about the applicant the second time.

We have to admit that some headway has been made. However, some truly important changes must still be made to the bill.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, on the same subject of that streamlined timetable, there has been concern raised about the ability of refugee claimants to get appropriate legal advice. Some folks have said they fear the streamlining will actually force people into the hands of unscrupulous immigration consultants for that kind of advice or that it will make it impossible to obtain the advice of a lawyer, and that it will put pressure on immigration lawyers in terms of the timeline. Others have suggested that perhaps we need a system with duty counsels to advise people in the circumstances of that initial interview.

I wonder if she could comment on the provision of legal advice to claimants, given the proposed streamlined schedule of this legislation.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Madam Speaker, once again, I thank my colleague.

We know that there is a corrupt system of agents who, on the pretext of helping people applying for refugee status, fleece them of every last penny of their savings.

It would be best that some kind of board be established to ensure that applicants are given good reasons, that they are asked the right questions and that they receive the proper support. Based on what is currently happening, as we have seen in televised documentaries, a large majority of the individuals do not meet the conditions and, furthermore, take advantage of, use and usurp a great deal of the rights and money of the people they are supposed to represent.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak in this debate on Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Federal Courts Act.

The Conservatives, in their penchant for giving bills nicknames, have called this the “balanced refugee reform act”. I am hoping beyond hope that this will be the case with this legislation but there have been some serious concerns raised about the bill and I hope to speak to some of those.

Canada has always been a haven for refugees. We as a country have done very well by those refugees who have arrived here and made Canada their home. Whether it was the United Empire Loyalists at the time of the American revolution, Hungarians in 1956, people from the Unites States who resisted the Vietnam War, the Vietnamese boat people after the end of the Vietnam War, or people from the People's Republic of China after the events of Tiananmen Square, Canada has benefited greatly from these significant refugee movements. Those are just some of the movements of political refugees that have seen people come to Canada.

There have also been significant refugee movements fleeing economic problems and other social problems in their country of origin. We saw the Irish in the 19th century at the time of the potato famine. We saw Scottish emigration, eastern European emigration and emigration from Asia and Italy. In fact, my own family and probably many of our families came to Canada as economic migrants. All of these groups and many others have contributed greatly and continue to contribute greatly to building our country.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Hear, hear!

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

I appreciate the minister's applause. He did speak about that in his remarks as well. However, there have been failures of our immigration refugee policy that left people unprotected. One of the most egregious of those cases was the Jewish refugees who came to Canada during World War II and were not welcomed and were turned away. There were also the people on board the Komagata Maru who arrived in Vancouver at the turn of the last century and were returned to India.

Our failure to welcome refugees has had terrible consequences as well for those individuals. When we turn away someone whose life is in danger, the possibilities are not very positive, to say the least.

However, Canada overall has been known as a country that welcomes refugees and does it in a way that most other countries do not, which is something that is very significant. We were recognized by the United Nations for our efforts in refugee resettlement in 1986 with the Nansen medal. Canada is the only country to have been recognized in this way. Other individuals and agencies have been recognized but Canada remains the only country to have received the Nansen medal.

One of the successes of Canada's refugee policy has been the fact that there has been a significant grassroots and community involvement in refugee resettlement. We have seen that in most of our communities. There are individuals who participated in the resettlement of a refugee and worked with a family, for instance. Many agencies and community organizations work on these issues. Many of them are related to the private sponsorship program, which has been an inspired part of Canada's refugee legislation, where groups of Canadians can get together and participate directly in helping the resettlement of refugees and refugee families in Canada. That was a brilliant policy decision and continues to be a backbone of our refugee policy.

Canadian churches have been very active in sponsoring and resettling refugees in Canada and they remain one of the key players in our refugee policy.

All of this has led to the fact that there is considerable ownership of our refugee policy at a grassroots level in Canada. Because so many Canadians have been directly involved in the refugee process, they believe they have an important interest in the policies and in legislation of the kind we are debating today.

Canadians recognize that the job is not done and far from it. Millions of people still languish in refugee camps near trouble spots around the world. That number is not reducing in a significant way and continues to be very troubling. The conditions in those refugee camps are also very difficult.

Far too many people are still persecuted, even to death, for their political views or for their race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity around the world. Steadily, in many ways, we have been making it harder for those people to escape their own country and find a safe haven here in Canada.

We did things like the safe third country agreement with the United States that said that if a refugee came through the United States before making a claim in Canada they could be returned to the United States. I think that was abandoning Canada's responsibility to those people when Canada's policy was different from that of the United States when it came to offering people protection.

We introduced things like documentation requirements before people board airlines to fly to Canada ensuring they had documentation when often many refugees and people who are escaping persecution do not have the required documents.

In recent years, our refugee determination system has been a mess, frankly, because we have used it as a political football. We have seen many political considerations given, political appointments in terms of people who were sitting on the IRB, and other ways that we have played games with our refugee system at the cost of protecting people. That has resulted in huge backlogs in our refugee determination process.

Our previous governments, both Liberal and Conservative, have allowed this backlog to grow. At the end of the last Liberal government, the Liberals had taken some important steps to improve the situation. They had made progress with regard to the backlog and the Immigration and Refugee Board, the IRB, was at a point where it was almost caught up in a sense when the Conservatives came to power in 2006. There was still a backlog but there will always be a backlog situation in any of these agencies. However, the IRB was to the point of believing that the backlog was manageable and one that would not have produced many serious delays at that point.

Unfortunately, when the Conservatives came to power I think they played politics with the IRB. They refused to reappoint board members who had been appointed by the Liberals and they also refused to appoint new board members. The result was that the backlog ballooned back to where it had been in earlier years. As a result of that backlog, the unfairness also grew. We lost many experienced people from the IRB in that period. The IRB lost that experience, that ability to do an effective and fair job.

The Auditor General even became involved when she warned that the system was collapsing under the huge backlog. This is another situation where the IRB and refugee process as a political football came back into play. I believe the crisis today was created by the Conservatives, by the current government, and now they are creating a solution to the problem that they created. It is a bit of a revolving door and one that continues to concern me.

Conservative and Liberal governments have also shown great disrespect to the existing immigration and refugee law, and that is primarily for their refusal to implement the refugee appeal division which is a feature of the current Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. This act was brought in and debated in 2001, given royal assent in 2002 and contains a provision for a refugee appeal division, something that the minister described as “dormant”. Well the reality was that the Liberals and Conservatives refused to implement that part of the law that had been debated and passed here in the House of Commons and in the Senate. It was never implemented. I think the refugee appeal division would have brought a measure of fairness to our refugee determination system.

The refugee appeal division, RAD, came about through negotiation when the government of the day wanted to move from two member boards at refugee hearings to one member boards. The compromise to ensure fairness was the refugee appeal division. It was not an expensive proposition. It would have cost $8 million to $10 million to establish and $2 million a year to run, not a significant sum in terms of our overall expenditure in the refugee program, but it would have added a measure of fairness to that process.

There was a distinct lack of respect for the process in the past and I wonder if the current legislation before us has a provision for a refugee appeal division, but I do not know. My expectation of fairness of actually seeing that implemented, I have to say, I am a little cynical given our experience with the existing RAD and the fact that it was never implemented.

The NDP has always called for an effective, fair and streamlined refugee process and we have said that there are some principles that need to be the foundation of our refugee determination process. We believe that each case should be assessed on its individual merit. We believe in the need to invest in high quality initial decisions and that we need to get it right the first time. It needs to be a non-political process and the decisions need to be made by an independent body. It needs to be a simple system that avoids unnecessary rules. The necessary resources to ensure that the system functions appropriately need to be in place so that backlogs can be avoided. We also need to remember at all times that human lives are at stake and that we need to uphold human rights standards throughout this important process.

New Democrats have long proposed some specific measures for a fast and fair refugee process. These include that all appointments of IRB board members should be done by an independent appointment commissioner with set criteria for expertise in refugee matters. Such a merit-based appointments process was championed by our former leader, Ed Broadbent. We believe that there needs to be a crackdown on unscrupulous immigration consultants by banning them from the Immigration and Refugee Board hearing room and providing legal aid for proper representation. A provision for appropriate legal representation for refugee claimants continues to be a real issue in our refugee determination system.

We believe that we need to hire more permanent refugee protection officers to clear the backlog. We have seen this done in the past with some success. We also believe that we need to set up the refugee appeal division so that consistent decisions can be made based on fact and law. Parliament mandated, as I mentioned, this refugee appeal division in 2001 but the Liberals and Conservatives chose to ignore the law and not put it in place.

Bill C-11 has some serious flaws. Some of the key organizations that have an interest in the refugee process have outlined some of the problems.

Whenever I look for information on our refugee process, I look to the work of the Canadian Council for Refugees, which is an umbrella organization of many Canadian refugee serving organizations. It has delineated its concerns with this legislation, which I believe merit close attention. One of its key concerns is the designated countries of origin list. This bill would empower the minister to designate countries whose nationals would not have access to the refugee appeal process. This is the so-called safe countries of origin list. The council points out that the word safe does not appear anywhere in Bill C-11, which seems somewhat problematic given the intent of this legislation.

The council also believes that this is an unfair proposal because treating claimants differently based on country of origin is discriminatory. It believes that each case must be assessed individually. It believes that some claimants will be particularly hurt, including women who are making gender-based claims and persons claiming on the basis of sexual orientation. In many countries that are otherwise considered peaceful or safe, there can be serious problems of persecution on these grounds.

Claimants from designated countries will face a bias against them even at the first level since decision-makers will be aware of the government's judgment on that country. There will be an overall presumption of safety in certain countries that will affect the process.

Some claims from countries that are generally seen not to be refugee producing are among those that most need appeal due to the difficult issues of fact and law, such as the availability of state protection. The denial of fair process to these claimants may lead to their forced return to persecution, a violation of human rights law.

The Canadian Council for Refugees says there are other concerns as well about designated countries of origin. It says:

Having a list of “safe countries of origin” politicizes the refugee system. There will be new diplomatic pressures from countries unhappy about not being considered “safe”.

As currently drafted, the amendment would give the minister a blank cheque to designate any country, part of a country or groups within a country without reference to the principles of refugee protection. Those are serious issues that have been raised by the Canadian Council for Refugees.

The council goes on to note that it has problems with the eight day interview and hearing process after 60 days. The government has proposed that claimants be interviewed by the Immigration and Refugee Board after eight days and that their hearing take place 60 days later. The council believes that eight days after arrival is too soon for a formal interview. The interview is used to take the claimant's detailed statement about his or her claim. It would be unfair to the most vulnerable claimants, such as those traumatized by experiences of torture or women unaccustomed to speaking to authority figures.

Some claimants are ready for a hearing after 60 days, but others are not, including refugees who need to build trust in order to be able to testify freely, such as persons who have experienced sexual assault. Other refugees need more than 60 days to gather relevant documentation to support their claim, especially those whose claim relates to a newly emerging pattern of persecution or those who are in detention.

Again, there are very serious concerns about holding hearings before claimants are ready to deal with that important part of the process.

The Canadian Council for Refugees also raises concerns about decision makers and who is making the decisions in this process. It notes that first-instance decision makers would be civil servants rather than cabinet appointees. Members of the refugee appeal division would be appointed by the cabinet.

It says that this does perhaps go in some way to dealing with problematic political appointments, but it also raises some concerns, noting that assigning refugee determination to civil servants is fundamentally problematic because they lack the necessary independence

It also notes that limiting appointments to civil servants will exclude some of the most highly qualified potential decisions makers, from a diverse range of backgrounds such as academia, human rights and social service. It believes that will affect the quality of decisions.

The question of appointments to the RAD remains unresolved. Under the bill they would be political appointments, which will affect the quality of decision making.

The CCR notes problems with the appeal and pre-removal risk assessment. It notes that the pre-removal risk assessment still exists but that it is an ineffective and inefficient system. Also it believes that, for some claimants, this will continue to be an issue because of its inefficiency requiring a whole second structure to do the same work as the immigration and refugee board, something that is not fully addressed in the bill.

The Canadian Council for Refugees is also concerned for the humanitarian and compassionate consideration provisions of the bill. The bill would bar refugee claimants from applying for humanitarian and compassionate consideration while their claim is in process and for 12 months afterwards.

Applicants for H and C consideration would also be barred from raising factors related to risks here and in the country of origin. The CCR believes that H and C consideration is necessary as a recourse to consider human rights issues including the best interests of children and potential risk to persons. Closing off this recourse may be contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Those are some of the concerns raised by the Canadian Council for Refugees.

Amnesty International, another well-respected organization that has a key interest in refugee policies, also has very serious concerns about the safe country of origin list. It says that such lists constitute discrimination among refugees that is strictly prohibited by article 3 of the refugee convention. Article 3 of the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees is about non-discrimination. It states:

The Contracting States shall apply the provisions of this Convention to refugees without discrimination as to race, religion or country of origin.

Amnesty International also notes in a statement on this new legislation:

...over the course of nearly fifty years of human rights research around the world we have consistently highlighted it is not possible to definitively characterize countries as safe or unsafe when it comes to human rights. We are 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.

One of the other organizations that has taken a very key interest in this is the Canadian Bar Association. Its citizenship and immigration law section is very concerned about the bill and asked that it be subject to a referral before second reading so that the committee could deal with the very serious concerns that are raised in it.

Yesterday I met with a refugee activist in British Columbia who is also very concerned about this legislation. She was very concerned that safe countries do not necessarily mean that all the people of those countries are safe and that the legislation needs to talk about safe people. She was also concerned about the language around bogus claims and abuse of the system, which she thinks was not particularly helpful in all of this.

There are many concerns about this legislation. I hope we can have a very fulsome debate on it and one at committee as well. I would have preferred that we got there before second reading so it could be a really extensive debate at committee.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his thoughtful remarks.

He closed by suggesting that the matter go directly to committee before second reading. That is not the normal way Parliament considers a bill. We are engaged in the normal form of parliamentary debate, and I hope the NDP will support having the bill go to committee.

The member has enumerated a number of points with which his party is in agreement. I just wanted to point out that in his own community the Vancouver Sun has said:

The package of reforms proposed by the Conservative government for Canada's refugee system is badly needed.

I would point out that the Victoria centre for refugees has endorsed this as being an important and necessary package. We have pages and pages from those involved stakeholders. The Victoria Immigrant and Refugee Centre Society says the changes to the refugee system proposed by the federal government are a big step in the right direction.

The head of the Catholic Immigration Society says is strongly in support of stopping the abuse of the inland refugee determination system and will continue advocating for this with colleagues across Canada.

I could go on. There is very broad support for this.

I just want to say that the member's concern with respect to the shortfall in IRB appointments has been addressed. We are basically at full capacity at the refugee protection division of the IRB. There was a short-term lag in appointments. That was precisely why we were implementing a far more rigorous pre-screening process that is situated at the IRB.

I want the member to understand that we have radically improved the process. Now, of all the people who apply to sit on the IRB, only 10% are recommended to the minister by the screening committee for appointment. Then the minister has to ensure there is an appropriate demographic, gender and linguistic balance as well as a balance of professional backgrounds. We have done that, staffing the IRB up to its full level.

I appreciate the member's constructive remarks, but what we need in this debate is balance. What I did not hear entirely from him was a balanced concern about the fact that six out of every ten claimants in our system are subsequently found not to be in need of Canada's protection. In our number one source country, 97% of claimants go on to withdraw or abandon their claims.

I have a very simple question for the member. In addition to ensuring that the fairness and basic principles of natural justice and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are enshrined in these reforms, it is important on the balance side that we disincentivize false claims, which are often encouraged by bottom-feeders in the immigration industry, both here and abroad. Would the member not agree?

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for participating in this debate today. It is not always the case and he deserves to be applauded for that.

He raised a number of issues in his comments. First, he talked about the normal process of a bill. One of the processes that is available to Parliament is a referral before second reading. The minister knows full well that means there can be the broadest possible revision of legislation, that new issues can be introduced by the committee into legislation.

When the bill goes to second reading and then is referred, that is more limited. By then, the principle of the bill has already been established, new concepts cannot be introduced into law and we are very limited in what we can in fact do in terms of amending the legislation before the committee.

Given the importance of this legislation, and I do not think anybody in the House disagrees that this is important legislation, that was an appropriate request. It came from many people who are directly and significantly involved in the refugee determination process in Canada. I am disappointed the minister does not see fit to consider that. I hear that he is willing to listen to possibilities of reform and change in committee, but there are limitations placed on that by the route he has decided to go.

I am also glad there are new resources being allotted to the refugee process. I wish it had been done a lot sooner. This process has always needed more resources dedicated to it to make sure it was fast and fair. We have already heard this morning members raising concerns that the new resources were not part of the budget package we have already debated in the House, so we need to nail them down, so to speak, to make sure they are really there.

I am also concerned that we do not throw out the baby with the bathwater. We are going down the road of establishing lists and saying that some claims are more deserving than others, but there will always be an exception to that rule. The consequences of getting this wrong are tragic. That is the whole point of having this kind of asylum process, to make sure people are not persecuted to the point of death in their countries of origin. We have to make sure we do this right.

To use language like “bogus” and “abusive” denies the fact that there can be a substantive claim, even from a country where there are a significant number of claims that do not seem to be related to persecution. Even the minister this morning, when he was talking about claims from Hungary, noted despite all the problematic claims from that country, that there were three claims from three individuals or families where there was a problem of their persecution in Hungary and that the process found in their favour.

We want to make sure there is a system that can be responsive to those particular exceptions and those cases are treated on their individual merits in the system. I have yet to be convinced that what we have before us is a system that will do that.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I too appreciate the fact that the minister has chosen to be in the House for this particular debate. Rather than a question, I have more of a comment for the minister.

The Department of Citizenship and Immigration website has on it a place where people can go to discount some of the vile rumours that are out there these days. There is a particular email that is circulating saying that seniors are put aside, that refugees actually get more than seniors do in their pensions. Of course, that is incorrect. I am very pleased to see the minister has seen to it that it is refuted on the Department of Citizenship and Immigration website.

I would say to the minister that because of the fact that this particular email has been circulating since around 2001, perhaps the government would consider enclosing an insert with the pensions of Canadians to address this, because it is undermining new Canadians who are coming to this country and offering to help build it further. As we know, by far the majority who come here are good citizens once they attain citizenship.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek for raising that issue, because it points to another important issue around how we support seniors, elderly folks who are refugee claimants in Canada. There is a problem with the kind of support they receive collectively from our community, from our pension system. Often, because they are not deemed to be eligible for old age security or the guaranteed income supplement, they live in a situation of deep poverty.

This is clearly something I do not think is acceptable to Canadians. They believe that people who have made a successful refugee claim in Canada should be supported so they can integrate into Canadian society and live a decent life. When those people happen to be senior citizens, that is even more difficult for them, since their work prospects are probably even more limited than other refugee claimants. We need to ensure that the support system, the pension and old age security systems, applies to those people as well.

This is very controversial and governments in the past have not been as clear as they could have been to explain how our pension system works, the cost of our pension system, how it works to support new immigrants and refugees in Canada. This could use the attention of governments. I am glad my colleague suggested to the minister that it be something the government take up.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Federal Courts Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

First, Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie.

As the member for Laval—Les Îles, I rise today in Parliament to speak on a very difficult piece of legislation, Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Federal Courts Act. These proposed amendments deal with the fundamental right of individuals to seek protection in other countries, and specifically in Canada, when their government wilfully refuses to protect its citizens.

Instead, many of these individuals live in terror, afraid for their lives and for those of their families. In some instances, they are subjected to decades of civil war. They are subjected to cruel and unusual torture, in most instances at the hands of their own government, the same government that had pledged to serve and protect their human rights.

I also speak today in the House for the voices of the many women and children who have been subjected to force and violent rape by armies given the authority to ethnically cleanse a country. All this is done while the government stands silent. It not only does not protect its citizens but it does not even bring the perpetrators to justice. Many of the more than 50 wars that are going on in the world today have been going on for decades. The number of victims runs in the millions. Today, if the amendments that we will be asking for are not allowed to be incorporated into Bill C-11, then Canada's Conservative government will take away those rights to protection.

In the few minutes I have before me, I will speak to three areas of this bill: first, the eight-day rule, second, the right to remain in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds and, third, the notion of safe country of origin or, as described in clause 12, proposed section 109.1, designated countries of origin, where parts of a country within a country would be considered safe by the Canadian refugee authorities.

Implementing an eight-day information-gathering rule goes against everything Parliament has put in place to allow claimants a fair and impartial refugee hearing with the support of competent legal counsel. Eight days is not enough to give counsel time to gain the trust of the claimants.

I am talking about people who go through many countries before they get to Canada, who have lived illegally and who have slept just about anywhere before they came here. We are asking them to sit down with a lawyer, explain their problem and try to give all the details within the very short time of eight days. How can we expect a poor man, women or child, because often children come all by themselves without the help and support of their parents, to trust that person who is in front of them within eight days?

Eight days is definitely not sufficient. Eight days is not enough time to secure adequate cultural interpretation. We know, for the majority of the time, that counsel would be working with a third language. Very few of the refugee claimants who we receive in this country speak one of the two official languages.

On the issue of humanitarian and compassionate grounds, the bill before us would require a claimant to wait a full year before reapplying after his or her claim for refugee status has been rejected. These people will be in complete limbo during that one year period. What would happen if, after discussions with a lawyer, a claimant realized that his or her claim was made on the wrong grounds, given the situation he or she experienced? What if the claimant wants to withdraw a claim and make a new one on humanitarian and compassionate grounds this time?

Claimants who withdraw their claims before the hearing date should be entitled to apply for permanent residency. Under this bill, however, claimants who withdraw their claims before their IRB hearing date have nowhere else to turn. All doors and windows are then closed to them. They currently have no other choice than to face removal.

I would like to speak about a case I heard about last night, that of a young woman from Guinea, in Africa, who was a victim of spousal abuse and who will now be deported from Canada. Her abuse by her partner was so severe that she is permanently branded on her left breast, and even underneath, from the mark of a hot iron. When she tried to get the authorities in her country to protect her, she was not able to get the authorities to do so. That is exactly what a refugee is, somebody who goes to the authorities in her own country and does not get the protection of the police and of the judicial system.

According to her Montreal counsel, our system denied her refugee status. She told us and friends of hers told us that if she were to go back to her country of Guinea, then she would be again under the control of this man who so cruelly abused her.

Not only has Canada's humanitarian and compassionate system failed to allow this woman to remain, but we are sending her back on Tuesday, although she is now married to a Canadian citizen and is now in a high-risk pregnancy. Tuesday is tomorrow.

Here are some of the details. One, if she is forced to go back to her country, the chances are very, very high that she will run into the man who was her first husband, who will very likely never understand or accept that she has now remarried. Two, she is now in a high-risk pregnancy. She cannot really be put into an airplane.

Where is the clemency? Where is the justice? Where is the compassion? Where are the humanitarian grounds on which the minister could allow this woman and her unborn child to stay here, because it is up to the minister and his department?

Her counsel, who has sent me a copy of a letter that was recently written to the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, said that her Canadian physicians, right here in Canada, in Montreal, have confirmed that travelling would be extremely dangerous.

This is one case among many. Before I became a member of Parliament, I was a member of the IRB, the Immigration and Refugee Board.

As an IRB member, I reviewed hundreds and hundreds of cases. It is true that, in some cases, there are individuals who try to push through our system, but it is also true that the vast majority of people whose cases we see are like this woman from Guinea who needs our help.

My colleague, the MP for Vaughan, has declared that on this side of the House, the refugee appeals division was happy that at last it will be implemented. I am certainly happy personally, but it is clear that claimants will not be in Canada long enough to allow them to be present for those appeals. How can a refugee claimant appear before the appeals division to make her case heard if the new law implements a short eight-day period to gather information?

Other MPs have talked about the most controversial aspect of Bill C-11: the Immigration and Refugee Board will hear the case but the applicant will not be able to appeal to the IRB. Furthermore, this is all tied to the decision that will be made by the department or the minister—we are not exactly sure which one—regarding the designation of safe countries.

When I was a member of the IRB, we received refugee claims from Sri Lanka. People were told that if they went to Colombo, the capital of Sri Lanka, they would find refuge and would not need to come to Canada. It was not recognized that, in Sri Lanka, it was perhaps harder to travel to the capital than it is in Canada because of the dangers faced by the refugee claimant.

The bill does not say which authority will be responsible for designating safe countries or the criteria to be used. I would like to share some anecdotes based on my experience as a former member of the board.

There are some countries in Europe where homosexuality is recognized and is not illegal. They are democratic countries, as the minister rightly stated earlier. However, from my experience on the Board, I know that when some homosexuals arrive in Canada, they say that they were beaten and persecuted in their country of origin and that they went to the police but did not receive any protection. The laws of their country also did not afford them protection.

Although there may be a law on the books, that does not mean they have protection. Although a country is democratic, that does not mean that these people will be protected in the outlying, rural, mountainous areas of that country. Protection on paper is one thing, and it is important; however, it is not the same as real protection. People are persecuted and are unable to obtain help from their country and its justice system.

We must ensure that our Canadian law can distinguish between people who wish to take advantage of our system and those who do are not protected by their country's justice system.

Just because a country is democratic does not mean that it will protect its citizens when necessary.

My comments are based on discussions I have also had with NGOs that have worked with refugee claimants for years and know the system very well.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her comments. Her compassion for refugees is quite evident.

I have just a couple of comments.

First, the member raises the question of the eight-day triage. I should point out that currently, when refugee asylum claimants arrive they have an initial interview with somebody from the CBSA. Counsel is almost never present. The proposition is for a triage interview that would not be a legal hearing. It would simply be an opportunity for someone from the independent IRB, far better trained than officials at the CBSA, to get the essential outline of the claim, identify whether or not someone has a manifestly well-founded claim and to recommend them for priority treatment so they can get faster protection.

However as to her point with respect to Sri Lanka, one of the criteria we propose for the designation of safe countries is that, of their principle source of claims, the vast majority are unfounded. In the case of Sri Lanka, 91% of claimants are people who have a well-founded fear of persecution. Therefore a country with such an acceptance rate would not be even remotely considered for inclusion in the designated safe country list.

Finally, I have a question for her.

The Leader of the Opposition, her leader, said on August 13 of last year, “I want a legitimate, lawful refugee system that welcomes genuine Convention refugees but then says, look, there are a number of countries in the world in which we cannot accept a bona fide refugee claim because you don't have cause, you don't have just cause coming from those countries. It's rough and ready but otherwise we'll have refugee fraud and nobody wants that”.

That is what the hon. Leader of the Opposition said last August 13 in Saint John, New Brunswick, and I would like to know whether the member for Laval—Les Îles agrees with her leader in that respect.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to what the minister said about Sri Lanka.

I have represented the riding of Laval—Les Îles in this House for 13 years. The example I gave dates back to the time when I was a member of the Immigration and Refugee Board, many years ago. At the time, Sri Lanka was not a safe country. Colombo was designated as a safe city in Sri Lanka. I think the minister was mistaken about what period I was referring to.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her very cogent and thoughtful comments on the bill. I also thank the government for bringing forward these changes and for bringing forth an appeal process.

However, a number of very experienced people in this area have raised a number of concerns and I am hopeful that we genuinely will allow for significant amendments.

The member raised important concerns that I have heard from a number of members in the House about the safe countries of origin list. I would like her to comment on the fact that a number of people, including Amnesty International, have raised serious concerns about this and questions whether it is appropriate to designate a country of origin as a safe place and that in fact the process should be based on the claimant, not on the country of origin.

We know that it could be women at risk, there could be sexual orientation at risk, there could be a number of factors, even though generally the country is deemed safe, democratic and according to the rule of law. I wonder if the member could elaborate a bit more on the number of concerns that she has raised and the concerns raised by Amnesty International, particularly on the issue of the safe country of origin.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree. I gave the example of people who had filed refugee claims because they were homosexual and were not protected by their country's legal system.

I chose this example in particular because it is not directly related to democracy. That country, which will remain unnamed, is considered to be a democratic country, which has passed laws to protect these people, and is currently on the list of safe countries.

However, even though I am no longer a member of the Board, I meet people who have no reason to tell me about their problems, and I know that these people were not protected in their country.

I did not have time to mention this during my speech, so I would like to add that I hope this bill goes directly to committee after first reading. It is an extremely important and complex bill, and we must give the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration as much time as possible to discuss it.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to echo what my colleague from Laval—Les Îles said. We hoped the bill would be sent to committee immediately after first reading so that we could make the necessary amendments to it.

On the whole, we support the minister's initiative to change refugee protection. These changes were urgently needed. But the bill has some serious flaws, most of which my colleague already mentioned.

For my part, I would like to talk about how the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees looks at safe countries and come back again to the issue of sexual orientation and gender, which can be seen as grounds or reasons for abuse in refugee claimants' countries of origin, even countries that are generally considered democratic.

There is another problem as well. I do not know whether it has already been raised, but I would like to mention it. It seems that $540 million has been earmarked for this reform, but it is not included in the budget.

I would like to ask the minister where the government is going to get the money to proceed with this reform. Does it plan to cut spending in other areas or other parts of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration? If so, where is it going to make cuts to pay for this reform?

I would also like to make mention of the vocabulary we use in referring to asylum seekers or political refugees. It is dangerous to talk about bogus claimants and even very harmful to the whole refugee system.

We need a reasoned, respectful discussion based on facts, rather than just on insults and simplifications. Not everyone who applies for refugee status may need protection. Some people may feel threatened when in fact they are not, but that does not mean they are abusing the system. They may have had very good reasons for leaving their country of origin, even though those reasons do not make them refugees under the law.

Refugees are some of the most vulnerable members of society and are, therefore, easy targets for attack as non-citizens in a foreign country, in this case, Canada.

Denigrating labels, especially those given by the government, have a serious negative impact on the public's perception of refugees and non-citizens in general. This often surfaces in public discourse about immigration and refugee status.

There is an enormous amount of confusion about the rights of refugee claimants. They are seen as perpetual system abusers. But many of these people have very serious and obvious reasons for seeking asylum in Canada.

I will now come back to two questions that complement those asked by my colleague from Laval—Les Îles. In terms of funding, where will we find the $540 million needed to see the reform through to the end? There is also the question of vocabulary. Is it be possible to be more careful when talking about people seeking asylum? We need to look at how we treat them and talk about them.

The question of safe countries has been debated at length. The minister has made some clarifications about the 8 days and 60 days. However, it would be extremely important to very clearly define, in committee, the impact of the interview that takes place within eight days and the repercussions this interview would have on the application.

In general, the minister's reform proposal is a great initiative. It is a good start. It was urgent and necessary. However, we must agree that other discussions will be necessary in order to improve it and make it as good as possible.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that on a number of occasions in her speech today my colleague touched on the fact that these reforms are necessary and that she and her party are supportive of a number of the reforms in the legislation. In fact, it sounds like she would like to get this bill to the citizenship and immigration committee, on which she was a member, as quickly as possible.

One of the points that she raised, and on which I seek some clarification from her, concerns a reform in the legislation for the expansion of an additional 2,500 refugees, asylum seekers, to our country, 2,000 of whom would be those in private lives who would be able to provide that care and that sponsorship, and 500 additional government-sponsored refugees.

Another issue that she spoke to was the issue of being kinder or nicer, or something to that effect. I would like to suggest that our legislation, because of this reform, speaks exactly to the type of kindness that this country has and speaks exactly to the type of kindness that we need to generate through our refugee reform policy. I would ask the member if she would make sure to clarify her point on that.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, it actually had little to do with that. Yes, I recognize that the government is proposing to increase the number of refugees that will be accepted in Canada yearly. However, it has very much to do with the vocabulary the government often uses around the question of asylum seekers. It is in that sense that I was hoping we would be very careful on how we speak about refugees and asylum seekers.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech. It was not so long ago that she sat with us on the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. We miss her.

She is familiar with Bill C-291 that I introduced. The purpose of the bill was to implement a refugee appeal division, which is being partially presented in the bill before us today. My colleague worked on promoting this appeal division. Unfortunately, this bill was defeated in the House because of the Liberals. During the vote, 12 MPs were absent. They had won the previous vote by three votes and then had the nerve to keep four members seated and have them abstain from voting. The bill was defeated by only one vote.

Considering all the effort she made in promoting this bill, is she not a little disappointed in the behaviour of her colleagues who have abandoned refugees?

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member will understand that I am not going to make any comments on the behaviour of my colleagues with respect to what happened before the holidays. However, I can say a few words about the appeal process presented in the bill. It is a start, but it is not a complete response.

This is part of the work the committee will begin rather quickly, I hope. We have to look at how this appeal process will work, as my colleague the hon. member for Laval—Les Îles pointed out. Asylum seekers will rarely be given the time to stay for an appeal. This is something that absolutely must be discussed.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, when the minister tabled his bill, he described how we needed to make these amendments to ensure the process was fast and fair.

I would suggest that it is probably more appropriate to say that it would be timely and just. I wonder if the member could speak to that issue, particularly in the avenue of having access to legal counsel. Does the member think legal counsel should be available at all stages of the process?

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I most definitely agree that legal counsel should be available at all stages, especially at the appeals process where the refugee claimant must be given enough time and elasticity to present when that appeal goes through.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be here to speak to Bill C-11, which provides for equitable reforms with respect to refugees. It is about time we looked at this because the process for dealing with refugee claims submitted by people who show up at our border crossings has been a big problem for a long time now. These people come to Canada claiming to have been persecuted in their home countries. Because they get no protection there, they come here to ask Canada for protection.

The number of claims awaiting processing has skyrocketed over the past few years. Processing delays are far too long for all cases, particularly those based on the Geneva convention, which defines a refugee claimant. People who submit claims live in limbo for years, but they deserve a faster response.

This also happens to other persecuted individuals in extremely difficult circumstances around the world. These people submit their refugee claims in good faith because in many cases, they believe the legal definition applies to them, but their cases are dismissed after they have spent several years in Canada. They may have jobs, friends, families, houses. The wait times are also far too long for some unscrupulous opportunists who take advantage of the situation to try to stay in Canada as long as possible or even permanently.

This problem is due in large part to negligence on the part of the current and former governments, which hired too few members. This has been the norm at the Immigration and Refugee Board for a long time now. When there are not enough board members to process claims, when staffing levels are only two-thirds what they should be, fewer claims are processed and wait times go up.

I have a very hard time understanding this situation. Why did the government not take action sooner? Why did it not take steps to shorten wait times?

The committee often studies what is going on in immigration. I have become deeply convinced that, unfortunately, wait times are being used as a tool to manage the arrival of immigrants or, in this case, refugees. Allow me to explain.

Normally, in the health care system, wait times are due to an insufficient allocation of resources, which is involuntary because resources are scarce. Because more people need services than there are resources allocated, wait times increase over time. That is why only a certain number of people can be treated every year.

Where immigration is concerned, it is somewhat the reverse situation. Insufficient resources are voluntarily allocated to processing claims so as to not exceed the quotas and objectives that have been set. This is never acknowledged officially or publicly, but almost everyone agrees that only a certain number of people can be admitted to Canada every year.

Society has the ability to absorb a number of people from all over the world. Means are therefore sought to try and control the influx. For many years, it suited governments to have prolonged processing times. It helped slow down the influx of refugees, who figured it would be complicated to get into Canada and that it would take a few years. This acted as a disincentive.

It became a problem when the government lost control and found itself with long wait periods and a process so complicated that it almost acts as an incentive for people to come to Canada. They figure that their claims will take years to process and, during that time, they will be in a safe country and will not have to fear for their safety.

So previous governments and the current government are to blame for part of the problem, but at least we have a bill before us that is aimed at tackling the problem.

I recognize that there is a problem and that it is good to have a bill to deal with that problem. I believe that this bill contains some interesting principles. The Bloc Québécois will support it at second reading to send it to committee.

We asked that this bill be sent to committee even before second reading so that we would have complete latitude to study it and suggest constructive improvements. But the government did not opt to go that route. I hope that if we work together in committee to make the bill better, we will not get bogged down in “proceduritis”.

Let us look at the main elements of the bill. No one will be surprised that I am going to start with the refugee appeal division. This bill finally provides for implementing this division, even though it has been in the act for quite some time. In fact, the 2001 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provided for an appeal division. At the time, two board members considered a refugee claim at the same time, and all it took was for one member to approve the claim for the claimant to be accepted. In 2001, the previous Liberal government told Parliament that it would reduce the number of board members from two to one, but that it would create a refugee appeal division to make up for the change and avoid arbitrary decisions. This Parliament voted for that. But the Liberal government unfortunately never implemented its own act and the refugee appeal division, and the Conservatives have not done so either.

That is why the Bloc Québécois has repeatedly tried to force the government to implement the division, the last time being when it introduced Bill C-291, which was passed at second reading but unfortunately defeated by a single vote at third reading because of a rather pathetic Liberal tactic.

I do not agree with the Conservatives' positions, but at least they were honest about the fact that they were opposed to the refugee appeal division and would vote against it. The NDP and the Bloc said they were in favour of the refugee appeal division and said they would vote to support it. The Liberals, on the other hand, said they supported it, but curiously, during the vote, 12 members were absent, that is, double the number of absent members of all the other parties combined.

The vote before and the vote after the vote in question were won by the three opposition parties by three votes, but when the time came to vote on Bill C-291, four Liberal members mysteriously remained seated and coincidentally, the bill was defeated by a single vote. That is a lot of coincidences at once. As we all know, that was the Liberals' strategy to try to appease their electoral base while still defeating the bill in the House.

I do not mean to dwell on the past, but I thought it was important to remind the House of what happened.

Let us now look forward. Why is the refugee appeal division necessary? Contrary to what is indicated in the bill before us, why should it apply to everyone?

All of our legal systems include the opportunity to appeal. The reason is very simple: because justice is administered by humans and humans can make mistakes, the system recognizes that the justice system can make mistakes.

Opportunities for appeal will therefore be included everywhere to correct potential errors.

The bill also proposes appeal mechanisms in our legal systems to ensure uniformity. The goal is to ensure a reasonable expectation that a certain type of case, say x, will produce a certain outcome and that every case like case x will produce that same outcome. That is not how it works at the moment.

Here is an example of how similar claims were treated differently by IRB members. This happened to twins, brothers from the same country. Their claims were reviewed by two different board members, and each one made a completely different decision. The cases were alike, they were brothers who had been through the same thing together, yet the board members did not make the same decision. Clearly, there is a lack of coherence. An appeal division would have made it possible to determine which board member was wrong or mistaken.

Appeal mechanisms seek to eliminate arbitrary treatment by giving our legal systems oversight over lower-level rulings. Some board members have rejected as many as 98% of the claims they have dealt with, while others have allowed nearly every claim that has gone before them.

If I were in court one day and someone told me before the hearing that the judge convicted in 98% of his or her cases, I would know that justice was not being served and that it was a farce. I would know the dice were loaded. But in a typical legal system with an appeal division, if every decision made by a board member or judge was overturned on appeal, the chief justice would eventually tell the judge that his or her rulings were a problem.

The same applies to the IRB. An appeal process ensures that those making the decisions in the first place really think them through. Decision makers have to remember that their decisions can be appealed. They have to really think about their decisions and consider whether they are likely to be upheld or systematically appealed.

That is not in the legislation. I know that there have been some intense discussions with the minister about the current potential for appeals in the legislation. There is none. I have been saying it all along, and I will say it again today. There are ways of getting around it, such as the judicial review process at the Federal Court. Very few applications are accepted. In all cases, only the procedural aspect of the application is examined. No one can request a judicial review on the basis of the facts. For example, if a member says that he does not believe a person's story and does not think he is credible, the Federal Court would never say that his story was credible and approve his application.

There is the issue of pre-removal risk assessments. This procedure is very rarely applied. In fact, only 2% of the applications involving new facts since the initial hearing are accepted. It is not truly an appeal mechanism. Neither is a permanent resident application on humanitarian grounds. Some people use it as a second attempt if they think there was an error with their case at the initial hearing. It does not fall under the definition of refugee status as adopted by the conventions supported by Canada.

I have spent a lot of time talking about the appeal division. I think that natural justice is something really fundamental, and we cannot ignore it. The problem with the bill before us is the exemption for so-called safe countries. The minister said that he would create a list, but we have no details about that yet, and people who come from these so-called safe countries will not have access to the refugee appeal division.

Finally, the bill takes a positive step by implementing the refugee appeal division and—let us be frank—by improving it in certain ways, for instance, with the possibility of presenting new evidence and testifying again. Nevertheless, a certain proportion of asylum seekers will not have this opportunity. In my opinion, that is a mistake. When it comes to equality of the most basic rights, we must not treat people differently based on their country of origin. That seems obvious to me.

When a person appears before a tribunal that will make a decision far less significant than one where the person could potentially be sent back to be tortured, killed or persecuted, the tribunal does not take the person's country of origin into account. When neighbours are in a dispute over a fence, neither party would ever be denied the right to appeal based on their country of origin. Everyone is treated equally, regardless of where they are from.

I do not see why this distinction would be made in the case of refugees. It is not necessary. The bill already provides for an expedited process, namely by suspending for one year the possibility of applying for a pre-removal risk assessment, a temporary resident permit or permanent residency on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. These options that were once available to refugees no longer appear in the legislation. We do not think it is necessary to go so far as to prevent people from safe countries from using the appeal division.

I will now say a few words on the issue of deadlines, which are of particular concern to me. Deadlines do not figure in the bill, but I imagine they will be included in the regulations. It seems that the minister intends to give refugees eight days from the time refugee status is claimed to the time they meet with an IRB officer for help with the application. As I was saying earlier, although generally speaking it is a good idea to expedite the process, in some cases this can be problematic.

When a refugee from another country who has been persecuted and perhaps raped several times arrives in Canada, they are told that they have one week to tell their whole story. Many psychologists would say that you can work with a rape victim, for example, for months before they start talking about their experience. Perhaps we should include mechanisms to correct this. In addition, the interview will be used later, during the hearing and possibly the appeal, to discredit the person. They will be asked why they did not report certain things during the initial interview. We must ensure that the person's psychological state during the interview makes it possible to truly tell their story.

I also have concerns about the timeframe for the hearing, which is 60 days. It is a good thing if applicants who are ready do not have a long wait for their hearing. In some cases, however, it may be extremely difficult to obtain the evidence and documents that might be very far away. In some parts of the world, it can take two weeks for a document to arrive and another two weeks to send it back. That adds up to a month, leaving only 30 days for the lawyer to prepare the case.

Finally, I am very worried by the fact that, by and large, these reforms will be made by regulation, thus sidestepping Parliament. In addition, there is the matter of the timeframes I spoke about, the designation of safe countries, the assisted voluntary returns program that I did not have time to talk about, and so forth.

Yesterday's news reported on the case of a sick, pregnant woman, locked in prison and waiting to be deported. The government sometimes lacks compassion. Therefore, we are very reluctant to give it carte blanche. For that reason, we are asking the minister to submit the regulations in full before proceeding with a clause-by-clause analysis in committee. Thus, when we vote on the bill, we will at least be familiar with the proposed regulations.

I will be pleased to answer my colleagues' questions.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Madam Speaker, I wish to thank my counterpart from the Bloc Québécois for his comments. I find his remarks on immigration issues quite good. We always act in good faith. I commend him on his desire to see the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration conduct a serious study. I have already made a commitment to the hon. member for Vaughan to be open to any reasonable amendment that might be made to the bill. That having been said, we must make sure that the final piece of legislation will be in keeping with our desire to have an efficient and fair system.

I would like to remind the member that the backlog in the asylum system is a permanent one. It has averaged 40,000 claims over the past decade. There is nothing new about it. The reason why members of the IRB have experienced some problems is that a new pre-screening was introduced, which works very well. As the hon. member knows, the membership of the refugee protection division of the IRB is almost complete.

Finally, I would be prepared to table some draft regulations before the committee so that it can examine them.

The member commented on the discrepancies in decisions from different IRB members. The chairman of the IRB tells me that is because some members focus on certain cases from certain countries of origin and others from other countries of origin.

Our number one source country right now is a new democracy from which 97% of the claimants are withdrawing their claims subsequent to making them. Last year, of 2,500 claims made, only three were accepted as being in need of our protection, so there are some wide discrepancies.

In any event, I want to thank the member for his constructive spirit. I look forward to working with him in good faith at committee.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Madam Speaker, the minister can count on my help. The Bloc will be proposing amendments to improve this bill.

I would like to talk about inconsistent decisions. In my opinion, they are the source of the potential problems and abuse that the minister is so worried about. When I meet with immigration lawyers in Montreal, they always tell me the same thing. When their client asks if there is a possibility of being accepted, they say that they do not know, that it depends on which IRB member processes their request. Some members make very favourable decisions while others make unfavourable ones. It is the IRB lottery. It is the luck of the draw. If you get a certain member, you are lucky. If you get a different one, you may not be so lucky. It does not necessarily depend on your country of origin. I mentioned the two brothers who came from the same country with the same story but who got two completely different decisions.

This inconsistency might encourage people to take a chance. Then, if that does not work, they look at other alternatives. A refugee appeal division ensures that the decisions are consistent and that case law is built up. Lawyers could tell their clients from the outset whether or not they had a chance, either initially or on appeal. For it to truly work, everyone has to have access to the refugee appeal division, including those coming from what ministers consider to be safe countries.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his input. He is certainly knowledgeable. I want to ask him about the input I have received from a couple of agencies. Certainly, it has to do with the timing and it also has to do with the safe country of origin issue.

The solution to this may be found in committee if it is deemed that it is not beyond the permitted scope of the committee. Once a bill is passed at second reading and gets approval in principle, it may close the door in terms of the latitude to make certain changes at committee. It was asked, and I wanted to make that representation, in good faith, that because of the important subject matter of this bill, the bill be referred to the committee before second reading so that all of these facts and discussions could be taken into account by the committee in determining the propriety of certain changes to be proposed. That would have been desirable, but that did not occur.

Does the member believe, therefore, that if we pass this bill at second reading we will be able to address some of the substantive issues at committee with the concurrence of the minister?

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Madam Speaker, I indicated in my speech that I thought it would be best to refer the bill to committee before second reading so as to have complete latitude to improve on it, not to change its nature or redesign it, but to make sure that improvements that could be agreed upon unanimously and would make it possible to move forward would not be rejected for somehow going beyond the intended scope of the bill.

I do not know what motivated the government to deny the request made to it to refer the bill to committee before second reading. It hope that was not done in an attempt to use procedure to avoid having to consider certain amendments. At any rate, it would not be a great strategic move on the part of a minority government looking to get its political agenda passed to refuse amendments about which there might be a consensus simply because it has procedure on its side.

The minister and hon. members who spoke today said they were prepared to negotiate, to look at improvements that might ultimately provide interesting results. Let us assume that everyone is acting in good faith and hope that, in committee, we will not get caught up in procedural wrangling and have to debate whether an amendment is in order or not. Amendments should be considered on merit, based on how useful they can be to claimants.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member raised a very important point. I have worked with a number of countries helping them develop their regulatory regime, particularly in the environment field. One of the methods I have encouraged them to follow, which I found useful in a number of jurisdictions in which I worked in Canada, is that at the same time the legislation is being developed, and the interacting regulations and guidelines, they get an idea of exactly how much staff will be needed and that they gear up to train them. In that way, the minute the law is implemented, they are ready to go.

I am wondering if the member could speak to that in more detail. It would be very useful, frankly, in the review of the bill to see the full force of it. My concern is that the bill be implemented with officers having full discretion, rather than what the legislation seems to provide for, that there would be some fettering in the discretion and some criteria in the treatment of these applications.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Madam Speaker, we asked that the regulations that go along with this bill be presented to the committee. The minster said he could provide us with at least some rough drafts. That is a good start. That would give us a general idea. However, it is by no means a final solution, because the regulations can be changed at any time without consulting Parliament. We must therefore ensure that the bill includes all the basic principles and that the regulations contain only administrative features, and that Parliament does not shirk its responsibilities regarding the principles of the legislation. I say yes to regulations. I think they are fundamental. Studying this bill with no information about the regulations would really be like signing a blank cheque for parliamentarians. We must go further. We must ensure that the main principles of governance are included in the legislation and that the regulations deal only with administrative matters.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to speak to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Federal Courts Act. This bill came out of a lot of work that was done when the Liberals were in government in 2004 to 2006. We are pleased to see the minister has listened to members from all political parties and has tried to craft the bill in a way that will deal with something that has been a very vexing challenge for any government that has served our nation.

All of us know and hear about the tragic stories and have met refugees who have come to our country. They have endured lengths of time of great uncertainty in their lives, fleeing countries and environments that have been, at best, disconcerting to them and, at worst, life-threatening to them and their families.

The stories of terror and horror that they, their families and loved ones have been subjected to are often difficult for those of us who have lived in our beautiful country to understand or truly empathize with. It is a reality in far too many countries where the milk of human kindness does not run through some of their leaders and they and the people who follow them have inflicted crimes against individuals that are beyond our worst nightmares. Yet the people who members see in their offices have come to our country to find a better life, security, enjoy freedom and, above all else, to be protected and free of the kind of viciousness and brutality that infects too many countries in the world.

The genesis of the bill is to ensure that individuals who come to our country, or are selected to be refugees or apply to be refugees are true refugees in our country and are able to go through a process that enables them to enter into Canada in an expeditious fashion with uncertainties removed. More important, it ensures that individuals who try to take advantage of the system, queue jump and enter our country from other countries with no just cause are not allowed into the country, that they are removed from the system and sent back to their countries of origin expeditiously and that the moneys that come from our citizens are used wisely and responsibly.

The Liberal Party will support the bill going to committee. We do this not because we think it is a perfect bill, it is far from it, but we believe it is important and responsible for us to ensure the bill gets to committee where witnesses can appear and members of the committee from all parties can ask the tough questions, which will allow us to ensure the bill is crafted in the most responsible and effective way possible.

We are, however, concerned that the government took four years to put together a bill such as this, given the fact that Conservatives and their offices, like ours, have heard about the challenges and problems within the immigration and refugee system. It is very important that at the end of the day the bill be rooted in fairness and efficiency.

The reform package incorporates recommendations that have come from the Liberal Party, including the establishment of a refugee appeal process. The government, however, has given no guarantees that the backlog of refugee claims will be addressed any time soon. We are concerned that it will not preserve the fundamental rights of all claimants. We have called for assurances from the government to ensure that the new refugee reform measures will actually reduce the backlog and ensure that we have a balanced refugee system that will ensure individual rights.

Why does the backlog exists? It is important to go back to look at history. The government, for reasons known only to it, has spent an extraordinary amount of time dragging its heels, not filling chronic vacancies that exist within the Immigration and Refugee Board.

In the first place, we feel the appointment process, as has happened in many other areas, has been heavily politicized. By not having a full board has resulted in an explosion of refugee claimants. Right now there is a backlog of 63,000 applicants waiting in line. This has not always been the case. Prior to the Conservatives forming government, 20,000 people were waiting in line. That number has exploded to 63,000 because the government has failed to make appointments in an effective and efficient manner.

This malaise that affects the government's inability or unwillingness to appoint people to boards and to structures that are important to the function of our nation has infected other areas. The Veterans Review and Appeal Board is a good example. This is an important appeal board that resolves challenges facing our veterans. The government has heavily politicized this board, too, by appointing individuals who do not have the competence to handle these complex cases. As a result, we are seeing a backlog in the Veterans Review and Appeal Board and we are seeing that in the immigration and refugee appeal board system.

The government has failed to deal with this big challenge. In the process it has really done a huge disservice to our country and our citizens. The function of these government appointed boards relies on them having a full complement or an effective critical mass of people who can do the job. If these boards do not have that, we see an inefficient execution of the duties of those boards and people suffer as a result.

I want to go back to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, which has to do with our veterans, veterans who have given to our country, veterans who have served our nation, veterans who need good health to maintain their standard of living. Our veterans have served our country throughout their lives, but when they need assistance and go to the VRAB they find a mess, which results in a lot of them suffering. I appeal to the government to grasp what I have said and fix the system because it cannot continue in its current form.

We need to have a fair and just process that will take the concerns relating to safe country of origin seriously. My colleagues and others in the House have mentioned that. We want to ensure that we have the tools to deter refugee fraud, while at the same time protect bona fide refugees.

One of the major concerns of the Liberal Party with respect to this is ensuring that true refugees come in to Canada, but we deter fraud and weed out those individuals who abuse the system. We need to protect those bona fide refugees who want to come to Canada, sometimes need to come to our country to protect their own lives.

Elements of the bill also seem to be somewhat improvised. The government has committed more than $540 million over five years toward reforms that it wants to implement, and that is a good thing. However, this number was simply not in this month's budget. It comes just after the government announced a freeze on departmental spending.

If the government is committing $540 million to implement these reforms, but is planning to freeze spending, then where is it going to get the money? Is the government going to cut something else? If it is going to cut something else, then what is it going to cut? We only have silence from the government. The responsible thing for the government to do would be to let the Canadian public and the House know where it will get the money to do this.

Canadians also cannot afford the gross mismanagement that occurred last year when the government took a really ham-fisted approach toward Mexico and the Czech Republic by putting visa restrictions on the two countries. It seemed like a band-aid solution and a knee-jerk response to a spike in refugee claims from these two countries. We know what the government's intent was, and do not dispute it for a second, but the way in which it did this was extremely damaging to our country.

By announcing out of the blue visa restrictions on Mexico, with no consultation, for example, the government cost many companies hundreds of millions of dollars. Language training groups, tourism companies and others relied on being able to attract people from Mexico. They had contracts signed for them to come to Canada so they could learn English, which has happened for a long time. That was stopped cold. There was a great deal of uncertainty. Many people's lives and businesses were ruined by this glib, offhand implementation of visa restrictions last year.

You and I know, Madam Speaker, from living on Vancouver Island, that this affected quite number of businesses in our communities and cost them millions of dollars. In fact, some of them went out of business. It was completely unnecessary. As I said before, I fully understand where this was coming from with respect to the spike in claimants. We know some of the rationale behind that and some of the legitimate concerns the government had with respect to that spike.

However, our contention is there was a better way of doing this. I would posit for the government that if it considers doing something like that in the future, it should consult with the businesses involved that could be hurt by this. It should listen to a number of the companies that benefit from bilateral relations with these countries. Their concerns from an industrial perspective and an economic perspective need to be listened to.

I would submit that listening to them would enable the government to come out with a better series of solutions to deal with the very real challenge they were faced with at that point in time. We are certainly willing to work with the government to provide it with information and ideas on this. I know it has its sources to utilize, too.

This is a little background. In 2004 the former Liberal government implemented changes to the appointment process to the Immigration and Refugee Board. These changes included an advisory panel made up of a number of individuals involved in the refugee process, which screened all applicants for the IRB.

When the current government came to power, it delayed appointments to the board, while it reviewed the process, which was its right to do. However, then it structured the system so the government could simply appoint half the people as members of the panel. It held off on appointments to do that. Rather than pursue a course based on merit, it has pursued a course based much more on politics. As I said before, this delay caused a massive spike in the backlog, from 20,000 to 63,000 now.

We know our folks at Citizenship and Immigration Canada work very hard. The minister knows this very well. They are tireless and all of us try to work very hard in our constituencies. My staff, Jeff and Vikki, in my Victoria office work very hard to try to resolve these issues in a timely fashion. It takes up a lot of their time.

The members and staff at Citizenship and Immigration Canada work very hard, but I would submit for the minister that he would be well-served to listen to the on the ground members of his ministry, those who work in the trenches and who do the person-to-person work. He would be well advised to ask them directly how he could change the system in a more effective way. In doing so, he would be getting information from those staff members who work on the ground and have to deal with the challenges every day.

He would also be wise to ask the tireless individuals who work for us as members of Parliament in our constituency offices about what they face. They have some very good ideas and solutions that the minister could utilize to ensure we have a better immigration system.

By listening to his staff, the staff who work in our offices and those who have gone through the immigration and refugee process, I think he would have three populations that could provide him with a lot of constructive solutions to make a better bill, one that would serve Canadians, immigrants and refugees very well.

Because of the changes the government introduced in terms of the appointment process, the chair of the board resigned and alluded to the fact that the politicization of the board was a factor in the chair's departure.

In the March 2009 status report of the Auditor General of Canada, chapter 2, Ms. Fraser noted her concerns regarding the timely and efficient appointments and reappointments of decision makers to the IRB. Ms. Fraser said very clearly that this process and how this is being done is something that is of great concern to her.

In addition to the growing backlog of applications, the recent spike in claims from certain countries has resulted in an ad hoc method of visa restrictions to constrict application volume. As I said before, we saw this in Mexico and the Czech Republic. We certainly hope that the government does not have a repeat performance on this because what would happen is that we would see simply another choke point in the system that would not serve things well at all.

The bill certainly provides a lot of further flexibility to the minister to deal with unusual spikes in refugee claims from democratic source countries and streamlining the removal process for unsuccessful applicants. We certainly support the streamlining of the removal of unsuccessful applicants. Right now the situation is actually quite grim in the sense that it takes an excessive amount of time for individuals to be processed.

I think the bill should be commended that it proposes changes to every stage in the in-Canada process. Currently people with successful claims are waiting an average of 19 months for a decision, and it takes an average of 4.5 years to process and remove an unsuccessful claimant. Obviously this is unacceptable, and we want to make sure that when the bill goes to committee the process that comes out of this is going to ensure that the wait time for individuals is going to be less than 19 months. That is a very cruel length of time, and the time it takes to actually process and remove an unsuccessful claimant at 4.5 years is also completely unfair to Canadians.

Some of the things the government wants to do at this point in time include having an information-gathering period, which currently is 28 days. It wants to shorten this to eight days. That seems like wishful thinking on its part, and I submit that is really not where the big backlog is that is causing a problem. There are other areas that can be much lengthier.

For example, the first-level decision phase is done by a government-appointed counsel appointee and is done within 18 months. Under the new process the first-level decisions would be made within the IRB within 60 days. That is a welcome objective, because if we could shorten that period of time from 18 months to 60 days, we would certainly have a much more efficient and effective system. However, we want to ensure that the individual, who is making these claims and will be the subject of these investigations, will be treated fairly under the system.

What is important also is the appeal process. Primary concern for us is that the introduction of a refugee appeal division must ensure that the first-level decisions that are going to be conducted will be done in a way that protects procedural fairness and fundamental justice sufficiently to avoid the RAD's becoming another bottleneck in the process.

If we look at the U.K.'s example, and that would be a worthy one to do, the U.K. has had a number of significant challenges in implementing this. In fact, in its process it has had a huge backlog of up to half a million asylum cases as of 2008 and it can take, get this, it is quite remarkable, 10 to 18 years to resolve. That is quite remarkable.

I know my time is ending, but I want to offer one other suggestion concerning refugees. Their children have a great deal of difficulty and there is a remarkable project called the Sage Youth project run by a remarkable immigrant called Tamba Dhar. She did this in Toronto. Essentially she provided children with mentors from their own community who would empower these children who may not have had good family situations. They provided solid adult anchors for those children within their own communities. I strongly encourage the government to work with the provinces to take a look at what Tamba Dhar has done with the Sage Youth program because the outcome is that these children were able to stay in school. None of them has run afoul of the law. They were not taking drugs. They had better outcomes. They had better employment outcomes and better educational outcomes.

I look forward to any questions.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his very clear and cogent comments on this bill.

I would like to ask the same question of the member that I have asked of other members who have spoken on this bill, and that is along the lines of the way the government has described the process and why it has brought forward the legislation the way it has, compared to what people who are critiquing the bill are saying.

The government has described the process it is bringing forward in the bill. Everybody agrees that the process needs to be improved and we need to have a better process for hearing claims by refugees, but the government describes what we need as a fast and fair process and others seem to be suggesting that what we really need is a timely and just process.

I notice the minister supports the need to have a timely review, in fairness also to the claimant, but there have been concerns raised that the timeline is far too quick and too fast, and it may be that certainly victims, particularly those suffering from sexual abuse and so forth, need more time to deal with their issues and to communicate that. They may not trust officials and may in fact end up discombobulated in what they are presenting.

We certainly have had the experience in our constituency with people who have come in to assist us in immigration matters, where they have given slightly different stories in the initial interview and then later on. In many cases, it appears clear that they simply were intimidated, frightened or trying to give answers they thought they wanted people to hear as opposed to telling the full story.

I wonder if the member could speak a bit more to that, about whether he thinks that the timelines imposed in the legislation actually will provide for a just review.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is one of the unknowns and that is why we are actually supporting this bill to go to committee, to ask those tough and cogent questions, to be able to have those answers to ensure the process that is going to be elucidated from this will be both fair and expeditious.

There are a couple of things that can be done.

For those who are claiming refugee status, if they have family already here, then those individuals could be fast-tracked forward. If there is a history of that family coming into Canada under an existing refugee claim, other members of the family, under the same circumstances, can be expedited.

The other one is for children who do not come with the parents and who are not medically examined. If they are not medically examined and do not come with their parents, they have a terrible time trying to get into the country, so this actually fractures the family apart and obviously is extremely unfair and horrible for the family involved. They are fleeing a country but they had to leave a child behind.

One solution for this that the minister may want to take back is to allow those children to be medically examined and to come in through family reunification. That would prevent the dislocation within the families of children being left behind in countries that are in turmoil and ensure that those children are able to be reunited with their parents.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague's remarks.

I know that he is motivated by strong principles. That being said, I would like to take this opportunity to ask him about his colleagues' behaviour during the vote on Bill C-291. I talked about this earlier today. I know that the past is the past, but if we want to move forward, we have to figure out what happened.

When I introduced a bill that was voted on here in the House to implement the refugee appeal division, 12 Liberal members were absent. Four Liberal members were present, but abstained knowing full well that the opposition had won the previous vote by three votes. Their strategy seems to suggest that, on the one hand, they were in favour of the refugee appeal division, but on the other, they did not want the bill to pass in the House.

We will have to work with the Liberals to improve this bill, enhance it and change a few of the principles in it.

Will we be able to count on their sincere support this time? Can we be sure that they will always act in accordance with what they say in public and with their values?

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague obviously has a lot of experience and knowledge in this area and he brought a lot of that to bear in his superb speech.

As the member knows, we did pursue the Refugee Appeal Division through changes in the past. The government did not do that, so the resolution of this is going to come in committee by working together to ensure that this is going to be resolved, whether it becomes a part of the bill or not. It is certainly a solution that the Liberal Party put forward and we look forward to working with the member to try to convince the government that this ought to be part of the bill and done in an appropriate, sensible and effective way.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I want the people out there who are listening to just imagine if someone, one person, came to their house one day and said that they could no longer be in Canada, that they had to leave and could never come back.

Basically that is the situation that faces refugees in the present system. There is one person who makes that decision. That person is not elected or accountable in any particular way. If he or she got up on the wrong side of the bed or had something personally against someone, there is no way to appeal that.

There are very few things in the Canadian administrative justice system where there is no appeal. This is one of the very rare examples.

Removing that unfairness in our administration in Canada would go a long way to standing up for Canadian ideals and principles. I wonder if the member wants to comment on that.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for his very astute question.

I think one of the things we would like to make sure of when this bill goes to committee is that the first decision phase would actually be effective, that there would be a proper assessment. If that happened, then it would actually be possible to be more effective at separating those people who are trying to take advantage of the system from those who are true refugees.

There are a lot of sieves that could be put into place within that first decision-making phase that would enable us to accomplish that goal. I think giving our front-line workers the direction to do this is important.

My colleague also brings up a very important question about the individuals making this decision. Will they be political appointees, or will they be people of merit? Will they have the skill set to do this?

This is certainly one of the concerns the Auditor General has, and the concern we have, that the government is going to appoint individuals who are going to have the expertise, knowledge and training to be able to execute these very serious duties in a professional manner.

That is what we are going to ensure happens when this bill goes to committee.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Charlottetown, The Budget.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-11. At the outset I, too, want to make note and compliment the minister for getting his bill this far and the fact that he has been here for all of the presentations is a big plus for him. I know that in the provincial legislature, and the only one that I am familiar with is the Manitoba legislature, that is an expected practice. The minister is always there to listen attentively to the speeches of the members. Therefore, I am really impressed that he would do that.

Also, I think there is a bigger issue here. The government is in another iteration as a minority government and it has taken this long for the government to figure out that that is what it is in, a minority government and that majority government possibilities are not guaranteed. Therefore, it has to make the best of the situation it is in.

We look to people like the minister, and he is not alone because there are one or two others over there who show a similar kind of appreciation for how they fit into the grand scheme of things. Unfortunately, there are many people on the government side, members and ministers, who do not appreciate that and it makes it much more difficult to work in a situation like this.

I think that under certain circumstances the government may last the full five years. I know I have said this before but if no one party moves up substantially in support, what would be the point of forcing Canadians to spend millions of dollars for an election that will probably produce the same results.

The fact is that our voters are out there and they want to see results. Whether it is that particular minister, another minister or the government who wants to make accommodations with opposition parties, I think that should be encouraged because it will hold us all in a better stead at the end of the day.

I have always said that there are advantages to minority parliaments. I am a fan of minority governments because I think that they do produce results. We had a very successful run in a minority Parliament of Lester Pearson from 1962 to 1968 where we got the unification of the armed forces. People would have thought that would be impossible to do. We got a new Canadian flag which also at the time seemed like an impossibility. All of that happened during minority situations. I am very positive that this minority situation can produce really good results.

Another point is that all we need to do is look at where this party started, where it warped from. Can we imagine the old Reform Party members looking ahead? I think they would be in a state of shock if they could see what some of their ministers are actually doing. This was a party that was very rigid and extreme in its views and, in some ways, it has come a long way.

I am actually fearful of a majority Conservative government because then we would see the ministers marching in here, dropping the bills on the desk and using a take it or leave it approach.

This particular bill has a lot of potential because of the minority situation. If the government truly wants to get it through, which I think it does, then it is prepared to make some amendments at committee.

One of my colleagues earlier talked about the idea that we should have sent the bill directly to committee and that would have given the committee more authority and more leeway to make more radical changes to the structures of the bill. The government did not agree to do that, which is fine. We now need to work with what is in front of us

I think all the representatives of the opposition parties have indicated that they look forward to the bill going to committee. Therefore, the issue becomes how the bill will play out at the committee stage. That remains to be seen because our critic has some positive things to say about the bill and some negative things to say about the bill. Perhaps some of her concerns can be dealt with and allayed at the committee.

I also want to note that our critic is a very hard worker in this area and understands her critic area very well. More important, she actually gets along with the minister. It is very important in a legislative environment that the critic and the minister get along, to the point where the minister himself mentioned that she had been invited and had attended a briefing session on the bill before it was introduced. That is a battle we had with the previous member. The member for Souris and I, in a past life, sat in sessions at the provincial level. Some ministers would provide information. The ministers who were considered the best and got the best results were the ministers who invited the opposition into their offices and gave them a briefing on the bill. There were other ministers, on the other hand, who just flatly refused and would not allow it at all. At the end of the day, they got poorer results, a rougher ride and a lot more stress than they would have had, had they adopted the more open approach.

I now want to deal with some of the issues in the bill. The refugee issue has been a cause for trouble and concern under previous Conservative and Liberal governments for many years. I remember both the Mulroney government and then the Chrétien government making political appointments to these board and then running into trouble with their decisions. We understand that political parties win elections and become government and it is accepted that they have the right to appoint some of their own people into positions, but this was one area where making blatant political appointments did not work out very well.

We have some stories in Winnipeg where people were literally abusing their positions with the refugee board. We also dealt with the area of immigration consultants, which is just a terrible area. We have had in Manitoba multiple times where immigration consultants have been called on the carpet for charging ridiculous fees, taking advantage of not only poor people and people who are refugees, but on the immigrant investor program, highly educated, intelligent, fairly wealthy immigrants being hoodwinked by shady people in the area of immigration consultants.

I am not sure what the answer is. Manitoba has some laws dealing with the issue provincially that I believe have some merit and work reasonably well, but I am all in favour, and I think all of us probably would be, of trying to rid the landscape of these immigration consultants, because more often than not they are tied into other businesses. They have a travel agency on the side or do income tax on the side. They essentially grab people in a web and control them, capture them and hand them off to one another. It is not the type of environment we want to be in.

Canada has an honourable past but it also has a speckled past in dealing with refugee issues. It is true that we have accepted a higher proportion of refugees, one of the previous speakers mentioned the numbers, relative to our size than any other country in the world, so that is to our credit, but we have other examples in our past for which we are currently not overly proud.

There is a long-standing tradition in many cultures of offering refuge to those fleeing persecution. In Europe, people during the middle ages could seek sanctuary in a church. In fact, there are cases in Winnipeg right now where people are in a church. Giving sanctuary was considered a sacred act.

Americans fleeing slavery were given protection in Canada in the days before the U.S. Civil War. Although there have always been people fleeing oppression, it was not until after World War II that world governments recognized the need to create formal legal obligations for countries to accept refugees. Prior to World War II, there was no legal distinction between immigrants and refugees. Even today, many people are unsure of the difference between the two.

In 1951, the refugee convention defined a refugee as someone who has a well-founded fear of persecution because of race, religion, nationality, membership, social group or political opinion. When we apply a definition like that to what the minister is trying to do, I wonder whether he can see how people might be concerned about the whole issue of a safe countries of origin list. He has a lot of good things in the bill but this is one of the stumbling blocks.

It makes sense administratively and it would be quick and easy to just put a country on a list and say that everybody from that country should be seen in a certain light. However, I think we have moved beyond that in our thinking and want to look at the individual. I know it is hard for people to comprehend that somebody from France, England or the United States could be considered a refugee but the reality is that, even using the definition going back to 1951, there could be people practically under our noses who would qualify because at that point in time there was no list of countries.

I am not on the committee but I can appreciate that there are probably reasons why the minister feels this list of countries is required. He has gone the extra step to let opposition parties know today that he is prepared to work with that list and explained that it was not as black and white and arbitrary as we think.

Now we get into the regulations. Anybody who follows legislation knows that the bill provides the tombstone information that is not going to change but the regulations provide all of the details of how the bill is really going to work in practice. Those are changeable by the minister. If the government or the minister does not like something that requires a regulation change, they can simply go ahead and do it.

In opposition, we are always very careful that we do not give away too much. When we pass a bill, in our own minds we are pretty clear about it, but the reality is that once the regulations get promulgated we find out there are a lot of things in it that we did not really like. That may be part of the problem. If the minister could somehow convince the critics that he is not out to do bad things and has solid arguments, they may be convinced at the end of the day.

At the end of the day we know that no matter what we do we can always make changes. One of the beauties of the democratic system that we have in our country is that if we make mistakes, and we do make them, we have the ability to correct them and try to make them right.

I have some hope, unlike some of the other ministers over there, that in his case it may be possible to do something. It seems to me to be very arbitrary that we could say that people coming out of Hungary must be on that list or they will not qualify as refugees.

That may be true. Let us grant the minister that that may be 100% true. However, we should not be doing it on the basis of putting the country on a list. We should be looking at each individual applicant separately. If the individual does not qualify, then by all means he or she does not qualify.

Major regional bodies have attempted to refine and extend the concept of refugee. In 1969, the Organization of African Unity and in 1984, the Organization of American States, OAS, extended the refugee definition to people fleeing generalized violence in these regions. Today, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the international organization that safeguards the rights of refugees, estimates that there are 12 million refugees and over 6.3 million internally displaced people who are in need of protection.

There are people living in refugee camps in the Middle East who are probably into the second generation. I could be wrong. I do not think anybody is third generation. In my mind, that is where we should be putting a lot of our attention and concern. People are living in tent cities and they are stuck there for years and years. To me, it would be very easy to decide that they would qualify as refugees.

I would assume that is where church groups are really important in this whole process. They have been historically and have done a fabulous job. I remember that churches were involved in bringing the Vietnamese boat people over to Canada. Churches were very involved in that whole area. They should be encouraged. They have a sense of where the problems are in the world. They know that the people living in the refugee camps are people who need help right away. I trust their compass and direction in how to deal with the refugee situation.

Today, there are 12 million refugees and 6.3 million people who are internally displaced. Those are huge numbers. I do not have the statistic at my fingertips, but we are only dealing with 100,000 out of those 12 million per year. By the time we work our way through that group of people, there will probably be more people on the list.

Somebody was adding up the number of wars in the world and came up with 30 to 50 wars that the average person would not even know existed. We could ask the average constituent questions about whether there is a war going on in the Congo or elsewhere and they would be totally unaware of it. The fact of the matter is that people are only aware of issues when they see them on the television news on a particular night. They are quite aware of what is going on in Afghanistan and Iraq, but beyond that, the awareness just is not there.

Madam Speaker, did you indicate one minute? I do not see that well. Time certainly does fly. I have not even started on this. Maybe I will have to go to committee and see how the committee process works.

I did want to talk about the bad experiences we have had here in Canada. Anti-Semitic immigration policy proved deadly in the years leading up to World War II, when European Jews were refused entrance into Canada.

In 1939 the ship St. Louis left Germany carrying over 900 European Jews seeking refuge and protection on the other side of the Atlantic. They were refused everywhere they went. They had to return to Europe and most of those people died in concentration camps. That is an example of a very bad situation in our history.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Madam Speaker, I want to commend the member for Elmwood—Transcona for his thoughtful remarks. He is trying to fill the big shoes of his predecessor who brought a lot of common sense to this place, and I think he is doing a good job of it.

In my speech I also remarked on the restrictions on European Jewish refugees before and during the second world war. My colleague is absolutely right. That is a cautionary tale for all of us when dealing with these issues. I am pleased to tell him that our government has launched a project of remembrance and education about the restrictions on Jewish European refugees before and during the war. He may be interested in following up on that.

On the bill, I want to assure the member that the concerns he has raised about the notion of the designation of safe countries are exaggerated. I do not mean to say he is seeking to mislead the House in any respect, but let me explain what this is about.

Most of the western European asylum systems have a process to accelerate the appeals on claims coming from countries that they deem to be generally safe. We are not proposing at all that asylum claimants from designated safe countries be denied access to our asylum system.

We are so generous in Canada that even under these proposed reforms everyone who makes a claim, regardless of whether he or she is coming from a safe country or not, would have an opportunity to put that claim before an independent, highly trained decision maker at an oral hearing on the merits of his or her claim at the IRB in a manner that is totally compliant with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and exceeds our international and domestic legal obligations. There would be no restriction on access to the system for people coming from safe countries of origin.

If an individual is coming from a country where there is a very large number of overwhelmingly unfounded claims, and some of these countries have 98% and 99% rejection rates, the individual would have access to only one appeal and that would be to the Federal Court, rather than two appeals, being the refugee appeal division and the Federal Court.

Having said all of that, I am very open to considering amendments at committee stage to outline in the legislation the criteria for designation of safe countries and to share with the committee draft regulations for the independent and transparent process by which those designations would occur.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his clarification.

I want to take this opportunity to point out the merits of the bill as seen by our critic. Our critic thinks that one of the positives in the bill is the speed, as refugees are desperate to seek the reunification of their loved ones, especially those who are languishing in refugee camps or slums. She thinks that is a positive part of the bill. She also thinks that the establishment of an appeal process for some refugee claimants is another good part of the minister's bill. She also thought that more funding to the refugee board to clear up the backlog is very forward looking and positive.

We do see some positives in this legislation, but when we are dealing with different political parties, as with any bill, there are going to be differences in opinion. We are trying to find a way to resolve whatever differences there are. At the end of the day, if we cannot resolve those differences, then the minister's party will vote one way and we will vote the other way.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy that the member mentioned the millions of refugees around the world. In particular, as chair of Parliamentary Friends of Burma, I just wanted to remind people of the hundreds of thousands of Burmese refugees in India, China, Bangladesh, Malaysia, and even more in Thailand.

I know the minister is very sensitive to this and has been very helpful in this area. In fact, maybe on another question and answer he could explain more about how this legislation will take care of some of those people in desperate need. They are the type of people we want to help. I think he is hoping that is what this legislation will do. The government renewed the funding to those refugees recently at the Thai border and we are all very thankful to the government for doing that.

Some people work three, four or five years in Canada before they get the ultimate decision. By that time, the mother is on the school board, the father is the volunteer of the year, the two children are captains of the football team and the dance club, and then someone shows up at the door and says they have to leave Canada.

I am sure that is what the minister is trying to deal with. I would like the member to comment on that situation which presently occurs in Canada and what could be done to deal with that, both with this legislation and otherwise.

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

Madam Speaker, the member does have a point. When I read the information about how it can take five years to follow through this process, I could not believe that could be a healthy situation to be in. Clearly, it just makes sense for all concerned to have the process done more quickly.

I am not sure whether it was a refugee situation, but there was a family in Newfoundland and it was the exactly the case the member for Yukon described. The family had been involved in the community. The entire community was behind the family in trying to keep the family from being sent back to Russia. For people to live with that uncertainty over their heads for even one year would be enough, but for five years would be excessively long in my opinion. I think we all agree that we should shorten the time period considerably.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question about the bill's title. The Conservatives are developing an annoying tendency. Instead of naming bills based on the legal purpose of the enactment, for instance, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, as is traditionally done, the Conservatives are adding more and more subjective qualifiers. If my memory serves, in this case, we are now talking about a balanced refugee reform act.

Does my colleague think this ridiculous practice should stop? They should be more serious. We are voting on a bill, and value judgments have no place in the titles of bills. I would hope that parliamentarians vote in favour of a bill because it is a good bill. There is no need for the bill to indicate that it is a good bill.

We saw this tendency earlier this week with the bill to improve the health of Canadians and the economic stimulus bill. Does my colleague agree that these ridiculous little stunts need to stop and that the Conservatives should stick to the legal aspects of the legislation?

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

Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely right. The reason they do it is so they can put it in their press releases. They should simply write the press release and send it out. They do not have to include it in the bill.

Having said that, we have had two private members' bills on the whole issue of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act in the last seven days in this House. I have to admit to a bit of a weakness here because when my staff read that the member for Eglinton—Lawrence had introduced the pedal act, my staff insisted that I introduce the car act. As much as I fought the idea, I was persuaded at the end of the day that the car act had a particular ring to it and I went with that. I must apologize to my friend, but I caught the same disease that the government has.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today to the bill that the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism recently introduced in the House.

This refugee bill was eagerly awaited and badly needed. No one will be surprised to hear that the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act was very helpful to my fellow Vietnamese who immigrated to Canada at the same time as I did.

When people ask me about my background, they ask me three questions. First, they ask me where I come from; second, whether I remember the war; and third, whether I was one of the boat people. It is clear that Quebeckers and Canadians understand and agree with the principle of refugees.

This debate coincides with the 35th anniversary of the fall of Saigon. Many people from my country came here as refugees and became prominent citizens, like the refugees from other countries who came and made Quebec and Canada better.

The current act is quite out of date and sometimes gives refugee claimants a bad name. It is high time we modernized it.

On March 30, the federal government introduced Bill C-11 as part of its reform of the refugee system. If it were passed as it stands now, this bill could have a serious negative impact on refugees. It is not enough to pass a law to improve what is not working. What we must do is find a balance and create something that will work.

The Bloc Québécois has asked the government to provide the committee with the regulations so that we can do an exhaustive study, because many measures announced as part of this reform are not included in this bill.

The Bloc Québécois is in favour of studying this bill in committee, and I am proud to say that I will study it carefully, because I am the assistant critic. The member for Jeanne-Le Ber is the Bloc Québécois critic, and he does a very good job, by the way. We make a great team, and the people of Quebec can be glad to have a team like ours, because we will see to it that the flaws in this bill are corrected.

We are happy that the government is finally looking at implementing the refugee appeal division. However, we are disappointed that it is not fair, because not all applicants will have access, which we believe is discriminatory.

When people from designated safe countries are denied at the first level, they will not have access to this appeal division. Even if the government assures us that all files will be examined individually, there is no guarantee that there will be no mistakes.

My colleague from Jeanne-Le Ber pointed this out. We know the statistics of some IRB members. Some of them flatly reject 90% to 95% of the applications they receive, while others show more flexibility. A decision made by one man or one woman is arbitrary. That is why it is not fair that refugees from designated safe countries will not have access to the refugee appeal division.

Another thing: which countries will be designated safe by the minister and the government?

The government is currently working on Bill C-2, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia. The government tells us that a free trade agreement with this country is no problem because Colombia respects human rights.

However, Canada accepts Colombian refugee seekers who claim their rights have been violated in Colombia. Will the minister put Colombia on the list of safe countries? I wonder.

On the one hand, the government says it wants to sign a free trade agreement with Colombia because it is a safe country. On the other hand, it accepts political refugees from that same country because their rights have been violated. What will the minister choose? Will the minister decide to list it as a safe country?

That is why we think that the idea of safe countries is questionable. We do not know where the minister will put Colombia and other countries that do not respect the human rights of women or homosexuals—these are recognized rights.

Even though the Conservative government sometimes has difficulty acknowledging them, these rights are still recognized in Quebec and Canada. What will the minister decide? Will he designate certain countries as safe even though they do not respect human rights, women's right or the rights of homosexuals? What category will these countries be in? It worries me.

A civil servant will make the decision. Applicants from designated safe countries will have no right to appeal. That is far too radical considering that the decision will have been made by a single person. It is possible that an applicant's individual rights will not be respected. He will not have all the rights that other people with the same background but who come from different countries will have.

Statistics for certain board members are alarming. We should not find this kind of unfairness when the decisions are made by civil servants.

It also says that an immigration officer will have 8 days, as opposed to 28, to refer a refugee claim to a first interview with a department official.

Some people are traumatized when they arrive here. They have been abused and pressured. Some come from very corrupt countries. They do not trust the government in the country they came from. When they arrive here, they are told that in eight days they will have to explain their situation to a government official. They have left a corrupt country where their rights were violated. They are told that they have eight days to prepare to explain their situation. That is not very long for people who have suffered such great trauma.

Then, the second hearing happens 60 days later. Do not forget that many refugee status claimants arrive here having left their houses, their families and their jobs with no preparation whatsoever. They did not bring any documents to prove what they are saying. They have to get those documents.

As MPs, we occasionally write to embassies in Africa. Although we have more resources than refugees or applicants, it takes a fairly long time for the mail to get there as well as for the reply to come back.

What will we do when the person does not obtain the documents required for their defence within 60 days? Will their application be refused automatically? Will this person be penalized because they could not provide the necessary documents?

At present, it takes 19 months and now we are talking about 28 days. Perhaps we could find a compromise. I believe there is enough flexibility to do so.

At present, more than 45% of refugee claims are accepted. When refused, the failed claimants can ask the Federal Court for a judicial review. This court presently accepts 13% of applications. Where an error was made in the decision, 2% of requests are allowed. In total, 60% of applicants are successful in the end. The tragedy lies in the fact that many failed applicants have found work, married, had children born in Canada and have learned the language. In other words, they have fully integrated in the host society.

The current backlogs are unacceptable for 40% of the claimants who will be forced leave Canada. This government is largely responsible for these backlogs. Indeed, since 2006, we have gone from 20,000 to 60,000 backlogged claims. We know that over a third of the board members could have rendered decisions, but there are many vacant positions, which has caused this backlog.

As my colleague from Jeanne-Le Ber put it so well earlier, we cannot help but wonder if these delays are arranged on purpose in order to stay within certain quotas set by the government. What will they do in the future to stay within those quotas? Will they deny more claims? This will not serve Quebec or Canada.

We must ensure that this new legislation does not discriminate against claimants and does not deny more claims because they are processed faster. That would be tragic, both for the claimants and for our current system.

It is definitely time to reform this legislation, but that does not mean it should be reformed in a slapdash manner. We can take the time to reform it correctly. There is a difference between saying that it should have been done a long time ago and saying that we will do it too fast, which could lead to other injustices. If we did that, we might improve what is not working, but we would risk undermining the parts that are working. We must ensure that this bill does not create new injustices.

In committee, my colleague from Jeanne-Le Ber and I will ensure that when the time comes to vote on this bill in the House, it will be much improved and will respect the needs of claimants as much as possible. We no longer want to hear that, according to statistics, 60% of claims are completed and are successful. It is sad to hear people say that refugee claimants are abusing the system.

It is an essential system that is desperately needed, but the current legislation is outdated.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for her remarks and for her work as a member of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

I would like to comment on a few points. First of all, she said that there was no guarantee that cases would be dealt with individually or that decisions would be based on merit. But that is not true. In the reformed system, the IRB will deal with every refugee claim in an independent and quasi-judicial fashion on the basis of merit, in accordance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In dealing with claims, we will go beyond our obligations under the international conventions on refugees and torture.

Second, she asked whether Colombia would appear on the list of safe countries of origin. As I said earlier, the answer is no. One of the main criteria for a country to appear on the list of safe countries of origin is that refugee claimants from those countries are turned down because they do not need our protection. Some 76% of claims by Colombians are allowed. Such a country will never appear on the list of safe countries of origin.

Last, she said that there was a quota for admissions, which is not true. We expect that the proportion of claims allowed will increase after the reform because there will be fewer unfounded claims for refugee status. She said that people do not make false claims, but that is neither objective nor accurate. Unfortunately, there are too many false claims. For example, 97% of claimants from the country that produces the most claims withdraw their claims themselves after arriving in Canada. By their own admission, they do not need Canada's protection.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister for his answers and clarifications.

There are two reasons behind the high number of false refugee claimants and the fact that a significant number of claimants withdraw their applications when they arrive in Canada. First of all, the act is very outdated and perhaps does not contain the standards needed. Secondly, asylum seekers are often taken advantage of and do not receive good advice; there is no supervision. People coming to Canada ask someone to help them through the immigration process. As long as this process is not supervised, there will be abuse.

The minister said that there would not be a quota and that the number of accepted claims will be increased, but will this increase be for claims after the initial hearing or after an appeal? It would be interesting to know. If an appeal division is created, but only some people have access to it, that creates a limit, which is unfair. It comes back to what I was saying earlier: there would be two types of claimants, which would be unfair.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the member's speech. I want to pursue the point she made about appointees to the boards, and also talk about boards in general.

First, does she think that would clear up some of the backlog that we have all agreed needs to be done, and that there is a need for more officials in those positions or more positions?

Second, to expand that discussion, the government has talked about cutting down on boards to save money, cutting the membership of various boards. The problem is, as most people know, most of those spots are already vacant. I think there are only 18 part-timers on those boards, so that will not save much money.

However, my worry is about the philosophy of cutting back on these boards. Who will be cut off these boards and which particular positions will be cut because usually people on a board represent somebody. It could be government, an NGO, individuals, provinces or territories. Who will be lost on these boards when representation on boards is cut back?

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate my colleague's question.

People from the communities currently represented are those who are most likely to be in need.

We must certainly not reduce the number of board members.

Nonetheless, the government talks about accepting more claims. That is good. The government says it wants to save money, but I must say that it is these interminable delays that are so costly.

A person might apply for refugee status and not get a final answer until seven years later, only to find out they are being deported. In the meantime, the person has integrated, bought a home and their children go to school. That is what is so harmful about all this. If a person's claim is approved and they get permanent resident status, they have the same rights and the same duties as a citizen and they integrate into society.

Immigration is a positive thing. People are not against immigration. When people come here as refugees it is not by choice. They do so because they are being persecuted in their home country. They do not choose to claim this status. They are fleeing a very harmful situation.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a specific question about section 109.1. We have discussed a fair bit in the House the fact that the definition of designated countries is to be determined by regulation. I read this provision backwards and forwards and I am still trying to figure out what comes first. I do not envy a refugee claimant trying to figure out this provision. I am looking forward, in the review period, to receiving greater clarification in addition to the guidelines and regulations.

It has occurred to me, based on information that has been provided to me, that the largest category of refugees apparently now in the world are environmental refugees. Given the mindset of the current government to the recognition of climate impact and the problems many nations around the world are facing, an immediate question comes to my mind. There are so-called safe countries, which by way was not noted in the legislation but was pointed out by the former chair of the board. I wonder if the member would like to comment on my nervousness about what kinds of countries should be designated. They could have a good system of government, but they could be devastated by climate, such as Tuvalu?

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her question.

Currently, so-called environmental refugees, people seeking refugee status because of natural disasters, as my colleague mentioned, are not mentioned in the convention. This concept has not been included in international conventions. It should be. It is certainly a good idea.

Nonetheless, I am not surprised to see that the minister did not include this concept in his bill, since it is not yet recognized in international conventions.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge that the minister spoke this morning and has taken the time to listen to the debate. It is a good model for other ministers. I wish he would pass it on to them because good things happen in this place, even at second reading, which is somewhat problematic at times simply because members are speaking to themselves without the benefit of expert witnesses and testimony. Everyone is sort of left to their own ingenuity to craft together some of the important issues.

The minister will know that there was an interest in having this particular bill go to committee before second reading simply because it is a very comprehensive bill. There are certainly some contentious areas, but I think there is consensus within this place that we need an overhaul of the refugee system.

Right now it is estimated that there are 10.5 million refugees around the world, according to the UN High Commissioner. Every year some 20 developed democracies resettle about 100,000 of them globally. From that number, Canada resettles between 10,000 and 12,000, or 1 out of every 10 refugees, annually. We are second only to the United States, which has 10 times our population.

When we think about it, 10.5 million people probably have no hope in their circumstances. The global community is making some effort, but it is minuscule compared to the need. How much can a country do? I sometimes wish we could do more.

Before I came to this place, I had a CA practice and three of my clients worked for the Malton community council, Malton Community Information Services, and the community assistance services of Peel. All three of those agencies provided services and assistance to refugees. It was my first exposure to the plight of people coming to this country seeking asylum from places where some of the stories are very difficult to even speak about because they are such horrible situations.

I used to visit the airport to see some of these people coming in. I would see people in the middle of winter coming in with virtually only the clothes on their backs, maybe tank top shirts, shorts and sandals, and walking on the tarmac through the snow.

When I became a member of Parliament, the issue of refugees and immigrants was always a big issue. It is a big part of the work we do. A lot of people asked, why were we letting all those criminals into the country? It is more a problem of ours that we have not educated the public, for which we have a responsibility.

We know there is a difference between immigrants and refugees. We know people have to go through a very difficult process to get into Canada by applying for permanent residence status and, ultimately, to become citizens of our country. However, the refugee part is the hard one to explain to people.

It is hard for people to understand that there are people around the world who suffer on a daily basis, are being persecuted, tortured and even killed. There are many examples. Members deal with organizations that are involved in countries like Burma, for instance, where the slaughter of people is enormous.

This is an extremely important bill. I wanted to participate in the debate, so I could say that I have received some input from constituents and stakeholders about the bill. Their concerns are more prompted by the fact that this is such a comprehensive change to the legislation. It is very difficult for them to get their minds around it or to understand whether it is really going to work.

Let us look at the summary. I am not going to read it. There are a dozen substantive initiatives or changes that are going to be made in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, as well as changes to the Federal Courts Act.

It concerns me that we have so much on our plate. Then we look at the bill and note that the reference to regulations. This is where members of Parliament, on a hope and a prayer, hope they understand what the bill states it wants to do and gives the confidence to the minister and to the order-in-council to promulgate regulations, which are enabled by the legislation but which deliver what the legislation states.

The public may not know this, but when we deal with bills in this place and they go through all stages in the House, go to the Senate and get royal assent, if those bills require regulations, normally we do not see them. We do not see the detail, and everybody knows the devil is in the detail. This is why it is important that the minister would, to the greatest extent possible, provide the framework for the regulations. We cannot understand the thrust of each of the elements of the bill without seeing some of the detail of what is proposed in the regulations.

This has to be thought through. The department is not dealing in a vacuum. It is not going to wait to start its work. However, when we worked on the Assisted Human Reproduction Act at the committee stage, we asked officials how long it would take to do all the regulations. We were told it would be two years. It is about four years later and we still do not have all the regulations. I know that for a fact because the bill said, prior to gazetting any regulations, that the regulations should go through the relevant committee for comment, not to judge or change or whatever, but to see them and comment for the minister in the event that something was missed.

I would recommend that for the minister in good faith. The regulations should come to the committee for comment if there is that concern. That would go a long way to alleviating the kinds of concerns that have been developed. It is workable and it puts confidence in the committee system, which has worked on the bill, that these are the regulations, this is what we talked about, this was the stated intent and we see that in the regulations. The bill is too important to leave to order-in-council in the hope that it works out fine.

I hope that might cause some consideration by the minister from the standpoint, in listening to the debate today, that there have been some relevant concerns about the bill. This will take a lot of work. It will a lot of collaboration among all the parties to work this through committee, to deal with the challenges that will come from Amnesty International and from other stakeholders, other people who have been mentioned in the debate. These people will raise issues about things like the time frame is too short in terms of the first stage. Then there is the other problem of what is a country of safe origin. It has come up in virtually every speech. We really need to nail that one down.

When we talk at second reading, we know we will be asked to give approval in principle to the bill. Once it goes to committee and through the rest of the stages, those fundamental principles are locked in, so we have to be absolutely sure. I am not so sure everybody will be comfortable with the bill as it stands. However, in view of the fact that we started this debate and we will not go to committee before second reading, this will take good faith on behalf of all parties to work to stretch as far as possible under the rules of this place to consider some of the changes which have been suggested.

The members have raised some very valid points in debate thus far with which we have to be dealt. The number of witnesses that should be at committee should not be unduly restricted given the importance of this bill, but we have to reasonable as well. We do not need to have 20 people saying the same thing. Let us get one or two groups that represent an issue area to get some substantive backing to a position. It is important that we look to witnesses at committee who have well served Parliament in the past in terms of giving their experience and expertise.

Picking that witness list is going to be extraordinarily important. I do not think we want to protract the committee stage process any longer than is absolutely necessary, but we have to hit those high points that have been raised by members in debate today.

Those are my recommendations for committee and for the minister.

I would like to quote from the minister's speech this morning. He said, “This bill and related reforms would reinforce Canada's humanitarian tradition as a place of refuge for victims of persecution and torture while improving our asylum system to ensure that it is balanced fast and fair. The bill would ensure faster protection of bona fide refugees, reinforce procedural fairness by implementing a robust refugee appeals division at the IRB and ensure faster removal of those who seek to abuse Canada's generosity by making asylum claims”.

I emphasize the word “fast” because in my experience as a parliamentarian of over 16 years, fast does not always equate to fair. Sometimes fast means mistakes are made. I want to caution the members on the committee not to be railroaded and to ensure that the questions that are asked are answered.

There are enough stakeholder groups that are very concerned about, first, the process of appeal. My concern is we have had experience in the country where if people cannot get what they need to get through the process as it is laid out for them, they have an option, and that is to go underground. That is not a good outcome in terms of refugee determination.

We have had examples of things like that. It is not refugees, but I remind the House of the so-called undocumented workers in the construction industry. There were 20,000 construction workers. I know one of my colleagues worked on this for a long time. I remember the first question I ever asked about undocumented construction workers was this. Where did that name come from?

These people have come to the country without papers. They are working underground in areas that have a high demand for skilled labour, but they are not paying taxes, they are not contributing into their future for their pension system and they are not covered by our medical system. They are working underground. Their existence is being perpetuated by businesses that have these people in an awkward situation. They cannot come out. They are hiding. They hide all day long, and they work all day long. That is about all they can do because they do not have credentials. As far as I know, that is still an unresolved situation simply because we need construction workers.

This is unfair to those people as well. It is because the system could not deal with the demand that we had in the construction industry, and it was much cheaper. I hate to digress like this, but when we think about it, this is the kind of thing that can happen. Some businesses out there are in fact paying minimum wage to skilled workers who cannot come out and complain because they are undocumented, they do not have papers, they are illegal aliens. They are living lives of hell and they have absolutely nothing to do to save for their future or provide for their retirement. This is an accident waiting to happen. It really is a terrible situation.

People cannot get their situation in order to make the necessary representations and have the lawyers get the papers to do what they have to do. I raise it to enforce the point that if we have a refugee system that is too fast, then they may very well go underground. I do not know how many are underground already, but I do know there are a lot of people in the country who, in one way or another, got in here and then disappeared. They are in flight.

We do not need to have that problem get worse. The minister will know we have suggestions that the 60-day time frame should probably be 120 days. In this place, 60 days is nothing. We give ministers 60 sitting days just to respond to a committee report. It is one of those things at which I hope we can look. We need to hear from those who are on the ground, who deal with these cases and who have a high degree of credibility to find out whether we put ourselves at risk of forcing people to go underground simply because they cannot comply with the requirements nor prepare to go through the prescribed process.

To show where we have come from, we had a situation when I came here where refugees who came to Canada were in the process. It was illegal for them to work. I remember a colleague named Sergio Marchi, if anyone remembers him. He was the minister who brought in the changes to permit refugees to work and earn a little income, which was very important to them. Rather than being reliant on the Canadian system, they needed the dignity of work to take care of their families.

I do not remember the exact number, but I will guess. Somewhere around half the refugees coming into Canada were coming across the U.S. border. That really stuck me. How was that possible? People say there must be a reason. I guess the reasons are pretty clear. If I were a refugee and I went to the United States because it was easier to get into the States than Canada, I would find that I would get no legal aid, housing, health or assistance whatsoever, However, if I cross over the border, Canada would take care of me.

It is amazing how long it took, but I think we have resolved that to the greatest extent possible. It is basically the country of first safe landing, where it will have to take care of the refugee and the refugee determination. I think that has helped substantially, but the irony is the backlog has risen substantially. I think the minister has probably heard from a number of people that the current government has not had this as a priority. It has been delayed. It is an indictment that opposition members are throwing out.

I do not think it is time to throw blame around here. I am rising today and appealing to the minister and all hon. members to find a way to make this work, to ensure that the committee process is as robust as possible and when we get through this process, to ensure that we can quickly get a bill, if that is what the minister wants. It is a laudable objective to ensure that our system is balanced, fast and fair.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate that I am prepared to share, inasmuch as is feasible, draft regulations with the committee. Having been in opposition for many years, I know that opposition members are understandably skeptical about the ambit for regulations that are implied in a bill but at the same time it is very difficult to put every instrument in the statute and regulations are an important part of the legal system.

Having said that, I agree that there is a need for transparency. We are trying to pursue this in as collaborative a fashion as possible. It is my intention to share with committee draft regulations, for example, as to the process for the designation of safe countries. I also will accept amendments to outline the criteria for what would constitute designated safe countries.

I also would be open to the notion of submitting to the standing committee for comment future regulations as they are prepared.

Secondly, with respect to the member's comments on the notion of fast, in point of fact this is a principle, an idea, a word that I have developed from Mr. Peter Showler, the former chairman of the IRB, who has often been a strong critic of our government and who is now the chairman of the revenue policy think-tank at the University of Ottawa. Professor Showler has said:

The real secret of an effective system is that fast and fair are not opposites, they are complementary. The government appears to understand this principle.

He goes on to say that every refugee asylum system in the democratic world aspires to be both fast and fair.

It's even more difficult to design an entire refugee claim system that is both fast and fair. This Conservative government has done just that striking a reasonable balance between the two.

With respect to the member's comments on the backlog, when our government took office there was a 20,000 case backlog in the asylum system. Between 2006 and 2009 there was a 45% increase in the number of asylum claims, peaking at 38,000 claims in 2008, well above the maximum capacity of the IRB when fully staffed to finalize 25,000 decisions a year.

The point is that this is not a resultant neglect by the government. Let us not politicize this issue. The reason we need asylum reform is, in large part, because huge backlogs have been a permanent feature of the system. Over the past decade, the average backlog has been 40,000 cases.

Bill Clinton said, “One definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again expecting a different result”. We do not want to keep doing the same thing over and over again, pouring good money after bad when we need to reform the architecture of the system.

Yes, there are additional resources but we need to streamline the system, and I believe all of my predecessors in the previous Liberal government said as much but, for whatever reason, did not act on it. However, I am pleased to see the Liberal Party's openness to taking action in reforming the system now.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear the minister's views. I agree that we should not get close to politicizing this. There is lots of it to go around I am sure if everyone tried very hard but it is not very productive.

I think the minister is well aware that Professor Showler's concern has to do with the 60 days for the first hearing. The note I have here is that it is a very quick interview, too quick and impractical. It is impractical in the sense that the refugee will not be able to find a decent lawyer, inform the lawyer and let the lawyer gather and present evidence at a hearing. If that first hearing is not a good hearing, the entire system will unravel fairly quickly.

That is an interesting perspective and I hope we will be able to examine it because it would be awful if we had a timeline that would undermine the good work that otherwise can happen to allow us to properly and fairly address refugee determination and to help those who require the help and, for those who do not qualify, that there is a quick removal before they take root or take flight.

Those are the kinds of things that I know all hon. members will want to look at. I thank the minister for his commitment.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I never miss an opportunity to ask a Liberal member this question, because I want to make sure that we can really count on the Liberals when the time comes to amend this bill.

My colleague must know that I introduced Bill C-291 on the refugee appeal division. The Liberals said they supported that bill, which was a very popular thing to say. But when it came time to vote in the House, the Liberals had twice as many members absent as all the other parties combined. The opposition still had three more members present in the House than the government, but as luck would have it, four Liberals remained seated. The bill was defeated by a single vote, as if by magic.

No one is fooled. With that vote, the Liberals turned their backs on refugees. It suited them to say publicly that they were in favour of the refugee appeal division, but they did everything they could to engineer the defeat of my bill in the House.

This time around, can we count on the solid support of the full Liberal caucus?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am a backbencher. I do not know if I can speak on behalf of my party.

I want to assure the member and the whole House that our critic has done an extraordinary amount of work in providing us with sound information, to identify areas that he feels comfortable with and to suggest there are some areas where we want to have robust dialogue with respect to making amendments. We want to see this legislation go to committee to hear witnesses. We want to do a good job on this.

I hear the member, but I think he would agree, along with virtually everybody else in this House, that it is time to put the political rhetoric and the history behind us and start looking forward, because it is in the best interests of Canada.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the recurring concerns that we in the NDP have been raising regarding this bill, and a concern that has been echoed by other opposition parties in the House, is the question of the safe country statement.

People who have been involved with not just refugee services but human rights in general know how dangerous it is to use that safe country statement when it comes to human rights abuses or the reasons why people seek to leave the abuse they are facing.

Much has been said about how women would be most at risk with this change in the legislation, women who are seeking refugee status on the basis of abuse, gender-based claims. But people who would like to make claims based on persecution based on sexual orientation or sexual identity would also be at risk. These kinds of abuses happen in countries that we might consider to be safe. We find that this legislation would pose a great danger for such people and would go against Canada's tradition of providing refuge for these people.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that this issue of safe origin has come up often, and I think the minister has heard us. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees has expressed concerns about safe countries of origin along the lines that the member mentioned, as well as concerns with regard to sexual preference and gender issues. That is on the table. We will make absolutely sure that the legislation deals with it.

Amnesty International has similarly raised this as a principal concern. The Canadian Council for Refugees was probably the strongest. It said it does not agree with any of the major changes in the bill, starting with the introduction of the list of safe countries of origin. The council says it is a mistake. It also criticizes the use of the public service for first-level decisions and the tight timelines for initial decisions.

Some of the major stakeholders and operational groups are getting involved and raising this issue. It has been raised many times in the House. The minister has heard, and we take him at his word, that we are not going to politicize this or allow a position where any future government could politicize the system simply on the basis of safe country of origin, which is not even in the bill.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to providing some brief comments on this bill, but I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Sault Ste. Marie. I look forward to hearing his comments, which I know will be very cogent and critical to this debate.

I have to say at the very outset that one of the things that troubles me most about this bill is the title, the popular title as I may put it. The formal title of course is an Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Federal Courts Act, but it is to be known as the balanced refugee reform act. Given the continual reference of the government to balancing things and its record of balancing, for example, environmental and economic development, I am not very reassured by the title. It would be good if this were elaborated upon during committee.

This is an extremely important bill. People have been waiting for quite some time for amendments to improve this process. I have heard other members in the House talk about a bill that came forward, was passed and languished. For four years, the government has failed to actually give royal assent to that bill. So these reforms are long overdue, but I do have some concerns about the way in which they were brought forward.

I do want to add at the beginning that I am extremely proud of the efforts, in my constituency and across the city of Edmonton, in assistance to refugees given by the people of Edmonton. I am very proud of the fact that doctors from the University of Alberta have actually established a separate refugee health clinic, recognizing the particular health issues that were not being addressed.

I am also extremely proud of the students at the University of Alberta, who actually sponsor a number of refugees every year. I had the opportunity to go to a reception to meet some of these refugees who attended the University of Alberta. They actually cover their health fees and transportation fees, which is an incredible barrier that needs to be addressed soon by the government and removed. The students were absolutely incredible with how they look after these refugees who come out of camps and have the opportunity to study at the University of Alberta. They are incredible success stories.

It is very important that legislation be brought forward to recognize the need to expedite these reviews, ensuring the rights of all people who come to this country claiming the right of citizenship and bringing forward to us that they need to have our protection to take refuge because they are being treated in some untoward way in the country they come from. A lot of the members in the House have mentioned this and said they welcome the fact that there will now finally be an appeal process at least for some of the claimants. However, I hear members expressing the concern that it will not apply to all claimants.

I have also heard great concern that it is regrettable that this bill was not referred to committee after first reading. I notice that even the Canadian Bar Association's immigration committee as well as Amnesty International have asked that this occur and they have called for a full and extensive public hearing process on this. Both of them have extreme expertise in this area.

One of the issues I have heard raised in the House is the issue of the lag in actually making appointments to the Refugee Appeal Board. I would hope that the government, as I mentioned earlier in the House in a question to one of the members, will give full consideration, as it is moving forward with this bill, to bringing forward in parallel all the regulations and all the guidelines necessary to implement the bill. I also hope it will commit to a full, open and public consultation on those regulations and guidelines. Third, I hope it commits to putting in place the necessary officials and appointments to the board to genuinely move forward and expedite these reviews.

Again as I have mentioned previously in the House, I am very concerned with the reference by the government to the need for fast and fair reviews, when in fact what we should be looking forward to is that they be timely and just. It is absolutely critical that we accord due process to all of the claimants regardless of the outcome of the process. A lot of concerns have been expressed, which I support and which should be addressed fully in committee, to make sure that the bill is actually giving a fair hearing to all the claimants who come forward, and that all the claimants potentially have the opportunity for an appeal.

We have heard often in the House, and I have heard in my constituency from immigrants, about the issue of how traumatized they are when they come and how difficult it is for them to identify who can actually assist them in their appeals, particularly with medical testimony or legal services.

I think that the timeline set in the bill is far too short. As many members have pointed out, particularly if we are dealing with people who have been sexually traumatized, there is a long recovery time and they may need a lot of support so that they build trust in the system. I am particularly concerned about the fast-tracking. I am hoping the government is not thinking in terms of balancing out and doing away with some people's rights and due process.

We are fortunate to be in a country where we actually have a charter of rights and we expect that everybody is given due process. We should give careful consideration to that for the refugee claimants.

One of my colleagues mentioned the concept of potential for duty counsel. This concept has been applied to a number of the tribunals in the province I come from, Alberta. Duty counsel would be a very good idea, particularly at the initial period so that the claimants are aware of the fact that they may be able to apply for legal aid or where they can seek legal counsel to assist them. It would be unfortunate if they lost their claim simply because they did not fully understand the process.

I agree with the ideas put forward by Amnesty International and the Canadian Bar Association that we should be very clear on the principles of this process and we should be very clear that there are not political considerations attached to the criteria for determining if people come from “safe countries”. There are a number of people, including the former chair of the refugee appeal division, who have said they have a problem with the government referencing safe countries, when in fact the legislation does not reference such a term.

As I mentioned, I find the drafting of the bill very confusing. I would think that refugees coming to Canada who do not have English as their first language may have difficulty in comprehending the bill. I hope the guidelines and the regulations bring greater clarity to the process.

It is very important that those resources be in place to work with the refugees. I have also noticed that there is still a tendency to download on to certain support organizations. The government gives assistance to certain categories of immigrants to the country to help them become settled and to go through the processes, but there are certain categories, and I believe refugees are one of those, and good-hearted people who run voluntary non-government organizations are trying to deal with this as well, where resources are not provided. I am hoping when the government brings in these new provisions it will consider giving more support to the NGOs and the role they play.

Earlier I mentioned that we are developing new kinds of refugees in the world, and while we have always had environmental refugees, with the impact of climate change, hundreds of thousands of new people will be coming forward. My concern is with the idea of having “safe designated countries”, we could have a disaster the next day, and if that designation is by regulation, could we move expeditiously enough to allow refugees to apply or to go through the appeal process?

I am told that environmental refugees are quickly becoming the highest category of refugee claimants. I think I have raised this before in the House, that we have two choices in this country. One is that we take action to reduce our own greenhouse gases which are contributing to the problem of climate change, and the other is to step up to the plate and commit what our foreign aid dollars will be to assist those who are already trying to mitigate and adapt to climate change. The greater action we take to prevent environmental devastation in other countries, from drought, starvation from drought and so forth, and we try to mitigate and help people adapt to the impact of climate change, then we do not necessarily have to be accepting more refugees to this country.

That is where we draw the line in the sand. We will have to give assistance one way or another. I would suggest that we will have to be factoring in a lot more environmental refugees applying to this country. Maybe if we step up to the plate and actually commit larger dollars in foreign aid, then we will not have as many refugees wanting to come here.

I certainly know from my personal experience working overseas that nationals of other countries, even if we may wonder how they can stay in their country that is so devastated, love their country and they would like to stay. People come here as refugees only when it is absolutely the last choice and when they want to give an opportunity to their children.

In closing, this is a country that stands by the rule of law. I think it is absolutely critical that we bend over backwards to make sure that we accord due process including to the refugee claimant process.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, first, the member suggested that we eliminate any vacancies in the IRB. That is not possible because there are no vacancies in the IRB. The refugee protection division is operating at 99% of its capacity.

The problem is that since the current system has been in place, virtually every year there has been an excess of claims, well over the capacity of the IRB to finalize claims. We receive more claims than virtually any other developed country in the world and the IRB has a higher acceptance rate, almost twice as high as the average among western European democracies.

The member said that she thinks nearly everyone who comes here under the asylum system is a bona fide refugee. That is not supported by the fact that according to our legal system, 42% are found not to be in need of our protection, including a very large number who withdraw their own claims saying they do not need our protection.

I am most interested in her point about environmental refugees which she made in her last intervention. Does she believe that we should expand the definition of refugee beyond the UN convention on refugees or the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to include environmental refugees? If so, how would she define that?

Would people in the far north of Canada be able to claim refugee status on that principle in other countries? Does it mean living through extreme weather conditions? How many people does she think would be affected? How many people would Canada have to accept as a result of that major change to both international and domestic refugee law?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, those are all excellent questions. I look forward to those issues being discussed during the review of the bill in committee.

Indeed, I would welcome the minister bringing them to the international scene and coming to grip with the issue of environmental refugees. I cannot say how many. I only know from having participated in the Copenhagen conference that there is a growing problem. I am sure the Minister of the Environment would attest to that. There are some countries going completely under water.

I do not believe that I said that we should accept absolutely every refugee. All I have said is that I think it is incumbent upon us, being a country that abides by the rule of law, that we accord due process to all refugee claimants.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that both the minister and the member for Edmonton—Strathcona have raised the subject of environmental refugees. I am the first member of Parliament to have a private member's bill that would actually add them, as the minister suggested, to the refugee and immigration system. As the member said, countries are going under water and people have nowhere to go. That has to be dealt with somehow. A fulsome discussion has to take place.

The member mentioned sending the bill to committee before second reading. It is very good that the minister has been listening to members' significant concerns. After second reading, of course, the bill goes to committee and we can only make certain changes. It is hard to make some of the amendments people are talking about today. I wonder if the member wants to comment on that.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I always welcome comments by the member for Yukon. I look forward to getting back to his jurisdiction one day for a visit. It is a beautiful place.

Process is everything. If there was a request for this bill to be fully reviewed, it is most regrettable that there are tight constraints to the way we can debate matters and bring forward amendments. I welcome the fact that the minister has heard all of the presentations, which is to his credit, but it would have been better if he could have heard the presentations when the full amendments could have been brought forward.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here for a good chunk of today listening to the debate on this legislation that will affect so many individuals who look to Canada as a safe refuge in times of severe and immediate difficulty. I have a number of questions which arise in the context of having listened for a few years to people who work in the refugee effort across Canada. They try to help those people who show up on our shores having left their homes under serious duress. They are looking for a place to be safe and hopefully, in their minds, to ultimately call home for themselves and their families.

As I listen to the discussion in the House on this legislation it seems that as a country we are becoming narrower and, if I dare use the word, meaner in terms of how many people we will accept. Given the great mass of land that we occupy as a country and the resources that we have at our disposal, and the wealth that we generate every year, we should be willing and able to share that with the rest of the world. After all, we do live in a global society these days in many ways. People say that to me and as previous governments and the current government have moved to change the refugee system, it has not been to be more open or welcoming and helpful, but to be narrower and more judicious and specific in terms of the way that we allow people into the country and then how we treat them once they are in.

I am wondering if this is in keeping with the history and the values of Canada where accepting people who are in need of a safe haven into our country has been the case. I am concerned that in this bill we are delegating safe countries that we will not allow people to establish refugee status in Canada and countries that we will. We will pick and choose who, having experienced great trouble in their lives, can arrive on our shores at any time .

I am also concerned that we are turning over a lot of the decision making to the discretion of the minister. It is no reflection on any one minister. I am saying that when we turn the decision making on matters of this import to people, particularly people who are at great risk and are vulnerable, we set ourselves up for very difficult realities that could unfold.

I look back to the Irish diaspora. The minister will understand this because he has a great appreciation for and knowledge of our past where refugees are concerned. Many people from Ireland arrived on the shores of Canada many years ago because of the potato famine in that wonderful country. People had to leave by the hundreds of thousands and wound up in Canada in huge numbers. I have visited Grosse-Île, the place where the Irish first set foot in Canada.

I am told that one person was given total discretion as to whether someone was well enough to move on to Montreal or Quebec. Many were not allowed for no real scientific reason, no real health reason. People were checked over. They were asked to open their mouths and the man in charge would determine based on his limited knowledge whether they were suffering from some disease. Literally, because of that thousands and thousands of people died on that island. They were not allowed the opportunity to move further inland, to establish themselves and to make a life for themselves.

A couple of years I was in Toronto, when they unveiled the wonderful work at Ireland Park on the waterfront. Back in the 1800s literally 50,000, 60,000 people showed up in boats to a small community of maybe 25,000 people. Those 25,000 people, knowing that those people were sick and bringing with them all kinds of disease, welcomed them into their community. In welcoming and doing the work that was required to make them feel at home, some lost their lives as well.

That is the story of this country. How many of us could ever forget the effort that happened not long ago with the boat people from Vietnam, when churches particularly, including the church I belonged to at that time, opened their doors and welcomed those people in, found ways to integrate them into our communities, found jobs for them, and got their children into schools?

The minister might have a comment for me at some point, but perhaps not today because we are closing in on 6:30 p.m. here. Is this bill going to take us away from that value system, that history, that story that is and was Canada's where refugees are concerned?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie will have three minutes remaining when the House returns to this matter.

The House resumed from April 26 consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Federal Courts Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Because of what happened, we did not quite catch what you just said in terms of the bill being debated. Would you mind repeating that, please?

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I was calling for debate. We are ready to start a new speech on Bill C-11.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, could you clarify why we are not returning to routine proceedings? We were at motions, but we had not yet gotten to petitions. Are we to go back to petitions before we go back to Bill C-11?

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I am sure the hon. member for Vancouver East knows that when the whole morning is expended on that, we go straight to government orders after question period. We are now in government orders discussing Bill C-11. We will have to wait for petitions and answers to questions tomorrow, difficult as that may be.

Resuming debate with the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to this debate on refugee status in Canada.

We have in front of us a very fundamental bill, a bill that is not just about how we treat refugees but how we consider ourselves.

I want to say at the outset that we want to see the backlog dealt with, we want to see a way of reducing the number of people who make claims that are not accurate or false and we want to see fairness and speed put into the system. However, there are fundamental questions.

Is this a reform bill? Does it ensure fairness and balance?

The fundamental thing that we need to arrive at as a Parliament, and as a committee when it gets there, is whether the government is engaged in fairness and balance in reform, or whether it is just mining a weariness on the part of Canadians and cultivating the wrong idea about who is taking advantage. Is this a bill that can move forward when it is admittedly something of an intractable problem over some period of time, or is it simply a cover for lack of effectiveness on the part of the minister and on the part of the government?

For example, the crux of the bill is to contend with the backlog of refugees claiming the protection of Canada and yet the government has allowed compassion to be denied because it has been so delayed. This has caused thousands of people to have a shadowy existence in our communities, with no real status and trying to find a resolution to how they are being regarded.

Two-thirds of the current backlog of refugees comes from the government's action and inaction. When we look at the presumption that somehow we need a law to change things, we also need a government that is committed to treating people fairly, equitably and in a manner that actually respects their rights. Currently, 60,000 are waiting for that treatment and 40,000 of them were put there by the government and by the minister. It is very important that people understand that in some ways we need to evaluate that. The government was busy replacing every appointee of the previous government, no matter how qualified, with its own highly partisan replacement. We need to ask ourselves why else the government was taking its time. Was it trying, as some of its ideological colleagues have done in other jurisdictions, to create a crisis that would then be stampeded into having to be reckoned with?

What is worrisome is that the government's behaviour today belies some of the goodwill that it says it wants to generate in the House and in subsequent considerations at committee. It is worrisome that the government has, at different times, taken sweeping aim at anybody who has disagreed with the bill, trying to discredit the dialogue and the opposition on it. The government is limiting debate. It is forcing it to second reading and not considering hearings after first reading. The test will be how it behaves from here on in, because there are fundamental issues at root here on which Canadians need to be heard. They need not to have this debate put on artificial timetables. I just want to outline some of those for the House and for the people who will, I believe, pay fundamental attention when they realize exactly what is at stake.

We need to step back and realize that the whole idea of acknowledging refugees is based on their individual claims. In the name of convenience, in order to get rid of some of the problems in processing, the bill would take that away from whole groups of people. Refugees would no longer be considered by Canada for protection on their individual merit, but rather governed in large part from what country they came from. That has huge ramifications for legitimate people claiming and needing the protection of Canada.

Instead of actually finding a better way to run the system, the government is proposing a shortcut and one that short-circuits the consideration for people in terms of the fundamental reason they are appealing to us. The bill could cause thousands upon thousands of people to end up going underground because it would not give them the consideration they are looking for.

In the bill there is a tremendous tendency to give arbitrary powers to the minister to create something called a safe country. It is not referred to in the bill. There is no definition of what is safe. There is no definition about how we would find out whether that country was safe or not. Even in democratic states, it does not consider what could happen to certain minorities that are being subject to persecution. The minister only would have a say, with no check or balance, because the government wants to avoid the determination of a country of risk to be something that could be appealed.

In the context of doing that, it would set it outside of the reach of anyone. Neither the courts nor this House, no one could comment on the designation of countries. That is a first time event as a way of dealing things and it smacks of convenience, not of a real goodwill effort to try to deal with the problem. The arbitrariness that could happen there would undermine the reason to have the system in the first place.

I would put forward, for example, Gustavo Gutierrez, a police chief from Mexico who has a well-founded threat of prosecution and who has difficulty being heard. Even under the current system, Mexico, presumably, would be declared a safe country of origin and he would not even get a hearing. He comes from a state where nine police chiefs have been killed.

Mr. Gutierrez has been trying to uphold the law in parts of Mexico, where the law has become almost impossible to uphold, in the face of some of the anarchy that is happening either by organized crime or by the misplaced efforts of states to deal with things, and the gross violations of human rights that have been well-documented. This House will get a chance to consider some of these as we bring some of these people forward.

I want to touch on some of the specific provisions.

In terms of getting a hearing, it would be terrific if it could be done in eight days and it could meet the test of fairness but the people coming forward would not have any access to counsel. Somebody who manages to come here from a country like Iran or some other place where he or she has been tortured in a prison will need to deal with his or her own case within eight days and go in front of an official who is only responsible to the minister who devised the system. This certainly has to ring alarm bells for people concerned with justice and a fair process.

Those who were listening closely to the speech given by my colleague from Vaughn would have heard a very clear articulation of what happened in the United Kingdom when it did this very thing, when it made the front line response come from bureaucrats. Tens of thousands of cases ended up going to appeal and 23% of those cases, almost one-quarter of them, were upheld at appeal.

The appeal rate at the court of appeal in Canada is only 1% successful. Our courts will be plugged the way the courts are plugged in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has an 18 year backlog as a result of adopting a system very similar to the one that the Conservative government is bringing forward.

It is at least worth asking these fundamental questions here in the House and in committee. The minister himself cited in his speech that we have made mistakes in the past, that we have refused people who should have been able to come to Canada. In the run up to World War II, entire groups of people were turned away.

We know the problem with labelling people a certain way and then not accepting them. This House should not repeat that mistake. We need to fix the system, not because we will get a pat on the back from weary people out there who want the so-called refugee system fixed, but because people in here will stand on principle, roll up their sleeves and do the hard work. We need to ensure that this House does not become the House that does a sloppy repair to a system that needs attention.

When people ask why this did not get fixed, I think everyone in this House and everybody watching knows the answer. It is because refugees are perhaps the most powerless group in this country. They are not able to articulate for themselves. If we do not do this carefully, prudently and in alignment with principles, they will get left out of this equation.

This is not about the convenience of the rest of us. The character of a country, the character of a political party and, indeed, the character of all of us in public life is told by how we attend to the quiet noises, to the things that happen when no one is paying attention.

I would like to think that Mr. Gutierrez and others can depend on us to bring forward significant amendments to this bill or to not bring this bill all the way through the House. We stand at the precipice of getting rid of individual assessments and denying people on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

I can see the genesis of this bill. Some may look at how many people make claims but we must understand that when people make a refugee claim, they need to make a choice. Will they have a chance under that system? Will they have a chance on humanitarian or compassionate grounds? Under this bill we would have to make that an absolute choice. People would not be able to appeal on humanitarian or compassionate grounds if their refugee claim was rejected even though there are different considerations there. Even if they make the choice for door number two and take humanitarian or compassionate grounds, they could be deported from this country before their case is heard. Under the present government, it takes over three and a half years to hear from people with legitimate humanitarian or compassionate claims.

If this is a sincere effort to reform the system, where is the reform of the people who are the middlemen, the false arbiters of hope who are making huge amounts of money here in Canada and in places abroad by bringing people here to abuse the system? Where is the effort to actually focus on where people are coming from in the first place? Rather than trying to arbitrarily label people for our convenience, why are we not trying to fix the system?

If we are being frank in this House, what is happening with the changes to the IRB, a politicized system? By the minister's own admission, that system held up at least 25,000 applicants because of delays he created by hand-picking his own partisan cronies to sit on the actual panels. There is an ideological bent that is discernible.

The Colombia free trade agreement has been discussed in the House and suddenly all claimants from Colombia are having tremendous difficulty.

We need to fix this. There need to be independents sitting in front of people. We are conveying a chance to be part of this wonderful country and we dishonour that if we do not do that in full, good faith. We need to do that with people who have no other answerability, no other accountability than doing a good, fair and just job.

That cannot happen if the bureaucrats are responsible to the minister. For my money, it cannot happen by appointed people whose only pleasure is whether or not they keep the minister in power happy with their performance.

There needs to be a turn taken. We should use the bill to reform that system. I ask the question, why in the House, and we need to repeat it again in committee, are we not taking on the people who bring people to Canada, who instruct them and counsel them falsely to break the rules? Why are there no penalties for that in the bill? We want to avoid visas for innocent people. We should be looking at systems that bring people to us rather than just reacting. The bill only gives us the capacity to react.

There are things in the bill that we do need. There does need to be an appeal process. We need to relieve some of our court system by getting a fair appeal process in place, but that is going to be denied to a very large number of people who will be screened out. They will be screened out on criteria that do not exist in the bill. They will be the criteria determined by the minister of the day who will have imperfect information.

I challenge the members opposite. Let Amnesty International, let the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Refugees, let someone objective set those labels if they must have them for those countries, but do not have it as part of our diplomacy or our economic relations because Canada's standing, which the minister relied on as part of his moral authority bringing the bill in, will be lost.

We may accept 10,000 or 11,000 people a year, but we cannot just do that where it is convenient for us. Human rights is not necessarily convenient and many of us are here because of our heritage, a million people who were accepted as refugees in this country. The only way to honour that heritage is to create a bill and amendments to this bill that are really going to follow the footsteps of what has gone on before.

This has been framed with the idea that there will be new quotas, that there will be an increase in the number of people who will be welcome. That is a chimera off in the distance. It is not to be found in the bill. The idea that we are going to accept additional people is nowhere to be found.

In the 2010 budget there is no extra money. So the minister has committed in the House that he would be fixing the backlog in tandem with these new rules, but he does not have the fiscal ability to fulfill that promise.

On the government side, it really bespeaks a certain kind of challenge for the public and for people everywhere in terms of being able to believe that this is a goodwill real reform, or fairness and balance in the system. Or is it just something the government wants to make it look like it is being tough on, a certain class of immigrants who cannot speak for themselves, for whom every person elected to this place has a special responsibility, not because they can vote for us but because they cannot, not because they can donate to us but because they do not have a lot of means.

We cannot fail the people who have gone before us and create a mess of a system simply because we did not meet the challenge of having it better run. A government that let the backlog triple should come to the House with humility. What it needs is some assistance. It needs the best ideas to come forward from those who are housing, sheltering and representing real refugees in this country. It needs to hear about the systems of deceit that are out there, counselling, aiding, abetting and scalping people who have gone through tremendous trauma of their resources or bringing people in to make false claims under false assumptions.

That is what should be targeted here. It is not to be found in the bill and I wonder why not. Why can we not take on the shady consultants? Why can we not take on the people who are mocking the compassion of Canada? Why do we not protect Canada's compassion before it wears out rather than trade on it for changes that on the face do not seem to really go to the root of where this problem has come from: not having enough people in place, not having enough resources, and ultimately not sending the right signals out to countries of origin where people are coming from.

There are even in countries that we respect and admire exceptions for humanitarian and compassionate grounds and even people who can be persecuted for their status, whether as women or sexual minorities. Those things need to be considered because they are part of our values: to have as broad as possible a tolerance for people and to accept that as a basis for being able to be here. There are different definitions for that, that need to be entertained, and a one size fits all which could come with some of the provisions of the bill would really give us difficulty.

The minister, in his remarks, stated that we would not be increasing detention, which happens in a lot of other countries that have this system. It is not in the bill, but his sticker promise is a 60-day turnaround for hearings. How, but through detention, will he be keeping track of people for that period of time?

We need clear talk on the part of the government. Is it planning to put tens of thousands of refugees in some form of detention centres on their way to these streamlined hearings? That is the experience of other countries and it is what happens when they artificially and conveniently try to manage this flow of people instead of trying to understand it and finding principled ways to separate it.

If we had the right of counsel at the beginning, answerable to independent people, that would be a means to have a trustworthy way of weeding out good and bad cases, or at least understanding that the people who are applying have their documentation in order and they are not surrendering rights, which will be applied for anyway.

Why should we be passing this on to the much more expensive system of the courts? Why should we be putting people through the vagaries of that kind of process, when we could be fixing it right here, in this House, in committee?

There are people out there who are discouraged by the manner in which the government has come forward, that there has not been a real openness to listen. The Canadian Bar Association refugee lawyers and Amnesty International issued a statement today saying how disappointed they were that they are not going to get a chance to get at, what again I started my remarks with, which are the principles underlying this, because once we go to second reading, we are not able to discuss the principles of the bill. I would say that the principles of this bill are either very hard to find or they are founded on a skewed idea of why we have this welcome system in the first place.

We need to accept proper refugees. We need to not have the system be clouded and corrupted by false claims, but to do that, there needs to be a system of management.

We need a welcome system that respects the rights of all citizens, but first we must establish the targets of this program.

We have to have the refugee in mind because this is not a group of people who will otherwise be present in this place. We need a time for reflection that need not get in the way of this longstanding problem being resolved, but we cannot rush this and feel like this place is functioning the way it should. There are certain matters that need delicate handling.

Most of us do not come from backgrounds of people who have been persecuted. Most of us do not understand what it is like to be part of 10.5 million real, genuine refugees worldwide. The fact that we are taking on 10,000 of them should be a credit to us. If we end up excluding people, as we have, whether it was inadvertently due to a misunderstanding or a social conception that we did not come to terms with in the past, as we did with Jews trying to get admitted to the country before the second world war, as we did with Sikhs seeking refuge from India, as we did with other people, then we will not give honour to this place or to the values that are supposed to be reflected in this bill in the first place.

My challenge to the government is not to accept any blame but to rise to what is required here, an openness, an unlimited number of hearings in the sense of not being artificially restricted, a reasonable amount of time for Canadians to be heard on this, for the refugees themselves to be heard, and for us to deal with this complex matter in a way that brings honour to ourselves but also to the courage of the people that we want to admit as new Canadians.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the key elements concerning me about this new refugee bill and what is missing in it is that when we look at the refugee boards, those are life and death decisions that are being made and if they are being made incorrectly, the damage obviously to the families who go before them will be very serious.

I am concerned about the issue of how these people are chosen because we know that one of the key elements of the Federal Accountability Act was that the government was going to put in place a commissioner for appointments, so that we would not just have party pals, party volunteers, party bagmen and party hacks put into these positions. We see that the Conservatives love putting their pals in everything from the Senate all the way down to all kinds of appointment boards, yet it has failed to bring in this element.

I would ask my colleague, does he agree with me that when it comes to the refugee boards, we need to have people who are chosen because they understand the issues, because they are not simply going to be doing political favours for the government, and whether or not we need to push the government to have independent people chosen and not just political appointees?

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer would be, yes. There was the work done by the hon. member for York West in terms of setting up criteria and screening to ensure that people would be not just credible but trained and effective at doing this. I spoke to someone at a refugee hearing this afternoon, though, and this individual is fundamentally discouraged that we are not getting the trained and qualified people sitting at the IRB.

Again, this is a moral equation. These people need to be able to represent us in a knowledgeable and thorough way. This is our discretion being exercised. That has to be paramount. I think a further, complete degree of independence should be in this bill. I would join my colleague and others in the House to entertain that as the kind of amendment that we can bring forward to make this a workable reform.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to have missed the member's speech. I was not aware that we were up on debate this afternoon, but I appreciated his comments. I will review them closely.

I have a couple of quick remarks in response to the previous intervention. In point of fact, the previous government introduced a screening process that was improved by the current government. The member might be interested to know that all those people who apply for membership on the IRB go through a rigorous pre-screening process in an independent committee at the IRB before they are recommended to the minister. Only one out of every 10 candidates who apply for the IRB are recommended to the minister, without any consideration of their political background.

According to the official opposition research bureau, of the 99 people who I have appointed or recommended for appointment or reappointment to the IRB, all of whom went through that objective process, I think that five had ever given a contribution or been remotely associated with the Conservative Party. That is fewer than 5% of the appointments for a party that has the support of 30% to 40% of Canadians.

I think we have depoliticized the process. We depoliticize it even further by appointing highly trained, independent public servants situated at the IRB, like at the immigration division of the IRB, that will be making the decisions at the refugee protection division.

I just wanted to make one comment quickly with respect to a remark made by the member for Parkdale—High Park. He suggested that we are now on the precipice of the end of individual assessments in the reforms that we are proposing.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Every single decision made under the proposed reforms would be on the individual merits of the claim before an independent decision maker at the independent quasi-judicial IRB, at an oral hearing considering the merits and credibility and the evidence that is tabled, with access to the new appeal division that was never brought in by the previous Liberal government.

I have appreciated the co-operation of my official opposition critic, but the member for Parkdale—High Park was a member of a party that refused to bring in the appeal division that we are now proposing. Not only does this meet our domestic and international legal obligations, but it actually exceeds them. This is a very important debate, so we should be responsible and stick to the facts. There is nothing in this bill, including the country of origin designation, that would in any way prejudice the consideration of a case on its individual merits.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the minister would agree, on reflection, that it all depends who is hearing from individuals on whether they are really getting individual consideration, if there is no right to counsel, if there is inadequate time to prepare their case, if there is not a way to express themselves or to be considered because their country of origin denied them the right to appeal, or if they really should have been a humanitarian and compassionate case, but they will not get that for a year.

These have the possibility and the high prospect of being arbitrary decisions that take away the individual assessment to the degree that it exists today. There is a harder road to go, but I am glad to hear the minister say that he is claiming this high value of independence. I want to take that at face value because that means that he would be open to amendments that would make the IRB thoroughly independent and out of the reach of political parties.

That is the kind of thing that would begin to shape the building blocks of trust for this. This should not be subject to only partisan consideration. It should be one where the merits are clear and conspicuous. In terms of who will get to hear the hearings, he has to reflect on the experience of Great Britain in terms of clogging up the appeal process. When we are simply hearing from front line bureaucracy, there is a prospect of trying to please the minister that then turns out to foster a huge number of appeals.

That is not the kind of reform that would be fair or equitable or would address what we want to accept. If the minister wants to see things fair and fast, he needs to slow down only long enough to ensure that these things will actually work. I think it is encouraging if the minister is at least acknowledging that he would be open to making some of those fundamental changes.

For my part, I am happy to be open to see it proven. I think the questions I am raising are all legitimate, but I would welcome the changes that I have talked about and would laud them from the minister.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was essentially going to comment that I sat through all of the speeches yesterday. I know the minister was here, which was a bit of a surprise and certainly welcomed. He was complimented in the House many times yesterday for being here. In fact, he took the first question with all of the speakers.

There were some points in the member's speech that I wanted to clarify in light of what the minister said yesterday, but I am certain that he can clarify them for the member by perusing Hansard.

The whole issue of the safe country of origin is also a concern to our critic, and we talked about that yesterday. The minister was straight up front in saying that he welcomed amendments to the bill at committee and that even in the area of safe country of origin, there were aspects to that particular mechanism that perhaps should be explored a little bit further. That certainly could be done at committee. If the two members talk to each other, the member will get some of his questions answered.

He is blaming the backlog exclusively on the government, but it was reported yesterday by several speakers that in fact 20,000 people were in the line under the previous Liberal government, so we have to get a balance here. It is unfair to say the Conservatives are 100% responsible. The Liberals should take their fair share of responsibility for the current situation, and I want to leave it at that.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before I go to the member for Parkdale--High Park, I want to remind all hon. members that we ought not to refer to colleagues as being in or not in the House, even if it is done in a complimentary manner.

The hon. member for Parkdale--High Park.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for elaborating some of the minister's comments for him. I think that was helpful, but in the main it is a question of how we can stand on guard here in the House.

It is tempting to look for easy solutions. If there is a way to put definitions in, we still have to ask ourselves a question: can we have a safe country? Can we actually make a definition that will work? That is what the test is for the House.

In doing so, what are the byproducts? What are the consequences? What otherwise safe countries might still have people subject to persecution? That is what we cannot be afraid to hear over the coming weeks.

I saw the minister's remarks. He said he would put some of those criteria in legislation. That is the kind of thing that would start to bring comfort to people, but we need to make sure this is not about shortcuts. There is a welling up in this country that wants us to be effective and intelligent in our compassion, but they will punish us severely if we end up adopting the wrong measures.

I am not calling into question the minister's sincerity. I am simply saying that this bill is a test for him and a test for all of us. If Amnesty International or the United Nations refugee commission or others who are completely independent can be part of that referencing and part of that definition, then we would find ourselves in a different place.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the character of a nation is often defined by how we treat people in desperate situations who come to our shores seeking asylum, safe haven or a better life.

Canada has two sides. One is very generous. If we look at the situation at the turn of the last century, tens of thousands of Irish immigrant refugees fleeing the potato famine arrived at the shores of Canada. Some came to Toronto. At that time the city of York only had 20,000 to 30,000 people, and yet 50,000 Irish refugees came to its shores.

At that time many of them were sick. The people of the city of York could have said they were not welcome, that they were afraid of their diseases and that they should go home, and then could have sent them away. Instead the medical officer of health and many of the residents in the city of York opened up their doors, were very generous and helped to treat them, even to the extent that one of the Protestant medical officers of health died of the disease.

However, there is another side and face to Canada's immigration policy. We can remember many Jewish refugees who tried to come to Canada and were sent away. At that time there were two successive immigration ministers who basically did not want to welcome them. We sent them home. We refused them entry.

At the end of that period, only 5,000 of them came to Canada. We know that had we opened up our doors during that period, many more thousands or tens of thousands of lives could have been saved. They could have found homes and started their families in Canada. That was a dark page of Canadian history.

Much later, in the 1960s, we sent Indians back on the Komagata Maru, some to their death. Again, that period was not a proud time in the history of immigration policy in Canada.

As we go into this debate on this refugee reform bill, Bill C-11, perhaps what we should do is remember that history and that reputation for generosity and for sharing what we have, versus a government that was obsessed with narrow national self-interest. At that time there was also an obsession with elections. We could see these people coming to our shores, either as people seeking new opportunities or as queue-jumpers or people who wanted to scam our system. That is a different way of seeing people who come to Canada.

We know that how we treat these refugees sometimes determines their life or death. If we send them back, sometimes they go to prison or end up being tortured. Some endure beatings or starvation, so in many ways we have to be very cautious.

We have seen examples. A young Mexican woman came to Canada twice, trying to leave the drug lords in Mexico. She was refused refugee status. After the second time she returned to Mexico, she was kidnapped by the people she was originally trying to run away from, and in June 2009 she was found dead with a bullet in her head. How we treat refugees really does sometimes mean life and death.

As a principle of a fast and fair refugee determination, what we want to see is high-quality initial decisions. Get it right the first time.

Let us make sure we keep it non-political and have an independent body make all the decisions. Let us keep the laws simple and not have unnecessary rules or a complicated process. We should also make sure we have the necessary resources in place so that we can avoid backlogs. We should always remember that human lives are at stake and adhere to human rights standards.

As New Democrats, we have long proposed a fast and fair refugee determination process. We have said that all appointments of Immigration and Refugee Board members should be done through an independent appointment commissioner with set criteria.

Right now members are picked by their merits. However, if the minister has 10 names in front of him, he can pick person A versus person B. Persons A and B are both supposed to be qualified, but perhaps person A happens to be a failed Conservative political candidate or someone who donated money. That person could be picked over person B, who happens to have no political background whatsoever. It is very important that an independent appointment commissioner be set up through the Federal Accountability Act, Bill C-2, which was passed in 2006. Those kinds of appointments should be done through an arm's-length commissioner.

Number two, New Democrats have said that we need to hire more permanent refugee protection officers to clear the backlog. That is a no-brainer. If there is a backlog, hire more officers to clear the backlog.

Number three, make sure there is legislation so that the unscrupulous immigration consultants who are telling people how to lie cannot practise. We need to crack down on them, ban them, punish them and throw them in jail. We need to ensure that we ban them from the Immigration and Refugee Board hearing room so that these unscrupulous middle people cannot coach refugees on how to lie.

On the flip side, we must provide legal aid for proper representation. Refugees often come to Canada penniless. Whether they are Jewish, Irish or Indian refugees, when they come to Canada they often do not have money for a court system, so we must provide legal aid to some of the most desperate people.

Number four, we have also said that we must set up a refugee appeal division so that consistent decisions would be made based on law and fact. In fact Parliament mandated such an appeal division in 2001, and successive former Liberal governments chose to ignore it.

Since 2006, the new Conservative government could have implemented all of these recommendations, but through the years it emptied out the refugee board. When it came to power, it did not want to reappoint the Liberal cronies to the Immigration and Refugee Board, so the minister at that time became paralyzed by uncertainty and took no action. He stopped most of the appointments and left the board mostly vacant. The number of refugees waiting their turn for the board to decide their fate grew larger by the day because there was no one around to make the decision.

Critics watched the situation, grew alarmed and said this was going to be disastrous. Even the Auditor General said in one of her reports that the whole system was collapsing and that the government should do something, because it was taking far too long to appoint and train people and it was costly. Against this backdrop, two years later the board is now full, but the minister is now trying to address a crisis that was created partially by his own party.

Bill C-11, the refugee reform act, has a few merits.

One, the process is speedy. Yes, the refugees want to be united with their loved ones, so refugees who come to our shores want us to make fast decisions so that they can bring some of their children and their loved ones who are in refugee camps or urban slums in poor countries to Canada and be united with them. Speed is good.

Two, the bill establishes an appeal process for some refugee claimants. That also is good.

Three, it provides more funding to the Immigration and Refugee Board to clear the backlog. However, we would prefer to see much of the funding go to the Immigration and Refugee Board and the protection officers instead of most of it going to the CBSA, the Canada Border Service Agency and to the Department of Justice to appoint more Federal Court judges. We would prefer to see more refugee claimants as each year's target. We do not believe 9,000 is an adequate number. In 2005 there were 25,000 refugee claimants that were approved in Canada, inland applications were approved.

There is one more aspect in the bill that is good, an assisted voluntary return program, so failed and destitute refugee claimants can get a little help to return to their homeland.

However, this Conservative refugee reform bill has serious flaws.

Problem number one is the safe countries list. The introduction of safe country of origin means the minister has the power to create two classes of refugees: those who have the right to appeal and those who do not have that right.

Claimants who would be particularly hurt would include women making gender-based claims, for example, the one that was raised in the House today. Mrs. Sow was beaten by her second husband. She found a safe haven in Canada, but her case was denied.

Claimants who are most hurt in the safe countries designation would also include people claiming refugee status on the basis of sexual orientation or sexual identity. In many countries that otherwise seem fair and peaceful, there can be serious problems of persecution based on gender or sexual orientation. In 50 years of studying human rights, the international community has learned that there is no country that can easily be declared safe. That is why fundamentally this is a serious flaw in the bill.

Problem number two is that the first hearing is not done by people with any independence of the department or the minister. Bill C-11 sacrifices fairness in the hearing of refugees' claims and centralizes the power in the department and the minister. That is a substantial problem because it really should be an arm's-length group of people who make the first decision. We have seen countries on the safe countries list that have a huge number of appeals and do not allow those appeals to be successful. Making a right decision at the beginning is critically important, and having the first hearing done by officers is not the proper way to do it.

Problem number three is that if those refugees come from safe countries and have no right to appeal, most likely they will not have access to the pre-removal risk assessment within the first year because they are likely to be deported within one year. The problem with the pre-removal risk assessment, even if they do have access, is it takes a long time. Normally it takes close to two years to get a pre-removal risk assessment decision, which means that claimants could be deported before the hearings are done. That is a problem for claimants who are from so-called safe countries.

For example, Ghana is seen as a safe country. In Ghana if a person is gay or lesbian, the person will be punished and thrown into jail because it is illegal to be identified as gay or lesbian.

There are also countries that support female genital mutilation. There are other countries that are supposed to be safe that have a huge number of human rights violations.

Therefore, having a safe country list is not a good way to go.

Furthermore, even though the minister promised many times that there would be action, Bill C-11 does not address the problem of unscrupulous immigration consultants. When we speed up the timelines and get to the first hearing very quickly, it drives many refugee claimants to these so-called immigration consultants who are not licensed and are not qualified. Why? Because a person cannot get legal aid within eight days.

When a person has a hearing within eight days and tries to get legal aid, say in Ontario, the person cannot get legal aid that quickly. We asked some of the people who came to my office why they did not try to retain someone who knows the immigration and refugee law. They said that it takes a long time to get legal aid. Some refugees do not have the funding to do so. It would probably drive more claimants to unscrupulous consultants.

What should we do at this point? My preference was that the bill be sent to the immigration committee before second reading so that there could be amendments. The minister did not agree to that, even though that was the route I preferred to take.

Since that is the case, the bill will go to the citizenship and immigration committee after second reading. At committee we should carefully examine the bill. We must make some amendments as I have suggested to slow down some of the initial processes, to change some of the regulations, to remove the safe countries designation. We must hear from some of the people who have many years of experience dealing with refugees, such as people from the Canadian Council of Refugees, Amnesty International, the Canadian Bar Association, and some of the refugee organizations. Those are the organizations that we must listen to very carefully in order to make the right decisions.

I hope the minister and his government will allow some fundamental amendments at the immigration committee.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Don Valley West, Veterans.

Questions and comments, the hon. Minister of CItizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Trinity—Spadina for her thoughtful remarks as well as her evident concern for refugees. I should say that her opening remarks mirrored my own about the historical precedents of Canada being a country of welcome but also, in particular during the second world war, being a country of xenophobia and the rejection of refugees, and how we must always learn from that and be mindful of it when dealing with this very sensitive matter.

I will try to give some quick points for her response.

The member talked about the backlog. It would be fair for her to acknowledge that backlogs have been a permanent feature of the current system, which is why we need to change the architecture of it. The average size of the backlog in the past two decades for asylum seekers is 40,000 cases. Therefore, the current backlog is not unprecedented and that is why we need to change the architecture.

I should also point out that between 2006 and 2008, we saw a 60% increase in claims, 58% of which have subsequently been found not to be in need of Canada's protection. The backlog is not simply the result of a temporary shortfall in appointments as a result of the new screening process. It is also a result of a large number of unfounded claims. I know there are some people who do not like me pointing out that there are unfounded claims made in our system, but there are; there is a large number and that is something we cannot be blind to.

Second, we are not proposing a target of 9,000 positive asylum decisions per year. In fact, our proposal would give resources to the IRB to make 28,000 finalizations on asylum claims per year. Theoretically, that could be 28,000 positive protection decisions, 28,000 landings for successful claimants, but we cannot determine or plan the number of successful claims. That is up to the independent IRB. However, the ceiling is not 9,000. The effective ceiling with the resources we are allocating is 28,000, which of course is an increase over the status quo.

Third, she claimed that international authorities say that no country can legitimately be described as being safe. In fact, António Guterres, UN High Commissioner for Refugees, said, “There are indeed safe countries of origin. There are indeed countries in which there is a presumption that refugee claims will probably be not as strong as in other countries”.

Finally, she accused us of centralizing decision makers in this proposal. That is not true. Public service decision makers would be situated at the IRB, beyond the control or influence of any political actor, as they are in the immigration division of the IRB. It simply mirrors that.

I agree entirely with her on consultants. We intend to bring forward meaningful reforms and I would like her views on that issue in the near future.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there have always been backlogs but between 2001 and 2005, the backlog was accumulating because of 9/11. At that time, the former Liberal government hired a lot more officers and brought the backlog down to 20,000, which was much smaller. When there is a backlog, hire more workers. That is one way to deal with it.

Fundamentally, there needs to be some minor changes too, but one of the problems is the back end. It is not the front end, who gets accepted, who does not get accepted and who is rejected. It is the back end. The Canada Border Services Agency, during that period, was taking a huge amount of time to find some of the failed claimants. In fact, the Auditor General said in a report that they did not even know where some of these folks had gone to, and that they were detaining eight people in a room that was only fit for one person. One of the reasons there is a backlog is the back end. It is not just the front end.

One of the key problems regarding safe countries, is that we can internally have a safe country list but to deny individuals of their right to appeal because they are from one of those countries is a fundamental problem. I believe that each individual case of refugee determination, when a person is seeking asylum, must be seen on its own merits. Each refugee claimant should have equal rights. There really should not be two classes of claimants: one for people who come from a certain country and another for those from a different country. For example, if people are gay or lesbian, they could face the same kind of persecution.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has done great work in the area of refugees. The discussion before us to resolve the refugee issue simply and to everyone's satisfaction is like coming in and untying the Gordian knot. I recognize the difficulty that is before us and we need to find ways to work together beyond all parties.

My concern is on the designation of safe countries. We do recognize that there are countries that have been identified by the UN where refugees are taken from, but we also find now that there are many areas of global unrest, where there are drug cartels, extreme gender violence, whether it is violence on sexual orientation, that these refugee claimants would still have legitimate claims and yet they might not be covered under the list the government has provided.

I would like to speak specifically to the issue of, for example, the labour activists in Colombia who have been targeted over the last number of years. We have read the names of the labour activists and organizers who have been killed in Colombia while the free trade deal has been negotiated, and yet it would not be politically expedient for the government to allow any of these activists into Canada because it would recognize that they do have some fundamental human rights problems in Colombia.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague how we square the circle. How do we ensure that those people who are fleeing situations of violence are given a fair hearing while separating that perhaps from the aim of a political treaty or the negotiating aims of a particular government at a particular time in history?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we cannot square the circle. When we designate certain countries I would imagine that trade would be one of the considerations, even though it should not be when it comes to refugees. Some countries could appear to be democratic. The government of the day could see a country as being a fair and democratic country and have friendly relationships with this country. So often, if that is the case, then it would claim this country to be safe. Some of the political situations can change on a dime. There could be civil unrest or there could be drug lords. There could be political killings by secret services as we have seen in Colombia.

To designate safe countries and to give the government the absolute power to do so would be extremely inappropriate because of all of those kinds of consideration that could come into the picture, especially relationships and financial interests, because I have seen financial interests trump human rights one time too many.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to this debate on Bill C-11. I know we are not supposed to do this, but I would like to thank the minister for being here in the House to listen to the debates. I think it is important for the minister to hear these debates in the House, because many people are affected and often experience human tragedies with the immigration and refugee system in Canada.

I am in a good position to talk about this, because I represent the riding of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, one of those urban ridings that struggles with these human tragedies every day. I have a been a member in this House for 13 years, and 80% of my interactions with constituents are related to problems with immigration and refugee claims.

Members can imagine the kind of pressure our staff is under as they deal with these situations every day. I would like to take this opportunity to mention some of my constituents and staff from my riding. I am thinking of Louise Bellemare, at my constituency office, and Michel Blouin and René Champagne, who work hard every day to help constituents who are struggling to understand the system.

I used the word “understand” because few people truly understand the mechanisms and workings of the Canadian system because it is complex and because—we must not forget—the government has added to that complexity in recent years. Each year 25,000 people seek asylum in Canada. That is roughly equal to the backlog. That is a serious problem. Quite often, when someone seeking refugee status arrives in Canada, it takes nearly 28 days for them to meet with a government official to explain their situation.

It generally takes close to 19 months to have a hearing with the Immigration and Refugee Board, the IRB. During these 19 months, the person belongs to a community; they share common values, have conversations and slowly integrate themselves. Those 19 months are filled with insecurity. And 19 months later they get a hearing with the IRB. But only 45% of these claimants will actually get refugee status at the end of the IRB process. And so, 55% of the claimants are denied by the IRB.

The individual can then start the process of asking the Federal Court for a judicial review. But only 13% of such cases will be heard by the Federal Court. That is truly unfair because very few of these people will have their cases heard by the Federal Court.

Even if they are not heard there, they can always apply for a pre-removal risk assessment, a PRRA, but again, there is roughly a three-year waiting period. Everyone knows that at this stage of the process, the chance of getting a positive ruling is roughly 2%.

The chances are very low. Despite this refusal, the person has not reached the end of the road because he can still go to the Federal Court and request a review of the PRRA ruling. During this process, nothing is stopping the person from applying for permanent resident status on humanitarian grounds. The entire process takes approximately four to six years.

Very few people in Canada really know the process, but many people are in this situation. I am thinking of Ms. Camara, among others, who arrived here in 2006 and waited 10 months for a hearing with the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. Some may say that she is lucky since the average wait for a hearing is 19 months and she waited nine months less than the average to get a hearing.

We are in this situation because, between 2006 and 2009, the government and the minister refused to appoint any so-called new decision makers. There were only 50 decision makers out of a possible 164. That is what has caused the backlog. The backlog grew from 20,000 claims in 2005 to 60,000 claims in 2009. The government created these delays despite the harm done to persons seeking status under Canada's Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Introduced on March 30, 2010, this bill seeks to reduce processing times and to provide $540 million over five years. This money will not go directly to help settle refugees but will be allocated for the most part to border officers. Thus, there will be more investigations and screening. These changes are designed to increase the restrictions on people who wish to be recognized under Canada's Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

There must be no misunderstanding. We are not opposed to some of the government's proposals because we recognize that waiting times must be shortened. We must ensure that decisions are made as quickly as possible.

I remember that when I arrived in the House in 1997 it took approximately six to eight months, on average, to obtain a first hearing at the Immigration and Refugee Board. It now takes 19 months. This is a real problem that leads to human tragedies, as I was saying, and also creates interminable procedures: application for refugee status, federal court proceedings, PRRA, applications for permanent residence on humanitarian grounds, and I have surely forgotten others.

Reform is necessary. We support part of this reform. As members know, we would have preferred that this bill be sent directly to committee, but that was not possible. Therefore, we are starting this process today in the hope that, at the committee stage, we will be able to study the changes we are seeking more thoroughly.

We are pleased to see the creation of the refugee appeal division in the bill before us today, because we have been asking for it for a long time, since 2001 in fact. I remind members that we have been working on this bill since 2001 and that the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act included the possibility of the government actually establishing this appeal division.

I remember the Liberals telling us that they would reduce the number of board members hearing refugee claims from two to one. At the same time, they promised to establish this appeal division.

The Liberals did not keep their word. We gave them the chance to make up for it when we introduced Bill C-291 in the House. This bill proposed the creation of the refugee appeal division. It was passed at second reading, but was defeated by one vote at third reading.

We must remember that when the time came to create this appeal division at third reading, the Liberals were nowhere to be found in the House. I will not name them because I know that it is unparliamentary to mention colleagues who are absent from the House, but there were 12 of them missing. We know who they were; we took note and we will remember them during the next election campaign. These 12 Liberals prevented us from implementing a real appeal division, as we have been proposing since 2001.

This proposal was defeated, but an appeal division is still necessary, because mistakes can be made in our legal system. Citizens must be able to appeal a decision, whether it is from a quasi-judicial tribunal or a court of justice. When the Liberals proposed the refugee appeal division in 2001, they proposed having one member make decisions instead of two. There could have been arbitrary decisions. The proof is that some IRB members reject 98% of refugee claims. So even among the members' decisions, there does not appear to be balance.

I am not here to question IRB member decisions. I know that it is a quasi-judicial tribunal, and I do not plan on looking at each and every one of these decisions. However, there does not seem to be balance among the decisions of some judges.

The decisions can sometimes be arbitrary and things should be more fair. That is why the government has created the refugee appeal division. However, the problem is that not everyone can take advantage of it. I cannot emphasize enough that there will be exceptions. Anyone coming from countries designated as safe would not be able to appeal the decisions made by government officials acting as decision makers—not board members—who have been given more power. I will say more about that later. This appeal division would not be available to everyone.

We, on this side of the House, would like to know what is meant by safe country. The government is telling us that the criteria for designating safe countries will be set by regulation a little later on. But we do not know what the regulations will be. The government is asking for a blank cheque and our trust. Citizens who do not come from a safe country will be able to appeal, but those who come from a safe country will not. But what is a safe country? We do not know. According to the government in one of its balanced refugee reform documents:

Safe countries of origin would include countries that do not normally produce refugees, have a robust human rights record and offer strong state protection.

That is the government's definition, but at the same time, it is saying that the criteria will be set out later in regulations. The government is most likely looking at three countries: Mexico, Hungary and the Czech Republic. Naturally, it will not say anything today because everything will be set out later in regulations.

The government wants us to trust it and says that the process will be balanced and fair. I understand the government will leave it to an advisory committee. However, in the name of transparency, it would have been better to have these regulations.

I have a suggestion for the minister. If he really wants to consult the opposition, I invite him to submit these regulations to the parliamentary committee when the time comes to study the criteria used to determine whether a country is safe.

This bill considerably reduces the role of judges and increases that of public servants, particularly concerning the initial refugee claim. We have never criticized the role of board members. We have always felt that they are appointed based on partisan ideology, but we have never questioned their work. We must seriously consider the fact that public servants will become the decision makers. This is a new approach. I understand that the government wants to ease the workload of judges and leave it up to the public service to assess claims, but this needs to be clarified. I am sure my colleague, the immigration critic, will have many questions in that regard.

This is where things get a little more complicated. The government wants to reduce wait times for interviews. Under the current act, once a person claims refugee status, the average wait time for an initial interview with a government official is about 28 days. Now the minister is saying that will go down to eight days.

As I said earlier, wait times must be reduced. However, we have to look at which wait times to reduce and how to balance the procedures.

We have to remember that, in many cases, people from other countries who arrive in Canada have issues. We need to make sure that an eight-day timeline is not too short. People who claim refugee status have experienced personal traumas. Might the eight-day timeline result in certain injustices and put those people in uncomfortable situations? We will have to look at that.

I would also like to talk about hearings. The government wants to reduce wait times for hearings from 19 months to 60 days. In other words, after the first interview, the government official would schedule a hearing within 60 days. That is not much time for people from countries with unstable governments. People have to submit documentation, and it takes time to send correspondence and receive the required documents. It is important to consider this because if the case goes to the appeal division, all of these processes will be taken into account.

We are in favour of reforming the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and we believe that wait times should be reduced. In my opinion, hearings should be held sooner following a claimant's arrival because a 19-month wait does not make sense and has made things very difficult for people in the past. We have to make some adjustments. I believe that my colleague, the immigration critic, will invite witnesses to appear before the committee so that we can achieve balanced reforms for people seeking asylum in Canada.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his wise and constructive comments.

First of all, I would like to point out that we intend to work in a consultative way at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. Furthermore, I have already said that we are open to the possibility of amendments to define the criteria for the designation of safe countries of origin within the bill. That is one amendment we wish to include. This must be very clear, for there are many pertinent questions in that regard.

Second, I am making a commitment to submit to the committee the proposed regulations for the process of designating safe countries, as well as other essential regulations related to the bill in order to achieve a balanced claims system.

Third, I understand my colleague's concerns regarding the timeframe of eight days for the selection and 60 days for the hearing before the IRB. I would point out that the public servant who conducts the selection interviews will have the opportunity to determine if a claimant has been traumatized by a serious situation, and if either the selection interview or the IRB hearing should be postponed. I believe the IRB rules will have some flexibility in that regard.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to hear what the minister just said.

But he will understand that to be sure, the act must be amended. We cannot just say in the House that the official with decision-making authority will consider the person's mental state, for example, in the event of trauma. The act must be amended. That is what we were hoping for when we wanted to send the bill to committee.

I am glad to hear what the minister had to say, but there will have to be some transparency. That is our hope. I would be glad to see the minister show some transparency. A minister seldom agrees to table regulations in committee and have a real discussion on their enforcement.

In acts like this one, there is the body of the act, but often it is the regulations that determine how the act is enforced. We have often seen bills in the House with no regulations. If the government is willing to table the regulations in committee, I believe that there can be a transparent, open, respectful debate that will benefit everyone.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Mexico is a strong ally of Canada and a great trading partner. We have numerous relations with Mexico. Mexico has a number of democratic institutions. It has the rule of law and police. Yet, it also has a drug war that is spiralling out of control with greater and greater levels of violence in many communities.

We had the case of a young Mexican woman who was under threat from the drug cartels. She sought refuge in Canada because her life was at risk. She was refused refugee status because Mexico is not perceived as a place where we take refugees from. She was returned and ended up being kidnapped in June 2009. They found her dead. She had most likely been killed by these drug cartels. She was only 24 years old.

There are horror stories like this in many jurisdictions and it is sometimes difficult in Canada to assess what will happen if a person is sent back to a violent situation. I am concerned again about the safe country designation. I think we may be taking some of the few rights that exist for people who are in these very unstable situations and are trying to escape violence. I am concerned that people with legitimate concerns for their safety who come here would no longer be given the same level of protection.

In terms of where we need to go with this bill and what we need to change, does my hon. colleague think that the area of safe country designation is one of the areas that we will need to look at to ensure the bill is just and does protect the people who deserve to be protected from threats of violence?

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I said when I invited the minister to table the regulations or amend the act to define what a safe country is. The definition must comply with the three main conventions in international law.

First, we must ensure that the conventions on human rights are included in the definition of a safe country.

Second, we must ensure that the conventions on torture, including the American convention on torture—which Canada has not yet ratified, if I remember correctly—are incorporated into the definition of a safe country.

Third, this definition must include the convention on refugees.

I believe that these three international conventions must be included in the definition of a safe country and must serve as benchmarks. I am certain that we can talk about this in committee.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that in the mid-eighties three members sat on the refugee board. It was subsequently reduced to two members. During the period when it was changed to one board member, assurance was given that there would be a refugee appeal division.

The member was right when he said that one member would hold the power over someone's future. In Toronto we have heard allegations of this. Steve Ellis, one of the board members appointed by a former Liberal government, was seeking sexual favours in exchange for allowing a woman from South Korea to stay in Canada. The number of people on the panel makes a big difference.

What would the member say about the current changes to the bill that would result in board members having no decision-making power at all on refugees who come from safe countries? That would mean there would be no independent review of refugee claims. If the person comes from a safe country, there would be no appeal procedure in place.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the appeal division must apply to everyone, whether they come from a safe country or not.

I believe that was the spirit of Bill C-291, which was supported by the NDP, adopted at second reading, but defeated at third reading because of the absence of the Liberal members. Hon. members will recall that 12 Liberal members were absent at the time of the vote.

That being said, we were had by the government when it decided to go from having two commission members to just one and promised us a real refugee appeal division. We were had by the Liberal Party of Canada. The government is trying to redeem itself today by creating this appeal division and by excluding a portion of claimants. In the meantime, it will amend federal legislation to increase the number of judges from 32 to 36 at the Federal Court for cases to be heard there.

However, let us be clear to the public. Only 12% of cases succeed when there is an application to the Federal Court for review after an unfavourable ruling at the Immigration and Refugee Board. We want a real refugee appeal division and not just a half measure.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with some pleasure that I enter this debate.

I am a member from the rural parts of our country in northwestern British Columbia. Issues around refugee and immigration reform in general touch us as much in rural Canada as they do in other parts of the country. This is perhaps an untold story, that my staff and my communities are constantly dealing with questions that we facing here in the House.

I would also like to thank the member for Trinity—Spadina for her tireless work on this issue over the years, both bringing in personal sentiment and cause, and a calm rationality to try to reform the system that we all in this place can recognize is broken.

I think it is high time that Canadians come to understand where the true fixes lay, where the true solutions are to be had, and that governments resist the temptation that they have so often given in to, to politicize the refugee and immigration system in this country. Whether it is pandering to votes on one side of the conversation or to another, while it is trying to make some appeal to a particular group of new Canadians or make an appeal to some reactionary elements in our country that are fundamentally anti-immigrant.

We have to recognize that those forces are in play in this country and they come to bear on any government and any elected member. We have to resist those for a longer vision, a more noble and honest opinion of where Canada needs to be, not just in the next year or the next 10 years but in the next 100 years.

Decisions that we make with respect to bills like this have an effect for many years to come on those individuals and families seeking to reunite, seeking to find a better life here in Canada. We are also trying to find ways to keep folks from clogging up the system, entering the system knowingly, and trying to corrupt the system.

It is unfortunate but rules in this place are so often made for the minority. Rules are so often made for the cases of people trying to put the system into jeopardy but end up hurting so many of the vast majority who are simply trying to appeal to Canada's ethics and morality on a refugee claimant basis. They are coming from a country of some hardship and in particular circumstances, where they are being biased against for who they are, either their gender or their sexual orientation, and their economic status or political affiliations.

These are difficult questions for a refugee board to sort out. These are obviously difficult questions for a government to sort out.

No one, and certainly not New Democrats, lauds previous Liberal governments for their inaction on the backlogs that were created year in and year out. Justice delayed is justice denied. It was too often that people were cast into a system with no end in sight. This was not a decent way to deal with refugees and immigrants to this country. This was not a decent way or a humanitarian way to deal with folks.

We also see, with the current government's either action or lack of action in some cases, a contribution to the problem that we saw when the current government was elected in 2006. There was a reluctance to appoint new people to the boards.

The system is inherently political and partisan. This is something that we hope to reform. We actually had some glimmer of hope from the government when it sought to have an appointments commissioner, someone who would act in a non-partisan way to review the many hundreds and in some cases thousands of appointments in a year, that did not have any partisan connection, that could create a stand-alone committee at arm's length from the government.

New Democrats worked with the current government to make this happen and make it a reality. Unfortunately, the government's first choice for who should lead that commission was a gentleman who was the chief fundraiser for the Prime Minister, who had helped the Prime Minister achieve office.

Colleagues across the aisle are shaking their heads, but it is fact and case in point. When New Democrats asked if there was anybody else out there who could help with the appointment process other than this one individual most closely tied to the sitting Prime Minister, the government scrapped the whole idea. It said this was the only individual out of some 30-some odd million Canadians who was sufficiently capable of heading up an appointments process, and if we would not accept him it was going to get rid of the whole idea.

We thought it was a good idea. It was a good idea. The members can heckle all they want, but what they cannot deny is the fact that the Prime Minister put one single name forward and that was it, take it or leave it. We actually notice that time and time this has become this Prime Minister's tendency, his habit, to lean toward this type of leadership. It was rebuked earlier today from the Chair itself, this kind of intolerant approach.

Now we head to this issue of Bill C-11. My colleague from Trinity—Spadina made the good point that we sought to move this bill to committee prior to second reading. That would allow the committee even more latitude to make more fundamental changes to the bill. The government refused that.

We will work within the parameters of this place in a democratic way to effect this bill for the betterment of all those seeking refugee status in Canada.

It must be noted that when dealing with immigration and refugee issues, it brings out both the best and worst in a country. Our history has proven that out. In this place, the Prime Minister and various parties over the years have had to stand and publicly apologize for the treatment of people from different countries appealing to Canada's conscience to allow them to come to this country.

Some years ago, Jewish immigrants, Indians from the Komagata Maru and Irish immigrants were rejected simply based on narrow stereotypes of the worst order of that time. We evolve, move on, mature as a country, gain competence, and realize that we were wrong, that we used the barriers to our country as a tool or mechanism to punish those we were fearful of, those we did not like or suspected. This is the worst element of the refugee and immigration system and it is a difficult thing to get right.

We have no pretensions in the New Democratic Party that this is an easy thing to do, properly, fair and balanced, but today as we seek to speed up the process, we also look for a fair process. We look for one that does not sacrifice fairness for expediency, that does not create more errors that future prime ministers and governments will have to stand up and apologize for. This is something we all wish to resist and we should resist in every way as we look through this bill.

It is also a crisis in the making as the government refused, in the political appointment process, to put Liberals back on the board because it did not like Liberals and it did not want to give them a job, basically. I do not know if it did not like some of their decisions or it simply did not want Liberals on the government dime any more, but rather than replacing them with skilled and qualified Canadians to fill those roles, the backlog grew again.

When we have these crises, these moments that occur and require severe action, we have to pay attention to whether they were at all manufactured. If they were, then the cynical minds within this place will say it was done intentionally to move some radical reforms. If we create the crisis, we need to meet it with some expeditious force that will change it all dramatically.

It is also a story about the best of Canada, the best that we wish to be, and how we wish to present ourselves to the world as a safe haven for refugees, as a place people can come when they are being mistreated, and subjected to torture in all sorts of inhumane conditions. Canada must be a beacon of light in the world that people feel they can come to, where they can make an appeal to the Canadian system that is a full and transparent process.

This is the question we have on the expediency of this particular bill, the eight-day condition. Will refugees be able to seek the kind of legal support in order to defend themselves in front of the board or will they get one of these so-called consultants? We need to find another word for these immigration consultants.

I, like many members of Parliament, have had these folks on my doorstep. I am sure the immigration minister has met with some of them, bottom feeders I think the minister sometimes refers to them. These folks are sometimes in training and sometimes have noble intention, but too often pariahs on the system, pariahs on people's fear and desperate need to get into this country, and they offer them bad advice.

I worked in Sierra Leone for a while before entering politics and had the unbelievable frustration of meeting a young Sierra Leone man who had been engaged in the civil war and had his entire family wiped out by the rebels. He was appealing to Canada and had, through his church, forked over $850, which is an enormous sum to someone living in Sierra Leone, to one of these consultants. What did that Canadian consultant do? He provided that young man with a form that was available on a website.

These consultants prey upon refugees' fear and ignorance, that those seeking to come here think that this is an impossible system to get through. These people do not live in a democratic society where there are forms available for anything. This is a wartorn country and these consultants are preying upon these refugees, folks who often have already gone through hell and back, and are now seeking a better life in Canada. These immigration consultants pop up, promising the world, and charging even more for these folks to access Canada.

It seems to me we also need more refugee protection officers in the system. This is something the bill does not sufficiently seem to answer at this point.

We are caring communities in Canada. I represent northwestern British Columbia. Whenever there is a global crisis, whether it is Haiti or any other place, it is amazing to me that within days emails are in my inbox, I receive phone calls and people stop me on the street, either through faith-based organizations, their communities or themselves as families, saying they want to help, they want to offer access and safe refuge to people who have gone through such trauma.

As elected members, it is very rewarding when we meet those Canadians who are willing to open up their homes and sacrifice financially to welcome people in from another place and offer them a bit of the life that we have here, something that some of us were born with.

I am the first-born of an immigrant family and some of the things that concern me about the immigration reform before me is that I have to cast through and wonder whether my family would have made it through the system. Would my family of Irish farmers been able to apply under the immigration standards that the government currently holds? My family is a proud family but they were not rich. They did not have access or influence. They would simply have applied on the basis of their hard work, integrity and merit and spent the last 40 years helping build this country, as so many immigrants before them have. That is a test that I hold and a test that I hope we all hold, which is thinking back through our own lineages, our own coming here if we were not born here as first nations and for many generations past. I hope we give this bill a--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Sorry but I must interrupt the member. The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley will have nine minutes remaining when the House returns to this matter.

The House resumed from April 27 consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Federal Courts Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

When the bill was last before the House the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley had the floor. There are eight minutes remaining in the time allotted for his remarks. I therefore call upon the hon. member for Skeena--Bulkley Valley.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, eight minutes of course will not be enough to deal with the issue of immigration reform in Canada, which is long overdue, but I will do my best. I thank you for another wise ruling from the chairs the previous night.

Bill C-11 speaks, very importantly, to the nature and essence of reform of the immigration and refugee laws in Canada, particularly around refugee claimants.

The New Democrats have a number of concerns with the fundamentals that have been placed before us. We sought to move the bill to the committee before it had received the recommendation of the House in principle so that we could more fundamentally get at some of those problems. We recognize where the House is at right now and we will be seeking to improve the bill once it gets to committee. I want to focus in on couple of items today that are most critical to the plight of refugees and the treatment they receive when they come to Canada.

When dealing with the issue of immigration or dealing with refugees, it brings out both the best and worst in a country and in the politics that exist, and the attempt by any government to weave politics into a refugee system is one that must be resisted and avoided at all times. The temptation is there because we have well established communities within Canada that have various views on immigration policy and they will attempt to push certain angles and representations of those views on to any sitting government of the day.

What must be resisted is that these reforms do not last just through the next election cycle or the one beyond that, but can last for many years. There has been an unfortunate series of events over the last 100 to 150 years in this country where immigration and refugee claimant rules have been used to, in a sense, abuse certain groups coming from certain regions of the world that we just did not like at the time for political reasons.

The list has been well enunciated. The government is well aware of past claims and misdeeds by previous governments. Apologies have been issued. A bill was passed in the House just last night dealing with the treatment of Italian Canadians during the second world war. We have seen the error of our ways in the past and we must not be doomed to repeat them again.

Of particular concern in the bill right now is the list of safe countries. For those following the bill, they will be aware that the government has proposed this idea that there will be an ongoing list of countries that will be deemed to have one status and another list of countries that will be deemed to be less favourable for whatever domestic issues are going on in those countries at the time.This is unfortunate in a way because it applies methodology that may, in some circumstances, not work because all countries within themselves do not have uniform circumstances. A refugee claimant coming from one part of the Sudan will have a very different claim than one coming from another region. Someone coming from one part of Chile at a certain time will look very different from someone coming from another part, and the list goes on.

The concern we have, in looking through Bill C-11, is that not only is the list not provided of what countries the government will sanction and those that it will punish, but we are still looking for the criteria that will be used by the government to establish those lists. This is fundamental. It is very difficult for any member in this place to vote on legislation that will designate countries one way or another if we do not have the criteria and the rules before us. This is more than unfortunate. This is a trust me attitude from the government that is not acceptable. We need to clarify this. We need to nail it down.

I had brief conversations with the minister about the number of refugee claimants that will be permitted. We are looking forward to understanding that Canada will remain and enhance its accessibility to refugee claimants who come from abroad. We have a story about ourselves in Canada, that we are an open and forgiving place that will allow folks to come from all sorts of different situations, some of them very difficult, such as when a country is in crisis or when a particular group of citizens in a country is being targeted. Whether for their political beliefs, their gender, their sexual orientation or whatnot, we believe ourselves to be a welcoming place, a place that does not pass such judgments as is seen in other countries, particularly when there is great political upheaval, which we are seeing on the evening news almost every night.

However, we need an understanding of how we will judge a country and whether we will have the ability to specify regions within a country in which particular political persecution is going on.

I worked in Africa for a time and we would see at the state level of a certain government that a governor of that state would pass some atrocious decree thereby subjecting a whole group of its citizens to unfair treatment, persecution and sometimes death. This, unfortunately, was too common. We do not know if Bill C-11, this refugee reform, will have the dexterity to deal with situations like that.

We have also seen just recently, through our neighbours to the south, draconian laws being passed in Arizona where it legislated racial profiling for people coming from Mexico or looking like they may have come from Mexico. It is politics at its worst when we see a state deciding to racially profile a whole group of people and subject them to laws that no one else in society is subjected to simply because of the colour of their skin. One would hope that we had moved or devolved beyond this in the western world, but politics being what it is at times, folks playing for a few more votes will introduce bills like this. Properly, however, the President of the United States has condemned what the government at that state level is doing.

I only raise that example, not to cast aspersions on the government here in Canada, but to say that on this issue, if not more than any other, the temptation to play into some momentary passing political interest that is appealing to one interest or another, be it pro-immigration or anti-immigration, we have seen for far too long. I am the son of an immigrant family and there was wave after wave of immigrants coming into this country. One would assume that the wave that had just preceded the new wave of immigrants would be more sympathetic to the ones just coming but, unfortunately, there is some element of human nature that does not lend itself always that way. My family coming from Ireland may have had better treatment than others but not necessarily. The racial stereotypes and the mistreatment, not just of folks who are coming but their descendants, is consistent. I grew up in a city that was a multicultural as any in the world and yet still had this underlying tone.

That is something that the government, while it cannot appease entirely, must work through bills, like Bill C-11, to alleviate to their maximum possibility. If we are to be a welcoming and generous country and a country that continues to have a history of being proud of our immigrant population and encourage more to come, we must make the best reforms possible for refugee and immigration claimants. We must remove the politics as much as possible and allow the country to be as free, open and accessible as possible.

We are for a faster immigration system but we will not sacrifice the fairness aspect. We will not simply say that folks have eight days, cannot seek legal representation and that is it, and they are back out again, because that makes them potentially victims of these so-called immigration consultants that seem to pop up.

I hope we can get this right because it is critical that we do.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley for his thoughtful and heartfelt remarks about the importance of openness to immigration, which is part of our Canadian story, and I share his sentiments. I celebrate the fact that in Canada there is a broad political consensus that is perhaps unique in the democratic world that is favourable toward both immigration and the protection of refugees. I believe that consensus is reflected in the bill.

The question the member has raised rhetorically, as well as his colleague, the member for Sault Ste. Marie, both of whom, like myself, are descendants of Irish immigrants to this country. Consequently, we are all very sensitive to these issues. He and the member for Sault Ste. Marie want to ensure that we do not close Canada to those in need of our protection.

In point of fact, the balanced refugee reforms that we are discussing include, as part of the overall reform package, a historic increase in the number of targeted refugees for resettlement to Canada. We propose in this package to increase from 11,500 to 14,000 the number of refugees living abroad, often in UN camps in deplorable circumstances, victims of conflict, of ethnic cleansing, of persecution, that we will welcome to Canada. We propose a 20% increase in the number of resettled refugees and, more than that, a 20% increase in the refugee assistance program to give them assistance in getting settled in Canada.

That is not an easy decision to make. All members get this ridiculous email that goes around saying that refugees get more financial support than pensioners. Frankly, it is counterintuitive, from a political point of view, for the government to increase by 20% the assistance we are giving refugees for their settlement, but that has been frozen for 10 years and we think it is the right thing to do.

I want to emphasize two points for the member. First, with respect to the asylum reforms, there is nothing that would actually reduce access to the asylum system for refugee claimants. It simply renders the system more efficient while maintaining and enhancing its fairness. We are actually increasing by 20% the targeted number of resettled refugees, such as the 12,000 refugees from Iraq who I have announced we will be welcoming over the course of three years.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I wondered why I liked the minister and now I know. We share some ancestry.

The minister raised a point about the numbers. Will there be more or will there be less? This was a concern for New Democrats because we did not want to see a tightening of them. The world is becoming a smaller place but, unfortunately, it has as much turmoil in it now as it has ever had and one cannot predict it getting any better. Therefore, Canada must remain open.

The question is not necessarily so much about the numbers at this point, although we will be watching that, but it is more about who will be included in those numbers. Which countries will be on this magical list? If a country is on the list, it will get to appeal but if it is not, it will not be able to.

I understand what the government has gone after in terms of refugee claimants coming from countries that most Canadians would say seem to be safe places and would ask why they are claiming refugee status. What we anecdotally know to be a refugee is somebody who is fleeing from some sort of persecution where his or her life or the lives of family members may be at risk or in such detriment that they cannot live there.

It is an incredibly important power that the government is giving the minister, not just the present minister but future ones. It is important for us to get this right. It is important for us to understand what criteria the government is seeking to use to designate a country on or off the list.

My point about within country status is critical. We know that within countries there are vastly different contexts under which people live. We must be sensitive to that. If that is going to be a part of this reform package then let us have it part of the debate.

We will seek to amend this legislation to make it better and clarify it for Canadians and for our partner countries. It is important that Canada sends a clear and concise message that we are a country that is open and we are a country that seeks to have a safe harbour for those who are persecuted abroad.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is clear that a number of stakeholders have expressed similar views about the definition of a country of safe origin.

In previous debate and discussion responses from the government, there appears to be some openness. I presume that the list of countries would be handled by regulation. The government also seems to have indicated that it would be prepared to refer the draft regulations to the committee prior to gazetting and promulgating any regulations. That would give the committee an opportunity to comment on them. There is precedent for this in the Reproductive Technologies Act where all regulations had to go before the health committee for comment prior to the government moving forward. I would think that would be something that the committee may want to suggest.

I wonder if the member would find that having committee input prior to the publication of a regulation would be an acceptable approach.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague has raised an interesting point. The government has suggested that the committee would see these regulations before they come into effect.

We are looking for criteria here. We want to know what filter the government plans to use when deciding which countries will fit themselves in to being a safe or unsafe country.

The concern is this. The ability of a country to have its citizens apply for refugee status or immigration into another country oftentimes becomes a political football when two countries are not getting along. This could be used as a carrot and stick approach to countries. We saw this with the special designation from China in terms of allowing its citizens easier access to come to Canada as tourists. The impact on Canada's economy would be significant. China knows this. It is part of most deliberations around trade and sanctions and what happens in other areas.

We want to know that Canada's ability to accept refugees is not based on any of these other conversations but simply based on the merits of those refugees coming into Canada and applying for safe harbour. That is what it should be based on.

The regulations need to be sound on this. They cannot be of a give and take nature. We know about the recent dispute with Mexico. Mexico seems to be having a dispute with a few countries now about where its citizens can or cannot go.

This crosses over into a government's larger agenda about trade, about international relations and about what happens at one international table versus another. The list of safe countries is an interesting idea but it could become problematic if not done properly. It would give so much latitude to the government.

If the government seeks to pass all these regulations through committee before they go out the door, New Democrats will clearly be looking at that. This needs to be absolutely watertight, otherwise we could face further problems down the road and probably get accused of using the refugee and immigration system for other political advantages, which is, frankly, inappropriate.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the things that my colleague is clearly looking for and that we are clearly looking for is equality and fairness. He has made that abundantly clear in his comments, and for that to happen, resources must be set aside for immigration.

As members know, since 2006, the backlog has continued to increase, mostly because many of the Liberal pals were fired or not rehired, and not replaced. So in essence, the government has actually created its own problem in terms of this backlog and now the urgency is there to make some changes.

I wonder if the member would like to comment about the resources that need to be put into the system.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, the problem with political appointments is that when the government switches, it tends not to want to reappoint those from its so-called enemies. In this case, when the Liberals were tossed from power, with the Gomery inquiry and all the rest that we all remember so fondly and that was brought up, surprisingly enough, by the government yesterday, the government that came in did not reappoint them, nor did it appoint its own cronies.

This is the problem with the government having a system, whereby it has an appointments process that is politically directed, where friends get to be put on boards, sometimes with great compensation for little work. There are hundreds of these and some of them actually matter, such as the IRB. So when the government did not replace these folks, the backlog came back again and now we have to have measures to deal with that.

Some have now since been replaced, but the fundamental thing is balancing the needs of speed, of getting folks through the system with some sense of fairness. Part of our concern is that with the speed, there are not the resources available, particularly with those who do not have a lot of money, such as a typical refugee, to be able to get though the process fairly and receive good treatment.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, history calls out to us across the years as parliamentarians to consider immigration and refugee policy with responsibility, fairness and compassion. We are a great nation which has much to be proud of, but our history in this area often fell short of our ideals and values as a people. That is why the bill before us today requires our close attention and responsible deliberation.

The bill we debate today, Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Federal Courts Act, is such a bill. The very name indicates that the changes proposed are significant, as they reach from the administrative process of reviewing refugee applications to the court system itself.

I believe fundamentally that the measure of a country can often be reflected in the manner in which it deals with those who seek refuge on its shores. As parliamentarians we are reminded that there were times in our history when our approach to those seeking refuge was misguided and wrong.

As the current chair of the inquiry panel on the Canadian Parliamentarian Coalition to Combat Antisemitism, I am fully aware of this reality. Despite the terrible events that were taking place in Europe in the 1930s, Canada, along with many other nations, repeatedly refused Jewish refugees seeking sanctuary here. The reality of what happened to the refugee ship, the SS St. Louis, is a concrete example of the sad effects of such a policy. In 1939, with 907 Jewish refugees aboard, this ship was denied landing in Cuba, the United States and Canada, leaving those aboard no option other than to return to their terrible fate in Nazi Germany.

Likewise, the Komagata Maru incident demonstrated discriminatory views once held against Asians. In 1914, 354 Indian passengers were denied entry to Canada, and the ship on which they sailed, the Komagata Maru, was forced to return to India, and upon arrival, a number of the passengers were killed in clashes with police.

We also note the difficulties experienced by Sikhs looking to come to Canada. Despite being recognized as loyal citizens of the then British Empire, in 1907, Canada actually banned Sikh immigration to this country.

Perhaps the most well-known policy of discrimination in Canada dealt with Chinese immigrants. Those building our national railway brought thousands of Chinese people to Canada to construct this project, simply to reduce their labour costs. When the railway was finished, the government of the day passed the Chinese Immigration Act of 1885, which imposed a $50 head tax on Chinese immigrants. Remarkably, this law was replaced in 1923 with an outright ban on Chinese immigration, known as the Chinese Immigration Act. This law remained in the books until 1947.

There are, of course, more examples of these kinds of policies in the history of immigration laws in Canada. The point in presenting these examples is to emphasize the need to always ensure that changes to our immigration laws are not only designed to protect Canada's best interests but that they are also fair, just and impartial.

The bill before the House poses to streamline the application process by reducing the timelines for processing to eight days for a first meeting, and 60 days for the first level decision being made by a public servant. With the current processing time extending up to 18 months, clearly there is a need for change. However, is eight days a reasonable proposal? Can potential refugees be dealt with fairly in the eight day window, and can a sound decision be made within the proposed 60 day timeframe? Do these deadlines allow refugee claimants adequate time to seek legal counsel and prepare for their meetings with immigration officials?

Many stakeholder groups have expressed concern that these proposed timeframes are simply too tight for fair adjudication of refugee claims. I believe it is essential that these concerns in regard to the timelines be fully considered and addressed at the forthcoming committee hearings.

In terms of decision-making itself, we have only to look at some of the serious concerns that have been raised in the United Kingdom, where the system is similar to what is being proposed here. This is especially relevant in terms of a decision-making process that will allow a public servant considerable power to make decisions with regard to a refugee application. It is essential that such individuals be well-trained and prepared to make such important decisions.

A prima facie review of the bill's appeal provisions seems to provide a more efficient process for denied refugee claimants to appeal. However, there are also serious concerns. The bill would not allow for an appeal under humanitarian and compassionate grounds or a pre-removal risk assessment for a full year after a denial. Many applicants would likely be gone from Canada before this one year deadline arrived.

Similarly, the use of a safe country list that prohibits appeals from those who are deemed to have come to Canada from safe countries is troublesome. Such a list would appear to violate article 3 of the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, which reads:

The Contracting States shall apply the provisions of this Convention to refugees without discrimination as to race, religion or country of origin.

Stakeholders have also expressed concerns about who would be responsible for the creation of a safe country list and also, of course, about possible political and diplomatic pressure that would be associated with such a list. By way of example, such a safe country list would clearly be problematic in relation to the issue of war resisters from the United States.

Most of us acknowledge the need for changes to our refugee determination process. The issue is not the need for change but the form this change will take. I am hopeful that the issues I have raised here today will be effectively addressed with further consideration of this bill.

Finally, we must remember that it is important to acknowledge that throughout our history refugees are among those who have contributed the most to our country's vitality and prosperity. This alone is a profound reason to ensure that the changes being considered are fair and just. In this context, I borrow from the words of former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan, when he stated:

I urge you to celebrate the extraordinary courage and contributions of refugees past and present.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Before we move on to questions and comments, I must tell the House that speeches are now to be 10 minutes long and there will be five minutes for questions and comments.

I would therefore ask members to both limit and shorten their questions and comments.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Madam Speaker, the member for Davenport suggests that the proposal not to give access to the refugee appeal division for claimants coming from designated safe countries would violate our obligations under the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. I would respectfully ask him to research that issue more closely.

In point of fact, virtually all of the western European asylum systems include a suspended appeal or an accelerated process for citizens who are coming from designated safe countries. Antonio Guterres, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, has said:

There are indeed safe countries of origin. There are indeed countries in which there is a presumption that refugee claims will probably be not as strong as in other countries.

The issue, and I will close with this, is that it would be a violation of the convention to deny access to the asylum system for people coming from particular countries. We do not propose to do that. We propose to not only conform to but exceed the obligation for access to the asylum system that we have under the charter of rights and the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.

We simply propose to accelerate the system for the small number of claimants from countries that are democratic, safe, provide protection to vulnerable people, and which are the principal source of massively unfounded claims. I believe that this entirely conforms with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and most of the western European asylum systems.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a side note, let me tell the House how envious we all were yesterday, especially all of us who love soccer, to see the minister next to the FIFA cup. Of course, all of us are going to be quite joyous watching the games, which begin on my birthday on June 11. I am looking forward to watching the games. All of the celebrations will be taking place in my riding of Davenport, so I invite all members to come to my riding during the summer months to watch the games.

We are talking about a very serious issue. I understand that the minister has raised some interesting issues and points. These are the things that we need to look at very seriously at committee. I think that fast is not necessarily synonymous with being fair. That is one issue. The issue of humanitarian and compassionate grounds is another issue that I think I raised.

Of course, the third issue I raised was addressed by the minister, which was the issue of safe countries of origin. In my opinion, there is a legal debate here. This is a serious issue. We could be in contravention of our obligations regarding international law. I think there is a serious issue to be looked at. I think that printing the list would also be quite problematic from a diplomatic perspective.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to follow up on the issue of safe countries of origin.

I note that Australia has recently adopted a similar program and has just designated Afghanistan and Sri Lanka to be safe countries.

I know that the minister has spoken repeatedly about Hungary and its designating the Roma as not necessarily being victims of oppression. However, we all know that the Roma, during World War II, were specifically rounded up and gassed by the Nazi regime, along with Jews and communists, and they face systematic discrimination in Hungary, if not oppression.

I wonder if the hon. colleague would care to comment on whether those countries would be considered safe, in his view.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think the member raises a very valid question. With regard to the issue of safe country, I think in many ways we have to be very careful. The legislation says very clearly that it must be regardless of the country of the origin. I wonder if we are contravening that particular statement.

The member is absolutely right. There has been a series of decisions by the European Court of Human Rights against Hungary and against Czechoslovakia in dealing with the Roma populations there.

That is a very serious issue that needs to be looked. I think we need to go case by case. That is the way it has been done traditionally, and I agree with that system. The list of safe countries is very problematic and could be legally challenged.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, it was in March that the federal government introduced the bill we are discussing today, Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Federal Courts Act and called it part of its balanced refugee reform. The minister said that its objective is to preserve the system's integrity by reducing wait times for refugee claims to be processed and, he said, to give people the protection they need more quickly. The bill proposes spending an additional $540.7 million over five years.

The Bloc Québécois will support this bill so that it is referred to committee and an in-depth study can be undertaken of the refugee system, its flaws and the proposed amendments. The Bloc Québécois will work hard to see that all the necessary amendments are passed so that this reform is effective and so that claims are processed quickly and processed fairly, in the case of refugees. Many of the measures in this bill are interesting. And even though they are being proposed as part of the reform of Canada's asylum system, we believe that they are hiding other, more worrying proposals. In our opinion, the bill we are discussing today, Bill C-11, contains fundamental flaws.

What we noticed as we were going through this bill initially was the typically Conservative ideology that seeks to differentiate between genuine and false claimants. We are concerned about that because we believe that reforms based on that kind of discriminatory principle could be deeply prejudicial toward refugees. The bill also gives the minister significant latitude in designing the asylum-granting system. We also noticed that several of the measures announced as part of this reform do not appear in the bill. For example, the minister can designate countries of origin according to criteria set out in regulations published in the Canada Gazette, but the criteria used in creating the list of safe countries cannot be debated in the House. We believe that lacks transparency. The minister is really giving himself a lot of powers.

Several other measures also make us worry about the politicization of the system. First, the minister may designate, by order, a country whose classes of nationals, in the Minister’s opinion, meet the criteria established by the regulations. Second, the minister can designate countries whose nationals are precluded from appealing decisions to the refugee appeal division. Third, the minister can prohibit nationals of certain countries from applying for protection. Fourth, the minister can grant an exemption from any obligations of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act on humanitarian and compassionate grounds or on public policy grounds.

Once again, the minister really would be assuming a lot of powers.

The Bloc Québécois believes that an appeal process for refugee claimants should have been instituted when the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act came into force in June 2002. In fact, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration unanimously passed a Bloc Québécois motion requiring the federal government to set up a refugee appeal division immediately.

We also introduced Bill C-280 in 2006, which became BIll C-291 in 2009, with the aim of establishing a real refugee appeal division. Unfortunately, the House's two official parties, the Conservatives and the Liberals, joined forces to defeat that bill. Members on both sides either abstained or were absent.

Some members hid behind the curtains, so they would not have to vote.

The Bloc Québécois is delighted that the bill before us could finally establish a refugee appeal division and allow new measures to be added to the system, even though the refugee appeal division will not be up and running until two years after the new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act comes into force.

Also, unsuccessful claimants from countries that are deemed safe will have no right to appeal the initial decision rendered by public servants. We believe this measure is far too strict. It is unfair that claimants from a safe country whose first application is denied cannot appeal their cases before the refugee appeal division, and instead must take their cases to Federal Court.

Earlier I spoke about designated countries of origin. I spoke about designated countries and other countries. The United Kingdom uses a fast tracking process to examine refugee claims from designated countries. Canada, on the other hand, would assess all claims from all countries the same way. The only reason the process would be any faster is that unsuccessful claimants from countries that are deemed safe will have no right to appeal their case before the new refugee appeal division. We think this measure is discriminatory.

The principle of safe countries raises a number of other concerns. First, the fact that a refugee can be classified as a false claimant even before his or her case is analyzed can be extremely prejudicial. Even though the government assures us that all claims will be analyzed on their own merits, it cannot guarantee that no mistakes will be made in first-level decisions. For this reason in particular, the committee must look at this issue and consider how such a designation by the minister could affect refugee claimants.

The Bloc Québécois had made it known that it wanted all failed refugee claimants to have access to the refugee appeal division, regardless of their country of origin. Our critic on the committee is willing to look at any measures that would correct this flaw, such as including criteria for designating safe countries in the bill. As things now stand, these criteria would be established by regulation.

Canada's asylum system has always been based on reliable, solid resources that make for sound decisions. The proposal to submit all the necessary documents within eight days and hold hearings within 60 days after the claim is made could mean a change in this procedure and could have serious consequences for refugees. With such short deadlines, decision-makers could make decisions too quickly, and the quality of the decisions would suffer as a result.

Refugees have the right to find a lawyer and assemble all the documents they need for their testimony. This is a fundamental rule of justice.

I want to make one last point. The fact that IRB officials make the first-level decisions is problematic. These officials are probably long-standing employees, but it is essential that they demonstrate a certain level of independence.

Lastly, Bill C-11 must be studied in committee, because it has major flaws. That is why it will be sent to committee. I am sure that our critic on the committee will clearly state the Bloc's position.

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

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member's speech entirely.

We are optimistic that the minister actually has the political smarts to make this bill a success, just from the attitude he has expressed, unlike some of the other ministers in this House.

Fundamentally, though, we do have a serious problem with this safe countries list. The problem is that Bill C-11 creates a refugee claims process that is fast but not necessarily fair. The introduction of the safe countries of origin means the minister has the power to create two classes of refugees, those with the right of appeal and those without the right of appeal.

The other day the minister offered to let us see the regulations before the bill passes. I think it is a positive sign. However, we could see those regulations but a future minister could then change those regulations and we could be back to where we started.

Does the member think that the minister's offer of showing the committee the regulations before the bill is passed is actually an open and progressive way of dealing with this particular issue?

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very insightful question. I have been listening to the speeches on this bill for some time now. I believe that everyone has good intentions. The opposition members all seem to be saying that they want to examine this bill as fairly as possible.

The minister also seems to have good intentions. Yesterday and earlier this week he was saying that he thought certain aspects could be improved. He has questions. He wants to know what the opposition thinks of all this. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Nonetheless, Conservative ideology frightens me.

Will he be able to rise above his government's mindset on safe countries and not so safe countries? I certainly hope so. The minister seems to be open and to have a sense of justice.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her words. I would like to point out that the idea behind designating safe countries of origin is not to prevent asylum seekers from getting a hearing at the IRB, but is simply a way of fast-tracking claims for people from countries that are the main source of false claims and unsuccessful claims at the IRB. Safe countries are countries that respect human rights and provide protection to people. The same thing exists in France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Ireland and most western European countries.

What I am proposing is really nothing new and it is not radical. It is the same approach used by western European countries. I am open to changes in committee and I look forward to working with Bloc Québécois members on this.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The member for Terrebonne—Blainville has just one minute to answer the question.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I greatly appreciate the minister's comments. The issue with this bill is the following: will all the parties in the House be able to work together in order to ensure that asylum seekers are treated with the utmost fairness and honesty?

I believe both sides have work to do. In fact, with this bill, the minister is appropriating a great deal of power. Would he be prepared to exchange some of these powers for other elements that would make the process more transparent? In that way, even members of the House who are not on the committee could work with Citizenship and Immigration in order to explain in full the measures. In addition, it would also allow them to properly counsel new arrivals in their riding who ask them for help in obtaining refugee status.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to stand and speak about Bill C-11, which if approved, would make important changes to Canada's refugee determination system.

I think everybody agrees that there are problems with the current system and that the goal we all share is to have a system that, both fairly and quickly, determines who needs refugee protection. I also want to say that I do appreciate the minister's hard work and willingness to listen to all sides of this debate, and I want to commend him on that. It typifies his usual approach to making legislation in this country.

Having said that, I do think Bill C-11 has serious flaws that would put refugees, particularly the most vulnerable, at risk of being deported and subject to persecution. I want to highlight some of the key concerns I have with this bill.

The first is the designated countries of origin. This bill would empower the minister to designate countries whose nationals would not have access to a refugee appeal. Although the minister refers publicly to "safe countries of origin", neither the word “safe” nor any criteria are included in Bill C-11. I believe this is unfair and structurally unsound. It would treat claimants differently based on the country of origin, and that is discriminatory.

Refugee determination requires individual assessment of each case, not group judgments. Claimants who would be particularly hurt, for example, include women making gender-based claims and persons claiming on the basis of sexual orientation. In many countries that otherwise may seem peaceful and “safe”, there could be serious problems of persecution on these grounds.

Claimants from designated countries would face a bias against them even at the first level under such a scheme, since decision-makers would be aware of the government's judgment on the country at first instance. Moreover, claims from countries that generally seem not to be refugee-producing are among those that often most need appeal, due to difficult issues of fact and law, such as the availability of state protection.

Finally, denial of fair process to these claimants might lead to their forced return to persecution, once again in violation of human rights law and international covenants of which Canada is a signatory.

Other concerns about this designated country of origin concept is that having a list of safe countries of origin would politicize the refugee system. There is just no doubt about it. If any minister of the crown can make a list of countries that he or she feels are safe, that cannot help but interject a degree of politicization into a judicial process that cannot help but be flawed, unfair and wrong. In addition, there might be new diplomatic pressures from countries that might be unhappy about not being considered safe, and there could be ramifications internationally for Canada's reputation abroad as well.

As currently drafted, this amendment would give the minister a blank cheque to designate any country, part of country or group within a country without reference to the principles of refugee protection. Let me give just a couple of illustrations about this.

I mentioned earlier that Australia has adopted a system similar to this, and just recently it has listed Afghanistan and Sri Lanka as countries it claims are safe, which would bar certain privileges to refugees from those countries making claims.

We have also heard the minister, on repeated occasions, talk about the Roma in Hungary as not having legitimate claims because, in his opinion, Hungary is a safe country. We all know that gypsies and Roma were rounded up along with Jews and communists during World War II and sent to the gas chamber for one reason only, that they were Roma. Historic discrimination persists in central European countries against Roma to this day. Whether or not that amounts of oppression, there is no question about the fact that they experience systematic discrimination. My grandparents were born in Hungary, and I have a fair bit of knowledge about the Hungarian culture and the situation of Roma in that country.

We can tell in advance of this test even being adopted that there would be serious disagreements about what is or is not a safe country.

The eight-day interview and hearing after sixty days is problematic. The government proposes that claimants be interviewed by the Immigration and Refugee Board after eight days and that the hearing take place sixty days later.

This presents procedural and substantive unfairness. Eight days after arrival is often too soon for a formal interview. If the interview were used to take claimants' detailed statements about their claims, it might be unfair to the most vulnerable claimants, such as those traumatized by experiences of torture or women unaccustomed to speaking to authority figures.

I will give a real example. A woman came to Canada with little formal education, unable to speak English or French. At her refugee hearing she was confused by the questions and gave unsatisfactory answers, in the official's opinion. She was found not credible and her claim was denied.

After the hearing, the full story came out. This woman had been gang-raped for three days in police detention in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The experience left her quite understandably traumatized and terrified of people in authority. Her feelings of shame made her reluctant to discuss her experience of sexual violence.

She was able to talk freely about this experience only much later, after her lawyer spent many hours gaining her trust. She had also by then obtained some counselling and had the support of her community. She has now applied for humanitarian and compassionate consideration and is waiting for a decision. This is the kind of situation that can occur when we rush to judgment.

Some claimants are ready for a hearing after 60 days, of course, but others are not, including refugees who need to build that kind of trust and gather the evidence they require. Many refugees need more than 60 days to gather relevant documentation to support their claims, particularly when many are fleeing a newly-emerging pattern of persecution or have come from detention. It is also an inefficient method, because holding a hearing before a claimant is ready, on an arbitrary timeline, could lead to inaccurate and incomplete decisions and the consideration of cases that are not based on the full facts.

Another flawed part of this bill concerns the decision makers. First-instance decision makers under this proposed bill would be civil servants rather than cabinet appointees. Members of the refugee appeal division under this bill would be appointed by cabinet.

There is something positive to this. In the first instance, the proposal would avoid the current problematic political appointments, which are frequently tainted by partisan and political considerations and not made in a timely way. To that extent I think it is a positive.

Why this is wrong and unfair is that assigning refugee determination to civil servants is fundamentally problematic because they lack the necessary independence. Any kind of quasi-judicial process must, as a fundamental question of natural law, include decision makers who are untainted by any political considerations and are truly independent.

Limiting appointments to civil servants would also exclude some of the most highly qualified potential decision makers from a diverse range of backgrounds, such as academia, human rights and social services. This would affect the quality of decision making.

The question of appointments to the RAD remains unresolved. Under this bill, they still would be political appointees, and the problems with that are self-evident.

I want to chat about the appeal and pre-removal risk assessment as well. The refugee appeal division would finally be implemented, and I want to congratulate the minister for that. That is a positive step. Thanks to his persistent work on this, that would help our system. There are some positives because an appeal on the merits is necessary to correct the inevitable errors at the first instance.

The PRRA is inefficient and ineffective at the moment. It makes better sense to look at new evidence at the RAD. In some sense it is inefficient also because the bill leaves in place the highly inefficient PRRA process, which routinely takes months or years for a decision, the average in 2006 being 202 days.

What we all need to do in the House is focus on the essence of refugees and a proper system. Wherever they are in the world, refugees have the same needs. They need protection and a durable solution. Canada has specific legal obligations toward refugees who are in Canada, so it is wrong to suggest that trading off refugees here in favour of refugees abroad is any kind of real answer.

We have a moral responsibility toward refugees elsewhere in the world and here in Canada. We could and should do more to resettle refugees, including addressing the huge delays and low quality of decision making at some visa offices.

I look forward to considering the bill at committee. The minister has expressed that he is open to amendments. I think we can improve the bill and make the kind of refugee system which will serve Canada and refugees from around the world well.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Madam Speaker, the member for Vancouver Kingsway works very hard on behalf of his constituents, most of whom are immigrants to Canada and some of whom are refugees.

I have a couple of points. First, I need to give the member a statistical basis for his comments on refugee claimants from Hungary. It has become our number one source country for asylum claims. Ninety-seven per cent, that is nearly 100%, of the refugee claimants from Hungary completely of their own volition go on to abandon or withdraw their claims after they are filed saying by their own admission that they actually do not need Canada's protection.

There is an ongoing criminal investigation in the Hamilton area into allegations of human trafficking. The allegations are that many of these people were coached to come to Canada, make a false asylum claim and then register for provincial welfare benefits which subsequently flowed to a criminal organization. The asylum system was being abused as a tool to access welfare. That is not my view. That is the view of the police who have laid charges in a serious criminal investigation.

Of the 3% of claims that went on to adjudication at the IRB, three, not 3%, but three of the 2,500 asylum claims from Hungary were accepted as being in need of protection. That is an acceptance rate of nearly 0%.

To say that those people would still have access to the asylum system but at a slightly accelerated process I think is entirely reasonable.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for that point of view.

I am going to put on the record what the Canadian Council for Refugees said. It said that the minister has repeatedly referred to 97% of Hungarian claims being withdrawn or abandoned in 2009, but it said that figure is misleading as most Hungarian claimants were still waiting for a hearing at the end of 2009, 2,422 compared to only 259 who withdrew or abandoned their claim. The council also pointed out that nothing would change for these claimants under refugee reform, nothing.

The council says that currently most claimants who withdraw leave soon after. If they do not, they wait to be called for a PRRA and then wait perhaps six months or more for a decision. The same would happen under Bill C-11.

Much more sensible in the council's view would be to provide an opportunity for reopening at the IRB and if the claimant shows there are good reasons for reinstating the claim, let it go forward before the IRB. If not, the claimant is ready for removal.

This highlights the main problem. The government repeatedly wants to make policy based on extreme examples. It does that all the time. If one pardon comes out for one person, the government changes the pardon system. In the refugee system if there are some bogus claims or false claims from one country, the government will designate that the claims of everybody from that country are suspect at least in terms of the refugee appeal division.

That is not sound policy.

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

Madam Speaker, the member knows that the NDP position on this issue is to assess each case on individual merit and invest in high quality initial decisions to get it right the first time, keep it non-political, have an independent body make all the decisions, keep things simple, avoid unnecessary rules and put the necessary resources in place to avoid backlogs.

One of the issues we are certainly concerned about is unscrupulous immigration consultants. We have seen this problem for many years. Even the minister agrees. We also agree that the appointments to the board should be independent appointments.

Would the member like to comment on that whole concept of some of the concerns that we have with the bill?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I agree that we must assess each case on its individual merits. We have to invest in high quality initial decisions to get it right the first time. We must have a refugee process that is non-political, where we have an independent body that makes the decisions. We have to keep things simple and avoid unnecessary rules. We must put the necessary resources in place to avoid backlogs.

We have to remember that human lives are at stake. We must adhere to human rights standards. Part of that is to crack down on unscrupulous immigration consultants. We should ban them from the Immigration and Refugee Board hearing room and make sure that all refugee claimants are provided with legal aid or access to proper representation before any tribunal that they face.

Those are the core foundations of a good refugee system.

[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.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his comments. First, I would like to make it clear that we are proposing the same approach used in western Europe for the designation of safe countries.

Is the member suggesting that France, Finland, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom have an unfair, inequitable system?

That is ridiculous. We are simply proposing a tool to respond to the waves of unsuccessful claims from democratic countries that offer protection to vulnerable people.

He brought up the case of Chile. Obviously, under Pinochet, Chile would never have been on such a list because it did not meet the criteria at the time. In 2000, there was a wave of unsuccessful refugee claims from Chile, when the country was run by a social democratic government considered to be the most stable and democratic in South America. Nearly 100% of these claims were rejected. What did Canada do in response to this? It imposed visa requirements.

The current problem is that we only have one tool, which is to require visas. We need another tool to fast-track files from some countries where large numbers of these unfounded claims originate.

In conclusion, additional resources of about $240 million will help the Canada Border Services Agency do its job at the border with the United States, among other things.

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

Madam Speaker, I agree with the minister that visas are not a solution. It is true that the same law exists in Europe, but we do not enforce it in the same way. This is a fundamental difference.

Canada's parliamentary system is British. The minister, who is elected—we do not know for how long—makes the laws and instructs civil servants to enforce them.

However, in Europe, and particularly in France, the deputy minister remains, providing continuity, and he is the one who creates the regulations. Governments change, but the deputy ministers stay the same. That is a common saying in France. Regulations are not changed based on a minister's ideology.

It is fundamentally different. Even though the law seems to be identical, it is enforced is a completely different manner.

[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, my colleague is asking a question pertaining to a subject that I know very little about, that is, consultants on the periphery of government. I will therefore not respond, but I would like the committee to hear his question because I believe that it needs to be answered.

[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.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Madam Speaker, I would like to reiterate my intention that the government will work constructively at committee with opposition parties to accept reasonable amendments, among which would be a delineation of the criteria for the process of designating countries of origin. The intention is not to give power to the minister.

There is always this problem. I know that when I was in opposition, I always complained about any kind of regulatory power going to a minister in a bill. Ultimately, in our system of parliamentary accountability, the minister technically has to have the authority to be accountable to Parliament. It is not the kind of thing we could give to public servants.

Having said that, our intention is to have a panel of senior public servants consulting with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees as well as consulting with reports from credible NGOs on the human rights situation in various countries. Most importantly, we would look at the empirical data coming from the IRB on the acceptance rate of claims. The intention is to ensure that this complies with the spirit and letter of the charter of rights and our international legal obligations.

On the question of sexual orientation claims, I share the member's concern. Let me be clear. There is nothing in this bill that would constrict or reduce access to our asylum system for claims made on the grounds of persecution for reasons of sexual orientation. To the contrary, this actually adds procedural protection for the vast majority of claimants who will now have access to a refugee appeal division.

I have raised the issue of sexual orientation claims with the IRB and—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order. The hon. member for Vancouver East.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am certainly pleased to hear the minister's comments. I think we must look at the legislation. That is why we go clause by clause. Sometimes we must ensure that the intention is absolutely reflected in the legislation in a very precise way. Sometimes, as they say, the devil is in the details.

The minister has stated his intention. What is most important is that we approach this bill with a sense of good faith, that we are trying to improve the system for refugee claimants. Obviously, we must ensure that abuses are minimized, but I always find that there is so much attention paid to the abuses that we do not actually create a system that is focused on the vast majority of legitimate claimants and helping those people.

I take the minister at his word. We will obviously go through that legislation very carefully. We want to arrive at an excellent bill. This is so long overdue, so we need to arrive at a bill that is really protecting people, and one that is fair, fast and can restore Canada's reputation as a place that is welcoming to refugees.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to talk further about this whole issue of immigration consultants. I have not heard much about the government plans to do about them.

I think there is a registration system in place in Manitoba for immigration consultants. In some cases, we have people who are operating out of travel agencies. They make money on the airfare and then they charge a person $5,000 to fill out paperwork. The minister has heard stories like this. It is paperwork that could be filled out by anybody for free and, in fact, should be.

One of the ideas mentioned by our critic was that immigration consultants should perhaps be banned from the Immigration and Refugee Board's hearing room. That is one example of something that could be done. I am curious as to what the government's plan is to deal with this whole area.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was at a travelling constituency office of mine just last Saturday and was horrified by some of the cases I heard where people had spent thousands and thousands of dollars on these so-called consultants and really got completely misrepresented. They did not receive the help they needed. They ended up at our office. I always say, “Go to your MP. Get your MP to get involved and intervene”.

I do think it is a very serious question and something that our member for Trinity—Spadina, the critic for the bill, has identified. We will definitely be pursuing this because we want to ensure that people are not exploited.

[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.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the member on her fine speech and ask her to focus on the humanitarian and compassionate considerations raised by this bill.

This bill, as I understand it, would bar refugee claimants from applying for humanitarian and compassionate grounds while their claim is in process and for 12 months afterwards. Applicants claiming humanitarian and compassionate grounds would also be barred from raising factors related to risks feared in the country of origin. Some people view this as unfair because the agency application is necessary as a recourse to consider human rights issues, including the best interests of a child, and potential risk to a person.

Closing off this recourse would provide a bar on raising risk factors that will be difficult to apply and, of course, prohibiting consideration of risk factors will force some agency applicants to make a refugee claim, thereby clogging the system unnecessarily.

I wonder if my hon. colleague would care to comment on the humanitarian and compassionate considerations raised by this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I understand what my colleague is saying.

Both the current procedures for considering humanitarian grounds and the pre-removal risk assessment are very inadequate mechanisms. It takes nearly 200 days for this type of decision to be made, and only approximately 2% of cases are accepted. The system puts the emphasis on refusal and excludes many motives that the general public, were we to ask them, would consider valid.

That is my point. Work needs to be done so that decisions can be made as quickly as possible and so that we can avoid going down that path.

It is my understanding that the minister is open to amendments. I hope that this type of amendment will be proposed so that we can make this bill an excellent one.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, factors that we would like to see in a good refugee-based system include accepting the premise that refugee determination is difficult. As it is rarely obvious who is a refugee, it is important to assess each case on its individual merits, invest in high quality initial decisions, keep it non-political, have independent bodies involved in the process, put the necessary resources in place to avoid backlogs, and always, above all, remember that human lives are at stake and that Canada's international reputation and obligation to the world community are engaged as well.

I would like to know my hon. colleague's opinion of how well this bill meets those tests and whether or not she thinks that this bill can be improved and put in a form that would meet all of those different factors.

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

Madam Speaker, I think that the current bill could—if parliamentarians so desire—include worthwhile amendments that would address its shortcomings.

Again, I want to emphasize the initial decisions. If we ensure that the board members are adequately trained, have access to accurate information and have the right skills for the job, we will improve the quality of the decisions.

However, there is an element in this bill that still bothers me, and that is using civil servants to accomplish certain tasks. Not that I feel they are incompetent, but in parliaments such as England and elsewhere, statistics have proven that this type of amendment is ineffective.

I think that we need to study the system thoroughly and trust our partners, the people who work in this field, to propose the most effective and desirable reform.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it may be surprising for a finance critic to take an interest in this kind of issue. My interest is very personal, and I have real-life experience. It is not at all because Elizabeth Thompson published a list this morning in the Toronto Sun of the 20 parliamentarians who spoke the most since the first session and to my great astonishment I am on the list. It is in fact because this reform calls for careful thought. We can talk about details, procedures, very technical bills, tax policy, taxes, and so on, but we can also discuss this kind of issue, which has an impact on people’s lives and on how a nation and a people are built.

When someone leaves their country to seek refugee protection in another country, it is because things have been bad for several years or it is difficult for them to leave their country. Leaving your country of birth, your neighbours, your friends and your family and going out by the back door is obviously enormously stressful. You do not bring three steamer trunks with you, with all your documents. Some people make it out with just their skin, and barely that.

So you arrive in a new country where you again experience stress. You are facing two fairly bizarre situations. Waiting for papers takes a lot of time, and so does the decision-making process of the Canadian authorities. The bureaucratic process is too slow and too complex. I could tell you how I experienced it personally.

Refugees are in a state of shock when they arrive in Canada. They have no papers and they do not know the person they are dealing with. And we should not take advantage of this situation. We tell them they have to find a lawyer for their appearance, which will take place in eight days. And to them, eight days is like tomorrow morning.

The bill contains a kind of contradiction. On the one hand, we can see some openness in it. Let us tell the minister, since he is doing us the honour of being with us. That is very brave of him. As a parliamentarian, I think it is quite remarkable for the minister responsible to be present when a bill is being debated in the morning.

So I was saying that this bill expresses the intention of going faster and finally bringing the Refugee Appeal Division on line. But on the other hand, we seem to be rushing things.

I have had the opportunity to work in policy, both as a public servant and in the private sector. You say that, from now on, it will happen in eight days. As my colleague was saying, the preliminary inquiry, if we can call it that, will last four hours. Then, 60 days later, there will be another appearance. That puts enormous pressure on the public service, and that is unfortunate. I have been a minister elsewhere, and I can say that we dream of a public service that follows us. But the minister knows very well that a department’s most temporary employee is its minister. Sometimes, the public service will wait for someone else to take the minister’s place and will hope they will be less demanding when it comes to deadlines.

That will happen to my colleague one day, I am sure of it. Sometimes, you leave one department and go to another according to the wishes of the Prime Minister.

We need to pay attention to this dichotomy: yes, we want to speed things up, but it has to be done right. Sometimes refugees wait too long in a receiving country for their status to be determined. It can take two, three or even more years before they are told by public servants that, upon review of their cases, it has been decided they do not qualify as refugees. These people would rather have known much earlier because they have established friendships and relations in their new country. They may have jobs, possibly short-term ones. In any case, these waiting periods are very long.

As I said, the principle behind this is good. That is why we would have liked to amend the bill in committee between first and second readings. That was refused, but we will do it after second reading. To this extent, the government has the Bloc’s support.

In regard to the delays, I would like to share an experience of my own. Nearly 30 years ago, I had to go to South America—it was not at all to a refugee-producing country, the system was entirely different then—to pick up a child who was six months old at the time. I went simply to get my son and take him out of the country.

I have no idea how this country would be classified on the current minister’s list. In the early 1980s, Peru had just emerged from a very tough military regime and was in a democratic period. Things have changed a little since those days. There was a threat called the Shining Path. How would this country have been classified on the minister’s list? Sometimes things change.

At the time, I was not interested in all that. I was interested in adopting a child. I arrived with the child at the airport in Toronto. We were in a time of peace and the international adoption had been duly authorized by the authorities in Quebec and Peru. I had the documents. My son had his Peruvian passport because he was, and still is, a Peruvian national, but his visa was winding its way between Ottawa and Santiago in Chile, which was the transportation hub for South America. When I left the airport in Lima to return to Canada, I did so illegally. We had been waiting for six weeks and had finally been told we could leave. I had my passport, and when I arrived at the airport in Toronto, the customs officer said I could enter but my son could not because I did not have his visa, which was on another plane that arrived in Toronto two days later. I took the baby, laid him on the officer’s table, and said he could take care of the baby and should be sure to remember to change his diaper. I obviously got the child in the end, but it took three years. Three years of procedures were needed for a Canadian to arrange with his government to normalize his own son’s status.

This goes to show how sluggish the administration of these things can be. Yes, the bill is supposed to grease the wheels of the public service. Yes, it improves the way things are done, especially appeals. But six days, eight days or 60 days are all the same if documents are lacking. In my case, I had all the documents needed, in Spanish, French and English.

In conclusion, I would like to ask the government to reconsider this bill and take advantage of our open-mindedness in order to improve it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his comments that so vividly illustrate the reality for refugees coming to Canada. In my speech I focused on the issue of vulnerability and I think my colleague understood what I was saying and illustrated my point very well. He also illustrated the burden of red tape. Things can be done at the departmental level right away to simplify matters.

Can my colleague tell me whether, in his role as an MP, he has ever dealt with refugee claims? He is from an urban centre and I believe that he has witnessed some of the problems that exist with the current system. Does he have any reservations about the way the cases he has seen in his office have been handled?

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, significant change occurs in a riding like mine, which is in the middle of downtown. There has been a significant change in the population that lives there. At one time, 100% of the people in the riding of Hochelaga were francophones and practising Catholics, but there have been many changes and now a certain number of new Canadians, new arrivals, live there.

Downtown Montreal is an attractive location and as a result we receive a certain number of cases. People who come to see an MP are sometimes a bit shy in doing so. In some cases, meeting an elected member is new to them. They wonder whether it is the same as in their country of origin or whether it is like a true democracy.

In fact, I believe it is an MP's duty to help people. I concur with the hon. member who spoke before my colleague. He talked about people who take advantage of the fact that these new arrivals are ignorant of our laws and customs and who charge these very vulnerable people inordinate amounts of money. I hope we can put a stop to this.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with that last point. That is why, later this spring, we will be presenting a bill and several reforms to address the problems with the citizenship and immigration system caused by unscrupulous consultants who exploit immigrants to Canada, especially asylum seekers.

The member can rest assured that we will be taking serious action on this issue, and soon, I hope.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this comment goes back to what the minister said earlier: he said that when he was in opposition, he opposed the minister on principle.

Regulations are unwieldy, and bills can sometimes be unwieldy too. Furthermore, when applied, regulations can give a bill an interpretation we may not necessarily intend.

I urge him to present all of the regulations as quickly as possible. My colleague from Jeanne-Le Ber spoke about the case of twin brothers who had been through the same things, but had unfortunately received two different decisions. Without the appeal, one would have been granted refugee status and the other would have been denied.

Incidentally, I urge my colleagues to listen to an excellent song called Maria by Jean Ferrat, who passed away not long ago. The song tells the story of two brothers, one on the red side and one on the white.

[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.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, there were a number of errors in the member's speech.

First, she suggested that the government intends to use rejection of applications for asylum to reduce the backlog. That is ridiculous. The government has no authority to reject applications. It is the independent quasi-judicial IRB that assesses each case on its merits, both under the current system and the proposed reformed one.

The 9,000 figure to which she refers is very simply a projection of how many positive decisions there will be based on the current acceptance rate, which is that 42% of claims are deemed to be in need of Canada's protection. The IRB is funded and staffed to finalize 25,000 cases a year, so we project about 9,000 positive decisions leading to permanent residency landings. It is a question just based on the actual current statistics. There is no government quota for positive protection decisions, and to suggest otherwise reflects a misunderstanding of the system.

Second, the member is mistaken when she suggests that the designation of safe countries would not take into account the issue of whether or not state protection is extended to vulnerable individuals, including people on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender. In fact, we propose that the absence of state protection would be one of the criteria for consideration in the designation process for designated safe countries.

Third, she said that decision makers would not be independent. That is not true. They would be situated at the independent quasi-judicial IRB. The minister would not be hiring them and would not be renewing their terms. They would be hired by the Public Service Commission within the independent IRB, which is precisely the case at the immigration division of the IRB, so it maintains the same degree of total independence.

The member is now proposing that we withdraw the moratorium on pre-removal risk assessment. I believe her critic and everyone agrees, there is almost unanimity on this point, that the PRRA should be replaced by the refugee appeal division. Finally, the bill does include a three-year review, which is what she is calling for.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for clarifying the position on some of what I said.

The minister talked about people being treated differently depending on the country of origin. There is a question of whether it passes the smell test. Some countries are deemed okay and other countries are not. We have to wonder if any nuance will be available for claimants. We have to wonder if any special circumstances are available for consideration.

Refugee determination requires an assessment of each case, not group judgments. I see the minister nodding. If that is the case in this bill, then we welcome that kind of situation, but the way we are reading this, it certainly is not clear.

I thank the minister for his clarification of the numbers, that it is not a quota but a prediction, and I accept that. However, we come back to the 25,000 who were accepted last year and the prediction is only 9,000 for next. We are left wondering what is going on and how this is happening.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to put the issue of refugees in context.

My hon. colleague, who gave an excellent speech, talked about overall numbers. In 2005, the year before the Conservative government took office, 35,768 refugees were admitted to this country. There has been a steady decline every year that the government has been in power: 32,492 in 2006, 27,956 in 2007 and 21,860 in 2008.

A number of specialists in the immigration field believe that this reflects a general desire on the part of the government to lower the number of refugees accepted into this country. It is not just the New Democrats saying that. Janet Dench, the executive director of the Canadian Council for Refugees, said:

I think [these numbers] reflect the overall closing of the doors on refugees, and it reflects that priority has increasingly been given to economic immigrants over family class and refugees.

Tom Abel, settlement worker at Toronto-based Romero House, said:

Quite frankly, the Conservatives' intention is to lower the number of refugees coming in this country. This has been the predominant opinion of practitioners in Toronto and I think around the country.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I have to stop the member there to allow the member for Halifax 20 seconds to respond.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to shed some light on some of the statistics the member quoted. It is not just about the numbers. Those are real people. What happens when those people are denied? I can tell everyone what happens. They come to my office desperate to figure out what they can do next.

Luckily, in Halifax we have an incredibly supportive community. The community has been rallying around a lot of these people trying to figure out a solution. These are real people.

[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.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

He'll be back.

[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.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent speech. People have a lot to say about the provisions concerning so-called safe countries. Many lawyers have said that if their clients are denied the opportunity to appeal a decision before the Federal Court, they could argue in court that their clients were discriminated against because they were granted fewer rights based on their country of origin.

People may choose to appeal decisions before the Federal Court to avoid going through the refugee appeal division. But dealing with appeals in a simpler system would cost less and be more efficient than dealing with them in the Federal Court.

Is my colleague as concerned as I am that the minister will end up with a system that is just as costly and complex as the one in place now? It would be easier to forget about the safe countries provision.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Jeanne-Le Ber for his question as well as his work on this file. He is doing an extraordinary job and it shows in his comments and the results he gets.

He is absolutely right. By creating a distinction between so-called safe countries and other countries which, by definition, would not be designated as safe, we will create a bureaucratic maze in which the appeal division would only hear one type of refugee.

We obviously support the goals behind creating an appeal division. In fact, we have introduced a number of bills, the latest by the member for Jeanne-Le Ber, but the anticipated benefits of the reform will be lacking. We feel that a simpler solution would be to increase the number of board members and ensure that the appeal division hears all of the refugee status claims.

Once again, well done to the member for Jeanne-Le Ber.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's comments are extremely enlightening.

The riding of Welland is very close to Fort Erie, which is one of the biggest entry points for folks who are claiming refugee and asylum status. We have some folks who do a great deal of work on behalf of those claimants. They do great work on the ground. They sent me a letter the other day expressing their concerns. My hon. colleague has already asked a question about country of safe origin, which they have also raised. However, they also talk about the hearings being expedited in such a fashion that is so fast. In cases of sexual orientation and women who face sexual assault, they need time to build trust. That is what they have seen on the ground.

The group from Welland has been dealing with cases of refugee and asylum seekers for more than 45 years. It understands the needs of those refugees and asylum seekers. What it is saying today is that we need to ensure there is enough time.

Could my colleague comment on the fact that, yes, we want a system that is appropriately quick enough, but it needs to be flexible enough for those folks who do not fit inside that really tight timeline? They need to have the ability to talk and get their position out so a decent decision can be made? People need to understand the hardship they might face if they are deported?

[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.

[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—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was so close to my colleague that I could hear the end of her speech even though her microphone had been turned off. That is the advantage of being in this corner of the House.

My colleague spoke at length about safe countries in terms of the problem of respecting rights. We wonder why some foreign nationals would have different rights than others based on their country of origin.

This issue of safe countries poses another problem. We are not convinced, or at least I am not, that this will save time. Instead of appealing to the refugee appeal division, lawyers may well appeal to the Federal Court, arguing that this measure is discriminatory and prevents them from properly defending the rights of their clients.

In my opinion, it will end up taking more money, time and energy to have a series of challenges before the Federal Court, which is very cumbersome and difficult to run. It would be more effective and more fair to allow appeals to be heard from the outset by the refugee appeal division being proposed in the bill.

I would like to know whether the hon. member shares my opinion on this.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the hard work done by my Bloc Québécois colleague with respect to the admission of refugees and immigrants to Canada. I want to acknowledge the way he and hon. members from the opposition parties are trying to propose amendments. They are truly trying to come up with solutions and measures that will improve this type of bill.

Whether we are talking about safe countries or improving the system in terms of staffing, I hope that these fine amendments will be accepted by the minister and the Government of Canada.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)