Debates of May 1st, 2000

Immigration And Refugee Protection Act

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

The minister says “he was the best”. My family would agree with that. However he did not come with a resumé, a business plan and talk about how he would expand the country. He did expand it. He developed a business plan once he got here. It was an interesting one at different times, but I am not sure he would be considered the best and the brightest.

I agree that the immigration system should be bolstered by denying sponsorship to those convicted of spousal abuse, to those in default of spousal or child support payments, but then it says those on social assistance. Surely poverty is not a bar to immigration to Canada. Surely those who find themselves in need in their own countries for whatever reason and have to rely on state sponsorship would not be denied the opportunity to build a life in this country, the way that many of our ancestors did.

I know that the minister will answer these questions. This is the opportunity to debate and raise some of the reservations that we have and I welcome the opportunity to do that.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Sydney—Victoria will have approximately 10 minutes in time remaining when next the bill comes before the House.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat coincidental that the matter on which I rise today has to do with the Immigration Act. It is a question I posed of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration regarding the ability of students to study in Canada, depending on their status.

While I have this opportunity I want to say I have enjoyed the debate that has gone on so far. I congratulate the minister on the progressive steps that have been taken in this new immigration and refugee protection act which addresses some broad themes that I think Canadians were very pleased to see.

Certainly there are the issues of maintaining the safety of Canadian society, reducing abuses within the system, cutting costs of the system and helping Canada's economy grow by attracting those who would be able to provide the skills to fill jobs particularly in our high tech sector.

The reunification of families certainly continues to be an important issue for Canadian society. Increasingly the integrity of the sponsorship is an issue. I mentioned it in the very first speech I gave in the House back in 1994. I am quite delighted with the progress the minister has made in bringing the legislation forward.

With regard to the specific question, the issue was whether or not something could be done to deal with the interpretation or the confusion with regard to whether or not children who were here may or may not study in elementary or secondary school. Their education could be affected by their immigration status. I think the House would agree with the issue of ensuring that our children have the opportunity to go to school.

The minister did answer the question and gave me some assurances. Perhaps the minister could also confirm something.

A permanent resident must be physically present in Canada for at least 730 days in each five year period after being authorized to enter and remain. With that as background, clause 26(2) states that a minor child in Canada does not require an authorization to study at the primary or secondary school level.

Could the minister explain how one establishes permanent residency if in fact one of the criteria is one's tenure within Canada over the last five years since becoming a permanent resident? There may be an element of further question as to whether or not permanent status has been maintained. What happens to a child who started off and had the extension to allow them to attend school but then there was subsequently either a default or a question about the residency status?

It probably goes on further with regard to a minor child of a temporary resident. I know there are temporary residents who are here for some time, and to the extent that there is a minor child within Canada, I am wondering what was the thinking with regard to children who may very well be in that situation.

I hope the minister will take the opportunity to enlighten us on those issues.

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of education of children in Canada is one which is very dear to my heart.

Even though education is within provincial jurisdiction, there has been some interpretation of the current Immigration Act to suggest that there is a requirement for a student authorization before children are able to attend publicly funded elementary and secondary schools. Some persons and school boards across the country have interpreted these existing regulations as requiring student authorization.

It is my very firm belief that children should not be denied the right to an education. They should not be denied the right to attend elementary or secondary school whether they have been in Canada 10 years or 10 minutes. I further believe that the current regulation in the existing Immigration Act requires student authorizations only for students who wish to attend post-secondary or vocational courses.

On April 6 I was pleased to have the privilege to table the new immigration and refugee protection act, Bill C-31. The new act states very clearly in clause 26(2):

A minor child in Canada does not require an authorization to study at the pre-school, primary or secondary level.

It is important for people to know that there are many students who come expressly to Canada on a student visa in order to attend, usually university, post-secondary, but also on occasion secondary and rarely but occasionally elementary school. Those students who come here on a student visa specifically as foreign students to study in Canada will still require their student visa to study.

The intention of the new act is to clarify a situation which I believe already exists, that is, the Immigration Act is not an impediment to any child who is already in Canada. We believe they should have the right to go to school and get an education. We think that is in Canada's interests and also in the child's interest.

[Rose-Marie Ur, Liberal, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on February 8 I raised the matter of illegal immigration with the minister in question period. My constituents had serious concerns about our current Immigration Act and whether it was as effective as it could be to both welcome legitimate refugees and immigrants and prevent those who would abuse the system from entering our country.

Three separate events in and around my riding serve to highlight people's concerns. In Windsor, Sarnia and Wallaceburg several people were captured by police as they entered or were already in Canada illegally. It was proof that our immigration policies had come under assault as some sought to jump the queue, mere pawns in the hands of Chinese criminal organizations.

My constituents urged me to take their message of fairness to the minister. People need to have confidence that our refugee system is working as well as it should be.

The system is now plagued by people who use phoney travel documents or destroy them on route to this country. Once here they certainly have the right to make a refugee claim but immigration officials are then hard pressed to positively identify them or assess their criminal backgrounds.

Alarmed with the prospect of Sarnia becoming a major jumping off point for illegal immigrants to try sneaking into the U.S., many have called for improvements to our laws for people who enter North America illegally.

As the daughter of an immigrant myself, Canada and its citizens can be justifiably proud of our compassionate and humanitarian nature. However we must not, we cannot, allow our nation to be taken advantage of by those who would disrupt and disturb our borders.

We should not be a haven for illegal immigrants. The criminal snake head organizations in China and others who would exploit the poor have to be dealt with in the harshest manner. They are not here to embrace our nation but to exploit it. The terrible plight foisted upon the young Chinese dropped in my riding comes from the multimillionaire crooks at the top using them for their own personal ends. I am pleased that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration went to China last month to express Canada's views forcefully and convincingly.

The minister's recent update to the Immigration Act is a significant step in the right direction. We tell the world that we welcome them and their families but do not manipulate the system and do not confuse our time honoured Canadian compassion with an acceptance of breaking the rules.

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, Canada recognizes there are those who would surreptitiously enter Canada. There are those who would try to enter this country in a way which would not give them status and would make them illegal in Canada. We also know there is a problem of transnational organized criminal activity that is attempting to traffic and smuggle people around the world.

This is not just something that Canada faces alone. This is an international problem which requires international solutions. That is one of the reasons the United Nations is developing a convention on transnational organized criminal activity. Canada has taken a lead on the development of protocols, particularly those that deal with trafficking in women and children.

While it is true there are some refugee claimants in Canada who break the law after their arrival, the number who engage in criminal activities is actually a very small fraction of the many who come to Canada each year asking for our protection.

I recently tabled the new immigration and refugee bill which in my view and I hope the view of the majority of the House will curb the criminal abuse of our immigration and refugee determination system. It is our intent to close the back door to those who would criminally abuse our immigration and refugee system so we can open the front door wider to both genuine refugees in need of our protection and the immigrants we want to bring here to help our country prosper and grow.

I would like to highlight a couple of things that are in the bill. I know I do not have time to do it all but I believe these will significantly address the concerns the member has raised.

We are increasing the penalties for human trafficking which will provide fines of up to $1 million and life imprisonment for people smuggling and trafficking in humans. There are more aggressive steps to seize the vehicles, vessels, aircraft and other property used in the course of smuggling and trafficking. There is the imposition of a screening mechanism for criminality and security considerations at the very beginning of the refugee determination system. As well we are clarifying the grounds for detention to better deal with people trafficking and smuggling.

I would say to the member and to all members of the House that there are occasions when genuine refugees arrive in Canada undocumented or with fraudulent documentation. We therefore need to be willing to hear their stories because often they have fled and not had documentation. We cannot assume that everyone who comes undocumented is not a genuine refugee.

The intention is to be faster and fair. We are going to be able to remove those who are inadmissible persons in a more timely way. Canadians are a fair and generous people but we will not be taken advantage of. We will honour our time honoured humanitarian traditions but we want to see our laws respected and people treated fairly.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in February I asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs to assure the House that Canada would not join a North American missile defence system as currently tested by the United States of America. Since then this American proposal has spurred an international debate escalating beyond the question of Canadian participation to the point where the possibility of the United States implementing such a system represents a potential threat to world peace.

Some American politicians have conjured up a doomsday scenario of missile attacks from so-called rogue states such as North Korea, Iran, Iraq or Libya. This absurd hypothesis omits the fact that none of these states has nuclear weapons nor long range missiles, that these countries are very poor and that their leaders do not want to provoke retaliation.

Moreover experts agree that terrorist attacks, weapons stuffed in briefcases or trailer trucks pose a greater danger to national security than ballistic rockets, but this is not the point. The point is that this foolish alarmism has triggered the most contentious security dispute in a long time and is threatening to undermine decades of good work toward arms reduction agreements.

The proposed United States national defence system would violate the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty because the treaty bans wide scale nuclear missile defence systems. To put such a system in place, the United States would have to obtain Russian approval to amend the treaty. Already the Russian president has publicly stated that he would pull out of all bilateral arms control agreements if the United States decided to go ahead with a national missile defence system. In that case the Americans have indicated they would simply abrogate the anti-ballistic missile treaty and go ahead with the system anyway.

The reason the treaty bans national defence shields is they would lead opposing states to develop new offensive weapons to circumvent proposed defence systems, thus triggering an arms race. Both Russia and China have therefore warned that ballistic missile defence system deployment would be met with greater nuclear warheads deployment. Such deployment would threaten another key treaty under the arms control framework, the non-proliferation treaty. A missile defence system therefore would send the wrong message to non-nuclear weapons states, and the non-proliferation treaty which historically Canada has championed would crumble.

What has been Canada's reaction so far? Apparently the defence minister is under pressure in view of the fact that he fears the United States may pull back into a fortress mentality. However the United States has already indicated its intent to act unilaterally therefore isolating itself from the rest of the world.

It should also be noted that while the United States has made no formal request to Canada for its participation some believe Canada must join, because of NORAD, the North American Aerospace Defence Command. The fact is Washington will go ahead with or without Canada's support but would like to use our good international reputation to gain support from other countries.

To conclude, it seems to me that Canadians now need reassurance that Canada will not support the missile defence system ever. Instead of debating why Canada should not join the system, we should instead be promoting the reasons why there should be no such system at all.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs has challenged quite firmly and forcefully the reasons for Canada's participation. I support his stand and urge him to use every means at his disposal to keep Canada out of the scheme and to discourage the United States from going ahead. Could the parliamentary secretary give the House reassurance to that effect tonight?

[Denis Paradis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the most important thing to remember concerning the national missile defence system is that it is an American program the United States has not yet decided to implement and in which Canada has not been officially invited to participate by the U.S. government.

If and when the Canadian government has to make a decision with regard to this program, it will be in the light of many factors. To deal with these factors, it might be useful to explain what the NMD, or national missile defence system, is.

Since the end of star wars in the mid 1980s, the United States has kept on working on a ballistic missile defence system. The NMD would be a land-based system, not a space-based one, equipped with space-based sensors to detect and monitor missiles. The system would launch an unarmed projectile, a destruction vehicle that would intercept launched missiles and destroy them on impact. Currently, the NMD is planned to respond to a limited number of attacks by missiles and nuclear warheads.

In the U.S., the proponents of the NMD claim that the emerging threat coming from the missile and massive destruction armament technology is a new factor, that today the bipolar world is a thing of the past and that the security of the United States is threatened.

Apparently, an outcast state armed with intercontinental ballistic missiles could limit the United States' foreign policy options by blackmailing future American administrations. Intelligence reports indicate that the states in question could have this strike capability within five to ten years.

On July 23, 1999, President Clinton signed the National Missile Defence Act, which says that an NMD system will be deployed when technologically possible. The decision to deploy such a system has not yet been made, and maybe the current administration or even any future administration in the United States will not make that decision. When he signed the National Missile Defence Act, President Clinton also pointed out that a final decision on the deployment of a national missile defence system could not be made before a deployment preparedness study is conducted.

The study is scheduled for July. Although a decision on the deployment of such a system could be made as early as August 2000, it would be a few years before the system could actually be put in place.

In conclusion, the President of the United States has not yet made the decision to deploy this national missile defence system. Canada has not been invited to participate and, therefore, the Canadian government has not yet decided whether it would participate.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.49 p.m.)