Very well, thank you. Okay, I'll continue.
On the other hand, these same people can be released immediately after their refugee claim is approved, in other words through an IRB hearing in 60 days. How can the administrative tribunal decision maker be more sure of the identity of these inmates than Immigration Canada is? It isn't realistic to think that the administrative tribunal will feel independent in light of these punitive measures.
The frequently asked questions page on the RCMP's website explains the difference between human trafficking and human smuggling:
Human trafficking involves the recruitment, transportation or harbouring of persons for the purpose of exploitation (typically in the sex industry or for forced labour).… Human smuggling is a form of illegal migration involving the organized transport of a person across an international border, usually in exchange for a sum of money and sometimes in dangerous conditions.
The minister never makes this distinction and his speech confuses the two concepts. It is very rare for refugees to be able to obtain a visa to come to Canada. Smugglers are too often the only way for refugees to leave their country and arrive here to make a refugee claim. These are real refugees from countries that do not respect human rights. These are people who have no choice because they are facing persecution.
Canada already has a tradition of human smuggling. The Loyalists fled New England to take refuge in Canada. The Underground Railroad mainly helped American slaves find freedom in Canada. Common law is the legal basis of our law in Canada. It is the result of centuries of tradition that led to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
Article 39. No freemen shall be taken, or imprisoned, or disseized, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way harmed—nor will we go upon or send upon him—save by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.
Article 40. To none will we sell, to none deny or delay, right or justice.
These are passages from the Magna Carta, which dates from 1215 almost 1,000 years ago. The Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 provided protection against arbitrary arrest and detention. A person detained had the right to know the reasons for his arrest, to challenge the detention and to obtain release.
Now I come to section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
7. 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.
Section 10 makes this clear:
10: Everyone has the right, on arrest or detention: (a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor; (b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; (c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way ofhabeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.
These quotations come from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and we must be proud of them.
Bill C-31 goes contrary to these principles of fundamental justice. This bill is turning back the clock 1,000 years on our principles of justice.
For example, persons designated as part of an irregular arrival and 16 years of age or older must be detained. The detention is not reviewed for 12 months and they have no access to the RAD. If the person is accepted, they cannot ask for permanent residence for five years following the IRB decision, they get no refugee travel document and they have to report to an immigration officer.
Then, for designated countries of origin, the Refugee Protection Division, the RPD, fast-tracks applications. The people involved have no access to the RAD and they cannot get an automatic stay of removal when seeking a judicial review from the Federal Court. These provisions can also be applied retroactively. Asylum seekers are therefore not all treated equally by the legislation or the justice system.
In addition, budget cuts to the IRB announced in the federal budget will have the effect of no longer providing the failed claimant with a transcript of the evidence he gave before the negative decision. The—