House of Commons Hansard #105 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was system.

Topics

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Reform

Paul Forseth Reform New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC

Madam Speaker, I have been granted a few minutes to speak to this bill. One of the first things I look at when I see this bill is the grand hyperbole at the beginning of the bill, especially in the summary. In the sections it lays out, in lofty terms, what the bill intends to do, but when I begin to flip through the bill I see that the substance is not there. Certainly the image makers have had a great time.

I wonder if this bill has more to do with advertising or with the writing of a novel rather than with the writing of a statute.

The bill says:

This enactment replaces the Immigration Act, providing clearer, modern legislation to ensure that Canada's immigration and refugee protection system is able to respond to present challenges and opportunities.

Is that the language of legislation? That sounds like the language of a press release, as far as I am concerned.

It goes on to say:

(a) objectives that reflect the values of Canadian society;

(b) effective reporting to Parliament through a complete, consolidated annual report;

(c) agreements that facilitate cooperation with governments of provinces and foreign states;

(d) a description of the major classes of foreign nationals—the economic, family, Convention refugees overseas, Convention refugees in Canada, persons in need of protection and humanitarian classes;

(e) recognition of Canada's commitment to the principle of the “best interest of the child”;

We know that the government has been very poor on legislating under that one, especially under the Divorce Act.

The bill goes on to say:

(f) clear, objective residency requirements for permanent residents;

(g) a strong, effective refugee protection system that allows for decision-making on protection grounds including the Geneva Convention and the Convention Against Torture and on grounds of risk to life or of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment;

(h) a more efficient refugee determination process through greater use of single member panels;

(i) a Refugee Appeal Division within the Immigration and Refugee Board to enhance rigour, fairness and consistency in decision-making;

(j) ineligibility of foreign nationals who are serious criminals, security threats and repeat claimants to the refugee protection process of the Immigration and Refugee Board;

(k) formalization of a pre-removal risk assessment to review changed circumstances related to risk of return;

(l) inadmissibility provisions for foreign nationals who are criminals, security threats, violators of human rights or who should not be allowed into Canada because of fraud and misrepresentation or for health or financial reasons;

(m) clear detention criteria with authority to further clarify detention grounds in regulations;

(n) a security certificate process and an admissibility hearing to deal effectively with threats to security;

(o) offences for human smuggling and trafficking with a maximum penalty of life in prison;

(p) penalties for assisting in obtaining immigration status through fraud or misrepresentation; and

(q) an immigration appeal system that enhances integrity and effectiveness while maintaining fairness and legal safeguards.

When one reads that clause it sounds laudable, does it not? It sounds like a great process.

Last summer the telephone in my riding office was ringing off the hook when those people arrived by boat and our system was unable to deal with them in an expeditious manner. Yet here we find on page 18 of the bill, subparagraph 33(2)(b), that a person will not necessarily be ruled inadmissible. It says:

—does not lead to a determination of inadmissibility by reason only of the fact that the foreign national entered Canada with the assistance of a person who is involved in organized criminal activity.

In other words, that is a neon sign to the world saying that foreign nationals just have to plead their innocence. If they come here on a boat, they will be okay. Canada will say that it may get after the captain of the boat to whom the foreign nationals might have paid money, but the foreign nationals, being so-called innocent passengers, the traffic or the merchandise, it will not necessarily exclude them at all. In fact, come one come all is the essence of what that says.

Then we have the problem with the clause that talks about the charter of rights and freedoms. Certainly we want to deal with processes of decision in an orderly manner with hearings, rights of appeal and so on under the spirit of the charter of rights and freedoms, but there seems to be a difference between the ability of someone who comes to the border in a car and pulls up to the kiosk. At that point the customs person asks a few questions and what an individual says through that car window is later taken into consideration if the person is called into the office. What the individual says to those questions on the statement of purpose: who are you, are you a citizen, and whatnot, are admissible and can be used to further assess the individual's admissibility or whether they should be arrested.

What happens if someone is found on a boat floating on to the western coast of Canada? The statements made to the questions who are you and what are you doing here can be inadmissible because the foreign nationals did not have their charter warning or did not have access to a lawyer who knew what would go on in a later hearing. The ability of officers or anyone to ask or investigate in the beginning to find out what has happened gets struck down because it will be later argued that the person's charter rights were violated.

One of the other clauses that I have a particular problem with is the proceeds of crime section. I notice that clause 123 on page 53 is particularly good. It says:

No person shall possess any property or any proceeds of any property knowing that all or any part of the property or of those proceeds was obtained or derived directly or indirectly as a result of the commission of an offence under subsection—

It then provides the penalty. The penalty of course is a stiff fine or up to 10 years in jail. We have to wonder, by the way, when anybody has ever been significantly prosecuted for trading in people.

The international reputation of Canada is very poor in that regard. The motive is high because the profits are high. It is much safer to deal in people than it is to deal in drugs because the penalties are not there. Of course the act already says that the commodity that they are dealing in will be legal and accepted rather than being contraband, such as drugs.

Canada's reputation on prosecuting and acting as a deterrent to those who are involved in what I call the modern day version of the slave trade really is not there.

When I look at this clause I see that there is a fine and jail, but what about all the proceeds of the crime? We have proceeds of crime legislation under the criminal code but not under the immigration sections. We cannot go after the various houses, lands, vehicles and all the rest of it that may be owned legally through a holding company or whatever, but upon any ordinary investigation could be traced to the proceeds of this type of crime.

In other words, we need to go after more carefully the tremendous financial incentives that cause people to get involved in this kind of business: the human misery of trading in people. This is a great deficiency in the bill itself. I have attempted to deal with that in a private member's bill which is currently in the system to be drawn.

Canadians need to have confidence again in the immigration system. Governments, both through the Conservative years and since 1993 with this administration, have failed to bring anything forward of substance to deal with the tremendous disrepute that our immigration system has fallen into. Average Canadians have observed case after case of how the system has not responded as they want, or as they see their country and how they define themselves as Canadian. They have seen illegals come into the country and abuse the system, which has carried on for ever and ever.

We want to restore confidence in the Canadian immigration system so that when someone says he or she is an immigrant, the person can immediately command respect because of the knowledge of the orderly and high standard system. We know that the person has come through a system which brings great respect to the individual. I hope the government will restore confidence in the immigration system again.

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

Is the House ready for the question?

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

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

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

All those opposed will please say nay.

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Discussions have taken place between the parties in the House and I believe you will find agreement, pursuant to Standing Order 45(7), to defer the recorded division just requested on the second reading of Bill C-31 until the end of Government Orders on Tuesday, June 6, 2000.

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in such a fashion?

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON

Madam Speaker, there might be consent at this time to see the clock as 5.30 p.m.

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

Is there agreement that we see the clock as 5.30 p.m.?

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

The hon. member for York South—Weston is not present to move the order as announced in today's notice paper. Accordingly, the bill will be dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

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

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActAdjournment Proceedings

4:45 p.m.

NDP

Michelle Dockrill NDP Bras D'Or, NS

Madam Speaker, I rise again in the House to raise the issue of Scotia Rainbow. I find it unfortunate that I still have to do this but it is the reality.

There are still too many unanswered questions with regard to the operations of Scotia Rainbow. There are questions like how much money did it receive by way of federal and provincial sources and how many people is it employing? We would think that these would be easy questions to answer. It looks like the government cannot do it or does not want to be held accountable.

It would be easy for the government to put this issue to rest once and for all if it would just give us the answers. Why does it continue to protect Scotia Rainbow? What stakes does it have in this?

This drama continues under the guise of economic assistance for Cape Breton Island. We all agree that Cape Breton's economy is in desperate need of help. After the government's devastation of the fishery, the devastation of the coal industry, and the devastation of employment insurance, health care and post-secondary education, all caused by the Liberal government, Cape Breton Island needs to rebuild its economy.

What did the government do in return? It sent money to the tune of $20.9 million to a company. Is this the thanks Cape Bretoners get for working hard and building this nation? It amounts to a slap in the face.

The people of Cape Breton are not looking for handouts. All we are looking for is a commitment from the government to long term, well paying, sustainable jobs on the island. There is no doubt that the federal government has sent a lot of money to Cape Breton. The only problem is that there is nothing to show for it. Large numbers of initiatives have been co-opted by a few with self-interests. These self-interests are costing Cape Breton its economy.

What I am asking is quite simple. How many jobs were created at Scotia Rainbow, and how much money did it receive from the federal government? That is all. The government keeps saying that it has nothing to hide. It is all very simple. If there is nothing to hide then show us the facts.

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActAdjournment Proceedings

4:50 p.m.

Erie—Lincoln Ontario

Liberal

John Maloney LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the question of the member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton regarding Scotia Rainbow Incorporated.

Scotia Rainbow Incorporated is an aquaculture operation headquartered in Arichat, Nova Scotia, and operating a number of sites throughout Cape Breton Island and northeastern Nova Scotia. The community of Arichat lost hundreds of fish processing jobs as a result of the groundfish moratorium and a corporate decision to demolish the fish plant, the community's largest employer.

Last year Scotia Rainbow employed up to 250 people on a seasonal basis at various sites on Cape Breton Island. The company projects employing up to 300 people on a seasonal basis this year. Scotia Rainbow is one the largest aquaculture operations in Nova Scotia. It is an export oriented company with products sold in Japan and the United States.

Recently Scotia Rainbow encountered financial difficulties. On February 28, the Bank of Montreal issued a demand notice pulling its $10 million line of credit. The bank obtained court approval for the appointment of an interim receiver on March 2.

In response, Scotia Rainbow filed a notice of intention to file a proposal with the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia on March 10. This notice of intent effectively prevents the bank from proceeding with the liquidation of the company's assets until the court determines that there is no likelihood of Scotia Rainbow being restructured into a viable company.

On May 19, the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia extended the deadline for the filing of a restructuring proposal until June 30. At present the company is working to find further private sector investment in order to restructure its financing and effectively replace the financing provided through the Bank of Montreal.

The federal government has to date invested approximately $8.8 million into Scotia Rainbow. The $8.8 million was provided through a $1 million repayable contribution or loan from the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, an interest bearing loan from the Farm Credit Corporation of $5.8 million, and a $2 million investment from the transitional jobs fund administered by Human Resources and Development Canada.

Of this total, $800,000 have been repaid to the Farm Credit Corporation. Of the $8.8 million, $5 million were provided for the initial startup of the company. The remaining $3.8 million from the Farm Credit Corporation were provided for the expansion of the company, which was partially completed prior to the Bank of Montreal sending its demand letter.

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActAdjournment Proceedings

4:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary but his time has expired.

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 4.53 p.m.)