Bill Siksay

[Committees of the House, February 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague about recommendations 6 and 7 of the report. Recommendation 6 talks about encouraging temporary foreign workers and recommendation 7 talks about Canada encouraging employers to train workers with new skills and to give them a tax credit for that.

In British Columbia we have seen temporary foreign workers brought in on the new rapid transit line in Vancouver, in particular, to do tunnelling. The employer had a new machine that did the tunnelling. It refused to train Canadian workers on how to operate the machine. What can we do to ensure that kind of training takes place?

[Committees of the House, February 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the member has been saying about workers in communities affected by crises in the manufacturing industries and how they are interested in staying in their home communities and how we should be doing whatever we can to ensure that is possible. However, there are other workers in all regions who are interested in travelling and taking up jobs in other parts of the country.

One of the things the body of the report that we are debating talks about is labour mobility. Unfortunately, there are no recommendations that deal specifically with labour mobility, recommendations like the private member's bill that my colleague from Hamilton Mountain put forward. That bill suggests tax credits for workers, particularly those in the building trades, who are prepared to move to other regions of the country to take up work and that they be provided assistance to do that.

We know there are trained workers in a number of industries who are willing to make that move but cannot do it because they do not have that kind of assistance. I wonder if the member might talk a bit about labour mobility in that vein.

We also know there is a recommendation in the report that the temporary foreign workers program be augmented. This has always been of concern to me, especially when Canadians are available to do work but do not have the means to travel to take up jobs in other regions of the country, and instead, workers are being brought in from offshore.

In Canada in the past often the plan has been to bring in temporary foreign workers but to put them in the stream to become citizens, to land them as permanent residents, make sure they enjoy all the labour rights and become full citizens. It is not a guest worker program. I wonder if the member might comment on the temporary worker program in that regard as well.

[Committees of the House, February 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his important contribution to the debate today on the concurrence motion on the report from the industry committee about manufacturing in Canada.

It is very important what he has been saying about the need for a particular sectoral approach to deal with the manufacturing industries in Canada. Our member on the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology made the point in his supplementary to the report that there was nothing in the recommendations of the report that dealt with specific sectoral strategies.

For a long time New Democrats have called for specific sectoral manufacturing strategies for the auto sector, shipbuilding, forestry and the textile industry, among others. Unfortunately, the recommendations of the report ignore that.

Given the experience that the member had in the Ontario government in the 1990s where that kind of approach bore real fruit in terms of dealing with the communities affected by a recession, could the member talk about why he thinks that approach is still largely ignored by our federal government and why the federal government will not engage in a sectoral strategy and why it will not put these kinds of plans in place when his experience has shown that they are so effective?

[Committees of the House, February 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am really glad that we have the opportunity this morning to discuss concurrence in the industry committee report, “Manufacturing: Moving Forward--Rising to the Challenge”.

One of the suggestions that the NDP member on that committee made in a supplementary opinion that was attached to the report was to call for specific sectoral manufacturing strategies.

New Democrats have long called for a specific auto strategy. I know the member, being from St. Catharines, will know the importance of having a specific auto strategy, but for years we have not had that kind of specific strategy to deal with the auto industry and we still do not.

We also called for specific strategies for the textile industry, aerospace, shipbuilding, plastics, food processing and chemicals.

I wonder if the member could comment on the need for those specific sectoral strategies, and particularly the need for an auto strategy which we have yet to see in Canada.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, January 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that Canada's Criminal Code does deal with that. If a Canadian is charged with these kinds of crimes, there are mechanisms which accommodate exactly that. We do not need a special process like this. Those mechanisms already exist in the Criminal Code of Canada. We can see that right now, because there are Canadians charged with these kinds of crimes and those processes are in court. Those kinds of issues will be dealt with by the court as well.

To say that we need this lesser process to deal with people who are not Canadian citizens I think is a very flawed thing. To say that we need a separate system of justice or a lesser system of justice for someone who is a visitor in our country or is a permanent resident I think violates the charter at a very fundamental level. It certainly violates my hopes for what the charter might mean to someone who is present here in Canada.

I am someone who believes that the charter should apply to anyone who is here in Canada and that what is good for a Canadian citizen should be good for any of our brothers and sisters around the world, that we should respect that hope with all of those people. I do not accept that we need a separate process to deal with that.

I also do not accept that the special advocate in any way will address the problems of hearing secret evidence. We have seen that it has been a flawed process in Britain and in New Zealand. We have seen many recommendations made by experts in Canada about what a special advocate process might look like here. Unfortunately, the government chose not to implement any of them in the legislation it brought forward. It had that possibility and it had the studies for a long time, yet the bill that was presented here did not reflect any of that wisdom.

Some of the special advocates in other jurisdictions in Britain have said they have had to leave that work because all they were doing was adding a veneer of respectability to a very flawed process. I do not want to put a lawyer in Canada in that position. I think that is why the government has had to extend the deadline for applications for people who wish to be special advocates in Canada: because lawyers in Canada are unwilling to participate in that kind of flawed position. It is a flawed position that the Canadian Bar Association has said is likely to be held unconstitutional, so here we are debating a law that is going to end up back in court and which is likely to be rejected again according to many of the experts who appeared before the committee.

I do not think that is an acceptable process. We need to be clear about what our hopes are for our justice system. We need to be clear about protecting the principles of that justice system that has been established over hundreds of years and that we have fought hard and long for in this country. I believe this legislation flies in the face of that experience and that tradition. That is why I will not be supporting this legislation.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, January 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak this afternoon in this debate on the report stage amendments to Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (certificate and special advocate) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act. I was pleased to second the amendments put forward by my colleague, the member for Surrey North, on behalf of the NDP caucus today.

It is a somewhat controversial process to suggest that all the clauses of this bill be deleted, but it is a way for us in this corner of the House to show our very serious concerns with the legislation, to show our fears that this is the wrong process to protect Canadians, and to ensure fundamental justice in Canada. In the traditions of this place, putting forward those kinds of amendments is one way of showing that kind of deep concern.

The security certificate legislation is a feature of our Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, but my fear is that we are now using it essentially to prosecute very serious criminal matters, and in fact some of the most serious criminal matters that could face our society, those being terrorism, espionage and threats against the national security of Canada.

What this is saying is that we are prepared to use this lesser immigration process, which is essentially an expedited deportation process, to ensure that dangerous people are kept off the streets in Canada. It seems to me that this is short-circuiting our criminal justice process, especially when it comes to very serious crimes such as terrorism, espionage and threats against national security.

If there is a time when those crimes should be prosecuted, and prosecuted vigorously, it is when we have information about people who are present in Canada and participating in any of those kinds of activities. We should be ensuring that they are charged, prosecuted, convicted and then punished for those activities, but we should be doing it according to the principles of our justice system.

We should not be trying to short-circuit those very basic principles. I think that is what we are doing by using what I believe is a lesser provision of law in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to indefinitely detain people who have not been charged or convicted of any crimes and to deny them access to the evidence that is presented against them. They do not have the ability to fully test what is being presented and is leading to their continued detention.

Currently, post-September 11, this is being applied to six people in Canada, five of whom are Muslim men. I am very concerned that these men have had very serious allegations and accusations levelled against them, accusations that will follow them for the rest of their lives and make it difficult for them wherever they live, here in Canada or in any other country. Once people are labelled as suspected or accused terrorists, especially in the current world climate, their lives become very difficult.

Given the consequences of those kinds of allegations, we owe it to people to subject them to the highest possible standards of our justice system, not some lesser process. That is why I am fundamentally opposed to this legislation.

I would like to see us repeal the provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act relating to security certificates. If there is a problem with our criminal law such that we are unable to prosecute people accused of these very serious crimes, then we should fix those problems in our Criminal Code to ensure that this kind of prosecution can take place.

I am also concerned that if the security certificate process went through to its logical conclusion, these people could be deported to countries where their lives would be in danger or where they might be subjected to torture. Canada must never deport someone to torture. We should never deport people when we have reason to believe that they will be killed once they return to their countries. We have a responsibility in that matter. Ultimately, the security certificate process allows us to avoid those kinds of responsibilities. We must never deport someone to torture.

I have to reiterate that using the security certificate process as provided in our immigration law is a lesser process that does not meet the important and longstanding traditions and standards of our criminal justice system. The appropriate way to deal with these very serious crimes is under the Criminal Code.

Of the five Muslim men who are currently the subjects of the security certificates, Hassan Almrei is the only detainee now being held at the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre. “Holding centre” is a nice way of describing what it actually is. It is a maximum security prison within a maximum security prison.

It is a maximum security prison located within the walls and the fences of Millhaven maximum security penitentiary, so it is not exactly a picnic of a place to be. I have been there on several occasions. It is a very difficult place. To be detained there indefinitely is I think a very severe penalty for anyone, especially someone who has never been charged or convicted.

Mr. Almrei is the only prisoner there. I believe that raises serious issues of solitary confinement, which we have to struggle with in this place and in our justice system. I do not think it is ever appropriate to hold someone in solitary confinement for a long period of time. Now that Mr. Almrei is the only prisoner there, that is the situation he faces.

The other four men who have been released on very strict conditions, Mohammad Mahjoub, Mahmoud Jaballah, Adil Charkaoui and Mohamed Harkat, are living with very difficult requirements. There are very severe restrictions on their lives and the lives of their families.

The reality is that those four men have been released from detention because they have family members who have been willing, on behalf of Canadian society, to act as their jailers. I think that is a very difficult proposition to put to any family member: that on behalf of Canadian society they should have to be responsible for one of their loved ones 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to make sure they remain in custody and meet these very rigorous conditions.

The effect on the lives of those families is very severe, and again, when their loved one, their father, brother or spouse, has never been convicted of or charged with a crime in Canada. These are very severe restrictions and we see how difficult it is for these families. We have seen just recently how Mr. Harkat has been arrested for an alleged breach of his release conditions. We are waiting anxiously to hear the outcome of his hearing today.

In a sense, I believe that those conditions have been set so strictly so that they will fail. It is hard to imagine how anyone could live under those conditions. It is a testament to the strength of the relationships in those families that they have been able to hold those families and those relationships together given the conditions that they are required to live in.

I am very convinced that this legislation violates some of the fundamental tenets of our justice system and that it uses a lesser mechanism in immigration law to deal with one of the most serious criminal issues that could face our society, that being terrorism or threats against our security. That is why I strongly will be voting against this. I am glad that the New Democrat caucus in this Parliament will also be voting against it.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, January 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his intervention in the debate. His comments are always very helpful and very well informed, given his great experience.

Yesterday, the families of the five post-9/11 security certificate detainees gathered here on the Hill, Mohammad Mahjoub's wife, Mona El Fouli, Adil Charkaoui's mother, Latifa Charkaoui, and Mahmoud Jaballah's son, Ahmad Jaballah. A representative of Sophie and Mohamed Harkat, Christian Legeais, also attended. As well, we remembered Hassan Almrei, who is the only person still detained at the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre on a security certificate.

One of the pleas that the families made was to ask that MPs and senators not support this legislation because of their great concerns about the injustice that it does. Ms. Charkaoui, Adil Charkaoui's mother, said that she did not believe there was a place in Canada for a justice system that involved “justice à deux vitesse”, I believe that was the expression she used, two systems of justice, one for Canadians and one for permanent residents or visitors to Canada. She believed that we should be proud of our justice system in Canada and that everyone here should have access to that system.

I wonder if the member could respond to Latifa Charkaoui's concerns about what she believes this security system represents.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, January 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the member saw a news report in the Ottawa Citizen earlier this week, a story about how the government is having difficulty finding lawyers who are willing to act as special advocates, who are even willing to apply for the position. Apparently, so far only 50 have responded to the month-long recruitment campaign.

There were reasons given for that by two very prominent legal experts. Lorne Waldman, a very prominent immigration lawyer, actually an expert on the special advocacy process, said, “Given the nature of what the lawyers are being asked to do, it does not surprise me that there has not been an overwhelming response”. He further went on to say that the system “fundamentally abrogates” the right of the accused to know the evidence against them. He points out very serious problems.

Vanessa Gruben, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, also says that she thinks that the low number of applications for special advocate positions may stem from concerns about the proposed security certificate legislation.

There are concerns among the legal community that the model proposed in Bill C-3 falls short of the constitutional standards set by the Supreme Court. That is also supported by the Canadian Bar Association and the Federation of Law Societies in Canada.

I wonder, given those very serious concerns, why the member can support this legislation.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, January 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have seconded the motions my colleague put forward this afternoon, which delete all the clauses of this legislation as a way of showing our fundamental disagreement with this security certificate process, as well as the fundamental flaws and the supposed fix that the government has provided for this legislation.

Earlier I was incredulous when I heard the Minister of Public Safety say that he believed the security certificate process was appropriate, even though its sole aim, the whole deal, was to send someone accused of some of the most serious crimes against our society, those of terrorism, security threats and espionage, out of the country. It did not matter if they were ever charged, convicted or punished for perpetrating those serious crimes. What is more is that the only thing this legislation and this process seek to do is to get them back to their country of origin, where there is no guarantee that they will be charged, convicted or tried for those very serious crimes either.

This seems to be a piece of legislation that seeks to avoid dealing with the most serious crimes in our society. Would the member comment on that? How does this legislation make Canada or Canadians safer? How could a Minister of Public Safety support that kind of legislation?

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, January 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister. He talked about people who were so dangerous to Canadian society that we should suspend some of the key principles of our criminal justice system in Canada, which would allow things like indefinite detention, secret evidence and even secret trial, and instead deal with these people by seeking their removal from Canada.

However, it seems to me that when we are talking about crimes of terrorism, espionage and plotting against the national security of Canada, we are talking about some of the most serious crimes that could be perpetrated in this country. Yet our response through this law is to seek the removal of those people, not their punishment, not their conviction, but their removal, and thus foist them on some other jurisdiction.

If we believe that these people are this kind of serious criminal, why are we not taking every possible measure to prosecute them criminally, to convict them and to incarcerate them here in Canada?