Debates of May 2nd, 2005

Committees of the House

[The Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Conservative Party will vote in support of this important motion.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Charlevoix—Montmorency, QC]

Madam Speaker, the members of the Bloc Québécois will be in favour of this motion.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Madam Speaker, the members of the NDP vote in favour of this motion.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. I realize I cannot suggest that the discussions be carried on outside when members have to stay in for the vote, but we do need to have a little order so we can hear who is voting which way. The hon. member for Huron--Bruce is rising on a point of order. We will hear him first.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want my vote recorded as being in support of this motion.

[Rose-Marie Ur, Liberal, Middlesex—Kent—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to be recorded as voting yes.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to be recorded as voting in favour of this motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

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

[Christian Simard, Bloc, Beauport, QC]

Madam Speaker, on February 24, during oral question period and in the context of the debate on the budget that had been tabled, I asked the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Labour and Housing a question in which I expressed my disappointment that the budget had nothing for social housing.

The situation has changed radically since then. Interestingly enough, the answer of both ministers was that everything was just fine and that, even if there was nothing in the budget for social housing, everything was perfect because we had nice leftovers in the existing program. I could quote part of the answer. The Minister of Finance said, “There is $1 billion at the present moment within the fiscal framework that we are working on very closely with the provinces to distribute it across the country for new affordable housing.” We were told there was money left in the affordable housing program, and we were politely brushed off.

And what is happening now? Last week, the budget was amended as a result of last minute negotiations conducted in an atmosphere of sheer panic. Not unlike what took place on February 24, when a deal was made with the Conservative Party, a right wing deal to ensure that the Conservatives stay quietly put in their seats. While $13 billion was invested in defence not a red cent was invested in housing, probably because it came out of the negotiations that the Conservatives were not too keen about social housing. And this, even after the Minister of Labour and Housing had promised housing groups that the election promise made by the Liberals would be reflected in the budget. No funding was allocated, because the Liberals were wooing the right.

In a panicked attempt to hold on to power, that is the immoral and rather peculiar thing that they did. I urge the people of all the provinces and of Quebec to beware and not to fall for this smokescreen, this illusion, this bogus deal with a party which, together with the Liberal Party, does not make up a majority in the Commons. These are promises and a deal to try to regain some degree of virginity.

This government is immoral. The ruling party is immoral. We have heard it in the testimony before the Gomery commission. We have also seen that this government is immoral in the way it deals or does not deal with the other parties in the House. It has never acted as a responsible government. It has never wanted to make this Parliament work. It is an immoral party and it does not deserve our confidence.

The government has already begun to break the agreement between the leader of the NDP and the Prime Minister of Canada by saying, “We will come back with the corporate tax cuts. We just said that to please the NDP members. They fell for it”. They might well say the same thing after the budget, “Well, at that time we said that to get the support of the NDP and restore our image. We had promised that for the social housing”. We know that agreements with the provinces generally take a year and a half to negotiate; we know that the Liberals still do not have a majority with the support of this party; and then they try to put on a mask of social concern to hide the fact they have not put the dirty money in trust and have not treated the other parties with respect in the past year. Moreover, they try to blame the Bloc or the Conservative Party for overthrowing a government. They try to blame the others for their own, Liberal turpitude.

[John McKay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, that poor hon. member does not seem to be able to take yes for an answer. Every year the Government of Canada commits $1.9 billion to support 640,000 families living in existing social housing units across the country. In addition, last week the government committed a further $1.6 billion over the next two years, a commitment that fulfills the campaign promise of last year.

This is nothing new. The government has been active on this file for the last number of years.

In 2001, the affordable housing initiative was $680 million over five years to help increase the supply of affordable housing. Budget 2003 built on this initiative by providing an additional $320 million over five years. I know the hon. member opposite might be bored with a few facts, but I hope he is paying attention to this.

This brings the Government of Canada's investment in affordable rental housing to $1 billion by the year 2007-08. Funding is being made available to provinces and territories that are prepared to match federal contributions.

There was a recognition last week that some provinces have more difficulty than others in meeting the requirements of matching funding, so the government introduced additional flexibilities to the program, including allowing provincial funding on other affordable housing programs to count as cost-matching for the purposes of calculating the fifty-fifty contribution on an overall rather than unit by unit basis over the next two years.

Further, in recognition of the need to preserve the existing stock of affordable housing, budget 2003 extended CMHC's housing renovations program for a further three years at an annual cost of $128 million.

In December 1999, the Government of Canada announced $753 million as a contribution to help Canada's homeless persons.

The $305 million for SCPI, otherwise known as the supporting communities partnership initiative, provides capital costs and funding for homeless people. Budget 2003 provided a three year extension for the SCPI partnership initiative at $135 million per year in order to help sustain efforts to address homelessness.

I know, Madam Speaker, that you and I share communities that are very interested in making sure that our communities can access the SCPI funding. You, like I, Madam Speaker, support homelessness initiatives in the city of Toronto. We have quite a number of homeless people that reside in our ridings on a nightly basis.

In budget 2000, the goods and services tax rebate program for new residential rental accommodation was introduced. The GST rebate now provides for a 36% GST rebate, which is similar to the rebate provided to new homebuyers. The program is estimated to refund $55 million annually to landlords for new residential rental properties.

These programs are in addition to the $1.9 billion that is the base funding for 640,000 households.

To sum up, the Government of Canada has made new funding commitments of almost $3 billion since the year 2000 to help ease affordability challenges for low income Canadians. As stated in the budget, it was our clear intention to renew and extend these programs as their funding came due over the next few years, so I am somewhat perplexed by the hon. member's feigned indignation.

[Christian Simard, Bloc, Beauport, QC]

Madam Speaker, what false indignation. How interesting. The member wants facts. He is talking about funds that were already allocated and spent a number of years ago.

“Yes, there is real indignation.” I did not say this, Pierre Gaudreau of the RAPSIM for the Montreal homeless did. He was shocked that, last week, the Minister of Labour and Housing went to the Old Brewery Mission for the third time to announce the same $2.5 million. This resulted in Pierre Gaudreau saying of homeless people that people living in poverty were being treated as if they were roads and the same commitment was being made three times to the same people with the same old funds. This is immoral and shameful, just like this government.

When they talk about old commitments, they forget to add that the CMHC has a $3.4 billion surplus, when normally the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation's sole purpose is to help people, not make a profit.

In closing, I want to make one final point. About 1.7 million Canadians and Quebeckers spend over 30% of their income on housing. Since the Liberals came to power, 300,000 individuals have joined those ranks. The members want facts? There are some facts.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, what is scandalous and immoral is the hon. member's inability to comprehend simple facts.

Adequate housing is a priority of the government. The government has poured literally billions of dollars into this file on an annual basis. We commit to do even more as time and resources are available to us.

We are working very closely with the provinces to distribute across the country the existing $1 billion in the fiscal framework for the construction of new affordable housing. There are the GST rebates of $55 million per year. There are existing funding commitments to help low income Canadians with housing repairs, some $128 million, and for the homeless, an extension of the SCPI file, of $135 million per year. This represents new funding commitments of almost $3 billion since 2000, on top of the $1.9 billion that is spent on an annual basis. It does not lie in the mouth of the hon. member or any of the members opposite that the government is not committed to this file.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to return to a question I originally raised on February 18 concerning the appointment of Mr. Glen Murray to the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.

The key issue is that the government has completely ignored its own promise. The Prime Minister promised that he would put an end to the politics of cronyism. He said that he would make sure that it would no longer be about who one knew in the PMO. Yet we are still at the point where failed Liberal candidates are getting the plum patronage jobs with the government.

In Mr. Murray's case, the individual is not qualified for the job. As mayor of Winnipeg, the individual did a terrible job managing the environmental problems surrounding Winnipeg.

My riding of Selkirk—Interlake is on the northern boundary of Winnipeg. The Red River flows through Winnipeg into my riding and then into Lake Winnipeg, which largely falls within my riding as well. Unfortunately, Mr. Murray always turned his back on the issue of cleaning up the problems of dumping raw sewage directly into the Red River, which subsequently flows into Lake Winnipeg.

This individual has been appointed to serve on the round table and he has no appreciation of environmental issues. He did not even look at cleaning up his own backyard. That backyard, unfortunately, is my riding where many people raise families. There is a commercial fishing industry and a large tourism industry. My kids swim in that lake which has raw sewage coming right out of Winnipeg in it because of the lack of initiative shown by Mr. Murray.

The real problem is that Mr. Murray's appointment was rejected by the Standing Committee on the Environment. We had a debate in the House of Commons and the House rejected Mr. Murray as the candidate for chairman of the round table. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister has gone ahead with having Mr. Murray serve as chairman of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.

I have to ask, why has the government and the Prime Minister not followed through on the Prime Minister's promise to put an end to cronyism, to put an end to patronage appointments?

Mr. Murray is a failed Liberal candidate. He failed against a Conservative in a bid to become a federal politician. He is now collecting a pretty decent honorarium to serve on the round table. The government has supposedly fixed the democratic deficit, but I am concerned that motions that have passed in the House and motions that have passed in the committee have been completely ignored.

If we really are to reach out to Canadian citizens and show them that the government can work, that the House of Commons can represent their needs, then we have to make sure that we are reflecting the will of all members of the House. Backbenchers were told that they would have input. Unfortunately, we are not seeing that. The Prime Minister, his office and his cabinet are carrying on as if there were a majority government and they could do as they pleased. I am very concerned about the situation.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, as the hon. member mentioned, the government recommended Mr. Glen Murray as chair of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.

The round table is an independent advisory body that provides advice on sustainable development to decision makers and to the Canadian public. At the round table, Mr. Murray will be joining other distinguished Canadians in developing policy recommendations on key issues related to the integration of the environment and economy.

The round table draws its members from a broad range of sectors of Canadian society, including business, labour, academia, environmental organizations and aboriginal people. Mr. Murray brings a wealth of experience to the position. His academic background and professional experience in both the private and public sectors make him well suited for this position. He is currently research associate for the Centre for Urban and Community Studies and a visiting scholar and urban policy coordinator at the University of Toronto.

During his years as mayor of Winnipeg, he brought the concerns of Canadian cities and municipalities to the forefront of national debate. His experience in urban planning and development, the environment and the application of innovative fiscal measures are a fitting complement to the round table's focus on urban sustainability, brownfields redevelopment and ecological fiscal reform. As well, his broad background in working with other levels of government and a number of stakeholders is well suited to the government's recent request to the round table.

With the coming into force of the Kyoto protocol, the government has specifically requested the round table to provide advice and recommendations on the development of a long term energy and climate change strategy for our country. This request builds on the round table's current focus on the role of fiscal policy in promoting decarbonization in Canadian energy systems and of long term energy planning.

As the Prime Minister mentioned, Canada will depend on the round table's advice, guidance and expertise to ensure that Canada respects its commitments under the Kyoto protocol. Mr. Murray's nomination is in keeping with the government's commitment to appoint the best qualified people to positions in the federal public sector. I have full confidence in Mr. Murray's nomination as chair of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy and his ability to provide strong leadership as the round table continues to address key sustainable development issues for our country.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Madam Speaker, we are not here to question the role of the round table. I agree 100% that we need the round table and the expertise that sits around it to advise the government. The problem is the minister has mentioned that we have distinguished individuals who sit around the table, yet Mr. Murray's experience and track record on environmental issues is terrible.

He is an individual who has completely ignored his own municipal government's role in environmental issues in the province of Manitoba. The only thing he has in his track record that could possibly get him appointed to the round table is that he is a member of the Liberal Party. He was a Liberal candidate in the last federal election. Aside from that, the individual has absolutely nothing else to offer to this very important round table on dealing with issues that concern our future, our future generations, our families and the health of our environment.

I ask the government to take a second hard look at this individual, to renege on that commitment and to put in place a proper person to chair that committee.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, I would remind the member that this position is a volunteer position. He is not employed as a researcher. He is not employed as a scientist. He is employed to chair a group of experts who will guide government.

The former mayor is very used to chairing meetings of people with different ideas. He has to bring those ideas forward.

I watched the committee and I thought it was appalling to see the cronyism, with an outright attack on an individual and his credibility for pure political reasons. His political affiliation should not be considered, but his ability to do the job should. He should not get the job because he is affiliated with the Liberal Party, but he should not be disqualified because he has been affiliated with the Liberal Party. If that were the case, the majority of Canadians could not be qualified for those positions because the majority of Canadians have voted at one time or another for our party, and for good reason.

The members opposite are concerned about the environment. Not so long ago they were telling us that global warming was a myth. I am glad they have come to that realization. We have understood it for a long time and I am sure Mr. Murray will help us along in that.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act calls for a new entity to be created within the Immigration and Refugee Board, the IRB, namely the refugee appeal division.

In his appearance before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration when the bill was being studied in 2001, former IRB head Peter Showler stated the following.

The vast majority of protection decisions will be made by a single member... It is true that claimants will no longer enjoy the benefit of the doubt currently accorded them with two-member panels... However, any perceived disadvantage is more than offset by the creation of the refugee appeal division, the RAD, where all refused claimants and the minister have a right of appeal on RPD decisions.

In April 2002, it was announced that creation of the appeal division was delayed by system overload. The minister of the day had apparently promised at the May 2002 annual general meeting of the Canadian Council for Refugees that he would be putting it in place in less than a year.

On May 9, 2002, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees wrote to the minister of the day, indicating that an appeal procedure was vitally important.

I am writing to convey UNHCR's deep disappointment, following your recent decision to postpone indefinitely the creation of the Refugee Appeal Division at the Immigration and Refugee Board.

The HCR representative in Canada also said:

It is particularly important for states to demonstrate not only their determination to combat abuse and to address security concerns, but also their commitment to the protection of refugees.

Minister Volpe keeps saying that the Canadian immigration system is one of the best in the world. Yet, his government's relentless refusal to implement this appeal division has been condemned by the Canadian Council for Refugees, the UNHCR and Amnesty International.

The Refugee appeal division is indispensable for the smooth functioning of the Canadian refugee determination system for many reasons. In the interests of efficiency, a specialized appeal division is a much better use of scarce resources than recourse to the Federal Court, which is not at all specialized in refugee matters. It would be much better placed to correct errors of law and fact. In the interests of consistency of law, an appeal division deciding on the merits of the case is the only body able to ensure consistency of jurisprudence. In the interests of justice, as in matters of criminal law, a right to appeal to a higher tribunal is essential for the proper administration of justice.

In December 2004, the chairperson of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Jean-Guy Fleury said:

It would require initial start up costs of an estimated $2 million in addition to $8 million in annual operating costs.

Let me say that should the government decide to act on the RAD, we would be ready, with sufficient new resources.

In other words, neither costs nor technical difficulties are an impediment to the establishment of an appeal division. The only thing lacking, despite all opinions to the contrary, is the minister's political will.

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration claims that the existing system contains a number of appeal mechanisms. That is not the case. There are mechanisms for reviewing decisions, but none to reassess the facts submitted in support of claims.

The organization KAIROS noted:

A United Nations committee says Canada failed Mexican torture survivor Falcon Rios ... The UN Committee Against Torture blamed the failure on Canada's lack of an effective appeal process for rejected refugees.

In Canada, you can appeal a traffic ticket, but you can't appeal a decision that could send you back to death in the country you fled when you put your trust in us.

These were recent statements by Mary Corkery, the executive director of KAIROS.

The Bloc Québécois supports this statement. We call on the minister to put the appeal division promised three years ago in place immediately. The mechanism is provided in the law. The House approved it. Only the minister fails to see the need and the urgency of implementing it.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Madam Speaker, Canada's humanitarian traditions are widely known and respected around the world. It therefore is indeed a pleasure to have the chance to highlight some of our accomplishments. I also appreciate the opportunity to rectify a number of misconceptions in the hon. member's question.

The hon. member said that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees disapproves of the Government of Canada's attitude toward refugees and of its handling of the Refugee Appeal Division. The truth is that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has referred to Canada's present refugee system as one of the best in the world and a model for other countries, even without the much touted appeal division.

Indeed, the 2004 Canada country operations plan says that Canadian policy and practice are often seen as an example for other countries. It is very important in this debate to deal with the facts and not with political rhetoric.

Canada's refugee system today offers protection to those in genuine need and helps to reinforce this country's track record of compassion and openness to those seeking asylum from around the world.

Indeed, Canada's acceptance rates for refugee applications are among the highest in the world and this country has led the world in recognizing the protection needs of vulnerable groups such as women and children.

The hon. member has suggested in the past that there are insufficient avenues for reviewing decisions in the current system. The truth is that no refugee claim is ever finalized without providing each applicant with multiple avenues of review by separate and impartial decision makers. Each and every claimant is granted an initial hearing before an officer of the Immigration and Refugee Board. Each and every claimant can present his or her case for review to a federal court judge if his or her claim is rejected.

The hon. member suggests that these reviews are merely technical in nature. The truth is, however, that a federal court judge can also take into account unreasonable findings of fact. Each refugee applicant whose claim is rejected is also granted a hearing before a pre-removal risk assessment officer before they can be removed from Canada. Each and every claimant can, of course, at any time in the process, apply to stay in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Protection is what we care about and that is what the current system delivers.

The hon. member rightly notes that the minister has committed to consider several options with regard to an appeal on merit over the next six months. Now surely this is reasonable. Nothing has been abandoned. What is not on the table, however, is embracing the unacceptable approach advocated by the hon. member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges who says that the Government of Canada should abandon its responsibilities to refugees and to the people of Canada by essentially undoing a lot of the work already taken to streamline the existing system.

That being said, we all know that the process can be streamlined and that waiting times can be shortened but the system is very complex and it is counterproductive to only examine one piece of it without looking at the whole. That is what we have said we would do. We would like to see this in the broader context of overall reform of the refugee system. This, and not the suggestion of the hon. member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges, is what really counts for asylum seekers as well as for all Canadians.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am looking forward to June 15. It is an important date because the minister has to give us an answer by then. I am looking forward to it.

In reality, no one in the field opposes our position. It is one thing to say that our refugee acceptance rate is high, but we must also be compassionate. It is not enough to say that we want a humanitarian system, we must also act to make it so.

The appeal division is fundamental for the good reputation of Canada's legal system because we know that its immigration system is awash with abuse and flaws, as shown by reports published in all the Canadian media. If Canada's immigration system is seen in a favourable light by other countries, let us not be taken in: few countries, apart from Canada, do not offer an appeal system to refugees.

The procedural safety net that the refugee appeal division constitutes will reinforce the credibility of the IRB with the public, just as the appeal courts of Quebec and the other provinces strengthen their whole justice systems. Those who criticize the IRB, those who think it is too lenient as well as those who think it is too harsh, will have considerably fewer reasons to criticize it, and Canada's refugee determination system will be better able to defend its good reputation.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member said she wants to hear what the minister will have to say. I am proud to say that the minister has come up with a lot of creative solutions to some of the problems with this particular system of citizenship and immigration that all of us on both sides of the House have been talking about. Processes need to be fixed.

The hon. member believes that this appeal on merit system is some kind of silver bullet that would immediately fix everything that is flawed in Canada's refugee system. It cannot do that because the system is complex. One cannot fix one piece without throwing out the whole piece. We have to look at the whole complex mechanism.

We know there are individuals who want to take advantage of Canada's openness and compassion for gain. Sometimes 95% of applicants from particular countries are found to be without merit. This is more than a coincidence.

The problem is that there are insufficient decision mechanisms. It takes too long for decisions to be made. Adding another layer will only make things take longer. Let us fix the system as a whole. That is what we plan to do.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:41 p.m.)