Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

[Attack on the United States, September 17th, 2001]

It is going to be very hard, Mr. Speaker, to be very brief.

As we know, Canada has signed various international conventions on refugees. I am firmly convinced that Canada is going to respect its commitments, despite the critical situation we find ourselves in today. It seems clear to me, at any rate, that if Afghani citizens were to manage to get to Canada and claim refugee status, their applications would, I believe, be looked at in a very serious manner and from a new view of their situation.

[Attack on the United States, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having taken the time to listen to me. The question remains: is the good always on the same side? I do not think so. I believe that everywhere, regardless of the country to which we turn, there are people who are extremely sad about what is happening. In the current situation, which generates a tremendous amount of diversified but extremely strong emotions, there is a danger that these emotions may make us forget to take stock.

Let us not forget that when we drop bombs we do not only hurt the bad people. We sometimes bomb people who are just as innocent as those who were trapped in the towers. Mankind is struggling with a rather terrible issue. In the wake of these events, I think that we can probably move on the road to democracy and justice if men and women of goodwill are able to recognize that there is anger and hatred in their hearts.

[Attack on the United States, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on September 11, a clap of thunder on a bright sunny day rocked our world into fear, anger, panic and pain. In an unimaginable act, terrorists struck with pin-point accuracy at the very symbols that provided us with the illusion of tranquility and security.

Can these horrible crimes, perpetrated by men against the emblems of our privileged society have any meaning? The answer to this question is not simple, because if we forget for a moment about the horror, and the fanaticism, and the madness of murder and hate, do we have the right to close our eyes on the misery of starving children, on the violence committed with no discrimination against vulnerable peoples, on the growing gap between the rich and poor?

Do we, as citizens, have some responsibility to bear in the succession of events? Are the “good” people really all on one side? Is the law of retaliation a fair and just response?

It was not by chance that the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon took place on September 11, International Day of Peace. The terrorists' message is clear: peace is an illusion. We do not agree with this message, but it is important to analyse the meaning of what they did. The fact that this tragedy was the result of the brilliantly orchestrated action of fanatical commandos does not free us from the obligation to understand and take action to safeguard the values of freedom, justice and democracy, which are the hope of all peoples.

World opinion was unanimous in denouncing the perpetrators of these unprecedented tragedies: they must be held accountable and face the consequences of their actions.

Because terrorism is the negation of democracy, each of us seeks the introduction of appropriate measures to eradicate it, and return to the feeling of security we had before September 11. Is this realistic? No, it is not, any more than it is realistic to think that it is possible to eliminate the violence and madness in the heart of men. Although Canada can undoubtedly improve identity checks at its borders and facilitate the transmission of information necessary for the security of its citizens, it is important to always bear in mind the danger of a collective paranoia which would suspend our freedom.

Transforming a state into a bunker is to decide to turn in on oneself, to suffocate. Canada's reputation when it comes to respect for human rights and acceptance of others is exemplary on more than one count. In this difficult balance required between stepped-up border security and respect for freedom, human rights, refugee and humanitarian rights, we must listen to the voices of our fellow citizens, who believe in enriching our society through the contribution of new traditions, new ways of doing things and seeing the world.

One of the most notable things about Canada and Quebec is the warm welcome we give those looking for a safer and more peaceful place in which to live. Our duty as modern and open democratic societies is to continue to help those fleeing dictatorial regimes and life-threatening situations. The manner in which we treat those who come to live with us will reflect our openness and generosity as a society.

I am confident, and I strongly hope, that despite the extremely difficult period that humankind is going through, Canada will still be able to set an example when it comes to respect for international conventions, particularly the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the international convention against torture.

The current situation must be of concern to future asylum seekers, who arrive in Canada in these troubled times in which international peace is being sorely tested.

We hope that these men and women wishing to live here will always be treated fairly, justly, generously and with the openness we are so proud of.

Khalil Gibran, the author of The Prophet , Lebanese by birth, wrote in a short volume published in French by Albin Michel in 1990 that crime is another word for need or symptom of disease.

In the aftermath of these attacks, one question remains unanswered: why? Why so much hate, why so much violence? At the heart of New York and Washington, the entire western world was hit. Could the misery and injustice to which millions are driven without hope be part of the answer? When life is little more than hunger, thirst, and watching one's loved ones become sick and die without any hope of light at the end of the tunnel, when life has been lived in a situation of war and oppression for so long, when a culprit appears to have been found, could anger, rage and revolt eventually take root in such circumstances and transform into deliberate acts mindless rage, where reality is wilder than fiction?

While globalization has made us believe in a thriving economy, it may be that the answers buried in the rubble of the twin towers talk about sharing, justice and generosity. Is it quixotic to believe that globalization, which is of an economic nature, could have a social dimension and that the right to feed oneself, to have a shelter, to learn and to grow become a concrete reality for all?

Will we collectively be able to make this societal choice?

No one knows what the days, the weeks and the months ahead will deliver. Let us hope that the anger will soon give way to wisdom.

The author of the Prophet also wrote “Hatred is a walking corpse. Who among us wishes to be a tomb?”

The September 11 incidents were a big bang that resonated across the whole world. Let us admit it. Democracy is fragile and today, more than ever before, this democracy will have the strength of our commitment to promote social equity, which reflects our responsibility toward the peoples of the world.

[Immigration And Refugee Protection Act, June 13th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, Canada and Quebec are havens. The Immigration Act should enshrine this welcome in a fair and equitable manner so as to respond as humanely as possible to the needs of new arrivals, be they immigrants or refugees, in accordance with international conventions and the values held by Canadians and Quebecers.

However, the anchor point for Bill C-11 is the harsh treatment accorded illegal immigrants. Much of the bill focuses on the closing of the door on potential immigrants, through the consolidation of measures intended to prevent fraud, reveal false declarations and abuse and deny criminals and people representing security risks access to the country.

Initially, it would appear from the bill that Canada has been invaded by criminals of all sorts; in a word, the door is open too wide. Not only is there a need for a bolt, but for an impenetrable alarm system as well.

The Bloc Quebecois does not agree with this position. While it is important, indeed vital, to prevent criminals, especially those in organized crime or who have committed crimes against humanity, from entering the country, we must remember that these individuals represent a minuscule fraction of the people immigrating to Canada. To do otherwise is to reinforce the prejudice against refugees and immigrants.

I will quote to you, if I may, Madam Speaker, from an open letter from the Centre justice et foi de Montréal on Bill C-11:

Bill C-11 was introduced in an essentially negative and defensive light: campaign against the snakeheads, major increase in penalties, increased powers of detention, reinforced interception measures abroad, reduced possibilities of appeal or review.

In our opinion, this represents a serious and dual perversion of the entire Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. First of all, it is situating immigration—an asset to society, a plus, even a demographic necessity in the case of Canada—in a reverse perspective, as a threat from which we must protect ourselves. Also, it is displacing the function of protecting those in need—the refugees included in the title—to protecting Canadians from the potential risk or abuse connected with these new arrivals.

...The logic of repression is everywhere, without escape and without end, and even if officially only certain immigrants and refugees are targeted, it will end up spilling over inevitably to all immigrants and all refugees.

That, in my opinion, is a very good summary of the general feeling of almost all individuals and organizations we met with during the committee hearings.

Yesterday the House awarded honourary citizenship to Nelson Mandela. No one can ignore the paradox and irony of the contrast between yesterday's Motion No. 379 and today's bill.

If the new legislation had been in effect 40 years ago and Nelson Mandela had sought asylum in Canada, as a member of an organization for the subversion by force of any government, to use the wording of clause 34, he would have been inadmissible. He would have been sent back to South Africa and there is a good chance that he would not have ended up the Nobel Laureate we now know.

During the committee review of the bill, the Bloc Quebecois introduced an amendment to paragraph 34( b ), so that only those who engage in or instigate the subversion by force of a democratically elected government be inadmissible. It seemed logical that the government should support this amendment. I do not have to tell members what the government's answer was. True to itself, it rejected the amendment.

The process for appointing board members is another major component of this bill. The bill does not include any changes to the appointment process. However, for several years, the Bloc Quebecois has been criticizing the Liberals for constantly making political appointments to the commission. It is essential to set up a transparent appointment process that will ensure full impartiality and a selection based on the qualifications and professional experience of the candidates, and not, as is often the case, on their political connections.

Since the bill provides that the decisions will be made by a single member, it is even more critical that decision makers all be extremely competent. Unfortunately, the amendments that we proposed in this respect were rejected. Yet, the government did not have to look very far. It could have looked at the appointment process for Quebec's administrative tribunals.

A brief was presented to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration by two lawyers and a psychiatrist. The Bloc Quebecois endorsed the proposed changes. By presenting them, we felt we would solve the problem of the political appointments of members by proposing the use of objective criteria guaranteeing the competence and independence of members. But the Liberal Party does not want this. It prefers to continue to appoint members in a totally arbitrary fashion, thus significantly reducing the moral and legal authority of these administrative tribunals. How dare the government toy in this way with the life, safety and freedom of these applicants?

Board members have an important responsibility, and it is no exaggeration to say that they have the power of life and death over those appearing before them.

Early this year, a bad assessment had tragic consequences. Everyone remembers the tragic situation in which the federal government placed Haroun M'Barek, a Tunisian who requested refugee status but was sent back to his country of origin, even though all signs were that he might be tortured there, which was in fact what happened. Too late, Canada recognized its mistake. In this case, the Bloc Quebecois' pressure on the government certainly played a role in Canada's interceding for Mr. M'Barek, but it would have been better if Canada had not had to intervene and Mr. M'Barek had been recognized as a political refugee.

The Bloc Quebecois finds regrettable the hard line taken by the government in introducing this bill and the accompanying public announcements. Through its approach to this issue, we believe that the government, which seems to be trying to reassure the Canadian right, is reinforcing prejudices towards refugees and immigrants. It is thus encouraging division and heightening xenophobic and racist sentiments in society.

In recent years, the Bloc Quebecois has frequently argued that the Canadian system for granting refugee status should include two essential characteristics: it must be prompt and fair towards the person rightfully seeking asylum, and it must dissuade those who clog the system with unfounded applications.

The slowness of the claims process is the cause of unacceptable human tragedies and puts people and families in extremely difficult situations. Is it acceptable that, at the end of December 1999, in Montreal alone, over 7,000 individuals seeking asylum were still awaiting a hearing?

I should mention that, although the bill proposes changes to claims for refugee status, nowhere does Ottawa agree to assume the administrative costs. If the government is so sure the measures proposed in the bill are effective, it should agree to assume the cost of them until the persons involved have been declared refugees and obtained permanent residence or left the country.

In February, Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia criticized the federal government's handling of the movement of asylum seekers, demanded major remedial action be taken and called for the federal government, which is solely responsible for the refugee determination process, to assume all the costs of it.

We must remember that it costs Quebec alone over $100 million a year to look after persons awaiting a federal decision by the IRB.

In closing, I would like to express to you a concern over the Canada-Quebec accord. The importance of this agreement lies in the fact that Quebec, aware of its responsibilities to protect French, can and must promote francophone immigration. It is no secret to anyone that the English language minority in Quebec is part of the vast anglophone majority in North America.

Quebec's anglophone minority can absolutely not compare itself to French language minorities in the rest of Canada. We are obviously concerned, and so is the Quebec government, by paragraph 3(3)( e ) of Bill C-11, which reads as follows:

3.(3)( e ) supports the commitment of the Government of Canada to enhance the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada;

Could it be that this paragraph challenges what had been agreed to in the 1991 Canada-Quebec accord relating to immigration and temporary admission of aliens?

In her presentation on this amendment, the hon. member for Saint-Lambert indicated on behalf of the government that the purpose of this added provision was to ensure that the spirit of the Official Languages Act would be respected, and to help Canada's official minority communities, and to reflect the spirit of the report of the Commissioner of Official Languages, who hopes that the Official Languages Act will be acknowledged in one way or another in every bill.

Indeed, the Official Languages Act stipulates that:

The government is committed to enhancing the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and supporting and assisting their development. It is also committed to fostering the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society.

The anglophone minority in Quebec cannot, however, flourish at the expense of the francophone majority, which is far more threatened and hemmed in on all sides by a North American anglophone tide.

The 1991 Canada-Quebec accord introduced a new and important objective for Quebec, to preserve the demographic weight of Quebec within Canada and to ensure the harmonious integration of immigrants into that society.

This addition to the Canada Immigration Act might also be in contravention of the spirit of Bill 101, which sets out criteria giving precedence to immigration by persons with a knowledge of French.

There is a consensus within the population of Quebec to the effect that it is imperative to ensure the survival of the French fact in North America. Need I remind hon. members that only 2% of the population of North America is francophone?

This threat to the survival of French was noted by UNESCO in 1999, when it judged that Quebec was entitled by law to restrict access to English schools because this was an appropriate way of preserving the French fact in Quebec. Even the Canadian ambassador to UNESCO stated in his argument:

In the specific demographic context of Quebec, the precarious situation of francophones and the preservation of their cultural identity in North America, and more specifically in Canada, required a legislative intervention tailored to their unique situation.

Could it be that wishing to support and assist “the development of minority official languages communities in Canada” and enhance “the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada” within the framework of immigration legislation could have the direct effect in Quebec of favouring the English-speaking minority in Quebec to the long term detriment of the very existence of the French-speaking minority in Canada?

Since 1951, Statistics Canada figures have shown a constant decrease in the size of Canada's French-speaking population.

It will therefore be important for the Government of Canada to enforce clauses 8 and 9 of this bill so as not to threaten Canada's French-speaking minority, most of whom reside in Quebec.

In closing, I cannot help regretting that the third reading of Bill C-11 has been rushed through in under two hours. This shows a complete lack of respect for the people of Canada and of Quebec. It also shows a lack of respect for those men and women who dream of coming and building a better future in Quebec.

I hope that the bill can be amended in the near future so that it meets the real needs of the public.

[Nelson Mandela, June 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased, as the Bloc Quebecois critic for citizenship and immigration, to speak today to Motion No. 379 tabled by the member for Markham to award honorary Canadian citizenship to a great hero of democracy, Nelson Mandela.

To date, only one person has been given this honour: Raoul Wallenberg, the Swedish diplomat who saved thousands of people from Nazi death camps during the second world war.

I cannot ignore the symbolism of this motion a few hours before passage at third reading of Bill C-11, an act respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger.

Nelson Mandela is an example for those who lead the fight for democracy in the world.

In 1944, he joined the African National Congress, the ANC. In 1948, the National Party won the election in South Africa. Its platform was unequivocal “The Black man in his place”. From then on, the policy of apartheid got tougher and introduced one of the most racist and undemocratic regimes in modern history.

Nelson Mandela was once asked when he decided to fight for freedom. He replied:

I cannot say exactly when I became politically active, when I knew that I would spend my life fighting for freedom. Being an African in South Africa means that we are politically active from the moment we are born, whether we know it or not. African children are born in hospitals reserved for Africans; they go home in buses reserved for Africans; they live in neighbourhoods reserved for Africans and they go to schools reserved for Africans, that is if they go at all. When they grow up, they can only get jobs that are reserved for Africans, rent houses in townships reserved for Africans, travel in trains reserved for Africans—

—I never had a defining moment, a revelation, a moment of truth. It was the accumulation of thousands of insults, humiliations and forgotten moments that led me to revolt, that gave me the desire to fight a regime that held my people captive.

In June 1955, the ANC adopted the charter of freedom which, in addition to criticizing apartheid, proposed the creation of a democratic and non-racial South Africa. At the end of that same year, Nelson Mandela was arrested for high treason, an offence punishable by death. He and 91 other ANC members were put on trial, a trial that was to end with their acquittal in 1961.

In June 1961, the ANC decided to take up arms to fight apartheid by setting up an organization known as the “spear of the nation” and led by Nelson Mandela.

In August 1963, Nelson Mandela was again arrested and charged with treason, conspiracy and sabotage. He was to come out of prison only 27 years later.

In 1991, Nelson Mandela became president of the ANC. His negotiations with the president of South Africa ended the racist system of apartheid. In South Africa's first free election in 1994, Nelson Mandela was elected president, a position he held until 1999.

By making him an honorary citizen, parliament is paying tribute to the exceptional contribution this man has made to democracy and, through him, to the rightful struggle of those throughout the world who are fighting for democracy and equality.

However how can we ignore the paradox of Motion No. 379 and Bill C-11? Tomorrow, the act respecting immigration to Canada will make a future Nelson Mandela an undesirable citizen in Canada. If Bill C-11 had been in effect 40 years ago and Nelson Mandela had sought asylum in Canada, as a member of an organization for the subversion by force of any government, to use the wording of clause 34, he would have been inadmissible. He would have been sent back to South Africa and accordingly to prison.

On behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I thank the member for Markham for his initiative. Democracy and the equality of all citizens are the paramount values in our society, but democracy is all the more precious for being fragile. We are all responsible for keeping it alive. Many have given their lives for this ideal. Charles de Montesquieu, an 18th century philosopher, wrote “To love democracy is to love equality”.

Nelson Mandela will remain one of the strongest symbols of democracy in the 20th century. May his life be an inspiration for our democracy.

[Centre De La Nature De Laval, June 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Centre de la nature de Laval, an immense garden built from scratch in an unused quarry, welcomed one million visitors in 2000, who came for relaxation and for cultural and family activities.

As part of the Grands Prix du tourisme québécois on May 11, the Centre de la nature won the Kéroul award, an annual award that goes to an organization whose facilities are particularly accessible to people with disabilities.

The Comité consultatif conjoint pour l'accessibilité des personnes handicapées and the Centre de la nature overcame all obstacles, as the construction of a play area safe for all children, regardless of their level of development and independence, testifies.

As a recipient of the Kéroul award, the Centre de la nature joins other prestigious recipients, including the Cité de l'énergie, Forillon park and the Musée d'art de Joliette.

I am proud to congratulate and thank, on behalf of the people of Laval, the Centre de la nature and organizations that work to improve the living conditions of people with disabilities.

[Act Concerning The Emancipation Of The Jews, June 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, June 5 is an important date for democracy in Quebec: in 1832, with Louis-Joseph Papineau as speaker, the Parliament of Lower Canada passed a law stipulating that persons professing Judaism were entitled to the same rights and privileges as other subjects of Her Majesty in the province.

This law, passed 27 years before a similar law in Westminster, is proof that the fight of Lower Canada's patriotes for the political and democratic rights of their people included minorities. Now as then, openness to others, fairness and respect are the guiding values of the Quebec people.

In 1932, Louis Benjamin produced this eloquent testimony:

The centenary of the political emancipation of the Jews in Canada, and it was a French province—which thought it necessary to grant our race its freedom, is an historic event—In all of the British Empire, including the Canada of the day, it was Quebec which set a fine example of wisdom and tolerance. We will always remember Quebec's wonderful gesture.

[Patent Act, June 5th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to intervene briefly this morning on Bill S-17.

This bill does not require a long intervention, because the principles involved are relatively clear and part of the daily life of people living in a democracy. Membership in an international organization implies acceptance of the organization's decisions.

The aim of Bill S-17 is essentially to comply with two decisions taken last year. The bill brings the Patent Act into line with the requirements of the WTO.

Quebec is especially proud to have operating within its economy a number of international pharmacology and biotechnology firms. Laval, for instance, is known for its science and high technology park, a model in the area.

What would happen if Canada decided not to comply with the Patent Act any more? Of course, there would be drawn out court proceedings, with all that involves. It would mean losses somewhere for Quebec's and Canada's economies.

The Bloc Quebecois will support Bill S-17. This support makes very clear the position a sovereign Quebec will take once it has the privilege and the right to sit at the table of nations and sign its own international agreements, which it will support.

This therefore is a dress rehearsal. Quebec will sign WTO agreements and recognize decisions made, because, in all good faith, this is how it would have signed international agreements.

[Le Courrier-Laval, June 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the weekly Le Courrier-Laval was just awarded first prize by Quebec's weeklies association. Considering that there are over 140 weeklies in Quebec, this is quite the achievement. Le Courrier-Laval was published for the first time on January 19, 1945 and is in its 56th year. With a circulation of close to 105,000 copies, this newspaper is read by practically every household in Laval.

This recognition of the journalistic value of Le Courrier-Laval is definitely not a coincidence. For the past three years, a new team has been working extremely hard to meet the challenge of excellence by diversifying the newspaper's content and by using more appealing graphics. Le Courrier-Laval achieved its objective with the support of 86 people. Without their involvement, the Laval weekly would never have won this prestigious award.

It is with pride that, on my behalf and on behalf of the residents of Laval, I congratulate Le Courrier-Laval . To publisher Serge Lemieux and news editor Jocelyn Bourassa, I say “Mission accomplished”. Now, they have no choice but to surpass themselves; because Laval believes in excellence.

[Immigration And Refugee Protection Act, June 4th, 2001]

moved:

Motion No. 12

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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