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

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

moved that Bill C-31, 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, be read the third time and passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the bill.

Having listened closely to the previous speaker's presentation on your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I will speak to one point on the issue that relates to Bill C-31 and to Bill C-38.

There are a number of issues in Bill C-38, our budget bill, that have a lot to do with immigration. I appreciate the member's description of what the opposition's role is in terms of keeping the government to account and accountable. However, what he failed to mention was the amount of time allocated in committee for both Bill C-31 and Bill C-38. Bill C-38 was given an unprecedented amount of time for debate, more than for any other bill in recent history. The fact is that the member would not and did not acknowledge the hours and hours spent debating each and every one of these clauses at committee, which is part of the parliamentary process. He did not even want to acknowledge the time given by the government, in agreement with the opposition, to have that debate.

I have said that because we took exactly the same approach with Bill C-31. We opened the doors at committee and said that we should bring in all witnesses. The opposition members believed that this was a big, fundamental bill that would change the refugee system in our country so they wanted to hear from all the experts in the country. Even though we had gone through the entire process once already, we went through it again. I did not hear an acknowledgement from the member opposite for the efforts made in terms of our parliamentary process and listening to what people had to say, and not just witnesses but all members of the opposition who had the opportunity to present their changes, thoughts and beliefs on what the bill should look like. With respect to Bill C-31, there were two significant amendments that were made at committee. These were not amendments that had to be made. As everyone knows, there are enough votes at each of our committees here on the Hill for us to win without having to make changes, without having to do anything other than that this is what will be moved forward for third reading and this is the bill that will receive royal assent.

In our case, we heard from witnesses and we made two significant changes. One had to do with cessation. The way the clause could have been interpreted, an unintended consequence could have been the potential for that individual to lose permanent residency if the country of origin had changed status. We made adjustments to that piece of the legislation. We also made a significant change to the detention issue for irregular arrivals. The original clause included a detention period of up to 12 months. Upon hearing from experts and witnesses who presented their case, the minister and the government listened and made a significant decision. We said that individuals who arrive in what is deemed an irregular arrival, as we saw with the Sun Sea or the Ocean Lady in British Columbia, they would have a hearing after 14 days. Subsequently, if they have been determined to have or not have success with respect to their refugee application, they would be given another hearing after six months.

Therefore, contrary to what the opposition members have been saying over the last week about this government's position with respect to listening, it does listen and it has listened. Bill C-31 is a stronger bill today at third reading than when it was introduced at first reading. Contrary to what the opposition members are saying, this government does spend a lot of time listening, understanding and moving toward the best piece of legislation that we can put forward.

In fact, it speaks to our refugee system here in the country. We welcome more resettled refugees than almost any country in the world. Based on the continued implementation of Bill C-31, which encapsulates a number of pieces of Bill C-11, which was our original refugee reform act, we will have an additional 2,500 refugees per year settle into our country, which is a 20% increase.

It again shows that Canadians have always been known to be fair and compassionate. Our country has a long and proud humanitarian tradition. This bill only strengthens that tradition all the more.

However, it is safe to say that our system, and it is no secret, is also open to abuse. We see that abuse on a daily basis. We are a generous and welcoming people but we do not have tolerance for those who take unfair advantage of our country. Canadians have told us loud and clear again and again that they want a stop put to the abuse which exists within our immigration system. By introducing Bill C-31, and where we are today at third reading, we will see and have shown to those people in this country who have asked us to, that we will protect the integrity of immigration and our refugee system.

There are three main areas covered by the bill which are all interrelated.

First, Bill C-31 includes further and much needed reforms to our asylum system. While the Balanced Refugee Reform Act went a long way to reforming Canada's refugee system, further reform is absolutely necessary. The opposition likes to ask why. The answer is very simple but it cannot be found by using political rhetoric. This is all based on a very factual, necessary and purposeful argument.

We need to look at the cold, hard and indisputable facts. In 2011, Canada received a total of 5,800 refugee claims from democratic, rights respecting member countries of the European Union. That is an increase of 14% from 2010. That number is actually more than the number of claims that we receive from Africa or Asia. There is a simple problem here. The top source country for refugee claims is Hungary, which is an EU member state. Of all refugee claims in 2011, 4,400, or 18%, came from Hungary. That is up almost 50% from 2010.

What is even more telling is that in 2010, of the 2,400 claims made by Hungarian nationals, only 100 of them were actually made in countries other than Canada. They all came to Canada to make a refugee claim from one country, except 100. There is a problem here. There is an obvious issue that needs to be dealt with. It means that Canada received 2,300 claims from Hungary, which is 23 times more than any other country has received from Hungary. The fact that most gets to the core of why further refugee reform is needed is that virtually every one of these claims was abandoned, withdrawn or rejected. Refugee claimants themselves are choosing not to see their claims to completion, meaning they are not in genuine need of Canada's protection. In other words, their claims are bogus.

The reason these claims are bogus is that people are choosing to come all the way to Canada. They have a choice. There are 26 other countries right next door and most, if not all, are part of the EU. These bogus claimants come here to exploit Canada's generous asylum system because of the lucrative and expensive taxpayer funded health care, welfare and other social benefits that are allowed under the current system we have in place. In fact, these bogus claims y cost Canadian taxpayers in excess of $170 million, and that was just last year alone.

Bill C-31, protecting Canada's immigration system act, is part of our plan to restore integrity to our asylum system and restore Canadian's confidence in our immigration system. The bill would make Canada's refugee determination process faster and fairer and would result in faster protection for those who legitimately need refugee protection. It would also, and this is the important aspect of it, ensure faster removal of those whose claims are withdrawn, those claims that are bogus and those claims that have been rejected.

We will speed up the refugee claims process in a number of ways. For example, one major component of Bill C-31 is the improvements to the designated country of origin provision. This will enable the government to respond more quickly to increases in refugee claims from countries that generally do not produce refugees, such as most of those that are in the European Union. Claimants from those countries will still have the opportunity to be heard in terms of their application and to be deemed refugees in Canada.

Contrary to what the opposition has said, there is, for every person who claims refugee status in this country, an opportunity to be heard and an opportunity to have their case determined by the Immigration and Refugee Board. We will change that process so that it will take close to 45 days versus close to 1,100 days that exists now, more than on average three years to process a refugee application in this country.

If 97% or 98% of claims from particular countries are abandoned or withdrawn, we can just imagine how many months and how many years an individual can take advantage of the Canadian system just because of the number of days it takes to get through this process. This will happen no more. We will turn the system around. We will ensure that everyone gets a hearing and we will ensure it is completed within and about as close to 45 days as possible.

The designated country of origin provisions, which I mentioned and are included in Bill C-31, would bring Canada in line with its peers. Countries, like the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Switzerland, all recognize that some countries are simply safer than others and we can presume them to be so based on criteria, both quantitative and qualitative, that are included within the bill itself. Therefore, refugee claimants from those designated safe countries may be reasonably considered under the expedited process, the 45 day process that I mentioned.

We have had some discussion about the UN lately. I am encouraged, or at least listening, when the opposition stands to speak in favour of pretty much anything that the UN does. I thought it would be important this morning to show that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, António Guterres, has acknowledged that by saying:

...there are indeed safe countries of origin. There are indeed countries in which there is a presumption that refugee claims will probably be not as strong as in other countries

Mr. Guterres also agreed that as long as all refugee claimants have access to some process it is completely legitimate to accelerate claims from safe countries.

I will take that one step further. Abraham Abraham, who is the former United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, also is not opposed to the process upon which we have designated safe countries. He indicated:

...as long as this is used as a procedural tool to prioritize or accelerate examination of applications in carefully circumscribed situations, and not as an absolute bar.

We are not just implementing a process that is being used everywhere in a number of countries in the world. We are using a process that is endorsed and understood to be a correct one. It does not exist in our Canadian system as it is right now.

I want to underscore, despite what the opposition has said, that every refugee claimant will continue to receive a hearing before the independent quasi-judicial Immigration and Refugee Board regardless of where he or she came from. Furthermore, every refugee claimant in Canada will have access to at least one level of appeal. These procedures exceed the requirements of both our domestic law and our international obligations.

I will add this is not the purpose nor the reason for passing the bill, but there is a financial benefit to the process in which we will now receive and determine refugee applications. We will save not just federal taxpayers, but provincial and territorial taxpayers, $1.65 billion over a five-year period.

How will we use that money? The premiers, finance ministers and ministers of immigration across this country will tell us exactly how they could use that money, whether it be for settlement services, or whether it be for enhancing health care delivery. What we are offering is an opportunity for savings, an opportunity for that money to be used not to fund bogus claims, not to finance those who want to take advantage of our system, but to actually assist Canadians here in our country.

Unfortunately, what is lost in debate over the bill is what it will mean for genuine refugees who are fleeing persecution and who fear for their lives. Under Bill C-31, genuine refugees will receive Canada's much needed protection much more quickly. They will not be waiting three years in the determination process, but will be waiting as little as 45 days to know that they indeed have a home here in Canada. I cannot for the life of me understand how the NDP and the Liberals could be against that process.

Bill C-31 includes tough but fair and necessary measures to combat, deter and crack down on the criminal act of human smuggling. On this side of the House, we are not scared to face the issues of human trafficking and human smuggling. We will face them like no government in this country has before, and we will continue to do that.

Until recently, most Canadians believed that large-scale human smuggling was something that did not happen here, that it was something they just read about in the paper. They thought it only happened in other countries, for example, Australia.

That all changed in 2009 when Canada witnessed the arrival on the west coast of the MV Ocean Lady, which carried 76 migrants. It was almost as if it were a test case to see what would happen when the ship arrived, because less than one year later, the MV Sun Sea came, which held close to 500 migrants. This was not a cruise ship. This was not a ship designed to hold individuals. This was a ship designed specifically by human smugglers who take advantage of these individuals and extract as much money as they can, $30,000, $40,000, $50,000, from individuals, who end up spending most of their lives paying that money back. The smugglers would put these individuals on not much more than a freighter to come across the ocean and land here in Canada.

Just as we have new members who are seeing individuals who are not true refugee claimants come to Canada to take advantage of our system, so we have human smugglers who understand the business of smuggling and the lowest common denominator in terms of which country will accept the individuals and how to take advantage of that. Not only are they taking advantage of our country, but they are taking advantage of the individuals.

We all know the stories. On board many of these ships are criminals and terrorists from a country and the human smugglers themselves who, unbeknownst to others, are dressed as if they are also in a position to claim refugee status in our country.

That is going to change. We are going to let the world know that human smuggling is not only unacceptable in this country, but that there will be a very significant price to pay for those who want to get into this business.

We do not have to look too far back to the past number of short weeks and months to know that we are catching these individuals. They are being sought out. They are being charged and they will be convicted. That is how we will stop this business.

There are so many more parts of Bill C-31 that are critically important, whether it be human smuggling, whether it be the issue of irregular arrivals, or whether it be the system itself in terms of how long it takes. We are moving from a system that takes 1,000 days on average to answer a refugee application submitted to the minister to one in which it will take anywhere from 45 days for those who are coming from designated safe countries, versus those who are coming from non-designated safe countries. There is an appeal process in place for each one of these individuals.

There is a process in place where we are now responding to those who truly deserve to be in our country. The best part of all of this is it sets in place a process that is fair to Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. I would remind him that we heard from various witnesses in committee. They all pointed out that this bill is discriminatory because it unfairly creates two classes of refugees. The witnesses also pointed out that the measures in this bill do not target human smugglers; they target refugees, taking them hostage.

This bill will also deny some refugees the right to apply for permanent residence and be reunited with their family members, including their children, for five years. Why is the government preventing family reunification?

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

Mr. Speaker, it behooves me to suggest that the opposition take one step back into the past instead of taking one step into the future. They should take one step into the past and recognized that there are individuals around the world who are fleeing for their lives. Those people can seek and obtain refugee status in our country to protect themselves, when they flee for their lives from a country that offers them nothing other than torture or death. They come here and within a very short period of time they receive an answer to the question as to whether or not they are true refugees. Under the bill, somewhere in the future, all of them would have an opportunity to have their families come to our country. Their families, if they are fleeing persecution, would also have the opportunity to seek refugee status in our country.

We are going to set in place, with the bill, a process and laws that say to human smugglers, “Not here. Not in this country”.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, every legal expert has pointed out that the minister's discretionary power is problematic and should be removed from the bill. That is one of the reasons they say this bill should be withdrawn entirely. The minister will have the discretionary power to define what constitutes a safe country and to determine which countries are safe, as well as to define what constitutes an illegal arrival.

Basically, this means that, based on their country of origin, people coming here will be granted or denied status, will be found to be from safe or unsafe countries, and will be found to have arrived legally or illegally.

Is this discretionary power not the reintroduction and legalization of something much like racial profiling? When these people come here, the ones the minister finds ideologically acceptable will be okayed, while those he does not like will be declared illegal arrivals.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his contribution at committee. We spent hours and hours, days and days, listening to witnesses and working through the bill. He was probably a little surprised that two very significant amendments were proposed by the government and were accepted. In fact, I have to thank the member. Both of the amendments put forward by the government were supported unanimously by the government, NDP and Liberal members at committee.

What we have in the bill, and it has been through the legal process in terms of understanding the designated safe country origin, is a quantitative and a qualitative analysis of how the designated safe country process would work. As good as Bill C-11 was, it lacked the accountability of how that designated safe country process was going to work. It was actually going to be in regulation. We are much more transparent in our approach to designated safe countries with Bill C-31 because the process is actually in the legislation itself.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has explained in layman's terms exactly what this change in immigration policy is, but one of the concerns out there is the situation surrounding detention. There has been a lot of misinformation, most of it emanating from the other side of this chamber, but there is some misinterpretation from members of the public because of that. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could expand on some of the issues surrounding the detention part of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. The detention issue has been the one which has been most significantly torqued by the opposition in terms of what it exactly means.

In our country over the last 8 to 10 years, approximately 100,000 refugees have sought and obtained refugee status. I mentioned in my speech that we have had two irregular arrivals. Arrivals such as those will be deemed to be irregular arrivals if they happen in the future. In those situations, because individuals come over in mass quantities, literally hundreds of individuals and families, we have no method to determine the identity of those individuals or whether they deserve to seek refugee status in our country.

It is important to know that when individuals are detained, they will be treated fairly. They are going to be well taken care of, but they are going to be detained until we can identify them and determine that they are not going to be a harm to Canadian society and until it is determined whether they truly deserve refugee status in our country. The opposition has failed to acknowledge that less than half of one per cent of all of the refugees who have come to this country in the last 10 years would be deemed to be irregular arrivals. Significant as it is, we can see that this is a very special process that will be used very little, but human smugglers will know it will be used once Bill C-31 is passed.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech closely.

Once again, the government wants to create two classes of refugees. It wants to divide refugees into two groups.

The other message I got from my colleague's speech is that some countries of origin will be considered good and others will be considered bad. Here again, the government is categorizing things in a way that I find troubling and somewhat arbitrary.

What does my colleague have to say about this approach based on dividing people into two groups?

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

To the contrary, Mr. Speaker, and I wish the member had listened to the speech. It indicates how we treat those who come to this country is going to be enhanced. Refugees will actually have a better opportunity under this process to be determined whether they are true refugees and become permanent residents and Canadian citizens much quicker than under the current system.

I will add that the only class of importance that we have in this country is the class of becoming or being a Canadian citizen. That is what this bill is all about, the importance of acknowledging fairness in a process. Whether it be immigration or anything else that we are responsible for in this country, fairness is what Canadians expect and anticipate. It is why most Canadians support this piece of legislation. They understand it is fair to the refugees coming to our country who, if in fact they are true refugees, will be able to seek and be granted asylum here. Canadians understand that this process upon which one achieves refugee status is going to be fair for them as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, we worked long hours at committee, but we appreciated the couple of amendments that did mitigate the possible damage we saw within the bill. However, as I look at the legislation we already have in place, I wonder why need the proposed legislation.

In 2011, legislation that was praised by the minister of education, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, actually addressed the issues that the government says it is trying to address. In fact, Professor Audrey Macklin had this to say:

I think that the Balanced Refugee Reform Act seemed to address many of the legitimate policy objectives that the government seeks to attain under Bill C-31. What Bill C-31 adds to it are provisions that are unconstitutional, and from a policy perspective, I think, problematic and unlikely to achieve what they claim.

There are some significant concerns that the opposition has with the legislation, and not just in relation to this bill. One of the key areas of concern is where the Conservative government seems to be moving, and it is not toward parliamentary democracy. It is becoming very difficult for parliamentarians to debate key issues because more and more power is rested in the hands of ministers, and in this case, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism. That is a very dangerous precedent. It is not a road we should go down.

We, as parliamentarians, get elected and the opposition has a critical role to play. The role of the opposition is to hold the government accountable and all members of parliament should be able debate legislation. However, in this legislation, more power is given to the minister. It is more power than the minister already has, which, by the way, is far more than any minister should have, regardless of political party. I am not speaking against the minister, but against the power that would be vested in any minister.

This power used to belong to an independent panel of experts, and the opposition agreed with that. We were in full agreement with that in the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, which had an independent panel of experts. It was a panel, independent of government, that would make the designations of so-called “safe countries”.

Here we are once again with the arrogance of the Conservative government. It is trying to put more and more power into the hands of its ministers to escape the scrutiny that any legislation or any changes to areas such as immigration deserve. We have considerable concern with this.

I think we have agreement, and even with members on the government side at committee stage, that none of us can guarantee that there is one country that is absolutely safe for all citizens. Even democratic countries have human rights violations and sometimes incidents that would fall under the legitimate UN resolutions to protect people from persecution.

For example, Mexico is a democratic country. However, we know that the LGBT community in Mexico comes under considerable persecution and that has been recognized with the number of asylum seekers accepted from Mexico.

Chantal Desloges, an immigration lawyer, had this to say:

I have major concerns that concentrating the power of the DCO list only within the ministry and not consulting a panel of experts is wrong, because it opens the system to major political influence.

In the previous incarnation of this bill, the DCO list was decided by a panel of experts, and as a professional, I would be comfortable with that. However, leaving that decision to the sole discretion of the ministry is not a good idea.

We are not making this stuff up. We have heard witness after witness say that the concentration of power in the hands of the minister was absolutely the wrong way to go.

When we look at the legislation, it also violates international conventions, to which Canada is signatory, by providing mechanisms for the government to indiscriminately designate and subsequently imprison bona fide refugees, including children, for up to one year.

Liberty is something we value. We will cases in Canada where asylum seekers who, as my colleague pointed out, do not come here on a cruise ship. They endanger their own lives because it is more dangerous for them to stay where they are. They come to our country to seek refuge. By the way, under a UN convention, to which we are a signatory, they are doing something that is perfectly legitimate. They are coming to our country to seek asylum.

Once those asylum seekers, if they should arrive by ship, are in our country in numbers of two or more, what will we do to them? Remember, these people are not escaping from affluent lifestyles. We are talking about people who might have been on the run for a long time and are willing to risk their lives and leave their loved ones behind to escape to find a safe haven.

What does a safe haven do for them? As soon as they land, we tell them that we will imprison them. I will use that word because we do not have enough detention centres. We heard witnesses testify that even, today, on any given day, some people end up in provincial jails. For example, British Columbia has no detention centres, so irregular refugees would be placed in a regular jail. Guess what? If they are 16 years of age or older, they will be placed in jail as well. I do not know about other members, but I know that when my son, who is now close to 30, was 16, I certainly did not think he was an adult. Sometimes I wonder about even now, but that is beside the point.

For children under the age of 16, we were absolutely pleased when we first heard the minister say that accommodations would be made for them. However, when I heard what that accommodation was, I thought, what kind of choice was that. The accommodation is that the parents will have a choice. They can give their child up to provincial agencies or they can keep them with them in prison.

If they are escaping from the kind of life-and-death situations that we have heard about, stories of rape and other horrible situations, then we are telling them that they can give their children to absolute strangers or they can keep them in prison with them. That is absolutely not a choice. It is a shameful way for us to treat arrivals into our country.

I want to expand on this a bit. The NDP, the official opposition, was absolutely clear. We know that when people arrive, we need to have identification. We also tried to move amendments that once the checks had been done and they were not considered a threat to the country, they would be released. We did not get that. For up to a year, these people will be kept in a prison, and once again we have to trust the minister may do this.

If we have learned anything, we should learn from the experiences of others. In testimony from Australia, we heard the kind of emotional and financial costs and also the long-term costs to society to which this kind of a detainment could lead. We cannot ignore the experiences of other countries.

Being a teacher, I am always very hopeful that we will learn from mistakes made by others. I am pleading that we do not make the same mistakes and then end up with social costs to our communities. It is very difficult to feel welcomed and then to get engaged in nation-building and to really be productive in their community when the first thing people face is prison for up to a year. It is not a way to treat children. Also, as members know, there are other costs to the health care system as well.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member will have eight and a half minutes to conclude her speech after question period.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, 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, be read the third time and passed.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

When the House last left the debate on the bill, the hon. member for Newton—North Delta had eight and a half minutes remaining for her speech, and of course the requisite time for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Newton—North Delta.

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

Mr. Speaker, I finished off by talking about the mandatory detention of bona fide refugees just because of the way they arrived here in Canada and the impact that would have on children. I want to expand on that a little bit.

I talked earlier about the emotional and the social costs, but we also have to look at the financial burden that the Canadian public would have to pay, because to keep people, legitimate refugees once they arrive and have gone through identification and security checks, in a provincial prison will be a costly matter. The last time I looked at those numbers, we were looking at anywhere from $60,000 to $80,000 a year to keep somebody in a provincial jail.

Besides that, we have to look at the human cost. Here we would not only be fiscally irresponsible and break UN conventions, conventions to which we are signatories, but we would also be fiscally irresponsible at a time of restraint, and it would be a cruel way to treat some of the world's most vulnerable people when they arrive on our shores.

I have heard a lot about how the bill will punish smugglers. I look on the bill as the “punishing refugees bill”, because that is what it does. Under the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, we already have $1 million in fines and life imprisonment for smugglers. If we really want to go after smugglers, we have to work with the international community and get to the source. It is my belief that all these smugglers we are supposedly going to catch will not be on the ship or boat when it arrives.

The current detention and security check system that we already have actually led to charges being laid against some of the people on the boat that arrived from Sri Lanka, but over 90% of the people who arrived on that boat were accepted by Canada as legitimate asylum seekers. However, under this legislation, we would be putting them in prison, and that just makes no sense to me.

There is another aspect we have to look at. We all know the importance of family. All of us like to have our family around us. We can imagine refugees arriving here after running away and putting their lives at risk to get to this new country where they will seek protection. Their number one goal will be to have their family members join them also . Sometimes it will be a mother who might have been able to run away with only two of her kids and might have had to leave a kid behind. Sometimes the whole family remains behind, and only one person escapes.

In those cases, under this legislation, once again we have a two-tiered system that would prohibit legitimate asylum seekers from applying to have their families join them here. They would not have any travel documents. That again goes against the UN convention.

We are not talking about going away on cruises and things like that. For example, if somebody gets here, they might have some family just over the border in the U.S. and they might be able to go there and meet them. If they have arrived here from Mexico, maybe they cannot go back to Mexico but some of their family can get into Guatemala, and they could meet with them there. In these cases, we would once again be limiting and denying some very fundamental rights to people.

This five years of forced separation, by the way, is before they can apply. We know, given the way processing goes in this country right now, two or three or four years could be added to that. We can imagine the impact that kind of separation would have on families.

Once again it would not just be the mental torture that the families would suffer in knowing that their children and other family members were in danger; it would also be the social impact.

There would also be health care costs. Just imagine the impacts it will have on health care. Not only do we keep people in prison for up to a year, but now we will keep them separated from their families.

The impacts cannot be underestimated. We had witness after witness tell us about the impacts of incarceration on children and on adults. Every one of them said that it interferes with the settlement of families and becoming productive, and we heard as well about the costs to health care that I just raised.

Also, we are concerned about biometrics. We are not concerned that biometrics will be used in two areas, fingerprinting and digital photos. Rather, what we are absolutely concerned about is that the committee has not had a chance to study the privacy impact assessment. That is very important for all of us. Obviously, these reforms are not clearly consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

At this time I have an amendment.

I move, seconded by the member for Saint-Lambert:

That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: this House decline to give third reading to Bill C-31, 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, because it:

(a) gives significant powers to the Minister that could be exercised in an arbitrary manner, including the power to designate so-called “safe” countries without independent advice;

(b) violates international conventions to which Canada is signatory by providing mechanisms for the Government to indiscriminately designate and subsequently imprison bone fide refugees—including children—for up to one year;

(c) undermines best practices in refugee settlement by imposing, on some refugees, five years of forced separation from families;

(d) adopts a biometrics programme for temporary resident visas without adequate parliamentary scrutiny of the privacy risks; and

(e) is not clearly consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[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?

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not recall ever saying that. Maybe it is in the translation, but they do a good job in this place so I do not see how she thinks I said that Canadians were going to be put in jeopardy.

If anything, I said that when these supposed refugees come in, they should be given a chance to prove who they are. If we can use biometrics, that is better. It would probably be a quicker method of getting these people out of detention.

The Conservative government has said that if people cannot identify themselves, giving us proof within 14 days, then they are going to be stuck in detention for 6 months. After that, they will never have a chance to become a permanent resident, no matter who they are or how valid the reason is that came here, even if they had been forced to come here.

I am not sure how this member decided that we were against Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member and I usually have pretty close views on a number of issues in this country. I am a little surprised. He is saying that the bill is, from his perspective, going to hurt refugees. I am not quite sure why. In the current system, it takes an average of over 1,000 days, over three years, for a refugee fleeing persecution from his or country to achieve refugee status here in Canada. This piece of legislation would mean that some will receive that application and approval within 45 days, others within no more than 246 days.

While he says he is on the side of refugees, by not supporting the legislation, the member is actually telling all legitimate refugees in the world who have been approved to come to Canada that they are going to have to continue to wait upwards of three years to achieve the status of refugee here.

I am asking him, I am imploring him, to support the bill. Help refugees in this country who are trying to stay here in Canada and achieve that status. Vote in favour of the bill. It is much better than keeping the current status. I would like the member to try to explain how on earth he could imagine that the system we have now is better than the one we would have under Bill C-31.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member across is a parliamentary secretary. He was at the committee meetings, I just read some of the minutes, and heard from experts. I am not sure what he actually listened to. Sometimes he is a pretty good listener so I give him the benefit of the doubt.

I never said that a thousand days, on average, for refugees to get processed was acceptable. I think a refugee is actually lucky if he or she is able to get his or her papers in order in 1,000 days and get acknowledged. My office is seeing people who have been here five, six, even seven years, and there is still no progress.

There is no question that the system needs to be improved. However, the problem is this bill, in particular, would give too much power to the minister and putting these refugees in detention for years on end is going to cost Canadian taxpayers thousands and millions and billions of dollars, as the Conservatives would say.

The parliamentary secretary just said some of these refugees would be processed within 45 days. If some of them do get processed in 45 days, more power to them. That is exactly what we want. That is how we want this system--

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please.

Questions and comments.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am hearing from the member--

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

We're almost there, Rick. Come on.

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

Yes, we're getting there.

Mr. Speaker, he does, I think, in his heart of hearts, want to stand up to support the legislation. His leader may be telling him he has to vote against, but I am hearing from him that there is room to say that this bill would be better for Canadians, it would be better for refugees.

I want to give him one more opportunity to stand in his place to say he is going to do the right thing: support the bill and help refugees from around the world when they come here to this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I remind the member that I am a member of the Liberal Party. We do not need our leader to tell us what to do. We are free to do what we like. In these cases, it is normally our critic who has a big voice. I think there is general consensus that we feel the bill is just not acceptable. We have presented our amendments. If the member is willing to put forward amendments, it is not too late. It has been done before. The government can send them to our Liberal senators. We can amend it in the other place. It is not too late. We are almost there. The parliamentary secretary has been reasonable on other bills. We still have a chance in the other place, because I know that at this third reading stage, we are not going to be able to amend the bill.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and for the Asia-Pacific Gateway]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be sharing my time with the hon. member for Crowfoot.

I am pleased to rise in the House today and offer my full support for Bill C-31, protecting Canada's immigration system act, which would strengthen Canada's immigration and refugee system and better enable Canada to maintain its significant humanitarian legacy while also ensuring the public safety of Canadians.

Until recently most Canadians believed that large-scale human smuggling was something that just did not happen here, that it happened somewhere else, maybe in countries like Australia, or they read about it in the paper. That all changed in 2009 when Canadians witnessed the arrival on the west coast of the MV Ocean Lady carrying 76 migrants. Less than one year later, close to 500 migrants arrived on a second vessel, the MV Sun Sea. Shortly after that, a sea container was uncovered at the port of Montreal concealing yet more individuals who had tried to enter Canada illegally.

In response, Canadians told us they wanted our government to act decisively to crack down on criminal human smuggling.

We must act before another tragedy strikes, like the one that occurred off the coast of Indonesia just last December when close to 200 irregular migrants destined for Australia perished when their vessel capsized in rough waters.

Even more recent events remind Canadians that human smugglers continue to target Canada to this very day and we must remain vigilant.

Many Canadians may not know about this, but very recently a human smuggling operation was dismantled in Togo. A large number of people were in Togo waiting to board a ship to come to Canada. With the hard work of authorities there and other countries, including Canada, this trip never took place.

Just a few weeks ago a human smuggling operation in Ghana was dismantled thanks to intelligence provided by Canadian officials. Our officials are working incredibly hard and are to be commended for their work to crack down on these despicable criminal organizations.

The recent capsizing of a small boat off the coast of Nova Scotia reminds us that these dangerous voyages too often end in tragedy. Every year countless people die before they reach their destination.

Bill C-31 includes mandatory minimums for criminal human smugglers and would hold shipowners and operators to account for the use of their ships in human smuggling operations. The bill also includes the mandatory detention of anyone who arrives as a participant in an irregular arrival.

I would note that in response to experts and opposition colleagues, our government has amended Bill C-31 to include detention reviews at 14 days and 6 months. These amendments were supported by the NDP at committee, but despite our government's efforts to work in good faith to amend the bill to ensure it is as effective as possible, the NDP has chosen, as it often does, to be blindly partisan and continues to oppose and delay the bill.

Detaining individuals who arrive as part of a criminal human smuggling event and whose identities are not known is what any responsible government would and should do. Oftentimes the boats that arrive on our shores carry the criminal smugglers themselves and who knows who else. These are not just people who are perceived threats. For example, to date, of those who arrived on the MV Sun Sea, four have been found to be inadmissible due to security concerns, and one has been found to be inadmissible due to war crimes. Even more striking, in regard to the Ocean Lady, to date, 19 have been found to be inadmissible due to security concerns, while 17 have been found to be inadmissible due to war crimes.

I would like to take a moment to congratulate the RCMP for its hard work in its human smuggling investigations and for laying charges on six of the alleged criminal smugglers to date.

To be frank, I am shocked that the NDP and the Liberals believe that unidentified individuals, who could be terrorists, violent criminals or criminal human smugglers, among others who could victimize innocent Canadians, should be allowed to roam the streets before their identity has been established. Our government will not allow this to happen. Unlike the NDP and the Liberals, Canadians can always rely on our Conservative government to protect their safety and security and that of their families.

Experience around the world has taught us that only dealing with the push factors of criminal human smuggling is not effective. The pull factors must also be addressed.

That is why Bill C-31 includes provisions and disincentives to prevent those who come to Canada as part of a designated irregular arrival from applying for permanent residence status for a period of five years and prevents individuals from sponsoring family members for five years.

Again, we acknowledge that these measures are tough, but we believe they are necessary and fair. Unless both push and pull factors to criminal human smuggling are addressed, this despicable and dangerous activity will continue.

By not supporting Bill C-31, the NDP and Liberals are sending a clear and, to be frank, shameful message that if people can afford tens of thousands of dollars to pay a criminal smuggler to bring them to Canada, they can jump the line, but if they are poor, they can languish in a refugee camp. They are telling criminal human smugglers that Canada will continue to be a doormat.

Unlike the opposition, our Conservative government is sending a clear message that our doors are open to those who play by the rules, including legitimate refugees. However, we will crack down on those who endanger human lives and threaten the integrity of our borders.

Human smuggling is a despicable crime. Canadians think it is unacceptable for criminals to abuse Canada's immigration system for financial gain.

Recently, the Government of New Zealand introduced legislation to enhance its ability to deter human smuggling by making it as unattractive as possible to human smugglers and the people to whom they sell their services. Its proposed measures include the use of mandatory detention and streamlined refugee and protection claims processes. This is sounding fairly familiar. Other policy changes include reassessing a refugee claim three years after it is first determined, with permanent residence not granted unless this reassessment is approved. Family reunifications have also been restricted so that those who do gain residence after three years can sponsor their immediate family members to join them in New Zealand, but not their extended family members.

The fact that other governments, such as New Zealand's, are proposing similar measures shows that this is truly an international concern that needs to be addressed.

Indeed, human smuggling networks in Southeast Asia have proven their reach and determination. We know that they continue to actively target Canada as a destination. This is why the Government of Canada is pushing forward with reforms to strengthen the immigration and refugee program in this country.

We must be tough in order to prevent human smugglers from taking advantage of our generosity and from putting vulnerable people's lives at risk. We must be fair to those who follow the rules and come to Canada through legitimate channels seeking peace and prosperity.

However, the system must also be fair for all Canadians, who expect that our borders and shores to be safe and secure, and who expect this government to protect our generous systems from abuse. That is why the Government of Canada introduced this piece of legislation, which I am supporting today.

We will continue to take all necessary action in the future to deter the ugly practice of human smuggling while continuing to meet our humanitarian obligations.

I strongly urge all of my colleagues in the House to support Bill C-31 and ensure its swift passage.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am puzzled by some of the comments made by my colleague, so I have a couple of questions which I hope he can answer.

Is he aware of Bill C-11? Not only was it passed by this House but it was actually praised by the minister. Its actually known as the Balanced Refugee Reform Act. That act actually has all of the needed elements for the safety and security of Canadians. All of the features that would be required are in there.

Also, the member talked about people jumping the line. We are not talking about people arriving here on a holiday. We are talking about people who are escaping life and death situations. They are asylum seekers under the UN conventions. They are coming here in a legitimate way to escape persecution.

Is the member aware of Bill C-11 and what is in it, a bill that has not even been acted upon yet?

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Mr. Speaker, of course I am aware of that bill. I think it was a good start. Given the situation, it addressed some of the issues in terms of streamlining the processing of refugees, but it did not go far enough.

As I said in my comments, the pull factor was not addressed adequately in that bill. We need to put in place some disincentives so that people on the other side of the world, in Southeast Asia for example, do not think Canada is the place to come in an irregular fashion. When we allow that to happen and put our resources into processing them, there are legitimate refugees in refugee camps around the world where those resources should be going. That is what we are doing in this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary hosted a town hall meeting in his riding on this very issue. Being from British Columbia, he can speak with great knowledge, because that is where the Sun Sea and the Ocean Lady arrived. In his community there was quite a reaction when both of those ships arrived in Vancouver, British Columbia.

With respect to the work that he did in terms of the town hall meeting and the input he sought from his constituents, have we listened and included that within the context of the bill and addressing the issue of human smuggling?

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his assistance in that town hall meeting we held.

My riding is even more significant, not just because it is in British Columbia, but because those irregular migrants, particularly the 500 in the last arrival, were actually detained in my riding. My son works in the institution where they were detained. He told me they received very good care, and I am sure Canadians would be pleased about that.

I can tell this House for sure that my constituents are pleased with this legislation. Although it is tough, it addresses the issue that we need to address.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind the House that the quality of a society or a civilization is measured by its respect for the weakest and most vulnerable. That includes refugees.

Speaking of designated countries, I would like to ask the minister how he will go about designating these countries impartially. How will he do that?

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let me say that we have the most generous and humanitarian refugee system in the world. I believe that to be true. In fact, we need to make sure it stays that way by addressing abuses and this legislation does that.

It should concern us that, for example, the total number of refugee claims from the EU in 2011 was close to 6,000, more than Africa or Asia. We need to have the ability to designate certain countries where the numbers are going up every year. The number from the EU, for example, increased 14% from 2010. It is a necessary action.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand and support Bill C-31, the protecting Canada's immigration system act.

Many hon. members have already had the opportunity to participate in this debate. In fact, a number of constructive suggestions have been brought forward and the government has acted in good faith and responded with several amendments that address concerns that were raised about the bill as it originally had been tabled. Nevertheless, it is important to step back and put one aspect of this debate into perspective. Among other needed measures, Bill C-31 would help bring about some very important reforms to the refugee system.

Clearly, Canadians are the most generous people in the world. They want to provide protection to those who need it. Unfortunately, our asylum system is not just being used by those who need our protection. Too many people are abusing our refugee system to gain quick entry to Canada and to jump the immigration queue. Nothing illustrates this abuse better than the fact that one-quarter of all asylum claims in Canada come from democratic, rights respecting European Union member countries. That is more than from Africa or Asia. Canadians are generous people, but we rightly have no tolerance for those who abuse our generosity or take advantage of our country. Canadians have told us, loud and clear, that they want to put a stop to this abuse. Have an asylum system, but let us use it, not abuse it.

Bogus claimants clog our refugee system and make those who legitimately need protection wait far too long, on average almost two years, before they can get a decision on their claim. Bogus claimants are undermining and eroding the faith of Canadians in our system. They are also costing Canadian taxpayers, who are left to foot the bill for the generous and expensive taxpayer funded health care, welfare and other social benefits that draw these bogus claimants.

The measures in Bill C-31 would help curb that abuse. This bill's measures would help protect the integrity of our refugee program. There is no better way to demonstrate our great humanitarian tradition in Canada than by ensuring we can provide protection more quickly to those we genuinely need it.

The reforms in Bill C-31 would help prevent abuse of our system by ensuring human smugglers, violent criminals and bogus asylum seekers would be removed from Canada more quickly.

However, my remarks today will be more to the positive results of Bill C-31, which is something that is getting lost in this debate as we hear the opposition members and their questions. Once Bill C-31 is passed, genuine refugees will receive Canada's much needed protection more quickly. This is a goal and outcome that I think all members in the House of Commons would like to support and see achieved.

In their comments about these particular measures, some hon. members have unfairly accused the government of trying to undermine Canada's tradition of humanitarianism and compassion when it comes to refugees. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our government and all Canadians take great pride in the generosity, fairness and compassion of our immigration and refugee system. Indeed, nothing in Bill C-31 would ever diminish that.

Even with these reforms, Canada will still have the most generous asylum system in the world. We will be number one. In fact, because these reforms will enable those who need our protection to get it even faster, I would argue that they will make it better.

For generations, Canadians have opened our arms to those who need our protection. More than one million refugees have been welcomed to our country since the Second World War. Our Conservative government is proud of and looking forward to continuing that tradition. Just this past December at the United Nations in Geneva, Canada committed to further concrete actions in order to provide protection to those in need.

I urge all hon. members in the House to join me in supporting this important bill and to ensure its speedy passage to make certain that genuine refugees get the help they need in our country.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made Tuesday, May 29, 2012, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45 the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, June 11.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you see the clock at 1:30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Accordingly the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from June 8 consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, 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, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

It being 6:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the motion for the third reading of Bill C-31.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #276

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the amendment defeated

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #277

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)