Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Sept. 28th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Bill.

Andrew, please.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Yes, Mr. Chair. I just want to underline the tremendous support from and presentation that was made by the Vietnamese Canadian community. I believe it's on TV.

We had the big meeting at Centre Block. For those of you who weren't there, if you can, imagine a room full of people; the minister got a standing ovation from all the Vietnamese Canadians and dependants. It was very crowded. Certainly all of us who grew up in the shadow of the Vietnam conflict feel this would really be a proper thing for us to do to fulfill our humanitarian obligations and to assist in dealing with a very real problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Andrew.

Madame Faille.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

I would like to add that the government had committed to welcome 200 of those refugees and that 23 were able to settle in Canada. If we're now talking of 140, that's less than the number agreed to by the government in its commitment. So, there should be no problem in it welcoming those 140 persons.

At this stage, considering that we have worked very hard on this file, we should remind the government the importance of welcoming those persons.

As Bill and Andrew stated, the local communities are willing and ready to help them. We only want to turn the page on that piece of history.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Is there any further debate or submissions?

Mr. Komarnicki.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I'd like to make a few points.

Certainly I was present when they made the presentation, and there's no question that the presentation was a compelling one and the number remaining is not huge. As I recall from the presentation, there were two possibilities for them. One was to apply under the country of asylum class, or to have the minister exercise discretion on humanitarian and compassionate grounds under section 25. He would have to require that kind of intervention. And certainly the minister and department have met and heard representation.

In my view, when one is exercising discretion, although it's discretion, it obviously needs to be exercised with compassion, but on an objective basis. It's not meant to be sort of a catch-all phrase that takes everything into account. When you look at where a number of groups are in relation to this particular case, they would either qualify for similar kind of treatment or have a basis for it. When you look at it from that perspective, it becomes problematic for the minister to be exercising that kind of discretion in this case.

For this reason and also for the fact that they can still apply under the country of asylum class, and some of them have married Philippine nationals, there is legislation before the house in the Philippines, I understand, a particular bill to regularize them. It's been approved by the house committee on justice and it's scheduled for plenary debate. The process is there and I think there's potential for amnesty to be gathered there.

Initially when there was a provision made for sponsorship through family class, and they extended the family class, the uptake was not very high, and we find that those who are left don't easily fall into the category that we would like to utilize. For that reason, we would oppose the motion as it is presented. I certainly would be open to have them applying under the existing provisions, other than the section 25 that's referred to in the motion.

Realistically, when we're looking at these cases, I think every time a discretion is utilized in whatever case it might be, it has to be looked at on an objective basis with certain underpinnings, and you have to at least either qualify within that realm or come close to it where that consideration can be given.

I appreciate the circumstance, and hopefully there can be a resolution and outcome that provides some satisfaction. But for those reasons, we must oppose it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Parliamentary Secretary.

Andrew, please.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

I want to point out, Mr. Chair, that we dealt with that.The clerk can check me out, but we had the previous Conservative members onside on this. The only constant, I think, is that the parliamentary secretary was proposing the same position, essentially making the same kind of argument.

This was something of an extraordinary effort with a number of countries, the United States and Australia. In terms of discretion, the minister always has it under H and C, and it certainly would be nice to wrap this up this year. It's really something that should have been done before.

I simply make that note, as I was sitting in the chair in about the same position. The parliamentary secretary had a position, but the Conservative Party members sitting on this side were very much in favour.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

So you're saying it just depends on where you're sitting.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

No--but the only consistent thing is the parliamentary secretary's position.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay.

Any further debate or submission--

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

Excuse me, Mr. Chair, but I raised my hand quite some time ago. I wonder whether you do check your lists of people who are asking to speak.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I'm sorry. You were over on that side; I should have been looking.

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

Does the clerk not write down the names of the people who want to speak?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Generally that happens when we have witnesses and that kind of thing, but this is a fairly informal chat this morning.

Feel free to speak up on this motion.

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

I want to speak in favor of the NDP motion.

I want to remind the members of this committee that we're talking about human beings, about individuals and their families. We've had a good reputation -- it has been dented since then, I admit -- about what we did for the Vietnamese refugees.

During any period of major crisis, and especially during that one at the beginning, some people are able to find a solution because their case meets the exact legal criteria of the welcoming country. So, there are a number of boat people who were able to settle in Canada without any difficulties of a diplomatic nature. However, there are always some people whose case does not meet the exact criteria of existing legislations and who are left in limbo, which is what happened to these people.

If we pass this motion, it would be another recognition by our committee -- and, one day I hope, by the Minister -- that our refugee policy takes account of the fact that there are some human beings whose situation places them outside any existing legal framework. It would also be a recognition that we can have legislation that is sufficiently flexible to allow us to help a few hundred people whose situation is really dramatic, and that we have the strength, the will and the generosity required to welcome them.

I hope the committee will vote in favor of this motion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Madame Folco.

Mr. Siksay.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I want to come back to something the parliamentary secretary mentioned, about the possibility of a legal remedy in the Philippines. I want to quote from a letter from Loretta Ann Rosales, a representative in the Philippines Parliament, who wrote to Andrew Robb, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs in Australia, on September 10 of this year. In her letter, Ms. Rosales addresses exactly that issue:

You may be aware that two proposed measures were filed before the Justice Committee of the Philippine House of Representatives during the 12th Congress.... Both bills sought the granting of permanent residency to the remaining stateless Vietnamese in the Philippines. Similarly, a bill was introduced by Congressman Roilo Golez in 1998 concerning permanent residency for the stateless Vietnamese.

As you would no doubt appreciate, enactment of a law is not a simple process. Bills such as the permanent residency bills take an average of nine years to pass through the various readings and procedures and then finally take effect as law in the Philippines. The bills granting permanent residency for the stateless Vietnamese in the Philippines were, sad to say, not passed into law.

So that's an update, perhaps, on the information that the parliamentary secretary had here. It doesn't look like that option is in process right now, or if it is, it's a very long-term process.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Mr. Komarnicki.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I certainly appreciate that, but I want to reiterate that you cannot start preferring one group over another group when you're dealing with humanitarian and compassionate grounds, simply for the reason that it has to be something that's equitable and fair between groups. I think we have in Canada probably as fair and as compassionate a refugee system as you'll find perhaps anywhere in the world, with all of the room in there for exercise of compassion and so on. If one were to utilize discretion, it would have to be principled, but it would also have to be equitable and fair between groups. Otherwise, when you're looking at the greater public good, you potentially have others saying that if you've done that here, then you need to do it there and there as well.

You have to take a reasoned and fair approach. I understand the argument on the other side, but I just wanted to bring up that issue of the public good and the class action. I realize that the process as it is in the Philippines perhaps is not expeditious, but it is headed in the right direction, toward the point of regularization. The uptake has been significant over the years by the other countries, and this is the remaining portion.

So I don't think that changes anything in terms of the position I've taken.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Are we ready?

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

I'll table a copy of the letter I quoted from so it's available.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

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

Let's congratulate Mr. Siksay for the work he has done on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Second is a notice of motion from Madam Folco.