House of Commons Hansard #71 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was refugees.

Topics

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 7. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

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

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

All those opposed will please say nay.

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

The recorded division on Motion No. 7 stands deferred.

I will now put the motions in Group No. 3 to the House.

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Bloc

Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral Bloc Laval Centre, QC

moved:

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-11 be amended by adding after line 19 on page 41 the following new clause:

“95.1 The Minister shall assume the social and medical costs of refugee claimants as of the ninetieth day after the day of the claim and until a decision is made in respect of that claim.”

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

John Herron Progressive Conservative Fundy Royal, NB

moved:

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-11, in Clause 101, be amended by adding after line 15 on page 44 the following:

“(1.1) Subparagraph (1)( b ) does not apply and a claim for refugee protection shall be referred to the Refugee Protection Division for a new determination where: a ) the relevant circumstances of the claimant have changed since a previous determination; or b ) specific circumstances prevented part of the evidence from being presented during a previous determination.”

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Bloc

Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral Bloc Laval Centre, QC

moved:

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-11, in Clause 112, be amended by replacing lines 6 to 8 on page 51 with the following:

“Canada for an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years;”

Mr. Speaker, I recognize my colleague's usual courtesy. They want me to be the first one to talk. We are now discussing the third group of amendments accepted by the Chair to improve Bill C-11. I am forced to admit that the government is convinced that Bill C-11 is nothing short of perfect.

However, this is not what we heard when we went to the big cities that receive immigrants and refugees. Ninety-nine per cent of those involved said that people are very concerned about how this act will be applied, even more so because there are no regulations associated with the act. Regulations will be drafted later on.

Fortunately, we managed to obtain that the bill would stipulate that the regulations will be tabled in the House and referred to a committee. It is a start. However, as for the amendment that the government should not adopt any regulations before obtaining an opinion, it seems that it has not been accepted since the governor in council will have the power to give effect to the regulations as soon as they are tabled.

There are three amendments in the last group, since one was not accepted. The first amendment, the one I am proposing, is designed to put pressure on the Liberal government.

We know that it takes a lot of time to deal with refugee cases. People have complained about it. Some refugee claimants have to wait for months and sometimes for years before they know where they stand.

I think the federal government is like most people: a bit of pressure helps. If no decision has been made on a claim 90 days after it has been filed, my amendment would require the federal government to assume the social and medical costs.

We know that Quebec is generous. Members need only look at the number of people who decide to live in Quebec when they claim refugee status. It is clear that the future mirrors the past.

However, on the one hand, we hear the minister say that the process should be more rapid and, on the other, the measures in the bill include, for example, the elimination of the appeal or a second refugee claim. We might also need a penalty of some kind. When a contractor does not abide by a contract, there are penalties. Essentially, that is what we are suggesting, a kind of penalty for the government.

I also tend to agree with the second amendment, which has been moved by my Progressive Conservative colleague. He proposes that part of the bill not apply and that a claim for refugee protection “be referred to the Refugee Protection Division for a new determination where the relevant circumstances of the claimant have changed since a previous determination, or specific circumstances prevented part of the evidence from being presented during a previous determination”.

I do not think it will be hard for me to convince hon. members that an individual's circumstances can change very rapidly. We have recently learned of the terrible shooting in Nepal, which wiped out the entire royal family. What is going to happen there now? We do not know, but a week ago things in Nepal were relatively quiet, according to our viewpoint from this side of the world. This is therefore a recognition that, in the real world, individuals' circumstances can change dramatically. The amendment by my hon. colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party is aimed at acknowledging this.

Can we believe that the government is going to support this amendment? If it does what it usually does, I think it will say no. That is its specialty, moreover. If one is convinced that what one already has is total perfection, why say yes to any changes? Yet we are told that the purpose of the opposition in a debate is to improve bills. That is all very fine on paper, but in reality we have trouble proving it.

The last amendment I presented is what certain of my Liberal colleagues would term a cosmetic amendment. It is not really that, for it states as follows: b ) is determined to be inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality with respect to a conviction in Canada for an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years;

The bill speaks of a term of imprisonment of at least ten years, but here we are speaking of a maximum term of imprisonment of at least ten years. Hon. members will grasp the difference. To us it is a very important one, as we do not, of course, want to keep major criminals in this country, yet we do believe that a minimum of justice needs to be applied, and that the terms must be clear. Amendment No. 12 is intended as a clarification to clause 112(3)( b ).

Clearly, Bill C-12 is going to be passed before the summer recess. It is also clear that summer in the House of Commons will begin before June 21. I think it a great shame that this is preventing us as parliamentarians and as individuals from taking decisions which could make the Immigration Act, which, let us remember, is already 25 years old, this being its first overhaul, a piece of legislation whose purpose would truly be to help hundreds of thousands of people, many thousands of families. Yet the government wants to pass the bill as is.

I find this disturbing. One wonders whether the government listened to the various stakeholders who shared their views with the committee. The people who appeared before us are competent individuals.

Those who testified included the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Council for Refugees. We also heard from academics, researchers, and community groups, who are daily trying to meet the basic needs of people who have applied for refugee status, immigrants who are arriving in a new environment and who need help in getting properly settled in Canada and in Quebec.

It is as though the government had decided, from its lofty perch, that all these fine people knew nothing, had seen nothing, and were incapable of analyzing a situation or showing any logic.

If this bill is any indication, logic which is coupled with a sense of humanity must frustrate this government. We on the opposition benches believe strongly in logic, but we believe just as strongly in a sense of humanity, generosity and openness to the world at large.

It is not too late. If, by chance, the government were to pass the 11 amendments under consideration today, that would already be a step forward. Right now, I will not be able to take such a step. I must take my seat.

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

That is one way of putting it.

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Liberal

Joe Fontana Liberal London North Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I want to apologize. I think that last week I might have referred to the member as being from Laval East or Laval West. I want to make sure that it is Laval Centre and she is in the centre politically also.

Before she leaves the Chamber I want to give her some good news. The government will support her Motion No. 12, her amendment, because we believe that the motion introduced by the member is a technical amendment to ensure that serious criminality as defined in this section of the bill is consistent with serious criminality as defined in subclause 36(1). We believe that this amendment does not change the definition of serious criminality or substantively alter the amendment made by the standing committee to this clause, because again the member will know that we have discussed this issue beforehand.

We appreciate the fact that the amendment made by the member for Laval Centre further clarifies the government's intent. We are prepared to approve it, just as we have seen in committee when the member for Fundy—Royal came up with a good amendment and we approved it, and the Alliance critic's, so the committee has been very open.

I want to make one final comment as it relates to what the member for Laval Centre talked about in terms of Canada being generous and compassionate. I want to reiterate what I think all the members of the committee heard. Throughout the country all of our witnesses were proud of the country's heritage, of its proud culture and proud historical contribution toward Canada's generosity in terms of refugee protection around the world. Ours is one of four countries in the world that takes in refugees, is compassionate and understanding of their persecution, of their plight, sometimes in their countries. Our country is one of the most generous on a per capita basis of the number of refugees.

The bill continues to talk about Canada's historical record, about the fact that we believe that Canada has a part to play in trying to resettle some refugees who are being persecuted, around the world. The bill will make it easier for refugees to be processed through the system.

There are a number of changes in Bill C-11 that will allow for quicker adjudication and decision making by single panel refugee board members, by ensuring that the system works really well, especially for those who are in limbo. We have heard of cases where people are still here after eight or nine years but because of documentation problems or a number of different situations they cannot be permanent residents even though they have been given refugee protection. There have been some very positive amendments put forward on Bill C-11 which will make the situation a lot better than it is today.

I also want to tell the member for Laval Centre that the committee has moved on the issue of rehearing a denied refugee claim where there are changed circumstances. Perhaps there was violence in the relationship but the woman could not bring it forward during an IRB hearing because her spouse was there and she was afraid. We have made it possible, thanks to the good work of the committee, to ensure that those facts are reheard by the IRB. While it is not a revolving door or a second kick at the can in terms of a second appeal or a second refugee claim, we appreciate that sometimes there are circumstances that could not be brought up in the first hearing, and under the bill, those changed circumstances would be heard.

I would hope that the member for Laval Centre as well as my other colleagues on the committee appreciate that some of their hard work is found in the amendments to Bill C-11 that they and members of the government have proposed.

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Gurmant Grewal Canadian Alliance Surrey Central, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to participate in the report stage debate, Group No. 3, on Bill C-11, an act respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection. I will address my remarks with respect to the four motions in the bill.

Motion No. 9 in regard to the refugee protection section of the bill is a Bloc amendment. It adds new clause 95.1, which states:

The Minister shall assume the social and medical costs of refugee claimants as of the ninetieth day after the day of the claim and until a decision is made in respect of that claim.

Since social and medical costs are under provincial jurisdiction and immigration is under federal jurisdiction, and because of the federal government's mismanagement of the refugee claims and the inefficient refugee claim process, why should the provinces bear the cost? It seems logical, even though the separatist Bloc member may have meant to show patriotism toward Quebec, but it is not fair to assume that the provinces can afford the entire cost of relocation and the medical expenses of refugees who are not yet permanent residents, landed immigrants or citizens.

The Canadian Alliance, through our chief critic for immigration, the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River, moved the amendment that the minister shall consult with the municipality with respect to resettlement for immigrants and integration programs where applicable. This amendment was not accepted by the Liberal government's immigration committee.

The government should be encouraging open and accountable discussion among CIC, Health Canada, HRDC and DFAIT as well as the provinces and the non-government organizations related to immigration. Rather than a co-operative approach, the arrogant, weak Liberal government always uses a confrontational approach with the provinces and territories. We should work with the provinces for policies on the settlement of immigrants. The Liberals are again are missing that opportunity in the bill.

In regard to Motion No. 10, in the convention refugee and persons in need of protection clause, this Tory amendment will add, after the end of paragraph 1 of clause 101:

—Subparagraph (1)(b) does not apply—

That is a claim for protection by the claimant has been rejected by the board.

—and a claim for refugee protection shall be referred to the Refugee Protection Division for a new determination where:

(a) the relevant circumstances of the claimant have changed since a previous determination; or

(b) specific circumstances prevented part of the evidence from being presented during a previous determination.

In fact, new evidence should be one of the very few grounds to create a new hearing.

In Motion No. 11 the Tory amendment again deals with procedure for appeal to the refugee appeal division. In subclause 110(3) it proposes to delete the following the refugee appeal division shall proceed without a hearing, on the basis of the record of the proceedings of the refugee protection division, and may accept written submissions from the minister, the person. Then the clause continues. The amendment proposes to replace that with the refugee appeal division may proceed with a hearing where new evidence may be introduced, the record of the proceedings of the refugee protection division is used, and submissions may be made by the minister, the person. Then the clause continues.

The original clause supports a closed system and hinders the accountability and fairness of the act. This amendment will make the procedure allow a hearing to introduce new evidence instead of disallowing the hearing based on the record of proceedings of the refugee protection division.

The bill does not respect rule of law. Many witnesses, even including lawyers, told the committee that.

Motion No. 12 is a Bloc amendment that deals with pre-removal risk assessment. Under protection in paragraph 112(3)(b), the bill states:

(3) Refugee protection may not result from an application for protection if the person

(b) is determined to be inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality with respect to a conviction in Canada punished by a term of imprisonment of at least two years or with respect to a conviction outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would be punishable by a term of imprisonment of at least 10 years—

Lines six to eight of that paragraph would be replaced by:

—Canada for an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years—

This amendment is a little complicated. It is an extension and it clarifies the original wording. A part of this amendment is just a housekeeping correction and the other deals with the length of term of conviction to justify the magnitude of criminality outside Canada.

This part is so serious and important, particularly in light of the recent reports that more than 200,000 people are staying in Canada illegally. About 15,000 people or more are under deportation warrants, according to the Auditor General of Canada. They are supposed to be deported, but they are still in Canada and they are missing. Also, I am—

Immigration And Refugee Protection ActGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

The Speaker

I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. member, but he will have three minutes remaining in the time for his remarks at the conclusion of question period.

Women's World Cup Cycling RaceStatements By Members

1:55 p.m.

Liberal

Carole-Marie Allard Liberal Laval East, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is my great honour to inform this House of the recent successes of two Quebecers, Geneviève Jeanson, of Lachine, and Lyne Bessette, of Knowlton.

Geneviève Jeanson won the gold medal, Saturday, in the fifth leg of the women's world cup cycling road race in Montreal, and Lyne Bessette, the bronze medal. The race took place on Mount Royal and included the top world cup racing teams.

This is Geneviève's seventh victory this season, and Lyne won for the second time in her career the prestigious Tour de l'Aude less than a week ago.

Please join me in congratulating these two accomplished athletes and thanking them for bringing glory and honour to Canada.

Rail SafetyStatements By Members

2 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Brian Fitzpatrick Canadian Alliance Prince Albert, SK

Mr. Speaker, this government has announced a $700 million fund for improving rail safety. The minister has not indicated how much of this will be allocated for safety at unmarked rail crossings.

On Friday the parliamentary secretary implied that rail safety was not a concern to the people of Saskatchewan. I can assure the government that he is dead wrong.

Saskatchewan has 2,000 more rail crossings than the combined total of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, B.C. and Quebec. Since 1987, 70 people have died in Saskatchewan from accidents occurring at rail crossings. What is the government's response? More studies.

The Saskatchewan Safety Council along with the rail industry has proposed a cost effective solution. When will the government get out of the way and allow this initiative to proceed?

Brigadier General Denis WhitakerStatements By Members

2 p.m.

Liberal

Stan Keyes Liberal Hamilton West, ON

Mr. Speaker, Canada has lost one of her true heroes. Brigadier General Denis Whitaker, one of the most distinguished and decorated soldiers Canada has ever produced, passed away last week.

Brigadier General Whitaker took part in the ill-fated Dieppe raid and was awarded the Distinguished Service Order. He later commanded the Royal Hamilton Light Infantry during the northwest Europe campaign of 1944-45 in the liberation of France, Belgium and the Netherlands.

For his outstanding leadership and courage he was awarded a bar to his Distinguished Service Order. He went on to command the 3rd Infantry Brigade until his retirement in 1951.

General Whitaker was a member of the Order of Canada, a recipient of the Efficiency Decoration, the Canadian Forces Decoration as well as an Officer of the Legion D'Honneur (France) and a Commander of the Order of the Crown (Belgium).

The remarkable Denis Whitaker was also an all star quarterback for the Hamilton Tigers, a national squash and racquetball champion, a business executive and published military historian.

Men and women of the calibre of Brigadier General Whitaker are a rare and valuable treasure. He will be greatly missed.

North American Free Trade AgreementStatements By Members

June 4th, 2001 / 2 p.m.

Liberal

Tony Valeri Liberal Stoney Creek, ON

Mr. Speaker, recently I had the pleasure of attending, along with my colleague from Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, the first ever joint meeting of NAFTA legislators to discuss North American steel issues.

As NAFTA legislators we agree that a global steel crisis whose roots lie outside North America has created an unprecedented situation of global steel overcapacity and market distortions. NAFTA governments must address these issues for effective and comprehensive steel policies.

That being said, in Canada and specifically in my city of Hamilton we have two very innovative and technologically advanced steel companies, Dofasco and Stelco, which are well positioned to reap economic awards in a fair trade environment.

As legislators we pledge to continue to work closely together. Our first meeting was a good start but we must continue to push for fair trade in steel.

We must ensure the effectiveness of trade laws and trade law enforcement in North America and we need to address world steel overcapacity and market distorting practices through the exploration of multilateral solutions.

Canada must continue to be a leader in these negotiations on the steel industry and vigorously defend the best interests of our domestic producers.

TransportationStatements By Members

2 p.m.

Liberal

Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

Mr. Speaker, last Saturday was National Transportation Day, which marked the start of National Transportation Week.

On this special occasion, I think it important to pay tribute to Canadians working in the transportation field and helping to keep the network safe and efficient. They number nearly one million persons.

This is the thrust of the Government of Canada's initiative to create a policy framework to define a type of network for the next decade. It is time Canada had the best highway network in the world.

This framework would be based, among other things, on the work of the Canada Transportation Act Review Panel, the Transportation Climate Change Table and the discussions held at the Millennium Transportation Conference.

Our network must be safe, efficient, affordable, accessible and sustainable. The measures taken will help develop trade and stimulate competition, productivity and technological innovation.

Tiananmen SquareStatements By Members

2:05 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

James Moore Canadian Alliance Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC

Mr. Speaker, today marks the 12th anniversary of the mass murder of students and freedom starved citizens in Tiananmen Square.

Twelve years ago today, to the shock and horror of the world, the order was given to reclaim the square at all costs. Tanks, armoured personnel carriers, machine guns and 40,000 storm troopers, that is what they were that day, crushed thousands of pro-democracy protesters. Hundreds and maybe thousands were killed. The exact numbers are not known because the government has never given a full account of the deaths and has blocked all attempts at an investigation.

Commemorations of the event are even forbidden in China and police routinely visit known dissidents and families of victims on the anniversary to warn them not to publicly mark the date.

As China slowly opens itself to the world, we must let it know that we will never forget its barbarism in the square 12 years ago today. We can never forget. We will never forget.

Foreign AffairsStatements By Members

2:05 p.m.

Liberal

Denis Paradis Liberal Brome—Missisquoi, QC

Mr. Speaker, on May 21, the Canadian government announced the signing of an international social security agreement with the Slovak Republic.

This agreement will make it easier for Canadians who have lived and worked in the Slovak Republic, and for Slovaks who live in Canada, to qualify for old age, disability and survivor benefits.

This agreement is an important step toward strengthening the relationship and areas of co-operation between our two countries.

It should also be noted that international agreements such as this one are increasingly important, as global economics and greater international co-operation create increased labour mobility and movement between countries.

To date, Canada has signed social security agreements with 44 countries.