Debates of Sept. 23rd, 2011

Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, looking at this bill, which attempts to legislate against smugglers and human traffickers, we see potential for some worthwhile legislation against this type of trafficking. However, this bill is far from what it claims to be. It is a direct attack against this category of refugees who arrive in Canada seeking asylum. I would like the hon. member to comment on the fact that there are no real measures in this bill that truly address human trafficking.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right. There are already penalties for human smugglers; there is a $1 million fine and up to life imprisonment. What do the Conservatives do? They demonize and vilify people who are trying to escape circumstances which are a direct threat to their health, safety and their very lives.

As I said, those people may be willing to spend a year in detention rather than face those circumstances. In fact this legislation is not really meant to deter people from coming here. It is meant to provide cosmetic window dressing to the Conservatives' base so that Canadians and particularly the Conservatives' base think the government is doing something about this problem.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on a very good speech. I have a couple of questions.

First, the government brought in Bill C-11 about a year and a half ago. The features of that legislation have not yet been fully implemented. The point of that legislation was to reduce the refugee backlog. I would ask the member why he thinks the government is not waiting to see if it is successful before introducing this bill.

Second, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism said in the House that there are people overseas who believe that if they come to Canada as refugees they will get a monthly income forever. That is obviously false. It is a misconception.

In a world where no information is perfect, I would ask the member what he thinks leads the minister to believe that these people who misinterpret or get false information will actually understand the provisions of the bill. They will certainly not hear about the tough new rules from the smugglers. How will these people know about these tough new provisions?

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first question, the fact is the government refuses to apply the proper resources to deal with immigration matters and frankly to deal with refugee claims.

Up to a million people are trying to get into this country. The number was about 700,000 several years ago. The government is clearly not interested in helping immigrants get to this country.

In answer to the second question, it is like the government's crime bill. Those who are about to commit an offence do not look at the Criminal Code because they think they might have to spend some time in jail if they commit a crime. People do not think that way.

Similarly, people who are trying to escape life-threatening circumstances do not look at our immigration laws to see how they will be treated when they get here. They will escape to a country that is considered to have a welcoming and inviting reputation, one that presents them with a future for themselves and their children.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the point is the Supreme Court struck down a security certificate's detention aspect because it was unjust. Here is the government proposing another piece of legislation that does very similar things.

Does the member not believe that would be justification for striking it down?

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree with the premise of the question. It is in violation of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is in violation of the Supreme Court decision. It is in violation of the United Nations declaration on the rights of refugees.

I have no doubt that this legislation will be successfully challenged once it is passed by the government.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-4, the Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act. Unfortunately, the title is an unworthy message for the government to convey to the rest of the world.

My riding of Parkdale--High Park is in downtown Toronto. It is a very mixed income community. For many newcomers to Canada it is a first stopping-off point. Over the years, waves of immigrants have put down roots and created institutions in our community.

Earlier today, I spoke about the 100th anniversary of the Knesseth Israel Shul in my riding. It is the oldest original synagogue in Toronto that is still in use today. Many of the original congregants of this shul came to Canada to escape the persecution that the Jewish community was facing in Europe and other parts of the world, while others came for economic reasons. In many cases, they came with little more than the ability to work hard, their ingenuity and their creativity. Although small, this magnificent institution is so beautiful. It adds glimmer to the heart of a community that was formed 100 years ago in our neighbourhood in the Junction. That is typical of many newcomer communities in Canada.

My community is home to many who have fled Soviet bloc countries: Poles, Ukrainians, people from a variety of backgrounds. We have many Vietnamese, Tamils, Latin Americans, and most recently, Tibetans. We now have the largest Tibetan community in Canada. Also, many of the Roma from Hungary are coming to our community. A number of these community members came here as refugees because they feared for their safety and well-being in their countries of origin.

For example, the repression of Tibetans is well known. His Holiness the Dalai Lama is an honorary Canadian citizen and has come to this Parliament. We were all thrilled to meet with him. He so elegantly and generously described the struggle of Tibetans not only in modern day Tibet as it presently exists within China but also in refugee camps in India and Nepal.

Many people around the world are living with instability, war or repression. Refugees are seeking shelter from these conditions.

As part of out citizenry in the international community, Canada has signed international agreements to receive not all refugees, but our share of refugees, and to roll up our sleeves and contribute with the rest of the world to helping those in need.

In fact, I would argue that many other countries do so much more. Some of the poorest countries in the world, countries in Africa for example, have some of the largest numbers of refugees who have fled wars, famine or other kinds of hardships from nearby countries.

Canada's history is one of living up to the international treaties we have signed, as well as living up to our responsibility as a strong member of the international community.

My colleague from the Montreal area spoke earlier about how his family came to Canada as Vietnamese refugees.

We have a large Vietnamese community in Toronto, people who fled with not much more than what they could carry. They have made an enormous contribution to our country.

Again, I look at my own community and the institutions people have built and the tremendous creativity of people, the jobs they have created, the businesses they have opened, the art they have created, and what they offer to our country.

It is a wrong notion that somehow Canadians are paying something when refugees come here. I think we gain a tremendous amount. Canada is built on waves of immigrants, but many refugees as well, and they have made an enormously valuable contribution to our country.

When it comes to this bill, I have to ask myself why we would want to target or demonize refugees. That is what the bill is doing. It is somehow tarnishing refugees and putting all of them under suspicion as potential smugglers and potential abusers of Canada's immigration system.

The bill claims it would crack down on human smuggling, but as the bill currently stands, it concentrates too much power in the hands of the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism and unfairly penalizes refugees. It sets up different tiers of status for refugees.

Our party would rather deal with criminals, the people who are abusing the system, the people who are indeed trafficking or smuggling. Yes, let us deal with them through our judicial system. However, as it stands, this bill is more likely to hurt legitimate refugees and the people who are trying to help them, people who are seeking safety and solace here in Canada.

As many of my colleagues have described, this process is unclear. It is arbitrary and ultimately very discriminatory. We have to ask ourselves why this bill is even before us when we just approved a refugee law a few months ago. What we need now is full implementation and better enforcement of that law.

The government should be less focused on photo ops and demonizing people who come here seeking legitimate refugee status and more focused on enforcing the laws against human smuggling that we already have and giving the RCMP, who are tasked with this job, the resources they need to get the job done.

Our concern is that the bill is more about politics, very divisive and dangerous politics, and less about ensuring an effective and fair refugee and immigration system.

We are not just saying that. We are backed up by the Canadian Council for Refugees, Amnesty International, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Bar Association, an expert panel at the Centre for Refugee Studies. Those who are experts in international law, in our charter rights here in Canada and in international covenants share our deep concern about the flaws of the bill and the damage it could do certainly to our country's reputation, but much more importantly to individual lives. We are talking about people who are at their most desperate, who are fleeing for their lives.

We think this is an unnecessary bill, a bad bill, a bill that is going to tarnish Canada's reputation and endanger those who need shelter most.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I support the emphasis the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park is placing on the importance of refugees here in Canada.

I have had the privilege of working in her area as a law student and had the great opportunity to understand some of the communities that she represents.

In terms of refugees, I am given to understand that Canada receives a higher proportion of refugees than any other country in the world in terms of our population. People around the world put great stock in our refugee policy. In fact, I was just in Iraq and met people who were concerned about coming to Canada. It is only because we can protect the integrity of our refugee system that we can open our doors as we do. I ask the member to respond to that.

Without the abuses that have happened, does she understand that we can therefore protect the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of true refugees who would come to our shores?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what abuses the member is talking about, but I do know that if we look at some of the poorest countries in the world, their number of refugees is far greater than that of Canada. While we may have a smaller population, we certainly have the resources and land mass to be able to accommodate refugees.

I would ask the member, in response to his question, for someone who understands my community and understands the importance of the refugee and immigration system, how can he justify the mandatory detention of children? How can he justify violating international treaties with the bill? These are treaties that we have signed onto and are part of our international commitment.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I share many of the concerns of this flawed piece of legislation with the member for Parkdale—High Park.

Earlier in the debate, the member for Toronto Centre suggested that, given the concerns that have been expressed by the Canadian Bar Association, the former chair of the Immigration Refugee Board, and many other legal commentators on this matter, it would be appropriate to have the bill referenced to the Supreme Court of Canada.

I wonder if the member for Parkdale—High Park and her party would support that suggestion from the Liberal Party.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in analyzing the bill I look to the expertise of those who work in the field of immigration and refugee law: the Canadian Council for Refugees, Amnesty International, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Bar Association, and the Centre for Refugee Studies. All of these organizations have said that the bill is draconian, that it could violate the charter, that it could violate our international commitments, and it is legislation that is not needed given the recent adoption of the refugee bill earlier this year.

I think it would be of great value to the House to have opinion from outside experts to analyze whether this bill would likely be a contravention to the laws that govern our land and international treaties that we have signed.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, of the 492 men, women and children who came to Canada on the MV Sun Sea, a significant number were indeed children. Ten of those children came to live in London, Ontario. They are sponsored and supported by the Tamil community there. Last Christmas they put on a concert with singing, music, and a nativity scene. Some of them were as young as two and a half years old.

I come back to the member. Why on earth would we ever support a bill that would allow for the incarceration of children?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what the Conservatives have against children.

I think it goes down to our essential humanity. If we support families and the value of refugee processes, then we have to understand that these are very draconian measures that could be very harmful to children.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-4 has a very clear short title: Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada's Immigration System Act. That sounds right, pertinent and unequivocal. We expect a well thought-out bill that would help our law enforcement agencies catch criminals who are involved in human trafficking, a very serious crime that is punishable by life in prison.

Except for in this title, there is no other mention of smugglers. They vanish just as quickly as they came. There is not another word about them, and the emphasis shifts immediately to refugees, the very victims of the smugglers mentioned in the title. And how are these refugees treated in this bill? They are described as potential terrorists, fleeing criminals or people abusing Canada's goodwill and the hospitality of its institutions.

In fact, the bill seems to be suggesting to Canadians that the current refugee processing legislation is naive. It needs to be updated and reflect the current focus on international terrorism. We quickly realize that the real short title of this bill is something along the lines of “the arbitrary radicalization of the legal treatment of refugees act”.

We should not think that we do not already have a law that targets smugglers. This phenomenon was not discovered last week. This criminal act is already punishable by a very severe sentence, the most severe sentence in fact: life in prison.

Why does this bill focus on refugees? Why does it want to make them guilty of other people's crimes?

What is a refugee? Must I remind the House? From the outset, we are talking about almost unbearable situations. We are talking about men, women and children who have only one simple hope left. They have just spent several weeks at sea in unsanitary conditions. They are put on unsafe boats with no guarantee of safety. When they finally reach land, they often do not have passports or any money. They have basically been denied their human dignity and who has done this? The smugglers that this bill supposedly wants to bring to justice. However, these smugglers cannot be found. They are still abroad where they continue to engage in illegal practices. In return for large amounts of money, these smugglers lead less fortunate, persecuted people who do not feel safe in their own country to believe that they will have a better life in a developed country. Those people are victims and nothing more. They are in the most vulnerable state possible.

What is the Conservative government proposing we do to lighten the load for these victims whose courage and determination brought them to Canada? The Conservatives are proposing that we persecute them even further by treating them like criminals and looking for terrorists among children. Who will be given the right to do this? A government institution that is well-equipped with experts? The RCMP? No. To our great surprise, it is the Minister of Immigration who would have this right. I would like to ask why.

Why would a minister be granted such power? It is completely unjustified. It would be a backward move, a legal anomaly that would be fundamentally unCanadian. In this country, we do not place such a heavy responsibility on the shoulders of a minister.

From a strictly legal point of view, this could violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Bill C-4 could be contrary to section 9 of the charter, which pertains to arbitrary detention. By creating two categories of refugees, Bill C-4 could violate section 15 of the Charter, which pertains to equality before the law. The NDP is of the opinion that Canadians do not feel there is any justification for questioning such things. The charter is a building block of our state. If we circumvent the charter, we are circumventing democracy.

If I may, I would like to give an example to show just how weak the government's argument in favour of Bill C-4 is. I hope I have the Conservatives' attention. I repeat, the NDP takes its legislative responsibilities very seriously, especially when it comes to the safety of Canadians. That is our duty. Consider the case of a refugee who has been detained as a designated foreign national under Bill C-4, but decides to exercise his rights and take the government to court over these violations of his basic charter rights. It must be understood that this person was incarcerated without any valid reason whatsoever. Well, there is a provision, in section 1, that allows reasonable limits on Canada's basic rights and freedoms. That said, the burden of proof lies with the government, which must prove that a rule of law that it is adopting can override the charter.

Such exceptions are justifiable only within reasonable and demonstrable limits in the context of a free and democratic society. As proof, in R. v. Oakes in 1986, a judge described very clearly what has since become known as the Oakes test, to determine whether such limitations on basic rights are justifiable in the context of a free and democratic society.

How does the Conservative government plan to prove that 12-month, arbitrary detentions imposed by a ministerial decision will satisfy those criteria? I am referring to the minimal impairment criteria. Will the new legislation the government wants to use to achieve its objective repudiate a charter right in the smallest possible way? Will the limitations on basic rights be proportional to the objective of this new legislation? No. From a legal perspective, that is all untenable. This government cannot justify limiting basic rights like that.

The problem lies in the fact that the smugglers are the real criminals in this matter. And where are they? Are they in the makeshift boats that land on our shores? Do they accompany their victims? No, they are long gone and untouchable. And the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism cannot do anything about it, regardless of the powers he gives himself.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police is the only organization capable of cracking down on human smugglers. The RCMP's expertise is a precious and available resource. Its legal role has already been established and there is no risk of abuse. The NDP believes that our police force should be provided with the resources required to go after these criminals. The NDP does not understand what future immigration ministers would accomplish by incarcerating these refugees.

There is no justification for this bill. It does nothing to improve the security of Canada and its population. It punishes people who need us. And, above all, it does not provide the RCMP with the necessary resources and wastes its expertise. The measures are arbitrary. Yes, the problem does need to be resolved. We must pass legislation against smugglers. Unfortunately, the Conservative government is taking the wrong approach. It is proposing to indiscriminately put all refugees through the wringer. It is trying to kill a fly with sledgehammer. What criteria will be used to determine who is a designated foreign national? Why is the bill not clear in this regard? It is unacceptable to introduce such vague legislation.

Canada was not built by giving such absolute discretion to a minister. We realistically expect that laws be rational and predictable. That is not at all the case with Bill C-4, and I am disappointed.

In closing, who are the biggest abusers of the immigration system? It is the Conservatives. Taking their cue from a vague feeling of xenophobia, they are claiming to deal with a scourge, yet they are doing nothing more than playing politics, and rather shamelessly at that. They are trying to appropriate abusive powers, nothing less. They are trying to tarnish Canada's good name. That is unwarranted. Our country is a symbol of justice throughout the world. For millions of people living precariously, Canada is a symbol of hope and humanity.

Does the Conservative government, which incessantly proclaims its patriotism, truly want to diminish our greatest achievement just for a shameful power grab? There are not many countries like Canada, and it is our duty to maintain its generosity, which is legendary and the reason why Canada is held in high regard throughout the world. More powerful nations would give anything for such an illustrious reputation.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very intently to my colleague across the way. We do take our duty as legislators very seriously. As a matter of fact, during the last campaign we let Canadians know exactly what our intentions were with regard to this type of legislation.

Not only that, but the response I have received is that we want to maintain Canada's great reputation as a country that takes in more refugees than any other developed country and provides for them every opportunity.

I have heard from members opposite that the asylum seekers are detained for 12 months before receiving a trial, but I would like to point out that those who are detained have access to legal counsel throughout the process, something that does not occur in every country in the world. As soon as these asylum seekers are determined to be refugees, they are released. If the minister thinks there is a humanitarian concern; for example, people with children or an illness, he has the discretion to make exceptions.

Therefore, can the member opposite explain why the opposition is consistently ignoring these facts when talking about the minister and the level of his discretion within the bill?

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

When refugees arrive in Canada without papers or anything else because they have fled a war-torn country or an absolutely horrific situation, we cannot then put them in preventive detention and tell them that they have the right to legal counsel. Imagine. These people are completely impoverished and have no way of defending themselves against this type of illegal action.

The government likes to brag about welcoming refugees, so why is it that the Canadian Council for Refugees is opposed to this bill? Why are Amnesty International and the Canadian Bar Association both saying the same thing: that this makes no sense?

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, listened to a number of presentations this morning. I have a question for the member as well.

I will quickly set the question up in terms of content. In the 40th Parliament, we introduced this bill, almost identical to the way the bill is today. The opposition parties were very clear that they would not support this at second reading and would not allow it to go to committee so we could have had the exact discussions that the member spoke about where some recommendations from them could have been brought forward.

We have reintroduced pretty much the same bill. I am listening to all these speeches. I am hearing opposition members complain about what the government is trying to do, even though most Canadians support what we are trying to accomplish. I hear nothing in the way of recommendations or suggestions as to how they would make the bill stronger. I would ask them to please give me one or two suggestions.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I said in my speech that it is important to try and do something about human trafficking. The bill, as it stands, only serves to punish refugees who arrive here under the worst possible conditions. If the bill at least contained something about human trafficking and smuggling, of course we could get on board and see what was there. But right now I see absolutely nothing worthwhile in this bill.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her very relevant comments. Why does she think that the government has decided to go after refugees instead of focusing on criminals?

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the current context, it is clearly simpler and easier to pretend to crack down on human trafficking by targeting the most vulnerable people, who have very little means to defend themselves and assert their rights.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-4. However, I wish it were a bill that would enhance our place and our policies as a forward-looking country. Instead, the bill is the direct opposite. It would move our policies and our place in the world backward, showing a kind of intolerance that we might have seen half a century ago.

The bill is a policy that is built on fear, intolerance, ideology and an avoidance of the serious facts. Laws should be improved, in my view, based on facts and on knowledge of what works.

Bill C-4 is a bill that almost gives the minister dictatorial powers. I will name three particular areas. I am especially concerned about that particular minister.

The bill would authorize the minister to designate as an irregular arrival the arrival in Canada of a group of persons, the result of which is that some of the foreign nationals in the group become designated foreign nationals. It would authorize an officer or the minister to refuse to consider an application for permanent residence. It would provide that a person may not become a permanent resident as long as an application by the minister for cessation of that person's refugee protection is pending.

I outline those points just to show how the bill would basically give the minister almost dictatorial powers. He or she would have a lot of say and a lot of authority over the lives of people who perhaps are thinking of moving to the promised land.

It is a bill that almost certainly, I believe, will be found to violate our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

My colleague, the member for Lac-Saint-Louis, summed it up best. I will restate for the record his comments because they cut to the heart of the serious issues in the bill. The member for Lac-Saint-Louis stated:

It [the bill] creates two classes of refugees. One class would be the regular refugee stream. The second class would be denoted by the minister as designated arrivals, which, upon being designated accordingly, would be treated differently. They could be held in detention for up to 12 months.

What is really happening is that the government is categorizing refugees. It is creating classes of refugees for different treatment based on, if we really look at it and read between the lines, the mode of transport the refugee claimants have used to get here. Refugees who come by plane typically would not come in big groups and would not receive the ministerial designation of designated foreign nationals and would not receive the different treatment that is being reserved for designated foreign nationals in this bill.

He concluded by saying:

Refugees who come in groups who will be designated as designated foreign nationals under the act typically will come by ship in squalid conditions. If they come by plane, they are not considered to be designated foreign nationals under the law.

I think that sums up one of the greatest concerns in the bill.

The long and short of the bill is that, in many cases, Bill C-4 would make victims of the very people that Canada traditionally and historically has tried to help. I find it amazing that the government, which is always talking about the protection of victims, is, in this instance, using ministerial authority and attacking the very victims themselves through Bill C-4. It goes against the kind of traditions and history we have as a country. We are losing our respect around the world by the actions of the bill and the government almost on a daily basis.

For a government that often goes to great lengths to talk about victims, then Bill C-4 exploits victims who are so often victims as a result of human smugglers themselves.

The people who get on these ships get fed a line in their home country. They may be fleeing persecution or war. They are, as I said, fed a line, told a story. They sometimes very innocently get involved and believe they are going to a welcoming country because Canada traditionally was a welcoming country until some of the activities of the current government.

We are a country that is historically seen as a country with the balance of law, protection of rights and freedoms, not a country that makes victims of people who are fleeing persecution or war, or being abused in other ways, but that is what the bill could possibly do. The bill could in fact leave those who come here further exploited by a law and actions perpetuated by the government itself.

Canada has a long deserved reputation as a safe haven for those so deserving of a haven in the world. We are a country of immigrants and a country, to a certain extent, of refugees. The ancestors of many of us in the House came from foreign lands. Mine came from England and Scotland. They came to this country and built a great country that was open to all.

In attempting to deal with a small criminal element, the federal government should be extremely careful and must take the necessary time to ensure that legislation, such as Bill C-4, accomplishes what it intends while respecting both our international obligations and domestic laws. I believe the bill seriously fails to do that.

As the parliamentary secretary said a moment ago, the bill was introduced in the last Parliament. It was opposed in the last Parliament by the opposition and opposed strenuously. We would think that a reasonable government would have taken that as a message that there were some problems with the bill, would have taken it back and met with other groups across the country and tried to change it and recognize some of the concerns. We cannot throw out everything the opposition says. We have some reasoned opinion too, and the government should have listened to that, been concerned about it and changed the bill accordingly.

In response to the bill, the Liberal Party has raised a number of concerns that we believe need to be addressed. My colleague, the member for Lac-Saint-Louis, outlined those concerns and they are on the record. We are committed as a party to finding pragmatic and evidence-based solutions to human smuggling. We reject this draconian and backward piece of legislation that targets legitimate refugee claimants and not the real criminals, the human smugglers themselves.

As I said earlier, the bill is really nothing more than crass fearmongering and we cannot support the bill as currently constituted.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I want to correct the record. I appreciate the fact that the member is making his presentation and speech on how he feels about Bill C-4 but he does need to ensure he is delivering what is factually in the bill.

He indicated that it would create two streams of refugees. In fact, that is not the case. The individuals who are on these ships are not refugees. They are not refugees until they have actually gone through the process and have either qualified or not qualified through the process. Therefore, in no way, shape or form are there two sets of refugees based on the bill. It is a very factual bill and the member needs to ensure he is correct on it.

I do want to ask him one question. He indicated that the government was not prepared to listen in the 40th Parliament with respect to the bill. I would say to him that if he looks at Bill C-11, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, and looks at Bill C-35, the crooked consultant act, he will find that we listened to all the parties on the opposite side of the House and came back to the House with both those bills passed unanimously.

Why will he not try to help us get the bill passed at second reading and get it into committee so we can talk about it?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary can try to allege in the detail certain things, but the fact is the net result at the end of the day, because of the actions in the bill, is there will be two classes of refugees.

As I have said in my remarks, the Liberal Party believes very seriously that there has to be a serious discussion on the bill. The bill is based on fearmongering, mainly, and the reaction to what happened in one ship and needs to be more seriously thought out before it becomes law.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question regarding his comments about the fact that the bill would create two classes of refugees.

What does the member believe the effect would be on refugees and also on Canada's image around the world?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the impact or effect on refugees is very clear. As I outlined in my speech, with one class of refugees, the bill, as sponsored by the Government of Canada, would be made victims of the very people that Canada has traditionally welcomed as a safe haven.

It is kind of guided on the possibility that we would be going after human smugglers. That is not necessarily so. The human smugglers may be getting off the hook, but the people who have been encouraged either to get on a boat or whatever by these human smugglers and abused in that way, in terms of their financial and human resources, are themselves, rather than us helping them as a country, going to be made the victims. That is the bottom line. That is the long and the short of it.