Chuck Cadman

[Justice, March 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in 1998 the justice committee recommended that victims of crime be permitted to give oral impact statements at parole hearings. The solicitor general has dragged his feet and finally implemented this policy only recently.

Now an internal audit has found that only about one-third of court delivered victim impact statements actually make it into the inmate files. Those who do the audit found that most are ignored. Is this what the solicitor general calls giving victims a role in the system?

[Refugees, February 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will wrap up by illustrating a few points on how our system is abused.

I will cite five cases. One is the case of a Nigerian who was deported from the United States after spending more than a year in a U.S. jail for importing heroin. Another is the case of a former refugee from El Salvador who was convicted of numerous criminal offences, including breaking and entering and assault. Then there is a man from the former Yugoslavia who was sentenced to four and a half years in a Canadian prison for trafficking and possession of drugs. There is also a refugee claimant from Honduras who walked into British Columbia after being deported three times from the United States following three jail terms for trafficking cocaine under assumed names. There is the case of an HIV positive Guatemalan refugee who was twice convicted of trafficking drugs in British Columbia, once after being caught with 42 rocks of cocaine.

Apart from being convicted criminals, these men have several other things in common. First and foremost, they would not have gained access to the country if there had been effective safe third country practices in place.

Second, they were all determined by Citizenship and Immigration Canada to be a danger to the public and were thus subject to deportation. In each case, the federal court overturned the ruling of the immigration department for exactly the same reason: the men were not provided with written explanations, called reasons, for the so-called danger opinions issued against them. Most of these men will remain in Canada while their cases work through the courts in an appeals process that may keep them living at taxpayers' expense for years to come.

Other countries learned long ago that it is essential to prevent illegal entrants from accessing the refugee determination system if they are not coming directly from the country where they claim persecution. They must be stopped at the point of entry and quickly removed. Dozens of countries are already doing this, making Canada a very attractive destination, for obvious reasons.

The rationale behind the idea of a safe third country is that genuine refugees fearing persecution will apply for refuge in the first safe country of arrival. Unless they have a good reason why they could not have applied in that first country, they are refused access and returned to the country from which they came. Might I say that a good reason is not that of coming to Canada to take advantage of our lenient and, I might add, litigious refugee determination system.

Article 31 of the UN convention makes a distinction between imposing a penalty on refugees entering illegally who come directly from a territory where they are threatened and those who enter illegally but are not arriving directly from the country of alleged persecution. Thus the convention itself recognizes that difference and we would not in any way be working against it.

I will close by reiterating the fact that I am truly disappointed that the motion will get only one hour of debate and will not have the opportunity to be voted on by all members of the House, which brings me back to my opening remarks about private members' business. Last week we voted on two private members' bills which were automatically made votable because they originated in the other place. As elected representatives of the people of Canada, I believe most if not all of us bring forward legislation that is important and relevant to our constituents. We must speak up about the way in which our private members' business is handled.

[Refugees, February 27th, 2002]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should make regulations under paragraph 101(1)(e) of the Immigration Act with the effect that people claiming to be refugees pursuant to the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees will not be admitted for consideration of their claim from the following countries: the United States, New Zealand, Australia and all countries that are members of the European Economic Union.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to discuss my private member's Motion No. 422. I would first like to express my disappointment that the motion was deemed non-votable, especially when business can come from the other place without ever having to enter into the lottery and is instantly made votable.

I dare say that public safety and secure borders are more relevant to most Canadians than creating a national horse or setting aside a day in honour of a former prime minister. That is not to suggest that those issues do not have merit. They certainly do, but we must get our priorities straight in this place.

That being said, the motion states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should make regulations under paragraph 101(1)(e) of the Immigration Act with the effect that people claiming to be refugees pursuant to the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees will not be admitted for consideration of their claim from the following countries: the United States, New Zealand, Australia and all countries that are members of the European Economic Union.

The issue of refugees coming to Canada has been of significant public concern for decades. If average Canadians were asked what they thought about Canada's refugee system we would find they are very proud of the fact that we have assisted tens of thousands of people who are genuinely persecuted in foreign lands. I also think we would hear that people are tired of Canada's generosity being taken advantage of by fraudulent refugee claims.

My motion would virtually eliminate the practice of silent shopping and the use of our refugee system as a back door immigration method. This would help offset public opinion that in one survey says 70% of Canadians agree that many people claming to be refugees are not real refugees.

It is vital for Canada to continue its tradition of helping those less fortunate and I truly believe that. I believe that if Canadians were able to see that only genuine refugees were being admitted those attitudes would greatly change. It is as equally vital that Canadians not feel used. By prescribing certain nations as safe third countries the government would restore a lot of confidence in Canada's refugee system.

Before addressing the motion I would like to congratulate the government for entering into an accord with the United States that would implement one aspect of my motion. It was only shortly after I gave notice of my motion that the former immigration minister announced that Canada and the United States would be entering into a safe third country agreement that would turn back refugee claimants coming from either country.

This is especially significant considering that the majority of asylum seekers come to Canada through the United States by using its visa system as a staging ground to enter Canada for an easy refugee claim. Unfortunately all we have at this point is some talk. We have no agreement yet.

I would now like to address why it is important to list all western democracies that adhere to and are signatories to the United Nations convention on refugees. One immigration policy expert, James Bissett, who spent several years in the civil service, says Canada could reduce bogus claims by 40% if it adopted a safe third country rule across the board. Thus Canada would stop accepting refugees who travel to Canada via the United States or other modern, liberal democracies where they clearly face no threat of persecution.

This is what my motion suggests. Canada is a destination of choice for refugee asylum shoppers because it accepts up to 60% of all claimants compared to 28% in the United States and only 10% in Europe. This rule would force claimants to make their case in the first country they land in rather than the most likely country to accept them.

The member for London North Centre, the Liberal chairman of the all party committee on border security, said the two countries must put a stop to economic migrants who claim refugee status after gaining legal entry into Canada. He said:

If you are coming from a safe third country, that is, the United States, you are not being persecuted and you are in that country, why do you want to make a refugee claim here? We should be able to deport them and send them back to the United States. What the United States wants to do with them is their own problem. It shouldn't become our problem.

What many Canadians do not recognize is how expensive it is to allow people coming from safe third countries to make a claim in Canada. It cost Canadian taxpayers more that $21 million last year just to provide free lawyers for refugee claimants, many of whom entered from the United States after their visitor, work or student visas expired.

The costs do not include welfare and health care spending to accommodate refugee claimants. With both our health and welfare systems strained to the breaking point, it is ridiculous to continue allowing people to come to Canada to make a refugee claim when they could have made that claim in the first country in which that they landed.

Critics of a motion such as mine will say that I am being cold and heartless. That could not be further from the truth. I am very proud of the role Canada plays in assisting people with nowhere else to turn, those who are genuine refugees. It is an unfortunate reality, however, that we have also become the destination of choice for asylum shoppers.

If my motion had been deemed votable and subsequently passed in the House of Commons, the government could have virtually put an end to the practice of asylum shopping and sharply curtailed queue jumping, leaving room for our overtaxed refugee determination system to focus on people truly in need of Canada's assistance.

This of course raises the question of who is in need of Canada's assistance.

Canada expects to receive 45,000 refugee claims by the end of this fiscal year, up from 38,000 last year, of which only 8,000 of the claimants are government sponsored. Are 45,000 claims that are expected to arrive not a truly disproportionate number to the 8,000 that have been pre-screened and known to be genuine refugees long before they came to Canada?

If we did not have so many people constantly showing up at our doorstep, imagine the relief we could provide to refugees in camps around the world where people have no hope of ever finding asylum because they are the poorest of the poor.

The majority of the 45,000 asylum seekers will come through countries where they could make claims but have chosen to come to Canada, most likely because it is widely known that if they make it to Canada they are all but assured of having their claim accepted and if it is rejected, it is also widely understood that one will never get deported.

It is very clear to anyone in the world that Canada does not have the wherewithal, nor perhaps the political will, to deport failed refugee claimants or even dangerous criminals. This point is made very clear by the fact that Canadian immigration officials have no idea where over 27,000 failed refugee claimants are, even though they have been ordered deported.

If the government were to list all the countries that are signatories to the UN convention on refugees, our immigration system could put far more focus on removing undesirables from this country instead of simply losing them and not knowing if they have or have not left the country.

Let me take this one step further. If we had implemented the safe third country strategy in time, we would likely not have had to deal with the likes of Tafari Rennock, a violent fugitive who was deported from the United States for sex offences and was later granted refugee status after slipping into Canada.

When Canadians read regular news stories like this one, they certainly do not feel safe, especially considering the recent terrorist attacks on America. If we are willing to provide a safe haven for violent sex offenders, who else are we willing to harbour?

What is worse is how this looks to our allies. Since the terrorist attacks on September 11, despite all its bristle and the introduction of Bill C-36, the Anti-terrorism Act, the federal government has stubbornly refused to acknowledge that our overly generous refugee system poses a major threat to our country's security and to that of our American neighbour.

Last year, we know that more than 45,000 asylum seekers arrived in Canada. Most of them were smuggled into the country by international criminal organizations that, in turn, brought these people through safe third countries. I would point out that many of these smuggling problems would be solved if we listed all western nations as safe third countries. After the events of September 11, it is inexcusable not to list all UN signatories to the refugee convention as safe third countries.

However, even more alarming is the knowledge that since the attacks against New York City and the Pentagon last September, more than 15,000 asylum seekers have entered Canada. Of these, close to 2,500 have come from terrorist producing countries, like Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Somalia, Algeria, Albania and Afghanistan. An additional 870 have arrived from Sri Lanka, almost all of them undoubtedly Tamils.

That is certainly not to suggest that all of these claimants are bogus. However, some could quite easily be members or supporters of various well-known terrorist organizations, like al-Qaeda or the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. The LTTE is one of the deadliest terrorist organizations in the world and is banned in Britain and the United States. I would suggest that if Canada had already proscribed the countries mentioned in my motion, this number would be significantly smaller and there would be far fewer opportunities for terrorists and criminals to slip through undetected.

Even if we were to disregard the current events, the reality is that when an illegal entrant arrives on Canadian soil and claims to be a refugee, there is very little chance that the individual will be removed, as I have already mentioned; remember the 27,000 deportees missing.

Unfortunately, this is especially true of serious criminals and terrorists because their removal frequently means they would be required to face justice in their homeland. Any thought of removal in such cases runs up against formidable obstacles. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies not only to Canadian citizens but also to anyone on Canadian soil whether in Canada legally or not.

In addition to the charter protection, even the most outlandish allegation that the individual might be mistreated or tortured will guarantee months, if not years of litigation. After several years of reviews, appeals and rehearings, the individual's own country will often refuse to accept the person back. Canada has been stuck with a number of these cases.

It would be easy to go on about this issue but I am allowed only so much. More important, I am looking forward to what my colleagues have to say about my motion. As I said before, it is unfortunate that this motion is not votable especially because the government appears somewhat warm to the idea of implementing safe third countries in our immigration policy.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, February 27th, 2002]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-434, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New Westminster--Coquitlam--Burnaby for seconding the bill.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to introduce the bill today. The bill would amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to permit an immigration officer to require a foreign national who has applied for a visitor's visa to provide security as a condition of the issuance of that visa. It would also provide for the immediate removal of the foreign national from Canada if the conditions of the visa or requirements of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act were not complied with.

The bill is a direct result of working with my constituents who have family members living abroad who have repeatedly been denied visitors visas for a variety of reasons. My bill would not of course eliminate the possibility of foreign nationals staying in Canada past their intended stay but it would provide legal means for their swift removal.

I am certain that my experience with my constituents is not isolated to my riding alone. I think there are many members in the House that frequently hear heart rending stories of how a certain relative wants to visit Canada for a special occasion but has been denied a visa.

My bill would give many families in the country the opportunity to enjoy family gatherings uniting loved ones from overseas. I look forward to debating the bill further in the House.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Immigration, February 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, not only does it seem we cannot get rid of these criminals, it seems as though we welcome them with open arms to boot. Tafari Rennock, a career criminal, was deported from the United States about two years ago. Last summer he was caught here illegally and filed a refugee claim while in custody. Apparently the Immigration Review Board was so impressed with his resumé, which included sexual assault, drug trafficking and robbery, that it accepted his claim.

Would the minister please explain how a known criminal entering Canada illegally from a safe country and in custody can be accepted as a refugee claimant?

[Immigration, February 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in 1991 Ranjit Gill, who is not a Canadian citizen, was convicted of committing a murder in Canada. A deportation order was issued immediately and immigration assured his victim's family that he would be sent packing as soon as he got parole. In 1998 they were told his appeal of the order had been dismissed. In early 2000 documents indicated that all avenues of appeal had been exhausted. He was paroled in early 2001 and remains in Canada to this day.

I will not ask the minister to comment on this case. I just want to know why it is so difficult to rid this country of violent criminals.

[Species at Risk Act, February 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the amendments to Bill C-5, the species at risk bill.

Once again I am disappointed in the government's approach to dealing with its citizens. Bill C-5 addresses some very serious issues concerning the survival of endangered species in Canada and the habitat that these species occupy.

I am certain that no Canadian in their right mind would care to wilfully endanger any of the numerous species that are endangered. In fact, I think if we were to ask Canadians what should happen to someone who knowingly and wilfully threatens an endangered species or their habitat, they would tell us that serious fine or jail time would be appropriate. I would suggest that most Canadians would be reasonably comfortable with the government's proposed fines of up to $250,000 for an individual and up to $1 million for a corporation with the possibility of a five year sentence. The operative words here are knowingly and wilfully.

That being said, I think Canadians would be appalled to learn that the government will make it a criminal act to kill, harm or harass any one of hundreds of endangered species or interfere with their critical habitat, even if the individual or corporation did not know that they were committing an offence. Yes, that is right, the government is proposing legislation that will put Canadians in the position of possibly committing a serious criminal offence without even knowing it.

The legislation does not require intent or even reckless behaviour. Rather, it places the burden of proof on the individual to prove that he or she was practising due diligence should harm come to an endangered species.

In order for Canadian landowners to protect themselves, they will have to become experts at recognizing hundreds of endangered or at risk species.

Again, who among us can readily identify, for example, a sage grouse or a Bicknell's thrush? How many members in this place could identify a five lined skink or a spring salamander? I am having trouble even pronouncing these things let alone identifying them. Moreover, how many Canadians could even begin to identify where any of these animals lived?

I do not want anyone to get me wrong. I believe it is very important to put in place legislation that is designed to protect these animals and the hundreds of others currently at risk in Canada. However, in the way the legislation is worded, not only must average Canadians be able to recognize the species but they will also need to identify their critical habitat in the event that they disturb a place where some of these animals spend part of their life cycle. This would also include places in which they used to live and might be reintroduced. According to the proposed law, if due diligence is not taken a person could face a very serious criminal prosecution resulting in fines, or jail time as I mentioned earlier. It is wrong for the government to go down this path.

Bill C-5 ignores one of the fundamental tenets of our legal history: criminal offences must be committed with a criminal mind. Mens rea is the Latin term for this.

The Canadian Alliance supports the goal of protecting endangered species but it cannot be done in such a heavy-handed manner. If the government wants to protect endangered species, it needs to put the emphasis on going after people or corporations that knowingly and willingly put endangered species at risk.

The approach in Bill C-5 is adversarial and provides no opportunity to landowners or corporations to co-operate with the government to preserve natural habitats or endangered species. The government will simply say “gotcha” and then all one can do is hope that the minister is reasonable in exercising discretion as outlined in the bill.

With 70 million hectares of agricultural lands and 25 million hectares of privately owned forest lands in Canada, how do farmers and operators exercise due diligence over such large areas, especially when many are small operations with very limited resources and with little or no familiarity with endangered species regulations?

The minister knows this is a problem. He said it himself, and I quote:

The accident, the unwitting destruction—it is a concern, and we want to give the maximum protection we can to the legitimate and honest person who makes a mistake, who unwittingly does that.

The minister said that in the standing committee meetings on October 3, 2001.

The minister's words are nice but the bill would make honest people into criminals.

The Canadian Alliance amendments attempt to restore the balance by requiring that the crown at least prove some measure of intent before somebody can be convicted.

Did someone wilfully harm an endangered species? Did they do so with intent? Was it done in a reckless manner? These amendments would go some way to ensuring that innocent people do not inadvertently commit a criminal offence,

I urge the government and other opposition parties to hear this argument and to vote in favour of Canadian Alliance Group No. 2 amendments.

At minimum, the federal government must work with the provinces to provide training for landowners and users who will be required to meet the due diligence standard but do not have the knowledge or information to identify lists of species or their critical habitat.

In closing I would like my colleagues to consider how many of their constituents own recreational vacation properties. We tend to think of this type of legislation in terms of commercial use of large tracts of land. What will a member say to a constituent who is facing criminal prosecution because in clearing land for a vacation cabin he unwittingly destroys the habitat of a species at risk that he did not even know was there? Some might say that is a bit of a stretch but I say that it is a very real possibility given the uncompromising zeal of some environmental advocates.

I urge all members to support the Canadian Alliance Group. No. 2 amendments.

[Copyright Act, February 22nd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the Copyright Act, Bill C-48, at second reading. Since we will be supporting the bill at second reading, I will keep my comments brief and to the bill.

First let me say that I do have a bit of personal interest in copyright because, as some may know, in my younger years I wandered around the country with a guitar making my living writing and playing music so it is something that is dear to me.

Before commenting on Bill C-48 I would like to read into the record the summary provided as part of the package announcing the bill, which states:

This enactment amends the Copyright Act to provide that retransmitters who currently benefit from the compulsory licence regime provided for by section 31 (such as cable distribution undertakings and direct-to-home satellite distribution undertakings) will continue to do so, while allowing other retransmitters who meet the conditions prescribed by regulation to also benefit from that regime.

On December 12, 2001, in a Government of Canada news release, the heritage minister is quoted as saying that:

--this bill will strengthen Canada's already vibrant broadcasting system and protect the rights of Canadian content creators. It will provide much needed clarity.

There is an expression, “there is more to this than meets the eye”. Unfortunately in this case there is far less to this than meets the eye.

The purpose of Bill C-48 is to amend the Copyright Act, which was originally amended under Bill C-32 in 1996. At that time, due to pressure exerted on the committee by the current heritage minister, there were at least two significant deficiencies in the resulting legislation. Furthermore, due to interdepartmental rivalry between the two responsible ministries, heritage and industry, and to a certain extent the personal rivalry between the ministers of the day, the revisions to the Copyright Act in 1996 yielded some questionable results. Those rivalries between ministries and ministers continued into December 2001 and the lack of agreement is reflected in the bill.

Canadian content creators and the broadcast industry deserve better. It is their property and their intellectual property that is being stolen by certain distribution systems and cable and satellite providers. Creators should be covered by copyright provisions. In addition, the industry should have the property for which they have paid good money protected.

It is for this reason that the official opposition will be voting in favour of Bill C-48. We believe in the principle of protection of property rights. However, the heritage minister's statement that the bill will provide clarity could most charitably be described as an exaggeration.

Clause 2, or proposed subsection 31(1) of the Copyright Act, defines retransmitter. In this clause it was anticipated that we would have a specific definition of a retransmitter but let us read the clause:

Paragraph 2(1) (b) states that a retransmitter is:

a person who retransmits a signal and meets the qualifying conditions referred in to in paragraph (3)(b)--

Let us look at paragraph (3)(b), which states:

The Governor in Council may make regulations

(b) prescribing qualifying conditions for the purpose of paragraph (b) of the definition “retransmitter” in subsection (1);--

Before everybody's eyes begin to roll, let me describe the net effect of these two clauses. The effect is to set up the governor in council, which is the cabinet working to the recommendations of the heritage and industry departments, to come out with regulations at some time in the future. The problem is that the Liberal government consistently falls back to creating simple enabling legislation in parliament so that the cabinet, armed with recommendations from the bureaucracy, can enact whatever the bureaucracy thinks is best at some future date.

This creates a situation of removing the decision making process from parliament. We are elected as members of parliament to come here to make decisions, not to create enabling legislation so that bureaucrats can do what they want when they want.

It can be argued that creating precise legislation means that as the technology changes the bureaucrats will have to regularly return to parliament. Therefore, with Bill C-48 functioning as enabling legislation rather than precise legislation, the bureaucrats can be flexible.

While this has a certain intellectual appeal, the result is nonetheless the same. The government is dealing duly elected members of parliament out of the process. A classic example of this situation exists in the previous copyright legislation, Bill C-32. A provision was made for a levy on blank tapes. The levy came into effect on blank tapes with the passing of the legislation. However, regulations were then put forward to the copyright review board.

Since the passing of the original legislation, the board has determined that this levy will apply not only to blank tapes but to blank CD recording medium and it likely eventually will apply to blank DVDs. Furthermore, the original levy has increased considerably based on the submissions to the copyright board by the creators, so the effect is that the parliamentary process and the representatives duly elected by the people have been sidelined by the government. Furthermore, the board is at liberty to continue expanding the mediums to which this levy will apply as well as being free to increase the levy itself.

While the creators, using the revenue base collected from these provisions, can prepare representations to the Copyright Board, directly influencing their decisions, the individual consumer who is impacted by these extra charges could not possibly afford either the time or the money required to develop proper presentation.

In order for the official opposition to vote in favour of Bill C-48 when it leaves committee, we will require one of two things: an amendment that adds to the specific definition of retransmitter, one that will act in a way to protect the property and the intellectual property rights of the creators and the broadcast industry, or at a minimum, the tabling of detailed regulatory information by the heritage and industry departments.

We want to support the bill because we believe in property rights protection. We look forward to either of those two avenues being undertaken by either the government or the departments concerned. Parliamentarians must be returned to their rightful place in the legislative process.

[Supply, February 5th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I absolutely agree with my colleague from Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough. I think the majority of Canadians would agree that we must put the rights of the victims and the rights of the potential victims, who I think are the ones we talking about here, first. If there is a charter challenge or a little bit of fear that it may be challenged, so be it. It is up to us to represent our constituents and to do the things they want us to do. If the challenges are there, let them come forth and we will deal with the challenges.

[Supply, February 5th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, where do I see the rights of the victim as opposed to the rights of the criminals, specifically the rights of a sex offender? I think many people in the country would say that somebody who preys on children should have no rights, but of course we understand that everybody is guaranteed rights under our charter.

However, whose rights should supersede in cases like this? I would suggest that virtually all Canadians would say that the rights of the victim, the rights of the children, the rights of the victims of sexual assault should supersede any rights that a criminal has to privacy.

I do believe one of the reasons the government is reluctant to implement this is that it is concerned about infringing on the rights of these people, especially after they have completed their sentences. It certainly has popped up before in other cases.

I think there is a philosophy at work here, and I would cite one case. A 20 year old person in Victoria, British Columbia was just convicted of a very serious assault. However, we could not identify him because he had been convicted as a young offender for taking part in a brutal murder in Prince Rupert along with five other young offenders. Even though a newspaper article wanted to describe the nature of this person and that he had been previously involved in serious violent activities, it could not name him because of his previous activity as a young offender. The newspaper could not name him in a newspaper article to say that he had been involved in a very serious violent offence and that he had been convicted again as an adult.

We are dealing with some serious issues over protecting identification. I think this is one of the problems the government is having about enacting this legislation. It does not want to go anywhere close to violating any perceived right that sex offenders may have.