Debates of June 4th, 2001

Immigration And Refugee Protection Act

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the proposed motions to amend Bill C-11, the immigration and refugee protection act.

Bill C-11 had a predecessor, namely Bill C-31, introduced during the last parliament, on April 6, 2000.

This is a bill that did not get passed in 2000 for the simple reason that the government decided to call an early election. As a result, more than 400,000 men and women in Canada or elsewhere in the world are still waiting on permanent resident status or permission to come to Canada.

The government has lost a whole year while men and women who view Quebec, for instance, as the promised land where they wish to spend their future, could have been allowed to immigrate to Canada.

The Bloc Quebecois could not disagree with the principle that it was high time to amend the immigration and refugee protection act. This bill allows men and women who qualify as good potential citizens to settle in Canada, while closing the door to all those who, for all manner of reasons, do not and would not have the ability or the right to settle here.

The minister, who described her bill as tough and intended “to close the back door to those who would abuse our generosity—so that we can open the front door wider to the immigrants”, cites fine principles, which we must support. The Bloc Quebecois supports all ideologies aimed at preventing people who are not good citizens from settling in the promised lands of Quebec and Canada.

However, those good citizens in the various parts of the world could still come and enrich our fine country, which has again set as a objective, it must be said, 300,000 new arrivals annually in order to consolidate the fabric of the community affected by the aging of the Canadian population. Canada must see immigration as promising for the future. The objective of 300,000 new arrivals Canada set for itself has never been met.

That means that its immigration policy never met projections or estimates or demands from coalitions made in the course of discussions and dealings with the stakeholders from the various sectors. Finally, it means that the objectives set by the stakeholders, expert and elite, who can represent immigration across Canada, were creditable, but I repeat, Canada has never met its objective. In 2000, barely two-thirds of the objective of 300,000 new arrivals was met. All this to say that it is time we made a major amendment to the immigration and refugee protection act.

With regard to the motions tabled by our wise member colleagues, there are three I would like to comment on. They are the motions in Group No. 2, but I would like to return to the motions in Groups Nos. 1 and 3 as well. I would, by this, like to have the members understand the ideology and philosophy that should underlie any legislative amendment to legislation as important as that on immigration.

With this bill, we should always keep in mind a fundamental principle, namely the principle of coercion, concentration and discussion that has always guided previous amendments to the Immigration Act. All the stakeholders must be given a real opportunity to discuss things together. This is why critical work was done in committee to support the amendments that were tabled regarding this bill.

Motion No. 2 tabled by the hon. member for Laval Centre deals with clause 5(4) of the bill, which would allow the governor in council to make the regulation at any time after the proposed regulation has been laid before each House of parliament. The bill does not include all the components of the important immigration host system or program. This bill does not explain all the host programs. Regulations have been and will continue to be tabled from time to time to improve this legislation.

Regulations are adopted to improve existing acts. Clause 5(4) would allow the governor in council to make or approve regulations that were tabled in the House without first having been reviewed in committee. I can only agree with the hon. member for Laval Centre on this matter. The bill was considered in committee and it has already been the object of a major debate during the last parliament, as Bill C-31.

We have trouble seeing why the governor in council is being allowed to approve regulations tabled directly in the House, without prior discussion in committee, as in the past. I therefore support Motion No. 2 moved by the member for Laval Centre.

I hope that members will understand that the purpose of legislation as important as the Immigration Act must be debated. All stakeholders, all those who have made immigration as important as it is in Canada, must be allowed to continue their work in a climate of consensus. That is the purpose.

The consensus is there. All parties in the House are agreed that they do not want bad citizens settling in Canada, but they do want Canada to reach its objective of taking in 300,000 new arrivals annually, which it has yet to do.

What we therefore need is legislation which will create a climate conducive to consensus and discussion so that immigration may play its rightful role in our society.

As for Motion No. 5, moved by the Canadian Alliance member for Surrey Central, not only must there be the consensus to which I referred in my speech on Motion No. 2, but we must ensure that bad citizens are not allowed into Canada. I think that this is a view shared by all Canadians and recognized by all parties in the House.

Paragraph 34(1)( d ) of the bill mentions:

34.(1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on security grounds for d ) being a danger to the security of Canada;

Obviously the word danger is open to interpretation. Our colleague from Surrey Central submits that it might be worthwhile to replace this wording with the following: d ) being a threat to the security of Canada—

Section 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act provides a definition of threats to the security of Canada. Examples are provided, such as espionage or sabotage, foreign influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada, activities in support of acts of violence. These definitions are far more specific than the single word danger, which can lead to serious confusion.

I will close with a brief discussion of Motion No. 9 from my colleague the hon. member for Laval Centre. The purpose of her motion is to put an end to the interminable delays in processing new arrivals in Canada. As a result of these delays, the provinces often have to meet the costs of supporting people who are already on Canadian territory or, in the case of Quebec, on Quebec territory.

Hon. members must understand that all of us here in this House should support Motion No. 9, which will make it possible to reduce the long delays involved in examining people's status as immigrants to Canada.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to speak to Bill C-11, the immigration and refugee protection act.

This is a very important matter for me. I have been interested in it for a number of years, because I sit on the board of the Greater Montreal United Way. We manage assistance for agencies providing help to refugees and immigrants. We know that each is treated in much the same way. Often problems related to the arrival of refugees impact the way we look at immigration.

As my colleague for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel said, legislation adapted to the new realities of Canada and Quebec and the world as a whole is most welcome. The environment has hugely changed the pressures of population movements that are a part of globalization. It is not said often enough, but the arrival in numbers not only in Canada but in all western countries of persons from southern countries is part of the globalization process we speak of daily.

This is an extremely important bill. It is also a bill that calls on the most fundamental values shared by Quebecers and Canadians and that reflects a commitment to international solidarity.

All members will agree that our primary concern with this bill must be to show extreme generosity toward those who, for reasons having to do with their political opinion, sexual orientation or religion, must leave their country to save their lives and those of their loved ones.

This commitment to international solidarity must transcend our concerns when we review Bill C-11. This is particularly important for Quebec and Quebecers, because, as we know Quebec welcomes more than its fair share of refugees on a per capita basis, and we are proud of that.

At the same time, we must, as members representing Quebec's interests, remind this House that there are major costs involved. Quebec must pay some $80 million to provide the necessary assistance to refugees even though this is a federal jurisdiction.

In this respect, Motion No. 9, to which the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel referred and which was moved by the hon. member for Laval Centre, is an absolute priority for us.

Indeed, the system must be much more efficient, not only for administrative reasons, but also for reasons that relate to international solidarity and to which I referred. We need to create the proper environment to make the system much more efficient.

This brings me to a third point. When we talk about efficiency, we must think about the rigour with which we should deal with refugee and immigration issues in general, to admit to Canada and Quebec people who not only have refugee status, but who also meet immigration requirements. We must be able to prevent undesirables from entering Canada and Quebec. This rigour must not mean that the federal government can get around providing appropriate resources to administer the act.

Motion No. 9 deals with this issue.

The proposed legislation could be extremely rigorous, extremely comprehensive with respect to this obligation to show solidarity, this obligation to ensure the safety of residents of Canada and of Quebec, but the government's primary concern in introducing Bill C-11 must not be to make this bill as repressive as possible in order to keep refugees out of Canada and to try to economize on the necessary resources.

In this regard, I think it is extremely important to remind the federal government, the Liberal government, that additional resources are needed to implement any legislation, although I do agree that this legislation must be rigorously enforced.

There is one final point I wish to make before looking at the individual motions. It is clear that the government's wish to introduce this bill is also motivated by a certain pressure from our neighbours to the south, whose view of this obligation to show solidarity towards refugees perhaps differs from that of Canadians and Quebecers.

I would not want decisions taken in the House to be coloured by this desire to comply with our American neighbours, as has unfortunately been the case in various connections in recent months.

In fact, we have noticed a certain anxiousness on the part of the government to comply with pressures that had less to do with public opinion in Canada or in Quebec than they had to do with public opinion in the United States or with what the U.S. government wanted. The missile defence shield, the energy agreement, and so forth, are just a few examples that come to mind.

I therefore think it extremely important that our concerns not be allowed to overshadow our obligation to show solidarity, that the necessary resources be made available to enforce the legislation, and that the toughness of the legislation reflect our values and needs, not those of our neighbours to the south.

It is in that context that the Bloc Quebecois views Motion No. 5, for example, as extremely important in order to better define what constitutes a threat to the security of Canada. As we have mentioned already, we feel that section 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act would be a good basis for defining what is a threat to the security of Canada.

In that law, the definition includes espionage, sabotage, activities detrimental to the interests of Canada, activities in support of the threat of acts of serious violence and activities intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow of the constitutionally established system of government in Canada.

It is clear that those activities would indeed constitute threats to the security of Canada. However, it is also clear that people who defend causes in their countries, who protest or show their disagreement with policy directions, who are doing it democratically whenever possible and with a will to resolve problems peacefully, should not be covered by that definition. In our opinion, the universal charter of human rights should be respected in the spirit of the legislation.

Therefore, we feel that a much clearer and more specific definition of the concept of threat to the security of Canada is absolutely necessary for this legislation to be applied to the fullest extent, but without arbitrariness and most of all without injustice toward people who, in all good faith, defend a cause with which we sometimes are in agreement.

In the same spirit, while we agree with the motion and the amendment to more clearly define through the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act the concept of threat against the security of Canada, we disagree with the idea that the Security Intelligence Review Committee would be the organization that should make recommendations to this effect. We question the appropriateness of involving the SIRC review committee in this regard.

I would like to focus mostly on Motion No. 7, proposed by my colleague from Laval Centre. Its purpose is to maintain a level of appeal for people who have been refused refugee status or admission into Canada on grounds of serious crime, security, violation of human rights or organized crime.

As we know, the present act provides for two stages. When the adjudication division takes expulsion proceedings, an appeal division can hear the arguments that the refugee or the permanent resident might make to challenge the decision. In our opinion, it is very important that this level of appeal be maintained. In this sense, clause 64 of the bill must be removed entirely. Once again, I feel that through clause 64 the government is trying to hide the lack of resources to apply the bill that will eventually be passed by invoking administrative reasons and removing a level of appeal.

In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois hopes that Bill C-11 will be amended to respond to the real values of Quebecers and Canadians.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the speaker from the Bloc Party expressing concerns about a number of the amendments shows that if members in this hon. House have so many concerns about the legislation, undoubtedly there are a number of flaws in it.

I want to concentrate on clause 64 and the amendment suggested to it. Perhaps first we should ask what does Bill C-11 do in relation to appeals for permanent residents?

Bill C-11 as it is denies an appeal for permanent residents if they are subject of a report under section 44. Permanent residents can be deported without an appeal or without consideration of their circumstances as a result of a single criminal sentence.

I know it is hard sometimes for people to have patience. We say that people who come into the country should live by the laws and rules of the country. If they do not and they break the law, then they should be expected to pay the price. However, every court in the land has an appeal process. It is only fair that, regardless of how serious perhaps the offence is, at least the person should have the right to an appeal, because no one ever knows what might come up in the appeals process that will throw an entirely different light upon the case itself.

Even if they have lived here since infancy or whether they have been here for 20, 30 or 50 years, immigration officers will be solely responsible for making the decision as to whether deportation of these permanent residents is appropriate. Again, it is an awful onus or pressure to put on immigration officers of having the sole responsibility of deciding whether or not these people should be deported.

Once that decision is made, the wheels of enforcement turn and there is no review of that officer's discretionary decision. For all the talk from the department that these decisions are taken seriously, that they are serious decisions and that there will be safeguards to prevent inappropriate deportation for long term residents, the legislation provides no such safeguard at all.

We are reminded sometimes of the statement “I am from government, trust me”. That is basically what is being said here, that we should not worry about it because there will be no problem. If the legislation does not give any protection, then I am afraid we are depending, as is said, on a rotten stick.

When the department speaks of an adjudicator making a tribunal decision and the subsequent possibility of judicial review, it is only with respect to whether the permanent resident has the necessary conviction and sentence. There is no jurisdiction for the tribunal or the federal court to look behind the decision to proceed with enforcement. That is what has been lost by taking away the appeal jurisdiction, one of the most fundamentally important parts of Bill C-11.

While it may be necessary to remove individuals since they have reneged on the responsibilities that come with having status in Canada, we must for reasons of fundamental justice give them a real appeal opportunity. That is what the amendment asks. Despite the fact that once they cross that line they know what lies ahead, they should in all fairness have at least an appeal.

I believe in 1985 the Singh case set out the importance of the oral appeal and said that people should not be deprived of the rights to have their case heard. Canada prides itself on being a land not only that accepts immigrants. In fact, our country has been built because of people who have come from all over the world, settled here and have contributed so much. We also realize there are people who come here, break the law and must pay the consequence. Being the fair and honest government that we are, the type of free country where we feel everyone is equal, the least we could do for someone is to give him or her an appeal.

What the amendment suggests in this case is that the appeal rights shall be given to all permanent resident who have maintained permanent resident status for a three year period before being subject of report under section 44. The three year period is chosen in order to be consistent with the length of time one must be a permanent resident before applying for Canadian citizenship. Therefore, if within that three year period someone breaks the law, he or she then should at least have the right to an oral appeal.

There is a lot of good stuff in the bill, like most bills, but there are also some weaknesses. In passing legislation that is going to determine how we will treat immigrants coming to the country and how we treat immigrants who will be deported from the country, the least we should do is make sure the legislation is proper and that laws and rules apply in the spirit of the type of country Canada really is.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure I rise to speak to Bill C-11. As the Chair can see by the interest of our party, this is a very serious issue with respect to immigration and the bill now before us. I am pleased to have the opportunity to echo some of the comments made by our critic from Fundy—Royal who has had the carriage of this bill, as well as others like the member for St. John's East.

Bill C-11 is a very important piece of legislation. As I mentioned earlier, my colleague from Fundy—Royal spoke to the salient points. However, it is important that we identify a couple of major issues in the legislation, which are necessary to bring forward because Canadians as a whole must recognize there are some deficiencies. The government itself has not seen fit to change some of those deficiencies in the legislation. Going forward with Bill C-11 as it is now is not going to resolve all of the issues with respect to immigration.

The first issue is with respect to the refugee status. We recognize it in the legislation. The refugee board itself will be reduced in numbers. There will be an adjudicator. Let us see this in proper perspective.

An individual from outside the boundaries of this great country of Canada who wishes to apply for refugee status makes a presentation, not to an adjudication board but simply to one person. That is not to say that the individual will not give full concentration to that one application, but a judgmental decision will be made. One person listening to an applicant in some instances may not hear the full story or may not be apprised of all the issues, may make a decision based upon the judgment of the day, and perhaps the applicant was not as forthcoming as that one individual should have been.

Mistakes can be made. At that point the applicant unfortunately has no further appeal process. The applicant is then told that he or she no longer can file for refugee status in Canada and must go back to the country of origin.

At that point in time the adjudicator in this particular case may be sending an individual back to a circumstance that may well be a matter of life and death. There are other countries in the world that do not appreciate human rights as much and as well as we do in this country. We are perhaps sentencing this particular individual to life or non-life at that point.

It is important that there be another appeal process aside from the adjudication itself. That appeal process is there but it is only a paper appeal. When a paper appeal and not a verbal appeal is made, it is forwarded to the department and we do not know who in the department will be making the final decision.

My party is suggesting that if we are to go through this process we should allow the applicant to make an appeal in person. We never know what types of information or omissions were not given initially to the adjudicator. It is now only one person, not a board of three as before. Let us have the opportunity to make a verbal appeal to the department. It is a simple change that our party feels would enhance the legislation.

My second point deals with the clause that suggests that if a crime is being committed or has been committed and an individual who has landed immigrant status is accused and sentenced for that crime, it is immediate that the individual must then be deported back to the country of origin.

Let us walk through this closely. We all know the process of immigration in this country. People from all over the world have an opportunity to come to Canada. Once they have been given landed immigrant status they have the opportunity to work, raise their families and educate their children. They contribute to the community and to the taxation system of the country. They can do that as a landed immigrant for as many years as they wish.

A landed immigrant can make an application to become a Canadian citizen after living in Canada for three years. If I were a landed immigrant I would make sure that after three years I would make such an application to become a citizen, but others do not. They decide for a lot of good reasons to simply retain their landed immigrant status. People could in fact be landed immigrants for 20 to 30 years and contribute to our society in any number of ways but should they be charged and convicted of a crime after 20 years they could be deported because they are not Canadian citizens.

Our party says that if a crime is committed there have to be consequences, but we also believe that after three years as a landed immigrant, which is the timeline that it would normally take to make an application to become a Canadian citizen, an individual should have the opportunity to appeal. We are simply talking about fairness and equality. People who have been here and in fact have been Canadian citizens in everything but name only should have the opportunity to appeal their case. We are talking about human beings. We are talking about people, families and children who should have rights when they come to our borders and want to become members of our society.

I speak with some passion to the immigration laws. I suspect most members in the House would be able to point to the fact that I would not be here if it were not for the immigration rules of this country when my grandfather immigrated here from another culture. If he had not been allowed to come to this country, I would not have had the opportunity to stand in the House today as a representative in the parliament of this great country.

I thank the House for allowing me to speak to Bill C-11. There should have been an opportunity to make it better. Our job as parliamentarians is to make bills better and to make the best legislation possible so the people who we serve have the best opportunities.

[Joe Fontana, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by some members of the PC caucus. The member for Fundy—Royal was an active member of the committee and worked very closely with all members of the committee in a very co-operative way. The issue I wish to comment on has to do with the appeal rights of landed immigrants who have been in this country for a number of years

If in fact there was a serious criminality charge which caused a two year sentence, I want to assure the House that not only did we hear representations but the committee discussed this at some length. We did not take the issue lightly at all. The member who just spoke made the point that permanent residents who have been in this country for a great number of years may or may not choose to become Canadian citizens, that it is their decision. They are obviously fully engaged in Canadian society as they pay taxes, have families, have homes and so on. Therefore there is an attachment.

I believe there are a number of mechanisms before such a permanent resident would be removed from the country because of the serious criminality issue and they should be brought to the House for consideration. The committee took the issue very seriously, debated it and discussed it to ensure that some of the things that have been mentioned would be taken into account. The removal of permanent residents, regardless of whether they have been here for 3 years, 20 years or 25 years, and the significance and the attachment they have to this country should be taken into account.

I want to ensure that the House understands that while the amendment was worthy of consideration in committee deliberations and is worthy of consideration by the House, the decision to remove a permanent resident under those circumstances would not to be taken lightly. The bill would ensure that these removal orders were issued by an independent adjudicator of the IRB at an admissibility hearing. It would not be made by an immigration officer who would immediately move on a permanent resident who had been sentenced for more than two years. There would be a hearing of some sort by the IRB where the issue would be dealt with.

I should also indicate that before the referral to the IRB a CIC senior official would consider personal circumstances such as family ties and attachment to the cultural language of their home country. If people have been here for 15 or 20 years and for some reason, based on a serious criminality charge, they may be sent back to their home country, that home country may not have an attachment to them. They may have been here as children and yet not as Canadian citizens. Therefore we should take into account whether or not there is any cultural language attachment to their home country.

It is important to look at the immigration status and the length of time in Canada, as well as the type and nature of the crime. As we know, in the judiciary there is flexibility. A two year sentence may in fact be a little different for some other crime. We would look to see if the crime was of a violent nature. That must also be taken into account.

The final decision to send the report to the immigration division would be taken by a senior official to ensure that all factors have been given due consideration. In other words, it would be someone at the senior level. Once they look at the permanent residence, the sentence that they have received, the personal attachment and the value that they have to this country then the official would take this issue under full consideration.

I should mention that the IRB's decision is subject to judicial review. If the judicial review upholds the removal order there would still be the opportunity to seek ministerial authorization to remain in Canada for humanitarian and compassionate reasons. The member for Fundy—Royal wanted to make sure that the IRB decision did have judicial review, that its decision would not be taken lightly and that it would be done by senior officials of CIC. He also wanted to make sure the minister could ultimately review a case under humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

The amendment speaks to how we could ensure that permanent residents are protected and the value they have given to this country would not be taken lightly. We have built in mechanisms that would not allow us to simply remove them from Canada on the basis of a charge without looking at their total contribution to Canada.

We sometimes wonder about the value of citizenship. As has been indicated, 80% of people who come to Canada move toward citizenship within three years. Why should people become Canadian citizens? These individuals realize that permanent residency does have status but citizenship offers more protection under the laws of Canada.

Everyone knows that we cannot deport citizens. Based on the bill, we may be able to remove permanent residents who have committed serious crimes or who have violated human rights and so on. In the past people did not want to make a decision as to whether or not they needed to give up their citizenship in their home country when they came to Canada. In one way this sends a message to those people that there is greater value to citizenship and that they ought to look at the additional protection they have as citizens of Canada.

Safeguards have been built into the system by the hard work of the minister, the committee and the member for Fundy—Royal. There is value to permanent residency. We cannot just throw people out of the country if they run afoul of the law.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the report stage amendments to Bill C-11 which have been spoken to previously by other members of our Conservative caucus and addressed very thoroughly by our critic for immigration, the member for Fundy—Royal.

We are discussing something that, quite frankly, I am surprised we would be discussing in this time, place and century. I am referring to the deportation of Canadian citizens. I fail to understand the logic behind deporting an individual to the country they came from who has declined to take out Canadian citizenship even though that person has been in Canada for 25, 30, 40 or even 50 years.

I have many friends and family members who have been permanent residents of Canada for 25 or 30 years. They pay taxes and enjoy all the rights and privileges of a Canadian citizen except that they cannot hold public office. That is the only difference.

Somehow we will say that an individual, after residing in the country 30, 40 or 50 years, does not have the same rights as any other Canadian. Rather than sending them to prison for a criminal offence should they commit one, we would deport them to a country they may no longer have ties with. That is not what being Canadian is about. It is certainly not what I have always thought being Canadian is about.

Amendment and appeal rights would be given to all who have maintained permanent resident status for a three year period before being the subject of a report under clause 44. We have chosen a three year period to be consistent with the length of time one must be a permanent resident before applying for Canadian citizenship. That to me is a straightforward, plain speaking, very smart amendment to this piece of legislation.

We are not trying to be flippant or frivolous. We are not saying that one is given permanent resident status one day and deported the next. We are saying that someone who has been here for three years has some rights of citizenship even if he or she has not applied for citizenship status.

However it takes away from the issue of permanent residents who have been here for 20 years. There are not hundreds of them out there; there are thousands. I would dare say that there are hundreds of thousands. I do not expect that all of them will commit criminal offences. However should that happen, surely in this nation and at this period in our history we would not deport them to a country to which they no longer have ties.

What would Bill C-11 do? As it is, Bill C-11 would deny an appeal to permanent residents who are the subject of a report under clause 44, which I just mentioned. As a result of a single criminal sentencing, permanent residents could be deported without appeal and without consideration of their circumstances. I do not think anyone in this place is trying to justify criminal behaviour. However under the law as we embrace it every Canadian has a right to appeal.

I would further that by saying every permanent resident who has been here longer than three years has a right to appeal. It is a fundamental tenet of Canadian justice that if someone is accused of a crime or even sentenced for a crime then he or she has a right to appeal the judgment. I am not a lawyer and do not pretend to be. However that is a fundamental tenet of fair play and justice. We should surely be no stranger to that in the House.

This would include people who have lived here since infancy, which may be for 20, 30, 40 or 50 years. Immigration officers would be solely responsible for deciding whether deportation of permanent residents is appropriate. Many permanent residents have children who were born in Canada and are Canadian citizens even though the parents may not have obtained Canadian citizenship because, quite frankly, they do not need to. They can enjoy all the fruits and benefits of Canadian society except for and precluding the holding of public office.

Those are the rules as we have defined and made them. To say that people can be deported without the right of appeal because they have been sentenced to a crime is surely a mistake. Once the decision is made the wheels of enforcement turn and there is no review of the officer's discretionary decision.

For all the talk of the department that the decisions are taken seriously and that there will be safeguards to prevent the inappropriate deportation of long term residents, the legislation does not provide those safeguards. The legislation speaks of the possibility of safeguards but there is no safeguard.

I am amazed when the department speaks of an adjudicator making the tribunal decision and of the subsequent possibility of judicial review. It is only with respect to whether the permanent resident's conviction and sentence were proper. We are not appealing it. We are not taking a second look at it. We are asking if it is correct.

There is no jurisdiction for the tribunal or the federal court to look behind the decision to proceed with enforcement. What has been lost by taking away the appeal division's jurisdiction is one of the most fundamentally important parts of Bill C-11. While it may be necessary to remove individuals who renege on the responsibilities that come with having status in Canada, and specifically Canadian citizenship, for reasons of fundamental justice we need to give them a real opportunity to appeal.

That does not take away from the importance of recognizing that a country should have the ability to deport residents who are not citizens. However we need to take into account that there is a difference between someone who has been here three or four years and someone who has been here thirty or forty years. We need to rethink whether we are back in the days of Britain when they sent their convicts to Australia. Is that where we have gone?

Will deportation all of a sudden be one of the chief tenets of the Canadian justice system? Can we deport people because they have committed crimes? Let us take a look at what the crime is.

[Joe Fontana, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

A serious crime.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

What is a serious crime? There is too much leeway in the bill. It gives the final say to review officers who may not have the clear credentials to make these decisions. It does this without appeal. It seems to me, based on the tenets of Canadian society as I understand them, that is not the Canadian way.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to be on the record on this piece of legislation. I come from a downtown urban riding in Toronto where immigration matters represent a large amount of my constituency work. I like the member's amendment. I too believe that someone who has spent 25 or 30 years of his or her life in Canada is virtually Canadian and should be treated as such.

In my riding I have a lot of people from different communities. When these people initially came to Canada their facility with the language was such that they were almost apprehensive in approaching the department of immigration to put their personal files in order. For the last number of years they have been hard working, constructive Canadians in every way, shape or form except for that piece of paper.

We must remember that 40 years ago, when Toronto had a large influx of people from every part of the world, it was not an uncommon experience. In those days there was such fear of dealing with the Government of Canada that we had mobile citizenship vans. We would send public servants and judges out into the community to try to lower the apprehension of Canadians so they would come forward and put their personal files in order. I am hoping our colleagues on this side of the House can rethink that section of the legislation.

We are in the final days of this session of parliament before we go back to work in our constituencies for the summer. I would bring to the attention of not only members of the House but officials in the department of immigration, not just in Ottawa but in every region of the country and every embassy around the world, the important world youth days event which the department of immigration will be dealing with next summer.

The department will begin preparing for world youth days as we take our break this summer. As of the middle of July the world youth days website will be receiving information from registrants from every country on the planet.

One of the very special initiatives under the leadership of the current minister of immigration was that for the first time ever we have had a visa waiver fee for an event like this one. It was a decision of the whole House of Commons to support this important initiative. It will bring a million plus young people between the ages of 16 and 30 to Canada, to Toronto, where all will celebrate the values of sharing and caring for each other. The House of Commons supported the notion that a visa waiver fee be put in place.

I know that when a bill like this one is on the floor of the House officials monitor and read the proceedings. I would say not only to all members but to everyone in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration that it is a very special moment for Canada when we can reach out to young people from every part of the world and welcome them to our country.

Quite often the experience people have when they go into an embassy or are interviewed by an immigration officer can set the tone for how they feel toward Canada, their place of destiny. Many of these young people will be coming abroad for their first time to a strange country and it will be very important that our officials abroad make them feel they are welcome in Canada.

I would say to all members of the House that over the last two months the support and execution of this project have been very special.

We will be celebrating the principles stated in the summary of the bill in Toronto next July. I want not only to participate in debate on the bill but also to say that we need to review the section that deals with retroactivity. I ask for the indulgence of the House to support all immigration officials that will be asking for counsel on this special event.

As far as Citizenship and Immigration Canada goes, it will be the largest processing event in the history of the country. It will be five times the size of the Olympics, should we be blessed with the Olympics in the middle of July. They at least have seven years to plan it. We in the House, along with all the various departments, have a year. I appreciate being given the opportunity to put these thoughts on the record.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The question is on Motion No. 5. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 6. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

All those opposed will please say nay.