Mr. Speaker, I must begin by apologizing to the member for Laval Centre for my outburst during her speech.
I am sorry for making too much noise and distracting my dear friend for Laval Centre.
Having said that, it is imperative that we go forth with respect to this stage of Bill C-11.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to comment on this bill at report stage, and especially on the second group of motions, Motions Nos. 5 to 8.
I would like to shape the tenor of the debate on this motion in this regard, and I will recite from an editorial that was published in my name in the Toronto Star today. I do not know if the Chair has had a chance to read that particular publication, but given that you have been busy in his present place, I thought I would share some of those words.
These days, the government of this multicultural, multilingual land built on immigration sounds disappointingly less welcoming than it should. The (immigration minister's) proposed to reform the 25-year-old Immigration Act, Bill C-11, falls far short of the standard which Canada should use in treating immigrants and refugees to this country.
As Progressive Conservative opposition critic on an immigration committee, I sat and listened to the testimony of more than 150 witnesses and groups who almost all repeated the very same serious concerns that parts of the bill were “draconian” and in fact even “unCanadian”.
I am trying to utilize the language of this aspect of the report today to shape where I am coming from for my motions.
At the end of the day, the same committee members on the Liberal side who had heard repeated testimony across the country (at the clause by clause stage) voted to allow only minor alterations to a to the flawed bill. While the legislation does include some very positive measures, such as increased fines for human trafficking, we should not settle for legislation that still has very serious problems.
The minister has unleashed this series of “tough measures” which strip rights—including appeal rights—of permanent residents in Canada and removes protection from refugees, under the guise of making our system both fairer and faster. That's where the support of this flawed piece of major legislation falls apart.
We heard commentary that the issue of the expediency of existing legislation is more of a matter of application of the act as opposed to a fault with the act itself. I noted that members from the Canadian Alliance talked about the issue of enforcement.
Before I go into the actual motions and our position on them, I would like to share some language from a former prime minister, the right hon. Brian Mulroney. I would ask all members of the House to reflect on these particular words. He once said in the early days of taking office:
There is no obligation more compelling, no duty more irresistible in Canada than to ensure that our minorities, linguistic and otherwise, live at all times in conditions of fairness and justice.
If we allow this legislation to pass as is, including a clause limiting refugee claimants to one claim per lifetime regardless of any drastic change in circumstance, we are not fulfilling the promise of Canada and living up to the legacy of our predecessors.
I find it extremely ironic that the party of Wilfrid Laurier, Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Mike Pearson, which had a legitimate record on immigration, is now perceived to be the party the most reticent to protect these—