Debates of Dec. 12th, 1994

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to thank my colleague for her very pertinent remarks concerning Bill C-56. As she said in her speech and as I said in mine, the House is now aware of the reasons why we do not support this bill. I think that the arguments she so eloquently put forward and the ones I tried to present to the House myself explain why we have to oppose this bill.

We agree that the federal government used to be able to intervene and conduct an environmental assessment on federally owned land in an area under provincial jurisdiction. For example, right now, in my riding, the Department of National Defence is clearing an army mine field. It laid the mines in the first place. In this instance, we cannot ask Quebec to allocate funds to clean up a mess for which the Department of National Defence is responsible.

We are asking the federal government to honour its commitments on federally owned land. But we are being told in this bill that the federal government will be able to assess projects if it made any kind of investment, issued a licence, or had anything at all to do with them. In other words, the federal government will be able to subject any projects proposed by a province to an environmental assessment. We believe that this bill will lead to countless legal disputes and that is why we cannot support it.

I thank the member for Laurentides for her comments which are in total agreement with what I said earlier.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, despite his late arrival, I congratulate my colleague, the member for Terrebonne, on his speech. As we say on the Beaupré coast, he landed on his feet.

I quote from an article under the heading "Oil covered young hooded seal found alive in Madgalen Islands", published Thursday, December 8 in Le Soleil from Quebec City, because a few minutes ago, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment bragged that his government acted quickly to refloat the Irving Whale . I quote Le Soleil : ``Olivier, the veterinarian, mentioned the barge Irving Whale whose vents leak oil and which the federal Minister of the Environment refused to plug, saying that the leaks did not have much impact on the environment''. I would like to know what my colleague from Terrebonne thinks of that.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans. I tried to land on my feet, but I am not in total agreement with him. Granted, the environment minister did decide quickly that something had to be done. Except that her decision was that something should be done in five, ten or fifteen years-we shall see.

She was quick to say something should be done, but she will not move as quickly to get things done. We should be able to agree on that. Is the Irving Whale involved in all this? Yes, obviously. In other words, the only thing the minister has done so far is to acknowledge that there is a problem with the Irving Whale . We could congratulate her on that, but I think just about anybody could recognize that problem.

She told us she will probably refloat the barge, and that she will probably do it very soon. In Liberal terminology, "very soon" means we will have to wait for quite a while. Are we justified in asking questions about the refloating of the Irving Whale ? Yes. At this very moment, as my colleague from Laurentides told us, there are oil leaks in that area.

Recently, dead ducks have been reported in that area. They have been killed by oil leaking from the Irving Whale . There is also the seal issue which my colleague from Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans just mentioned, and many more environmental problems that have a terrible impact. Every day that goes by has catastrophic consequences in that area, and if one decision should be made quickly, it is to solve the problem immediately.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

And the division bells having rung:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)( a ), I have been requested by the acting government whip to defer the division until a later time.

Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a) the division on the question now before the House stands deferred until tomorrow at 5.30 p.m., at which time the bells will sound for 15 minutes.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-44, an act to amend the Immigration Act and the Citizenship Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Customs Act, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Immigration Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

Colleagues, this is a ruling by the Chair.

There are 23 motions in amendment on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-44, an act to amend the Immigration Act and the Citizenship Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Customs Act.

Motions Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 18, 19 and 23 will be grouped for debate.

A copy of this ruling can be sent to anyone who wants one.

A vote on Motion No. 1 applies to Motions Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 18, 19 and 23.

Is that clear? Motions Nos. 2 and 7 are identical to motions that were presented and defeated in committee. Consequently, pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(5), they will not be selected.

Motions Nos. 13 and 14 will be grouped for debate but voted on separately.

Motions Nos. 15, 16 and 17 will be grouped for debate but voted on separately. Motion No. 20 will be debated and voted on separately.

Motions Nos. 21 and 22 will be grouped for debate but voted on separately.

[Sergio Marchi, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

As you may have been briefed, I discussed with my hon. critics from both the Bloc and the Reform Party in seeking unanimous consent this morning at report stage to introduce an amendment on clause 20 which would have the effect on those individuals who are currently in federal penitentiaries who would be deportable at the end of their term, that they not be given consideration for either day parole or unescorted temporary absences. It would seem illogical that individuals who upon completion of their term were to be deported should be moved back into the Canadian community.

I seek unanimous consent so that that may be added to the list of clauses that will be debated at report stage.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Colleagues, my understanding is that this motion was ruled to be beyond the terms of the bill. As members know, members can by unanimous consent do whatever they wish to do, and this would appear to be one of those situations.

Is there unanimous consent to accept the motion moved by the minister?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The House will vote on the motion moved by the minister at the end of the list.

I shall now propose motions Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 18, 19 and 23 to the House.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-44, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 8, on page 1, with the following:

"made under subsection 23(4),".

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-44, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 19, on page 3, with the following:

"may, subject to subsections (4), (4.2)".

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-44, in Clause 3, be amended by deleting lines 45 to 48, on page 3, and lines 1 to 25, on page 4.

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-44, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 27, on page 4, with the following:

"tion (4) shall truthfully provide such".

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-44, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 39, on page 4, with the following:

"or a conditional departure order".

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-44, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing line 44, on page 6, with the following:

"subsection 23(4) or a departure order".

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-44, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing line 23, on page 7, with the following:

"to in any of subsections 23(4) or".

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-44, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 6, on page 8, with the following:

"under subsection 23(4) or (4.2) or".

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-44, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 14, on page 8, with the following:

"under subsection 23(4) or (4.2) or 27(4)".

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-44, in Clause 11, be amended by replacing line 23, on page 8, with the following:

"23 (4.2) or 27(6), shall cause an".

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-44, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing line 4, on page 15, with the following:

"section 20(1) or 23(4) or (4.2) or".

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-44, in Clause 17, be amended by replacing lines 11 and 12, on page 15, with the following:

"pursuant to subsection 20(1) or 23(4) or (4.2); or".

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-44, in Clause 25, be amended by deleting lines 10 to 26, on page 19.

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-44 to amend the Immigration Act and the Citizenship Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Customs Act went through first reading in the House of Commons on June 17, 1994. It was passed at second

reading on September 27 with our support, because we supported the principle of this bill, and was then referred to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

The committee tabled its report on December 8, after hearing several organizations concerned with this bill. It is a very complex and highly technical bill. We moved several amendments and the Speaker grouped them into five main motions for debate.

The first debate deals with the issue of the powers of senior immigration officers, or SIO, as they are called in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. The main clauses relating to the powers of the senior immigration officer are clauses 4 and 19 of Bill C-44. These already very wide powers are being considerably increased with respect to the exclusion of refugee status claimants at Canadian borders or entry points.

Another clause relating to powers has been included in Bill C-44 and would give the senior immigration officer the authority to issue a warrant for the arrest of people who do not show up for an examination or inquiry.

Clause 19 of Bill C-44 says that a warrant for the arrest of any person may be issued where a decision is to be made pursuant to subsection 27(4), that is administrative removal.

Section 103( i ) of the Immigration Act states that a warrant for the arrest and detention may be issued against any person where an examination or inquiry is to be held and where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person poses a danger to the public or would not appear for the examination or inquiry.

Clause 19 of Bill C-44 amends section 103 of the Immigration Act so that a warrant for arrest may be issued against any person where a decision is to be made by the senior immigration officer. That warrant for arrest may be served by the police so that the person is forced to appear.

My amendment would ensure that a notification to appear or to attend would be sent before any warrant for arrest is issued. I believe that we must add this notification as a prerequisite in the bill.

The bill gives too much authority to the senior immigration officer who already has enough. We must prevent unnecessary and arbitrary arrests, particularly since this arrest warrant is not issued by a judge, as it normally is in all democratic societies, but by a civil servant.

Often, people cannot appear because they changed address and did not get the notification. Sometimes the civil servant's computer did not take in the person's new address. Those are my comments on the power to issue warrants for arrest.

Let us now briefly analyze the additional power given to the senior immigration officer, who would have the authority to exclude some persons at the border or point of entry. As things now stand, the senior immigration officer has a specific and very wide jurisdiction. He may make an exclusion order for anyone arriving at the Canadian border. At the present time, if the senior immigration officer receives a person who does not come under his jurisdiction, he must order an inquiry and refer the case to an adjudicator.

With Bill C-44, the minister wants to change that and significantly increase the powers of the senior immigration officer. He wants to allow this person to make exclusion orders, even outside his jurisdiction, and this is unacceptable. This means that the senior immigration officer can, if he is convinced that the case does not warrant an inquiry, refuse entry, at the border, to someone who might need Canada's protection.

We totally disagree with clause 4 of Bill C-44, for various reasons. The bill is not consistent. On the one hand, it says that some cases do not come under the jurisdiction of senior immigration officers, but on the other, it allows these same officers to make exclusion orders without inquiry, and this is serious.

If the government wants fair and consistent legislation, it should say that when a case is processed by a senior immigration officer who does not have jurisdiction, it must be referred to the adjudicator for an inquiry. The adjudicator is a civil servant who is supposed to be impartial. Senior immigration officers have less expertise and less understanding of the laws and regulations than adjudicators.

Ever since the 1985 Supreme Court decision in the Singh case, every person in Canada, not only Canadian citizens or landed immigrants, is protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In order to have a fair and just system, there must be an inquiry whenever the situation is not clear, in particular in those cases which do not come under the jurisdiction of the senior officer.

The Supreme Court also said that the possible costs of such an inquiry on certain refugees do not constitute a reasonable justification to limit this right. According to the Supreme Court, the fact that the government deems an inquiry to be too expensive is not a good enough reason to deprive someone of the right to have one.

Other clauses of the bill give considerably more power to public officials and I will get back to that later. For instance, customs officers will be allowed to search international mail, examine documents, and in some cases, immigration officers will be able to seize those documents.

Therefore, for all these reasons, we are opposed to this considerable increase in the authority of senior immigration officers. Under the circumstances, we believe that the status quo is fairer and more just. This is why we presented our motion to amend Bill C-44.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. The motions being offered in amendment by my hon. colleague from the Bloc would thoroughly gut this bill.

We oppose the amendments, not because we support the bill. While the bill is unenforceable and poorly thought out, its intent is acceptable. These amendments would have the effect of removing even the good intent of the bill.

Specifically the amendments remove the authority of senior immigration officers dealing with removals and deportations. They take away authority from the minister and deputy minister to apply removal law to visitors in Canada.

In short, my colleagues in the Bloc want the status quo in immigration or less than status quo. They do not want to see a change in refugee policy but I believe the Bloc does not speak for Canadians in this area. They do not think that Canada's immigration law needs to be toughened up. Needless to say, we disagree. Therefore we oppose these amendments.

[Sergio Marchi, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, before I speak to the amendments tabled under group one, I would like to thank the Bloc as well as the Reform Party for permitting the House to add to the list of motions the amendment that I will be speaking to later with respect to day parole and release.

Of the amendments in group one, the principal one is Motion No. 3. All others in group one are a consequence of MotionNo. 3.

The current situation is that when a person contravenes the Immigration Act on more than one ground, a senior immigration officer cannot issue a removal order and must go to an inquiry. We are not trying to seek more power for the immigration officer for the sake of power or we are not trying to seek to block the entry of legitimate immigrants or legitimate refugee claimants.

On the contrary, we are trying to apply some common sense and some efficiency to the system. For example, if an individual comes to the border and has an inappropriate visa or an inappropriate passport that individual is blocked from coming into the country. Or if an individual in the country has overstayed his or her visit, the immigration officer is permitted to ask that individual to be removed from Canada.

The complications under the current legislation come into play if the individual who has the wrong passport or the wrong visa also has a serious violation against the Immigration Act, let us say a conviction of some sort. Then the immigration officer, because of the serious allegation, cannot move out the individual based on the lesser one of the two violations. We are trying to correct this area in the legislation which, quite frankly, does not make sense.

If the person has two violations, one minor and one more serious, why can the immigration officer not move out the individual based on the lesser of the two offences? He could do so if the individual only had one minor charge.

Presently the senior immigration officer cannot move out the individual because of the serious charge. A serious charge requires an inquiry. We are attempting to clarify and render the system more efficient.

If there is a lesser contravention and a more serious contravention of the act we do not push an inquiry needlessly because, if the legislation would permit it, it would allow an officer to remove the individual on the lesser of two charges. Ultimately the serious charge would probably render the person removable anyway.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Are his remarks being directed at the motion that by unanimous consent is to be voted on later? Do I misunderstand? If he is speaking to that issue, it will be dealt with later.

We are now dealing with the issues presented by the hon. member for Bourassa. I would ask the minister to direct his comments if he would only at the matters before the House now.