Bill C-4 (Historical)

Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act

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

This enactment amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to, among other things,
(a) authorize the Minister, in certain circumstances, to designate as an irregular arrival the arrival in Canada of a group of persons, the result of which is that some of the foreign nationals in the group become designated foreign nationals;
(b) authorize an officer or the Minister, as the case may be, to refuse to consider an application for permanent residence if the applicant has failed to comply with a condition of release or other requirement imposed on them;
(c) provide that a person may not become a permanent resident as long as an application by the Minister for cessation of that person’s refugee protection is pending;
(d) add, as grounds for the detention of a permanent resident or foreign national, the existence of reasonable grounds to suspect that the person concerned is inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality, criminality or organized criminality;
(e) provide that the Immigration Division must impose any prescribed conditions on the release of certain designated foreign nationals;
(f) provide for detention rules and a review procedure that are specific to the detention of certain designated foreign nationals;
(g) clarify the authority of the Governor in Council to make regulations in respect of conditions of release from detention;
(h) provide that certain designated foreign nationals may not apply to become permanent residents until the expiry of a certain period and that the processing of any pending applications for permanent residence is suspended for a certain period;
(i) require certain designated foreign nationals on whom refugee protection has been conferred to report to an officer;
(j) authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting the reporting requirements imposed on certain designated foreign nationals;
(k) provide that the offence of human smuggling is committed when a person organizes the coming into Canada of another person and knows, or is reckless as to whether, the entry into Canada is or would be in contravention of the Act;
(l) provide for minimum punishments for the offence of human smuggling in certain circumstances;
(m) in respect of the determination of the penalty to be imposed for certain offences, add as an aggravating factor the endangerment of the life or safety of any person as a result of the commission of the offence;
(n) change the definition of “criminal organization” in Part 3 to give it the same meaning as in subsection 467.1(1) of the Criminal Code; and
(o) extend the time for instituting proceedings by way of summary conviction from six months to five years or from six months to 10 years, as the case may be.
The enactment also amends the Balanced Refugee Reform Act to provide that a refugee protection claimant whose claim is rejected is not prevented from applying for protection earlier than 12 months after the day on which the claim is rejected, if it is rejected as a result of a vacation of the initial decision to allow the claim.
The enactment also amends the Marine Transportation Security Act to increase the penalties for persons who fail to provide information required to be reported before a vessel enters Canadian waters or to comply with ministerial directions and for persons who provide false or misleading information. It creates a new offence for vessels that fail to comply with ministerial directions. It also amends the Act to authorize regulations respecting the disclosure of certain information for the purpose of protecting the safety or security of Canada or Canadians.

Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, seeing the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism across the floor, I would like to ask the hon. member if she would care to comment about the minister's argument that the purpose of the bill is to influence the economic decisions of people who undertake this very dangerous journey across the ocean and to influence the price point.

I am wondering if she thinks any of the people coming across the ocean on very dangerous voyages are really thinking about price points.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I can actually say that it will influence the price point for people who are making that kind of decision. Often people are in desperate situations, and I am not sure they will actually sit down and read Bill C-4 before they make the decision to hand across money. Many of them are fleeing for their lives, as my colleague rightly points out.

I know this is a different circumstance, but we have had people apply for refugee status from Colombia, for example, and given the desperation they are facing in terms of what is happening to some of their family members who are still in Colombia, those potential refugee claimants are not going to read Bill C-4 before they make the decision to flee their country. That argument is just not going to wash.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to enter into the debate on Bill C-4, Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act.

Let me begin by saying that immigration and refugee issues are top of mind for the people and the community I represent in the inner city of Winnipeg. We are happy to welcome many newcomers. Some came here voluntarily to better themselves, while some were forced to come here to flee persecution in other countries.

My area is a low-income part of Winnipeg and has the most affordable housing, so most new arrivals to the province of Manitoba actually land in my jurisdiction of Winnipeg Centre. It is both a pleasure and a challenge in that, as is the case with many members here, our MP offices become de facto immigration offices. New arrivals do not seem to be able to find the settlement services they need to integrate seamlessly through the immigration system. More often than not, it seems, they wind up in our offices in some level of crisis. Many need our services, and we are happy to be able to provide them when we can.

By way of prefacing my remarks, I should also recognize and pay tribute to the International Centre in Winnipeg, which offers settlement services to new arrivals, both immigrants and refugees.

On my own staff, Vân Nguyen is a woman of Vietnamese descent who was herself a refugee who arrived in Canada as one of the waves of what we called “boat people” at the time. Vân Nguyen worked for Immigration Canada for many years. I am proud to say she is now on my staff and provides necessary services to a great many new arrivals.

Speaking of boat people, I think this debate has become too narrow. As I have watched the debate develop and evolve in the House over the last number of days, we seem to be focusing on boat people as if there is some fear that we are going to be overrun by people landing on our shores in rusty boats and setting foot on our soil and therefore, by the same decision, cluttering up our immigration and refugee system with massive numbers of arrivals coming in this fashion.

That is not really true. I think the minister would be able to verify that a lot more arrivals land at Toronto Pearson International Airport and claim refugee status than arrive by washing up on our shores in boats.

I remember when I was the immigration critic for the NDP in a previous Parliament. It was around the time Chinese boat people were arriving on the west coast of British Columbia after being smuggled by snakeheads. It was a problem, granted, as there were hundreds of people at a time, and it cluttered and clogged our system.

The minister at the time, Elinor Caplan, actually took an all-party delegation of us to China, to the very place that these particular groups of economic migrants came from. They were not refugees seeking a better life in Canada, which we cannot fault them for, but by no means did they really meet the definition of refugees.

However, we went on a fact-finding mission to the very ports where these people were coming from. We even met some people who planned on joining the next wave that was on its way to Canada. We did not meet them in a rice paddy or some kind of peasant's hut; we met them in the revolving discotheque on the top of a high-rise in the village of Fuzhou, which turned out to be a city of five million people.

There are many types of people who seek to arrive here by non-conventional means. It is very hard to adjudicate and triage these people to determine who are legitimate refugees and who are economic migrants who were smuggled here by paying $50,000 to some snakehead, so I am sympathetic to the problem.

What I am critical of is the politics of fear that I believe are being employed as a modus operandi and as a theme, not just to deal with this particular issue but as a motif. It is almost a pattern or a hallmark of this government.

Bill C-10 is probably a good example, or analogous at least, in that in spite of overwhelming evidence that crime is actually being reduced in almost every category and is at its lowest level since 1973, the government of the day would have us believe that we are in such danger of being murdered in the night by some junkie that we have to vote for the Conservatives to protect us from the straw man that they have built up and that they are the only ones who can knock this straw man down.

That seems to be the tone of the debate that is developing here as we deal with refugees: that we are under such danger of being overwhelmed by these hordes of people trying to break through our system and jump the queue and by phony refugees claiming to be legitimate refugees that there is some emergency here and that draconian, drastic action is necessary.

Elinor Caplan took us to China to find out the root of the problem there. I use this as an example of a mature way of investigating and dealing with a problem, and that is what it was: it was not an emergency then, it was a problem, and it is not an emergency now. It is a problem that might be straining our immigration system.

On the same trip, we stopped in Sydney, Australia, and met with the minister of immigration of Australia, who had a much different way of dealing with it. The Australians had no 1985 Singh decision to guide them or inform their policies. They would just simply lock people up.

Everybody who arrived on their shores without any documentation would be held in a pen, essentially, until such time as they could determine what to do with them. More often than not, they put them on the first boat back where they came from, without a whole lot of consideration, I might add, as to what might befall those people at the other end.

That was under Johnny Howard in Australia. Immigration was a tough-love policy, and refugees were not treated with anywhere near the sensitivity we have toward our obligations under UN conventions regarding refugees.

I know the Singh decision has posed challenges for Canada. This notion, and the Supreme Court ruling, is that once people set foot on Canadian soil, they are essentially entitled to the due process of the immigration system in its entirety. They are not detained unless there is some justification to do so and are free to move freely through Canadian society until such time as their status can be determined.

I put it to the minister that there is a much bigger problem with undocumented refugees arriving at Pearson airport. They obviously had papers when they got on a plane. How is it that they do not have any papers when they get off the plane? People are not allowed to get on an airplane without documents. Did they tear them up in the washroom and flush them down the toilet, over the ocean on their way here? Because when they land, they do not seem to have any papers. They are undocumented. Then they are in the system, and then we know this takes years.

That is a problem. That is a legitimate problem.

However, that is not an emergency or a crisis either. It would be disingenuous to try to convince the Canadian people that there is some immigration crisis going on here where, as I say, massive waves of refugees are trying to break through and cut their way through the line.

We only have about, and the minister can correct me, 11,000 or so refugees a year. Or was it 25,000? I cannot remember. I would be happy to have this clarified.

Not enough of them come from refugee camps is what I am getting at. A majority of the refugees who come to Canada do not come to us through conventional channels of waiting in a UN-sponsored refugee camp until their turn comes up and then coming here as per the process. Most refugees do arrive in some unconventional means; they find their own way here. They flee the situation they are in and they arrive in Canada, and we have to deal with them.

However, it is disingenuous and it is, again, that politics of fear that would have us believe we are in some crisis situation that calls for and justifies legislation that has been called draconian.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, I always know when I am winning a debate and that is when my opponents completely mischaracterize my arguments as the member for Winnipeg Centre has just done.

Neither I nor any spokesman of the government have ever said that Canada is being flooded by massive waves of ships and unfounded refugee claimants. That is a complete mischaracterization of what we have said.

What we have said is that it is critical that we maintain the fairness and integrity of our immigration system and that large-scale human smuggling does represent a threat to the integrity and fairness of our system. It is a commercial transaction where people pay criminal gangs, that is what the smuggling syndicates are, large sums of money, committing in this case up to $50,000, to come to Canada ahead of the normal immigration queue.

Friends in the opposition say that there is no immigration queue. That is not true. The member just pointed out the fact that millions of people are waiting patiently for resettlement opportunities, who are designated convention refugees that at UNHCR camps around the world, some 12,000 of whom we accept.

The member has said that we are getting 11,000 refugee claimants per year. That is not so. Last year we got about 29,000 asylum claimants. Two years ago it was 38,000 asylum claimants. We are always in the top three industrialized countries in terms of the number of asylum claims filed, about 62% of which are determined to be unfounded.

I am just bringing some facts to the debate.

Does the member not agree that we should take reasonable measures that respect the charter and respect the UN convention on refugees that disincentivize people from paying smugglers to come here in this dangerous and illegal way?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for clarifying the numbers of refugees. I think the minister is aware, as members should be, that sometimes as many as 500 people in a single day get off airplanes at Pearson Airport and claim refugee status. If there is a problem anywhere, it is the undocumented refugees who arrive by air, one at a time. It is not those group sailings that seem to be the focus of the minister's efforts to date. He said that it is a potential problem, but it is not a daily issue that a boatful of people is smuggled into Canada.

The government is overreacting with this legislation because in fact legislation already exists. There can be a sentence of life imprison for human smuggling already. The government is introducing mandatory minimum sentences again. It is introducing measures that experts in the field find abhorrent and unnecessary. It is going over the top.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg Centre has a way to express how he really feels on issues.

I feel fairly passionate, as I am sure he does, as many members do about Bill C-4 and how we have the refugees being the victims. We are talking about victims twice over.

In fact, the on the ship on which the minister and the Prime Minister were standing, I believe there were 75, 76 individuals who were seeking asylum. I believe they have all been granted that asylum. That image—

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

No, none have.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

The minister says that none have. We will have to wait and see.

Does the member believe that the proposed desired impact of the minister is to get at the profiteers? Does he believe that this legislation will do what the minister wants it to do, and that is to get at the profiteers, or will it cause our refugees to be victims twice?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North who I know deals with at least as many immigration cases on a daily basis as my overworked office does.

First, I do not understand the government's priorities, that in the first session of the 41st Parliament one of the most top-of-mind paramount issues is cracking down on a problem that by the minister's own admission is only an occasional issue.

There are far more immigration problems associated with, for instance, crooked immigration consultants domestically, charging $3,000 to get a form that is available free of charge at the post office or charging $500 to some poor person, saying that they can get them into the MP and get a letter. That kind of crooked behaviour is rampant through the immigration consultants in our country.

Honestly, our energies would be better used addressing some of those domestic problems.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is important for me to speak today about the bill to prevent human smugglers from abusing Canada's immigration system.

Bill C-4 is not only an unacceptable affront to the human dignity of thousands of men, women and children, but it is also a threat to the Canadian values that we hold in trust, a heritage reaching back thousands of years that we cannot betray without serious consequences. Let me explain.

Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the embodiment of this heritage. It reads:

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

In 1985, in Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, the Supreme Court found that section 7 extends to every human being who is physically present in Canada. It protects all men, women and children against the arbitrary power of the state or a minister.

As a result, the long-term detention without charge or trial that would be imposed under Bill C-4 is a denial of this fundamental Canadian value embodied by section 7 of the charter.

Why does section 7 of the charter exist? As I said earlier, we are the custodians of a heritage reaching back thousands of years. Our institutions, inspired by Britain's, are the result of a long and difficult process. Many direct threats could have destroyed our institutions and put us all under an arbitrary regime, which is the opposite of Canada's current situation. The prohibition of arbitrary detention without trial is a part of this heritage, which is a basis for our common values. The principle of habeas corpus was established by English barons in the Magna Carta, which was forced on King John in 1215. The protection that it offered to some British subjects at that time has since been extended to all human beings both in international treaties and in the fundamental national laws of many countries.

We must not forget that since those ancient days, women, children, persons of colour, people of all backgrounds and faiths, and the aboriginal peoples of this country have been protected by this principle of justice adopted long ago as a Canadian value. So why is the minister proposing that we go back in time? How can he justify superseding the courts and acting as both judge and jury in deciding the fate of men, women and children, and thus violating both the letter and the spirit of the charter?

Have we forgotten so quickly the lessons learned from the detention camps where Canadian citizens of Japanese origin languished during World War II? Are we to conclude that it was wrong to generously welcome the Vietnamese boat people a few decades ago? We must remember that the principles in the Magna Carta were established at a time when fear was more pervasive than it is today. Despite the fear evoked by the sovereign's sword, the English barons had the courage to demand and obtain, for themselves as well a for a large number of His Majesty's subjects, principles of justice so fundamental that we cannot deny them without denying all that we are.

The dark days that followed the invocation of the War Measures Act in the October crisis of 1970 remind us of the fragility of these fundamental principles when we are governed by fear. Hundreds of people were arbitrarily detained by the authorities at that time. Yet it has never been proven that the use of these exceptional measures gave the police a definite advantage in countering the criminal actions of the FLQ.

On the contrary, it now seems as though the ordinary Criminal Code provisions that were in place at that time would have been enough to take action against that group. At that time, Tommy Douglas rose in the House to vehemently denounce the government's intention of using these extraordinary measures in our country. And history has proven him right. A young man by the name of Jack Layton found inspiration in this courageous act by our party's first leader, and it gave him the desire to defend these principles and values that are so deeply rooted in Canada.

And our charter also says that “Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law”. The Judeo-Christian principles that form the foundation of our country are the key to understanding our heritage and the resulting consequences on our collective life.

I would like to refer to the gospels. A woman was brought before Christ by her accusers. She was accused of adultery and was to be stoned. The accusers insisted on questioning Christ about the legitimacy of stoning her to death. He said, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” Obviously, no one dared. And when the accusers dispersed, Christ asked the woman, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She replied that no one was left, and Christ said to her, “Then neither do I condemn you. Go now and leave your life of sin.”

This teaching does not preclude the existence of a justice system and the enforcement of a legal code, but it reminds us that we need to be extremely careful about judging the actions of others.

Our justice system is set up with guarantees to protect our rights as individuals. As I said earlier, every man, woman and child who is on Canadian soil is entitled to the basic protection provided under the spirit of habeas corpus. How can the minister come before this House and challenge such a fundamental Canadian value?

Are we but minions so crushed by fear that we will, like cowards, betray the legacy left to us by the great political giants of Canadian history, the founding fathers of our country, the first venerable pioneers of this legacy, the courageous English barons of the 13th century?

Fear is a bad adviser and all too often it makes us lose sight of reality. The arrival of the MV Sun Sea with 492 Tamils on board, including 60 women and 55 children, was a convenient pretext for this government to introduce its initial bill. Bill C-4 is merely another attempt to exploit people's fear of massive arrivals of refugees by sea. This public relations stunt is not based on any real problem. One recent case even proves that the existing legislation is sufficient. The only thing missing is the means to enforce it.

The case of the MV Ocean Lady is an excellent example. The 76 Tamil refugees were detained for an investigation in October 2009. In January 2010, they were all released after the government admitted that there was no evidence that they belonged to a terrorist organization or had any criminal ties. Only four Sri Lankans have been arrested in 2011 for trying to enter Canada illegally. Would detaining them unnecessarily any longer have changed any of the conclusions? Nothing could be less certain.

Will we allow this government attempt to jeopardize our fundamental rights like this? Once these Canadian values are undermined, what will the government target next?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his comments.

He spoke at length about the detention of illegal immigrants under the bill. He suggested that it was a violation of rights to have immigration-related detentions. Having the option to detain illegal immigrants has always been an aspect of Canada's immigration law. I must say that the proposed measures in Bill C-4 are far more modest than the current practices, the real practices, applied in the vast majority of the western democracies.

I note for example the United Kingdom, France and other western European countries. The European Union requires almost all asylum seekers to be detained until the determination of their status. The same goes for Australia and the United States. All these countries are acting in accordance with international conventions on human rights that recognize that it is a right, a responsibility of the state, to regulate immigration in a legal and normal fashion.

In closing, I must point out that under the new asylum system, which will come into force next June, asylum seekers will be granted refugee status within three months, the same length of time as those who arrived as part of a human smuggling operation will be released from detention. It is not necessarily a one-year time frame for true refugees. They would be released from detention within three months.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. minister for his comments and his long speech.

I have an observation to make, both as a historian and as a Canadian citizen. I remind this House that since the beginning of the 20th century, and particularly since the second world war, Canada has been a leader in defending and advancing human rights, both in Canada and abroad. So I do not think it is a viable argument to compare our situation to that of other countries. I would ask the minister to explain to us how implementing these measures, according to the objectives of this bill, will allow for the arrest of a single person. I really do not see how that could happen.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am reminded that the rights we enjoy are affirmed when they are applied to the lowest in our society. I am also reminded of something that I personally believe, along with many others of different faiths, which is that we should have a preference for the poor. It is an opinion that many Canadians share.

When I talk to people about this legislation, there is a lot of fear about refugees coming to our country. I respectfully disagree with my colleagues on the other side of the House that this bill focuses on what a small, very visible stream of refugees coming to this country does with respect to what the members opposite would claim. It preys on the fear that people have that Canada is being overwhelmed by refugees. I would ask the member to comment on that.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments.

I will take this opportunity to remind the House that one of the principles of our justice system is to protect an innocent person from an unfair conviction, even if the result is that an accused is unfortunately not convicted or is declared innocent. Which is better? Is it better that the rights of 100 innocent people are protected at the cost of a single guilty person going free?

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today about Bill C-4 on human trafficking.

I would first like to remind the hon. members that this bill is similar to Bill C-49, which was hastily introduced by the Conservative government in the last Parliament. Bill C-49 was the government's response to the arrival on the coast of British Columbia of two ships carrying Tamil migrants.

At the time, all the opposition parties opposed Bill C-49 because of the large amount of power it would bestow upon the minister and because it appeared to violate Canadian and international law. We still have these same concerns with Bill C-4.

Given the Conservatives' mistrust of newcomers and their tendency toward repression, I am not certain that more discretion should be given to the government, particularly to this Conservative government. The main problem with the bill is that it is arbitrary and discriminatory. It is discriminatory because it creates two categories of refugees depending on the method of transportation these individuals used to enter the country. The bill limits the rights of legitimate refugees who arrive in Canada in a group that was smuggled across the border.

The bill grants the minister the power to arbitrarily designate a group's arrival in Canada as irregular if the minister is of the opinion that examinations relating to the identity of the refugees cannot be conducted in a timely manner or if he suspects that the arrival involves organized human smuggling activity for profit, or in support of a criminal organization or terrorist group.

Designated claimants would then be subject to a host of special rules that do not apply to other newcomers. For example, the bill stipulates that designated claimants, including children, will be automatically detained upon their arrival or at the moment they are so designated. In a state with ordinary rules, individuals are judged on case-by-case basis according to their individual circumstances. It is appalling that an administrative decision with such serious consequences could be made on the basis of an individual's belonging to a certain group. Nevertheless, that is what the Conservatives' Bill C-4 is proposing.

Once again, the Conservatives are using the refugee issue for political purposes, as they are also doing with the whole crime issue. Their way of doing things is well known. They use any random news item as a pretext for amending legislation and showing off their might. Ultimately, the problems remain unresolved and the government would be better off using the existing legislation. It would certainly be less spectacular, but it would be much more effective.

In the case of smuggling, for example, there already are laws against human trafficking. Why not enforce them? A few months ago, Parliament passed new strong, balanced legislation regarding refugees. What we need now is better enforcement of that law. Instead of playing political games, the government should also provide the RCMP with the resources it needs to do its work effectively. The Conservatives are saying that this bill will cut down on human trafficking. But in reality this bill, as it stands, concentrates too much power in the hands of the Minister of Immigration and unfairly penalizes refugees.

By contrast, the NDP wants to directly penalize the criminals: the traffickers and the smugglers. As currently drafted, Bill C-4 punishes legitimate refugees and the people who try to help them. The proposed process is neither clear nor transparent and, in addition to being arbitrary, it is ultimately quite discriminatory. We feel that Bill C-4 may break Canadian laws and contravene Canada's international commitments. Bill C-4 may violate section 15 of the charter, which guarantees equality before the law.

For the benefit of the Conservative members, I would like to read part of section 15 of the charter:

Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law...

How can anyone claim that this will not create two classes of refugees? Depending on the mode of transportation they use to enter the country, certain refugees could be denied permanent residence, a temporary residence permit, and the right to apply for permanent residence based on humanitarian grounds.

The bill appears to create inequality before the law among refugees. Bill C-4 may also violate section 9 of the charter, which says, “Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.” Bill C-4 provides precisely for the arbitrary detention of foreign nationals “designated” by the Minister for 12 months.

Bill C-4 also clearly contravenes article 31 of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees by which Canada has undertaken not to impose penalties on refugees who come from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened. We believe the government is failing in its responsibilities in respect of refugee protection and human rights.

A number of civil rights associations have spoken out against Bill C-49 and Bill C-4. For example, Amnesty International says the bill “falls far short of Canada's human rights and refugee protection obligations and will result in serious violations of the rights of refugees and migrants”.

As well, the Canadian Bar Association has argued that Bill C-49 “violates Charter protections against arbitrary detention and prompt review of detention, as well as Canada’s international obligations respecting the treatment of persons seeking protection”.

The Refugee Lawyers’ Association of Ontario has “expressed its profound regret over the decision of the [Conservative government] to re-introduce Bill C-49”. The association has described the bill as a “human rights travesty”.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has spoken out against “the creation of a new class of ‘designated foreign nationals’.”This class is defined extremely broadly so as to potentially apply to most people fleeing persecution, torture or death in their countries of origin. In effect, the bill creates a two-tier system, with numerous restrictions and negative consequences for those who fall into the designated class.

The NDP is mindful of its responsibility to refugees, unlike the Conservatives who have adopted an approach that damages our reputation in the international community and violates our commitments under the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The proposed process is arbitrary and extremely discriminatory. It also does not provide the means to put an end to human trafficking.

We believe that the Conservatives should ensure that existing laws against human trafficking are properly enforced, and we are opposed to this bill.