House of Commons Hansard #70 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was community.

Topics

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The recorded division on Motion No. 2 stands deferred.

The next question in on Motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

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

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

All those opposed will please say nay.

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The recorded division on Motion No. 3 stands deferred.

The next question in on Motion No. 4. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

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

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion No. 3 agreed to)

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Gurmant Grewal Canadian Alliance Surrey Central, BC

moved:

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-11, in Clause 34, be amended by replacing line 2 on page 17 with the following:

“(d) being a threat to the security of Canada as defined by section 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act;”

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-11, in Clause 50, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 25 with the following:

“50. A removal order is stayed according to recommendations as set forth by the Security Intelligence Review Committee established by subsection 34(1) of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act”

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Bloc

Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral Bloc Laval Centre, QC

moved:

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-11, in Clause 64, be amended by deleting lines 32 to 43 on page 29 and lines 1 to 6 on page 30.

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

John Herron Progressive Conservative Fundy Royal, NB

moved:

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-11, in Clause 64, be amended by adding after line 43 on page 29 the following:

“(2.1) Subsection (1) does not apply to a permanent resident who has maintained permanent resident status for a three year period before being the subject of a report under section 44.”

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Gurmant Grewal Canadian Alliance Surrey Central, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to participate in the report stage debate on the motions in Group No. 2 to amend Bill C-11, an act respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger.

While the bill contains much needed changes to the Canadian immigration system, it also has a series of serious flaws, no matter what the weak Liberal government tries to tell Canadians about the new legislation. It can participate in all the propaganda and sugar coating it wants, but Bill C-11 will not deliver what it intends to deliver without proper enforcement, management and accountability.

Earlier the NDP member from Winnipeg Centre spoke to the first group of amendments. I do not believe he believed in what he said in his speech. The lack of clarity, prudence and real enforcement behind the legislation, despite its wrong tone and content, would ultimately cause more troubles than the legislation it purports to replace.

There is far too much reliance on 89 pages of regulations to interpret the legislation. Much of what is in the regulations could be drafted into the new legislation. The regulations essentially give the minister the option of running the department any way that she or he sees fit. This is not accountability or transparency by government.

The weak Liberal government has a habit of governing not by legislation but by regulations. It not only makes legislation undemocratic but makes it complex and opaque. Being the past co-chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations I can say that with certainty. The regulations cannot be debated in parliament, so I call it governing through the back door.

Let me make it absolutely clear to everyone, including those who have taken the time to watch the debate on TV, that the Canadian Alliance policies are pro-immigration, but we do not want ineffective legislation passed in the House.

The hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River, the hon. member for Blackstrap and I as members of the citizenship and immigration committee attempted to make amendments to make the legislation effective and workable, but the Liberals refused to co-operate. Most of our amendments were rejected by the Liberal dominated committee.

There is history to indicate that the arrogant Liberal government will not accept most opposition amendments to any bill. It has blatantly refused to accept amendments from the opposition to Bill C-7, the youth criminal justice act which we debated a few days ago.

Bill C-11 would replace the 25 year old Immigration Act, 1976. The previous act has been a mess. That is why in many of the constituency offices of MPs major workloads are arising from mismanagement by the department. Sixty to eighty-five per cent of the resources in constituency offices are utilized in many ridings by immigration alone, and that is not fair.

I have difficulty understanding why politicians have to be involved in visitors' visas, for example. MPs are elected by Canadians and represent Canadians, not people in other countries. It should be the responsibility of the immigration officers abroad to make fair decisions, not the politicians but those well-trained immigration officials.

Surprisingly the Liberal candidates, or even the failed candidates, made promises to people to get visitors' visas issued. They should be immediately stopped from making any representations on behalf of Canadians to the immigration officials in our embassies and high commissions abroad. Ministers continue to abuse ministers' permits to oblige their Liberal friends for political support.

In this group there are four amendments.

Motion No. 5, moved by the Canadian Alliance, deals with the inadmissibility clause 34 of the bill. It replaces line (d), “being a danger to the security of Canada” with “being a threat to the security of Canada as defined by section 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act”.

There is no definition of danger or threat to the security of Canada in the act. It is left to the subjective judgment. Therefore, this amendment is very important.

The opinion of those government agencies and officials with expertise in security must be heard and employed. It should not be ministers or politicians who should decide on political lines. The decision should be made by experts, based on facts and logic.

CSIS, RCMP and other law enforcement agencies know who is a risk and who is not a risk. They should be the authority in the area, not the weak Liberal minister.

That is why the finance minister and the international co-operation minister should not have attended the fundraiser by the organization said to be the front for Tamil tigers based on advice from CSIS. That is why this weak Liberal government should not have ordered to shred the report called “Sidewinder” written by a frontline officer, Brian McAdam. He is contacted for advice on security issues by the United States, Australia and many other countries. However, at home the Liberal government applied political pressure and had that report shredded.

Bill C-11 is weak with respect to security risks. It allows for front end security screening, but it only applies to refugees, which in some cases is a physical impossibility. Front end screening does not apply to applicants in general.

The bill promises to deliver better enforcement of security measures for both refugee and immigrant applicants, but there is no plan of action set out in the bill to explain how this will work. No one should be allowed into Canada without proper checks as to his or her risk to the security of our country.

There are no provisions in the bill for improved communications between visa officers, law enforcement and international criminal investigative units. Communication among the RCMP, CSIS and other international criminal investigation units should be mandatory and employed immediately. The auditor general pointed out in his most recent report that this type of communication was imperative. However, without a more open system and a far more communicative department, the bill will not achieve these goals.

We have seen Lai Changxing, the accused kingpin smuggler, land in Canada through queue jumping. He was not detected by the visa officer by even a simple background check. Then there is the example of the fellow who came to Canada with an active case of tuberculosis and exposed some 1500 people to the deadly virus.

Motion No. 6 was also moved by the Canadian Alliance. It deals with loss of status by replacing line 1 in clause 50.

At present, there is no linkage between CSIS and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. Information from SIRC is presently not utilized. CSIS may make mistakes which oversights people's rights. The whole purpose of an appeal may be defeated just because of that. SIRC reviews cases, and it is an oversight committee over CSIS. It could take away power from the minister. Probably that is the reason why many Liberals will not support this. I urge them to look at the merit of the amendment and how effective this will make the bill.

Motions Nos. 7 and 8 were moved by other parties. Motion No. 7 deals with right of appeal. This amendment will delete some clauses and replace some others. Motion No. 8 will add something to clause 64 that a permanent resident would be allowed to state his or her case before being subjected to deportation or refusal of entry, when CIC that saw fit to allow them into Canada in the first place after due processing. These amendments are important.

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Bloc

Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral Bloc Laval Centre, QC

Mr. Speaker, all four motions in Group No. 2 have been put forward by the opposition parties.

I would love to be proven wrong and see at least one of these amendments supported by the Liberal majority. That is how naive I can be on any given Friday.

The first amendment is from the Canadian Alliance. This amendment, which we will support, clarifies the concept of security.

Reference is therefore made to the definition found in the act. I will not say more about this amendment, except to reiterate that we will support it.

The second amendment is also from the Canadian Alliance. However, I do have some reservations about this one.

This bill already involves many stakeholders. Since only a few stays are provided for in the bill, to set up a new committee to examine the merits of an application to stay a removal order has me a bit concerned. So, we will be voting against that amendment.

The third amendment is by far the most important.

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

John Herron Progressive Conservative Fundy Royal, NB

Oh, oh.

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Bloc

Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral Bloc Laval Centre, QC

I would ask the Conservative member to control his enthusiasm.

Motion No. 7 aims at reintroducing what can currently be found in the legislation. Under the present legislation, there are two stages to the removal of a refugee or of a permanent resident to his or her country of origin. The adjudication division is responsible for the removal order, and the appeal division reviews the circumstances of the case.

Under clause 64 of the bill, the decision will be made by the officers, with no possibility that the case be heard by a court of law or an independent tribunal.

Everyone in this beautiful country recognizes the value of our justice system. I find it particularly troubling that a person would be denied the right to appeal a decision that went against his or her expectations.

What I am asking in my amendment is that clause 64 of the bill be deleted in its entirety since it is aimed at denying a protected person or a permanent resident the right to appeal a removal order.

That is the third amendment. Should that amendment be defeated, which is highly unlikely, we will support Motion No. 8 proposed by my colleague from the Conservative Party.

There is still hope.

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

John Herron Progressive Conservative Fundy Royal, NB

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—

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Order, please. It being 1.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

ArmeniaPrivate Members' Business

1:30 p.m.

Liberal

Sarkis Assadourian Liberal Brampton Centre, ON

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should: ( a ) recognize as genocide the killing of 1.5 million innocent Armenian men, women and children in the period 1915 to 1923; ( b ) condemn the genocide of the Armenians and all other acts of genocide as the ultimate act of religious, racial and cultural intolerance; ( c ) recognize the importance of remembering and learning from the mistakes of history; and ( d ) follow the recommendations of the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, in the Second session of the 36th Parliament, regarding the establishment, within one year, of a research facility on genocide.

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to acknowledge the members of the Canadian Armenian community sitting in the gallery, members of the Armenian Cultural Association of Ottawa, His Excellency the Ambassador of the Republic of Armenia and of course His Excellency the Ambassador of the Republic of Turkey. This is not the first time these two ambassadors have come together. On May 28, when we had the independence day celebration, the ambassador of Turkey certainly was a celebrity in the crowd of Armenians. I congratulate him for attending the reception along with the Armenian ambassador.

Before I go further in explaining my motion, I would like to give a historical background of the Armenian nation. Armenians have over 3,000 years of recorded history. As a matter of fact, on May 16, in room 200 of the parliament buildings, the Armenian community celebrated the 1,700th anniversary of Christianity by Canada Post issuing a stamp commemorating that fantastic event.

In the last 2,000 years or so Armenians have had four kingdoms. The last king died in Paris when he went to Europe seeking the help of Christian Europe, so to speak, for the defence of Armenian rights in Asia Minor. Soon after that Armenians lost their independence of their kingdom in a region called Al-Ladhiqiyah, which is located on the northeast corner of the Mediterranean Sea. From the 13th century to the 19th century Armenians had a good relationship, on and off, with their neighbours and communities.

However, in the early 1800s many Armenian intellectuals went to Europe to study and educate themselves further. They went back to Armenia at the end of the Ottoman Empire and asked for the same rights for their fellow Armenians in the region that they had had in Europe. The Red Sultan saw this as a threat. As a result of the activities of the Armenians who were demanding human rights, the Red Sultan decided to initiate the first major massacre of the 19th century, which occurred in 1895 and 1896.

That was followed, in the early stages of World War I in 1915, by what was known as the final solution by the party in Turkey at the time. I should point out that this was before Ataturk came to power in the early 1920s. As a result of the arrest of a group of intellectuals on April 24, 1915, Armenians were deported from their homeland. They were murdered and slaughtered. We acknowledge their murder and slaughter but we do not characterize it as genocide.

In Syria, in the Middle East, there is a town called Deir ez-Zour. Deir ez-Zour is the Auschwitz of the Armenian nation. Everyone knows about Auschwitz, but few people know about Deir ez-Zour, and fewer people yet have been to Deir ez-Zour to see the ruins and the remains of the Armenian nations as they were in 1915 to 1923.

The turning point for Armenian genocide was in 1965, the 50th anniversary of the genocide. At that time, despite the fact that Armenia was part of the U.S.S.R., the Armenian government was brave enough to establish the first genocide memorial in the world. That focused the attention of everyone in the world, especially the Armenians living in Armenia. They go there every year on April 24 to pay their respects to the victims of genocide.

The year 1965 also happened to be a turning point in the diaspora for genocide activities to make sure they were recognized by the world community.

In this country in 1980 the Ontario and Quebec parliaments passed resolutions recognizing the genocide and asked the federal government to follow suit and recognize genocide. I am glad to say I have been involved with this activity since 1965, that is, for the last 35 years. So far our activities have been fruitless in this parliament and other parliaments around the world, but I have to admit that Armenians throughout the world are making progress.

A few years ago a United Nations committee recognized the genocide and what happened to the Armenians. International bodies recognized that what happened to Armenians was genocide. The latest parliament to recognize the Armenian genocide was Italy's. However, the most important thing at this stage is this: I want to acknowledge the national assembly of France, both its lower and upper houses, and the president of France, Mr. Chirac, for France's recognition of the genocide of 1915 and for passing a law. As I understand it, people cannot deny the genocide, just as the Holocaust cannot be denied. People who do can be charged with misrepresenting history.

At this point I would like to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table documents from the French national assembly, the Zorian Institute and the Armenian World Alliance.