Bill C-31 (Historical)

Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act

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

This enactment amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Balanced Refugee Reform Act to, among other things, provide for the expediting of the processing of refugee protection claims.
The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is also amended to authorize the Minister, in certain circumstances, to designate as an irregular arrival the arrival in Canada of a group of persons and to provide for the effects of such a designation in respect of those persons, including in relation to detention, conditions of release from detention and applications for permanent resident status. In addition, the enactment amends certain enforcement provisions of that Act, notably to expand the scope of the offence of human smuggling and to provide for minimum punishments in relation to that offence. Furthermore, the enactment amends that Act to expand sponsorship options in respect of foreign nationals and to require the provision of biometric information when an application for a temporary resident visa, study permit or work permit is made.
In addition, the enactment amends the Marine Transportation Security Act to increase the penalties for persons who fail to provide information that is 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 in respect of vessels that fail to comply with ministerial directions and authorizes the making of regulations respecting the disclosure of certain information for the purpose of protecting the safety or security of Canada or Canadians.
Finally, the enactment amends the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act to enhance the authority for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to enter into agreements and arrangements with foreign governments, and to provide services to the Canada Border Services Agency.

Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The amendment is admissible.

Questions and comments. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly respect the member's position and her speech this morning on Bill C-31. Of course, I disagree with just about everything she had in there.

However, there were two amendments that the government moved, and I would thank her and the other members on the committee from the NDP and from the Liberal Party for agreeing and voting unanimously in favour of both amendments that the government passed. While we heard a lot of opposition to the bill today, there was a faint hope within the context of the bill, and we did see some support.

This leads me to believe that once the bill is passed and we have moved forward, a number of members from both the Liberal Party and the NDP who will see the light of day and see that this is in fact the right bill. Bill C-31 is the right legislation in terms of reforming our refugee system.

The member spoke for a couple of moments on designated safe countries. It should be made very clear that the transparency about the method and scope of how safe countries would be designated is now in the bill. It was not in the prvious bill, Bill C-11, but it is in the current bill now.

Most importantly, the member spoke at great length about the issue of children and that a decision would be made for those under 16 years of age. That is an addition to the bill that did not exist under Bill C-11. I know she was not here back when we were talking about this issue, but when the government passed legislation on the issue of sexual consent of a minor, we moved the age from 14 to 16. I would like the member to comment on why her party argued so vehemently against raising the age of consent to 16, yet today she says that 16-year-olds are not in a position to make the types of decisions that she is talking about.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it very clear that we supported a couple of amendments that were brought forward by the government side because they mitigated the extensive damage that we see in the bill.

One of them was an unintended consequence, as the minister said. I felt good that once he realized there was an unintended consequence whereby people could be deported after many years of living in Canada because the country they had fled from would become considered safe, the government side actually addressed that unintended consequence. I acknowledge that there was some movement.

However, I want to get back to the detention issue. I absolutely cannot, as a mother, a parliamentarian and a teacher, stand here and say that being kept in detention would be okay and would not have a devastating impact on young children, no matter whether they were 3 or 9 or 16 or 17 years old.

Once again, these are the reasons we are so adamant that the bill goes way beyond. It is not only we who see the bill as draconian; expert witnesses agree. It is actually a “punishing refugees bill”, because there is nothing more in it that would punish smugglers than there already is in Bill C-11.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her speech.

We were obviously together on the same committee and we heard the testimonies regarding similar legislation that was passed in Australia and regarding its proven ineffectiveness.

Furthermore, in November 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of two Sri Lankan refugees, who said that the laws prohibiting them from appealing to the Australian courts were unfair. The same thing could happen in Canada if this bill is passed.

Could my colleague speak to that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint-Lambert for working tirelessly on this bill. Since we finished the committee stage, she has been doing stellar work in her community and in other areas because this is a topic she feels very passionate about and is very concerned that the compassionate face of Canada is being changed so dramatically.

As I said earlier, arbitrary detention is a violation and I am absolutely convinced that there will be legal challenges.

I also want to talk about learning from the mistakes made by others. When we looked at the omnibus crime bill motion, the United States was telling us over and over again that mandatory detentions did not work in the United States but we still passed a bill that is basically a prison building agenda.

Now we are dealing with the world's most vulnerable people. When they land on our shores, they could be identified as legitimate asylum seekers, but they will be incarcerated in provincial jails.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her response.

I would also like her to expand a bit on an issue she touched on in her speech, the psychological impact of detention, both on adults and children.

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

Mr. Speaker, in my previous life I often had the privilege of working with children who had come from camps in which there were terrible circumstances and I saw the kind of psychologically damage that has on young people. What we are talking about here are families or parts of families arriving on our shores from some very devastating situations. What we will be telling them is that we will keep them in prison for up to a year. We need to think about the psychological impact that will have on people who are looking for a place to provide them with a safe haven and the first thing they will face is prison. Even after their identity has been made and Canadian authorities know they are not terrorist threats, they and their children will still be kept in prison.

We need to look at the social impact of this, the health care costs and the long-term social costs that we will pay well into the future. The cost of incarceration, as we all know, is going up every year. The last time I looked there was a shortage of prison cells in some provinces.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the designated safe country issue. The member continues to say that the only place in the world that a designated safe country will exist in its refugee legislation is Canada. The United Kingdom, Ireland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, Finland, just to state a few, are countries that have implemented designated safe country status. We have moved it from outside of the bill, in terms of where it was before in regulation, into legislation. It is a two-step process, one that will require additional departmental officials to determine the outcomes as to how and when a country will be designated.

Why in the world would she and her party not support legislation that designates safe countries? They are happening and have happened all over the world. We are simply catching up.

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

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

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

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to participate in the debate on Bill C-31, the Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act.

The latest version of this bill is a slight improvement over the original thanks to some amendments. I would like to thank the government for that, but the fact is that many experts strongly criticized the bill, leaving the Conservatives little choice but to make amendments. Even though the amendments improved the bill, it is still problematic in many respects.

One of the many problems with Bill C-31 is that it will create two classes of refugees: those arriving through regular channels and those arriving through irregular channels. This classification will have serious consequences because individuals will not be treated the same way. According to the Barreau du Québec, this measure is “possibly discriminatory, illegal and contrary to Canada's international commitments”.

There is a real danger that people will be deported to countries where their lives are in danger. This two-tier system will actually increase the risk of error. Yet Canada is bound to protect the right to life, liberty and security of every person in this country, including so-called illegal refugees.

For example, if one person comes from another country by sea and another person comes by air, they can be treated differently. We feel that such a situation is not really acceptable.

Another major shortcoming of this bill that was not amended is the fact that it gives the Minister of Immigration additional powers for no good reason. Under Bill C-31, the Minister of Immigration will decide which individuals qualify as regular arrivals and which as irregular. That puts too much power in the minister's hands. Not only does this bill create a two-tier system, it also politicizes it. This part of the bill has been strongly criticized by many experts, including the Barreau du Québec.

The system was working fairly well, but now the Conservatives are trying to exert even more control over it. We must not oppose the politicization of the immigration system just because the Conservatives are the ones in power. No party or politician should have such powers. There is no reason for it, and the Liberal Party has been clear on that.

If for example, a group of individuals arrive from a country that we have good relations with, but the circumstances are such that the safety of the group is indeed compromised, what will the minister do? He might base his decision on the current state of relations with that country instead of basing it on an objective opinion, as some have pointed out in the past and in committee. Will the minister declare these people as irregular arrivals in order to preserve good relations with their country of origin? If we do not have good relations, a different decision might be made that might not suit the people involved. Will the minister acknowledge the threats against them and declare the arrival regular? Why politicize the matter? It is a bad decision regardless of the minister's intentions.

What is more, the initial bill prevented illegal refugees from being heard before the end of a 12-month mandatory detention. The bill has since been amended to allow refugees to be heard within 14 days, then heard again after six months. Why wait six months? The Liberal Party is wondering why the government would not allow refugees to be heard again every month. We proposed 28 days. I think the government should implement an even more flexible system because, once the identity of the people is known and we know that they are good people and true refugees, why should they have to stay in detention and incur costs for the system and the government?

There is still a two-tiered system at play. The Conservatives should at least withdraw the unreasonable, arbitrary six-month review period.

The safe countries designation also poses a problem since, once again, the minister has the power to decide which countries are safe and which are not. Again, by politicizing the immigration process, we will have to choose between our relations with other countries and protection for refugees. The unfortunate refugees from so-called safe countries will have to go through a much more complicated process and might be sent back to their country of origin for political reasons. That is unacceptable and certainly unjustifiable.

The Conservatives must leave it to the experts to decide which countries are safe and which are not, while reviewing the files case by case. It is not up to the minister to decide. The parliamentary secretary will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the bill does not contain a list. We do not know which countries will be safe and we do not know the criteria for designating them.

Mandatory detention for so-called irregular arrivals is highly problematic, especially when it comes to children. Once again, a number of experts opposed this measure and challenged the legality of this bill. Indeed, Bill C-31 will subject 16- and 17-year-old children to mandatory detention if they are considered irregular arrivals. We know the Conservatives like to beleaguer our children, but why not exclude children from mandatory detention? They are too young to have decided to immigrate to Canada; it would have been their parents' choice. Why punish these particular children? This measure smacks of Conservative ideology, which makes no distinction between adults and children. The Conservatives would always rather punish than prevent.

The question of children aged 15 and under also poses a problem. Two choices are being proposed regarding their fate: either they are separated from their parents and sent to another institution while their parents are detained, or they are detained with their parents. Neither option is acceptable, in my view. If the arrivals present no danger to Canada or Canadians, there should be no mandatory detention, and this is especially true when children are involved. Several experts confirmed that the psychological effect on children in both cases would be devastating. This measure will likely be challenged before the courts, and I doubt it is even constitutional. In short, this bill represents another step backward for Canada.

Furthermore, the people who are deported after their application is rejected will not be able to apply for permanent resident status in the following five years. When that is added to mandatory detention, a person might have to wait more than six years to immigrate, sometimes just because of a purely political—crassly political—decision. This measure is not necessary and, I repeat, it is arbitrary. Are there studies that prove this approach should be adopted? Our immigration system is working rather well, so why change all of it?

We have spoken at length about this bill, but one question remains: what is its true objective? The government says that it wants to give priority to regular refugees. And yet irregular refugees will be subject to mandatory detention whether or not they pose a risk to Canada. These two categories of refugees are dealt with in the same manner.

Of course, Canadian taxpayers will foot the bill for detention, even though it is pointless. We have become used to the Conservatives wasting public money on incarcerating people while cutting services to the public. What is most contradictory about this bill is that the government wants to incarcerate more people in order to prevent delays in processing so-called regular refugees.

However, we all know that detaining these people will cost Canadian taxpayers a lot of money. Why not just spend the money on hiring more staff to process the applications? It would be a little more efficient and perhaps would allow these refugees, who have probably filed legitimate applications, to start anew. The Conservatives' logic does not stand up. In the interest of fairness and cost savings, detention should not be mandatory.

The Conservative government says that it also wants this bill to serve as a deterrent to illegal immigration. Yet, the Conservatives are targeting the refugees and not the smugglers. Why have the conservatives chosen to attack such an easy target—the refugees? They should be targeting those who make money by exploiting human misery and breaking our laws. Illegal immigrants already take huge risks to escape misery. The threat of penalties will not dissuade them from entering Canada illegally.

As I have said in the past, most of these immigrants do not look up Canadian laws on the Internet before coming here. If they are exploited, if they are in a precarious situation and are forced to come here, they do not come because they want to be detained or because they are familiar with Canadian laws. They come because they are fleeing poverty in their country of origin. They know nothing about our laws. They are prepared to risk their lives to escape poverty. In other words, this bill will only create more problems for refugees and will have little impact on smugglers.

Must I remind the Conservatives that these same smugglers will usually turn illegal immigrants into slaves once they arrive in the country? The bill should target the people who profit from the crime and not victims and desperate people. As I have already said, with this bill, we will just add to the stress these victims are already suffering.

For all these reasons, my Liberal colleagues and I will vote against this bill. The amendments made by the minister are not enough and only partially fixed the many shortcomings in the original bill. As many experts and officials stated when the bill was studied in committee, the law works as it is. This bill will only create more problems for immigrants, before it is contested and likely declared unconstitutional in court.

I repeat: this bill will not achieve its goal, simply because its focus is not in the right place.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his speech. On a number of occasions, I do not even mind saying I agree with him on some of his issues that he brings forward. Obviously, today, he is in the wrong. He and his party's non-support for the bill will in fact do nothing to change the system we have. It is a system that is abused around the world by individuals, especially human smugglers who traffic in getting individuals to pay huge amounts of money to get onto an unsafe vessel to come here to Canada. That is the way it still is under the current legislation. He and his party believe it is okay to have that happen. We on this side of the House do not believe that. That is why we are moving to ensure that human smugglers pay a significant price. We are seeing them being charged already.

My question is, why on earth would they not want to pass a piece of legislation that is going to go after and detain human smugglers under the Criminal Code and just keep it as it is now? It just makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and I have worked together on other issues. Sometimes he is reasonable on certain things. I think on this that it is just a matter of interpretation.

I, and the Liberal Party, in no way support human smugglers. My whole speech was based on the fact that this particular bill should probably have more emphasis on damages against human smugglers, penalizing them and finding more ways to make sure this does not happen.

The problem we have with this particular bill is the fact that the refugees become the victims, as I said in my speech. They are the ones who leave a place where they are not happy. I do not think anybody who is living a good life is going to put themselves on a boat or in a container for days on end, paying a smuggler thousands of dollars to get here.

Most of the people who decide to come here are in a desperate situation. I do not think those people, before getting into that container or onto that boat, are going to go on the Internet to look up the laws of Canada and then realize that they will be detained for a year if they do not have the paperwork.

I am not sure how this is going to deter refugees from coming to Canada. It is the human smugglers we should be going after.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand my colleague's concerns about this bill.

I would like to know what the primary source of his doubts is. Is it the 25th gag order, ministers' constant interference in routine business, the government's culture of secrecy or the many ethics-related issues that have him doubting the appropriateness of giving discretionary powers to the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism?

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, usually Liberal Party of Canada MPs are the ones who ask the best questions. The member asked a very good question, but I do not know how to answer, so I will say yes to all of it.

The member counted 25 closure motions, but personally, I think there have been more than that. However, we will not get hung up on the number of closure motions. We have been through two wars. We would need two or three calculators just to count the number of closure motions we have had this week.

The Liberals' biggest problem with this bill is the fact that the minister will have too much discretionary power.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, last week when I had an opportunity to speak to this bill, I spoke extensively about the part of the bill that talks about biometrics. Many other countries around the world are already using biometrics as a means of identification, so that is included in this bill.

I wonder if the member could tell us why it is that he wants to put in jeopardy the safety and security of Canadians?