Mark Assad

[Terrorism, September 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, last week's events in the United States elicited much compassion, solidarity and sympathy in Canada for the families of the victims of this inhumane tragedy.

The voice of our Prime Minister was heard clearly, not only by Canadians, but by Americans and also around the world: a voice tempered by moderation and caution, but also a voice resolute with conviction to fight terrorism throughout the world.

Last week, Canadians demonstrated great wisdom about the reality of the world, as well as a profound understanding of the injustices and social inequalities caused by fanaticism and violence.

Canada's Islamic community is thankful to the Prime Minister and all of the members of the House for their reassuring words. I am certain that Radio Canada International will once again be able to share Canada's message of hope with people around the world.

[Sir John A. Macdonald Day And The Sir Wilfrid Laurier Day Act, June 7th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I would like to deal with the main issue raised by the member.

Obviously he made reference to a specific case which we cannot go into any detail on. However I can assure the hon. member that the processing time for applications for permanent residents is not static. They vary according to how many applications are in the process at any given time and available resources to process them.

I will give an example. In the year 2000, 50% of all the applicants who applied for permanent residence in the business immigration category took roughly 11 months to process. This means of course that some were longer than 11 months and some were shorter. However I can assure the hon. member that in this case the allegations that were brought out concerning Gaetano Amodeo were completely and utterly unfounded.

In conclusion, all members of parliament make representations to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. It is our duty to do so when our constituents ask us for some information.

Senators, members of parliament, and even our colleague from Dauphin—Swan River, I am sure, have made representations to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration on specific applications.

Last year, we received 40,000 requests for information. In the national capital region, there were in excess of 6,000 representations made, some of them by myself.

That is the role we play, our duty to our constituents, and we play it with the best intentions possible.

[Food And Drugs Act, June 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to say that the member for Dauphin—Swan River showed that he is a very open minded individual during deliberations in committee. On many occasions his contributions were very liberal, if I may use the term. It was greatly appreciated. In fact, that goes for every member of the committee. There was co-operation and there were heartfelt and compassionate discussions on the best possible policy for immigration for our country.

In response to the question, the key role of our immigration policy is to strike a balance between enforcement and facilitation. It is always difficult to tell people that they have to leave Canada. I can imagine that it is very dramatic. I can assure the member that in the case of the Sklarzyk family, reported by the media, the file has been reviewed and there was no administrative error. That is a fabrication of the media.

In Canada, we apply the law in keeping with the rules. Before a person is expelled, he or she is entitled to application of the law in keeping with the rules.

I can guarantee the hon. member that no one is expelled because of administrative error. There is a clear order of priority governing expulsions: criminals, rejected refugee claimants, and visitors whose visas have expired.

In 1999, as reported in the media, the family overstayed the limits of their visitor's visa. At that point they had already been granted extensions and were advised to submit an application for permanent residence if their intention was to stay in Canada. No application was submitted, but the family did claim refugee status. Further, the Immigration and Refugee Board determined that the family members were not refugees. Subsequently, the family has now exhausted all avenues of appeal.

[Immigration And Refugee Protection Act, June 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, during the review in committee of Bill C-11, the hon. members for Laval Centre, Mississauga West, Dauphin—Swan River and other members of the committee truly co-operated to ensure that this bill would reflect the best interests of Canadians.

I am indebted to my colleagues, because during the clause by clause review, I learned a great deal about the Immigration Act and the immigration process as such.

I had previously had the opportunity to visit various offices abroad, where potential immigrants seek Immigration Canada's assistance. I was impressed by the work of our immigration officers. Again, I learned a lot.

Like many Canadians, I realize that we are a privileged nation and it is no surprise that a large number of people all over the world wish to settle in our country.

In the clause by clause study, several issues were addressed. Of course, many of these issues were debated in a spirit of co-operation. We really wanted to end up with a bill as in sync with the Immigration Act as possible.

Many things can be said and many comments can be made about the most positive elements of this bill, but three things caught my attention. The goal here is to make the Immigration and Citizenship Act much more effective.

When we try to make changes to legislation to make it more effective, people sometimes say “To speed up the process, you might have to scratch some significant elements. I do not think that is the case here.

The bill includes very positive measures for refugees, like new appeals to the Refugee Appeal Division. Measures are being taken to ensure that refugees have the opportunity to integrate into Canadian society. I do not think the changes proposed to the legislation ignore this issue. Quite the opposite, we have made access to our country easier for refugees.

Many concerns were raised during consideration of this bill, and rightly so. There are people who come to our country and apply for refugee status because, unfortunately, they have been victims of torture in their country of origin. Therefore, in response to initiatives by Canadian NGOs and the United Nations, we incorporated an element about torture into the bill, meaning that people who are or have been victims of torture, or who are at risk of being tortured, may be able to qualify to become Canadian citizens, provided that they meet other criteria.

We have also introduced a new measure: risk assessment before removal. There are occasions when, unfortunately, people claiming refugee status do not meet all our criteria, which are very compassionate. Nonetheless, such people have a second chance, as it were, to have their case reviewed. If the circumstances have changed in their country of origin such that it would be dangerous for them to return, that is one of the factors that could work in favour of their being accepted into Canada. However, I do not wish to dwell any further on this.

As I have already mentioned, several other members have comments to make on this bill. As a general comment, as immigration evolves in our country, we know that it is extremely important for our future and for the prosperity of our country. With this evolution, there will be changes in the regulations, and the parliamentary committees will be able to examine all these regulations. I am sure that this will be done in the future.

I am grateful to all those who helped draft this bill. I learned many things along the way. It should also be pointed out that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has been very open, always ready to explain or clarify elements of the bill. I believe that this bill is a great improvement, and that there will be others in the future.

[Citizenship And Immigration, May 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Cariboo—Chilcotin raised a case in this place two days ago. Although the member was correct in saying that the Citizenship and Immigration Department had not sent him a written response to his query since last August, he conveniently omitted to mention that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration's staff had been in telephone contact with his office several times to resolve this matter to everyone's satisfaction.

This omission gives us the impression that he is playing politics with people's cases at the last hour. This is hardly the way to get the job done, especially when it involves very complex cases.

[Five Pin Bowling Championship, May 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to congratulate the Quebec women's five pin bowling team, which came away from the Canadian championships in Hamilton this past May 26 with the gold medal.

The team members are Isabelle Plante, Sylvie Carrière, Lucie St-Gelais, Christine Danis, Natalie Trudel and Joanne Trudel. All are from the Outaouais region and we are very proud of them.

This is the first year that Quebec has sent a team to this championship and the organizers commented on the sportsmanship and team spirit of these bowlers, which they said had not been seen on the national level for a very long time.

Once again, congratulations.

[Missing Children, May 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, last week, a father kidnapped one of his children in the daycare's yard, took the child to Dorval airport and left Canada for his country of origin.

Thanks to a concerted effort involving the resources of the federal program “Our Missing Children”, involving the RCMP, and the Montreal Urban Community Police Department in partnership with the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Immigration Canada, the kidnapper was arrested as he was boarding the plane for New York City.

I congratulate all those who took part in this effort for having quickly foiled this kidnapping attempt, and I am proud of the program “Our Missing Children”, which has helped find over 500 children over the past 15 years.

[Immigration, April 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we have a process and we respect it. It is the law. If an independent adjudicator takes a specific case and renders a decision, I cannot see why we should interfere.

[Immigration, April 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member knows that we do not discuss particular cases in a public forum.

The process is very simple. When serious criminality or terrorism is involved, officials seek to continue the detention of these individuals. The department also seeks detentions of those likely to disappear and those who pose a danger.

The decision to detain or release rests with an independent adjudicator of the Immigration and Refugee Board which considers case specific information before making a final decision. That is the process.

[National Epilepsy Month, March 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this month Epilepsy Canada and other organizations involved with the fight against this disorder have launched National Epilepsy Month. Epilepsy is a serious brain disorder affecting close to 30,000 Canadians.

It is characterized by seizures, uncontrollable trembling, convulsions and confusion. There is no cure, and the medications available for treatment often have severe side effects.

I strongly encourage Canadians to make a special effort during this month to learn more about epilepsy. Working together with medical researchers, we could improve the quality of life of those around us who suffer from epilepsy.