Bill C-49 (Historical)

Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act

An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act and the Marine Transportation Security Act

This enactment amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to, among other things,
(a) authorize the Minister, in certain circumstances, to designate as an irregular arrival the arrival in Canada of a group of persons, the result of which is that some of the foreign nationals in the group become designated foreign nationals;
(b) authorize an officer or the Minister, as the case may be, to refuse to consider an application for permanent residence if the applicant has failed to comply with a condition of release or other requirement imposed on them;
(c) provide that a person may not become a permanent resident as long as an application by the Minister for cessation of that person’s refugee protection is pending;
(d) add, as grounds for the detention of a permanent resident or foreign national, the existence of reasonable grounds to suspect that the person concerned is inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality, criminality or organized criminality;
(e) provide that the Immigration Division must impose any prescribed conditions on the release of certain designated foreign nationals;
(f) provide for detention rules and a review procedure that are specific to the detention of certain designated foreign nationals;
(g) clarify the authority of the Governor in Council to make regulations in respect of conditions of release from detention;
(h) provide that certain designated foreign nationals may not apply to become permanent residents until the expiry of a certain period and that the processing of any pending applications for permanent residence is suspended for a certain period;
(i) require certain designated foreign nationals on whom refugee protection has been conferred to report to an officer;
(j) authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting the reporting requirements imposed on certain designated foreign nationals;
(k) provide that the offence of human smuggling is committed when a person organizes the coming into Canada of another person and knows, or is reckless as to whether, the entry into Canada is or would be in contravention of the Act;
(l) provide for minimum punishments for the offence of human smuggling in certain circumstances;
(m) in respect of the determination of the penalty to be imposed for certain offences, add as an aggravating factor the endangerment of the life or safety of any person as a result of the commission of the offence;
(n) change the definition of “criminal organization” in Part 3 to give it the same meaning as in subsection 467.1(1) of the Criminal Code; and
(o) extend the time for instituting proceedings by way of summary conviction from six months to five years.
The enactment also amends the Balanced Refugee Reform Act to provide that a refugee protection claimant whose claim is rejected is not prevented from applying for protection earlier than 12 months after the day on which the claim is rejected, if it is rejected as a result of a vacation of the initial decision to allow the claim.
The enactment also amends the Marine Transportation Security Act to increase the penalties for persons who fail to provide information required to be reported before a vessel enters Canadian waters or to comply with ministerial directions and for persons who provide false or misleading information. It creates a new offence for vessels that fail to comply with ministerial directions. It also amends the Act to authorize regulations respecting the disclosure of certain information for the purpose of protecting the safety or security of Canada or Canadians.

Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

moved that Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act and the Marine Transportation Security Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to open the debate on Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, whose purpose is to combat the serious crime of human smuggling.

I am pleased to introduce this bill. Canada is very proud of its long tradition of being a place of migration for people from around the world. We receive more newcomers than any other country in the developed world, 0.8% of our population, every year as new permanent residents.

We are also proud of our long humanitarian tradition of being a place of protection and refuge for victims of persecution and violence, those who need our protection. This goes back long into our history, in fact to the days of the arrival of the United Empire Loyalists, the Black Loyalists, the Underground Railroad, the eastern European refugees before the war, the refugees from Hungary and Soviet and Communist oppression after the war, and, most famously, the over 60,000 Indo Chinese who were welcomed by Canadians in 1979 and 1980. This underscores our long and deep humanitarian tradition as a place of protection.

Canada receives more resettled refugees than any other developed country in the world. This is so important to Canadians that our government announced earlier this year an increase of 20% in the number of resettled refugees who we will receive. That means that, beginning next year, we will welcome some 14,000 refugees in need of our protection each and every year, which is in addition to those who come to Canada making asylum claims that are assessed by our Immigration and Refugee Board and through various appeals and administrative appeals in our legal system.

One of the problems this Parliament recognized was the abuse of that asylum system, which is why Bill C-11, Balanced Refugee Reform Act, was adopted unanimously by this Parliament following all party co-operation in the spring in order to significantly speed up the process of refugee determination, providing protection to bona fide refugees and the removal of those who seek to abuse Canada's generosity.

However, Canadians are deeply concerned with a particularly pernicious crime, a crime that exploits vulnerable people in their dream to come to Canada, the dangerous crime of human smuggling.

In the past year, it is well known that Canada has received two large vessels on our west coast, together carrying nearly 600 illegal migrants to our shores, people who, based on our intelligence, had paid criminal smuggling syndicates some $50,000 each in order to come to Canada in the most dangerous and exploitative way possible.

The remarkable openness of Canada to immigration in general and refugee protection in particular, which makes possible our very generous approach to immigration, is dependent on public confidence in the system. I submit that Canadians demand an immigration system that is characterized by a sense of fair play and a rule of law. What disturbs them deeply about these mass illegal smuggling operations is precisely that they undermine those principles of fundamental fairness and the rule of law.

The position of Canadians and the position of this government is and ought to be that we will be a country of openness, we will be a country that provides protection to those who are in need of it and we will lead the world in the moral obligation of refugee protection, but we will not be treated like a doormat by criminal networks that seek to profit from, frankly, encouraging people to come to this country illegally in a fashion that puts them and others in moral danger. We know that every year hundreds and potentially thousands of people around the world fall victim to the dangerous ruse of smuggling syndicates.

Let me be very specific about the problem we face and then allow me to identify the strong but fair remedies that we propose in Bill C-49 and in certain associative operational actions that are taken by this government and its agencies.

First, I came back last month from a visit to Asia, including to Southeast Asia, where I met with counterparts in various foreign governments. I met with our own Canadian intelligence police, border security and Immigration officials and learned a great deal about the vile trade of human smuggling in that region.

What I learned was the following. There are approximately three or four criminal syndicates operating in that region that have a long history of being involved in the arms smuggling trade. Because there has been an end to hostilities in the Sri Lankan civil war, those syndicates have now decided to smuggle and to traffic a different commodity, which is human beings. They have refocused their logistical ability to selling people the opportunity to be smuggled illegally to Canada.

I have been told by our partners in the region that they believe these syndicates have the capacity to deliver several large steel hulled vessels with the ability to bring in each hundreds of illegal smuggled migrants to Canada each year. Prospectively thousands of people are being smuggled to our country in this dangerous fashion.

This government, any government and any minister of immigration, as my friend from Toronto knows well, has a profound responsibility to maintain public confidence in the immigration system. What we have seen since the arrival of the last smuggling vessel is a fundamental and very disturbing decline in public support for immigration in general and refugee protection in particular.

According to the most recent polling that I have seen, over 60% of Canadians say that our response to this threat to our sovereignty, our laws and the fairness of our immigration system should be to prohibit these vessels from entering Canadian territorial waters. Fifty-five per cent of Canadians have said that even if these vessels land and some of their passengers subsequently attain refugee protection under our laws, that those people should be returned to their country of origin, notwithstanding a positive legal determination on their asylum claim.

That is the public opinion environment. Imagine how much more vigorous Canadians would feel about this, if we actually had several vessels arriving, which I am informed is within the logistical capability of the criminal organizations involved.

We cannot allow that to happen. The easier path is to do nothing. The easier path is to mouth platitudes. The easier path is to take no difficult decisions. However, the necessary and responsible path is to take firm and meaningful action that does everything we reasonably and legally can to deter and disrupt the smuggling networks, to reduce both the pull and the push factors in this illegal migration so that it stops. To do otherwise is to put at risk the broad public consensus, which has historically existed in Canada in favour of immigration and refugee protection, and I will not allow that to happen on my watch as minister of Immigration.

Some would have us believe that we can successfully deter the smuggling operations simply by focusing on the smugglers. How I wish that were true. How I wish it were true that we did not have to, at the same time, address the demand side of the equation in the smuggling enterprise. However, to pretend that is the case, to pretend that we can avoid disincentivizing the customers of the syndicates from paying $50,000 to come to Canada is naive in the extreme.

Therefore, let me present the general approach of the government and then the legislation in particular.

First, it is evident there are legitimate refugees in need of protection in Southeast Asia. It is also true, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, that it is always preferable to find a local or regional protection solution for those who are bona fide refugees and to do everything possible to prevent them from being exploited by trafficking syndicates. That is why we have begun preliminary discussions with our international partners, including Australia, which obviously has a great stake in this issue, and with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to pursue the possibility of some form of regional protection framework in the Southeast Asian region.

In part that would entail encouraging the countries now being used as transit points for smuggling and trafficking to offer at least temporary protection to those deemed by the UN in need of protection and then for countries such as Canada to provide, to some extent, reasonable resettlement opportunities for those deemed to be bona fide refugees, which is something we are pursuing.

However, to be honest, that is a mid to long-term solution. Working on that with the UN and our international partners will not stop the fact that criminal networks in Southeast Asian countries are planning to smuggle their customers to Canada. They are in the process right now. People have already paid their upfront fee and are sitting in waiting positions in parts of Southeast Asia. Vessels have been acquired. Officials have been, shall we say, induced to co-operate with these networks. The operations are not abstract. This is not a possibility. This is not a theory. This is a real and present reality and we must react with real, present and current action to disincentivize the smuggling networks.

It is also true, insofar as we are talking about a flow of illegally smuggled migrants of Tamil origin, that we acknowledge Canadians have a stake in seeing a just and durable peace in Sri Lanka. We acknowledge that the Tamil people have legitimate aspirations and that they deserve to be protected from violence and persecution. That is why, through the Department of Foreign Affairs, our High Commission in Colombo and through multilateral institutions, we continue to strongly encourage the government of Sri Lanka to make every effort to find a just resolution to the legitimate aspirations of its Tamil minority. That is one important issue. A regional protection framework is another important issue.

Perhaps the most important element in combatting the smuggling is to stop the boats from leaving the transit countries in the first place. That is why our government has directed relevant security and intelligence agencies to increase their presence and capability in the transit countries, partly to assist the transit countries in improving their capacity to detect fraudulent documents and smuggling networks and to gather better and actionable intelligence to prevent people from being loaded on to the vessels in the first place.

In this respect, I would note that two weeks ago the Royal Thai Police detained some 150 individuals who were in the country illegally, without status. Apparently they were planning to board vessels to be smuggled possibly to Canada. Therefore, that work is being done as well. There is increased and improved police and intelligence co-operation in the region among ourselves, the Australians and the transit countries.

However, should a vessel successfully leave a transit country, and we are talking about these leaky, decommissioned cargo vessels that people are loaded onto like cattle to take the dangerous voyage across the Pacific, and arrive in our territorial waters, Canada, after the adoption of Bill C-49, will continue to fully honour our humanitarian, domestic and international legal obligations to provide refugee protection.

We will not endanger the lives of people, as some would have us do, to prevent them from entering Canadian waters. Nor will we violate our international obligations under the convention for refugees and torture or our domestic obligations under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to provide protection to those who are deemed by our legal system to be in need of it, to have a well-founded fear of persecution in their country of origin. This is to say that we will not, in the technical term refoulement, send back to the country of origin someone who has arrived even through this dangerous, illegal and irregular form of marine migration.

We do need to send a strong message to the smugglers, which is why Bill C-49 proposes strong mandatory minimum prison sentences for those involved in smuggling operations. Those who are involved in smuggling under 50 people would face a mandatory minimum prison sentence of at least 3 years. If there are one of two aggravating factors involved, they would face a mandatory minimum of five years. If the group is over 50 individuals, they could face a mandatory minimum of 5 years unless there was an aggravating factor, such as having put the life or safety of their customers in danger, in which case a 10 year mandatory minimum. We believe this will help to cause the smugglers and the crews that work for them to think twice before targeting Canada for their sordid trade.

We also propose massive new penalties for the shipowners, those who are at the back end of this business enterprise, this terrible criminal profit-making venture. They ought to know that they stand to lose millions of dollars if they acquire a ship to be used for this illicit purpose.

Also, we have broadened the ability to make it easier to obtain successful prosecutions against people smugglers through amendments to the relevant law. We take other measures targeting the smugglers very clearly.

However, when we are talking about an illicit market, one thing history, common experience and economics all tell us is that as long as there is a sufficient demand and a sufficient price, there will always be someone willing to provide a service or a good. Therefore, we cannot be naive about the imperative of diminishing the demand side of the equation in the smuggling enterprise.

We must ask ourselves this. Why are people coming from third world countries paying $50,000 to come to Canada in this dangerous way?

Some of the people we are talking about are actually coming from democracies like India. Recently CBC News did a report on individuals in Tamil Nadu in Chennai in the great Indian democracy who had paid smugglers to come to Canada. One of them wanted to come to Canada because he or she had heard this country provided free monthly salaries. In part, there is an economic pull factor to Canada.

It is clear to us that the capacity of someone who lands in Canada, for example, a positive refugee protection decision, to immediately then sponsor family members, means that the $50,000 price point used by the syndicates is not just an investment on the principal applicant getting into the country, but on those family members who will then follow. Therefore, $50,000 makes sense on the smuggling market because the price point actually will eventually allow several family members to come to Canada in reasonably short order.

That is one of the reasons why it is important to change the business model of these smuggling syndicates by disincentivizing. This is why we propose that those who have been designated to have arrived in a smuggling event and who get a positive protection decision would have temporary residency in Canada for a period of five years. I would be happy to develop that further on questions.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for his overview of this legislation.

As a preamble, I would like to remind Canadians, and I think the minister and the House would agree, that our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is applied differently from any other charter in the world, as far as I am aware, offers some protection even to non-citizens within Canadian waters.

Therefore, we need not defend the compassion and empathy that Canadians, in keeping with our legislation, have demonstrated over many decades.

My question, though, is more related to what could be classified as a second or third option. The minister said that Canadian protections and the full extent of natural justice will apply to those who have landed. However, he may not have fully explored an option being pursued in southeast Asia. It has to do with neutral points of entry. Under this option, the same kind of examination would be pursued to determine who ought to be admitted to the country. It is interesting to consider how far we have gone in arriving at a United Nations or universal approach to this problem, which many countries, including Canada, will be experiencing in the next few years.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, we have had preliminary discussions with the United Nations High Commission on Refugees, our friends in Australia, and with other countries on the concept of a framework in southeast Asia that would allow for the kind of regional protection opportunities to which the member refers.

We are not terribly advanced in these discussions, I have to admit. This is the problem We are talking about a lot of legal, diplomatic, logistical work that would have to be done with a number of countries. But we are committed to pursuing it.

I think one analogy for this would be the way that Indo-Chinese boat people were dealt with in 1979 and 1980, when large numbers of them were fleeing communist oppression. The United Nations established regional processing centres where they could go to have their claims assessed, after which they might be considered eligible for resettlement if they were found to be in need of protection. Canada received some 60,000 people.

Having said that, I can tell you that this is not an easy solution. If one were to create regional protection centres, one would have to avoid allowing a small flow of asylum seekers to become millions of people. There are tens of millions of people around the world who would like to resettle in a developed country, and who feel, for one reason or another, that they are victims of persecution.

Many of these people are economic migrants; there are mixed motives here. This is a difficult question, and the complexity of it tells me that this is not a viable solution to the short-term pressure we are facing from the syndicates today, which why other action needs to be taken, like the action contemplated in the bill.

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

Madam Speaker, the bill before us has more to do with political marketing than any true desire to change policy for the better. This bill was announced in Vancouver. It is easy to understand the political aspect because that is where the boat arrived. We also see that the minister made his announcement in English only, even though he speaks excellent French. He really is speaking to Canada.

More to the point, this bill is a clear repudiation by the government of the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism. It was the Minister of Public Safety who introduced this bill today. In fact, he was in the House to monitor the speech by his colleague from Immigration.

Last spring, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism introduced, debated and defended in the House a fair and balanced—in his own words—reform with regard to refugees. He received the unanimous consent of the House. He negotiated with the other parties and four months later, he is being repudiated by his own government. By tabling this bill, the Minister of Public Safety is sending him a message that the reform he considered to be balanced is not and that other measures need to be presented to the House.

How does the minister feel about being repudiated by his colleague from Public Safety?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, there seem to be all manner of political conspiracy theories in that question and those comments. It is obvious that the intent of this bill is serious, and that it is also reasonable and fair. Let us recall that, according to surveys conducted after the arrival of the latest boatloads of illegal immigrants, the vast majority of Quebeckers indicated that they wanted to send the illegal immigrants, who were brought here by a human smuggling ring, back to their country of origin. In terms of public opinion, Quebec is the most outspoken.

Some members of the Bloc Québécois are more concerned about the values of the elite than those of ordinary people. But we must maintain the confidence of Quebeckers and Canadians in the Canadian immigration and refugee protection system.

That is why we need real measures and not rhetoric to fight the trend towards illegal immigration facilitated by these smuggling rings.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a few questions.

How would refugees from Sri Lanka, let us say Tamils, come to Canada? What queue would they be lining up in? Would they be lining up in Sri Lanka? No. Thailand? What is the proper way for Tamil refugees from Sri Lanka to come to Canada?

The minister said that there are criminals there, that they have already pocketed money, and that people are ready to go on the ships. If he has all this information, and he said that he was working with the police in different parts of southeast Asia, why are the RCMP and CSIS not working to have these smugglers arrested overseas?

I have seen reports stating that nine out of ten of these refugees are in desperate shape when they leave. They have no idea of the refugee policy in the country they are going to.

Whatever policy we establish, it will not make a lot of difference. If refugees are desperate, they are going to try to get out somehow.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, first of all, there is an assumption in the member's first question about how Sri Lankan refugees would come to Canada that I do not necessarily accept. Under this assumption, everyone coming to Canada in this fashion is in need of our protection. They are all coming here seeking protection, as opposed to family reunification, economic opportunities, or a mix of motives.

Since the end of hostilities in Sri Lanka last year, some 100,000 Sri Lankan refugees who are resident in Tamil Nadu under the protection of the Indian government have returned voluntarily to Sri Lanka. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has facilitated the return to Sri Lanka of many Tamils who were living temporarily in Southeast Asia. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has declared that Tamils can no longer be presumed to be bona fide asylum claimants. According to a survey done by the Canada Border Services Agency, the majority of successful Tamil asylum claimants in Canada have since returned, at least for visits, to the country from which they fled, after claiming that they could not be there for reasons of persecution.

I would remind the member of the recent CBC report that interviewed people who had paid these networks. Many are living not in Sri Lanka but in India. If they would like to come to Canada, they are free to fill out an application to come here as an immigrant. If they are in need of protection, they are free to enrol with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

They should not come in the worst and most dangerous way possible, which is through a smuggling syndicate.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise to speak to this bill.

I am deeply concerned that any time the Conservatives are faced with a choice of considering policy, sitting down and having a rational discussion, or playing politics, they choose to play politics. There does not seem to be a headline the Conservatives are not willing to exploit.

I can remember the pardon issue, four or five years ago, when the then public safety minister said, after a sensational case, that they had fixed the pardon problem. He said they did not involve the rest of Parliament, because it was something they were able to do on their own. They refused to have any hearings. On the back of a napkin, they whipped something up and called it fixed.

And then we had Graham James. All of sudden, they feigned indignation and said they had to do something fast, forgetting that they themselves claimed to have fixed the problem some four years before.

However, this did not stop them from trying to play games with the problem again. They ratchet up the rhetoric and, on the back of a napkin, whip up a policy, instead of sitting down with Parliament and having a mature debate.

When the Sun Sea and the Ocean Lady arrived on Canadian shores, the Minister of Public Safety was eager to say this was a boatload of terrorists. He talked about intercepting boats in international waters, even though this would violate international conventions. Anywhere else this has been tried, it has been a disaster, raising fears that people would be thrown overboard to hide the evidence, that human beings would be tossed like luggage off the side of the ship to hide the fact that they were being smuggled.

So, for roughly 2% of the claimants Canada would get in a year, the Conservative government went nuclear, not because it wanted to fix something, but because it wanted to play politics and saw a great opportunity to drive a wedge.

The people the Conservatives called terrorists turned out to be mostly women and children. But that is an aside. Apparently, it did not matter much to them.

So after much floundering, including talk about going out into international waters, after throwing around a lot of rhetoric, we get this bill.

I have a lot of problems with the bill. Let me start with the fact that it is tough in all the wrong ways. It is extremely tough on claimants. It is easy on the scum that preys upon the weak and smuggles others into this country. Because of this misplaced focus, I have serious doubts about how it could be effective.

In addition, we have to realize that the government is masking the fact that the real solution rests in engaging international partners. If there is one thing the government has not been able to do, it is work with other countries.

If we want to go after the people who prey on the weak, on those who are vulnerable, then we have to work with foreign jurisdictions and ensure that we go after this scum where they are operating. Instead of being hard on the women and children who are trying to escape war-torn regions, we have to go after the people who are preying on them, trying to suck money out of them, taking advantage of their unfortunate situation, sticking them on dangerous ships and sending them across oceans to Canada. We have to stop the problem long before they walk onto that boat and begin their journey across the seas.

In this regard, and in many others, this is a placebo policy. And I wish it was only that. However, the government also plays on the public's misunderstanding of the distinction between the words “refugee”, “immigrant”, and “claimant”, trying to mix them all up together, trying to confuse people, trying to make them think that there is some queue and that these claimants are jumping ahead of other people. The government knows this is false. That is what makes the assertions absolutely irresponsible and reprehensible.

The government's job is to inform public debate, to inform it with facts. The government is supposed to encourage honest discussion about the differences between political parties. Instead, the government capitalizes on misunderstandings, plays tricks with, let us be straight here, fake emails that go around with misinformation, and generally tries to engage in grand political games. I think this is shameful.

It is not just me who is saying these things or having problems with these bills. I will read a couple of things that some experts in these areas have been saying. Their words are worth hearing because they make the case so clearly.

There is a piece written for the Globe and Mail by Lorne Waldman and Audrey Macklin entitled, “Why we can’t turn away the Tamil ships”, and I will quote several excerpts from it:

Asylum seekers on boats is not a new phenomenon. In 1939, the St. Louis, filled with hundreds of refugees fleeing the Nazis, was turned away from Canada. At the time, the government tried to discredit the passengers as frauds and economic opportunists, and warned that, if the St. Louis were permitted to dock, more Jews in Europe might follow. The “line must be drawn somewhere,” and it was drawn at zero. Many of the people on board subsequently perished in the death camps.

In 1969, Canada signed the Refugee Convention and undertook not to return refugees if they had a valid fear of persecution. This obligation is part of our law. Once asylum seekers reach our territorial waters and are in Canada, they cannot be sent back to another country unless their claims for protection have been denied.

From the St. Louis onward, every new boat is accompanied by denunciation of the passengers as frauds and dire warnings of future “waves.” Yet, two boats – one filled with Tamils and the other with Sikhs – arrived in the 1980s followed by four boats with Chinese in the 1990s, and the sky did not fall in. All were given due process without creating havoc. Some were found to be refugees, some not. Other countries, including Australia and the United States, receive far more sea-borne migrants than Canada, and far more irregular migrants in general.

It goes on to talk about the bill:

Moreover, such a regime would run afoul of our Charter. Our Supreme Court has held that Canada cannot be directly or indirectly complicit in torture or other human-rights violations. By turning away boats without fairly determining whether those on board would be at risk, we would be violating refugees’ right to life and security of the person.

The article concludes by saying:

Canada receives about 30,000 claimants each year. Five hundred Tamils represent only 2 per cent of the annual intake. The rest arrive by plane or overland, so don’t elicit the same moral panic as people on boats. Although the system has experienced delays in recent times, it has managed to provide a reasonably fair determination. Failed claimants are being deported each year in record numbers. All this to say, that with a just and efficient determination system, we will be able to deal with asylum seekers arriving by boat or otherwise. And the best way – indeed, the only way – to stop any future boats from Sri Lanka is by solving the problems in Sri Lanka.

Amnesty International is also speaking with deep concern about this bill saying that the proposal violates three treaties: the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Amnesty says that the bill shows no respect for the equality provisions in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Gloria Nafziger of Amnesty International said:

It’s just a flagrant violation of so many rights, it just goes beyond the pale. Those treaties are the international treaties we signed on to and we have obligations to uphold and respect [them].

The Canadian Council for Refugees is saying that despite the government's claim that it is targeting smugglers, the people who will suffer in this bill are the people fleeing persecution, including women and children. It asserts that measures keeping some refugees longer in detention, denying them family reunification, and restricting their freedom of movement, are likely in violation of our charter.

Professor Peter Showler, the former head of the IRB and a refugee expert, noted that there are two different targets under this bill: the human smugglers and the refugee claimants themselves. Even if a person is accepted as a refugee, which means the person fears persecution for five years, the person cannot bring his or her family members. This is not just any family member, we are talking about husbands, wives, and children who are trapped in conflict zones. Mr. Showler has characterized many of the provisions in the bill as outrageous.

What I would like to do is talk about some of the specific provisions that the bill does undertake. One of the much heralded things the bill does is it creates mandatory minimums. It defines aggravating factors where those mandatory minimums would be triggered. There are two aggravating factors. Factor one is where somebody is engaged in the activity for profit, whether or not the person is with a criminal organization. Factor two is whether or not it endangers the life of a person who is being smuggled. It gets into a formula where if there are less than 50 people and there is one aggravating factor, it is a three year mandatory minimum. If there are both aggravating factors and it is under 50 people, it is a five year mandatory minimum. If it is more than 50 people, it is a mandatory minimum of five years if it is one aggravating factor. It is 10 years if it is two aggravating factors and more than 50 people.

Here is the problem. The current penalty can be up to life imprisonment and a $1 million fine for anybody smuggling more than 10 people. The government already has at its disposal extremely serious measures that are on the books to go after the smugglers.

These mandatory minimums are a placebo. They are held in the window to feign action, to pretend they are being tough, as the Conservatives like to say, when in reality they are little more than window dressing. In fact, the actual tools they need to go after the smugglers are already in place. The problem is they are not going after them where they need to, overseas in other countries, working with other jurisdictions.

There are some provisions in the bill that I think we could support. Looking at increasing penalties under the Marine Transportation Security Act for someone who is providing misleading information, or a failure to comply with a ministerial order and therefore be refused entry.

One of the things that is very concerning because its wording is so ambiguous first was introduced by the minister when he talked of a “human smuggling event” and all of a sudden this human smuggling event would trigger all sorts of extraordinary powers. We are not given any details of what those powers would be or how they would be exercised, but eagerly, obviously, we looked at the bill and tried to determine what those powers were.

Gone was the term “human smuggling event” and now came the term “irregular arrival”. Irregular arrival has no real specificity and could just be two people, not a large group or a throng of people or hordes of people coming into Canada, but just two people. If the minister, for whatever arbitrary reason he or she decides, invokes this provision, there are suddenly two classes of refugees, those that are subject to one set of rules and those that are subject to another. It could be for no other reason than the minister does not happen to like those particular refugees, or happens to think one particular group coming from one particular region is more disliked by the public and therefore maybe the government should play games with them and play it for wedge politics.

The problem is that for that separate class, some very different rules are invoked. One of them is to invoke mandatory detention so that when someone was defined in this class he or she would be detained for a minimum of one year. This mandatory detention would not be reviewed again for another six months. Imagine women or children being in a detention centre where they are only given the opportunity once every six months after the first year to appeal that detention. While they are detained, it stops their ability to appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division. It stops their ability from making any claim on humanitarian or compassionate grounds for their situation for five years.

One of the things worth pointing out is the impact of detentions on mental health for a woman or a child who is in a mandatory detention centre because the minister arbitrarily decided to put the woman or child in that class. We can refer here to a multidisciplinary team of university researchers. The team members included: Dr. Rousseau of the Department of Psychiatry at McGill University; Professor François Crépeau, Hans and Tamar Oppenheimer Professor, Public International Law at McGill University; and the list goes on and on.

They concluded a three-year study, funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research on the impact of detention in Canada on adult asylum seekers. Based on their expertise in this area, they predict that the mandatory long-term detention as proposed in the bill will have a severe negative impact on refugee claimants' mental health, especially on the most vulnerable: children, pregnant women, and survivors of rape and torture.

Their preliminary results based on a sample of 54 refugee claimants detained in the Laval and Toronto immigration holding centres showed that even a short period of detention is associated with high levels of anxiety and depression. After only 16 days of detention, 30% of refugee claimants met the criteria for depression, 22% for anxiety. Studies have consistently shown that detainees' mental health problems tend to worsen over time and they are more likely to persist, even after release, when detention is prolonged.

I hear some members heckling on the other side about that. I am talking about people who might have been raped or tortured, pregnant women, children. Let us remember who we are talking about. Let us remember the people who could potentially be impacted by this detention.

Another thing we need to look at in the bill is the fact that it imposes a duty of inquiry on people who provide assistance. That may seem relatively innocuous at first, but if a church group makes a determination that it wants to help a claimant because the group thinks the situation the claimant is coming out of is desperate and dangerous, no longer will the burden be on the state to prove that there was not a violation of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, but rather that burden of proof would literally fall upon the church or independent organization that sought to assist that refugee, placing all that burden of proof on that individual instead of placing it on the state.

The bill would also seek, and this is quite remarkable and something we need to debate as we move forward, that even if a person is successful in claiming refugee status, even if the person finds a way to convince the government that being sent back would mean the person's certain death, torture or some other horrible outcome, the government reserves the right after five years, after the person has spent five years in Canada and has naturalized here and has established roots, to say it has changed its mind and the person is out of here. The person can spend five years here as a legitimate refugee and then after those five years, the government says, “See you later”, and the person is back out. For those five years the person obviously will be living under a constant threat of being tossed out. How will the person be able to establish himself or herself? How will he or she be able to make a meaningful contribution to Canadian society?

During that five year ban, and again we are talking about legitimate refugees, the person is also barred from applying for permanent residence. He or she is barred from travelling outside the country for five years. He or she cannot sponsor family members. Let us remember who these family members are. They are the wife or the husband, or the person's children.

We need to proceed very carefully, because when we change legislation, it has profound implications. There is no question we need to get tough with those who would smuggle the most desperate and the most weak out there, but the bill, full of its flaws, appears to me to be infinitely more about playing politics than it is about finding solutions.

People who hoped as they read headlines that the bill would be the thing that would save us from future situations such as we saw, will be sorely disappointed when they look beneath the veneer, because like so much of what the Conservative Party puts forward, it is about the talking points and it is not about the substance.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act and the Marine Transportation Security Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Madam Speaker, that intervention was certainly living up to the standard that we all expect of the member. In part, of course, he very casually casts the most disgusting aspersions on his adversaries. Rather than simply disagreeing on substance, he made all sorts of allegations of bad faith, which is what he does best. I commend him for that.

For example, he implied that this government somehow politicizes against the tradition of refugee protection. Let me be very clear. This government has increased the resettlement of refugees to Canada to the highest level ever, higher than any ever under the Liberal government. We will be bringing in 14,500 resettled refugees next year. After the government to which he belonged froze the numbers for refugee resettlement, we are increasing the refugee assistance program by 20%. What kind of government that tries to politicize against refugees actually brings more of them and gives them more support?

I have a question for him. Why did his government not do the same thing if it was really in favour of refugee protection? Why did it freeze the refugee assistance program for 13 years? Why did it freeze the number of resettled refugees? I am not going to allege that there was a bad motive in that, because I think that would be unreasonable and unfair. I am sure it had sound reasons, but then to turn around and cast aspersions on the motives of a government that is doing more to help refugees than any in recent Canadian history is very pathetic.

However, I just want to ask him this. If he says this is not tough enough on the smugglers, I have a very simple question. What is his alternative? What would the Liberal Party do to stop the smuggling operations? We have the police and our intelligence agencies working in the transit countries. There have been detentions there. What would he do? If not mandatory minimum sentences, what is his solution?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Madam Speaker, let me first state, while I am not going to get into a debate on history, that I am deeply proud of the Liberal record when it comes to immigration and refugees. It is a record that speaks for itself and we have long been a party that understands that this is a nation of immigrants, based upon policies that are sound, reasonable and well considered.

Let me suggest to the minister how he might have proceeded instead of trying to whip up this bill in a mad frenzy to create talking points that he could use. Instead of proceeding in that way, what he should have done was sit down with the experts, sit down with this House, dare I say in a minority government, sit down with the immigration and citizenship committee, sit down with the public safety and national security committee, allow us the opportunity to hear from experts and witnesses, and in a careful, considered way, using facts and real information, take the opportunity to craft a bill that really creates solutions.

But that is not what we got. To be fair, what we got was a political reaction, and my frustration when I speak in this place, the reason I speak so passionately in opposition to what the government does, is because I have seen, time and time again, the government decide to put talking points in the window first, and beneath a very thin veneer is a complete absence of real policy.

Worse than that, the actions that will be taken are detrimental, and I hope that in my speech, over a period of 20 minutes, I outlined all the concerns I had. I would hope that instead of torquing up the debate, instead of ramping it up, the minister would take an opportunity to have a mature conversation with us on this, allow that debate to occur and not ramp up the rhetoric.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech and I share a number of his concerns. The Bloc's position on this bill is very clear, as I will have a chance to explain in a few minutes.

But, aside from fundamental principles, it cannot be said that the Liberal position is just as clear. Even after my colleague's speech, we still do not know what the Liberals will do when it comes time to vote on this discriminatory bill in a few days.

This is nothing new; it is always the same thing with the Liberal Party. There are always some intellectual gymnastics and some fancy dancing. It tries to please everyone and make people believe that it is tough on crime and open at the same time.

The member has looked at the bill long enough to make a 20-minute speech. Can he simply tell us whether he will vote for or against it at second reading?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Bloc Québécois member for his question.

The Liberal Party's position is very clear. We see many issues with this bill and it brings up many questions. We will take the time to speak with experts and our caucus. The government only introduced the bill three or four days ago. We need to speak with our caucus and experts to see if there is a way to save this bill.

In a few days, once we have found the answers to our questions, the member will understand the Liberal Party's actions and see how it will vote.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the first things the new coalition government in England did was to say that putting refugees who are children or migrant children in detention causes a lot of hardship and that it is a practice it wants to refrain from because it leaves psychological scars on these youngsters. They are not really criminals, and often they are in detention because of the vicarious immigration status of their parents. It is working towards eliminating the detention of all children based on immigration reasons, whether they are the children of refugees, of migrants or of temporary workers.

I heard the member speak about the kind of suffering the children have, and not just children, that within a few days they get into a depressive state. Does the member have more information concerning the kind of long-term impact that a prolonged detention has on children, especially if it is over a year and perhaps several years.

Under the bill, the review would not occur until after one year and then six months later. So that child could be in detention for several years.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for a very good question.

I would refer the member, in my speech, to the multi-disciplinary team of university researchers who have actually done a lot of study on this very impact. I think it is something that the House should be seized with as it considers the bill and should look at further.

I think the member makes a point that is worth repeating and worth remembering. The government more often than not, as it confuses what is a claimant with what is a refugee, also likes to characterize all refugees or all claimants as somehow these big, bad terrorists, these bad people. More often than not, the people we are dealing with are children. They are women. Many times they can be people who are coming out of war-torn, terrible situations, people who might have been dealing with rape, people who might have been dealing with torture.

Can we imagine what it would be like for somebody who is coming out of that kind of horror and what psychological impacts additionally it would have to then be shoved into detention for a year and not given any opportunity during that one-year period to say, “This is wrong for me”? That child does not belong there or that woman does not belong in the situation, after all they have gone through, that after a year, if they do not make that review, they would have to wait another six months.

I think the psychological impact, particularly on these people who could potentially be very vulnerable and coming out of desperate situations, is something we need to bear in mind.

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

Madam Speaker, last spring Parliament reached unanimous agreement on refugee reform. We showed that we can agree on things, when there is the will to do so. I fear we will have a hard time reaching an agreement in this case and there are probably few things we will agree on in the future.

Perhaps I will do the same as the minister today, that is, I will give my speech in only one language, except in my case, it will be in French instead of English.

I think this must have been extremely difficult for the Minister of Immigration , even though he is willing to step up to the plate to defend the bill introduced by his colleague from Public Safety. To me this feels like a serious repudiation of all the work he did, which we, as parliamentarians had recognized. We voted unanimously in favour of the refugee reform, which should have, as he said himself, lasted for decades, or for at least one generation. It was a fundamental change in how refugees would be treated.

Now just four months later, this reform, which he described as balanced and with which we agreed—we voted in favour of the reform—is being questioned by his colleague from Public Safety. We will not make a fuss, because even though the minister is here in the House today to defend the bill introduced by his colleague from Public Safety, this bill is clearly being imposed on him by his government. One of two things is true: either the balanced reform the minister defended at the time was not balanced and he knew it—he sold us on something that he knew was not balanced—or the reform was indeed balanced, but someone in his government repudiated his work because he or she did not agree with the minister's conclusion.

This is rather disturbing. At the same time, it also seriously undermines the minister's position since, at the end of the day, considering this repudiation by his colleagues, who would want to negotiate and discuss anything with him in the future, if any of his colleagues can go back on the deals he makes and propose a new bill like the one before us today?

It is even more disturbing, since this bill was only passed four months ago, it has not yet been implemented, we have not seen what kind of impact it may have, and so we cannot assume that it is already broken. It was passed four months ago. This seems to be all about political marketing. That is what we are seeing today in the House, because I do not detect any sincerity in the minister's comments. Let me be clear. I do not doubt his sincerity as an individual, but I doubt that he is convinced that the bill introduced by his colleague is the right thing to do. I say that because this is not the same man we saw last spring. When the minister introduced his balanced reform, he met with parliamentarians from the different parties to explain the reform. His officials offered us a number of technical briefings in advance to explains all the ins and outs of the bill. In a way, he was preparing us mentally. We knew what direction he was taking, but today, there is none of that.

The minister must have wanted to be sure that his bill would be defeated in the House; otherwise, he would have acted differently.

It is very clear that this bill simply appeals to some kind of unhealthy populism, that it goes after all refugees by putting them all in the same boat—no pun intended—and that it suggests simplistic solutions. I do not think that even the minister believes in these solutions.

The Conservatives always take the same approach. First, they introduce a bill with a bogus name, something they could put a trademark notice on, something that sells the bill, a crude advertisement. This time, we have the Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act. This lengthy bill has only a few measures that address smugglers; the rest have to do with the refugees themselves. The government is going after people in extremely difficult situations, instead of helping people who are in need.

It always uses the same technique to end any debate: it just says that they are terrorists. That is what it said when the boat arrived in Vancouver. It said that there were members of the Tamil Eelam, a terrorist group, among the Tamils. So the government says that anyone who is against this bill is pro-terrorist. And that is it, there is nothing more to add and no further discussion is needed. That is the Conservatives' argument.

It is even more grotesque given that 80% of the Tamil refugee claimants are considered to be genuine claimants under the Geneva convention. A few months earlier, the minister took aim at Mexican refugee claimants, saying that since only 10% of them were accepted, it was suspect. In this case, 80% are being accepted and it is still suspect. There is a problem here. You can worry about acceptance rates that are too low or too high, but not both.

Seriously, I have a very hard time believing that the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism and the people in his department thought about this and had an overall vision when they drafted this bill, especially since these same people did all this work last spring, a mere four months ago, and came up with completely different conclusions. Obviously, this bill was prepared quickly, in a purely partisan fashion, as a sort of collection of unrelated measures. They have no vision. They are not taking aim at the problem, but at refugees, which will create much bigger problems that I will come back to.

I would like to put things into context so that the people of Canada who are watching this understand that just because the government says that this bill and its 50-odd clauses crack down on smugglers, that does not mean that it actually does. Human smugglers are not watching CPAC and are not reading the bill. This bill will have no impact on them. The government chose the title of the bill. It can give the bill any title it wants, even if it has nothing to do with the bill's content.

Now let us talk about the substance of the bill. This is a very strong reaction to what we all agree is a real problem, but the government exaggerated the problem. It is trying to kill a fly with a bazooka. Not only is it futile to use a bazooka to kill a fly, but one also risks missing the target because it is such a precise operation. In this bill, the government focuses on the means of transportation by which the person arrives.

That has nothing to do with anything. The government also focuses on the fact that people arrive in groups of two, three, four or 100. That has nothing to do with anything either. There is no reason to believe that the people who want to cheat the system—for some people do—are more likely to come by boat than by plane or by land. Recent history suggests quite the opposite. More of the Tamils who arrived by boat were accepted than claimants who arrive by plane or by land. What is more, the refugees on board that boat were detained just long enough to verify their identity and threat level, and they have all been released since. Clearly, there is no reason to believe that people arriving by boat are less likely to be legitimate refugees than those who arrive by other means.

Nevertheless, I have to say that arriving by boat makes more of a splash. It is a bit like when a plane crashes. It makes the news because of the tragedy of hundreds of people dying at the same time. But is a plane more dangerous than a car? Any transportation specialist will say it is not. One is more likely to die while travelling in a car than while travelling in a plane.

This is when cheap political marketing and cheap rhetoric are used in an attempt to make us believe that the government is dealing with a problem. Only 2% of refugees arrive in large groups by boat. The government is grandstanding across Canada, putting on a show and telling us that it is tackling the problem of refugee fraud. Why does the government's bill target the 2% of refugee claimants who have one of the highest acceptance rates?

Suppose 98% of the claimants had been dealt with. Then we could look at the remaining 2%. Why target people who arrive by boat? There is no other justification than the fact that it is a hot issue and that when a boat arrives, the Conservatives can tell the media that they are going to deal with the situation.

It is rather crass and I am convinced that no one will be fooled. The minister likes to quote poll results to Quebeckers, but they are not happy when they realize that the government has tried to put one over on them by telling them that the refugees are all terrorists, that they have to be kicked out, and that they will take care of it. Quebeckers realize that it is not true.

Let us examine some of the measures in the bill's whimsical assortment of provisions. First, the bill will create a category of refugees: those who arrive by boat in groups of 2, 50, 100 or more. If more than one arrives by boat, it seems that they are more dangerous than other refugees. This category will be established and these people will be dealt with in a completely arbitrary and discriminatory manner. For example, the government will be able to hold them for 12 months without even determining whether they should be released. For purposes of comparison, the current timeframe is two days.

At the beginning of my presentation, I said that if the government had wanted to make improvements, it would have come to see us. Had the government told us that two days was not enough and that seven were required, we would have listened to what it had to say. Had it said that 14 days were needed, we would have studied the matter. Had it said that 30 days were needed, we would have started wondering, but we would have considered it nonetheless. Now, the minister is telling us that people who are not being accused of anything yet must be kept in prison for 365 days, before the government even determines whether there is cause to do so.

It is shameful. The founding principles of our modern, democratic societies are being attacked. Habeas corpus does not grab the attention of the media. What does that suggest?

At the end of the middle ages, people had had enough of arbitrary justice and tyranny and they decided to develop a concept whereby people could not be imprisoned without cause for an indeterminate or abusive period without having the chance to explain themselves. I am not talking about democracy writ large or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I am talking about a rather basic concept. It is the foundation of our societies governed by the rule of law. We do not detain people indefinitely or abusively without telling them what they are being charged with or without charging them. That is what sets us apart from tyrannies and the middle ages. The bill attacks that foundation. The government is saying, “These people arrive by boat, for some unknown reason, but we are going to keep them in prison for a year before we do anything. Then, every six months we will see whether we can release them.” That is not a very good start.

There is another troubling series of elements in this bill with regard to the same people. They will have to wait five years to apply for permanent residence, and they can only do so if they have been recognized as true refugees. Why? The government wants to crack down on dishonest people who test the system and who are not real refugees. It wants to be tough on them for abusing the system. We will see whether the government is going to make any proposals to that effect. However, what happens to people who are true refugees, who have fled persecution? Why should they be penalized? There is no explaining it. Once they are recognized as refugees, the government could even continue to harass them by verifying whether they still are refugees, which is completely at odds with the very concept of what a refugee is. This concept implies that once a person is recognized as a refugee, they can rebuild their life and not spend it wondering whether they will be sent back to their country of origin.

These people would no longer be able to travel outside Canada. The fact that it would be impossible to obtain permanent residence for five years and therefore impossible to bring one's children to Canada could even have the opposite effect. How does the minister—who is so concerned about the message we are sending to smugglers and people who abuse the system—think these people will react? Does he think people are going to cross the ocean alone even though it is going to take seven years to bring their children to Canada?

In addition to risking his own life, someone who wants to flee persecution will also have to risk the lives of his wife and children. That is what the minister is proposing with this bill. It is completely inappropriate and in the end, we could be faced with bigger boats with more women and children on board, because those who flee persecution will have no other way to keep their families together. Do people see where such an extreme measure will take us?

Lastly, to add insult to injury, the minister is denying these people access to the refugee appeal division, even though he knows that this Parliament deemed that to be a very important aspect of the reform and it was something for which I personally fought long and hard. The fact that his colleague has introduced a bill in this House that attacks the universal nature of the refugee appeal division clearly demonstrates bad faith, especially given that the refugee appeal division—by standardizing decisions and eliminating arbitrary rulings—is just as beneficial for refugees, who can avoid bad, arbitrary decisions, as it is for society. It also allows the minister to appeal bad decisions. Furthermore, it makes it possible to build a body of precedents for refugee claims and ensures a certain predictability that discourages people from testing the system, because they know the outcome is predictable.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, being an immigrant to this country, I have a lot of interest in this legislation and I listened to the member opposite very carefully.

I understand that quite a few immigrant community organizations have endorsed Bill C-49. I will try to read the names of a few: the Tamil Community Centre; Toronto Community & Culture Centre; the United Macedonian Diaspora (Canada); Taiwanese Canadian Association of Toronto; Victoria Immigrant and Refugee Centre Society; l'Association du Canada; Islamic Lebanese centre; World Lebanese Cultural Union; B'nai Brith Canada; Canadian Friends of Ukraine; Young Polish Canadian Professionals Association; Chinese Cultural Association of Greater Toronto; Canadian Confederation of Fujian Associations; Canada First Community Organization; Armenian National Committee of Toronto; Multicultural Helping House Society; Canadian Alliance of Chinese Associations; Armenian National Committee of Canada - Western Region; Vancouver Multicultural Society; to name a few.

What does the hon. member e attribute all those immigrant communities lining up in support of this bill?

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

Madam Speaker, I would say that the organizations that represent certain immigrants and support this bill are doing that much as certain non-immigrants would. The Bloc Québécois does not treat immigrants any differently than anyone else. When people come to Quebec and join Quebec society, they are part of the Quebec nation, and they are entitled to their own opinions, like anyone else. Like anyone else, they can be fooled by the government. The government can tell them that there are terrorists, Tamil Eelam members, on the boat. It can say that they must be terrorists. Anyone can be fooled and lied to by the government. Whether we are immigrants or not does not matter. Whether we are immigrants or not, we are against terrorists. I do not know why immigrants would be any less against terrorists than the rest of the population.

The problem is that we have no reason to believe that people who arrive by boat are more likely to be terrorists than those who arrive by air. The problem is that false information is being given to the public, which includes immigrants, who are members of the public like anyone else. The problem is that the government has introduced a bill called the Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act. The government is asking people whether they agree with stopping human trafficking. It is asking people whether they are in favour of human trafficking. Immigrants would say the same thing as anyone else; they would say “no”. The problem is that this bill does not tackle human trafficking.

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

Madam Speaker, this bill would allow for the decimation of the regular arrival of two or more people, it could five hundred or two, but it could also impact on, not just refugees but on visitors, on immigrants who are arriving, on students or on business people who are coming in as entrepreneurs. It would have an impact on all foreigners arriving in Canada, whether by boat, by car or by air.

Is that the interpretation that the member has and, if so, does he not think it would have a very negative impact on the reputation of the Canadian immigration system?

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

Madam Speaker, before answering my NDP colleague's question, I would like to say a couple of things.

First, I just realized that I told my Liberal colleague I was going to express the Bloc Québécois' intention with respect to this bill. I do not think I said we would vote against it. Just to be clear, we will vote against it.

Second, I am a little disappointed because, unlike my Liberal colleague, I did not even get an attempt at a question from the minister. I do not know if I should be flattered or annoyed. We will probably have an opportunity to talk about this again.

As written, the bill has a very broad scope. It is not limited to those submitting genuine applications for refugee status. Does this suggest that the government was in such a hurry to draft the bill that it forgot a few things? Did it do this deliberately to make the bill so unacceptable that the opposition would vote against it? Is this a trap? I do not know.

We have before us a bill that does not deserve our support as parliamentarians. It does not tackle the human trafficking problem. It is easy to give a bill a title saying that it will tackle human trafficking, but if the 36 clauses in the bill have nothing to do with the title, it will not work. Moreover, if most of the clauses do nothing more than suspend individual freedoms and discriminate against certain individuals, the title should actually be “bill to discriminate against refugee claimants arriving by boat”, “bill to suspend certain individual freedoms for certain applicants”, or “bill to circumvent international laws and conventions”.

I would like to read a clause from the bill:

Refugee Travel Document—For the purposes of Article 28 of the Refugee Convention, a designated foreign national [the person discriminated against] whose claim for refugee protection or application for protection is accepted [a refugee under the Geneva convention] is lawfully staying in Canada only if they become a permanent resident [which means waiting five years]...

In other words, instead of dumping clause 28, this bill claims to respect it but then pretends that these people are not residents of Canada. That makes no sense.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Madam Speaker, there are far too many errors in the member's speech. And while I have a lot of respect for him, I will not be able to answer in just a couple of minutes. However, I will clarify certain points.

What he refers to as a prison is actually a detention centre for immigrants, and anyone can leave in order to exit the country. It is not a prison. Children and people who need to be released can be, by ministerial order. All detentions can be reviewed by Canadian courts.

I would like to remind the member that many liberal democracies, such as Australia, the United States, Great Britain and France, send refugee claimants to detention centres until their applications are reviewed. It is not really a question of a one-year period. A person would generally be held for a year before the IRB reviews their file. However, if the refugee claimant's application is approved before a year is up, they would be released. Based on the new refugee system that we recently passed, this decision would be made within two or three months.

The member exaggerated a lot in his speech. I would like to ask him this question: what policy would he propose to keep these criminal networks from undermining the public's confidence in our immigration system? What is his solution?

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

Madam Speaker, the solution is quite simple, which should please the minister. It is simply Bill C-11, which he introduced in the House last spring, regarding the balanced refugee reform that was passed unanimously with a few amendments that everyone agreed on. It was indeed a balanced reform that gave the minister all the tools needed for action.

If he truly believes that the bill introduced by the Minister of Public Safety is the solution for dealing with illegitimate claimants, why does it only deal with those who arrive by boat? Why does it target only 2% of all refugee claimants, and moreover, those who arrive from countries that have some of the highest acceptance rates in the world? The minister says he needs legislation, but he needs it for the 2% of claimants for whom it is least needed. What is the point?

If the minister truly believed this, he would have introduced something that would target the other 98%, not just the 2% that have the highest acceptance rates.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill. The bill should be called “attack the refugees” and not preventing human smugglers from abusing Canada's immigration system act. If it was about human smugglers, then there would not be amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to deal with the refugees and immigration portion. There are only a few pages in the act that deals with human smugglers. We prefer to attack the criminals, the traffickers and smugglers and not the victim.

The bill concentrates absolute power in the hands of the minister to decide which refugees will be subjected to draconian measures. With no clear definition on irregular arrivals, it can apply to any group of refugees, immigrants, or visitors.

The bill would also hurt legitimate refugees and those who help them. It would prevent refugees from bringing their spouses and children to Canada for at least 10 years. It would detain women and children that the minister deemed arrived in Canada irregularly for at least a year. It would repeat a shameful chapter of Canadian history by punishing and interning refugees and their children.

I will speak about the impact of detaining children, children who have not committed any crime.

A study was done recently by the United Kingdom. Over 15 months, the U.K. detained 1,300 children. On average that is 1,000 per year. There were 889 children detained for more than 28 days.

The report by the Royal College of Paediatrics and the Royal College of Psychiatrists found many elements. It found that detaining children was harmful to their mental health and that they were filled with terror. It found that children who saw their parents cry and in stress led to eating, sleeping, and learning problems. Of the children studied, 73% of those who were detained had emotional and behavioural problems. They were disoriented, depressed, anxious, confused and frightened. They had nightmares and some refused to feed themselves. A few of the children lost 10% of their body weight and one-quarter of them began bed-wetting. There was a regression of language. One child out of twenty-five became selectively mute. Many of the children had somatic symptoms like headaches and stomach pains.

This kind of treatment, putting children in jail and in detention, is callous and cruel. The U.K. did a review and the new Conservative coalition government said that it was a moral outrage that children were detained.

Canada detains six to seven children per night. If this bill passes, there would be a dramatic increase because any number of these children and their parents, whether women or men, will be part of the people designated as arriving to Canada in an irregular manner, whatever that means.

Every four weeks a judge in the U.K. has to sign a new authorization to continue to detain a child. This bill says that a child arriving on the shores of Canada, irregularly, will be detained for at least a year and then there will be a hearing every six months. A child could be detained for at least 12 months if not more.

Seeking a release after a year would have no appeal process, which would bring it to the courts. The government would not be bound by the court. I always thought Canada had a rule of law and that we should not do things in an arbitrary manner. The bill would do that.

Canada has some dark history. I previously talked about the boat, the S.S. St. Louis, that came to Canada in the late 1930s after going to the U.S. The boat arrived at Halifax harbour carrying 900 Jewish refugees who were seeking sanctuary. Tragically, because of racism, xenophobia, hatred and anti-Semitism, these refugees were sent away. Two hundred and fifty of them were murdered in the Holocaust after returning to Europe. The refugee law at that time was unjust, cruel and mean-spirited and it led to death. We have always said that never again would we practice the policy of none is too many. We have always said that we will not repeat history.

The bill would allow a boat such as the S.S. St. Louis to dock in Canada. However, those people, whether they are men, women or children, would be detained for at least a year. We may tell some of them that they are genuine refugees and they will be allowed to stay, but they will not be allowed to apply for permanent residence and therefore will not be able to sponsor their children or spouses to come to Canada for at least five years.

What would happen if the people on the S.S. St. Louis were accepted after a few years? They would have to wait for five years and then apply for permanent residence and bring their children over. However, because of the huge backlog, they will have to wait three to four years to bring their children over, no matter whether their children are coming from a refugee camp or another country and facing persecution. A person deemed to be a genuine refugee would have to wait at least nine years to bring a son, daughter, spouse to Canada. How many people would survive in a refugee camp, especially a child, for nine years?

Therefore, we are talking about punishing and attacking refugees, and not just those who arrive on Canada's shores. We are also talking about their relatives who are stuck back home. We are telling them that they either do not come to Canada, or if they do, they have to kiss goodbye their kids or their spouse for at least nine or ten years. They might never see them again.

What kind of law is this? It is not about dealing with smugglers. It is about attacking the refugee claimants. What is happening with these refugees. They will be victimized three times: first, by the persecutors, whoever is hunting them down; second, by the smugglers; and finally, by Canada. It also will incur huge costs. It costs at least $80,000 to $90,000 per person we detain or jail in Canada. We should think of the cost that it will incur to Canadian taxpayers.

Many of them could easily work and being paying taxes. Why will we not allow them to do that, while we process their claims and process them quickly? However, that is not what we are doing. We will just detain them.

Very few refugees know about the kind of laws of the countries to which they go. They do not search them out. In fact, studies show nine out of ten of these people do not know the laws of these countries. We know that Australia, for example, has a very punitive law, but it has not stopped the boats from arriving on its shores or deterred people from arriving there.

For months we debated the issue that all refugees coming to the shores of Canada must be treated equally under one set of rules, one law. We dealt with that in Bill C-11. We said that every person must be treated equally under the law. That is our charter. However, this bill would set up two classes of refugees. One would be the designated kind and they would be treated much worse than others who somehow have arrived in Canada.

The detention, as I said earlier, is arbitrary. The minister may on discretionary grounds based on “exceptional circumstances” be able to release a few people, but we know we should not leave things in an arbitrary manner. It should be set in law so it is clear who will be jailed and who will not be.

The law basically says that all who come here in an irregular fashion will be detained for over a year. It also says that they will not have an opportunity to have an independent tribunal to review their case because if the minister decides their identity has not been established, then there would not be any independent tribunal to review their case, which again, in some ways, contrary to the charter and international law.

Why am I talking so much about detention? A few weeks ago, Toronto held a event called Nuit Blanche, which is an art extravaganza. There were a lot of art shows in different parts of town. I went into a gallery that had a big photo exhibit. The photo exhibit also had tapes and recordings of people in detention in the U.K. I have never heard these kinds of stories first hand from the people who have been detained, but the stories are phenomenal, especially from the children and young people, about the kind of suffering. On average in the U.K it is only for a few weeks, yet the kind of trauma they experience is unbelievable. These are the ones who are awaiting deportation. They have already had their cases judged against them.

In the case we are dealing with, we have not even judged against them yet. Many of them could be genuine refugees and yet we are still jailing them, including their kids. Therefore, it is not possible for us to support a bill of this kind.

Another thing about the bill is that if people's refugee claim gets rejected they would not be able to go to the Refugee Appeal Division. We debated the Refugee Appeal Division for about 10 years and we said that all refugees must have the right to be heard in front of an independent tribunal, which we were about to set up, called the Refugee Appeal Division. By eliminating the opportunity to correct errors at the first level, the bill again puts Canada at risk of violating its most fundamental obligation toward refugees, which is not to send them back to their death.

The bill has other elements that are difficult. It would prevent refugees from going outside Canada. For example, if refugees wanted to go to a United Nations war crime convention or testify to a panel dealing with war crimes, they would not be able to do so. I can understand why the minister said that it was important to ensure they do not go back to the place where they claim they are being persecuted. However, this law actually says that they would not be able to leave Canada at all because they would not be able to get a travel document. Again, that is a problem. By detaining refugees for so long, it makes it harder for refugees to integrate into Canadian society and eventually apply for citizenship. We have seen real problems with this. This was tried with the Somali refugees in the 1990s when thousands were denied permanent residence for years.

Let us look at Australia, which is where I know the minister has been. In the last three years, Australia has moved away from a policy of detention and temporary status for refugees. I do not know why we are repeating what it has moved away from.

What is really in front of us are two options. One is to see refugees, newcomers as a burden. Refugee claimants can be seen as burdens or we could care for them. We did that. We saw the St. Louis refugee claimants as burdens. We made a mistake. We sent people to their death. We cared for the Vietnamese boat people, welcomed them and allowed them to stay and they are doing extremely well in Canada. What is it that we plan to do? Do we see refugees as burdens or do we see them as worthy of our care?

I would support the elements in this bill that punish smugglers in a serious manner. Those are elements that we could definitely support because we do not want to be soft on crime, especially for people who are committing crimes against immigrants or refugees, and we need to punish them harshly. However, what we should not do is attack the refugees. We should not attack the victims because this will not assist Canada's reputation or we will just end up repeating a very sad, tragic chapters of Canadian history where we interned people and where we sent people to their death.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Madam Speaker, there are too many misconceptions in that speech for me to respond to at this point but I do have two points to make.

First, the member is factually mistaken when she says that the government of Australia has changed its policy with respect to detention of asylum seekers. In fact, the Australian detention policy, under the Labor government, is far more robust than that which we propose in Bill C-49. In fact, it detains all asylum seekers, regardless of whether they were smuggled to Australia or not, or the means through which they arrived, until their claims are processed. We propose to do no such thing. The Australian practice in that regard, frankly, reflects the standard practice in most other democracies that are signatories to the United Nations convention on refugees.

Having said that, what I found most disturbing and, frankly, demagogic in her speech was to draw a completely specious parallel with the tragic and unjust experience of the rejection of the St. Louis and other second world war Jewish refugees. In that case, Canada had a deliberate policy of none is too many, where we deliberately excluded Jewish immigrants as refugees. We had no refugee resettlement program and no asylum system per se.

Under the regime we propose in Bill C-49, people arriving in those circumstances would be able to enter our waters, disembark and have an asylum claim. Under the new system that we adopted this spring, they would almost certainly have a positive protection decision and be out of detention within a matter of a couple of months. To suggest that we would return people to their deaths is irresponsible and demagogic. Canada--

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I regret to interrupt the hon. member but there are two minutes left. I would like to give the hon. member for Trinity--Spadina equal chance to respond.

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

Madam Speaker, I never actually said that we would turn the boats away. What I said was that if the boats do arrive on our shore, we would detain them for over a year and we would prevent them from sponsoring their kids into Canada. They will stay in Europe and it will be at least eight years before they can get into Canada. God knows what will happen to them by that time.

The Australian Human Rights Commission, an organization created by Parliament, conducted a national inquiry into children in immigration detention and found that the children in Australian immigration detention centres had suffered numerous and repeated breaches of their human rights.

Far from deterring people, depriving refugees of their right to family reunification appears to have caused some people to arrive by boat, as later boats brought their wives and children of refugees in Australia into Australia because they were not able to bring in their families through legal channels. We in fact had more boats showing up in Australia because of those kinds of wrong policies, and certainly we--

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I would just like to advise the hon. member that when this debate resumes, she will have seven minutes left in questions and comments.

The House resumed from October 27 consideration of the motion that Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act and the Marine Transportation Security Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Preventing Human Smugglers From Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

When this bill was last before the House, the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina had the floor for questions and comments consequent upon her speech. I therefore call for questions and comments. The hon. member for Mississauga South.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could refresh the House on the concerns that she expressed on Wednesday in her questioning of the other hon. member and the shared concerns that she has about this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I left off yesterday I was talking about the plight of refugees and how difficult it would be for them if they were detained for at least a year, especially children.

Once individuals have been determined to be genuine refugees, it would take them another five years before they could apply for permanent residence and another three or more years for them to bring their sons, daughters or spouse to Canada. These people could be separated from their children for at least eight years. If a child is left to languish in a refugee camp for over eight years, who knows what will happen to that child.

We do want to punish smugglers but this bill really attacks refugees rather than punishing smugglers.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her impassioned speech regarding this very problematic bill. I would like to hear about something she referenced.

What does the government's approach mean in terms of perhaps contributing to that dark history of immigration and the way we have treated refugees and immigrants in the past? Is this not part of a very dark series of encounters and actions that we have had toward refugees and immigrants? Will we come to regret this later on?

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

Mr. Speaker, in Canada we have had two approaches. One approach is a welcoming and caring approach to refugees. If we look at the Vietnamese boat people, their arrival to Canada was very much celebrated by church groups, by the government and by Canadians. They settled well in Canada and have made tremendous contributions to the well-being of Canada.

Another approach has been that we did not want them and we would detain them. If we look at the Somali refugees, for example, we detained them for an extensive period of time. Further back in history, we have turned boats away, whether they were from India or from Europe. As a result, we have caused deaths and suffering, whether they were Jews or Sikhs.

We have also interned Italians and Japanese because of their ethnic origins. The internments, for peace especially, is what I really am concerned about.

If this bill passes the way it is written, we will see children being interned in jail and detained for at least a year, if not a year and a half. The psychological impact that would have on these children would be devastating. Let us give serious thought to this because detaining a child for more than even a few weeks is very problematic. I doubt that many of them would even recover after being detained for more than a year.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I just wonder if the member would comment on what appears to be a deferential sort of treatment.

I remember that before the fall of the Berlin wall, there were thousands of individuals who would just simply get off a plane in Gander, Newfoundland, on a trip from eastern Europe to Cuba, and would be automatically granted refugee status and looked after. There was no talk of refugee detention centres.

One of the most horrific images in our world today is refugee camps where thousands of people sometimes spend many years in the same place without any recourse. With these detention centres, are we potentially looking at being in the same kind of boat? What does the member think the government thinks about that?

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

Mr. Speaker, we already know that the government is spending $9 billion to build prisons. It will probably need to spend quite a bit to build more detention centres also.

I also recall when 50,000 Irish refugees arrived in Toronto at the turn of century and they were welcomed by 30,000 Torontonians. It was called the city of York at that time and they created Toronto. A lot of them were sick and starving after their long journey from Ireland. They were leaving the famine at that time and Torontonians opened their arms to help them and cure them. That part of the creation of Toronto is a proud history. I wish all of us would remember that our history in Canada is very much opening our arms to refugees, most of the time.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in this House in support of Bill C-49, the preventing human smugglers from abusing Canada's immigration system act.

From the day our Conservative government was first elected, we have made strengthening the criminal justice system a consistent priority. We have told Canadians that we would take action to crack down on the activities of organized crime groups and others whose activities undermine public safety and destabilize our communities. We told them that we would help build safer neighbourhoods for everyone and ensure that our streets and homes would be places where families could feel secure.

Ours is a government of action. We have consistently delivered on these promises time and time again. We have passed legislation to stiffen penalties for crime, and violent gun crimes in particular. We have provided law enforcement agencies with the tools and resources they need to do their jobs. We have taken steps to ensure that violent offenders are kept behind bars, not in their living rooms.

We are here today to take decisive action again.

In August, Canadians were reminded that this country is not immune to the global activities of organized crime groups intent on making a profit from the smuggling of hundreds of foreign nationals. The arrival of 492 Sri Lankan Tamils aboard the MV Sun Sea came less than one year after the arrival of 76 Sri Lankan Tamils aboard the Ocean Lady. The fact that two such vessels have reached Canadian shores in less than 12 months clearly demonstrates that large and growing human smuggling ventures are extending their reach and expanding their logistical capabilities and that these human smuggling networks are increasingly targeting Canada.

Human smuggling is a despicable crime, and abusing Canada's generosity for financial gain is utterly unacceptable.

Canada has an obligation to crack down on dangerous criminal enterprises that benefit only those who organize such large-scale ventures and do so little with regard to the human cargo which they transport.

We also know that human smuggling routes can be used to traffic narcotics and firearms. This poses a threat to public safety and erodes our communities.

The profits from human smuggling may also be used to fund other illicit criminal activities.

Our government is committed to protecting the safety and security of Canadians. We are committed to maintaining the integrity of our borders and our immigration and refugee programs. We are committed to ensuring that Canada's immigration system remains fair. That is what the legislation before us today is about.

Bill C-49 is focused on giving officials additional tools to better respond to human smuggling.

First, we are proposing targeted amendments to the smuggling offence to ensure that it captures the various ways in which smuggling can occur.

Under the current regime, prosecutions for human smuggling require proof that the accused knew the individuals being smuggled did not have the documents required by law to enter Canada. Today's amendments would expand this to include any violation of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, including for example bringing people into Canada in a way that avoids their presenting themselves for examination as required by the act.

Currently, only situations where the smuggler knew that the smuggled persons did not posses the documents necessary to enter Canada are captured as an offence under the act.

What does this mean in the context of smuggling? It means that a prosecutor could prove this offence by showing that the accused was aware of the substantial risks if the smuggled person was or would be entering Canada in contravention to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act but simply did not care.

We believe these changes would improve our ability to investigate and prosecute those who contribute to human smuggling ventures.

Second, we are proposing an escalating mandatory minimum penalty scheme for persons convicted of smuggling, reflecting our government's intention to more effectively deter and denounce this criminal activity.

Under the proposed legislation, the number of people smuggled and the presence of aggravating facts would determine which mandatory minimum penalty would be imposed upon conviction. The two aggravating facts are: the offence was committed for profit or for the benefit of, at the discretion of, or in association with a criminal organization or terrorist group; and the person, in committing the offence, endangered the life or safety or caused bodily harm or death to any of the persons smuggled.

The mandatory penalties would be, where less than 50 persons are smuggled, three years' imprisonment if one of the above aggravating facts was present, or five years' imprisonment if two of the above aggravating facts were present. The mandatory minimum penalties would be, where 50 or more persons are smuggled, five years' imprisonment if one of the above aggravating facts was present, and ten years' imprisonment if two of the above aggravating facts were present.

These amendments send a clear message. We will not tolerate smuggling operations in Canada and such conduct will be met with strong sanctions.

We are also proposing amendments to the Marine Transportation Security Act. For example, this bill would increase the penalties for anyone who fails to comply with the ministerial direction to not enter or leave or to proceed to another area in Canadian waters. Increased penalties will also apply to anyone who fails to submit required vessel pre-arrival information or who provides Canadian officials with false or misleading information.

The irregular arrival of a large number of irregular migrants all making refugee claims can pose significant challenges for border officials who are tasked with identifying each applicant in determining whether the individual is inadmissible to Canada and whether the individual poses a risk, due to the individual's association with organized criminal or terrorist organizations.

The sheer number of applicants combined with the increased complexity of examinations and investigations can and does overwhelm existing resources. This is why we need a new approach to the processing of irregular migrants, or one that will ensure Canada remains fair but also vigilant.

Bill C-49 accomplishes this by allowing the Minister of Public Safety to designate those who land on our shores in a way similar to those aboard the MV Sun Sea or the Ocean Lady as an irregular arrival. The minister will be able to make such a designation when he or she has reasonable grounds to believe that establishing the identity or admissibility of individuals who come to Canada as part of the arrival or other investigations cannot be carried out in a timely manner, or if he or she has reasonable grounds to suspect that the arrival of the group involved organized human smuggling activity.

Under the current rules, any foreign national or permanent resident may be detained on entry into Canada. People can be detained if an immigration officer considers such an examination necessary in order to continue an examination. They can also be detained if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that they are inadmissible to Canada, are a danger to the public or are unlikely to appear for an immigration proceeding.

The reasons for such detention however, must be reviewed by the Immigration and Refugee Board within 48 hours, and subsequently reviewed within seven days, and then each 30-day period that follows. In many cases this provides a reasonable system of checks and balances to help prevent unreasonably long detentions.

In the case of irregular arrivals however, the current system of detention review does not provide officers from Canada Border Services Agency with sufficient time to properly interview and identify each individual, or to determine whether the individual may be inadmissible to Canada or pose a risk to Canadians.

Too many resources are expended in meeting the demands of the detention review schedule rather than focusing on the required investigations and verifications needed to ensure the integrity of Canada's immigration and refugee program as well as the safety and security of Canadians.

Bill C-49 addresses this by providing for the mandatory detention of persons who arrive in Canada as part of a designated arrival until such time as they are found to be refugees by the Immigration and Refugee Board, or until 12 months have passed since they were first detained. Those persons still detained after 12 months will have a detention review hearing before the Immigration and Refugee Board to determine whether there is a basis for their continued detention. If the Immigration and Refugee Board continues detention, there will be subsequent reviews every six months. The minister will be able to order early release where exceptional circumstances exist.

Under our proposed amendments, individuals who come to Canada as part of a designated arrival will, for a period of five years, be prevented from applying for permanent resident status and sponsoring family members. Restrictions on travelling outside Canada will also apply during this period. They will also be prevented from accessing a more generous health care plan than the average Canadian currently receives, something they can do at the present time through the interim federal health plan.

These are practical and sensible provisions. They address the need to properly identify individuals who come to Canada as part of an irregular arrival. They will help to keep Canadians safe by helping to ensure that dangerous criminals and terrorists are not released into Canadian society. They will also help deter human smuggling operations from targeting Canada.

We also need to deter other kinds of abuse of Canada's immigration and refugee protection program. Refugee status can be revoked when it is proven before the refugee protection division of the Immigration and Refugee Board that an individual had lied to support his or her claim for protection and that the remaining credible evidence is not sufficient to support the individual's need for refugee protection. This is referred to in the act as the vacation of refugee status.

Bill C-49 amends the Balanced Refugee Reform Act to prevent such persons from appealing decisions of the refugee protection division with regard to the vacation of refugee protection to the refugee appeal division of the Immigration and Refugee Board. The bill also eliminates appeals to the refugee appeal division with respect to the decisions the division has made that a person's need for refugee protection has ceased.

All these measures substantially enhance our ability to crack down on those who engage in human smuggling. They strengthen our ability to protect the safety and security of Canadians from criminal or terrorist threats, and they respect our international obligations and commitments to provide assistance and sanctuary for genuine refugees.

Before I end my speech, I want to address the comments made by the NDP's public safety critic last week. He compared the selfless act of those who helped slaves escape persecution to the criminal human smugglers who prey on vulnerable individuals and who only care about profit. That member should be ashamed and he should apologize to this House.

Human smugglers are clearly targeting Canada and are treating our country like a doormat. The problem is growing and must be stopped.

Canadians expect appropriate measures to respond to the challenges associated with such large-scale arrivals, such as those we have recently witnessed. They want to help those in need and those who need our protection, but Canadians are not naive. They know that threats exist and that we must remain vigilant.

That is why our government is committed to taking action on many fronts, both domestically and internationally. That is what we have done, and that is what we are going to continue to do in the future.

We are proud of this bill. I encourage the member for Vancouver Kingsway and all members to recognize that the serious problem posed by human smuggling is growing and must be stopped.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety referenced two vessels, the Sun Sea and the Ocean Lady. I would like to take him back in time and reference two other ships that arrived in Canadian waters.

Back in 1939 the SS St. Louis arrived in Canadian waters with 937 European Jews on board. Unfortunately, that ship was turned away. Those unfortunate Jews were returned to Europe, and in the subsequent years virtually all of them lost their lives in the Holocaust.

There was a similar incident in 1914 with the SSKomagata Maru. There was 354 people on board. They were turned back. Many of them lost their lives when they returned to India.

I ask the parliamentary secretary, under this legislation, what sort of sanctions would the ship's captain and owners of the SS St. Louis have faced?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague opposite is very interested in a number of immigration issues, and I respect him for that.

Let us be honest, we are not talking about 50 or 60 years ago, or even 80 years ago. These are different circumstances, different people. These are human smugglers who are doing it purely for profit. That is what we are talking about here, human smugglers who are doing this purely for profit. The intention behind this legislation is to take that issue out.

We understand the need for legitimate refugees to be able to come to this country. We have processes that are able to handle that.

In this situation, these are human smugglers. Large sums of money are being expended by these folks to come here. We also hear a lot of things are occurring after the fact, after some of the folks come here, about their returning to their country of origin.

I think my friend has to recognize that these are different circumstances, different times. We are not talking about something that happened 60 years ago. We are talking about something that happened in the last few months.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the point raised by the previous member is a very important one. Will the government acknowledge that a ship can be leased to transport legitimate refugees, and that these refugees may agree to pay a reasonable amount of money so that the ship can reach foreign shores? Will it also recognize the fact that the captain would be remunerated?

How do we make a distinction between a captain who receives reasonable remuneration for the risks he is taking and the expenses he is incurring, as opposed to a captain who is doing it for profit? An investigation would have to be done after the fact. I think that the government member knows very well that in the past our welcome for refugees has been an example for the world. We have had no complaints about the refugees, because they have truly enriched our country.

Now, in different circumstances that may appear similar, how will we distinguish between those who are charging a fair price and those who are exploiting refugees? The second kind has neither the government's sympathy nor ours, I should add.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know my friend is interested in immigration issues and I respect him likewise for that. But these are different circumstances. I do not think we can deal with the what-ifs and all those other things. We do know certain things are occurring in our world, and Canadians expect members of Parliament to take a stand.

I hear in my riding, and I am sure my colleagues do, from people who have legitimately followed all of the rules and have immigrated to this country or have come as refugees in the normal sense of how these things occur. What they are not happy about is people who are paying huge sums of money, lining up on foreign shores and coming here in ships. Seemingly, in their minds, the ship owners and the captains have been immune from any prosecution. This is just putting it on the table that all of these people need to recognize before they leave their shores, if they are paying large sums of money, that the captain is going to face sanctions when he gets here, and those people who are buying their way, so to speak, into this country are going to face this process of dealing with the refugee system. It is a fair process, quite honestly.

Canadians do not want Canada to be seen as a welcome mat for everyone who wants to come here and uses this as a reason for getting into the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, the current law in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, in section 117, provides for punishment of 10 years if people are smuggling in 10 or fewer people, and it provides life imprisonment if they are smuggling in more than 10 people. A life sentence is very severe. Why are those terms already in the immigration act not enough to deal with smugglers? I can see that if Conservatives want to amend the Marine Transportation Security Act, that could be possible. Why is it not introduced separately, and why is it mixed in with the immigration act, because the immigration act already has severe punishment in that section?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again, my colleague is another member of the House who has immigration files she is interested in. I think she has a private member's bill before the House that would allow additional immigration to this country.

If what the member is saying is in fact what she believes, she should support the bill because typically the NDP supports less in terms of sentencing than other parties. The bill is fair and reasonable, but it sends a clear message around the world to those who would engage in human smuggling for profit that they are going to be sanctioned and there are opportunities when they get to this country to face Canadian laws that deal with this. So I would ask all members to talk to their constituents. I think they will find that most of their constituents find this fair and reasonable and they expect Canada to stand up for some of these principles.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the government attempts to create fairness, and one of the great mediators of fairness is the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Would the parliamentary secretary be prepared to table in the House an opinion by the Department of Justice as to whether or not all provisions within this bill will meet the test of the charter or a charter challenge?

Would he provide that to members of the House, so that we can review as to whether or not these provisions do indeed meet the test of fairness as prescribed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the floor would know that I do not have such a document with me. Whether it exists or not, I do not know, but that is frequently an argument we hear from the opposite side, that it will not pass the test of the charter.

We can always stand back and say it will not pass the test of the charter, and we will not know that until a court has ruled on it. However, as he knows from when his party was in power, the drafters of these bills come from within the legal branches of Justice and other branches. They have vetted it. They have brought it forward. This bill was not written on the back of a napkin or anything of that nature. It has been drafted properly, and I am sure my colleague is quite well aware of that.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in this debate. I want to do so by concentrating really on two aspects of the legislation and on the situation that the member who has just spoken and others have talked to.

This bill causes me a great deal of concern, not because it is illegitimate or inappropriate for governments to be concerned about the security of Canada. In fact that is a primary responsibility of the federal government and a responsibility that all of us take very seriously. However, I am concerned because the methods and definitions used in this bill would significantly impact a number of people who are not smugglers, the term used by the government, but people fleeing for their lives from difficult situations.

In particular I want to discuss, at this point in time, the situation in Sri Lanka because we would not be having this discussion if two boats had not arrived over the last several years on which a number of Sri Lankans of Tamil origin came to Canada. It is important for us to stop dancing around the issue and understand that, were it not for that particular circumstance, we would not be having this debate, we would not be having this discussion and the government would not be presenting this legislation.

To talk about this legislation without talking about what happened in Sri Lanka and what is taking place there today would be a bit like talking about Moby Dick without mentioning a white whale.

As members know, I have spent many months in Sri Lanka over the last several years. Together with a number of other Canadians and international constitutional experts, I was involved in advising in the negotiating process that came out of the ceasefire in Sri Lanka that took place in 2001 and was negotiated by the Norwegians.

In the course of that work, I had the opportunity to spend a great deal of time in that country. I met on several occasions with political leaders on all sides and have had an opportunity since then to follow on a regular basis the events that are taking place in the country.

I am not going to go over the entire political history of Sri Lanka except to say that the period in which I was there, the period of the ceasefire, was a brief interregnum of non-violence during a 25-to-30 year, very difficult and violent civil war in which literally tens of thousands of people were killed, mainly in the north but including civilians in the south. Yes, acts of terrorism were carried out against civilians. Very significant bombing and damage and destruction and death occurred as a result of the war carried out by the government of Sri Lanka as well as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, as they are called, better known as the Tamil Tigers.

The ending of that war was a subject of considerable debate in this House. Many questions were raised in question period about it, not only in this House but in parliaments and legislatures around the world.

There are questions about what actually happened at the end of that conflict. Certainly by any estimation, several thousand people were killed in the last few days. Estimates range anywhere from a few thousand to as high as 30,000 or 40,000. Those numbers are contested and debated by all sides, but nevertheless, it is clear that there was a significant loss of life at the very end of the war.

It is also interesting that as recently as the last few days, Prime Minister Cameron of the United Kingdom called for an investigation into possible war crimes that may or may not have taken place at the end of that war.

The Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Ban Ki-moon, has appointed a panel of experts to advise him. It is to look into the question of what happened and what the possible consequences would be with respect to the conduct of the government of Sri Lanka as well as the conduct of the LTTE. That panel has not been welcomed by the government of Sri Lanka. In fact, its very existence has been challenged. It is the subject of considerable debate in Sri Lanka. The government of Sri Lanka has also appointed a commission that is supposed to look into the question of what happened in those last days.

From the perspective of the government of Sri Lanka, the war is simply over. The conflict is at an end. There are still several thousand people in large refugee camps, but many of them have been rehoused and moved out, away from the 300,000 people who were in the camp at the end of the conflict.

At the same time, it is fair to say that political power is being consolidated at the central level. As colleagues will certainly know, the government of Sri Lanka not only has not been particularly enthusiastic about allowing in the members of the panel from the Secretary-General of the United Nations, it also, despite the fact I had a valid visa issued by the High Commission of Sri Lanka, did not permit me to enter the country when I arrived at Colombo airport some several months ago. I am sure other members perhaps in other parties have since been allowed to go, but I regret very much I was unable to go last June.

I must confess, I do not say these words with even a degree of personal resentment at the fact that this took place. Rather it was the fact that when I was not allowed in, it was because I was deemed to be a threat to the security of the country. When I hear others described as a threat to the security of the country, that is what I was called.

I hope people will think through very carefully in trying to understand some of the motivation, some of the issues, the human problems, the suffering, the sense of threat to life and limb that has historically led people to flee a country and to seek refuge and harbour somewhere else.

The minister is sitting in the House. I respect the fact that he is here listening to the debate. I have always respected that approach—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. I want to bring to the attention of the member for Toronto Centre and others that it is not a practice to draw attention to whether members are or are not in the chamber.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

I certainly know that, Mr. Speaker. One would think that after 32 years I would have figured out how to do this.

I simply wanted to point out the fact that I appreciated there were some people who were here. In my experience, other ministers are not always here when we discuss matters of a bill. I appreciate the minister's respect for parliamentary tradition.

However, I want to emphasize that it is not possible for the House to debate the question of the appropriateness of this legislation unless we understand what exactly is taking place in the country from which people are fleeing and which are now the subject of the sanctions in the bill. This is why we are discussing the legislation.

It is not possible to have a serious discussion about the bill without understanding that in Europe, in the United Nations, in the United States, in virtually every country in the western world significant concerns have been expressed, and are being expressed, about the human rights situation, historically, in Sri Lanka, and even today in Sri Lanka. It is an illusion to think that this is not a problem or it is something we should not discuss.

The Conservative government has remained significantly silent on this topic. We have not heard anything from it with respect to the circumstances surrounding the end of the war. We have not heard anything from it with respect to whether or not it is fully supportive of the decision of Ban Ki-moon to name a panel. We have not heard any response to the call from the British prime minister with respect to the need for war crimes investigation.

I do not know why there is that reluctance. I do not know why a government, which in many respects from insignificant moments in the life of the House has spoken clearly about democracy and has spoken clearly about human rights, would have such difficulty in this situation. It cannot be that there was a violent conflict and because one party to that conflict was the LTTE. It cannot be that the standard to which we hold the Sri Lankan government can be any less or any lower. It cannot be that we have appropriately designated the LTTE as a group that practised terror, that believed in violence, that believed in the appropriateness of killing civilians or of using civilians as targets and as shields in the course of a war, a group that believed it was appropriate to strap bombs on the backs of young 13-year-old women and send them into a market or into a bazaar. There never can be an apology or an expression of support for that kind of tactic or approach to life. We should be very clear about that. Speaking as someone who has lost dear friends to these acts of terror, I have no hesitation in being critical of that.

However, that is never an excuse for repression. That is never an excuse for oppression. It is not an excuse for the killing of civilians. We would not be seeing the numbers of people who get on those boats if there was not a problem in Sri Lanka. Anybody who says that we are not worried about that or we will not express a concern about that or that is not part of what we need to discuss is simply not facing up to the reality of the situation.

I would ask the government to use its offices of investigation and its capacity. I would like the government to remain deeply sensitive to the challenge that the Tamil community still faces in Sri Lanka and to be aware of some of those circumstances and the pattern of increasing the political power at the centre. Every sensible observer from the International Crisis Group to Amnesty International to Human Rights Watch to the United Nations has expressed concern about the underlying challenge of the problem of human rights in Sri Lanka.

If there were no civil rights problems in Sri Lanka, we would not be having this problem with refugees right now. We cannot discuss this bill in the House of Commons without discussing the situation in Sri Lanka. We must discuss it honestly and openly. That is essential.

The second point I want to make is the government has told us, and the member who just spoke referred to this very directly, that the purpose of the bill is to increase the severity of punishment for what it calls human smuggling. In the history of immigration and in the history of the movement of populations, it is very important for the Government of Canada and the people of Canada to express a strong view about people being paid money in order to bring many others to Canada and to portray them as refugees.

My colleague from Etobicoke Centre mentioned two of the most dramatic examples of the arrival of boats in the country. The member who was asked about it simply dismissed by saying, “well that is history”. Well, not exactly. It was pointed out that when the Komagata Maru was posted outside of Vancouver, it was not allowed in, people were not allowed to disembark and stay here. Eventually the boat went back and when they arrived in India, hundreds were killed. We know from the plight of the S.S. St. Louis that of the 900 people who were not allowed to land in Havana, or in Miami or in Halifax, probably as many as 300 were killed in the Holocaust. A lot of studies have done on both of these experiences.

When the member says that we should ask our constituents how they feel, I have to ask how Canadians felt in 1914 and in 1939.

We always have to say to ourselves that these are not easy issues. I have no doubt at all in my mind that there are a great many of my constituents who, if they were told about this legislation, would say that it is good. It is only when we think it through that we ask ourselves if this is really what we should do. This is where I have a problem.

I have a problem because the law is not just about smuggling; the law is also about refugees. It creates two classes of refugees. That is the weakness of the law and, in my view, it is the flaw of the law. In my view, it is a flaw which the courts will attack front and centre. It is not just about the charter; it is also about our international obligations.

We have signed covenants with respect to the rights of children and with respect to the rights of refugees. We cannot simply say that because refugees came over in a certain boat that we will put them in a different category. They would be designated by the minister and they would be unable to do what other refugees could do, or what other people who applied for refugee status could do, or those who sought to be refugees could do.

It is this creation of two classes that is the central weakness and flaw of the bill. In addition, the legislation as a whole and the discussion as a whole does not in fact deal with where the problem lies.

It is equally important for us to deal with the issue of queue jumping. There is nothing more basic to a Canadian's sense of fairness than to say that we do not want people jumping the queue, that those people are trying to come in as immigrants when there are other people who are patiently waiting in their countries of origin.

It has to be understood that there is no queue line for refugees. These are two different things. Again, that is where I think the government has used language, quite creatively I might add, which is intended to tell Canadians that we have to create a situation that is fair to everyone.

I agree we have to create a situation that is fair to everyone, but I question legislation that creates two separate categories of refugees, that treats people who come over in certain boats in a certain way and people who come over by plane or in another boat in another way. The government is not being upfront with the people of Canada when it suggests that what is taking place is any form of queue jumping.

If there is a refugee process that is well managed and that has enough people to manage the flow of people who are coming in and asking to be refugees, if people are not accepted as refugees they go back to their country of origin, and that is it.

We send back hundreds, if not thousands of people. No one should be under any illusions about that. This legislation is more about politics than it is about dealing with a real problem.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Toronto Centre for his comments. He is always a thoughtful member. In particular, let me say that I agree with many of his comments with respect the conflict in Sri Lanka and the need for a just and durable settlement that respects the legitimate aspirations of the Tamil people and that responds to the many serious concerns about human and civil rights violations.

I spoke to that at the beginning of my speech in introducing this bill yesterday, and I did discuss the ongoing efforts of Canadian diplomats and members of this government's executive branch to do everything we can to ask the Sri Lankan authorities to deal with these issues in a transparent and serious manner. I entirely agree with the member.

Having said that, I think it is important to underscore that the bill does not deal with any particular source country.

Second, in dealing with that issue, I wonder if the member would care to comment or reflect on the fact that, since the cessation of hostilities last year, more than 100,000 Tamil Sri Lankan refugees who were under the protection of India, principally in Tamil Nadu, have since returned to Sri Lanka. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees has said that Tamil refugee claimants can no longer be presumed to have a bona fide claim. The UNHCR has also facilitated the return to Sri Lanka of many Tamil asylum claimants who were under temporary protection in southeast Asia.

Similarly, a CBC report last week indicated that Tamils living in India had paid smugglers to come to Canada, in part for economic reasons, in their words. Finally, according to a CBSA survey, a significant majority of successful Tamil asylum claimants in Canada have subsequently returned to the country from which they claimed to flee for reasons of fear of persecution.

Could the member comment on the fact that the situation according to the UN and other international observers has improved appreciably from the point of view of safety? However, I agree with him that there continue to be very serious issues that must be dealt with.

Finally and very briefly, the analogies to the St. Louis and Komagata Maru quite frankly border on demagoguery. Neither of those situations has any relevance to this. We would—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order. The hon. member for Toronto Centre.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is very kind. At one point in his speech he says how thoughtful I am and at the end of his speech he calls me a demagogue, so I am not sure which it is. I wish the minister would make up his mind. I can handle the praise and the criticism, either one, but I just wish he would make up his mind. A thoughtful demagogue, I guess, is the average.

On the first point the minister is absolutely correct, that of course the situation has changed, but let us be candid. The situation has changed because there has been a considerable consolidation of power in Sri Lanka, significant centralization of power and continued repression. It is still a very dangerous place to be a journalist. It is a very dangerous place to express opposition and differing views, but it is also a constantly evolving situation.

I am not suggesting for a moment that there is an automatic presumption that any one of the people, who came over in the circumstances of the last 18 months in two boats that are the subject of this legislation, is a refugee. I am simply saying there is a need to consider their claim. There is a need to make sure we have a sufficient number of officers and people who can review the case in time to get it done. That is the approach that needs to be taken to regulate that situation.

We can debate the question of the other boats in our history. The one thing I would not want the minister to ignore is the comment that was made by former Prime Minister Mulroney at the time that the boat came to Newfoundland. At that point the government of the day decided it would grant almost immediate resident status to the people who claimed, and Mr. Mulroney said it was done in a spirit of generosity, realizing and remembering the historic traditions of the country. If I may say so, this was quite a significantly different tone than the one struck by the current Prime Minister.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his thoughtful commentary on a very important bill. He made a couple of points, which I hope all members will recall, that we cannot paint all refugees and refugees' circumstances in countries with the same brush.

I listened carefully to the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, and I was a little disturbed that he invoked a number of images of gun crime, violent offenders, profits and funds used for illicit criminal activities. He tended to paint a picture that what we are talking about in the bill is about refugees and all of these terrible things that are associated with refugees.

The member read that speech, and that means it comes from the minister's office, which means it comes from the Prime Minister's Office. Is there a sense that maybe the government is not being totally forthright with the House with regard to its attitude toward refugees generally?

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the central flaw in the bill, as I have tried to suggest, is this. First of all, the government did not invent the offence of human smuggling. Human smuggling is an offence that is now punishable by up to life imprisonment. We have not had many convictions of it, but nevertheless to suggest that this is some new law, some new crackdown that is taking place, is more illusion than reality. The reality is that we already have a law in place.

The other flaw is that the bill has much more to do with how refugee applicants who come over in boats of this kind are treated, that is to say detention for up to a year and being treated in a separate channel, a separate class. It creates a new class of people who have been designated by a minister because of the circumstances in which they have come. It gives extraordinary power and discretion to the minister to label a group or to label a particular circumstance, and it then puts those people in a separate stream and they are treated in a completely separate way that is entirely discriminatory in comparison to how other refugee applicants are to be treated. That is why I do not believe this meets the test. It does not meet the test.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are 18,000 internally displaced persons in Sri Lanka and 89,000 widows in the north and the east. They are in a desperate situation. They talk about struggling to live each day. They have no jobs and no men to help them out.

Would this be one of the definitions of refugees, people who have no livelihood, who live in camps and who are stuck in a desperate situation with respect to food and shelter?

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not here to give a definition of who is or is not a refugee. That is a determination that is made in law.

I am here to say that we all have to understand how serious the humanitarian situation in Sri Lanka remains for a great many people. One should not forget that, and one should not ignore the nature of that circumstance.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour and a pleasure for me to rise and speak in favour of Bill C-49, Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act, and I would certainly like to commend the hon. Ministers of Citizenship and Immigration and of Public Safety for the good and timely work they have done in getting this legislation before the House.

Hon. members will know that in recent years the smuggling of human beings across international borders has become a multi-million dollar activity that is actually global in scope. Some estimates place the number of people who are smuggled across borders every year at 800,000. The United Nations notes that it is one of the fastest growing areas of international criminal activity.

The precise number of people who are smuggled across international borders is difficult to confirm, given the clandestine nature of these operations, but there is no doubt that human smuggling is big, big business. People can be smuggled by land, by sea or by air. Human smuggling may be perpetrated by organized crime groups or by individuals with links to terrorist organizations. This fact in itself should spur us all into action. Like many of our international allies and partners, Canada today is a target for the global activities of organized criminal enterprises that engage in this reprehensible act of human smuggling.

Canadians have recently witnessed the arrival of 492 Sri Lankan Tamils aboard the MV Sun Sea, less than one year after the arrival of 76 Sri Lankan Tamils aboard the boat the Ocean Lady.

Earlier this month, a number of people were discovered in a container at the Port of Montreal in a possible case of human smuggling or human trafficking.

Last year, the RCMP's Atlantic region immigration and passport section, working with the Integrated Border Enforcement Team in New Brunswick, arrested four people alleged to have facilitated illegal migration. Two of these individuals have since pleaded guilty and were convicted of offences under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, including human smuggling and misrepresentation.

Finally, Canadians previously witnessed the seizure of four cargo ships that appeared in remote west coast waters, carrying nearly 600 migrants from southern China. Many of these individuals were children and teenagers whose parents had paid sums equivalent to 10 years of their salaries to so-called snakeheads that specialize in human smuggling.

Human smuggling is a serious crime. I think all members of the House would agree with that, and the international community has taken decisive action to respond to it. The UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and its supplemental Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air provide a broad international framework to respond to the varied threats posed by organized crime and their smuggling ventures.

Canada was among the first countries to sign and ratify these important international crime treaties, and the tabling of this bill today reflects Canada's ongoing commitment to strengthening our responses to migrant smuggling.

Human smuggling undermines the integrity of Canada's borders and our immigration and refugee programs and system. It poses a threat to public safety, since the identities of smuggled individuals are often hard to establish, and in many cases, it poses a threat to national security or public safety, since human smuggling ventures are also being used to traffic narcotics and/or arms, to secure safe haven for criminals and terrorists, and to raise funds for a wide range of illicit activities, including the aforementioned terrorism.

Bill C-49 will give law enforcement officials much needed and additional tools to investigate and prosecute these individuals who organize and engage in human smuggling ventures. It will also enhance law enforcement's ability to investigate the potential national security and public safety risks posed by unidentified migrants who come to Canada as part of an irregular arrival, among whom there may be individuals with criminal and/or terrorist links.

More specifically, Bill C-49 will amend the current human smuggling offence, about which the last speaker spoke, in section 117 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The proposed amendments would make it an offence to organize, induce, aid or abet someone to enter Canada, knowing that or being reckless as to whether that entry would be in contravention of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Currently, only situations where the smuggler knew that the smuggled person did not possess the documents necessary to enter Canada are captured as an offence under the act.

It is clear, at least it is clear to the members on this side of the House, that by broadening the offence in this fashion our laws will now better reflect the different methods that smugglers utilize to bring persons into Canada.

In addition to amending the offence, the bill also proposes tough mandatory minimum penalties of imprisonment ranging from 3 to 10 years, depending on the particular facts that are proven in court. This sends the clear message to smugglers, criminals who have little concern for smuggled persons and immigration laws, that Canada will no longer tolerate these illegal activities.

The bill also proposes increasing the penalties for the operator of any vessel who fails to comply with ministerial direction to leave or not enter Canadian waters or who fails to provide required pre-arrival information, and who provides false or misleading information to officials.

Today, vessels of 300 gross registered tons or more that are bound for Canada must fill out a pre-arrival information report at least 96 hours before arriving at a Canadian port. The Minister of Transport has the authority to direct any vessel to not enter Canadian coastal waters or to travel to another area in Canadian waters when and if there are reasonable grounds to believe the vessel in question may pose a security threat.

It is an offence under the Marine Transportation Security Act to knowingly make a false or misleading statement or to provide false or misleading information. Currently there are fines and a maximum one-year prison term for failure to comply with the ministerial direction or for making false or misleading statements and a maximum six-month prison term for not filing the requisite pre-arrival information report.

Bill C-49 also proposes significantly stiffer fines as a further deterrent to those considering mounting marine human smuggling ventures into Canada. Indeed, the amendments the government is proposing will mean that the operator of any vessel who fails to comply with a ministerial directive to leave Canadian waters or one who provides false or misleading information to officials will be hit much harder in the pocketbook and will face a longer prison term.

The proposed penalties for failing to comply with certain requirements of the Marine Transportation Security Act will be raised from $10,000 to $200,000 in the case of an individual on conviction on indictment. In case of a corporation, on conviction on indictment the penalties will be raised from $200,000 to $500,000.

The penalties will be even higher in the event of subsequent offences. Again, in the case of individuals, maximum potential prison terms will be raised from six months to a maximum of one year for those who fail to file the pre-arrival information report.

Stiffer consequences, stiffer fines and stiffer sentences will all send a signal to human smugglers that Canada will not tolerate their illegal and highly dangerous activities. Canada will not sit still while human smugglers calmly sail into our waters, travel across our borders or even land at our airports.

We will take action. We will work with our international partners to deter, detect and prevent these illegal activities. If they do get to Canada, we will take every step possible to hold these persons accountable.

In addition, Bill C-49 will ensure that border officials and police have the time to properly identify and investigate the organizers of human smuggling operations, as well as smuggled individuals who may pose a threat to our safety and to our security.

In particular, the bill that the government has put forward will provide for the mandatory detention of persons who arrive in Canada as part of a designated arrival until such time as they have been determined to be refugees by the Immigration and Refugee Board or 12 months have passed since they were initially detained, with exceptions for cases that involve exceptional circumstances.

This measure will prevent potentially dangerous or inadmissible persons from being released into Canada before their identity and the level of risk they present to Canadians can firmly be established. As the minister has mentioned, these amendments proposed are tough but they are also fair. They will help to make Canada a much less attractive target for human smugglers. They will help to make sure that the organizers of human smuggling operations are better held to account for this reprehensible crime.

I therefore urge all hon. members to support this legislation before us today and to work with the government to ensure its speedy passage.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the legislation is so broadly drafted that it does not differentiate between those who would smuggle humans for humanitarian reasons and those who would do it for profit.

Also, it does not differentiate between those who smuggle people and land them in Canada and the individuals smuggled are determined to have been genuine refugees and those who are strictly economic migrants.

Would the member not agree that there should be a different approach for these various categories of people, and would the government be amenable to see amendments to the legislation that would differentiate between those who are involved with human smuggling of genuine refugees and those who are strictly just economic migrants?

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

I do not agree, Mr. Speaker.

Recently there have been high-profile cases of human smuggling, and Canadians are rightly outraged by these incidents and are demanding action.

The legislation is aimed at the smugglers. If individuals are legitimate refugees and are determined to be such by the Immigration and Refugee Board, they will be dealt with according to law, but this legislation is aimed directly at the smugglers. We know that too often it is a profitable enterprise to smuggle people into Canada.

With these measures and the increased fines and the added mandatory aspect of jail time, individuals will have to calculate that in their business plans before they decide that this is an appropriate venture to smuggle people into Canada.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I notice in clause 4, proposed subsection 117(3.2) says:

A person who is convicted of an offence under subsection (3) with respect to a group of 50 persons or more is...liable to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of

(b) 10 years, if both

(i) the person, in committing the offence, endangered the life or safety of, or caused bodily harm or death to, any of the persons with respect to whom the offence was committed, and

(ii) the commission of the offence was for profit, or was for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization or terrorist group.

I wonder if the member would agree with me that obviously the bill seeks to protect the individuals who are preyed upon by individuals for profit, as such simply to earn some money and take advantage of these people. Would the member agree with me that this sends a very big message to anybody who would do something like this, that if they come to Canada they are going to be treated very severely. Finally the Government of Canada is taking steps to go after these people who would profit on the backs of these poor individuals who are trying to come to this country.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for all the good work that he does on this file and others.

Certainly I would agree with his supposition. Similar to my response to the last question, this legislation is aimed directly at the human smugglers, those who are involved in this enterprise, individuals who own the boats that are used to operate these types of enterprises.

There are many victims and it is conceivable that the people who are actually being smuggled in under certain circumstances are victims. This legislation allows the department to assess who are legitimate refugees and who are part of either criminal enterprises or perhaps individuals who are trying to masquerade under the pretense of refugees to try to gain entry into Canada.

In any event, the hon. member is correct. This legislation will make it easier to prosecute human smugglers and will impose mandatory prison sentences for those convicted of human smuggling. That is the target of the bill and I think it is very much needed and timely legislation.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find the discussion interesting. There is some concern about the time it takes to process persons.

The member will know that people coming on boats would not expose themselves to that kind of situation unless they were, and believed that they were, legitimate refugee claimants in dire straits.

I am concerned that the timeframe seems to be inordinate. Children could be in detention in excess of a year and then every six months thereafter.

The member is well aware that in a number of countries from which people have come, documents either do not exist or are refused. We are not changing this law simply because of the Tamil situation. It would apply to all countries.

Is the member at all concerned that children might be the victims of some unintended consequences?

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we should all be concerned and sympathetic about children being smuggled. This legislation takes direct aim at those involved in smuggling. There is often an overlap between human smuggling and trafficking in individuals. We have all heard the horror stories about individuals ending up in the sex industry.

I do not agree with the premise of my hon. colleague's question. Refugee claimants or people on the boats cannot be characterized in one category. The member said that he did not think that people would put themselves in that position unless they believed themselves to be legitimate refugees. Although that is true in some circumstances, it is not universally true. We have heard anecdotes that individuals pay large sums of money to board these ships, and one becomes suspicious about how dire a person's plight can be who is able to pay $50,000. Some individuals are not as bad off as others.

The point is that individuals have to be individually assessed. Some are legitimate refugee claimants, and some are queue-jumpers who are trying to enter our great country without going through the normal process. Detaining them for an appropriate time would allow immigration officials to determine who is legally admissible as a refugee and who is not.

We have to send out the message, to potential refugee claimants as well as those who smuggle them, that Canada will not tolerate this type of activity.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, about Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act and the Marine Transportation Security Act.

It is important to clearly understand the objectives of this bill. One of the objectives is to allow the public safety minister to designate as irregular an arrival in Canada of a group of persons, who are categorized as “designated foreign nationals”. Designated foreign nationals who claim refugee or protected person status will be treated differently from other asylum seekers.

That is the reality. My Conservative colleagues are trying to tell us that this bill is meant to crack down on human smugglers, but its real objective is to create two categories of refugees, or rather a new category for designated foreign nationals. That is the reality.

Again, the Bloc Québécois will not support Bill C-49 and will vote against it, because it aims to do more than just crack down on human smugglers. It will punish people who are fleeing persecution, including children. Once again, the Conservatives are using a specific example from recent events—which made headlines in Quebec and Canada—to advance their law and order agenda, even though the measures they are proposing will not change the situation. The reality is that these people have arrived, they are here and the bill will not change anything in terms of the situation that unfolded when the last boat arrived in British Columbia.

The Bloc Québécois therefore opposes any new refugee category that would be justified only by the manner in which refugee claimants arrive. The fact that claimants arrive in a group does not mean they are not legitimate refugees. The Bloc Québécois believes that a new category that puts even heavier burdens on refugees would be prejudicial. We also deplore the fact that this government is backtracking, after a compromise had been reached on refugee reform. For years now, we have been calling for the refugee system to be updated and for the creation of an appeal system. We had nearly reached an agreement with the government, but instead it has decided to push ahead with its agenda rather than a compromise, because of a media event.

We in the Bloc Québécois believe it is simply inconceivable that all refugee claimants who arrive in a group can automatically be imprisoned for a maximum of 12 months, with no possibility of disputing their arrest. Worse still, according to the bill, that period can be extended indefinitely. This is a matter of fundamental human rights and democracy, specifically, the right to liberty. No human being should have to face such a situation.

This bill on illegal immigration goes against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as Canada's international obligations under the 1951 refugee convention, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Bloc Québécois believes that it would be completely irresponsible to vote in favour of a bill that flies in the face of at least three treaties meant to protect fundamental human rights.

For years, the governments, Liberal and Conservative alike, have allowed the current refugee system to get bogged down without doing anything about it. The thing that should be noted about this alarming statement is that this is not the first time the Conservative government has tried to resolve the problem by tightening the rules around asylum seekers coming to Canada. Take, for instance, the decision to require visas from Mexicans and foreign nationals from the Czech Republic, or the government's unwavering desire to develop a list of safe countries of origin as part of the refugee system reform. We do indeed detect, in the development of immigration policies, a discriminatory tendency to want to close the borders, including to those who are seeking refugee status. The proof is in the targeted range for total protected persons, which went from between 26,000 and 31,800 in 2008 to between 19,600 and 26,000 in 2010, not to mention the growing use of propaganda rhetoric that, in the name of national security, is used to justify taking a hard-line approach to this category of immigrants.

Although the government is saying it wants to punish human smugglers with this bill, it is instead punishing people who are fleeing persecution, including children. Once again, the government is being utterly discriminatory toward these refugees and is putting words into action to separate what it considers to be good refugees from bad refugees, as though their lives were not equally threatened.

The current system is bogged down because no one wanted to modernize it. When refugees arrive in large numbers, the government's tendency, which was solidified under the Liberals and confirmed by the Conservatives, is to tighten the system and prohibit them from entering the country. Under international treaties that Canada has signed, refugees deserve at least to have their file reviewed. Will we keep them all here? Not at all. Far from it. We will offer hospitality to those who truly need it and who are being persecuted in their home country, but we have to develop an effective file analysis system that respects human rights.

The Bloc Québécois has repeatedly shown the House that the existing system should be updated. The Liberals did not want to do it. The Conservatives appeared to want to do it—we hoped so, at least—but the Minister of Immigration was rebuffed with this bill, which flatly rejects everything he had put in place through discussions and negotiations to change the existing system. By creating a new class of refugees or foreign nationals requesting asylum, they are rejecting all improvements to the existing system.

I will now turn to security. When the MV Sun Sea arrived, the government issued a barrage of public statements positioning the arrival of boats as a threat to the security of Quebeckers and Canadians. As it turns out, those statements were unfounded. True to their ideology, the Conservatives used a widely reported event to promote their own political law and order agenda. There was no reason to believe that the arrival of the MV Sun Sea posed a threat to the security of Quebeckers and Canadians.

Under the existing law, any asylum seeker arriving by boat must be fingerprinted, photographed and interviewed. Canada's waters are under the authority of the Canada Border Services Agency, the CBSA, which has the power to detain asylum seekers if there are any doubts about their identity and to oppose their release before the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Immigration Division.

Some of the other 76 Tamils from Sri Lanka who arrived last year aboard the Ocean Lady and requested asylum remained behind bars for more than six months. None of them were found to be members of the Tamil Tigers or any similar organization. They were eventually released once the CBSA found that they were not a threat to national security.

Let us not forget that the 492 passengers aboard the MV Sun Sea accounted for less than 2% of the asylum requests received annually. The record, 5%, occurred in 1999, when four boats arrived carrying 600 asylum seekers. In 2010, the number of requests should be around 25,000, the lowest average in the past 20 years.

Arguments to the effect that the arrival of huge numbers of refugees poses a threat to public safety do not hold up. They certainly do not justify passing a bill that treats refugee claimants so harshly. We are not saying that smugglers should not be punished. However, this bill punishes legitimate refugee claimants. That is the problem. In addition, we feel that the existing act has all the mechanisms required to manage the arrival of these boats.

Why create a new category? The Conservatives simply decided to advance their ideological agenda.

Let us examine the compromise struck by Bill C-11. The Conservative government seems to be obsessed with classifying refugee claimants based on their numbers or origin. Such a measure was widely denounced when Bill C-11 on reform of the asylum system was studied. Initially, the federal government wanted especially to implement the concept of designated countries. Failed claimants from countries deemed to be safe would not have had access to the new refugee appeal division, a measure deemed extremely discriminatory by the Bloc Québécois.

The Conservative government insisted on this country classification. It said that, if this measure was not accepted, it would scuttle its own bill. Imagine. By making a strong case for refugee rights to the government and the other parties, the Bloc Québécois helped members reach a last-minute compromise designed to produce a reform that was truly effective and, even more importantly, fair to all asylum seekers.

Once again, it is important to understand that under international treaties that Canada has signed or recognized—and that Quebec would have signed if it were a country—all refugee claimants are treated with respect and have the right to be treated fairly, no matter their country of origin.

Even though the concept of designated countries still exists, this division will be accessible to everyone, including claimants from the designated countries. To compensate for that, two other expediting mechanisms were put in place. That was the compromise with Bill C-11. If the Refugee Protection Division rejects a claim for refugee protection, it may state in its reasons for the decision that the claim is manifestly unfounded if it is of the opinion that the claim is clearly fraudulent. Unsuccessful claims submitted by claimants from the same country that are referred to the RAD would then be expedited. There will be regulations regarding the processing times for refugee claimants from a designated country. They will be shorter than for regular claims so that claimants who file unfounded claims can be deported as quickly as possible.

The Bloc Québécois cannot believe that the government has decided to take a step backwards, when a compromise had been made regarding the reform of the current refugee system. In fact, with Bill C-49, the government is creating a new category of refugee, based solely on the way the refugee claimant arrives. That is what is unacceptable.

The Bloc Québécois agreed to make compromises on Bill C-11. The government wanted safe countries. For those arriving from these countries, there was no division that applied, while for those not arriving from safe countries, there was a division that did not apply. All the government said was that the same standards apply to everyone, but for certain countries, the processing time would be shorter. Obviously, that was a compromise that the Bloc Québécois could accept, given the Conservatives' intransigence. Now, the government has changed its mind and is ignoring all of the debates and forcing Bill C-49 on us, because there was a story in the news that gave the government the opportunity to advance its ideological agenda, whether it will admit it or not. Once again, I was listening to the Conservative member who spoke before me. He made it clear that the goal was to combat illegal smuggling, but the real goal is to create a system that treats refugee claimants differently when they arrive by that means.

So there is a new category. The Minister of Public Safety, citizens of the world—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

I understand the minister because those people, obviously, are not Canadian citizens. But they are still citizens of the world who have a right to benefit from the treaties that Canada has ratified and that allow them to seek asylum.

Once again, what we are seeing with Bill C-49 is that the public safety minister can designate as irregular an arrival in Canada of a group of persons, who then become designated foreign nationals. Designated foreign nationals who claim refugee or protected person status will be treated differently from other asylum seekers. The fact that different applicants would be treated differently is what we found to be unacceptable in Bill C-11. In Bill C-49, a different status is created for these designated foreign nationals.

If they are denied refugee status, they have to wait five years before they can apply for permanent resident status. In the meantime, their claim could be re-evaluated to determine whether they can return to their country.

They cannot travel outside Canada or apply for permanent resident status or citizenship for five years. Consequently, they cannot sponsor members of their family, such as their spouse or children. Designated foreign nationals who have been denied asylum cannot appeal to the new refugee appeal division, only to the Federal Court. They also will not have access to health benefits that other refugees can access through the interim federal health program.

And so, not only is the principle of fairness—which says that all refugees have access to the system—being called into question, but asylum seekers who arrive in a group will be in a sort of legal vacuum for five years, which will strip them of the same rights given to asylum seekers who follow the usual refugee process. Just because a group of people arrives, that does not mean that they are not legitimate refugees, and the Bloc Québécois feels that this categorization would be extremely prejudicial to them.

The acceptance rate for refugee claims by Sri Lankan Tamils is 80% on average, and there is no indication that the situation in Sri Lanka will change and that it will be deemed that their lives are not in peril.

It must be understood that the Bloc Québécois' objective has never changed and has always been to oppose categories based on the origin of claimants or how they arrived here, because Canada has signed international treaties. Therefore, these people can make a claim, but that does not mean it will be accepted. We need an analysis process that is effective and quick. For that reason, the Bloc Québécois asked for the current process to be revised and for an appeal division to be set up so these individuals would have the opportunity to assert their rights. It must be effective, and we have to invest the money needed to do that.

The Conservative ideology was bolstered by the arrival of a large number of refugees, which received extensive media coverage. The Conservatives decided to make this their priority and to set aside all the opportunities they had to modernize the current process through Bill C-11.

This does not bode well for future discussions. In fact, the legal vacuum created for this category of designated foreign nationals, who are not yet classified as refugees, keeps these designated foreigners in legal limbo for five years, when they file a claim for refugee or protected person status. During that time, they cannot apply for permanent residence or family reunification. Consequently, they cannot sponsor members of their family or their spouse. Furthermore, they are not free to move or to enjoy all the rights that other claimants may have.

As I mentioned, Canada's international and constitutional obligations are important. Not only does this bill run counter to its international obligations under at least three treaties it has signed, but it also contravenes the Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states in subsection 15(1):

Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Which includes how they get to Canada.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, I find the comments by the member from the Bloc Québécois to be completely disconnected from reality and certainly from the will of their Quebec electors, who want an immigration system that is managed well according to reasonable and fair rules. The hon. member did not say a single word about the concern with regard to human smuggling. He says it is not really an issue and that we can ignore the fact that boats have on board thousands of illegal immigrants who are coming from very dangerous situations in their country. He talks about this issue with no knowledge of the situation in Southeast Asia.

Why would someone from Southeast Asia pay $50,000 to come to Canada, when there are in that region a number of signatory countries to the convention relating to the status of refugees that could offer protection? Why are these people not going to India?

Is he not aware that last week, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation broadcast an interview with some Tamils from India saying that they paid human smugglers to come to Canada? Does he believe that these people are subject to persecution in India? Does he have a solution to combat human smuggling or does he think we should ignore it because it conflicts with the political correctness of the urban elite and the left-wing ideology of the Bloc Québécois?

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister can look at the blues. I said that the Bloc Québécois would be prepared to support a government bill that punished human smugglers. The problem is that, because of these smugglers, we are creating a new category, designated foreign nationals. That is the Conservative philosophy and ideology that the Bloc Québécois has always opposed. We should not create different categories of refugees based on their country of origin or the way they arrive in Canada. They all should be treated the same way.

That is why we were prepared to support the government's Bill C-11. We would also be prepared to support Bill C-49 if it addressed only human smugglers. The Conservatives are taking advantage of the problem with human smugglers and the media attention around the arrival of a boat to push their right-wing ideology. We will always be opposed to this Conservative right-wing ideology, under which they are incapable of treating all human beings, especially children, the same way.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a picture gets painted very quickly in this place when questions are asked and concerns are raised, and we get responses from a minister who shifts the attention to another member who is raising questions.

In his speech, the member raised a couple of very important points. Some have been raised before, particularly the issue of creating two classes of refugees. Our system must be a universal system in which all refugees are accorded the same treatment.

It would appear that although the bill deals substantively with smugglers, the provisions of the bill really deal with people who are ostensibly outside the reach of the government in being able to enforce this legislation anyway. I think the only people it could touch would be a boat's captain and crew who have some other problems.

The government was aware of that ship last April, I believe it was. A lot of Canadians probably are interested in knowing whether there is a way in which we can address the issue of not being able to deal with a boat that we are observing and we know is coming. We wait until it hits Canadian waters and then we have the problem which the government says it is trying to solve. It is almost as if the government created a problem so that it could claim it has a solution.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I appreciate my hon. Liberal colleague's question. I know he is very conscientious, but the situation needs to be examined closely. By no means do I wish to protect the Conservatives—the members heard my speech—but nevertheless, they did inherit the situation that was created by the previous Liberal government. On several occasions we asked the Liberals to update the entire immigration and appeal system. They ignored our requests. Of course they are willing to be more conciliatory now than when they were in power.

Thus, asking the right-wing Conservatives—whose ideology makes them more inclined to turn everyone back, regardless of the individual situation—to update the legislation, feels like quite an uphill battle.

We had nearly reached an agreement with the Conservatives. I understand that the media situation gave them an opportunity to further their own right-wing ideology, but once again, they inherited the situation from the Liberals, who were unable to improve and update the system. If it had been updated, if we could have welcomed these people and processed their files quickly, we probably would not be in this situation.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, “It is time for Canada to send a clear signal to the world to discourage and fight human smuggling. That is why the Coptic community supports new federal legislation to protect human life, Canada's security and the integrity of Canada's immigration policy as a whole.” Those were the words of Antoine Malek of the Association of the Coptic Orthodox Community of Greater Montreal, as we just saw.

The Montreal Syrian Arabic community, the League of Ukrainian Canadians, the Canadian Druze Society and the Lebanese Islamic centre have all said that the government has done what needed to be done and has taken the bull by the horns, as they say.

I am disappointed in the Bloc member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel's position. It troubles me to see a Quebecker speak out against the Quebec consensus, which is to ensure that Canada does not become a conduit for organized crime and human smuggling.

My question for him is simple. How can he go against the Quebec consensus, which supports making Canada a place that welcomes immigrants but keeps criminals out? As I just explained, cultural communities support this measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, this gives me another opportunity to clarify our position. Regarding human smugglers, we agree with the government. We do have a problem, however, with the government's decision to introduce this bill to deal with the issue of people who arrive here and make claims. That is what it is doing. It is using this as an opportunity to promote its ideology. Will anyone go along with them? Yes, some people agree with the Conservative ideology. The Conservatives will always find people to go along with them. The problem is that the Bloc Québécois does not agree with the Conservative ideology of creating several categories, which is like saying that people from a certain country are allowed and people from another country are not allowed. What we are saying is that all refugee claimants should be treated equally.

The current system is overloaded and poorly managed. The Liberals managed it poorly and now the Conservatives are doing the same thing. Can it be modernized so that everyone has the opportunity to be heard? This does not mean we will let everyone stay. Those who do not deserve to stay will have to return to where they came from. Today, however, because it is advantageous from a media standpoint to further their ideology, the Conservatives are using this as an opportunity to say they are going to solve the problem of human smuggling. However, the problem we are currently facing is that some people who arrived in Canada should have had the right to have their files processed quickly, but that was not the case.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today in support of Bill C-49, an act to prevent human smugglers from abusing Canada's immigration system.

Human smuggling is a transitional criminal enterprise that spans the globe and Interpol says that it is a growing global phenomena. This form of illegal commercial migration is very dangerous and it exploits those individuals who are captured within it. Human smugglers consider their passengers to be little more than cargo and the boats on which they carry their passengers are like nightmarish prisons.

Migrants are typically stranded at sea, on an overcrowded boat, with unsanitary and unsafe conditions. These conditions often lead to severe illness or cause fatal accidents. As a result of these inhumane conditions, people die in human smuggling operations every year. Nevertheless, many illegal migrants decide to risk their lives and undertake this perilous journey for their destination country.

By charging people large sums of money for their transportation, human smugglers have made a lucrative business out of facilitating illegal migration, often by counselling smuggled persons to claim asylum in the country to which they are smuggled. Once they arrive in their destination country, these migrants are often at the mercy of their human smugglers and forced to work for years in the illegal labour market just to pay off their debts to their smuggler.

The arrival of the MV Sun Sea and the Ocean Lady in a period of less than 12 months is a clear indication that Canada is becoming a favoured destination for these human smuggling networks. Interpol says that human smuggling syndicates benefit from weak legislation and low risk of detection, prosecutions and arrests compared to other transnational organized crimes. If we do not take strong action now, more vessels will arrive and more lives will be put at risk. We cannot just stand by and allow these exploitative operations to continue.

This legislation would enable us to crack down on the despicable human smugglers who prey on these vulnerable migrants, but it also aims to stop those tempted to use this perilous form of migration by introducing several disincentives.

A key disincentive is that those arriving as a result of a designated smuggling event would not be able to apply for permanent residency for a period of up to five years. This would apply whether they are found to be in need of protection or not. During this five year period, persons found to be in need of protection would be restricted from travelling outside of Canada and would be unable to apply for permanent residency to Canada through other means. As a result, they would not be eligible to sponsor family members into Canada or become Canadian citizens during that time period.

The legislation also proposes mandatory detention for up to one year, which would also help ensure the safety and the security of Canadians.

When these migrants arrive on our shores, we have no idea who they are or where they are from. Often, they arrive without proper documentation and we do not whether they are criminals or terrorists who pose a threat to our safety and our security. Mandatory detentions would allow us to properly verify and confirm the identities of individuals to determine whether they are in fact admissible to Canada or whether they are involved in some form of illegal activity. This proposal is entirely within reason and it is fair.

The government's priority is, first and foremost, to protect the safety and the security of Canadians. This is the least that Canadians can expect from their government.

We are also taking measures to ensure that these individuals have access to fewer Canadian benefits. As we all know, Canadians enjoy health services that are among the best and most generous in the world. We need to ensure that illegal migrants are not receiving health coverage that is more generous than what is offered to other Canadians. It certainly will not happen under this government.

Currently, asylum seekers, resettled refugees, failed asylum seekers awaiting removal, detained individuals and victims of trafficking are provided with temporary health coverage through the interim federal health program.

Under these proposed changes, the scope of the services provided under the IFH program would be limited for those who arrive in Canada illegally via human smuggling operations. They would receive only basic coverage, including medically necessary care and immigration medical exams that refugee claimants must take upon their arrival in order to ensure they do not pose a risk to public health or safety.

Canada's generosity should not make us a target for criminal activity such as smuggling operations. We must remove the incentives for people seeking to come here by way of human smuggling. In doing so, we will uphold the integrity of our immigration and refugee process and our programs and ensure that the safety and security of Canadians is put into place.

This has certainly taken the attention of the public over the past 12 months. We have seen two ships arrive in our country for the purposes of smuggling, which is why the scope of the bill needs to be implemented. I have heard opposition members claim that this bill is some sort of a knee-jerk reaction to what has happened. I find that compelling in a way because, if this were a reaction to what had happened, then they would have to argue that we are actually about 11 months late introducing this legislation.

This legislation was put together over the past series of months to ensure that we have legislation that is strong, that is certainly consistent with the charter and with our Constitution, and, most important, that is consistent with the feelings and the positions that Canadians have held on this issue across our country.

There is no doubt that the issue in itself is a difficult one. We all know and, as members of Parliament, we have listened to the positions, arguments and stories in our ridings of refugees who have claimed asylum. We have heard them say that they needed to come to Canada in order to escape the perils they faced in their country. There is no question that the reason these ships are here is that our system is so generous and open and we want to ensure that those who need protection and those who are truly refugees have a place to come to in safety where they can become Canadians, find employment, find a new way of life and raise their families in a country as democratic and open as Canada.

However, the fact remains that the only answer to solving this problem of ensuring those who are clearly refugees, clearly want to be here and clearly need to be here go through the process that we have in place.

The previous speaker mentioned Bill C-11, which is exactly what this country needed in terms of reforming our refugee legislation. We took great pains to get through that process. I know, as the parliamentary secretary, we worked hours upon hours and days upon days to get that legislation back to the House of Commons so it would be supported at third reading. When it did come back here, it in fact received support from all parties. We now have a new system in terms of refugee reform legislation that will be implemented over the next 18 months.

Bill C-49 is so well augmented with Bill C-11 that we will have completely reformed and changed the direction that this country needs to take when it comes to refugees and those who need to seek asylum here. They will need to seek asylum in a way that follows the system that we have in place, not to jump the queue and not to be forced by smugglers, who take advantage of every person on that boat, to pay for their freedom rather than earn that freedom through a process that we have in place, which is one of the most generous in the world. We cannot have it.

The Canadian people have spoken loud and clear on this issue. The one thing that we need to continue to come back to is fairness, because this is what the Canadian people understand so much better than the rest of the world. No Canadian wants to see individuals living in peril in their country. If it is important enough for us to understand that freedom of security, of governance and of democracy needs to happen here in this country and they deserve that, then our arms are wide open to them, but we have a process and a system.

There are people who are taking advantage of these individuals, charging them more money then they could ever afford in their lifetime, to get on to a boat and somehow find a way to come here. They make promises and claims. They literally push those individuals onto the vessel to get them here to Canada. They tell the individuals that Canada will accept them, that Canadian laws are so generous and in need of so much repair that when they land here they will be given the status they so want.

Those refugees who have a rightful claim and a rightful place for freedom will get that here in this country. However, those who do not are standing in the way of those who actually do.

This process of human smuggling, of bringing people into this country by crowding them onto a ship and having them land on Canadian soil, is not the way Canadians want this to happen. Canadians want to know who is on that ship and who is going to claim refugee status here.

Simply turning these hundreds of individuals loose on Canadian soil has the potential to put Canadian lives and health in peril. We do not know where these individuals have come from. We do not know if they are true refugees. We do not know if they are terrorists. We do not know if they are criminals in their own country. That is not the type of environment we want here in this country.

This bill changes all of that. It sets in place a process that will show respect for those who truly deserve refugee status. It will send a loud and clear message to countries and smugglers who live off the proceeds of these individuals that we will not be in a position as a country to accept this any more.

The Minister of Public Safety, the President of the Treasury Board, and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Multiculturalism made this announcement in front of one of the ships that arrived here. They made the announcement on the west coast, but that message travelled to the east coast of our country almost immediately. There is page after page of endorsement. Group after group, editorial after editorial, Canadian after Canadian have said that this legislation is right, it is timely, it is good, it is fair. It is something that everyone in this House should be supporting.

One headline reads, “Ottawa tightens rules on human smuggling”. The Headline News article states:

The bill, titled “Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada’s Immigration System Act,” shows that Ottawa will not tolerate abuse of the system by getting ahead of the immigration line, but stresses that the federal government of Canada will continue to welcome legitimate immigrants who could contribute to the country.

An editorial in the Calgary Herald stated:

Tough anti-smuggling legislation aimed at stopping boats of illegal migrants from showing up on Canadian shores, places the punishment where it belongs, on the smugglers.

...It's a welcome crackdown on a crime most Canadians would agree is heinous.

The list goes on. Another editorial on human smuggling stated:

The government must act to safeguard the integrity of Canada's immigration system, which welcomes 250,000 newcomers a year. Polls show that the public's high level of support for immigration dipped by 20 per cent after the arrival of the Sun Sea and the Ocean Lady -- even though asylum seekers and skilled immigrants are two very different streams.

That is a very important point to realize. We are a country that accepts, at the present time, per capita more immigrants than anywhere else in the world. We are open to skilled immigrants. We are open to low-skilled immigrants. We are open to seasonal workers. We are open to immigrants who want to come to this country to build a new life for themselves and their families.

What we are not open to is those who want to come here to take advantage of our system, those who in fact want to move to the front of the line. Smugglers know this. They know that in their hearts Canadians want to help these people so they take advantage of it.

By passing this legislation, we would at least be putting ourselves in a position where we no longer would be that country where terrorists and smugglers simply say, “We will dump them all in Canada. We will make millions and millions of dollars, and we will dump them all in Canada because Canada does not have the laws in place to prevent this from happening”.

Canadians have spoken loudly on this issue. They want to welcome new immigrants to this country. Many of us in this House have parents or grandparents who came to this country as immigrants. There are members in the House who came to this country to become Canadians. All of them have done it in a way that respects the rule of law in this country and that respects the system of fairness that all Canadians have come to accept.

The opposition is trying to say that this is something it is not, that this is a position we hold because we want to hurt people. It is the exact opposite. That type of rhetoric has no place in this House of Commons.

There are individuals and families who need our help, but those families and individuals are not just those who seek refugee status in our country. They are the very families and individuals who are Canadians and are here right now.

We need a system of fairness. We need a system of equality. We need a system of acceptance. We need a system that protects Canadians, but says to those who claim refugee status that we are a country that is open, we are a country that is free, we are a county that is accepting, but let us make sure that we do it with fairness and that we do it through a system that protects the individuals who are truly refugees and that protects Canadians here.

This is legislation we need. This is legislation that Canadians want. This is legislation that will actually put our country in a position not only to promote why this is a great country to come to, but why this is a great country in which to live.

There are smugglers and others who take advantage of the most down and out in an attempt to profit, and there may be those in the opposition who would allow that to continue and will vote against this legislation. However, there is no one on this side of the House who will do that. We are going to make sure that we fight as long and hard as we need to in order to put this legislation in place and bring our system up to where it needs to be.

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

Madam Speaker, I am rising in the House once again, this time to participate in today's debate about Bill C-49, which affects three laws: first, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act—which means revisiting Bill C-11; second, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act—and I wonder if it really is balanced; and third, the Marine Transportation Security Act.

This bills aims to correct an illegal situation. It really is a government's responsibility to protect its border security. Security is clearly a critical issue for the entire world.

I would like to refer to certain international documents, agreements that Canada has signed, thus agreeing to be fully accountable for implementing their contents.

First, I would like to remind members that Canada signed the 1951 Geneva convention. It is also signed the protocol stipulating that individuals who have been victims of persecution since 1951 must also be subject to the Geneva convention. I will obviously come back to this during my speech.

The Geneva convention and the protocol that followed are the reasons why our refugee acceptance system was created. This system, despite its faults and weaknesses, and there are some, has become a model for industrialized countries.

This bill proposes a number of clauses that would punish smugglers, those who profit from the poor people who are trying to flee their country and come to Canada to live a life free of terror, discrimination, rape and killing. These smugglers receive enormous amounts of money and they violate international laws as well as our own Canadian laws.

In response to that, Bill C-49 proposes a substantial fine, for example a fine of $1 million for any criminal organization guilty of inducing, aiding or abetting a group of people to illegally enter Canada. That is from subclause 117(3), as it would be amended by the bill.

This amount depends on the number of people arriving in the group. The offenders could also receive a life sentence.

That is an improvement, in my opinion.

These clauses can certainly act as a real deterrent for smugglers hoping to bring groups of people illegally into Canada. Still, I would suggest that impounding the vessel or ship on which they come would be an additional deterrent to these smugglers. The price of smuggling then would become exorbitant and the loss of the vessel a real economic loss.

We also wish to congratulate the minister on his intention to work with local police forces in the home countries of human smugglers.

That aspect is not included in the bill, but is an important part of any concrete action.

Refugee claimants are not criminals. How many times must we repeat this? However, Bill C-49 treats them as if they were guilty of crimes, and again, this is what the bill suggests throughout the first part of it. Why are there only five sections of Bill C-49 that impact smugglers and twelve sections that impact refugees? We thought it was about smugglers. In fact, it is about changing the Canadian law, after study, which admits prospective refugees.

Another question I have is, why is this bill sponsored by the minister responsible for public safety and national security? Is it because the Conservative government wants to give Canadians the impression that refugee claimants pose a security threat? It tried to do this with the ship that arrived off the coast of British Columbia a few weeks ago, when in fact we see several weeks later that not one person has been held because he or she is a terrorist, yet the rumour goes on.

The people who are on these ships, or whatever mode of transport they use, are seeking safety and a good life in Canada. It is not their intention to break any international or Canadian law, yet the government presumes that they do so when it decides, through a bill like Bill C-49, to detain all the individuals designated as irregular arrivals. Irregular arrivals are those people who arrive in groups larger than, one would suppose, just a man, his wife and his children.

In this way, Bill C-49 is in direct violation of section 11(g) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states that an individual is “not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations”.

These refugee claimants, these people who flee in exile, include women, elderly people, young children, men and quite often, as we have learned, even pregnant women.

As a signatory to the Geneva convention, Canada is duty bound to protect these claimants. But instead, Bill C-49 would have them immediately detained. Let us be clear: “detained” is a nicer way of saying “imprisoned” or “incarcerated”.

This is contrary to article 31(1) of the Geneva convention, which states, “The contracting states shall not impose penalties...provided [the refugees] present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.”

Even if we agreed that detention is required, the length set out by Bill C-49 also goes against article 31(2), which states, “The contracting states shall not apply to the movements of such refugees restrictions other than those which are necessary and such restrictions shall only be applied until their status in the country is regularized. The Contracting States shall allow such refugees a reasonable period... ”

I would like to emphasize the word “reasonable”.

But this bill proposes keeping these people in prison, until their identity can be proven, for up to one year.

Those of us who have worked with refugees and for refugees know that quite often, these vulnerable people have had to leave very suddenly and cannot always bring their official documents to prove their identity.

I should also remind hon. members that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, of which we are all so proud, protects any person present on Canadian soil, regardless of their citizenship.

What about the negative consequences of detention on these people? As I was saying earlier, among these refugees we often see older people, very young children and pregnant women. Often they have been tortured, raped or abused in their country. They received no protection in their own country and they fled.

They did not receive protection from the smugglers during the dangerous voyage, but they had hope. When they arrive in Canada, despite what they might expect, they are not entitled to protection from the Canadian authorities either.

How do we explain to these young children why they are prison? What crime did they commit?

I would like to read from the Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989. Section 40(2)(a) of this convention stipulates that:

No child shall be alleged as, be accused of, or recognized as having infringed the penal law by reason of acts or omissions that were not prohibited by national or international law at the time they were committed;

How do we explain this clear violation to them?

Section 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states:

Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.

However, under clause 20 of the new Bill C-49:

The Minister may, by order, having regard to the public interest, designate as an irregular arrival the arrival in Canada of a group of persons...

And, under clause 55 of the same bill:

If a designation is made under subsection 20.1(1), an officer must

(a) detain, on their entry into Canada, a foreign national who, as a result of the designation, is a designated foreign national;

or

(b) arrest and detain...

This is clearly an arbitrary detention.

It is regrettable that under clause 110, no appeal may be made by a refugee claimant in respect of a decision of the Refugee Protection Division. In Canada, even common criminals have the right to appeal a judge's decision.

Our humanitarian tradition that allows individuals the right to appeal decisions is entrenched, or I thought it was. Even Bill C-11, tabled in Parliament by the same minister, respected this right.

Bill C-49 also has hidden consequences. For example, section 11 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, as amended, would state that the designated foreign national may not make an application for permanent residence until five years have elapsed. Subsection 25. (1.01) of the same amended act would also state that the foreign national may not make an application until five years have elapsed. It is clear; it is stated twice in the bill.

Let us figure it out. When people arrive in Canada they are held for one year to prove their identity. The applicant may become a designated refugee, if all goes well. At that point, he must wait five years before making an application for permanent residence. Why? When the Immigration and Refugee Board establishes that someone is a refugee, that person is permitted to apply immediately for permanent residence in Canada. After the five years, if all goes well, the person applies but does not immediately become a permanent resident. We know it, I know it and everyone with immigrants in their riding knows it as well: two or three years may elapse before the government responds to the application. I estimate, and I do not believe I am exaggerating, that someone could wait up to 10 years before receiving permanent residence status in Canada.

During these 10 years not only he but his entire family will be in limbo, not knowing how life will unravel.

An irregular or designated refugee will therefore have to wait 10 years before being able to sponsor his or her family. Those are the hidden consequences of Bill C-49. Refugees cannot sponsor their families before becoming permanent residents of Canada. Given that they will not have the right to travel outside Canada during the entire period, they also will not be able to visit their spouse or children. That comes from a government that boasts about protecting family values. These family values are certainly not protected. Quite the opposite.

Amendments to the current immigration law proposed under Bill C-49 further consolidate the minister's legal authority to suspend an application for the consideration of any type of status, for example refugee status or even to be heard on humanitarian and compassionate grounds for access to Canada's protection, for a full five years. Let us not forget the individual would have already spent 12 months in jail, called detention, even before the government would look at the case. All these delays would be based on whatever the government deems to be the grounds for public policy. This amendment would then become part of section 25 of the IRPA as amended under Bill C-11.

This means that the timeline we just suggested, these 10 years, is the best-case scenario. It is not the scenario where the person is sent back or is refused anything in Canada. It is a scenario where he thinks he is going to stay, 10 years of limbo if the minister decides not to intervene.

Let us go back in time. Bill C-49 brings us back to the time of the Chinese exclusion act, the act that caused Chinese men to live their lives here in Canada without their wives, without their families. In fact many of these men never saw their families again. It caused economic hardship.

This is what caused the Canadian people to say they would not continue this, and this is when the concept of family reunification came in, when Canadians decided it was cruel to allow people, men and women, to stay here in Canada as Canadians and yet separate them from their families, wives, husbands and children, for we did not know how long.

Lo and behold, it was a Conservative prime minister, William Lyon Mackenzie King, who had the act repealed in 1947. How unfortunate that the present Conservative government cannot continue this humanitarian tradition.

Let us go back in time again to 1986—

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I just want to correct the member. William Lyon Mackenzie King was a Liberal prime minister, not a Conservative prime minister.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for that correction. It is very kind of him. I am even happier. I had hoped that it was a Conservative because I hoped that there was at least some good in the Conservative Party with regard to immigration. But what can I do?

Let us go further back in time, to the arrival of 151 Tamils on the shores of Newfoundland in 1986. They were immediately granted landing until their refugee claims were processed by, and I hope this time I am right, the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney. Two years later, that government enacted a complete overhaul of the refugee system, in 1988. Both the Conservative prime minister and his immigration minister, at the time, continued to stress Canada's humanitarian commitments to the dispossessed.

How ironic that Bill C-49 should reverse this humanitarian tradition of which Canada is so proud.

I think and hope that every member in this House remembers what happened in 1914 when a ship full of people from the Punjab, Sikhs, was refused landing. I hope people remember that in 1939 the St. Louis arrived on the eastern shore, and Jews fleeing Nazi Germany were also refused. We know what fate awaited them.

I would like to end on a more positive note.

I would like to quote Jeanne Sauvé, the then Governor General of Canada, who said in 1986 when Canada was awarded the Nansen Medal:

...this celebration cannot allow us to forget the harsh reality of the millions of displaced people and their tragic journey through solitude and abandonment.

Finally, I would like to quote from an article in the August 14 edition of the Calgary Herald, written by Don Martin, referring to the Sun Sea refugees who arrived recently off the coast of British Columbia. He said:

Only when it's women and children trapped in the hold, potentially trying to reunite with husbands or fathers who were on the Ocean Lady, is there a sudden screech for a security clampdown, revised laws and public safety campaign. It's a classic political diversion tactic.

These are not my words. These are the words of a journalist.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the reasons I wanted to correct the reference to William Lyon Mackenzie King was that he was the prime minister who put innocent Italians in jail, and I wanted to make sure that was recognized as being a legacy of a Liberal prime minister, not a Conservative prime minister.

With respect to this, I find it troubling that somehow we are supposed to be proud of the fact in this country that our laws have allowed individuals to seek out vulnerable people, treat them terribly, risk their lives coming over here and sell them a bill of goods that somehow they can come in this fashion, be smuggled in, pay $25,000 and spend the rest of their lives trying to work that off to a criminal syndicate. Somehow we are supposed to be proud of that in this country. Are we not supposed to do whatever we can to ensure that real refugees come to this country and that they are treated properly and with respect?

Now, specifically in the bill, in proposed paragraph (3.2) it talks about the penalties with respect to people who commit human smuggling. It states that if:

(i) the person, in committing the offence, endangered the life or safety of, or caused bodily harm or death to, any of the persons with respect to whom the offence was committed, and

(ii) the commission of the offence was for profit, or was for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization or terrorist group

a minimum penalty would be 10 years.

Surely the hon. member could agree that people who commit this type of crime should not be treated with kid gloves, that they should be put in jail, that we should do everything in our power to ensure that these human smugglers pay a steep price and that our focus should be on the people who want to come to this country properly and who demand and need the help of Canada as they have for so many years in the past.

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

Madam Speaker, I think what happened is that my colleague must have come in late during my speech because that is exactly what I said. So, we absolutely agree on that, that smugglers must be persecuted, must be put in jail. I said that. I thank the member for reminding everyone.

I would like to bring my colleague's attention to the number of articles in these three bills, because in fact as I said earlier there are three bills. The total sections that impact refugees are 12. The number of sections that actually impact smugglers in this bill are 5. The number of sections that concern marine transportation are 9. So, is this a bill about refugees, 12 articles, or is it a bill about smugglers, 5 articles? I leave it for members to decide.

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

Madam Speaker, perhaps we could check into the cost of detaining a large number of refugee claimants for over a year. I wonder if the member has considered this. Some of these refugee claimants might be able to find jobs, or might be able to rely on a family member if they have one here in Canada. This bill, however, says that the minimum detention would be at least a year.

What does the member think of the cost to taxpayers of detaining these refugees, who come in through “irregular” methods?

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

Madam Speaker, I listened intently when the member for Trinity—Spadina participated in the debate yesterday afternoon. She talked about that very concept. Unfortunately, I did not have enough time, and I tried to concentrate on something else.

It is clear that those 10 years in limbo will mean 10 years of suffering for these families. It also means that this will cause many Canadians to suffer financially.

There is a lot to be said about the financial costs of this bill. Bill C-49 itself says nothing. It is absolutely silent.

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

Madam Speaker, I found the speech of the member opposite very interesting. She referred to two ships that were turned around in 1914 and 1939. If this legislation had been in place at the time, those ships would have stayed there. They would not have been turned around. That shows why we need this type of legislation.

There seems to be a feeling on the other side that somehow this system of smuggling people into this country is not upsetting our system. Some of the people wanting to come to Canada have been found by the UN to be clear and true refugees. But smuggling stops these true refugees from being able to set foot in our country.

Why does the member oppose a system that works instead of one that does not?

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

Madam Speaker, I find what that member says just incredible. I mentioned some numbers. Numbers speak. They cannot be transformed. Twelve sections in Bill C-49 affect refugees. How many sections affect smugglers? We were told by the minister that this is a bill about smugglers. But only five sections in the bill affect smugglers. I would like to know where the focus is in this bill.

I and my party are all for change as far as the smugglers are concerned. Absolutely nobody on this side has ever said that it is a good thing for smugglers to smuggle. What we are saying is that they have to be punished, not the refugees. This bill would actually persecute would-be refugees.

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

Madam Speaker, the member was involved in immigration. Just recently, Parliament approved a balanced refugee reform act. We worked together, that is why it was balanced. It was not balanced when the Conservatives introduced it, but we balanced it together. The House of Commons is much stronger when all members of Parliament work together.

Instead of implementing the bill so that genuine refugees can get decisions quickly and start a life here in Canada, and so that bogus refugees can be deported quickly, we are faced with an unbalanced refugee bill that does not treat refugees equally under the law.

Perhaps the member could talk a bit about why one refugee would be treated vastly differently than another. What kind of treatment would the so-called second-class refugee be subject to if such a refugee came into Canada irregularly?

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

Madam Speaker, I would not call them second class. I would call them no class. That is clear.

At the beginning, I said that this was really three bills. The first part of the bill, the one called An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, seems to be intended to propose amendments to Bill C-11, which is the bill that my colleague across the floor just mentioned. This was a bill in which we tried to bring balance to the way that the bill was going forward.

What Bill C-49 does to Bill C-11, under the guise of catching smugglers, is to change how Bill C-11 works. It changes how would-be refugees are accepted into the system in Canada; it changes this radically and people ought to know.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, recently the Prime Minister addressed a number of new Canadians at a citizenship ceremony in Ottawa, welcoming these newcomers into the Canadian family.

Canada welcomes thousands of new immigrants and refugees every year through one of the most generous and fair refugee systems in the world. This is a source of pride for our government and a reflection of the generosity of our nation. However, there is a serious problem right now that threatens the safety and security of our communities as well as the integrity of our welcoming and generous immigration system.

Last August, the illegal arrival of the vessel, MV Sun Sea came less than one year after the illegal arrival of the Ocean Lady. The fact that these two vessels reached our shores less than 12 months apart clearly demonstrates that human smuggling networks are targeting Canada as a destination, and that they believe our generous immigration system can be exploited for profit.

Canada welcomes and will continue to welcome those who wait their turn and come to Canada in search of a better life. Such brave and industrious people from around the world have enriched the wealth and culture of our great nation for hundreds of years.

Our government has clearly stated that we cannot tolerate the abuse of our immigration system, either by human smugglers or by those who are unwilling to play by the rules. That is why our government has recently introduced an act to prevent human smugglers from abusing Canada's immigration system.

Under this act, our government is making it easier to prosecute human smugglers, imposing minimum prison sentences on convicted human smugglers, and holding shipowners and their operators to account for using their ships in the human smuggling operations.

I would like repeat some quotes that have been in the media of late.

Logan Logendralingan, the editor of the Uthayan newspaper, a Tamil newspaper, states in an October 21 news release that he “supports the measures of government introduced today to crack down on human smugglers”.

In the same document, on behalf of Uthayan Publishers, he goes on to say, “We believe that the government should have the tools it needs to defend our borders and protect the fairness of our immigration system. That is why we fully support the new legislation. The mandatory minimum sentences for convicted human smugglers will deter those who profit from putting human lives at risk.... We want to encourage proper immigration channels and we do not want new immigrants to be victims or to pay large sums of money for their dreams of coming to Canada.”

Mr. Jim Daikos, director of Canadian operations, United Macedonian Diaspora of Canada, said, “We are pleased to see the Government taking strong action to deter human smugglers from coming to Canada's shores and abusing our country's generosity. Those who take part in human smuggling make our immigration system less fair for legal immigrants”.

The people who are waiting in line patiently and abiding by Canadian laws are being punished because of this illegal activity.

Recently, the executive director of the Toronto Community and Cultural Centre said, “Human smuggling is a criminal activity that puts people's lives at risk. It involves a network of international criminal organizations and Canada has become their target because of our compassion and fairness”.

A news release from October 21 stated, “We support the government's proposals as we need to send a strong message that criminal human smuggling will not be tolerated. Smugglers need to understand that they will be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible and these proposals will make this easier to accomplish that”.

He further stated that those who paid to participate in human smuggling operations needed to understand that Canada would not be a willing participant, that we would take action to protect our borders and to ensure the stability of the immigration system. He said that it was unfair to those who waited years to reunite with family members because others who arrived through illegal means jumped ahead of them. Arriving in Canada through illegal means was not an automatic ticket to staying here. He went on to say they were pleased the government was sending this message.

Our government is taking action to ensure the safety and security of our streets and communities by establishing the mandatory detention of participants in human smuggling events for up to one year to allow for the determination of identity, inadmissibility and illegal activity.

Coming back to my law enforcement years when I spent 18 years with the RCMP, one of the key components in homeland security was identity. People could not be released from custody unless they proved their identity. I had to deal with individuals who had altered or changed their names illegally, and we had to hold them for a weekend. For some individuals, it was up to a week. These were Canadian citizens.

Under the act, our government is also reducing the attraction of coming to Canada by way of an illegal human smuggling operation. This includes measures such as: preventing those who come to Canada as part of a human smuggling event from applying for permanent resident status for a period of five years, including those who successfully obtain refugee status; ensuring that the health benefits participants receive are not more generous than those received by the Canadian public; enhancing the ability to terminate refugee applications of those who return to their country of origin for a vacation or demonstrate in other ways that they are not legitimately in need of Canada's protection; and preventing individuals who participate in human smuggling events from sponsoring family members for a period of five years.

In addition, our government is also appointing a special adviser on human smuggling and illegal migration who will coordinate a whole-of-government response to human smuggling.

Are these measures tough? Yes, undoubtedly. However, in order to make human smugglers and fraudsters think twice, they have to be. They are also fair to those who legitimately and legally wait or have waited in line for a better life in Canada and they are fair for all Canadians who rightly expect that our borders and shores are protected and secure and our generous systems protected from abuse.

People in my constituency of Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River repeatedly have asked me why we do not just turn the boat around and have them go back. In working to address this problem, this government considered all the options. The policy measures that we have chosen are some of the strongest, most effective measures possible. We will not play the smugglers' games, which is to intentionally scuttle their boats and cast their passengers into the high seas when approached by one of our vessels.

We are working with our partners abroad to help keep these boats from departing for Canada. We are taking decisive action to combat human smuggling and those who abuse Canada's generous immigration system.

I have other constituents asking if anyone can board a ship to come to Canada unimpeded. On the contrary, with this new action we are sending a clear message that human smugglers will not be tolerated and those who are considering using human smugglers should think twice before doing so.

We will continue to actively work with our domestic and international partners to crack down on human smugglers who take advantage of our generous immigration system.

These measures will enhance our ability to crack down on those who engage in the smuggling and who try to exploit Canada's generous immigration system. They will strengthen our ability to protect Canadians from criminal or terrorist threats. They will respect our international obligations to provide assistance for those legitimate refugees who need our protection and help to start a new and better life.

Canadians want tough but fair measures to stop those who abuse our generosity from becoming part of Canadian society. We know threats exist and we must remain vigilant. That is why our government is taking action and that is what our government is doing today. We will continue to do this in the future.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments, especially as someone who has been in law enforcement and has dedicated so much to the country and his community for so long. He has first-hand knowledge of how important it is to change all aspects of Canada's criminal justice system.

Would he agree that one of the things we are hearing is the difference between this side of the House and that side? We believe that if people break the laws, if they commit a crime and take advantage of vulnerable people, they should be punished severely for doing that. The opposition always seems to feel that if people break the law, have committed a crime, they must have been forced to do it and that we have to something for them such as coddle them.

The bill imposes very stiff minimum mandatory sentencing for people who take advantage of potential refugees. Should we not seize the vessel if that happens? Does he agree that it is absolutely about time that we got tough on the people who take advantage of vulnerable people and break our laws?

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, the principle of this government for safer homes and safer streets is the underlying principle of Canada and our government is trying to enforce that. We do not what refugees' criminal ties are. Do we have anything to discriminate? No. We just want safer homes in Canada. Canadians demand that. Since taking office, our government has delivered on our promise to increase the number of boots on the ground to protect Canadian communities.

For example, we promised 1,000 new RCMP officers and we have delivered 1,500. I recall how difficult it was trying to recruit new RCMP members and to find suitable candidates. The RCMP reported that 2009 was the most successful time in recruiting in its history.

Human smuggling carries stiff penalties, up to life imprisonment and fines of up to $1 million. That does not sometimes seem enough to deter the criminal organizations. That is why this government is protecting Canadian homes and making safer streets.

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

Madam Speaker, does the member realize that in the immigration act there is already a very stiff penalty for people who have been convicted of smuggling? It is called a life sentence. What else can we do in terms of stiffening the fine? Life sentencing is as stiff a fine as it can get. We are not talking about capital punishment; we are talking about a life sentence.

How are we letting criminals run free, if we are saying that if they are convicted, they will go to jail for their entire life? Surely he is not suggesting that refugee claimants are terrorists and criminals, or is he?

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, the question is kind of ironic coming from NDP members who have voted against every bill we have introduced to try to protect Canadians. I do not think they really like safer streets or safer homes for Canadians. They have opposed every motion we have brought forward to protect Canadians.

An individual arriving as part of a human smuggling event would be detained up to 12 months. That is very key. That will help law enforcement officials and Canadian border officials to determine the identity of people at high risk from entering Canada, putting our the safety of our communities in jeopardy.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, what concerns me is that virtually every member of the Conservatives who have spoken to the bill have talked about refugees as being the smugglers and somehow they are the ones who put public safety at risk.

The member does not even give the facts about the bill and about the detention periods. It is after one year of detention and then it goes every six months thereafter. However, he is using the Immigration and Refugee Board.

Does the member believe that when we have detention periods that long, many of those refugees being children, that there are consequences and impacts on those children and those families of being in detention for such long periods of time?

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

I think our generosity, Madam Speaker, speaks for itself, allowing people to come into Canada, to immigrate legally.

Between April 1, 2005 and March 31, 2010, there have been 21 human smuggling convictions under section 117(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. This number has been confirmed by the Public Prosecution Services of Canada. While there have been a number of successful convictions of migrant smuggling in Canada, there is more to do. It is important to continually strengthen our laws to ensure we have the tools necessary to hold the offenders accountable.

We are talking about organized crime and trying to keep our streets safer for all Canadians.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to go back to my colleague's personal experience of 18 years as an RCMP officer.

Since I have been a member of Parliament, one thing I have seen is any time we talk about mandatory minimum sentences for criminals, no matter what the crime, we just get a tremendous amount of push back, a lot of stalling and walls are always put up. There seems to be a real aversion for some opposition members to mandatory minimum sentences.

As a law enforcement officer, what did he find was the experience when people knew that if they committed a crime there would be a consequence? In this case we are talking about human smugglers and about people who want to come to Canada illegally. Could he comment on what kind of impact that makes?

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, going back into my policing history, I remember one community in which I was patrolling. We talk about deterrence and the proper utilization of criminal laws. which this government and past governments have brought forward in the Criminal Code of Canada.

I was patrolling around in a northern community of about 1,500 people. Crime and alcohol abuse was rampant in the community. It was almost to a point where the community was screaming for more visible policing on the streets.

We listened to the people's concerns about trying to protect their homes and their streets. What we did was a visible policing policy, being on the street, enforcing those laws and deterring the criminals from committing offences. If a person was out walking around and was found committing a crime, he or she was arrested and detained. In one year alone we had a 40% decrease in criminal complaints. That is because the laws are there to prevent people from committing those crimes.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate today on Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act and the Marine Transportation Security Act. In the tradition of the government, it has given it a nickname, the Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act.

Once again, as has been the case with all of the nicknames that it has come up with, it is a very misleading nickname because this bill really affects refugees far more than it will ever affect those who engage in human smuggling.

It is unfortunate with this bill that we have seen a real setback in the kind of progress we have made in this Parliament on immigration and refugee issues. We had a great example of co-operation, of cross-party co-operation, and government and opposition co-operation, with Bill C-11, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, which passed unanimously in this House back in June. That was a place where the government introduced a bill to address issues it saw with the refugee determination process in Canada, in an attempt to make it more efficient, to speed it up and to address some of the problems existing in that process.

The opposition had trouble with that bill, but because there was an openness to dealing with the questions that the opposition had, a better bill was created. Unanimity was found, a rare thing in this minority Parliament, and I was hopeful about that kind of process. We saw, in one of the few occasions since it has come to power in the last two Parliaments, the government's willingness to actually work with others to craft a better bill, and that is what we ended up with.

Now we are set back with Bill C-49, which takes us back and tries to reopen some of the issues that the government apparently resolved back in Bill C-11. It is trying to reopen some of the issues on which it forged a compromise with the opposition parties back in the spring in this place.

That is very troubling. It seems that when we do the job that Canadians sent us here to do, to talk to each other, to do the things that are best for Canadians, when we finally have that opportunity, the government wants to turn its back on that development in a very dramatic way by reintroducing another bill that reforms a piece of legislation we just dealt with in June.

[An hon. member]

It isn't even in effect yet.

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

It has not even been proclaimed yet, as one of my colleagues points out.

This is really problematic and a very sad day that we are here to do this.

Bill C-49 is a piece of legislation that is extremely unfair to refugees. We just listened to a speech from a Conservative member that had a completely confused understanding of what it was to be a refugee or a refugee claimant in Canada. The member seemed to believe that all of these people were criminals or potential criminals and talked about them in that way. Nothing could be further from the truth, and even in the situation where a refugee claimant may lose that determination, I would think there are very few, if any, of those people who any Canadian would reasonably define as a criminal. It is very sad that this kind of confusion can exist on the Conservative bench amongst government party members about the intent or the need for this piece of legislation. That is a very serious confusion and misleads Canadians about the situation of refugees and refugee claimants in Canada.

Even if we look at the situations that seem to have given occasion to this particular bill, the arrival of the boats on Canada's west coast with largely Tamil refugees, that is not a fair descriptor yet. Many of the people who have arrived in Canada in boats, recently and in past years, have had successful refugee determination cases. They were not criminals. They were not queue-jumpers. They were in fact refugees, as determined by the established process here in Canada. That characterization of them is false and misleading, and it is very sad that it continues to be promulgated.

Bill C-49 is a deeply flawed bill and deeply unfair to refugees. It does not honour Canada's obligations under our own equality law, under the charter, or under international law. It is a sad departure from Canada being, in 1986, a country that was honoured by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees with the Nansen Medal for its refugee work as one of the outstanding countries in the world in terms of refugee resettlement and support for refugees. This is a far step from that point in our past history.

This bill would deprive refugees of an independent review. Because it moves to the detention system, which we have largely avoided in Canadian refugee determination and Canadian refugee law, it goes to the expensive alternative of detention. Detention is hugely expensive when compared to the value of a refugee claimant living in the community while his or her case is being determined. This is a serious departure.

The reality is that the bill, despite all the bravado about it, would really not do much about human smuggling. More Canadian laws are not going to catch human smugglers, the people who organize the kinds of things that the government is apparently concerned about.

Mandatory minimum sentences are ineffectual in most criminal situations and I cannot imagine how in this circumstance there is even any hope of them being any kind of deterrence. The only reason we would have a mandatory minimum sentence is for the deterrent value. I think they are almost useless. I doubt that any of the criminal organizations that the government says are out there organizing and switching from arms shipments to human shipments are writing memos to the people they work with saying, “Beware. Canada has just introduced a mandatory minimum sentence for human smuggling”. Mandatory minimums are not going to stop any of those people. They are not even an issue. They are not even a consideration in those circumstances. In this case, a mandatory minimum sentence would be completely ineffectual. This is one of the places where it would be least effective anywhere in criminal law.

Overwhelmingly, mandatory minimum sentences are ineffective throughout most aspects of criminal law. It is a government fantasy to think that they would somehow address the human smuggling situation.

Refugees are usually people who are in desperate circumstances. One of the criteria for determining whether people are refugees is if they fear for their life in their country of origin, if they have been persecuted and are seeking safety. It is our duty to receive those people and make a determination about their case.

In Bill C-11, we made decisions about how to expedite that process. It was taking too long in some cases. The Conservatives did not help the speed of the refugee determination process by their actions when they became government, by the fact that they would not reappoint anybody to the immigration and refugee appeal boards. The backlog increased because of their refusal to reappoint anybody that the previous Liberal government had appointed. They were slow making their own appointment. The Conservatives are directly responsible for the backlog that exists in refugee determination in Canada right now.

But we did take some extra measures to make sure that it was a more effective process in Bill C-11. We did take measures to ensure that when someone is determined not to be a refugee that they are removed from Canada. I have always said that a key aspect of our immigration and refugee policy had to be an effective removals policy as well. If we are going to have any respect for our refugee and immigration regime, that has to be an effective part. There has been a real experience that it is one place where we have fallen down in terms of enforcing immigration law in the past.

I want to talk about some of the specific aspects of this legislation.

I really believe that Bill C-49 punishes refugees. My remarks are drawing fairly heavily on the work of the Canadian Council for Refugees, in whom I have incredible confidence. This is an umbrella organization of almost every refugee- and immigrant-serving organization in Canada. It does excellent and detailed work on immigration and refugee policy and speaks loud and clear for the people it serves from coast to coast to coast in Canada. Whenever I speak on immigration and refugee matters, I draw heavily on its work.

Bill C-49 has been presented as legislation that would target smugglers, but in fact most of the legislation would not target smugglers but refugees and changes the circumstance for refugees. I think the previous Liberal member did a count and said there are 12 sections of the bill that deal with refugees and only five sections that deal with smugglers. So it really is an unbalanced piece of legislation in that sense.

Refugees, in this bill, including refugee children, would be mandatorily detained for a year without the possibility of an independent review and denied family reunification and the right to travel for over five years under the terms of this legislation. These are very serious restrictions. Mandatory detention is something that we have not used extensively in Canada and I think it would be a real departure from the success of our refugee legislation.

Many people believe that under Bill C-49 refugees could easily be victimized three times: first, by the people who were persecuting them in their country of origin; second, by smugglers who are often the unscrupulous people they have to use to escape their persecution; and finally, by an unfair process here in Canada. This is totally contrary to what we should be doing. We should be seeking to reduce the victimization of refugees and of people who have been persecuted and who fear for their lives in their countries of origin. The bill would only add to that victimization, unfortunately.

As I mentioned earlier, this legislation seems to violate Canada's commitments under international law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Convention on the Rights of the Child is another one that is in play here and is of great concern. The Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, the refugee convention, is another important international commitment that Canada has made. I think under all of those international agreements and also under the charter there will be challenges to this legislation, because in one way or another it is problematic. When we look at the Convention on the Rights of the Child, for instance, a delay in family reunification is an incredible violation of the rights of a refugee child. If a parent is here in Canada making a refugee claim, if the possibility of reunification for that child is delayed by five years, it is a very serious problem for that child and I think a very serious violation of that child's rights.

The most serious aspect of Bill C-49 is that it would create in our refugee legislation two classes of refugees: one class that is designated by the minister based on their mode of arrival, who would have different treatment compared to other refugees who land on our shores in Canada, who arrive in Canada by some other means. I think this is a clearly discriminatory provision.

In fact, it goes back on the commitments that we thought we had received from the government when the negotiation happened around Bill C-11, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act. In that legislation, there was also an attempt to establish two classes of refugees and to have a designation system. It was based on the country of origin, on what were considered safe countries that could produce refugees and countries that were not considered safe, and we know that it is almost an impossible designation to make.

So in negotiations with the government we got that changed and we did away with that classification of refugees that was a key part of the previous bill, Bill C-11.

Now the government, in this bill, is trying to reintroduce that kind of designation system. This time, it is not based on the country of origin of the refugee but on how that refugee got to Canada, on his or her mode of arrival. I think that is just trying to get it back in when we thought we had dealt with that issue very clearly in the previous negotiations, in the previous legislation.

I think, too, the discretion that is afforded the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in making these designations would be way off the scale. It would be too much. It would go way too far in allowing an individual minister the ability to make these decisions about who would be this designated refugee who loses some of the rights established under Canadian law for refugee determination. I think if there is any reason to have serious questions about this legislation, it is because of the establishment of these two classes of refugees and because of the incredible amount of discretion that it would afford the minister.

There are places for discretion for ministers of citizenship and immigration around humanitarian and compassionate considerations, for instance, because refugee and immigration cases are often reflections of people's very complex lives and that is a place where there needs to be some discretion for a minister, especially in this portfolio. However, I do not believe that allowing a minister to designate who is a first-class refugee and who is a second-class refugee or a no-class refugee is an appropriate addition to our immigration and refugee law in Canada. It is a very serious problem.

This bill, as we has mentioned, talks about mandatory detention of people who are designated by the minister as second-class refugees. There is mandatory detention without independent review. This kind of arbitrary detention is likely contrary to the charter and international law. Children will also be detained under this proposal. Unless they are accepted as refugees or released on discretionary grounds by the minister based upon exceptional circumstances, designated persons will remain in detention for a minimum of one year before having access to a review of their decisions. There are examples in Canadian law where that kind of process has been shown to be in contradiction of the charter.

The bill also talks about mandatory conditions being imposed upon release and for persons to be indefinitely detained beyond 12 months without the possibility of release if the minister is of the opinion that their identities have not been established. These measures seriously deprive people of liberty, without the opportunity for an independent tribunal to review whether they are necessary to their particular situations or to their particular cases.

The bill also denies refugee claimants in the designated class the right to appeal a negative refugee decision to the Immigration and Refugee Board's Refugee Appeal Division. It is frustrating to no end to have to be debating the need for a Refugee Appeal Division yet again in the House of Commons. The Refugee Appeal Division, an appeal of the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Appeal Board on a specific refugee case, was part of the new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that came into effect in 2001. In fact, with the Liberal government of the day, the establishment of the Refugee Appeal Division was a compromise, worked out with all the parties in the House, that garnered support for that legislation.

Sadly, even though we won the Refugee Appeal Division in an important appeal in the refugee process, the Liberal government of the day and subsequent Conservative governments never put it in place. It was passed and was part of the law but was never implemented. This was a serious problem. We even had private members' legislation, committee reports and other motions that called upon the government to actually implement the established law of the land but to no avail.

Recently, in the debate on Bill C-11, again we thought we had won a victory where finally the Refugee Appeal Division, this important appeal of a negative refugee decision, would be implemented. However, now we see that the government is proposing, in Bill C-49, to remove that again. We think we have it but we do not implement it. We think we have it again and now we are going to limit it.

Every organization has said that this is an important aspect of refugee law and that it needs to be here in Canada. International organizations have commented that Canada needed to have this level of appeal, that Canada needed to uphold its existing refugee act, and that this was a crucial piece of what we should be about in our refugee laws. I am really disappointed that the government has again moved to limit the Refugee Appeal Division.

Family reunification is an issue. I mentioned the issue of blocking families from being reunited for five years and the issue of refugee integration into the community. This slows that process down, and that has been one of the successes of Canadian immigration law. We have moved new immigrants and refugees into positions of participation in society, of feeling that they belong in Canada, that they are valued members of the community, better than any other country, and yet here again in this legislation we are putting forward barriers to doing that, and we do that at our peril. We are turning our backs on what we have proven works and what other countries agree have worked.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, to be quite honest, I am dismayed with a number of the comments made by the member.

As a person whose family is not far removed from being new Canadians, I think all Canadians, including myself, are very proud of Canada's very giving and gracious immigration system. I think immigrants have added so much to Canada and I know that is speaking from my own family's history.

This past summer I was inundated with people from my riding, including new Canadians, who felt that what we were seeing was an egregious violation of Canada's very open immigration and very open refugee laws. We must respond to it.

It appears that what the member is suggesting is that Canada's immigration laws should be behest to some unknown international community that thinks it should be something other than what the government feels it should be. It also appears that the member is suggesting that the people in my riding, the thousands of people who objected to what we saw this summer, apparently are not prepared to help people in need. I reject that entire line of dogma from the member.

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

Madam Speaker, I am dismayed with the member as well. If he is dismayed with me, I can be dismayed right back to him.

I wonder if he engaged any of those constituents in a discussion of what the actual refugee process is in Canada and what has happened in previous occasions when boats have landed on Canadian shores of people who risked their lives to escape persecution, who went through the refugee determination process and who have largely been found to be refugees.

I do not think people in my riding want me to turn my back or us in this place to turn our back on legitimate refugees, on people who have had their lives at risk in their country of origin. No one in my riding wants us to do that. They want us to find a process that tests those cases. They do not want us to have bogus refugees in Canada. I do not want bogus refugees here either. I said that if a person is a bogus refugee then we should have a removal process that works. I said that we have had governments that did not have that process working in the past.

This is not a question about lack of respect for our immigration law. This is a question about respecting the immigration law that we have and respecting the refugee process that we have as well.

We have a good process and we should let it work. We have a process that if the government had appointed the people to do the work, and had not let the refugee system fall into disrepute because of its own partisan considerations, we would have a system that was functioning effectively.

When the Conservatives came to power, the Immigration and Refugee Board had almost eliminated its backlog. That took a lot of hard work and determination by the folks who were involved in that organization. When the Conservatives came to power and refused to reappoint members of the board, it dramatically increased the backlog. That was irresponsible.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, when the hon. member referenced Bill C-11, which passed the House with the support of all parties and all members of Parliament, he referenced it in an interesting way. We worked collectively on that bill and we passed a bill that we all thought was pretty good. Were we 100% happy? No one was absolutely happy but we thought it was good.

All of sudden, this bill gets dropped on us out of the blue that seems to go back on that sort of consensual collective way that we were able to arrive at results. The result of dropping a bill without any consultation with other parties are issues that were raised.

My goodness, have we ever allowed for the incarceration of children for one year in detention centres in Canada? What are we thinking of doing here? How can we separate families for five years? The people who are determined to be refugees, we will not allow them to travel back to their country to bring to Canada the rest of their families who also are in harm's way as refugees in camps, perhaps. Even though they have been determined as refugees, we will not allow them landed status, so they cannot bring over their families.

We will have sometimes husbands, wives and children of determined refugees in harm's way. Could the hon. member tell us if Canada has ever treated some of the most vulnerable on the planet in that manner?

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

Madam Speaker, as I said, this is an incredible departure from Canada's past practice in terms of the increased use of detention and it is a totally inappropriate direction for us to be going in.

The member raised the effects of detention on refugee children. I think what happened in Australia is a good example of that. Australia did a very significant study on the effects--

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Are you calling everyday Canadians bigots?

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I would ask other members to take their conversations outside in the lobby please.

The hon. member can complete his answer.

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

In Australia, a study was done by the Australian human rights commission, a parliamentary organization created by the Australian parliament, to look into the effects of detention on refugee children in Australia. Australia uses detention far more than Canada does and it uses it, I think, in a very troubling way. However, Australia has a different set of circumstances from what Canada has, so we need to consider that.

Australia held a national inquiry into children in immigration detention and it found all kinds of serious things. It found that the kind of traumatization that refugee children experienced was only exacerbated by continuing detention once they got to Australia. It found there were repeated breaches of human rights under Australian law. It is not only a very serious matter to detain children, but it is also a very serious matter to detain refugees once they arrive on our shores. Canada, to its credit, has avoided that. I do not think we can make the argument that we have not had a successful policy that has protected Canadians and has protected immigration policy in Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, earlier today, I believe a government member said that about 65% of Canadians supported this legislation. Clearly the government has done polling and held focus groups on Bill C-49.

The bill would give the minister great powers that future ministers may not actually want. To that effect, what is the purpose of having an immigration system if the minister will be making all of the decisions? What happens if a ship of migrants arrives and it is populated by a group of people widely supported by the public? How will they be treated? Will they be treated in the same way as the current group of refugees are being treated? Will the government at that point take a poll and, if those refugees are supported by 65% of the population, will it somehow make a different decision and treat those refugees differently?

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

Madam Speaker, that points out why we need a fair system in place. We need a single class of refugee so that any refugee arriving in Canada is treated the same way, equally and with fairness and justice. Giving too much discretion is a serious problem.

One of the aspects of the bill is to give the minister retroactive designation powers back to March 2009 to designate a special class of refugees who will be treated differently and who will have fewer rights in the system. That is a very troubling aspect of the bill. That retroactive power has to be gone because it is totally inappropriate. We should not go back that far and revisit cases that have already begun their process under the existing refugee law.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Madam Speaker, the member said that this government created a huge refugee backlog at the IRB. In point of fact, when we came to office there was a backlog of 20,000 and then we received huge waves of claims that were about 20,000 more than the full capacity of the IRB to process.

Is the member really suggesting that when we get a year like two years ago with 38,000 asylum claimants, more than any other country in the world as a geographically remote country, 60% of which claims are rejected, that we do not have a problem with bogus asylum claimants taking advantage of Canada's generosity?

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

Madam Speaker, I will say that the Conservatives created the mess by letting the number of appointments on the Immigration and Refugee Board lapse. That was a serious problem that they created. It was totally their own creation and it is something that should not have happened.

I am glad the minister qualified by saying geographically isolated country but that we have the largest number. People should listen very carefully to his words. Canada is not getting the same refugee numbers as many other countries because of our geographic--

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. The hon. member for Papineau.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, the arrival on Canadian shores of the latest two boats filled with Tamil refugee claimants has generated many concerns from the public. Opinion polls suggest that the vast majority of Canadians want future boats to be turned away and the Tamil refugee claimants to be deported for fear that our generous system is being exploited by criminal elements.

As always, the government has not missed the opportunity to turn public concerns into bad legislation that torques up the issue and promotes fear and misunderstanding in the hopes of electoral gain.

Bill C-49 is a terrible piece of legislation but a very effective announcement. It is effective because the government gets to talk about getting tough on vile human smugglers who criminally take advantage of extraordinarily vulnerable people fleeing persecution and oppression. It is always effective to be able to stand up and talk about defeating the evildoers while protecting the innocent and the just.

The problem is that is all this is, talk. This legislation actually does very little to go after the evildoers, and far from protecting the vulnerable, actually goes after and punishes asylum seekers.

Allow me to be very clear on one thing, Liberals and indeed members of all parties in this House are deeply committed and concerned with our capacity to crack down on human smugglers and protect the integrity of our refugee and immigration systems.

It is just that it is apparent there is little in the new legislation that actually cracks down on smugglers. There are provisions the government is quite pleased with that provide for mandatory minimum sentences of up to 10 years, but those are very unlikely to be an effective deterrent given that smuggling already carries a potential life sentence.

There are some minor provisions against shipowners who disobey ministerial orders, but nothing that is truly likely to put a dent in the multi-million dollar human smuggling business. Indeed, many of the provisions will just drive up the cost to asylum seekers and put them on more dangerous sea routes.

Rather, most of the legislation's provisions are directed at trying to deter refugees themselves. Many of the provisions may be inconsistent with the charter. Others are in direct violation of our obligations under international law. All will cause great hardship to refugees who have come to Canada to seek protection.

The legislation represents a complete reversal and backtracking on Canada's proud humanitarian tradition toward refugees and the displaced.

This government bill would create two classes of refugees based on the means of transportation they use to get here. Consider this: our system assesses, questions and judges people to determine whether they are legitimate refugees, but they will be treated differently if the minister does not like the way they arrived in Canada. That has nothing to do with the refugees' merit. It is entirely arbitrary. These people are recognized as refugees because they have good reason to fear for their lives because of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinions. These are legitimate refugees, but because we do not like the way they arrived here, we subject them to harsh punishment that is no doubt unconstitutional and certainly violates our international obligations.

We cannot judge people on the basis of how they get here, because refugees use unorthodox means to reach their chosen land. In most cases, people have found unorthodox ways to get to Canada. The government judges these people on the basis of their country of origin. Designating people who arrive illegally means the government can judge anyone it wants.

In addition to keeping designated refugees locked up, the government would impose a five-year probation, during which time they would be forbidden from leaving Canada or from applying to sponsor other family members, who are most likely suffering. The government would also have the power to hold asylum seekers for up to a year.

The president of the Canadian Council for Refugees, Wanda Yamamoto, said:

Measures keeping some refugees longer in detention, denying them family reunification and restricting their freedom of movement are likely in violation of the Canadian Charter and of international human rights obligations. People who are forced to flee for their lives need to be offered asylum and a warm welcome, not punished.

That is what is so worrisome about this capacity to create two categories of refugees depending simply on whether or not the minister approves of the way they got here.

The thinking behind it, I assume, is that if people know that the minister might not approve of their way of coming here, they are not going to get in those leaky boats and risk their lives in a heavy crossing. But when we look at the pressures on them when they got on, and their willingness to shell out to criminal elements extraordinary amounts of money that they do not have, the suspicion that perhaps the minister will disapprove of them is not going to keep them away.

When we create two classes of refugees because we like their way of getting here or we do not like their way of getting here, we are creating divisions among the very people who are most vulnerable, people whose rights Canada has sworn to uphold and protect. It is a complete discarding of the Canadian principles of fairness and justice that have defined this country for decades.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention to be informed promptly, to retain and instruct counsel without delay, and to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.

On top of that, the fact that refugees would have no right to apply for permanent residence for five years after determination of their claim is inconsistent with the principle enunciated in article 34 of the UN Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees which provides that states must make every effort to expedite naturalization proceedings for people determined to be refugees. We are tossing international obligations and Canadian law to the wind with this bill.

The Geneva Convention states:

The Contracting States shall issue to refugees lawfully staying in their territory travel documents for the purpose of travel outside their territory...

That is fairly clear. Again, the proposed legislation goes against that by banning them from travel for up to five years. Even once they have been recognized as refugees, they have to wait until they become permanent residents to get travel documents.

The Geneva Convention also states that the contracting states, of which we are one:

...shall in particular make every effort to expedite naturalization proceedings and to reduce as far as possible the charges and costs of such proceedings.

That is one of the things Amnesty International recently declared in an open letter violates the rights of these refugees. It ignores the reality that many of these refugees who have a well-founded fear of persecution turn to smugglers for assistance because of desperation, because of a lack of other options, because of a lack of a willingness of their host government which is busy oppressing or maligning them to help them get to another country.

Neither a just society, nor the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, nor international agreements are safe from this government.

We have good reason to be very concerned about this bill. I—we—understand that the problem of human trafficking needs to be dealt with, but the Conservatives' approach lacks refinement, subtlety and respect for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They are classifying people not according to the dangers they face at home, but according to how they get to Canada. That is not the right way to do things.

The Tamil boatloads of 2009 and 2010 represented a new wave of boatloads of refugee claimants. The government's response to the first boat was relatively muted. There was not a tremendously strong public outcry against these refugee claimants.

However, well before the second boatload arrived, the public safety minister was already warning the Canadian public that the boat was filled with terrorists and criminals, before these people were evaluated, examined, interviewed, judged on their individual merits, as our obligations require us to do in the case of every single refugee.

This coming out against them soured public opinion against the claimants before they even arrived in Canada, and has produced a dramatic backlash. The effect of this short-sighted reaction has been to create a strong anti-refugee and anti-immigrant sentiment.

That is not typical of Canada. That is not typical of Canadians. We are a country that has consistently stood up open to immigrants, to refugees, and to drawing from around the world people who wish to come here, build a safe and secure life free from persecution. Now we are busy encouraging that persecution and hyping up the tensions between Canadians and potentially new Canadians.

It is extremely important that a Canadian government be responsible in how it defends our immigration and refugee system, how it makes Canadians understand that we are strong because of, not in spite of, diversity. Our differences are what define us and make us the flexible, open, confident, powerful country that we are in the process of becoming more and more every day.

The government needs to be much more responsible in how it chooses to elevate and enervate the Canadian public's level of debate on an issue such as this one.

It is important to mention that when the minister and the Prime Minister talk about making sure that the immigrants who go through the normal process do not get unfair treatment because of the queue jumpers, it is actual misinformation.

Let me share a secret that the government does not want anyone to know. There is no queue for refugees. There are no queue jumpers in the refugee system. We have a process around refugees. Anyone who comes to Canada and seeks asylum falls into an evaluation process that has nothing to do with the quotas we establish for refugees, family class immigrants, economic migrants. It has nothing to do with the legitimate immigration process, the queue and wait times.

A refugee is evaluated on the merits of his or her individual case. Unfortunately, as we have seen in the case of the American war deserters and many others, the government is choosing to interfere with the process in which refugee claimants are evaluated on the merits of their claim. The government is choosing to prejudge. It is choosing to frame the debate in such a way that people are blending immigrants and refugees. They are two very different things.

By stoking our fears and concerns and the frustrations of legitimate immigrants who have been here but who followed the queue, who see these people as queue jumpers because the government says they are queue jumpers, we are not serving Canada. We are not living up to our international responsibilities to be a fair and just country. We are falling by the wayside of the rights and principles for which Canada has always stood.

Instead of misinforming and holding press conferences in front of boats, we would have liked the government to consider an alternative approach.

The first and most obvious one, in the case of the Sri Lankan asylum seekers, is to aggressively pursue a peace settlement in Sri Lanka.

Tens of thousands of Tamils still remain detained in detention camps. The government is being investigated by the United Nations to see if crimes against humanity were committed by the government during the civil war. Tortures and disappearances unfortunately continue.

However, there is no doubt that there is a genuine opportunity for peace. The Tamil minority wants some form of autonomy. This can be addressed within a federal state. More and more Tamils are involved in the Sri Lankan government. There is an openness toward improving the relations between the Tamil community, the international community and the government.

We are making headway on that and Canada can play a role in helping shape that peace, in helping encourage that peace. We know what it is like to live within a country where there are distinct cultural, linguistic and religious identities and to make it work. We are living proof of that here in the House of Commons. We need to build on our capacity to work with international partners, to work with the UN. Unfortunately it is an area in which the government has not been particularly successful.

When we called upon the government to work with international partners, to cut off human smuggling, to decrease the likelihood and the possibility of engaging with human smugglers, to go after human smugglers, what did it do? The Conservatives went after them. They worked with local police forces. But instead of rounding up human smugglers they rounded up potential asylum seekers. That is not the kind of work we need to do if we are going to really crack down on human smuggling.

People have been talking about turning around boats. I am pleased that the government has not chosen in this bill to encourage the idea that we should turn these boats around before they land on our shores, because that is a violation of any number of international conventions and puts people who are extraordinarily vulnerable at tremendous risk.

Since the diversion of the ships is not legal, the only alternative is therefore to provide expeditious determination of refugee claims. It is well known that the most effective mechanism for deterring frivolous or irresponsible or unfounded claims and slowing down refugee movements is to subject persons to fair but expeditious determinations and to quickly deport persons whose claims are rejected. Unfortunately, Bill C-49 does not address that and does not encourage that.

The process of seeking the detention of refugee claimants, coupled with expedited hearings while providing them due process is an effective response to try to deter claims. In the case of the Sri Lankan Tamils, given the current situation, it may well be that some of the claimants will be accepted. However, all should be expeditious, fair determinations.

This, coupled with efforts to resolve the situation in Sri Lanka and with efforts to stem the flow of boats by working with governments in the region, is the most effective long-term response. It can be done without inflaming anti-immigrant feelings in Canada and in a manner that will ensure Canada complies with its obligations under international law and the charter.

Speaking of this legislation, there is something else that worries me. As we have heard speaker after speaker in the opposition get up and highlight all the real legal challenges and convention challenges with this bill, and as experts have come out time and time again with real concerns about this, the thing that really bugs me is that this legislation, which is filled with ineffective and illegal measures, was drafted by the good people in what is generally considered to be the best immigration ministry in the world.

Our fine bureaucrats put together this piece of legislation that is not worthy of the kind of work and the kind of balanced approach that was even available and visible in Bill C-11 that we passed unanimously in the House. That bill was supposed to balance and improve our process of evaluating refugees and providing fairness for refugees.

Under the guise of legislation to deter smugglers, or smuggling, the government has introduced broad changes to our refugee determination system and to the rights of persons recognized as refugees.

Let us be perfectly clear. There is very little in this legislation that is designed to crack down on smugglers. Instead, this legislation takes reprisals against the refugees who use those smugglers—

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. I would ask all hon. members to take side conversations outside the House rather than shouting across to each other. Out of politeness and to maintain civil debate, I would ask that very respectfully.

The hon. member has one minute to complete his comments.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, this ultimately is the kind of bill that is being presented here.

We have indicated that we have grave concerns about particular pieces of this legislation. The government has indicated that it is a very important piece of legislation. Canadians have indicated that they have real, founded concerns about human smuggling and its impact on our immigration and refugee system. Because of that, we are considering this bill. We are looking to see if there is anything in it that is salvageable. We are hopeful that we will be able to determine measures that will actually crack down on smugglers and be fair to refugees. So we are going to look at that.

Members heard me say this before and they will hear me say it again just about every time I get up in the House to speak about the government and the ineffective legislation it continually puts forward. Canadians deserve better and so does Canada.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I ask hon. members on all sides of the House to be a little more respectful to those members who are speaking.

For questions and comments, we have five minutes before the top of the hour. The hon. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Madam Speaker, allow me to congratulate my colleague from Papineau on his appointment as the official opposition critic for immigration and citizenship. However to quote him, I do not really think that speech did anything to “enervate” this debate, or elevate it for that matter, because it was a heavy dose of demagoguery.

What I found most disturbing about that speech was the odious suggestion that Canadians who are concerned about this prima facie violation of the integrity of our immigration system, of our laws of the principle of fairness, are somehow “anti-immigrant”.

He has seen the same polls as I have. I am sure his constituents have the same view as most Canadians. Two-thirds of Canadians have told pollsters they think Canada should not even allow the boats to enter our territorial waters if they are carrying people being smuggled here illegally. Some 55% of Canadians say we should return even those who are deemed to be bona fide refugees.

I do not believe that two-thirds of Canadians are anti-immigrant, and in point of fact, new Canadians, those Canadians who were born abroad, feel more strongly about this violation of the integrity and fairness of our immigration system than native-born Canadians.

I would challenge him to be very careful before he casts aspersions on the motives of those who are open, who maintain support for the most generous immigration and refugee determination system in the world but believe it should actually be governed by the rule of law and the principle of fairness.

I would ask him this. Apart from giving speeches in Colombo and talking to other foreign governments, what concrete actions would the Liberal Party take to stop the smugglers from bringing people here illegally?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to defer to the hon. minister's expertise on demagoguery.

What is odious about this piece of legislation is that it is dividing Canadians into two Canadas. He is talking about new Canadians who have one particular perception of things and other Canadians who may not. As soon as we start distinguishing who is what type of Canadian, we are falling onto a slippery slope that, unfortunately, the government continually encourages when it blends the distinction between immigrants and refugees, when it talks about queue jumpers for refugees. It is being entirely irresponsible and it is not worthy of the minister who is responsible for upholding and defending the integrity and the respect for the law and convention of our immigration system.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

There are about seven minutes remaining in the time allotted to the hon. member for questions and comments consequent on his speech, but we will have to resume that later since it is now time to proceed with statements by members.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act and the Marine Transportation Security Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

The hon. member for Papineau had the floor before question period, and he has about seven minutes left for questions and comments.

Since there are no questions, we will resume debate. The hon. member for Abbotsford.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to get back to matters of substance.

It is an honour to have the opportunity to rise today in support of Bill C-49, an act to prevent human smugglers from abusing Canada's immigration system.

Canada has a history and a tradition of welcoming immigrants who wish to start a new life here. On a per capita basis, we now welcome more newcomers than any other country, nearly a quarter of a million last year alone.

Through the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, introduced by our Conservative government, we have committed to resettle 2,500 more refugees living in refugee camps and urban slums. This is a source of pride for our country and a reflection of the generosity of our nation. It is part of our national character.

Unfortunately, Canada's immigration system and our generosity have become a target for human smuggling operations. The arrival of the MV Sun Sea and the Ocean Lady in a period of less than 12 months clearly demonstrated that human smuggling networks are extending their reach to our borders. Our intelligence indicates that these voyages, organized by criminal syndicates, will continue.

This form of illegal commercial migration is dangerous and exploitive by nature. The journey of these migrants is treacherous, and every year people around the world die in human smuggling operations.

The ringleaders of these smuggling operations are ruthless profiteers. They are vile, despicable criminals who consider their passengers to be little more than cargo. Those profiteers cause misery and suffering, and risk the lives of those they purport to be helping. Human smugglers and those on board their vessels also provide financial support to dangerous international criminal networks.

Many who use these types of smuggling networks are economic migrants. When they use this unlawful behaviour to arrive on our shores and then claim to be asylum seekers, they abuse our country's generosity.

These operations are unfair to those seeking to come to Canada by legal means. Millions of people around the world aspire to come to our great country, and it is gross unfairness to allow others to jump the queue through illegal means and co-opt those who use legal means to come to Canada.

Those who use illegal means take up space and resources in our immigration system, which should be focused on those who have applied to immigrate legally. They deprive true refugees of the opportunity to be granted protection in this great country of ours. When genuine refugees use these illicit networks to get to Canada, they put themselves and their families at risk.

If we do not take strong action now, more vessels will arrive in Canada and more lives will be put at risk. We cannot just stand by and allow these exploitive operations to continue. We must act now.

We must act to avoid a two-tiered immigration system: one tier for legal immigrants who wait patiently in the queue for the privilege of coming to Canada; and a second tier for illegal migrants and queue-jumpers who pay human smugglers to get them to the front of the line.

Canadians have reacted strongly to these unwelcome arrivals. More than 50% of Canadians polled agreed that this type of migration is unacceptable. These events have put at risk public support for immigration in general and refugees in particular.

We are a generous country. We welcome immigrants and refugees from around the world. I would hate to see our national support for that program decline because illegal migrants and smugglers are abusing the system.

We need to maintain public confidence in our immigration and refugee system, since immigration will soon become the source of all our labour-force growth and a critical part of our economic growth.

The legislation before us will help prevent abuse of Canada's immigration system and goodwill. It will help us prevent human smuggling operations. It will provide disincentives to would-be migrants, so that they do not place themselves at the mercy of human smugglers on these treacherous ocean journeys.

I would like to outline how this legislation will do just that. First, the law before us proposes to introduce mandatory detention for up to one year. This will allow for determination of identity, admissibility, and illegal activity. As I am sure most members of this House are aware, people who arrive on these vessels often do not have proper documentation, whether by design or not.

We do not know who they are or whether they might have been involved in criminal or terrorist activities. We as a government need to have time to confirm their identities. This becomes particularly difficult in the case of mass arrivals, as we have recently experienced, when hundreds of people arrive at the same time without the proper paperwork.

As we are now learning, some of the migrants onboard the Sun Sea have already claimed refugee status in other countries such as the United Kingdom, and have already been found not to be in need of protection.

Detention will allow us to verify and confirm the identities of these individuals. This way we can determine whether they are admissible to Canada, or whether they are, or have ever been, involved in illegal activity.

That is fair and reasonable, and Canadians agree with us. Our main priority is to protect the safety and security of Canadians. We need to know who these people are before they are released into our Canadian communities. This is the least that Canadians can expect of their government, and we are delivering on that expectation.

Second, this legislation aims to introduce several disincentives to stop those who are tempted to use this perilous form of migration. A key disincentive is that those who arrive as a result of a designated smuggling event will not be able to apply for permanent residency for a period of at least five years. This applies whether they are found to be in need of protection or not.

During that five-year period, persons found to be in need of protection would be restricted from travelling outside Canada and would be unable to apply for permanent residence to Canada through other means. As a result, they would not be eligible to sponsor family members into Canada or to become Canadian citizens during that time.

For those who received protected-person status, reporting requirements would be put in place. This will allow our government to be able to initiate proceedings before the Immigration and Refugee Board to remove their protected-person status if there is evidence that the individual no longer needs protection. This would apply, for example, if the individual returns to his country of origin or if conditions in that country change.

If someone is able to return safely from a holiday to his country of origin, the country that he claims to be fleeing, then he is clearly not in genuine need of Canada's protection. In such cases, the existing legislation would allow the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism to make an application to the Refugee Protection Division for a cessation of the individual's protected-person status.

These legislative amendments would ensure that while an individual is subject to a cessation application, his application for permanent residence would be suspended and would not be processed until a decision is made on the minister's application. If the Refugee Protection Division upholds the minister's decision and the application for cessation, the individual would be removed from Canada.

An individual would be allowed to apply for permanent residence only after five years, if he is determined to be in further need of protection. This means that people in this category could apply for permanent residence only if no cessation proceedings had been initiated as a result of changed country conditions, or if they had not returned to their country of origin, or if the minister's application for cessation was not positively decided by the IRB.

If there is evidence that the protected-person status was obtained fraudulently, if, for example, an individual has directly or indirectly misrepresented or withheld material facts relevant to his situation, then the Minister of Public Safety would be able to apply to the Refugee Protection Division of the IRB to revoke the individual's refugee protection status. If the original decision is cancelled and no other grounds for protection remain, the individual would be removed from Canada.

Once in force, the bill would also eliminate access to the Refugee Appeal Division for people who want to review a negative decision on their claim. While they would still be able to ask the Federal Court to review a decision, they would not benefit from an automatic stay of removal from Canada while their application was being considered.

These measures that our government has proposed are firm but reasonable. They are exactly what Canadians have been calling for. They would maintain our Conservative government's goal of faster protection for those who truly need it and faster removal of those who do not. This will be achieved through the balanced refugee reform act, the bill before us today.

To further discourage individuals from coming to Canada as part of a smuggling operation, we are also taking measures to ensure that these individuals have access to fewer Canadian benefits. Canadians enjoy health services that are among the best and most generous in the world.

Currently, asylum seekers, resettled refugees, failed asylum seekers awaiting removal, detained individuals, and victims of trafficking are all provided with temporary health care coverage through the interim federal health program.

Under the changes we are proposing, the scope of services provided under the IFH program would be reduced for those who arrive in Canada illegally by way of human smuggling. They would receive only basic coverage, including medically necessary care and the immigration medical exams that refugee claimants must take upon their arrival in order to ensure that they do not pose a risk to public health or safety.

We need to ensure that illegal migrants are not receiving health coverage that is more generous than that offered to hard-working Canadians.

Canada is a fair, generous and welcoming country for those who want to work for a better life, but our generosity should not make us a target for criminal activities such as smuggling operations. In order to avoid becoming a target, we must remove the incentives for people seeking to come here by way of human smuggling.

These measures before us today are right. They are fair. And they are necessary. We know that Canadians agree with us. Poll after poll shows that Canadians want firm action taken on human smuggling, on cheating the system.

Cultural groups across the country have endorsed our measures. The Peel Tamil Community Centre stated that it was “pleased to see the government taking action to deter human smugglers who charge victims enormous sums of money”. The Taiwanese Canadian Association of Toronto said, “We need to know the identities of these individuals before they are released into Canadian society. That's why we also support the mandatory detention of illegal migrants who use human smugglers”.

Our government is committed to protecting the integrity of our immigration and refugee system. We are committed to upholding our laws. We are committed to protecting the safety and security of Canadians.

Taken together, the changes we have proposed will help safeguard our fair and generous immigration system. Moreover, they will help ensure that Canada is not an easy target for criminal organizations involved in human smuggling.

As I mentioned before, this legislation has won the support of virtually all key stakeholders. The legislation has resonated with Canadians at large. In fact, recent polls show that 60% of Canadians want to send ships back without allowing them to land on our shores. Yet we know that as a compassionate country we have to leave room for legitimate refugees. It is the abuse of the system that we object to.

Canada is a compassionate country, but because we are compassionate and generous, there are people around the world who will abuse that generosity, and Canadians do not tolerate abuse. In fact, I am shocked to hear the opposition parties in this House actually criticizing and opposing this bill. It is very clear that they are still not listening to Canadians.

We have consulted broadly with Canadians on this bill and we know that Canadians support it. My invitation to the opposition parties is to join us in doing the right thing for Canada.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that I come from a riding that is one of the most ethnically diverse ridings in all of Canada.

One of the things I heard loud and clear this past summer was that people wanted us to stand up for Canada once and for all. People wanted to ensure that our immigration system and our refugee protection system put Canadian interests first. They wanted to ensure that the people who needed help were getting help but they did not want us to see our system and our generosity abused.

I wonder if the hon. member received the same type of reaction in his riding that I received in my riding, not just from Canadians who have been in this country for many years, but also from new Canadians who came to me and said that we needed to do something about this, that we needed to ensure that people are not abused and people are not taken advantage of by human smugglers.

I wonder what reaction the people in his riding had over the summer. I wonder if he could, in some way, explain to me and to this House how any of the members of the opposition could possibly, at this point in time, be contemplating going against what I think are the wishes of most Canadians, certainly the wishes of the people in my riding, to finally, once and for all, put Canada first when we are talking about immigration and refugee protection.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I, like my colleague, come from a riding that is very diverse. In fact, I believe the city of Abbotsford is the fifth most diverse community in Canada on a per capita basis.

Do members know where the support for this legislation is the strongest? It is in the immigrant communities. They understand because got to Canada by following the law. They are law-abiding citizens. They do it right.

What they object to are the human smugglers around the world who see Canada as a soft touch and then have people pay them, in some cases, $50,000 per person to smuggle them into the country and essentially, by extension, jump the queue that many other immigrants are prepared to legally immigrate to Canada through.

It is disgraceful that we would have opposition parties in this House actually opposing these kinds of reforms. It is so puzzling to me that the opposition parties, the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc, still are not listening to what Canadians are saying.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague.

It confuses me when I hear certain things from the opposition on occasion. This bill deals with both sides of the equation: the smugglers and those who are taking advantage of the situation. I relate it to those who are thieves. A thief will steal something and sell it to somebody else. Those persons who have those stolen goods are still breaking the law by having stolen goods.

Why is it important that this bill deals with both the smugglers and those who are being smuggled? If he could possibly answer that question, I would really appreciate it.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my Conservative colleague from Burlington is a great MP who gets the issue, unlike members of the opposition parties who continue to whine, criticize and oppose what Canadians are demanding we do.

He is right. It is a matter of balance. First, we are going after the smugglers themselves because they are part of international criminal organizations. They earn millions upon millions of dollars every year on the backs of the human suffering of others. We are targeting them and imposing much tougher penalties on them if they do arrive in Canada. We are also working with international authorities to interdict them before they ever leave their countries of origin. We are working very hard with our domestic and international authorities to ensure we go after human smugglers before they ever get here.

Second, we are also going after the customers because many of the customers are actually illegal migrants. They are coming to Canada for purposes other than true refugee reasons. They are coming here because they may be economic migrants or they may be escaping criminal or terrorist activity elsewhere.

This is a balanced bill because it goes after the human smugglers and their customers.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, given my colleague's experience in law, his extensive international experience and the different cultures that he interacts with on a regular basis, would having a law that appears to clamp down on human smuggling enforced increase or decrease the interest of qualified people who would like to immigrate to our great country?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has touched on the key element of this bill, and that has to do with the integrity and credibility of our refugee system in Canada.

If legitimate immigrants and refugees from around the world think that if they use legal means to get to Canada to make a new life here that they will be in a long lineup and others will be jumping the queue by cheating, then they will be discouraged. Those very people who are prepared to be law-abiding will not come to Canada and we will be stuck with those who abuse the system.

In Canada we want immigrants and refugees who are in need of genuine protection. We want them to be here in Canada, build new lives for themselves and become law-abiding citizens. This bill would ensure that the credibility and integrity of our refugee system is maintained.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unlike my colleagues from Oak Ridges—Markham and Abbotsford, the riding I represent is not known for the number of immigrants it welcomes, or for being ethnically diverse. On the contrary, Lévis—Bellechasse is a typical region in Quebec. The people are proud and happy to welcome immigrants, but they are against organized crime groups that smuggle migrants in ahead of everyone else and, even worse, exploit them.

I have a quote from Antoine Malek, the president of the Association of the Coptic Orthodox Community:

It is time for Canada to send a clear signal to the world to discourage and fight human smuggling. That is why the Coptic community supports new federal legislation to protect human life, Canada's security and the integrity of Canada's immigration policy as a whole.

My question for the member is clear: will this bill allow us to preserve the integrity of our immigration system by preventing the entry of illegal immigrants, and by ensuring that organized crime groups do not bring people to Canada illegally?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am actually the son of an immigrant. My mother came to Canada through legal means after the second world war and, boy, was she grateful for the opportunity to come to this country. My mother and father are law-abiding citizens who worked hard to build a life for themselves and to provide us children with an education knowing that Canada was a country that gave their children so much opportunity.

However, that opportunity is dependent upon the rule of law and the assumption that every Canadian citizen and permanent resident will follow the law and be a law-abiding citizen.

This legislation is absolutely critical to ensuring that tradition carries on in Canada, that the refugee system has credibility and integrity.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is much simpler than the tough questions put to him by his own caucus colleagues.

Could the hon. member tell me how many refugee claimants he has met with, how long has he talked to them, how many sponsored refugees has he called as friends and how well does he know them?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it would take me hours to regale the Liberal member with all the individuals I have met with over the years who have been refugees and who have been immigrants There are some 30,000 immigrants in my riding alone.

What we need to focus in on is collaborating within the House.

I have a question for that member. Why will he not support this legislation that is demanded by Canadians? Polls show that over 60% of Canadians want our government to get tough on human smuggling. We are doing that. Why is that member not on side?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-49 today.

During question period today, the member for Winnipeg South Centre asked a question about the nominee program in Manitoba. This has been a very successful program, developed under the auspices of the NDP under former premier Gary Doer's leadership in 1999. In fact, the program became so successful that the province of Nova Scotia approached Manitoba to study how to replicate it. I hope and believe Nova Scotia has a similarly successful program at this time.

In answering the question, the minister made the point that Manitoba's population represented 10% of the population of Canada and that Manitoba received 30% of the nominees under the program. He pointed out that while the Liberals were in power, Manitoba only received 2,000 nominees per year. Under the Conservatives, it gets 10,000 per year. We like to think that the 10,000 we get in Manitoba each year is a result of the initiatives of the Gary Doer NDP government, which proved to be so successful.

I also want to point out that the Minister of Immigration has provided some of the only true leadership we have seen from his government in the last five years. In June he brought all parties in Parliament onside with an agreement on Bill C-11 to take care of the mess in the immigration system, which had developed over the years.

The argument rages still in the House as to whether the mess was in fact left by the Liberals or created by the Conservatives. The NDP has stayed out of that fight. They can continue to fight it out as to who is ultimately responsible, but the fact is it is a mess. As I said, the minister was able to get all party agreement in June to make big improvements to the immigration system.

What the minister did is something the government should replicate. There is a schizophrenia in the government. It seems to be incapable of going back to the last long period of minority government, the Lester B. Pearson years in the sixties, when we got a new flag, we amalgamated the armed forces, we brought in medicare and a lot of other things. The Conservatives have literally wasted five full years trying to fight its way through Parliament with no real effect.

However, there is one good example with the minister getting all parties together and getting a new immigration act in place. The government should be doing more of that. Instead, what has it done? The Conservatives have done some polling, and we are very clear about that. They keep mentioning the 65% public support for Bill C-49.

The bill is not being promoted by the Minister of Immigration. It is being promoted by the Minister of Public Safety. Once again, the Minister of Public Safety trumps the Minister of Immigration and the polling of the Conservative Party. The appeal to public sentiment is the overriding concern behind this bill.

We feel we should give some time for Bill C-11 to be implemented in the country. It was only passed in June. It has not had time to do what it has been designed to do. Now the government is trying to amend the bill before it even has its current legislation in place.

It is interesting to note that Bill C-49 has 12 clauses that deal with refugees. Only five clauses actually deal with smugglers. I think all parties in the House agree that human smuggling is a very bad thing and that it is a criminal enterprise. In fact, the government points out that it is a criminal enterprise that spans the globe, that human smugglers facilitate for a profit individuals entering Canada illegally. The figure of $50,000 is being mentioned.

Our party is totally opposed to this. We think the government should take measures to root out these smugglers. We know the smugglers are not here. The smugglers are in foreign jurisdictions. Therefore, the government has to bring in legislation to deal directly with an effort to get at these people in other countries. It has indicated it is dealing with that issue through diplomatic means and policing means. It is going to have to deal with the police in Thailand, in Southeast Asia and other countries around the world.

It has also been pointed out that there already is a life sentence under the immigration laws of the country for smugglers. Therefore, what is this all about? Why is the government bringing in a new bill with a graduated penalty system and minimum sentences when we already have a life sentence for people involved in this kind of activity, if they are caught.

By charging large sums of money for transportation, human smugglers have been making a lucrative business out of facilitating illegal migration around the world, often counselling smuggled persons to claim asylum in the country in which they are smuggled. Human smuggling can take place in many forms, including by boat.

Once again, as has been pointed out by many members, the government is making a separation as to how people arrive in Canada. It will deal with people who arrive by boat differently than people who arrive by airplane.

In terms of human smuggling undermining Canada's security, large scale arrivals make it difficult to properly investigate whether those who arrive, including the smugglers themselves, could pose a risk to Canada on the basis of either criminality or national security. The public security minister made pronouncements about criminals and terrorists, speaking about the recent arrival of the boat, stirring up public sentiment against them. The people who are brought in will be investigated. That is the whole idea behind what we are doing right now.

In addition, the government wants to give the Minister of Public Safety more powers. I do not know if that is such a good idea. In the short term perhaps with the current situation it might seem like the popular thing to do, because 65% of the people are against acceptance of the people on these boats. However, if we were to take it two or three years down the line and a boat load of people from another country showed up, perhaps the polling then would show that 65% were in favour of the people staying. What is the minister going to do? What is the point of having an immigration department in the first place if the minister is going to be overriding it and making decisions along the way? That measure may be wise in the short run, but may not be wise in the long run.

The government also wants to make it easier to prosecute human smugglers, but it has to catch them in the first place and they have to be caught overseas. Foreign governments have to be involved in the process as well.

I believe the government already knows who these smugglers are. The minister has indicated there are three or four groups at least in Sri Lanka that were previously involved in other criminal activities. These groups have now transferred their activities over to human smuggling. Half the battle is knowing who the enemy is.

The bottom line is we should be enforcing our existing laws as opposed to dreaming up new laws to become more popular with the public.

The government also wants to introduce mandatory minimum prison sentences on convicted smugglers. It wants to hold the owners and operators of the ships to account for the use of their ships in human smuggling operations.

The government is ensuring the safety and security of our streets and communities by establishing, and this is a good one, the mandatory detention of participants for up to a year or until a positive decision by the Immigration and Refugee Board, whichever comes sooner, in order to allow for the determination of the identity, admissibility and illegal activity of a participant.

We have some experience with Australia. My colleague from B.C. indicated earlier that he thought there were probably 20,000 refugees in the Australian system. I recognize it is a little warmer in Australia than here, but where will Australia put these people?

The government has announced that it will spend $9 billion on new prisons in the country. Will the government use these prisons as detention centres? Is it the government's intention to put people into detention centres? That is one of the initiatives in the bill.

The government hopes to reduce the attraction of coming to Canada by way of illegal human smuggling by doing several other things. It is going to prevent those who come to Canada from applying for permanent resident status for a period of five years.

I may be running out of time quicker than I anticipated so I do not know if I will have time to get to all the studies that have been done.

Studies done in England show that most immigrants do not have a clue of the rules of the country to which they go. They go to that country regardless of the rules. Are we expecting smugglers to start reading the new rules? What is the government going to do? Is it going to send the smugglers a list of the new rules and all the regulations that are promulgated through the bill?

The government is going to hold a refugee back from permanent resident status for a period of five years should that individual successfully obtain refugee status. The individual will be prevented from sponsoring family members for five years. I will have a lot to say about that at a later point.

The government is trying to reduce the attraction of coming to Canada by way of illegal human smuggling operations by ensuring the health benefits participants receive are not more generous than those received by the Canadian public.

The government is enhancing the ability to terminate the protected person status of those who return to their country of origin for a vacation or demonstrate in other ways that they are not in legitimate need of Canadian protection.

Another point raised by other speakers was whether the bill would survive a charter challenge.

The government is planning to detect and deter human smuggling overseas through the appointment of a special adviser on human smuggling and illegal migration. That may be a good idea. I do not know who that will be and what he or she might do, but hopefully there will be a way of monitoring or getting some sort of report from this individual as to progress being made. We would not want to add onto a bureaucracy that produces very little results.

In terms of increasing the presence overseas through operational activities, diplomatic outreach, partnership with other affected nations and engagement with multilateral bodies, anything that can track down the smugglers and put them in jail is probably a good idea. I indicated that we already have life sentences for smugglers. If we apply life sentences and put them in jail, the House will have our full agreement on that, but the preponderance of the bill actually deals with the migrants themselves and that is what the government is looking at.

Bill C-49 is called the “preventing human smugglers from abusing Canada's immigration system act”, but it is really basically an act to attack and punish refugees. As I indicated before, we would rather attack the criminals, the traffickers, the smugglers, and not the victims. The bill will concentrate absolute power in the hands of the minister to decide which refugees will be subject to these measures, with no clear definition of irregular arrival. It can apply to any group of refugees, immigrants or visitors.

Also, as I have indicated, Parliament already approved a strong and balanced refugee law a few months ago. The Conservatives should basically concentrate on enforcing Bill C-11, the law we have right now, and allow genuine refugees to stay and deport the bogus ones as quickly as possible. We are fully in agreement with that. Once again, we were part of the development group behind Bill C-11 in the first place.

We have also long called for the refugee determination process to be sped up, because it has taken too long in the past, and increased RCMP resources and secure immigration status of trafficked and smuggled victims so that they can testify against the real criminals. That was a concern that was indicated as well, that even if we do catch the smugglers, what are the realistic chances that witnesses would be willing to testify against them? We need to make sure that we have RCMP resources and proper safeguards to make sure that when we do catch these people, the witnesses are able to testify against them to put them away for those long sentences.

Our members have indicated that the bill will hurt legitimate refugees and those people who help them. It will prevent refugees from bringing their spouses and children to Canada for at least seven years, and women and children will be detained for at least one year, repeating the previous sad history of punishing and interning refugees and their children.

Bill C-49 is basically very deeply unfair to refugees because it fails to honour obligations under Canadian and international law, and other speakers have mentioned that. It deprives individual cases from the independent review that justice requires. It will involve huge costs and unnecessary detention. We talked about the $9 billion in prisons that the government will have sprouting up across the country over the next little while. It will do nothing to prevent human smuggling. More laws will not catch the smugglers who are overseas. Mandatory minimum sentences will not deter them.

Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, smuggling is already punishable by life imprisonment and mandatory minimums have been shown not to work as deterrents. If we already have the possibility of life imprisonment, then how much further do we want to go in this area?

I recognize that my time is up and I would be willing to answer questions from members.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member from the NDP's speech, but it is completely naive to think that smugglers would not read the new rules. Does he think that smugglers and thieves, criminals, do not understand why they come to Canada, that they just pick Canada because it is on the map? They know what our present rules and regulations are regarding refugee status and how they can get away with smuggling human beings here. They know what the rules are. They know what is available to them.

It is important for us to send the message through this bill, to make changes that would make the mass immigration of refugees much more difficult so that we are not a solution for the customers they are smuggling here.

The member is upset about the potential one-year detention when they arrive here. We deport 14,000 people a year. We have about another 10,000 or 15,000 people who we do not even know where they are. They were refused refugee status and they are out on the lam. Why would we allow people coming to Canada in boatloads to be on the lam for a year until they get approval? We need to stop this now.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member is very excited about his bill. The fact of the matter is that we are certainly determined to track down the smugglers. That is the real problem here. However, we do not believe that we should be punishing the migrants in the process. Let us put whatever efforts we can into tracking down these smugglers.

I already indicated several times that we have the availability of life sentences under the current legislation. Let us put some effort into finding the smugglers.

I have given the government credit. It has made some initiatives to deal with foreign governments and it has appointed a special adviser on human smuggling and illegal migration. Let us give this system some time. The problem did not just develop yesterday.

Australia has been dealing with this problem for several years. It has had detention systems and they do not work. The migrants keep coming.

The government, once again, wants to do something that does not work.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, somewhat in response to the last question and answer, I wonder if the hon. member knows whether these smugglers actually ever come on these boats. Do they come and have a sign on them that says, “I'm the smuggler”? Or is it more likely that they are actually somewhere in a third country, operating an odious business that takes advantage of vulnerable people?

I am questioning whether this act could actually help track down those smugglers or do anything with them, really.

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

Mr. Speaker, I invite the member to read the minister's speech on this subject. I thought I heard him say that they knew where the smugglers were or who the smugglers were, that there were three or four organized criminal gangs from Sri Lanka that had been involved in the drug trade and in arms deals and whatnot in the past, and now that the war has more or less come to and end they have decided to embark on human smuggling. So if they know who the people are, it should be a simple matter of having our police forces, and so on, talk to the foreign governments and try to do something about it from that end.

Clearly, the problem is over there. That is where the boats are being bought. That is where the boats are. They are recruiting the people over there. The money is being flushed through bank accounts in these foreign countries. So it is incumbent upon these countries to help us catch these smugglers. The government itself has indicated that it is going to appoint a special adviser on human smuggling and it is going to increase the presence overseas through operational activities, diplomatic outreach, partnership with other affected nations, and all those other great things that would catch these smugglers. So I invite them to get out there and catch them.

In the meantime, we have Bill C-11, which we put together through a co-operation of all of the parties in this House. Let us get it implemented and let us deal with the backlog in the immigration system.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Elmwood—Transcona touched on a point that I would like him to address.

In the recent Auditor General's report, the Department of Immigration came under serious criticism from her. A couple of points she specifically raised was that in many cases the department itself had no standards for service delivery, it had no comprehensive way to monitor performance, and out of 35 different service areas, only four had service targets. In addition, they provided no consistent way to communicate with clients who were waiting.

On the one hand, we have this bill that is before the House, but on the other hand we know that there are serious problems within the department itself. Again, this is not about the employees in that department. I would argue that they do not have the tools and resources they need to adequately do the job.

I wonder if the member could comment specifically on the problems within the department itself in terms of quality and service standards.

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

Mr. Speaker, clearly the Auditor General has a unique way of investigating and determining what is or is not going on in government departments. None of those observations would surprise me in the least.

We had a system that was broken under the Liberals and was not appreciably improved under the Conservatives until the last little while when the current minister was able to get all the parties in this Parliament together and come up with a big success. Trying to get four parties in this House to agree on anything is almost impossible, but he did the impossible. He got everybody together. Everybody here was reasonably happy.

I listened to all the self-congratulatory messages here in June and I was really impressed. I thought it was too bad that we could not do this again. This is what we did collectively in this House through the auspices of Bill C-11.

I do not know why we do not just leave it there and work on this smuggling issue separately through law enforcement and the procedures currently in place. Again, we have life sentences for smugglers.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the member is, why do they not listen to Canadians? Why are they blindly going ahead and not listening to Canadians?

Canadians do want to have this problem solved. It was one of the major things I heard this summer. Canadians were not happy.

Canadians also said to the NDP, Bloc, and Liberal coalition, “no” to a carbon tax. Now they are trying to sneak through the carbon tax, through a litigation bill also known as Bill C-469, a Trojan Horse that wants to bring a carbon tax on every Canadian. It is a job-killing tax.

I would like to know from the member why they do not listen to Canadians. Why do they try to do things sneakingly? The message from Canadians is clear. Why are they not listening to Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, we are listening to Canadians.

Canadians told us they wanted to make this minority government work. The minority government surely is not listening to what Canadians want.

We have agreed with all the parties in this House to pass Bill C-11, which cleans up the problems in the immigration system right now. We have already indicated that we want to do something about smugglers, and there are already life sentences under current laws for smugglers.

Let us get the government out there and catch the smugglers first and give them their life sentences. We are right behind any initiative to do that.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to say a few words today about this bill, which is important to the people of Lévis, Bellechasse and Les Etchemins.

As we all know, the Prime Minister recently attended a citizenship ceremony to welcome new Canadian citizens. Every year, Canada welcomes thousands of immigrants and refugees who benefit from one of the fairest and most generous refugee protection systems in the world. The government and all Canadians are proud of this system, which demonstrates our country's generosity.

Nevertheless, we are currently facing a very serious problem that threatens the safety and security of our communities and the integrity of our generous immigration system. In August, the MV Sun Sea arrived in Canada illegally less than a year after another vessel, the Ocean Lady also arrived illegally. The fact that two ships reached Canada's shores within 12 months of each other clearly shows that human smuggling rings are getting more interested in Canada because they think they can exploit our immigration system and make money from it.

Canada willingly welcomes people who patiently wait their turn to come live here in our country and benefit from the many advantages of Canadian citizenship. They want to contribute to Canadian society and they want their descendants to do so as well. For hundreds of years, strong, brave people from around the world have contributed to our great country's prosperity and culture and continue to do so. In my case, it all began five generations ago when people from Ireland arrived. Quebeckers welcomed them. They became a part of the society and made their contribution to it.

However, the government has made it clear that it will not tolerate any exploitation of the Canadian immigration system, whether by human smugglers or outlaws trying to make money. That is why our minister recently introduced the preventing human smugglers from abusing Canada's immigration system bill.

The government has three objectives with this legislation. The first is to make it easier to prosecute human smugglers. Second, it imposes a mandatory minimum sentence on convicted human smugglers. Third, it holds ship owners and operators accountable for the use of their ships in human smuggling operations. This bill gets to the root of the problem of smugglers and illegal immigrants. It also sends a clear message to these organized crime gangs that Canada's border is not a sieve and that illegal immigrants are not welcome here.

The government is also taking measures to ensure the safety and security of our neighbourhoods and communities. Anyone involved in human smuggling operations will be held for up to one year to allow for the determination of identity, admissibility and the illegal nature of the activity, if applicable.

The government is using this law to make it less attractive to come to Canada through illegal human smuggling operations. We have rights and responsibilities.

Under this legislation, anyone involved in a human smuggling operation will not be able to apply for permanent resident status for five years, if they succeed in obtaining refugee status. They will not receive health benefits that are more generous than those received by the Canadian public. It will also be easier to revoke someone's refugee status if they return to their country of origin for a vacation or if they demonstrate in other ways that they are not legitimately in need of Canada's protection.

Individuals who arrive in Canada as a result of human smuggling will not be allowed to sponsor family members for a period of five years.

The government is also appointing a special advisor on human smuggling and illegal immigration who will coordinate a whole-government response to human smuggling.

Are these measures tough? Yes, absolutely. They have to be tough in order to make human smugglers and fraudsters think twice before they try to commit these crimes against Canadians.

However, these measures are also fair, fair to those who legitimately and legally wait or plan to wait in line for a better life in Canada. They are also fair for all Canadians and Canadian taxpayers who rightfully expect that our borders and shores are protected and secure and our generous systems, including immigration, are protected from abuse.

These measures will enhance our ability to crack down on those who engage in human smuggling and try to exploit Canada's immigration system. They will strengthen our ability to protect Canadians from criminal or terrorist threats and they will respect our international obligations to provide assistance to those legitimate refugees who need our protection and help to start a new and better life, while tackling international crime and human smugglers.

The people of my riding and all Canadians want tough but fair measures to stop those who would abuse our generosity from illegally becoming part of Canadian society. We know that threats exist and that we must remain vigilant. That is why the government is taking concrete action today to ensure the safety of Canadians.

Benjamin Perrin, an expert on human trafficking, gave a talk here in Ottawa yesterday. He explained how the migrants who come here are exploited by human smugglers and by members of organized crime right here in Canada. This is one way to tackle the crimes being committed.

This measure is supported not only by the people of Lévis—Bellechasse and Les Etchemins, but also by several ethnic communities.

“Canada is a generous country with an immigration system that treats both immigrants and refugees very well. However there are those who are not willing to wait their turns in line and criminals who would profit from this. Instead they want to jump the immigration queue and make their way to Canada through any means available to them, often bypassing several hospitable countries and travelling halfway around the world to land on our shores.

“These individuals pay criminals to be smuggled to Canada where they can claim refugee status, in effect putting themselves at the front of the line illegally. We believe that the criminal activities of the smugglers should be prosecuted to the full extent of Canadian and international law. As a result of this human smuggling, honest and legal would-be immigrants who are waiting patiently and anxiously in the queue are penalized, while the smuggled refugees' claims are processed.

“The criminal enterprise that is human smuggling is an abuse of both Canada's generosity and the honesty of all the other immigration applicants. We are pleased that the government has sent a clear message that it will not be tolerated and we welcome the introduction of legislation preventing human smugglers from in effect creating an unfair, two-tier immigration system, one for the impatient rich and the other for the honest applicant”.

This long quote is from Michael Deakin-Macey. He is a past president of the board of directors of the Victoria Immigrant and Refugee Centre Society. It summarizes very well the spirit of this committee, and I am appalled today to see that members of the opposition are not willing to move this bill forward to second reading, to send it to committee, because this is a bill that Canada needs to be protected against the illegal smuggling that goes on around the world.

I would be more than happy to answer questions. I hope that we will get some support from the opposition because Canadians are calling for this bill.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina, Citizenship and Immigration; the hon. member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl, G8 and G20 Summits.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was truly a pleasure listening to the speech of the hon. member who seems to have a true passion for real refugee claimants, a true passion to fight those who would seek to take advantage of the people who really need our help in society and to crack down on human smugglers. I know that his constituents are very lucky to have him fighting on their behalf each and every day in the House.

What is really troubling me through this whole debate is hearing the members of the opposition. The NDP member consistently talks about the 25-year penalty that is in place, but we all know on this side of the House what a 25-year penalty for the NDP and the Liberals is. Twenty-five years is a 15-year faint hope clause. It is time served, which brings it down even further. There is good behaviour. So by the time it is all done, we would actually owe the criminals some time. We also know that last week, when we were debating another issue, they told us we should treat criminals like kids because the poor criminals have had so much trouble in their lives.

How can members opposite not support a bill that would crack down on human smugglers?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Oak Ridges—Markham for his question and for the work he has done for immigration in this country. I want him to know I am proud that he is part of our government, which wants to pass a bill to put an end to illegal immigration and to attack the root of the child trafficking problem.

Unfortunately, it is a problem that we have already dealt with here in the House. It is not surprising to see that the Bloc is opposing human smuggling today, because they voted against Bill C-268, to impose minimum sentences for criminals found guilty of human trafficking. We get the picture. I think it is deplorable that the Quebec MPs are opposing measures that Quebeckers want. These measures are wanted because we have one of the most generous immigration systems in the world. They are currently in the process of creating a two-tier system: one system for illegal immigrants and another system for people who wait their turn. Our message is that there is only one way to enter the country and that is through an honest and transparent process. That is what this bill aims to achieve.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, being an immigrant I am very much interested in immigration and this legislation, Bill C-49. I think the government is taking the absolute right step by bringing this kind of legislation, which would not only deter smugglers but would also give a strong message to potential refugee claimants that they will be dealt with by tougher action. At the same time, it would also give the government some encouragement to decide and determine those cases of potential refugee claimants within that one-year period when those claimants will be kept in custody.

Would my colleague agree that this will give an urgent message to those potential refugee claimants that it will not be as easy as it was to go through the smuggling process and jump the queue?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge and thank my colleague from Calgary Northeast for his excellent question. I would first like to tell him that not only do the people of Lévis—Bellechasse give their full support to this bill, but so do the ethnic communities.

For the reason given by my colleague, it is important to avoid a two-tiered immigration system where illegal immigrants and organized crime jump the queue and move ahead of honest applicants. That is at the heart of this bill and it is the reason why we would like the opposition to adopt the same position as the people of Lévis—Bellechasse, the people of Calgary and the people of ethnic communities. I have a quote I would like to read.

Human smugglers make our immigration system less fair for legal immigrants. We believe that the government should have the tools it needs to ensure that our immigration system is fair.

Who said that? Nader Abou Chacra, president of the Canadian Druze Society.

It is evident that ethnic communities are asking us to strengthen our immigration system so that these communities can integrate and welcome immigrants who arrive legally, and not by the illegal means that we want to eliminate with the bill before us.

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, is the member aware that the bill violates various treaties and also the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the 1951 refugee convention, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child?

How can he say that this bill, which violates three conventions and treaties, will become a law that Canada can enforce internationally when we do not enforce the other laws?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for his question. Fundamental human rights are being violated with illegal immigration. We have seen women and children come here as slaves, which is the worst violation of human rights. These people lose all of their rights. They come to our country without ID, they live illegally, they are at the mercy of organized crime groups, and they are exploited here.

The member has a chance to support a bill that will make a difference and put an end to this violation of the fundamental rights of people who come to our country and to the scourge that threatens to destroy our immigration system.

I urge the member opposite to follow the lead of the Lebanese Islamic Centre, which said:

We have noticed that smugglers are targeting Canada. That is why we support these amendments. We must make it easier to press charges against these criminals who profit from vulnerable individuals, and we must deter anyone who would consider committing this crime by imposing mandatory jail time and minimum prison sentences on smugglers.

We are moving forward.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear the hon. member speak to the bill and I fully agree with him that we need to stop this human smuggling. It is a loophole for illegal immigrants to come and, frankly, to jump the queue. This is something that always upsets new Canadians who have immigrated to Canada through the proper channels in order to experience everything that is Canada. When my parents came over to Canada, they went through a process and were very pleased to go through that process in a legal way.

Why does the member think the previous government did not address this issue? This is not a new issue. This is not something that just happened because of the previous ship that landed on our shores. This issue has been around in Canada for a long time. It is something that needed to be addressed and I am pleased that this government is addressing it.

Why does the member feel that the previous government ignored this?

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Lévis—Bellechasse for a brief answer.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

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

I am pleased to be part of a government that gets the job done. In this specific case, that is precisely what we are doing with a critical issue. Not only are we acting on this human smuggling matter, but we are also acting on the entire immigration issue. We see our minister accomplishing long-awaited and necessary tasks.

I have here a quote, again from a representative of an ethnic community. This time, it is the Arab and Syrian community of Montreal, which says:

Human smuggling is a lucrative enterprise that generates huge profits for the merciless criminals who organize these trips. The very nature of illegal migration means that anyone could be tempted to come to Canada. It also means that we run the risk that terrorists may be on board these ships bound for Canada.

It is not surprising that the previous government did nothing at the time, because today it has the chance to take action and it is opposing this bill.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak today to this bill at second reading.

The concerns of Canadians have been well expressed by members of the Conservative government. They have echoed the concerns that I have heard from many people in my riding and across the country as people have raised concerns about people arriving on Canada's shores in very vulnerable conditions.

Obviously the arrival this summer of the Sun Sea, carrying almost 500 Tamil refugee claimants from Sri Lanka, raised concerns. It raised concerns across the political spectrum. Those on the more left side of spectrum felt that someone was taking advantage of refugee claimants by charging exorbitant amounts of money and placing their very lives in danger for a second or third time as they were placed on vessels that were not seaworthy. They were designed to actually travel between Sri Lanka and India but made an across-the-ocean voyage to Canada.

There was also a concern that this was the second ship. The previous ship, the Ocean Lady, also came to the shores of Canada with refugee claimants on it. That began to raise concerns in Canada that something was going wrong, that something was out of control.

I congratulate the government for resisting some of the urges that some Canadians had to actually stop the ships mid-course in the ocean. The government made a wise decision, actually followed the law on this and exercised great concern for the administration of justice and for the law.

However, that began a discussion around the sort of law that Canadians wanted. Canadians were expressing concern, even outrage and, at times, misunderstanding about what was going on. There was a misunderstanding about immigration versus refugee law. I know that all hon. members in this chamber know that there is a difference between immigrants and refugees and that there is a further difference between refugee claimants and refugees themselves, or convention refugees as declared. That discussion has been sort of muddied by government ministers who have taken the opportunities, perhaps unwittingly, to muddy the waters for Canadians. I wanted to spend a few minutes clarifying what we are talking about here.

First, we are talking about people who are not immigrants, who have not stood in queues up to six or seven years, as people who have come to Canada often have, and who are not coming for economic reasons or as part of family sponsorship or family reunification programs. These are also not convention refugees who have been sponsored by the government, by the church or by other groups into Canada. We know that.

These are vulnerable individuals whose lives may have been at risk and who are seeking asylum in a country that has honoured asylum seekers with fair and just processes for decades. That is who these people are.

We all know that Sri Lanka has come through over two decades of civil war that has had atrocities on all sides. After every war, there are people whose lives continue to be at risk and some of them take desperate measures. That is what has happened with the two most recent vessels. They have been loaded with people who have claimed that their lives are in danger and they are seeking asylum in Canada.

Canada has a long history of having signed onto international conventions and treaties that dictate how we will deal with those asylum seekers. They are given fair and transparent judicial processes. They are allowed to be heard on a case-by-case refugee determination process.

As the hon. member from the New Democrat caucus said earlier, we have a process whereby the refugee determination has been too slow in the past but we were able to reach an accord in this House called Bill C-11 which changes some of those refugee determination processes and are meant to speed them up.

My fear is that we already have the Minister of Public Safety expressing a lack of confidence in the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism and his fine work on Bill C-11. We on this side of the House were kind of confused when we listened to the discussions on what sort of a law would deal with this problem of smugglers.

Let there be no doubt that no one on this side of the House, nor, I believe, on the other side of the House, condones human smuggling. I will give everyone the benefit of the doubt. I do not believe anyone wants to put a vulnerable person at a greater vulnerable level. We do not want people making money off this exercise. We do not want to risk lives a second or third time. We want to ensure a fair and just immigration system, including a refugee determination system, that works. Everyone in the House agrees on that.

However, the Minister of Public Safety, who presented this legislation that does not seem to honour those things which we as Canadians have stood up for decades for, has started to shift the language on this. We hear members, although I think they are making an honest mistake, talking about queue-jumping. There are no quotas and no queues when it comes to refugee determination. We have no standards that we follow.

As a western country and as a democracy, we believe in the rule of law. Every person who comes to this country, whether by car, by foot, by canoe, by sea vessel, by airplane, by helicopter, no matter how they arrive or in what numbers they arrive, one, two or three people, whether they are children, youth, adults or seniors, every person is allowed a fair refugee determination process.

Is that system working? Obviously it is not. We introduced Bill C-11 because there were problems and it was taking too long. However, I believe some of those problems came from the fact that the government strangled the system by starving it of resources. The previous Liberal government left 15,000 people in that system and that number has now gone up to 60,000 people. This is a problem. We are hoping that Bill C-11 and the attendant resources that are required will streamline the process to ensure fairness and transparency and ensure those who are not bona fide refugees are sent home in a timely manner. We agree with that.

On this side of the House, we do not believe there are two kinds of Canadians: new Canadians and old Canadians. We are not surprised, as I keep hearing from my hon. colleagues across the aisle, that new Canadians have this concern too. We are all Canadians, whether we have been here one generation, two generations or three generations. We want to ensure that the system of justice, the system of refugee determination and the immigration system are fair, transparent and just, and we will work for that.

This particular legislation does raise some concerns for me in very specific ways. We absolutely want to tackle the problem of human smuggling. Would this bill actually do that or are there already, as previous members have said, pieces of legislation in place with life sentences if someone is actually caught doing this? Is there anything new in this legislation that would actually ensure that those who are committing the heinous act of smuggling human beings for profit into this country will be caught and punished? It is simply not in this legislation. There are too many problems.

Bill C-49 is not an effective piece of legislation nor is it a good piece of legislation. The government will need to find ways to improve this legislation to ensure that it actually addresses the real problem of human smuggling.

This bill would actually punish refugee claimants even after they have gone through a process of determination. It would create two kinds of refugees by splitting them into two classes, which is simply not right. We do not do that in Canada.

The government thinks that by somehow deterring refugees from seeking a safe way out of their country, they will not try to do this. Every piece of research has said that the laws of the land that people are going to do not determine whether or not they will try to get there. They are simply trying to get away from the threat against their life. That is the problem with this legislation. It is as though the government thinks, for example, that the Tamils living in Sri Lanka will look at this and decide not to get on the ship because of the things that could possibly happen to them.

Whatever can happen in Canada will never be as bad as what goes on for them in camps, in bushes, on beaches and in places where they try to eke out their very survival. Nothing that we can do will stop them from trying to get to safety. That is the human instinct. That is what is in the core of our bodies, our spirits. It is in our DNA. We want to survive.

That means for this to be effective, we have to do two or three different things. We have to look at truly effective ways to stop the smugglers. Yes, we want strong deterrents against the smugglers. Yes, we want to be assured that smugglers will face at least mandatory minimum sentences, with which I do not normally agree. However, this is such a horrible crime that we should look at that. Let us open our door to dealing with smugglers that way.

However, we have to go to the source of the problem. Once we have dealt with that, we have to look at human beings as human beings. The reality is these vulnerable human beings are vulnerable because of the failures of a particular national government or because of the international community's misunderstanding or failure to act to protect them.

The war has ended in Sri Lanka, but the violence and danger continues. The lives of people continue to be at risk. Canada is failing, the government is failing to ensure that we are in Sri Lanka, offering a democratic, institutional way of responding to how to live with a linguistic and religious minority in their midst and how to build civil society to protect minorities. Canada has not done that. We have abdicated our responsibility internationally.

We have also failed to work with the United Nations and other countries in refugee determination in Sri Lanka, in Thailand and in places where Tamils have sought refuge. We have to ensure that the United Nations has the resources, the staff, the personnel and the ability to get into a country and ensure that refugees are determined there.

Therefore, we have to stop the problem at the source. We have to stop it by building international human rights, by working co-operatively with other countries, by engaging internationally, by restoring our reputation, which has been so greatly damaged in the last four years by the government. We have to find a way to involve ourselves in these countries in real and meaningful ways and stop our tokenism.

The second thing we have to do is beef up the United Nations to ensure that we work in a partnership to do refugee determination there.

There are 43 million forcibly displaced persons in the world, and it is a horrible life. People seeking asylum are potential victims. They are not worthy of being further victimized in any way, as I believe the legislation may be doing. We have to find a way to fix this. We have to take out some of the basic problems in the legislation.

The question I continue to have is on these so-called irregular events. On some kind of an irregular immigration of inter-migration event, the minister seems to have too much power to designate. It seems to be far too open and far too flexible. This is one of the things at which the House has to look. We have to understand where we are then from that point on discriminating and causing two classes of refugee claimants and then, further, once determined, two classes of refugees. This law cannot discriminate against people because of where they have come from or how they have come to Canada. We have to absolutely take a step back and take a second look at the legislation.

Arbitrary detention, as the hon. member had said earlier, has not worked in Australia. Not only has civil society risen up against it, but every group that looks at this problem says that it is not working. It is not a deterrent. It is simply an infringement upon human rights.

Bill C-49 makes no exceptions for women who may be pregnant or children who arrive on the shores of our land. We have to look at this as a protection for the most vulnerable, including women and children.

The Supreme Court of Canada said that we would have to review lengthy periods of detention under the charter. Bill C-49 has to deal exactly with that. Arbitrary detention is already prohibited under international law, notably by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Bill C-49 is dangerously close to denying any right of equal access to justice. It is blocking a sense of integration as well. That is where I really want to go in these last few minutes.

Once refugees have been determined to be refugees, they then become part of Canadian society. They are landed here and they begin to integrate into our society. They begin to learn the language and seek employment. They build families, they are part of neighbourhoods and they are part of communities. They are our friends. They are part of the structure and the very fabric of Canada.

Bill C-49 breaks that down. It blocks family reunification. It denies the right to travel. It does not look at the fact that the world changes. Someone may be determined a refugee, but that country's regime may change drastically and the conditions in that country may change.The legislation does not give the required flexibility to ensure that the people who integrate into our society are part of who we are, part of where we need to go, part of what we need to do.

The mere suspicion that something is wrong is not good enough for a minister to deny human rights. A fair and just country is what we are building. It is what we continue to work on and all legislation needs to be examined from that vantage point. Who is being hurt? Who is being helped? How is our country being built?

This legislation seems shy on actually dealing with the problem of human smuggling and heavy-handed when it comes to the victims of those smugglers. This is no time for Canada to re-victimize vulnerable people. This is no time for Canada to create two classes of refugees. This is no time for Canada to break Canada apart into different kinds of people. A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. A refugee is a refugee is a refugee. A claimant is a claimant is a claimant. Canada is built on that. It is built on the rule of law that ensures that justice and transparency are built into the fabric of every piece of law that we pass in the House.

Canada has made mistakes when boats have landed on our shores before. I hope I do not need to remind a single person in the House of 1939 when the Government of Canada made a mistake. We turned back the S.S. St. Louis and we let hundreds of people go back to a country where their lives were very much at risk and their safety was at stake. This was not the first time it had happened.

In 1939 the S.S. St. Louis, filled with hundreds of refugees fleeing from the Nazis, sought asylum in Canada. At that time, the government sought to discredit them as well and warned that if the S.S. St. Louis were permitted to dock, more Jews in Europe might follow. Would that they had. Would that we had opened up our eyes, our minds and our hearts because we could have saved more lives.

We had not learned the lesson in 1914 from the Komagata Maru. We did not learn it in 1939. We are learning slowly. This legislation dangerously turns back the clock on these issues.

Canada needs to remember that we are a place of justice and fairness. We will punish the smugglers strongly. We will learn to accept the refugee claimants and give them justice.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Madam Speaker, it has been difficult listening to the opposition today. The Liberal members in particular have been flip-flopping so badly on this. The reason they are flip-flopping back and forth is because they know their position does not mesh with the position of Canadians. It does not mesh with the position of immigrants. It does not mesh with the position of refugee claimants.

In their own little way they are trying to convince millions of Canadians, who expressed their opinions over the summer, that they are wrong. They have tied themselves into this pretzel, flip-flopping back and forth, which is something we see constantly from the Liberals. They have no idea what position they need to take on a certain day. They always believe their position is better than the position of Canadians, that Canadians do not know what they are talking about.

The reality in this situation is that Canadians and immigrants to our country have spoken. They have said that this is unacceptable, that for once and for all Canada needs to stand up to these human smugglers, jail them, seize their ships and ensure that we put all of our resources into ensuring the people who need our help get our help. The bill does that. We do not need to do what the Liberals and their coalition partners are suggesting, and that is looking at these human smugglers, treating them with kid gloves and trying to figure out what in their childhood went wrong that turned them into human smugglers.

I just wish for once the opposition coalition, which is fronted by the Leader of the Opposition but led by two failed—

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. The hon. member for Don Valley West.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member may want to check the blues after this. At the beginning, he talked about Canadians and immigrants. In my Canada immigrants who are citizens are Canadians. We are one.

Canadians have spoken on this and we have heard them. Canadians want tough and effective laws that will actually work against smuggling. Canadians are not anti-newcomers.

The Canadians I know, and I have talked to them from coast to coast, are not anti-newcomers. They want to be ensured that the government will effectively deal with those who are smuggling humans.

Canadians did make a mistake in 1914. I hope the hon. member knows that. Canadians did make a mistake in 1939. I do not know whether the Conservatives know that. I cannot tell today.

No one is flip-flopping on this side of the House. That side of the House is not aware that we made mistakes. We turned away people and they died. We will not do that from this side of the House.

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

Madam Speaker, I liked the way the member laid this out in terms of a humanitarian challenge, confronting not only us but the whole world, as we try to bring peace and stability. Lack of peace and stability anywhere is a threat to everyone else. What we do here, we have to be very thoughtful about. We have to think it through. We have to be deep and reflective in our response.

What I have seen in this place over the last six to 12 months is an attempt to deal with some very real challenges in the world in a very sort of knee-jerk reaction, throw a big net out, capture everyone and then we will sort it out later somehow, perhaps.

There are ways to deal with some of the real challenges that are inherent in the smuggling of refugees. As the member for Toronto Centre said today, a lot of the issues we are wanting to deal with we can actually deal with if we were willing to go and work with the people and the government of Sri Lanka because that is really where the problem is. Apparently there are three or four gangs that developed after the war. They are organizing this money-making scheme to smuggle refugees into other countries.

Perhaps the member would like to respond to that for me.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie because I can tell he understands that Canadians are smart. Canadians are compassionate. Canadians understand these situations and need to be led not by fear, not by slogans, not by misunderstanding—

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Order. Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member. I believe this is a debate and differences of opinion, but I do not think it merits laughing at comments made that are not intended in that way. I would ask for some respect for the hon. member who is speaking.

The hon. member for Don Valley West.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I repeat, we know that Canadians are smart. We know that they are compassionate. We know that they want to understand these issues and they want to be led with a sense of hopefulness and a sense that we will effectively deal with the problems in the world and compassionately deal with those who are the victims. That is what Canadians are about. They are not led by slogans. They are not led by easy answers. They are not led by someone who promises them something and delivers nothing.

We have problems in our refugee system, in our immigration system. Read the Auditor General's report. There are problems in the immigration system that is being led by the government. We were trying to fix the refugee determination system with Bill C-11, an honest attempt from all sides of the House to fix that. We are attempting to do that. We also are calling upon the government to look at our international relationships, to actually build them and build the kind of world where we stop the need for a refugee determination system here.

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague, who said that this bill will hurt immigration rather than help it. I was also surprised when I saw Bill C-49. I thought that on the other side of the House it would be called the “Tamil bill”. Their bills always address specific events.

I would like the member to talk a bit more about the punitive aspects of this bill.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I, too, am surprised that the Conservatives have not come up with a smarter, snappier little title that actually tries to further confuse the issue, because let us be real; this is about Tamils. This bill is about keeping out a certain group of people. The Conservatives were very clear; before the boat even landed they were already decrying that these were probably terrorists, that these people were going to come into our country to cause trouble.

The Tamil people who live in my riding are Canadians who are building this country with me and they are concerned about sisters and brothers in that country where they are a minority that is persecuted. I think the hon. member is absolutely correct by saying that we have to look at this problem with a broader lens and a lens that punishes the people who are meant to be punished and actually cares for the people who need to be cared for. Punish the smugglers. Care for the vulnerable.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to thank the Liberal opposition members for leaving the new Conservative government a 750,000-file backlog because of their ineptitude in running the immigration system.

I have to make this comment. The member for Don Valley West is trying to draw a comparison between this latest ship that came over, run by human smugglers, and the 1939 St. Louis and the Komagata Maru. For him to do that is very deceiving. It is misrepresenting the facts between the ships we are talking about now and the two incidents, one in 1939 and one in 1914. He should be ashamed of himself for trying to draw that conclusion.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Order. I must give the hon. member for Don Valley West equal time to respond.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I find that outrageous for two reasons. Once again the government side is confusing immigrants with refugees. They do not understand that the 750,000 are immigrants. Immigrants begins with an “i”; refugees begins with an “r”. These are two different bills, two different ways of looking at the world, two different systems. One is about conventional refugees and claimants and the other is about an immigration system that the Conservative government does not know how to fix.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Order, order. The time has run out for this member's speech and period of questions and comments.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Oak Ridges—Markham.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that this is a government that truly understands how the immigration system should work. It truly understands what Canadians look for in an immigration system.

When we took over, we saw a waiting list of one million people. If that is what the Liberals are claiming was a successful immigration system under their watch, I can certainly assure the member that people to whom I am talking in Canada's most diverse riding certainly do not agree with that assessment. What they are saying to me is that the system under the previous administration was a catastrophe and they are certainly happy that this government, this Minister of Immigration and the Prime Minister, stepped in to fix the mess that was left behind by the Liberal government after 13 years of terrible rule.

Let me say this. We do not need any lessons from the Liberal Party or any of the members opposite on how to deal fairly with refugees and with immigration matters.

However, getting back to this bill specifically, I welcome the opportunity to rise in support of Bill C-49, the preventing human smugglers from abusing Canada's immigration system act. I am sure hon. members will agree that human smuggling is among the most loathsome of criminal endeavours, and judging from the comments on news websites, the letters on the pages of newspapers, and the calls to talk radio shows, Canadians definitely feel the same way. Some have suggested that Canadians' reaction to the recent arrivals of the smuggling ships was somehow improper, ungenerous, inhuman or worse. I do not believe anything could be further from the truth.

Canada's international reputation for generosity, as a place of refuge and welcome to newcomers, is definitely a source of pride for all Canadians, but no one wants our generosity to be abused, and most certainly, Canadians do not want unscrupulous operators to line their pockets from the desperation of the downtrodden and the generosity of the Canadian immigration system. That is why Canadians are angry and that is why our government has acted.

As an editorial in the Calgary Herald put it a few days after the Sun Sea docked in Esquimalt:

[I]t's not that Canada has lost its tolerance for refugees. What we've lost is our tolerance for refugee smugglers.

The bill makes it clear that Canada and Canadians do not and will not tolerate human smuggling. In fact, this bill makes it even more clear. Canada has always been a strong and visible supporter of international efforts to fight human smuggling. Our signature on the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and its Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air demonstrates our commitment to be part of the solution. Bill C-49 reinforces that commitment. It would allow law enforcement officials additional tools to investigate and to prosecute individuals who organize, engage in and profit from human smuggling.

As hon. members are aware, existing laws are very narrow in terms of the activities that can be prosecuted in this regard. The Crown must prove that the accused knew that the people being smuggled did not have the documents needed to enter Canada. This bill would change that. The amendments our government is proposing would broaden the application of the law so that it will be easier to prosecute human smugglers.

That sends a message to would-be smugglers. Bill C-49 underscores that message with mandatory minimum penalties for anyone convicted of human smuggling. Depending on the circumstances of the offence, these mandatory sentences would range up to a minimum of 10 years for the most grievous offences, such as those involving organized crime and endangering the lives of smuggled persons.

Similarly, this bill will increase the penalties for violations of the Marine Transportation Security Act, such as refusing to comply with a ministerial directive to leave Canadian waters or providing false or misleading information to officials. Individuals, for example, would be liable to fines of as much as $200,000 on indictment, up from the current $10,000. Individuals convicted on indictment for failure to file a pre-arrival information report would be liable to a maximum penalty of one year of imprisonment or a $75,000 fine, or both.

These changes would deliver a strong, clear message. It is a message that must be delivered before the next MV Sun Sea sails for our shores, and that risk is very real.

The bill would deter human smugglers from mounting such ventures. Indeed, we must do more than simply express our distaste for human smugglers as the opposition have been wanting to do today.

There is also the simple, yet profound, matter of exercising our right as a sovereign nation to protect our borders.

Canada has the right to decide who enters this country, and there is no question that Canada is very generous in that regard. At the same time, we have an obligation and we are committed to protecting the safety and security of Canadians. We have to be certain that the individuals claiming refugee status in Canada are not war criminals or a danger to Canadians.

The existing rules allow a foreign national or permanent resident entering Canada to be detained if an immigration officer considers their detention necessary in order to carry out a proper examination, to make sure that the person is who they say they are and that there is nothing in their background that would make them inadmissible to Canada.

Detentions of this kind must be reviewed by the Immigration and Refugee Board within 48 hours, again within seven days, and if necessary, within every 30 days after that. This system works well most of the time; however, it is not designed to deal with hundreds of people arriving en masse at one location, as was the case with the Sun Sea.

Instead of concentrating on the investigations that are so vital to public safety, border officers find themselves devoting hour after precious hour to preparing for these numerous detention reviews. That is why Bill C-49 would give the Minister of Public Safety the authority to designate anyone who arrives at our border in circumstances such as the Sun Sea as an irregular arrival.

As an irregular arrival, individuals would be detained until the Immigration and Refugee Board determines that they are legitimate refugees. If they are still detained after one year, their detention would be reviewed at an IRB hearing that would decide whether detention should continue. Subsequent hearings, if necessary, would follow at six-month intervals. Where exceptional circumstances exist, the minister would have the authority to order early release.

Other changes in this bill would require designated arrivals to wait a minimum of five years before they could apply for permanent resident status in Canada or sponsor family members who come to our country. Designated arrivals would also not be able to access the supplemental benefits under the interim health plan, which provides benefits more generous than those available to Canadians. This is only fair. People who push to the front of the line should not be rewarded.

The changes that we are proposing in this bill would enhance the safety and security of Canadians and protect the integrity of our immigration system. Every successful incident of human smuggling encourages more people to try to take advantage of Canada's generosity, to cut in front of those who have followed the rules, who have filed papers, who have filed proper papers and waited patiently for the opportunity to begin a new life in Canada.

Canada needs immigrants. We cannot afford to allow criminal acts to discourage the newcomers to our country. We cannot afford to allow human smugglers and queue jumpers to undermine the public support of our immigration system. That is one of the reasons I am urging all members to support this bill.

Let me just say this. The hon. members across, the Liberal Party in particular, like to wrap themselves in the cloak of a generous party, as people who care about refugees and immigrants. We have heard constantly today, speaker after speaker and the critic talking about the Tamils. I do not have to remind the hon. member that it was a Conservative government in 1984 that began to open the door to Tamil refugees in this country.

I represent the riding of Oak Ridges—Markham, which is home to a large diaspora of Sri Lankans, both Tamil and Ceylonese people. We have been working together to try to find solutions to the problems that they have back at home. What we consistently hear from the Liberal Party are these great platitudes of what we should accomplish, but they never have solutions to the problems.

Here they have an opportunity to vote for a solution, to put an end to human smuggling in this country, and what are they doing? They are wrapping themselves up like pretzels. They are flip-flopping. What they are doing is ignoring what Canadians want.

I just hope that by the time we get this debate completed they will actually see the light, they might listen to what Canadians want, they might read the hundreds of emails and letters and listen to the phone calls, and the opposition coalition might for once listen to Canadians and vote the right way.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's discussion. He has been here all day asking questions and talking about this very important bill.

I just want to say that my in-laws are of Italian descent and my mother-in-law came here on a boat. I can say that when that happened earlier this summer in Vancouver, the first call I got was from my in-laws asking what we were going to do about this issue, and this bill addresses that issue.

I want to thank them for that call and I want to thank my colleague for his presentation today.

I would like to know, as the hon. member talked about the Liberal side flipping and flopping, if at any time today the Liberals indicated whether they were supportive of this bill going to committee so that they can actually have a discussion.

The Liberals claim they have all these people who are opposed and know all these groups that are opposed. Well, if we went to committee with it, we would be able to study the issue and have a discussion at committee.

Can the member tell me if the Liberal Party indicated whether it would be supporting this bill or not, based on his time here this afternoon?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have been here all day, but I have been having trouble following the Liberal position on this. On this particular bill, they seem to be flip-flopping more quickly than they have on some of the other things that they have flipped and flopped over.

My parents too came from Italy, through Pier 21. They worked very hard and they built a spectacular life here in Canada. They have a son in Parliament. That is the type of Canada we built. We built the type of Canada that encourages immigration to this country and that respects those who need our help. We have always been a very generous country.

To answer the hon. member's question directly, I have no idea where the Liberals stand on this. I have no idea where they stand on anything, to be honest. I know one thing for sure. They will always stand on the opposite side of where Canadians stand, and that is a true shame. They are working with their opposition coalition here to subvert the wishes of Canadians.

What Canadians really want is an immigration system, a refugee system, that respects those who come to this country, work hard and build a better life for themselves. That is what this side wants. That is why we are building a better immigration system. That is why we reformed the immigration system. That is why the immigration backlog has been reduced. That is why we are opening up our arms to those who come to this country and who need our assistance.

I think about what happened in Haiti and the quick response this government had to the people of Haiti. The opposition is suggesting that we should forget emergencies and we should look at other instances.

I think it is about time the Liberals did what is right, paid attention to what Canadians want and voted in favour of this bill. Let us get it to committee and make it better.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

When this debate resumes, the hon. member will have two minutes of comments and questions. As it is 5:30, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' bills as listed on today's order paper.

(The House resumed at 12 p.m.)

The House resumed from October 28 consideration of the motion that Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act and the Marine Transportation Security Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Preventing Human Smugglers From Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit saddened to have to rise in the House to debate Bill C-49, which has been titled by the government An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act and the Marine Transportation Security Act. I am saddened, to start off with, because what we are seeing is yet another attempt by the government to centralize powers in the hands of its ministers. The designation that allows the minister to decide who is a first class refugee and who is a fifth or sixth class refugee is something that, it is fair to say, has received a great deal of opposition right across the country.

I will be referencing a little later both the organizations that have spoken out against what the government is attempting to do and also some of the comments from people who understand full well what needs to be brought to bear when we talk about refugees and the increasing uncertainty and conflict that leads to refugees sometimes arriving on our shores. I will be referencing that in a few moments.

Suffice it to say, the concerns about the concentration of powers in the hands of a minister who can designate any non-citizen as worthy of being thrown into prison is deeply concerning in this corner of the House. Another concern that has been raised, and there are many around this legislation, is that this flies in the face of our international commitments, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

The fact is that the government got a slap from the international community just a few weeks ago in the United Nations, when Canada was refused for the first time to sit on the Security Council, something we have done regularly since the foundation of the United Nations in which Canada was heavily involved. It shows how the international community is concerned more and more about the direction the government has taken. There is no doubt that this particular legislation flies in the face of those international commitments that Canada has signed.

One might say that the government is trying something it thinks will work. However, an interesting note I will add before talking about the existing situation for refugees is the fact that Australia tried this very same approach of throwing them all in prison, and what happened is that Australians and Australia realized how wrong-headed that attempt was and moved away from this type of mean-spirited approach to refugees.

The reality is, as we well know, there is no queue for refugees. What the Conservative government has done, to which the previous Liberal government contributed as well, unfortunately, is to gut the whole refugee process system in Canada. For example, in northern Sri Lanka, where the government has ended a civil war and has kept thousands upon thousands of northern Sri Lankan Tamil-speaking citizens in detention camps, there have been widespread violations of human rights, as indicated by any human rights activists who have been able to make it into Sri Lanka. Most of them have been denied access, which is worrisome in itself.

The reality is that those individuals who are facing persecution and human rights abuses on the part of the Sri Lankan military do not have a queue to go to. They do not have an office to go to. There is no system in place to ensure they can, through a legitimate and anchored process, come to Canada. We are talking about an area where there are widespread human rights violations, disappearances, rapes, assaults and murders, and there is no system or process, no queue, waiting for them.

What they do in their desperation, those of them who can, is escape. They escape in leaky boats. They try to get as far away from where their family is threatened with murder or rape as possible, as any of us would. When we look at the history of our country, whether we are talking about the Komagata Maru or the SS St. Louis, we have had circumstances in our past where right-wing media has tried to provoke the same kinds of divisions and attacks against legitimate refugees who, to a certain extent, were mirrored by the most recent arrivals.

These individuals spent months on a leaky boat with little access to drinking water or food. They are not individuals who are on a pleasure cruise. They are coming to Canada because they want to feel safe. They want to avoid the murder and mayhem they face in their home countries. There is no legitimate queue for them to go through that process. Perhaps that is the most significant point.

The government has gutted the type of regular queue and processing that would allow refugees to come to Canada through a regular method. On top of that, the minister has the ability to throw any individual into jail. Rather than tackling human smugglers, the government is tackling the refugees, after coming through months on the open dangerous seas with little food and water and finally making it to our shore, and throwing them in prison.

That is simply not a value that most Canadians share. It is simply not a value that led to the international conventions that are violated by this legislation.

I want to read a couple of comments from those who have reviewed the legislation.

Professor Audrey Macklin, Centre for Refugee Studies, said, “The bill is so flagrantly illegal that it is almost inconceivable that it could survive a court challenge”.

The president of the Canadian Council for Refugees, Wanda Yamamoto, said:

Measures keeping some refugees longer in detention, denying them family reunification and restricting their freedom of movement are likely in violation of the Canadian Charter and of international human rights obligations...People who are forced to flee for their lives need to be offered asylum and a warm welcome, not punished.

The Province, which is a local newspaper in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, in criticizing the legislation said:

—other sections of the act, such as creating second-class refugees out of people who arrive en masse, make the proposed legislation seem thrown together and ill conceived....Canadian history is sprinkled with examples of how overtly politicized immigration policy has led to inhumane decisions, including the Komagata Maru incident in Vancouver in 1914 and the refusal to accept Jews escaping en masse from the Nazis.

A wide range of organizations have clearly spoken up, opposing Bill C-49. I will just mention some of them in my closing few seconds.

The organizations include the Vancouver Interfaith Refugee Council, the Vancouver Airport Chaplaincy, the Transition House Association of Nova Scotia, the United Church of Canada, the Salvation Army, Atlantic Refugee & Immigrant Services, the Council of Canadians, Table des groupes de femmes de Montréal, the Student Christian Movement of Canada, the South Ottawa Community Legal Services, South Asian Women's Community Centre, SOS, the Sojourn House, the Social Justice Collective of the Public Health Students at the University of Toronto, Salsbury Community Society, Sanctuary Coalition of Kitchener-Waterloo, Refugee Lawyers' Association of Ontario, the Quaker Committee For Refugees, Project Genesis, the Southern Ontario Sanctuary Coalition, the National Anti-Racism Council of Canada, the Mennonite Central Committee Canada, Ligue des droits et libertés, the Legal Assistance of Windsor, Lawyers' Rights Watch Canada, Jesuit Refuge, Inter Pares, the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, the Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women, the Fédération des femmes du Québec, the Community Legal Services Ottawa, Committee to Aid Refugees, Montreal, Christian Reformed World Relief Committee, Chinese Canadian National Council, Centre for Race and Culture, the Canadian Unitarians for Social Justice, Canadian Union of Postal Workers, Canadian Tamil Congress, Canadian-Muslim Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Council for Refugees.

Dozens and dozens of other organizations have all said that the legislation is flawed and should be withdrawn.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the remarks of the hon. gentleman. He will know that our government passed the very successful refugee reform bill in the summer. It was supported by all parties in the House, including his. The member for Trinity—Spadina did a lot of work with us on that bill.

Specific to this bill, what we have is a bill that would seek to put human smugglers in jail, give them guaranteed minimum sentences that would help protect Canadian sovereignty. It would ensure that the people who came to our country truly needed the assistance of the Government of Canada and the generosity of the people of Canada.

Would the hon. member simply look at this from the perspective of the Canadian people who want to continue to be a generous people and who want to continue to open our doors to those who need our help? However, we want to ensure that we protect Canadian sovereignty and that we take human smugglers out of the equation. We do not want people coming to our country and spending the rest of their lives trying to pay off the debts of these criminals who are getting these unfortunate people at the worst circumstances and bring them over here.

We want to ensure that people who need to come to our country can come here and can live a life that all Canadians—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member clearly has not read the legislation. It does not crack down on the smugglers. It cracks down on the refugees. It throws little kids in prison. That is the absurdity between the government's rhetoric and the reality of what it has presented.

The Balanced Refugee Reform Act received the support from many members in the House of Commons. Yet the government does not seem satisfied with having brought in that legislation. It is one of the few pieces of legislation that was actually effectively drafted. Most of the time, tragically in the House, we have legislation that is thrown together on the back of a napkin. That is why dozens and dozens of national organizations are taking a stand against the legislation. That is why we have very prominent Canadians speaking out against it because it penalizes refugees.

Any of us in the same kind of situation, such as in northern Sri Lanka, where the army writ rules and where there are widespread human rights violations and disappearances, would be desperate to get out and get our families to a safe place. That is what these occasional boats are trying to do and we need to ensure those folks are integrated in to Canada.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. Before I resume questions and comments, I would encourage all hon. members to pay some regard to the Chair during this period. When I give the signal to end a question or an answer, the co-operation of members would be greatly appreciated. Their colleagues would also like to ask questions.

The hon. member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the United Nations, we have the UN protocol on trafficking of persons. We are expected to protect human trafficking victims. That is the whole incentive of this UN protocol to which we adhere.

In this situation, I want the hon. member to drift away from the actual legislation for just a moment and the general theme of human trafficking. There seems to be areas that need to improved when it comes to the services provided to victims. As my hon. colleague from the Conservative Party just said, the government wants to protect those most vulnerable in these situations, while cracking down on the smugglers at the same time.

We hear a lot from NGOs, community organizations that help those identified as trafficked persons. They provide temporary protection services and they offer them a place to stay, et cetera.

I have seen a lot of the input from these organizations. They say that they are uneasy about doing this because a lot of the social services provided to these people are sorely lacking in our country.

Are we worried more about one side of the equation, about the punishment, as opposed to helping out the legitimate—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I respect the time commitment.

I mentioned earlier some of the organizations opposing the legislation, which includes the Anti-Human Trafficking Action Group, Le Comité d'action contre la traite humaine interne et internationale and the Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women. These are anti-trafficking organizations trying to crack down on human smuggling.

I will mentioned one more reference. Donald Galloway, professor of law at the University of Victoria, says:

Contrary to claims made by the government, this legislation does little to constrain the criminal activities of human smugglers. Indeed, its primary target is not the smuggler but those who seek Canada’s protection including those who are entitled to it.

Many law professors have said the same thing. It does nothing to counter human smuggling. It does everything to attack the fundamental principles of refugee protection in our country.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House today in support of Bill C-49, which would prevent human smugglers from abusing Canada's immigration system.

On October 21, the Hon. Vic Toews, along with the Hon. Jason Kenney as well as—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. This is the second time this morning that I have had to remind all hon. members that they are not allowed to name other members when speaking in the House. Members cannot do indirectly, that is through a quote, what they cannot do directly. I would ask all hon. members that if they are using a quotation, they substitute the office or the riding for the hon. member they reference.

The hon. member for Peace River.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I appreciate your intervention, Mr. Speaker. I will endeavour not to use the names of my colleagues.

On October 21, the Minister of Public Safety, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism and the President of the Treasury Board held a press conference in Vancouver. They stood in front of the resting hulk of the Ocean Lady, the ship that entered Canadian waters a year ago, with 76 Tamil migrants on board, to announce the legislation we are discussing today. It is important we remember that incident because it is a concrete reminder that human smuggling is a growing reality and it should concern every Canadian.

This is a serious issue that is literally washing up on our shores. Not just once but twice in the last year a boat full of Sri Lankan Tamil migrants reached our Canadian shores. Let us face it. Human smuggling is a big business that generates significant profits for sophisticated criminal organizations and others who engage in crime.

Smuggling is also a dangerous business for countries that it targets, including Canada. This activity bogs down our immigration refugee protection system and unfairly penalizes those refugee claimants who arrive through regular means and those who wait patiently for their asylum claims to be finalized. The human and financial resources required to ensure the safety of the migrants once they reach Canadian waters and to conduct identity and admissibility examinations can also significantly tax our system.

This is why our government has taken decisive action to stop human smugglers from targeting Canada and profiting from their elicit activities. Bill C-49 is our answer to those who think Canada is simply an easy target.

Under the preventing human smugglers from abusing Canada's immigration system bill, our government is proposing several important changes that will make human smugglers pay for their crime and ensure that Canada can continue to offer refugee protection to those who really need it.

The bill would enable the Minister of Public Safety to designate an irregular arrival, thereby making those involved subject to the bill's measures. The minister could make the designation in two circumstances. First, the minister could declare a smuggling event if the examination relating to identity and admissibility of the persons involved in the arrival and other investigations could not be conducted in a timely manner. Second, the minister could make such a designation if there were reasonable grounds to suspect that the arrival involved human smuggling committed for profit or that the arrival was linked to organized crime groups or terrorist organizations.

The bill would also make it easier for law enforcement officers and prosecutors to investigate and prosecute human smugglers.

Under the current law, prosecutors must prove that the alleged smuggler knew the individuals being smuggled did not possess the proper paperwork and documents to enter Canada. We are aware that this can be a very onerous, difficult and complex challenge for law enforcement agencies. More important, the existing offences do not capture all the ways that human smuggling can occur. The proposed amendments will broaden the offences of human smuggling and facilitate the prosecution of human smugglers, therefore ensuring that Canada's smuggling offences provide a comprehensive response to this crime.

Under the new law, prosecutors would only have to prove that the alleged smuggler brought people into Canada knowing that these persons would not be entering Canada in a proper way and, in fact, in violation of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. For example, the very act of bringing people into Canada in a way that would allow them to avoid presenting themselves for examination would be captured in this offence. Arriving in the belly of a ship or hidden in a shipping crate certainly qualifies as avoiding examination.

I also noted that the offence would include the elements of recklessness. This means prosecutors could also provide evidence that the human smuggling had occurred by showing the accused smuggler knew there was a substantial likelihood that the coming into Canada of migrants would violate the IRPA but decided to proceed anyway.

The proposed changes would also impose mandatory prison sentences on convicted human smugglers. The mandatory minimum period of imprisonment would depend on how many persons were smuggled and whether specific aggravating circumstances could be proven.

What do we mean by aggravating factors, some people might ask. That would be, for example, if the offence was committed for the profit or the benefit of, or at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization or a terrorist group, or if a person accused of committing the offence endangered the life or safety of or caused bodily harm or death to any of the people who were being smuggled.

Depending on the presence of one or both of these aggravating factors, the mandatory prison sentence would vary, depending on what could be proved.

In a case where fewer than 50 persons were smuggled, the mandatory minimum would be three years if one factor was proved, or five years if both factors were proved. Where the smuggling involved 50 or more persons, the mandatory minimum would be five years where one aggravating circumstance was proved, or 10 years if both were proved.

The proposed legislation would also hold shipowners and operators to account for using their ships in human smuggling operations.

These are significant changes with specific penalties that reflect the government's strong desire to deter and denounce these activities, and I believe this is the right approach.

They also reflect our commitment to ensuring the safety and security of our streets and communities.

As part of this legislation, participants in human smuggling would face mandatory detention of up to one year, giving Canadian authorities enough time to determine things such as identity, admissibility and illegal activity.

The legislation also includes amendments that will help reduce the attraction of coming to Canada by way of illegal human smuggling operations. For example, those who come to Canada as part of an irregular arrival, including those who subsequently obtain refugee status, will not be allowed to apply for permanent resident status for five years, and as a result, will be prevented from sponsoring family members for a period of five years.

It will also ensure that the health benefits that participants receive are not more generous than those received by the general Canadian population. It will also improve our ability to revoke the protected status of those who demonstrate that they are no longer legitimately in need of Canada's protection.

I am sure that all hon. members would agree that if individuals who are in the process of claiming refugee status can safely, and by their own initiative, return for a holiday or long-term residency to the country that they purport to be fleeing from, they are clearly not in need of Canada's protection and they therefore should not be considered a protected person.

I believe the bill is a strong message and a message that Canadians are demanding that Parliament make. Canadians from coast to coast have been calling members of Parliament of all parties to ask us to crack down on human smuggling. They are very upset that a business has been made out of facilitating illegal migration and encouraging queue jumping.

Canadians want to help those who are genuinely in need of our protection, but we believe the system must be fair.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, to my colleague, I would like to ask a two-part question. I would like to get his comment on the first part. He talked about the idea of cracking down on the smugglers themselves, but the prosecution of the smuggler.

One of the ways that is done, and this is a policy in the United States, is that in 2000 they enacted the U.S. Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act. In that act they have what is called the “T” visa. The way the T visa works is that they are provided the social services to bring them back to full health. It also provides them with the ability to be functional, and obviously to bring them back to a situation such as they were in before they became a victim of trafficking. However, the eligibility requirement to that involves being involved in the prosecution of the trafficker.

The idea is that in order to be eligible for these services to help these people, they have to be involved in the prosecution of the person involved in the trafficking of these persons. I wonder if the member would agree with that.

Secondly, I have a very quick and pointed question. Once a person is deemed to be, in his words, unfairly penalized, who is a legitimate refugee and identified as such, what happens then?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, to begin with, there is absolutely nothing within this legislation that would reduce the opportunity or not allow a person to be involved in the prosecution against the smugglers. Obviously it is in everybody's interest, including those people who have been smuggled, to be involved in the prosecution of these folks.

This is a big business that organized crime is undertaking in this country, and abroad as well, and we need to get to the root of that. We need to cut off their profits from this illegal activity. A whole host of provisions were brought forward in the speech that go after the actual smuggler, and it is important that the concentration be on that. Obviously it is a point with which I think the hon. member would agree, that we have to go after those people who are exploiting innocent people, taking their money, bringing them to Canada under false pretences, and telling them that there will be a land of opportunity and hope. In some cases, I do not think the people being smuggled even know that they are coming by illegal means, but that is where the concentration of this legislation puts full force and all members need to support it because of that.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my friend in relation to this particular topic and he has hit the nail on the head. Clearly even the media seems to indicate that the path the Conservative government is taking is clear, it is fair, and it rewards those people who are prepared to stay in line.

Most Canadians, Canadians we know, are prepared to stand in line for a movie or shows of different kinds, or even just stand in line to be polite to other people who have been there for a longer period of time, no matter what the topic is.

In this particular case, some of the opposition members are suggesting that if one commits a crime, if someone is prepared to pay somebody illegally to enter Canada, he or she should be rewarded for that. I do not understand that, because Global National specifically said, “The Conservatives want to send two message: First, that Canada welcomes immigrants as long as they play by the rules. But, for those who don't, they can expect to be harshly punished.”

I would like my friend to comment a little more on the tactic of the opposition members who want to reward those people who are prepared to jump the queue.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, obviously there is some tension, and we hear it from the hon. members across the way. They are sensitive about this issue because they know that their constituents are telling them to get real and to get some legislation in place that goes after those people who would queue-jump, who are breaking the rules, and those people who are exploiting the vulnerable.

While the opposition may want to play politics with this issue, it is absolutely essential that we as parliamentarians stand together in support of those people who we are elected by, who are demanding that we cut down on the events that we are seeing where people are jumping the queue, but also where people are funneling money towards organized crime.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when I heard what the government members want to do, I said to myself that if that is the kind of country they want, let them go ahead. However, that is not my kind of country; it is not what the Bloc wants. We do not want to go down that road. We do not want to be extraordinarily tough on crime, as they say, just because that is their inclination.

The purpose of this bill is to crack down on human smugglers. However, the Conservatives are aiming at the wrong target; they are completely misguided. The people who are exploited and vulnerable, who are fleeing because of political, economic or social conditions, are the ones arriving here, and the Conservatives are targeting them. They are taking aim with a really big gun, one that is too big. Instead of clamping down on the smugglers, they are clamping down on the vulnerable. Have the members who spoke seen the conditions in which these people live in their countries of origin? I use “live” loosely in this case. These people survive. They are used to living in fear, hiding, being secretive. They are hunted down in their own country. Some say that they go into hiding when they arrive here. That is what they have been taught to do. It is their survival instinct. These people have come here and should not be subject to different measures simply because they arrived in a group of 49 or 50 others.

These people sometimes leave behind children, relatives, perhaps even spouses. And now they are told that if they come here with 50 others they will be put in prison for 12 months and they must not ask why as the answer will be “because”. The government has cause to spend more and more money on prisons. At the rate they are going, the Conservatives will need more prisons. They take the people who arrive in Canada and tell them that they will immediately go straight to the Hilton prison without asking any questions. Instead of targeting the smugglers, they are targeting the victims.

They are creating categories of refugees not on the basis of their status or where they come from, or the relative danger of their place of origin, but based on how and with whom they arrive.

Clause 17, which amends section 117 of the act and adds subsections, very clearly states that when the offence involves fewer than 50 people, the smuggler will be sentenced to five years in prison, but if it involves 50 or more people, the sentence will be 10 years. So what happens if there are only 50 people? Will they throw one person overboard? Pardon the expression, but when smugglers know that if there are 50 or more people, they risk one sentence if caught, and if there are fewer than 50 it is another matter, what will they do? Will they draw straws? Will they ask themselves which one to get rid of? It makes no sense.

The government has introduced a muddled, convoluted bill because a boat arrived one day with about 500 people on board. It created quite a frenzy, as if the 500 people were armed to the teeth and were suddenly going to threaten 30 million people. Come on. The government reacted strongly, too strongly, based on presumptions.

The government says these people can be imprisoned for up to 12 months with no recourse to challenge that. These people are being told that they are now in Canada, which they chose for its freedom, and now they are being introduced to our kind of freedom. If that is the kind of freedom they want, then fine, but that is not Quebec's idea of freedom. If we needed another reason to fight for what is fundamentally right, the Bloc Quebecois's raison d'être—Quebec sovereignty—there is it. Canada puts refugees in prison when more than 50 arrive together on one boat.

This flies in the face of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and many international obligations, including the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which Canada has signed. This infamous bill also flies in the face of that convention. It also goes against the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. It lumps men, women and children together and says “thank you, good-bye”. One has to read it to believe it. The Conservatives really did this.

It is not for nothing that Canada lost its seat on the United Nations Security Council. It was this type of disgraceful policy that caused the seat to be lost. Why did the other countries vote against Canada? It is not because they did not receive their goodies, but because they wondered whether Canada was suited for the Security Council. It is too bad, but they said no. It is unfortunate, but such bills are shameful.

With the government putting these people in jail and telling them, when they hide somewhere and are caught, that they will not be entitled to bring over their loved ones for five years, even though they are refugees, we wonder about the new foreign policy. The hon. member who spoke before me listed all the prohibitions. Under this new policy, Canada is telling people to stay home, it is no longer going to help them, and it is cutting off international aid. Canada is closing more and more embassies, which are a reflection of how we live in Canada.

Canada's foreign policy is to cut international aid, and it is becoming more and more right-leaning. Canada is closing more and more embassies and becoming increasingly militarized. It is telling refugees that if they dare come here by boat with more than 50 people aboard, when they reach their destination, they will be shot, or almost.

This bill flies in the face of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We need to secure our borders, but there needs to be an appropriate balance between security, openness, welcome and diversity. In Quebec, we understand that. If Canada wants to adopt this type of policy, then so be it, but as long as we are here in the House, we will vote vigorously against such policies.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, at the very start, the member mentioned that this was his country. I was interested to hear that because the member comes from a party of separatists, people who want to divide Canadians. What really attracted me to that was the statement that he took pride in this being his country and this being his law, whether he agreed to it or not. I respect the man for that. It certainly makes me quite happy to hear a separatist on that side of the House refer to Canada as his country and his law.

I do understand the member's position and, quite frankly, if one were to look at this part in isolation one could have that perspective. The member clearly understands that Canada is the number one country in the world and that people from every part of the world want to come to Canada. They see the quality of life here, which is the best in the world.

However, with a queue of five billion people, who decides on who gets through first? Is it the refugees or is it the people who have been playing by the rules, are in lineups and who want to be Canadian and want to take pride in being Canadian. Who are the people the member thinks should jump the line?

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned a few things, but I want to focus my response on the beginning of his question. Yes. I am here and over 50% of the people in the Hochelaga riding voted for the Bloc candidate. This is not the first time. They have been voting for the Bloc for 16 years. Yes, I pay taxes in Quebec and Canada and, as long as we are here and as long as Quebec decides to be a part of this country, we will have the right and obligation to be here. Everyone knows that our objective is to achieve sovereignty for Quebec in a democratic fashion.

I have one hope and that is to be the last member for Hochelaga in this House because we, the Bloc Québécois, want to build a country with which we can identify. We simply cannot identify with this bill. We cannot relate at all to the type of country they want to build. We want to build ourselves a nation and no one other than Quebeckers will tell us how to do it.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Outremont.

Pardon me. Rather, the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi has the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my fellow member if he thinks that this bill could result in exactly the same situation that occurred when 900 Jewish people arrived on the S.S. St. Louis and were denied entry into Canada. At that time, Canada, as well as other countries, said that a country should be built for these people because we did not want them here.

With a law like the one that is currently being prepared, does Canada intend to build countries for all the immigrants and refugees that it does not want and will it send them away? We know what happened with the Jews: they were killed.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I urge you to never confuse the member for Brome—Missisquoi with the member for Outremont. It is embarrassing.

This weekend, there was a symposium in Montreal, and I remember one phrase in particular. People in Quebec often refer to themselves as tightly knit, but now that immigrants have come to Quebec, we tend to talk about being tightly woven, with new strands from elsewhere. People are learning to live together. That is how Quebec will be going forward.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I think you should apologize to the member for Brome—Missisquoi.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support Bill C-49, legislation that would protect the integrity of our immigration and refugee protection programs while also keeping our streets and communities safe for all Canadians.

I have listened with great interest to the comments of several hon. members and I appreciate this opportunity to set the record straight on a number of fronts.

Some have suggested that the legislation before us today goes too far. They have suggested that it might put so-called legitimate refugees in harm's way or somehow run counter to our international obligation to provide a safe haven for those individuals who are legitimate refugees.

This view is apparently not shared by several experts in the field, including Benjamin Perrin, an associate professor at the University of British Columbia's Faculty of Law and a Faculty Fellow at Liu Institute for Global Issues.

In a recent interview with CTV, Mr. Perrin was asked whether he felt that the tougher measures that our government was proposing to combat human smugglers may close an option for refugees seeking asylum. I would like to read his reply at length since it underlies our government's actions to strengthen Canada's immigration and refugee protection programs, as well as the bill before us today.

Mr. Perrin told CTV that he feels it is “incredibly dangerous that some organizations who claim they want to support refugees are in fact defending migrant smugglers”.

He went on to say that if Canada wants to increase the opportunities for refugees to come here, there were legitimate ways of doing it. He noted that the United Nations works with Canada to implement group processing. Canadians can be assured that people coming through a UN-certified refugee camp are, first, legitimate refugees and, second, they do not have a criminal or terrorist history.

Mr. Perrin added that, “If Canada wants to assist genuine refugees, then we should do it through co-operating and helping men, women and children come from long-term refugee camps to Canada rather than trying to be apologists for migrant smugglers”. What this expert is saying is that advocates for the status quo are nothing more than apologists for human smugglers.

Another expert in the field is Martin Collacott. Mr. Collacott is a counterterrorism analyst and a former Canadian high commissioner to Sri Lanka. With the indulgence of the House, I will directly quote Mr. Collacott who noted that Canada does accept a reasonable number of refugees each year but that the current system “is being massively exploited at great expense to Canadians at the present time”.

Some may find that acceptable but I do not and neither does our government nor a majority of Canadians.

Canadians want us to help those in need. They want us to maintain our humanitarian traditions and provide a safe haven for genuine refugees. This is what our government is doing through legislation such as the balanced refugee reform act, which would increase the number of resettled refugees by 20%, or 2,500 refugees per year.

What Canadians do not want is for Canada to become a prime destination for human smuggling operations and a place targeted by queue jumpers or those who wish to abuse our immigration system, as proponents of the status quo and opponents of the legislation before us today would suggest.

Bill C-49 would prevent human smugglers from abusing our immigration system while ensuring that Canada continues to maintain its humanitarian traditions and our international commitments to help legitimate refugees. It would do this in several ways.

Under the preventing human smugglers from abusing Canada's immigration system act, our government would crack down on human smuggling by: enabling the Minister of Public Safety to designate irregular arrivals and make those involved subject to the act's measures; making it easier to prosecute human smugglers; imposing mandatory minimum prison sentences on convicted smugglers; and holding shipowners and operators to account for use of their ships in human smuggling operations.

Under the amendments our government is proposing, we are also helping to ensure the safety and security of our streets and communities by establishing the mandatory detention of designated foreign nationals for up to one year or until a positive decision by the Immigration and Refugee Board, whichever comes sooner, in order to allow for the determination of identity, admissibility and illegal activity.

Furthermore, our government is also reducing the attraction of coming to Canada by way of a human smuggling operation by ensuring the health benefits participants receive are not more generous than those received by the Canadian public and enhancing the ability to terminate the protected person status of those who demonstrate that they are not in legitimate need of Canada's protection.

In addition, our government is detecting and deterring human smuggling overseas in several ways. We have appointed a special adviser on human smuggling and illegal migration. We are also conducting diplomatic outreach and partnering with other affected nations as well as co-operating with multilateral bodies such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

The amendments our government is proposing are indeed tough, but they are fair. They are fair to Canadians and they are fair to those who play by the rules. The truth is that Canada's refugee resettlement program is one of the most generous in the developed world. Each year Canada resettles 10,000 to 12,000 refugees through its government assisted and privately sponsored refugee programs.

Globally, countries with resettlement programs resettle about 100,000 refugees from abroad each year, which means that Canada takes one out of every 10 refugees resettled. These refugees often spend many years, sometimes decades, in squalid refugee camps or urban slums in order to escape to Canada. Patiently they wait for a chance to immigrate to Canada legally.

As of October 2, 2010, there were more than 42,000 applications for refugee resettlement waiting in Canadian immigration offices around the world. Each of these applications represents a person or a family waiting to come to Canada. These refugees choose to wait for the chance to come to Canada legally rather than pay human smugglers to help them jump the queue. The Government of Canada appreciates their respect of our laws. In the fullness of time, that patience will be rewarded for many with a letter from Citizenship and Immigration Canada welcoming them to the Canadian family.

It is unfair to those seeking to come to Canada through legitimate legal means when others pay human smugglers to help jump our immigration queue. When this happens, Canada's immigration system becomes less fair and less balanced.

With this in mind, I urge all hon. members to support the legislation before us today so that Canada can continue to protect the integrity of our immigration and refugee programs and help legitimate refugees in need of sanctuary.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, earlier one of the member's colleagues started out a speech by saying “unfairly penalizes legitimate refugees”. The comment was also made that the Conservatives want to protect those who suffer from human trafficking. Human trafficking is not just an international event, it is also a domestic affair that we need to address in a major way. Unfortunately, we have not had that debate yet which also is very important.

Regarding the policies the Conservatives say they have been doing, most of it has been compiled along the lines of enforcement, infractions and that sort of thing. When it comes to the actual legitimate refugee, as the Conservatives point out, the services available to the refugee are called into question and here is how it works.

Two years ago there was the temporary resident permit which allowed identified trafficked individuals to stay longer to receive services, not more than the average Canadian, and that I agree with. The problem is the services provided to them is under provincial jurisdiction to which most of them do not qualify. How does the government square that and how does it want to help someone who is a “legitimate” refugee?

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a legitimate refugee is a refugee who plays by the rules, as I mentioned in my speech.

There are many people around the world in countries where their human rights are abused. They want to come to Canada, so they escape to another country because, for various reasons, that is the closest country they can go to. These people are investigated by the United Nations, and Canada is a signatory to international conventions on the matter. At that time, they are vetted to make sure that they have no criminal or terrorist leanings, that they are legitimate and that their identity can be assured. Those are what we refer to as legitimate refugees, or perhaps a refugee who comes to Canada.

That is why we have this current legislation, so that we can make those determinations that they are not terrorists, that they are the persons they purport to be. That is what Canadians expect us to do in order to keep our communities safe.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raised a lot of good points in his speech and I want to commend him for outlining what the emphasis of the bill is.

What we are seeing here is the opposition members turning and twisting themselves into knots in order to stand not with Canadians but opposed to Canadians. The reality is that with this bill, as with every other bill we see in this place, the opposition members just cannot seem to bring themselves around to the point that Canadians want their sovereignty to be protected, that they want to be there to help people who need assistance.

I am wondering if the hon. member might have some insight into how the opposition can suggest that we should be proud as a country that we allow individuals to come to this country, we force them into these human smuggling ships where they pay $25,000, $35,000, $40,000, and they spend the rest of their lives trying to pay that off. Somehow the opposition is telling us that that is a good system, that we as Canadians should be proud because we are allowing that to happen.

Does he have any suggestions as to how it is possible the opposition could, in any way, support such a system without--

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order. The hon. member for Northumberland--Quinte West.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that in the end, after the debate is over, we come to the realization that Canada has one of the most generous immigration and refugee systems on the face of this good earth.

Canadians are a caring people, but we also, as a government, have a responsibility to make sure that we are fair to everyone, that we are fair to people who obey the international rules made by the United Nations, to which Canada is a signatory, and that we work within that system appropriately.

What I would say is that we can sit in this House and debate, but I have all kinds of quotes here from organizations from right across this country, and many from other countries, that represent refugees and are interested in the immigration system. They are saying that this is the right direction in which to go. We will work with the opposition and as long as we keep in mind the safety of Canadians, we will come up with an even better system.

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-49.

Bill C-49 seeks to crack down on human smugglers and deter individuals from coming to Canada who use these smugglers.

One of the primary concerns of government should be the protection, security and safety of the country's borders. However, we must balance security issues with those of human rights and civil liberties.

When legitimate refugee claimants arrive in Canada, and because of religious persecution, human rights atrocities, political tyranny, or some other defined category, some of them have a legitimate claim to make, as a result of our laws and international obligations, we must review their claim. If, based on merits of that claim, they meet the defined criteria, they are lawfully allowed refugee status in Canada.

Let us be under no illusions. We reject thousands of people every year, people who simply jumped the queue or were caught or those who made a refugee claim who did not meet the criteria, and we should. There are thousands of people who wish to live in our great country. It is not fair to them that others pay to be smuggled into Canada unlawfully.

However, Bill C-49 would create two classes of legitimate refugees: those who pay smugglers and those who arrive by some other means.

My hon. colleague from Etobicoke Centre raised what I thought was a very important point some weeks ago. The two most recent cases of large groups coming to Canada's shores were the Sun Sea in August and the Ocean Lady last October. Both carried Sri Lankans.

There were two other ships that came to Canada. One was the SS St. Louis back in 1939 which carried 937 European Jews. That ship was turned away and almost all of them lost their lives. In 1914 the SS Komagata Maru carried 354 Indians to Canada. That ship was also turned away, and many of those on board lost their lives.

I am sure that many of the people on both the St. Louis and the Komagata Maru paid a handsome sum for the chance to flee persecution. What would we do if that situation were to be repeated today? If Bill C-49 were law, would the ship's captain and crew be treated as criminals?

It is important to make a distinction between those who jump the queue and legitimate refugees. It is important because lives hang in the balance. It is important because this speaks to our fundamental values as a country that we seek to help those in need.

Human smugglers and anyone coming to Canada with terrorist or criminal links must be dealt with decisively. Migrants who are not legitimate refugees must be sent back to wait in line. However, Canada has the capacity and responsibility to assist refugees who are legitimately fleeing persecution.

The Conservatives have torqued up the arrival of the refugee boats and are purposely referring to immigrants and refugees interchangeably to divide Canadians. This is an important issue where partisan politics must be put aside so we can address how to handle future cases of migrants who have been smuggled into Canada versus future cases of refugees fleeing their homeland.

Any response must strike the right balance between catching and punishing human smugglers who are illegally profiting from human suffering while respecting our international obligations to be a safe harbour for legitimate refugees fleeing persecution.

I would like to discuss some of the specifics of Bill C-49 that I find of interest.

Although the status quo must be adapted to address new realities, the existing Immigration and Refugee Protection Act already has quite severe penalties for human smuggling, including up to $1 million in fines and a maximum of life imprisonment for smuggling more than 10 people.

Bill C-49 would increase the scope of the anti-smuggling provisions and impose new mandatory sentences to serve as a further deterrent. I wonder if they actually would serve as a deterrent or if the increased cost of doing business would simply be passed along to the migrants who would have to pay even more money to smugglers.

Also, a number of critics have raised the question about whether deterrents like mandatory minimums or increased fines would have any effect without increased resources to law enforcement to investigate and prosecute the individuals who profit from smuggling.

The government claims that the legislation gives the Minister of Public Safety discretion to designate the arrival of a group of individuals who entered Canada in a manner that runs contrary to Canada's immigration laws as a human smuggling event. However, there is nothing in the legislation that deals with a human smuggling event. The legislation deals with the designation of an irregular arrival. This provision does not apply simply to mass arrivals by boat. It applies to all groups, two or more people, designated under either of the two very broad criteria that could apply to the vast majority of refugee claimants.

The discretion regarding such a designation would be extremely broad. According to the government's own material, it would include any group arrival where examinations relating to identity and admissibility of the persons involved in the arrival and other investigations could not be conducted in a timely manner, or if the minister had reasonable grounds to suspect that the arrival involved organized human smuggling activity for profit or support for criminal organizations or terrorist groups. Designated individuals would be subject to different detention rules and processing at the Immigration and Refugee Board, with restrictions on permanent residence, travel, and family sponsorship.

Bill C-49 appears to give a lot of discretionary power to the minister and the cabinet. Discretionary power, as we know, is sometimes susceptible to abuse.

Amnesty International says the bill violates the 1951 refugee convention, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Canadian Council for Refugees states that many of the measures in Bill C-49 fail to honour our obligations toward refugees and will result in refugees being treated unfairly.

Many other organizations have voiced legitimate concerns. I am wondering how much consultation the government engaged in before drafting the bill and submitting it to the House.

While I appreciate the intent of the legislation and recognize the very serious challenges that law enforcement and our immigration officials face, clearly a number of areas of concern will require significant review and debate. I look forward to hearing more of that debate from all of my hon. colleagues.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her informed and balanced remarks.

My constituents seem to be telling me that we need legislation in this area. As always, however, the devil is in the details.

In her remarks the member referred to the apparent increase in regulatory discretion being given here to the Governor in Council. Clause 4 of the bill would remove from the scrutiny of Parliament some of the regulatory orders made by the Governor in Council. It simply says that an order passed is not a statutory instrument for the purposes of the Statutory Instruments Act.

As everyone here should know, Parliament reviews every regulation passed. Why should it be the case in this instance that Parliament should not review a regulation after the fact, particularly when it relates to the freedoms and liberties of the individuals involved and when this provision itself would remove that regulation even from the scrutiny of the justice department?

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is very wise in the law. I respect his opinion greatly when it comes to specific areas of this particular law. I think he raises a very legitimate concern that speaks to this whole bill.

Is this bill actually addressing the concerns we have? Is it not raising more issues, such as the one my hon. colleague raised about the supremacy of the House of Commons? We should be looking at how we can improve the legislation. We should be cracking down on human smugglers and stopping boats from transporting desperate people in an unsafe way. However, the Conservative proposals perhaps would not do that.

I think what my hon. colleague raises about the supremacy of Parliament gives us one instance of the concerns in the bill.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has been hearing concerns from her constituents about people who come to this country as migrants and then get designated as legitimate refugees. Many constituents want to know why people who are protected as refugees are allowed to return to their country of origin for a vacation or a family holiday. Does that not undermine the credibility of a threat in their country of origin?

Why will the hon. member not support this legislation, which contains a provision that would rectify this? If someone says he or she had to flee their own country because of persecution, why do we allow them to return to their country of origin? Should we not address this problem through legislation?

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague raises a legitimate point. I agree that it needs to be addressed in legislation. Let us move on with it.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I want to relate a story. My colleague and I come from Newfoundland, and we know first-hand that in 1986, 152 Tamils showed up on our shore. Obviously this is something we have experienced before.

I wonder if she could answer the question that I had tried to ask earlier. Would my colleague agree that there is too much on the punishment side and less on the compassionate side with respect to the refugees even the government considers to be legitimate?

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has raised another legitimate point.

I think it is the same concern Amnesty International has with the bill. Where is the compassion? We do have treaties with the world. We want to be a compassionate nation. We want to make sure that people with legitimate concerns or those fleeing persecution are welcome on our shores. We want to be a good citizen to the world.

The member's point is very valid.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to join in this debate on Bill C-49, the government's legislation to prevent human smugglers from abusing Canada's immigration system.

I am proud to rise in support of this fair and necessary piece of legislation that aims to turn those who want to live in Canada away from using smugglers to get into our country. It is no secret that international criminal organizations make huge profits by preying on the vulnerable and extracting large sums of money for a treacherous voyage to our shores. Such criminal activity is a threat not only to the well-being of the migrants involved but also to the safety and security of Canadians. As such, we do not want Canada to become an easy target for human smugglers.

Supporters of the status quo would have us believe that Canada has a humanitarian duty to treat human smuggling and illegal migration as an acceptable way to come to Canada. However, in arguing for leniency, they ignore the fact that human smuggling is a profitable business for the ruthless criminals who organize these voyages of great distance and peril. They ignore the fact that human smuggling is a dangerous and exploitive enterprise that puts lives at risk. Worst of all, they ignore the fact that human smuggling undermines Canada's security.

Human smuggling is a venture. I would remind my hon. colleagues that the venture operates on the lawless margins of the international transportation industry. The very nature of human smuggling means that virtually anybody can be among the human cargo destined for Canada.

Put another way, any individual with a criminal history or malice of intent can board, blend in with the crowd, and be on their way to Canada. Once they reach our border, the large scale of the arrivals makes it difficult to properly investigate whether those who arrive, including the smugglers, pose risks to Canada on the basis of either their criminality or national security.

It would be a mistake, one with potentially disastrous consequences, to give the benefit of the doubt to migrants lacking the proper identification. We cannot allow good intentions to get in the way of protecting the safety and security of our streets and our communities.

Under Bill C-49, the government proposes to introduce mandatory detention for up to one year or until a positive decision by the Immigration and Refugee Board that grants refugee protection, whichever comes first. This would allow the determination of identity, admissibility, or illegal activity, thus helping to ensure the safety and security of all Canadians.

This is a cautious, common-sense approach. Quite frankly, it would be the height of folly to do otherwise. After all, we often do not know who the smuggled migrants are or whether they might be involved in criminal or terrorist activity. We need time to confirm their identities and to complete screenings and investigations.

Bill C-49 also aims to discourage migrants from putting their lives in the hands of those with a callous disregard for anything but ill-gotten profits. The bill would prevent those who would come to Canada as part of a human smuggling event from applying for permanent resident status for a period of five years, even if they successfully obtain refugee status. It would also prevent individuals from sponsoring family members for five years.

Canadians by and large support a generous and open immigration and refugee protection system. They also understand that the need to keep Canada's doors open to newcomers must be balanced by the need to protect our borders and the integrity of our immigration system.

This is especially true at a time when Canadians watch in anger and disbelief as irregular mass arrivals land on our shores and threaten the integrity of our immigration and refugee protection system. The recent spate of mass arrivals through human smuggling calls into question the most basic obligation of a sovereign country, which is to control its own borders.

The consequences of not acting against this threat are troubling. A failure to act, and to act strongly, could lead to a major collapse in public support for our immigration system.

The editorial board of the Globe and Mail agrees, arguing recently that “The government must act to safeguard the integrity of Canada's immigration system, which welcomes 250,000 newcomers a year”.

The editorial continued, by noting that:

Polls show that the public's high level of support for immigration dipped by 20 per cent after the arrival of the Sun Sea and the Ocean Lady—even though asylum seekers and skilled immigrants are two very different streams.

The poll results are worrisome because Canada has been fortunate in having a level of public support for immigration that is unparalleled elsewhere in the world. As the minister has said, we cannot keep public support for immigration refugee protection and we cannot take it for granted.

This sentiment was echoed by Randall Hansen, Canada Research Chair in Immigration and Governance at the University of Toronto. Mr. Hansen pointed out in a recent article that support for immigration plummets as soon as people start to think that government has lost control of its borders.

The government believes it is of the utmost importance that we maintain the public confidence in the integrity of our immigration and refugee protection systems and in our borders. After all, our economy will need even more immigrants in the years ahead.

Canada is a generous and welcoming country for those who want to work for a better life, but there are proper ways that must be followed in order to do so. Human smuggling is not a legal or legitimate way to get into Canada, and it will not be tolerated. That is why we are taking decisive action to combat human smuggling and those who would abuse Canada's generous immigration system.

With this bill, the government is taking action to crack down on a reprehensible crime, protect the safety and security of Canadians and safeguard the integrity of our immigration system and our refugee protection system from those who pose as human smugglers and threaten our borders.

I therefore urge my hon. colleagues to support Bill C-49.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in my mind that the point that is germane to this debate, which the hon. member made on several occasions, is about protecting security and the borders of which we are a sovereign nation. I have no issue with that whatsoever, for reasons that are obvious, as we all do.

The hon. member has put a lot of thought into this, but how does he envision this being enacted as far as enforcement is concerned?

On the east coast where I come from, fisheries policy is major, but it is not just about the legislation. The enforcement is more important.

In the case we had, which was really just the beginning, 152 Tamils showed up on the shores of Newfoundland back in 1986. This is a prime example of why we have to stop it. Ever since then, we have been dealing with situation after situation.

What would the member do to stop that at source? What does he envision to stop these smugglers from perceivably getting away with what they are doing and to make sure they do not make a profit from smuggling vulnerable people?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for that very good question on stopping the issue at source from the country where the potential migrants are being smuggled by illegal smugglers.

It is an important piece. As a country, part of our diplomatic effort is towards those countries where smuggling takes place and from where we get boat loads of individuals who pay exorbitant prices to illegal smugglers to get to this country. We have to nip that in the bud, at the source, and use all of our diplomatic strength, as a country, to make sure that does not happen.

I like to use the analogy of the drug smuggler who needs customers to smuggle drugs. We need to make sure that those who are potential customers of these human smugglers know that it is not a free ride here in Canada, that there are issues. This is what this bill does. It tries to take away at source the incentive to deal with human smugglers to come here.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the opposition members earlier, they brought up the St. Louis and the very horrific consequences of what happened there, and they seemed to be trying to liken that to this particular piece of legislation.

For the sake of the opposition, it would be great if my hon. colleague could really explain that this piece of legislation is very different in how it treats the ship. It will not be turning ships away at sea, but it will be providing due process. Perhaps he could describe, in contrast, what happened with the St. Louis and how this legislation would never contemplate such horrific results or actions.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there was an impression left by a previous question that the bill actually entitles Canada to go out and turn ships away at sea, which is absolutely not the case. However, it is important that the bill would enable us to go after the actual human smugglers when they are here and to have a system to deal with the people who are being smuggled here, to make sure they are legitimate refugees.

I get some jeers from our NDP colleagues. I challenge them to take the bill to the kitchen table, which their leader likes to talk about, and talk to Canadians from coast to coast to coast to ask them if we should be doing something about the smugglers and about those who are their customers. They will get the answer that we are getting on this side of the House. This government is acting.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in the matter of Bill C-49, whose formal title is “An act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act and the Marine Transportation Security Act”. Indeed the stated intent of the legislation can perhaps best be found in the short title of the act, “Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act”.

In particular, the bill reflects the government's response to two ships full of Tamil migrants who landed on Canada's shores in the past year. It reflects also the larger public concern over illegal immigration and false refugee claims and indeed the need, as the government and our colleagues on the opposite side have put it, to maintain public faith in the immigration and refugee system.

Accordingly, the bill includes harsh penalties for smugglers, which have garnered a good deal of media attention, and not surprisingly, because who can object to legislation that purports to get tough with human smuggling and to deal with such smuggling in the manner required for that purpose? However what is being ignored here is that the government, with co-operative consultation with and indeed the support of the opposition, just five months ago enacted a comprehensive reform of our immigration and refugee law precisely for the purposes of, among other things, combating illegal immigration, false refugee claims and declining, as it put it even then, public faith in the immigration and refugee law system.

This bill, however, while purporting to be the same in its purpose and effect, ends up undermining the very integrity and effectiveness of the legislation that the government itself enacted some five months ago, while inviting, on closer appreciation of the legislation, the very loss of credibility and public faith in our system that Bill C-49 purports to decry, but which Bill C-49 will in fact invite.

Indeed an appreciation of the pith and substance of this legislation, its essential character and effect, invites the characterization of the bill, as a group of refugee scholars has put it, as “the punishing refugees and evading our constitutional and international obligations act”. In a word, the bill does not so much punish smugglers as indeed it punishes asylum claimers.

What follows is a summary of concerns respecting this bill, concerns that, for example, are reflected in the commentaries of experts in refugee law, such as Peter Showler, a former chair of the Immigration and Refugee Board, who last week characterized the bill as “littered with charter violations”. Immigration and refugee law and human rights experts have decried the lack of balance between the sanctions against the smugglers and, in particular, the manner in which the asylum-seekers end up being targeted. The critique of a group of law professors from different law schools across this country characterized it as not only being in breach of our charter rights but also in breach of our standing obligations under international law, such as under the international refugee convention.

In effect, this bill amounts to gratuitous punishment of those seeking our protection, in effect a double victimization of those who have been initially victimized by smugglers exploiting them and then end up being victimized when they seek protection on our shores.

As well, the legislation reflects a lack of understanding of what it means to be a refugee escaping civil strife. The legislation says detention is necessary until the identity of the refugee can be confirmed, but for people who understand what it means to be refugees fleeing civil strife, with all that attends it, it ends up being a legislation that punishes people who are illegal arrivals. As one editorial put it, Albert Einstein would have been punished under this legislation.

This brings me now to a summary of the specific concerns and I will do so in an abbreviated fashion for reasons of time.

First, the bill would authorize detention with no independent review for a minimum of 12 months, in clear breach of both charter rights and related Supreme Court jurisprudence that such detention without review is patently illegal. Moreover, the government has the power to detain persons until their identity is established, as I mentioned, or, irrespective of time, under present legislation, be it legislation with respect to the protection of public security or legislation with respect to enforcement of our anti-terrorist laws and, as such, this particular and prospectively illegal provision is as well a gratuitous and unnecessary given our present laws.

Second, those who are granted refugee status are nonetheless denied the right to bring their family members to Canada for a period of five years. Again, arguably that is in breach of our international human rights and humanitarian obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child or international provisions respecting family unification.

Third, there is no right of appeal from the initial rejecting refugee decision, which would not only immunize error in our refugee system, but prejudice the rights of prospective asylum seekers.

Fourth, it would reduce medical benefits. Refugee claims already receive only the most basic of medical coverage, but this type of legislation would reduce that even further in respect of matters pertaining to the use of wheelchairs, canes, walkers and the like.

Fifth, the bill mandates that those coming to Canada as part of a smuggling event, as it is called, will not be permitted to apply for permanent residence for five years. This provides for different rules and standards for migrants smuggled on a ship compared to those who arrive illegally with forged documents by way of an airplane.

Finally, with respect to the overall purpose and effect of the bill, it might in this regard create two classes of refugees based on the means of arrival in Canada. The distinction and its drastic consequences offend foundational principles of international law, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as common sense and decency.

The majority of refugees and those involved in refugee law know only too well. As Peter Showler himself wrote just a short time ago:

The majority of refugees must resort to smuggling networks to escape the country of persecution and cross borders. Canadian and international laws have recognized this necessity and prohibit the prosecution of refugees for the violation of immigration regulations. Boat arrival, as opposed to individual arrival by land or air, does not mean that the refugee claims are more or less valid or that the passengers are a greater security threat: If anything, it is the opposite, since arrival by boat entails far closer scrutiny by the authorities. Boat arrival simply means that it was the only practical avenue of escape for refugees with no good options.

In summary, he says:

Government ministers have justified the punitive aspects of the bill by accusing boat refugees of “jumping the refugee queue” as opposed to “law abiding refugees” who wait their turn for resettlement. There is no refugee queue. There are approximately 13 million refugees scattered throughout the world, over half of them in godforsaken camps with few resources and less hope. Their average time of camp residence is 17 years;...

We should not be enacting legislation that ends up punishing the asylum seekers while not effectively sanctioning the smugglers themselves who exploit them.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a joy and pleasure to listen to my colleague because he truly has one of the finest legal minds in Canada if not the world.

My question refers to the fact that detention without review sounds a lot like Gitmo and violates many of the laws of our land. Is not the aggressive refugees, in large part, a failure of foreign policy in that these people who are leaving areas of conflict reflects the inability of the international community to deal with these issues? We have a responsibility to protect but we do not have an obligation to act. We have a traditional framework without an enforcement framework internationally.

Does my colleague think that the Canadian government can do a better job by taking a more proactive response toward dealing with some of the large foreign policy challenges that we face and, in doing so, that would lessen the number of refugees seeking sanctuary on our shores?

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I believe we need to have a proactive policy, as my colleague has put it, and that we need to look not only to the question of sanctioning of smugglers, which this bill in itself would not do effectively, but how we can work to improve the whole refugee and immigration system from a foreign policy point of view.

Second, we should work to stop the human rights abuses abroad that feed and, indeed, generate the refugee flows to begin with. We should at the same time work with transit states to ensure that asylum seekers can obtain meaningful protection abroad, which is now so sorely lacking.

Third, we should create avenues through which refugees in need of immediate protection can get to Canada without resorting to human smugglers.

I might add in that regard that the legislation presupposes that Canada lacks enforcement powers to prevent human smuggling, which is not the case.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will partly reiterate what the member said. If this bill foists upon the shoulders of the most vulnerable the difficulty of our country and many others in enforcing rules against human smuggling, where we end up going after the smuggled and placing the burden of sanctions of this anti-social activity on their shoulders, should Parliament not be monitoring this much more closely?

Also, should we not insist, for example, the provision in clause 4 that says that any regulations being made by the governor in council with respect to this activity, and there are three separate categories of regulations dealing with rights and liberties, that any of those regulations be reviewed by Parliament even after they are made to ensure there is good faith, fairness and compliance with the regulatory scrutiny criteria, which we already have in place?

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree with my colleague. Not only does it lack the necessary provisions for parliamentary scrutiny and oversight, but in fact it imbues the government with undue discretion to begin with. On the one hand, there is a lack of parliamentary oversight, which is so necessary, particularly in legislation of this kind, but on the other hand, we have the imbuing of the government with undue discretionary authority, let alone the provisions which themselves lack proper oversight, such as the mandatory detention for a year without, as I said, judicial oversight.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not imagine that you will be surprised to hear that the Bloc Québécois cannot support Bill C-49. Our disagreement has to do with this government's ongoing desire to move forward with its infamous law and order agenda. This has been clear since the Conservatives took power, and young offenders, among others, have paid the price. Quebec had a very high rehabilitation rate. We reintegrated young people into society. But the Conservative government found a way to try to undermine that and to send 15-, 16- and 17-year-olds to prison, to crime school. What matters to this government is law and order.

There is more proof. In the upcoming budget the government wants to invest huge amounts of money to build prisons in Canada. That will not solve the problem. The Americans tried and made this quite clear. This will not make our society safer. Putting people, and especially young people, in jail is not the answer. I could also go on about the abolition of the gun registry. The government is kind of adopting the American philosophy that you can go around with a rifle in your truck, and if someone threatens you, you can shoot. That is the American vision that is completely embraced by the Conservative Party.

The Khadr case is another prime example of a child soldier turned prisoner. This young man received no support and is still rotting away in a Guantanamo prison. This has been going on for years, and this government has ignored the international treaties that it signed itself regarding child soldiers.

This bill flies in the face of many things. To begin with, it flies in the face of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which I believe to be a very important tool in the Constitution. I feel as though the Conservative government would sometimes like to simply abolish the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That way, it could do whatever it likes and Canada could become not a military state, but a police state. The police would address any issues. This government sometimes gives the impression that it is blinded by its obsession with law and order, and we have to wonder why it introduces bills that fly in the face of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Khadr case that I mentioned is a typical example.

All of that is tied in with this government's foreign policy. And the Liberals are more or less on the same page, or maybe very much on the same page. Coalitions often seem to make sense these days, and they are all the rage. When we see that the government's foreign policy is drifting ever closer to militarism at the expense of Canada's traditional image—that of a charitable, open-minded nation and an international mediator—the picture is complete. And that is why, we feel, this bill is in that tradition of law and order. Law and order always comes first.

So, not only is our foreign policy no longer mediatory, but rather militaristic, but Canada is also pulling back. For example, Canada's assistance to African countries has been slashed. On today's news we learned that Canada is thinking of closing six embassies in Africa. And yet people are surprised and wonder why we did not get a seat on the UN Security Council. The answers are right in front of us. When Canada dismisses Arab nations and abandons African countries, and then goes and asks them to vote for Canada to get a seat on the UN Security Council, it should come as no surprise that they said no. So this fits into the same pattern, that is, the notion of law and order.

And what did the Conservatives do with regard to immigration, the matter before us now? As everyone knows, a ship arrived in British Columbia with about 500 Tamils on board.

So the Conservatives decided to tighten up the law and are indeed making it quite strict. They invented a new category of immigrants or refugees, known as “designated foreign nationals”. At present, approximately 500 of these designated foreign nationals are languishing in jails. So this is the new approach to immigration. Once again, they are tightening the nuts and bolts of law and order even further. It is really unfortunate, because it goes against the traditional image of Canadians and Quebeckers as very welcoming.

The way this was handled was not complicated. When the boat arrived, the first order of business was to demonize these people: there must have been terrorists on board somewhere. A type of phobia was created and public opinion was manipulated. Then, they tabled a harsh bill, which confirms the fact that the public finds this quite odd. Not only is the government creating a new category of immigrants, but it is going one step further and saying these people may be spending 12 months in prison. What a fine category of immigrants. These people flee one country thinking that Canada is a welcoming land. They arrive here and are put in prison for 12 months. They are no better off than they were at home. How does this look to the international community? This is what the government has done by demonizing these people. It has added unbelievable restrictions.

If those who fall into this new category are given refugee status, they will have to wait five years before applying for permanent residency. As far as the family reunification policy is concerned, a legal void is being created by this case. What will become of these people? What will they do while awaiting permanent resident status? What will their legal rights be? In the meantime, their applications will be reassessed and they might get sent back to their country if they are deemed unacceptable. They will not be able to travel outside Canada, either, or to apply for permanent residency or Canadian citizenship. Accordingly, the family reunification policy no longer applies because that right is being taken away from them.

Designated foreign nationals whose claim for protection is dismissed will be able to appeal only to the Federal Court, not to the Refugee Appeal Division. There are all kinds of new things here. They are pushing the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act even further and creating ways to keep people out. All of this is based on how people arrive in Canada, not on rulings in individual cases. Usually, each case is ruled on individually. Each case is investigated, and those who are granted refugee status can stay here until they are granted permanent residence. They will not have access to the same health care benefits as other people, which is yet another legal vacuum. They will exist in a kind of no man's land. Nobody knows exactly how this whole thing will turn out.

Unbelievably, at this very moment, 350 men are imprisoned in the Fraser Centre in Maple Ridge, British Columbia. Another 50 are in the Alouette facility, and some 100 women and children are in jail too. Yes, it is a minimum security facility, but it is still a jail.

That is why the Bloc Québécois cannot support this kind of bill, which would restrict freedoms, create a new class of refugees and further tarnish Canada's international reputation. The international community will think that Canada is no longer a welcoming country, that we are no longer mediators, but that we are people who care only about law and order. That is how it has been since the Conservative Party took power. It is a shame that the Liberals are inclined to join the Conservatives in their tendency to do battle rather than honour the long-standing Canadian way: negotiation.

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

Mr. Speaker, in countries where we have an egress of refugees, 90% of the refugees come through our airports and only 10% or less come by ships in the dramatic way we saw this past summer.

Would a possible solution be for the Canadian government to work with OCHA, the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, which has processing centres in those areas where there is an egress of refugees, so people can be identified, evaluated and processed to determine those who are true refugees from those who are not? That would simplify the system, give people an easier way to be assessed by countries in a safe environment away from the prying eyes of their country. In doing so, it would make the situation more efficient and not put people's lives at risk when they have to travel across the very dangerous ocean in very rickety boats. This would be one solution to help deal with the situation.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the Liberal member, who has done a great deal of work on this file and suggested ideal solutions. The solution he is proposing is very good. The problem is that there is no political will on the other side of the House to implement this type of initiative.

What policy does the other side of the House wish to implement? If a suspicious vessel arrives in Canada, all of the passengers are first put in prison for 12 months, then we take the time we need to see if we can grant them refugee status. They also do not have the right to obtain permanent resident status until they have been in the country for five years. Women and children are currently being held in prison, a minimum security prison, I concede, but it is still a prison.

I urge the Liberal member to present his solutions since they are material. However, if the Conservative government is not at all receptive to these solutions, then we are back to square one. They are applying their law and order approach, and their increasingly strict laws are tarnishing Canada's reputation with the rest of the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Saint-Jean on his very clear speech.

Does he believe that such a law indicates that the Conservative government thinks that there must be criminals among every group of immigrants that arrives? Should immigrants have to arrive alone, lining up one by one? We get the impression that there must be criminals among the passengers of every ship or plane that arrives. I would like him to clarify this point.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi on his insight.

The minister has created a new category of immigrants, which will allow him to designate an arrival as irregular. That is what will probably end up in the bill. This irregular arrival will trigger all of the restrictions and enforcement mechanisms that I mentioned earlier. This is what the Conservatives did with the arrival of the Sun Sea. They immediately thought that there were terrorists or Tamil Tigers aboard. So they created panic across Canada to justify a bill that takes things even farther than usual and that is in line with their law and order approach.

My colleague is absolutely right. The government has managed to demonize these people. That is why it has introduced such a tough bill.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate today and to speak in favour of this important bill.

One of the aims of Bill C-49 is to protect the integrity and the fairness of the Canadian immigration and refugee protection systems. That is what I would like to talk about today.

Most Canadians are in favour of a generous and open immigration system. They also support protecting asylum seekers who enter Canada through the usual channels and who are true refugees. Canadians also support the resettlement of refugees who are victims of persecution. Our government is honouring its commitments in each of these areas.

However, Canadians are not naive, and the actions of people who enter the country without going through the usual channels are an affront to people's sense of fairness and respect for the rule of law. While leaving the door open to immigrants and refugees, our government is resolved to protect the integrity and fairness of our immigration and refugee protection systems by identifying and combatting fraudulent activities.

That is why we recently proposed legislative changes to crack down on consultants who take advantage of people by making them pay for bad advice or who help them enter the country or obtain their citizenship in a fraudulent manner. As everyone knows, these crimes take place in every country. Criminals often work in more than one country at the same time. For that reason, Canada is encouraging other governments to co-operate and prevent such abuses, mainly by cracking down on consultants who exploit people trying to immigrate to Canada.

All too often, those who fall into the trap realize too late that they have been duped and have lost their money. Human smugglers are ruthless profiteers.

As members know, we recently passed the Balanced Refugee Reform Act in order to improve the Canadian asylum system by speeding up the process that affords protection to those who really need it and the removal of those whose claims are denied.

However, it is important to remain vigilant with respect to new threats to the integrity of Canada's refugee protection system and abuses of that system, such as the recent arrivals of large numbers of immigrants by boat.

It is unfair for them to jump the queue ahead of those who are playing by the rules and waiting their turn to immigrate to Canada. It is completely unacceptable that people are abusing Canada's generosity to fraudulently profit from it. That is what it comes down to.

Canada welcomes and will always welcome those who wait their turn to come here in search of a better life. These brave and hard-working people from the four corners of the world have been enriching our magnificent country and our culture for hundreds of years.

Yes, Canada is a welcoming place. Canada welcomes thousands of new immigrants and refugees each year thanks to one of the fairest and most generous systems in the world. Our hospitality is a source of pride for our government as well as for the Canadian people; it is a testimony to the generous nature of our nation. However, our government has clearly stated that we cannot tolerate abuse of our immigration system, be it by human smugglers or by people who are not respecting the rules.

That is why our government has introduced a bill to keep smugglers from abusing Canada's immigration system. Through these amendments, our government is targeting criminals who smuggle people, abuse our generous immigration system and put Canadian communities in danger. We are creating a significant deterrent to those who would consider using a human smuggler to avoid having to wait to come to Canada. We are also ensuring the integrity and equality of the Canadian immigration system for years to come. We are also sending a message to criminal networks and groups that facilitating human smuggling will not be tolerated in Canada.

Specifically, Bill C-49 will make it easier to prosecute human smugglers, will impose a mandatory minimum sentence on convicted human smugglers and, finally, will hold shipowners and operators accountable for the use of their ships in human smuggling operations.

The amendments proposed by our government will allow us to ensure the safety of Canadian communities through a maximum one-year mandatory detention of individuals who enter Canada illegally.