Bill Siksay

[Committees of the House, February 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is with a sense of urgency that I move concurrence in the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. The report is entitled, “Issues raised by the use of security certificates issued under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act”.

The report deals with a motion that was passed at the standing committee on Tuesday, February 6. I will read the text of that motion in the report to give folks a sense of the issue. The motion reads:

Whereas the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration has a mandate to consider issues raised by the use of security certificates under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act;

Whereas the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration has visited the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre (KIHC), where three of those subject to security certificate are currently held;

Whereas a life-threatening hunger strike by KIHC detainees Mohammad Mahjoub (day 75), Mahmoud Jaballah (64) and Hassan Almrei (64) has long passed a critical stage;

Whereas a key complaint of the detainees is the lack of an independent ombudsman, a concern originally flagged by the 2005/2006 annual report of the Office of the Correctional Investigator that found "the detainees...no longer have the benefits and legal protections afforded by ombudsman legislation."

Therefore be it resolved that the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration:

a. acknowledge the emergency nature of the hunger strike and open discussion with regard to a resolution;

b. call on the Government of Canada and the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to mandate the Office of the Correctional Investigator, which has jurisdiction over all federal inmates except for those held at the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre, to now assume jurisdiction over the KIHC, investigate current and ongoing complaints of those currently on hunger strike, specifically urgently addressing issues such as:

1) Medical attention in the living unit by Medical Licensed Practitioners namely doctors in the living unit;

2) Detainees be released before dawn from their cells in order for them to be able to observe religious prayers as called by their religion;

3) They be allowed conjugal visits as it is offered to inmates;

4) They be allowed to access canteen facilities adhering to their religious beliefs;

5) Daily head count should be done away with immediately;

6) When transferred from the living unit to the administration building, be also accompanied by a supervisor from Correctional Services Canada;

And prepare an independent set of recommendations for resolution of said grievances.

And be it further resolved that the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration be asked to respond urgently in writing, to members of this Committee, outlining the Department’s actions in light of the passage of this motion.

And be it further resolved that these protocols be put in place on a permanent basis in order to deal with these detainees and any future such cases.

And be it further resolved that the Chair of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration report this motion to the House of Commons.

That is the report and the motion that was passed by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. I should also note that a similar motion, not quite as detailed, but also calling for the Correctional Investigator of Canada to have jurisdiction over the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre was recently passed by the Standing Committee on Public Safety.

I am very concerned about the situation at the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre, or KIHC, which is attached to Millhaven Institution, a maximum security federal penitentiary. KIHC is a maximum security prison within a maximum security prison specially constructed to detain those held under security certificate provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

That section of the act can be used to detain those people who are subject to deportation order who are suspected of a serious crime related to terrorism or organized crime. There are currently six men who are subject to security certificates, three of whom, Mohammad Mahjoub, Mahmoud Jaballah and Hassan Almrei, who are being held at the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre.

Three others have been released on bail subject to some of the most severe conditions ever imposed in Canada, which, for Mohamed Harkat and Adil Charkaoui, amount to house arrest for them and their families. There is no downplaying the kind of conditions that the men who have been released on bail face and the difficulties that it means for them and their families. They are very strict and severe bail conditions.

All the men held at the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre and the men released on bail have been held without ever having been charged, without ever having been convicted and without knowing the evidence against them. They have been detained for over five and six years.

I do not believe there is a place in Canada for indefinite detention without charge or conviction. I believe that it is a fundamental violation of human rights and civil liberties and flies in the face of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The issue has been argued before the Supreme Court and a decision is imminent.

However, I believe the security certificate provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act should be repealed and I have a motion on the order paper to that effect.

If the Criminal Code does not allow for serious crimes related to terrorism or organized crime to be addressed, then the Criminal Code should be fixed. If the police and security agencies do not have the resources to properly investigate such serious crimes, then that issue should be addressed and the problem fixed.

However, to suspend due process, to detain indefinitely without charge or conviction, is wrong. No one here believes that we should let such crimes go uninvestigated and unpunished but to suspend our whole justice process, our whole court process and all our legal processes is unconscionable and, I believe, unconstitutional.

There is a serious problem, given the circumstances of these men. It is not possible for Canada to deport them to the countries where they are citizens, namely, in the case of the detainees in Kingston, to Egypt and Syria. We know, unfortunately, that torture is practised commonly in both countries for folks who are detained or imprisoned. Canada does not and should not deport people to face torture or death. By accusing these men of somehow being related to terrorism, allegations that have never been proven in a court of law, we have set them up even further as targets for torture should they be deported back to Syria or Egypt.

The whole question of our obligations under the international agreement on torture is a very serious one. I think there is absolutely no excuse for Canada to deport people to face torture or death.

Indefinite detention without charge or conviction should not be a possibility in Canada. Deportation to torture or death must never be an option for Canada.

It is ironic that in the past couple of weeks we have seen six former Canadian foreign ministers write an op-ed piece on the website of The Globe and Mail that criticized the current government for not publicly criticizing the Americans for the abuses happening to the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. They pointed out that these people had not been charged or convicted and were subject to secret trials. They were criticizing the Government of Canada for not speaking out against American policies when those exact same kinds of policies are applied here in Canada. They criticized our government for not speaking out about what was happening at Guantanamo Bay when those exact same circumstances are happening here and when some of the men detained here are on a very serious hunger strike.

It is unfortunate that those former foreign ministers did not write about Canadian policies and criticize Canada for taking exactly the same kind of measures that the United States has taken, especially when the level of frustration of the detainees here has led them to take the very difficult step of going on a hunger strike.

I thought it was also strange to see in Parliament 10 days ago or so the foreign affairs critic for the opposition take on the government and the foreign affairs minister and criticize him for not speaking out about the abuses at Guantanamo Bay. Again, nothing was mentioned about Canada having exactly the same policies and the fact that three of the people detained under those provisions here in Canada are on a very serious and long term hunger strike.

That is the background to the current situation at the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre. The three men who are currently detained there, Mohammad Mahjoub, Mahmoud Jaballah and Hassan Almrei, are on a hunger strike. Mr. Mahjoub has been on a hunger strike for 82 days and Mr. Jaballah and Mr. Almrei for 71 days each. This is a serious situation.

I think everyone recognizes that the hunger strike has now reached a very critical phase, which is why the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration made an emergency visit to the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre yesterday to visit the men who are held there.

I think I can safely say that all the members who attended are very concerned for the health of the detainees. I am particularly concerned for Mr. Jaballah and Mr. Mahjoub, both of whom I believe are now at risk of life threatening consequences for their hunger strike.

All hunger strikes are extremely risky, especially those of this duration. These men have had no solid food in that entire period. At this time Mr. Mahjoub is taking only water and Mr. Jaballah and Mr. Almrei are taking water and regular orange juice.

To put this in context, Dr. Michael Peel, writing in the British Medical Journal, has recommended that hunger strikers who have lost over 10% of their body weight should be monitored daily. Both Mr. Mahjoub and Mr. Jaballah indicate that they have lost 45 to 50 pounds, putting them at or over the 20% mark.

It is still not clear as to whether daily monitoring of their health is taking place, and that has been one of the difficulties of the situation. Health professionals, often nurses from Millhaven Institution, present daily at the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre, but they have not examined the men daily due to one of the key issues of the hunger strike.

I also want to point out that the well known hunger strikers at the Maze prison in Belfast in the early 1980s died after hunger strikes of 49 to 61 days.

It should be very clear from these facts that this hunger strike at the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre has reached a very serious stage. I do not believe that Canadians want to see men detained without charge, without conviction and without knowing the evidence against them die in detention, but I feel very strongly that we are soon approaching that kind of possibility.

What are the key issues that Mr. Mahjoub, Mr. Jaballah and Mr. Almrei want to see resolved? A key is the need for an independent grievance procedure. Currently there is a three step internal process which has not worked well to resolve all issues.

As detainees at the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre, the men have no access to the Correctional Investigator of Canada, whose job is to act as an ombudsperson for prisoners in federal correctional institutions. When they were detained at the provincial facility in Ontario, the Metro West detention facility, they had access to the Ontario ombudsperson's office, but they lost that when they were transferred to the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre in April 2006.

The Correctional Investigator is essentially the federal prison ombudsperson. He has a mandate under part III of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to act as an ombudsman for federal offenders. The primary function of the office is to investigate and bring resolution to individual offender complaints. As well, the office has a responsibility to review and make recommendations on the Correctional Service's policies and procedures associated with the areas of individual complaints to ensure that systemic areas of concern are identified and appropriately addressed.

I would like to quote from the Correctional Investigator's last annual report, for 2005-06. In that report, Mr. Sapers said:

The second policy issue that concerns my Office is the situation of individuals detained pursuant to national security certificates. A national security certificate is a removal order issued by the Government of Canada against permanent residents and foreign nationals who are inadmissible to Canada on grounds of national security. A recent decision has been made by the federal government to transfer security certificate detainees held under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act from Ontario facilities to a federal facility, pending their removal from Canada.

In Ontario facilities, the detainees could legally file complaints regarding the conditions of confinement with the Office of the Ontario Ombudsman. That Office had the jurisdiction to investigate complaints filed by the detainees pursuant to the Ontario Ombudsman Act.

The Immigration Holding Centre has been built in Kingston within the perimeter fence of Millhaven Penitentiary. The Canadian Border Service Agency entered into a service contract with the Correctional Service to provide the Border Service Agency with the physical detention facility and with security staff. The Border Service Agency has a contract in place with the Red Cross to monitor the care and treatment of detainees in immigration holding centres, including the new Kingston holding centre. The Red Cross, a non-government organization, has no enabling legislation to carry out a role as an oversight agency.

The transfer of detainees from Ontario facilities to the Kingston holding centre means that the detainees will lose the benefit of a rigorous ombudsman's legislative framework to file complaints about their care and humane treatment while in custody. The Office of the Correctional Investigator is concerned that the detainees will no longer have the benefits and legal protections afforded by ombudsman legislation. Pursuant to the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture, a non-profit organization with no legislative framework, such as the Red Cross, is unlikely to meet the protocol's requirement for domestic oversight.

I believe that the loss of what the Correctional Investigator called the “rigorous ombudsman's legislative framework to file complaints about their care and humane treatment while in custody” has led us to the situation of the hunger strike. I also believe that the government and the Minister of Public Safety should immediately move to appoint the Correctional Investigator to meet with the men and find a solution to the hunger strike and a resolution to their concerns. That is what the motion from the standing committee has called for.

The minister has said that he is unable to respond to the specific issues raised by the detainees due to the fact that they have court actions under way. That may be true, but I believe the minister has an obligation to make sure that someone has a mandate to resolve the hunger strike.

This step that has been recommended by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration would allow a resolution. I think it is a very helpful suggestion to appoint the Correctional Investigator, and is one that is workable, but it must be undertaken urgently. The decision needs to be made today and that mandate extended today.

There are many issues that must be addressed at the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre. These men have been detained for over five and six years and have never had a private family visit or a conjugal visit with their spouses. Trailer visits are possible for convicted criminals at federal institutions, but no provision has been made for these detainees, who have never been convicted of any crime, to have this time with their families.

Another key issue is the restrictions placed on their religious practice. They have requested that they be allowed to rise and shower in time for their morning prayer, but this request has been denied. They have also complained that loud music from the guards' room interferes with their prayer.

Allegations of harassment by some of the guards at KIHC must also be resolved. This situation has led to a request by the detainees that a supervisor always be present when they are transferred between the two buildings at KIHC. Supervisors have often been refused, thereby limiting the men's ability to have medical checkups and treatment, visits with family and access to the gym, and to meet with the media.

There are many administrative issues that also need to be addressed. I think they are issues of petty harassment, frankly, made to make the daily lives of these men inconvenient and unpleasant.

Why, for instance, in an institution that holds only three detainees who can be observed 24 hours a day, are formal standing counts required three times a day? Why are they required to wear a prison uniform when being transferred between the two buildings of KIHC?

Why are they not allowed to dial their own telephone calls? Why, unlike prisoners held at other institutions, can they not cook their own meals? Why are not more culturally appropriate foods available to them in the canteen?

English is a second language for all of the detainees, so why are interpreters not provided to them when they need to deal with important issues to ensure clarity? And why is there no programming of any kind for the detainees?

All of these issues need to be addressed.

The situation at the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre is very serious. The hunger strike by the security certificate detainees has reached a very serious stage. The government and the Minister of Public Safety must take immediate steps to find a solution. Appointing the Correctional Investigator to meet with the detainees, investigate their grievances and make recommendations for solutions will make an important difference.

Detention without charge, without conviction and without knowing the evidence against one remains a serious violation of civil liberties and human rights in Canada, but leaving those detained under security certificate provisions with no independent process to resolve their grievances regarding specific conditions of their detention is also unfair and unjust and has forced the detainees to take the only action they have at their disposal, that action of a hunger strike.

We cannot let people die in custody in Canada because we were unwilling to solve specific problems related to their detention. The government and the minister must act today before it is too late.

I think the concurrence motion in the report from the committee offers a workable and helpful solution for this situation. I would urge all members to support concurrence in this report.

[Request for Emergency Debate, February 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am requesting an emergency debate on the hunger strike that is currently happening at the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre where Mohammad Mahjoub, Mahmoud Jaballah and Hassan Almrei are on a hunger strike regarding the conditions of their detention at the holding centre. We need an emergency debate on this issue because I think the situation is a serious one. Their health condition is deteriorating day by day.

Medical evidence shows that serious health issues can be possible after a hunger strike of only 10 days and that after 49 days there is a significant risk of renal failure, heart failure, heart arrhythmia, severe hypotension and hypertension.

Mr. Speaker, you might also recall some of the famous hunger strikes of the early 1980s and especially those at the Maze prison in Belfast. Those hunger strikers actually passed away after hunger strikes of 45 to 61 days. We are certainly within a period of parameter where there is very serious concern about the health of the hunger strikers in Kingston.

Mr. Mahjoub is on day 74 of his hunger strike and Mr. Jaballah and Mr. Almrei are on day 63, putting them well beyond the parameters noted above.

There has been no resolution to the grievances raised by the men at Kingston and no ombudsperson is available to them. Unlike other prisoners in the Canadian penitentiary system who have access to an ombudsperson and unlike other prisoners in our provincial system who have access to provincial ombudspeople for their grievances in the prison system, the men being held at the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre have no access to an independent grievance procedure or ombudsperson.

I also believe these men now risk dying in custody because of these very serious health issues that they face, given the length of their hunger strike and given the fact that there has been no movement to resolve the issues that they have been raising. Furthermore, I am concerned that they have never been charged or convicted of any crime and have no idea of the evidence against them.

Given the length of time that these hunger strikes have gone on and the serious consequences that stem from a hunger strike, when push comes to shove I think the House needs to put some attention toward this matter given that these men are being held in a federal facility at the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre.

[Immigration, February 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, a full refrigerator does no good if one feels the only option is to starve oneself to death.

Medical experts have pointed out that hunger strikers should be monitored daily after day 10 and that after day 49, serious health issues like heart failure, renal failure, and heart arrhythmia are very likely. Still the hunger strikers in Kingston are not being monitored. A request for a doctor today by Mr. Mahjoub has been ignored.

Will the minister ensure daily monitoring takes place at the living unit and that a full examination of these men by an independent medical doctor is urgently arranged?

[Immigration, February 5th, 2007]

Mr. Mohammad Mahjoub is on the 74th day of his hunger strike at Kingston Immigration Holding Centre. Mahmoud Jaballah and Hassan Almrei are on day 63.

The Minister of Public Safety has taken no initiative to find an end to this situation. Is the minister prepared to let these men die in his custody, never having been charged, never having been convicted and not knowing the evidence against them?

Will he immediately today appoint the Correctional Investigator Canada as an ombudsperson to speak to the men and make recommendations about their grievances?

[Canada Elections Act, February 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think anybody is shying away from that responsibility. Legislation currently exists in Canada that guarantees a fair process and guarantees to punish those who would seek to manipulate the system unfairly.

The Chief Electoral Officer in his own testimony said that there were very few investigations and hardly any convictions. He said there were no current charges concerning electoral fraud in Canada. The systemic problems in our system are not as serious as others would have us believe. I think we are talking about a phantom problem. We are removing people from their franchise by--

[Canada Elections Act, February 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I believe we would go farther if we did a proper enumeration and had a good voter's list. We would go farther if we had a voter's list that was created at every election rather than the permanent voter's list that we have now that we know is deeply flawed.

I also believe that we need to ensure that we have the resources available to pursue issues of electoral fraud when they crop up. There are lots of people in all of the polling places such as representatives of Elections Canada and representatives of political parties. Not all political parties take the opportunity to scrutinize the process seriously. During my years as an election volunteer, I was the only representative of a political party at a polling place scrutinizing the process. All of us have an obligation to watch the system more carefully and scrutinize the process. We have the resources in the current law to deal with any of the problems that crop up.

The measures in this legislation disenfranchise people and seek to address a problem that we have not identified clearly as a problem. I just do not think that is the way to go.

[Canada Elections Act, February 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Public Service Employment Act.

I speak strongly in support of the amendments at report stage put forward by my colleagues from Ottawa Centre and Vancouver East. I thank both of them for their long term work on the issue of full participation in elections in Canada in terms of both democratic reform and fair elections. Both the member for Ottawa Centre and the member for Vancouver East have been long-time and strong advocates for the participation of all Canadians in the electoral process, particularly marginalized Canadians, to ensure they do not lose their franchise in Canada. I know the amendments that they have put forward, which we are debating at this point, have come out of that experience and work.

New Democrats have very serious concerns about the bill. As has been heard over the course of several days of debate on it, we are very concerned about what this does to the electoral process in Canada and how this affects the most marginalized people in our communities. We want to ensure that we have a fair electoral system and one of which we can be proud and in which we have confidence.

There has been constant talk from the government, and from the Liberals and the Bloc, that the bill is about stopping opportunities for voter fraud. It is not about stopping voter fraud. It is about stopping the opportunities for voter fraud, and that is because it is hard to point to exactly where the problem is with the current situation. Where exactly is the problem with the current voting process and with presenting oneself on election day to vote?

The Chief Electoral Officer was asked that question directly at the committee when he was testifying in relation to the bill. What he said was very interesting. He said that there had been a few isolated incidents of attempted voter fraud, but nothing systemic or large scale. He said that there were some investigations underway, but there were no current charges. Over the course of the last few days, we have constantly heard about the need for this, but we have never really heard very many specifics about the record of charges or convictions around voter or electoral fraud in Canada. That is because there have been very few, if any, convictions for voter fraud in Canada.

We keep hearing about anecdotal evidence. The previous speaker from West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country talked about anecdotal reports. That is all well and good, but I do not think we develop legislation based on anecdotal reports. We need to develop legislation out of real experience and real problems that exist in our communities and with legislation and law in Canada.

Anecdotal reports just do not cut it. We have all heard those kinds of reports. Sometimes I think they are stimulated by partisan competition between electoral parties and scurrilous charges that have nothing to do with the reality of the process at the time of an election.

I really believe the bill sets out to try to solve a problem that does not really exist. It is a phantom problem of the opportunity for electoral voter fraud. It is kind of like the need for the big foot rabies protection act. It may exist, but it may not and we had better get to work solving it right away. I do not think that is a way in which we should be proceeding in the House.

Other issues are far more important in terms of electoral reform, but we have not spend any time on them in the House. Nor did the committee spend any time on them.

The whole question of proportional representation is something that Canadians know goes to the heart of the problems with our electoral system. It goes to the heart of improving our electoral system. Yet we have not been spending time on figuring out a way to implement that in Canada to ensure that all political ideas in Canada, all political ideas that Canadians hold, are represented in Parliament and that groups are represented, all ethnic minorities and racial minorities, and that women are represented in numbers representative of their place in our communities.

We need a system that takes those kinds of considerations into account and we do not have that now in the first past the post system. We need to ensure new approaches to government rather than the winner takes all approach that we have now. I think there would be spinoff benefits for that.

Some people say that we will be in an endless minority government situation. I do not fear that. I believe we will learn new ways of doing politics that stress cooperation and coalition building. I also do not fear the models of other countries where there is a proportional representation system. People sometimes say, “Do we want a Parliament like Italy?” It does not seem to me that Italy has collapsed as a country because of the wide representation in the Parliament of Italy.

People do not seem to recognize that Israel has a very fine tuned proportional representation system. Yet the Parliament of Israel, The Knesset, has never failed to act in the national interest of Israel when push comes to shove.

Those are good examples to remember. There are different ways of doing politics than the one where a party does not receive a majority of votes cast by Canadians, but it gets a majority in the House and then runs roughshod over all the other political ideas that are of importance to Canadians.

We should have spent more time on this legislation, ensuring that there was universal enumeration at each election. We all know, those of us who have run in campaigns or who have organized political campaigns, that there are huge flaws in the permanent voters list. An NDP suggestion to go back to a universal enumeration at each election was defeated as Bill C-31 was being considered in committee.

That is the crux of the matter. We have heard about huge numbers of voters being left off the list at elections and the problems that those have caused on election day. We need to go back to a system that ensures that each time we have an election in the country we seek out all the potential voters and ensure they are on the list, so they can exercise their franchise.

Some simple measures, which do not need legislation, would go further to deal with potential voter fraud. We could have done, and I think we could still do under the current provisions of the current electoral law, measures such as putting voter cards in sealed and addressed envelopes, so the information on a voter postcard or voter card could not be viewed or copied by other people. A measure such as that would be a significant step toward preventing the opportunity for voter fraud, one that does not require this legislation nor new legislation.

I also want to talk about the provision of the bill that was added on an amendment, I believe, by the Bloc and supported by the Liberals. Now it seems the Conservatives have caved in and are supporting it as well. It is the birthdate information that will be collected as part of the building of the voter list and it will be distributed and shared with political parties.

I am not at all concerned that Elections Canada officials and employees have access to that information as part of ensuring a fair electoral process. However, huge difficulties with an amendment that would see this information provided to all the parties. It is a huge invasion of privacy. It is an invitation to identity theft.

There is no need and no justification for political parties to receive this information. There has been chatter in the hallways of Parliament that MPs are looking forward to having birthdate information so they can call constituents on their birthday and wish them a happy birthday, or so political parties can more finely tune their polling or their distribution of political information in constituencies. There is absolutely no need for that kind of invasion of privacy. It is a huge grab of private information by the political parties.

The restrictions around vouching are unacceptable. We heard a criticism of serial vouching. In many neighbourhoods and communities that will disenfranchise many people. The fact that there will have to be a person who is on the voters list in that poll to vouch for another person and that this person can only vouch for one person will limit the access of many people to the voters list and to exercise their franchise. There is no excuse for that kind of limitation.

We should be doing what we can to encourage people. If there is a person who is working in that area and who knows people and where they live, there is no reason why they should not be able to vouch for more than one person.

We see a steady decline in voter turnout. We need to take measures that work toward increasing the turnout. The legislation goes in the opposite direction. It increases unfairness and reduces the ability of people to participate in the electoral process. For that reason I cannot support the bill.

[Canada Elections Act, February 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from B.C. Southern Interior has given us a very helpful intervention in the debate on Bill C-31.

I think we have a bit of a phantom bill here. It is a bill that is trying to address an issue that has not proven to be a serious problem in Canada. We keep hearing about the need to address the opportunity to commit electoral fraud when we know that the actual incidents of electoral fraud have been very few. In fact, it is hard to get anyone to give a very clear example of a conviction, let alone a charge, of electoral fraud in Canada, yet we have this whole piece of legislation that largely attempts to deal with this phantom issue of electoral fraud.

In this corner of the House, we believe there are some very serious issues around electoral reform that need to be addressed. I know that one of them is very important to us and to the member for British Columbia Southern Interior. It is the whole question of proportional representation. We want to make sure that the House is truly representative of all the political ideas that are found in Canada and that Canadians are interested in.

In the current first past the post system, that just is never the case. It is also never the case that the representation in the House clearly reflects the popular vote in Canada or reflects the diversity of the Canadian population or the participation of women in Canadian politics.

I wonder if the member for British Columbia Southern Interior might comment on what is really needed in terms of electoral reform in Canada and particularly on proportional representation.

[Justice, February 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Mahmoud Jaballah, Mohammad Mahjoub and Hassan Almrei have been indefinitely detained on security certificates for over five or six years without charge or conviction and with no knowledge of the evidence against them. They are currently incarcerated at the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre, where they have been on a hunger strike for over two months, seeking resolution of grievances regarding the conditions of their detention.

There is very serious concern for their health. Ten days ago a group of health care professionals released a statement noting the very serious health issues these men now face. They called for an immediate examination by an independent physician and daily monitoring.

The Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration must take significant measures to seek an end to this situation immediately. One potential solution would be to urgently appoint the Correctional Investigator of Canada to investigate the situation, speak to the men and make recommendations about a resolution. There is not much time to avoid very serious consequences. Action is required today.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, January 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure today to speak to Bill C-280, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, introduced by the member for Laval, no doubt in close collaboration with the member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges. I thank them for taking this initiative and indicate to them that New Democrats strongly support the bill.

However, the private member's bill, a bill to implement a bill that was already fully debated in the House and in the other place and that received royal assent, should never have been necessary. It is unbelievable that the House should have to revisit legislation, passed after a full debate, to call on the government to implement the provisions of the law in Canada. However, that is just what the bill does, and it is sadly necessary because the current Conservative government refuses to implement the law of the land and the former Liberal government and the former Liberal ministers of citizenship and immigration, the members for Bourassa, York West and Eglinton—Lawrence, all directly refused to implement the law of the land.

The bill before us today would implement the sections of the current Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or IRPA, pertaining to the establishment and operation of the Refugee Appeal Division, or what we commonly call the RAD.

IRPA, including these sections related to the RAD, was passed in Parliament in 2001. It is the law of the land. However, Liberals and now Conservatives have decided that they know better than Parliament, despite their participation in the legislative process in Parliament, and that they can ignore the decisions made here. I believe that kind of decision making shows contempt for Parliament and for the law.

We should not need to have this debate. The implementation of the Refugee Appeal Division should have been done years ago. It should be up and running.

I want to be on the record. I want to give officials and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration this notice. After an election, should I be in a position of responsibility in government, and I am an optimist by nature, as the minister of citizenship and immigration, I expect the department's file, with a detailed plan to implement the provisions of the existing Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Refugee Appeal Division and with the accumulated dust of years of Liberal and Conservative inaction and contempt blown off it, to be on my desk the moment I walk into the office. If I am ever in that position of being minister, I will, as the first act of my time in office, implement the Refugee Appeal Division. I have made this commitment publicly many times. It is the only possible decision, the only possible action, if one respects the law, if one respects Parliament and if one is concerned for fairness and justice for refugees in Canada.

What exactly is the Refugee Appeal Division?

The RAD was a compromise reached during debate on the immigration act in 2001. In exchange for reducing the Immigration and Refugee Board, IRB, hearing panels from two people to one, MPs agreed to establish the RAD to ensure there was an appeal of errors. It was to be the fail-safe. The only appeal of a decision of a refugee claim by the IRB in our system is to apply for leave to appeal in the Federal Court, and only 15% of claimants that apply for leave to appeal are granted an appeal by the court.

The RAD was, and is, a key ingredient of a fair and just refugee process. It is a paper-screening process, and it is not expensive. The former Liberal government estimated the cost at $2 million to establish it and $8 million a year to operate it. These figures have recently been jacked up in estimates from the Conservatives, but remain very low in terms of the overall immigration program.

The Canadian Council for Refugees, the key organization working on refugee issues in Canada, which is made up almost every refugee serving agency and organization in Canada, has taken a strong stand on the need for the Refugee Appeal Division and on the miscarriage of justice that the failure to implement it represents.

Back on June 28, 2006, Amy Casipullai, its vice-president, said:

Accountable government means respecting the laws passed in Parliament by the elected representatives of Canadian citizens. Yet for the past four years, the Canadian government has been flouting the law that gives refugee claimants a right to appeal. As a result, contrary to the will of Parliament, the Canadian government has been deporting people whose refugee claim was determined by a single fallible human being, with no right of appeal on the merits.

Peter Showler, the former chairperson of the Immigration and Refugee Board, has said:

Refugee decisions are often very difficult to make, particularly when assessing the credibility of the refugee claimant....The government’s failure to implement the Refugee Appeal Division is profoundly undemocratic and some genuine refugees have undoubtedly been lost in the asylum shuffle. This is not just an issue about legal process. In the refugee business bad policy destroys individual lives.

“Destroys individual lives” is a strong statement from someone who understands the refugee process inside out because he ran a key part of it for years.

I want to point out that in this case “destroy” must be taken literally because a wrong decision in a refugee case can return someone to a situation where they may be killed. That is why we cannot take this legislation lightly and why we have to ensure the best possible system is in place. We cannot rest on our laurels.

We will hear in this debate, from the government benches, that Canada has the best refugee system in the world, that we resettle thousands of refugees each year, that the United Nations has repeatedly applauded Canada for its refugee work. That is all true, but it does not excuse us from addressing the flaws in our system. It does not excuse us from making our system even fairer or more just. It does not excuse our government from obeying our laws or respecting the will of Parliament.

Even though it has honoured Canada for our refugee work, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees has criticized the lack of an appeal. Here is what the UN High Commissioner for Refugees wrote to the Liberal member for Bourassa in May 2002, when he was minister of citizenship and immigration, after he announced that the RAD would not be implemented:

UNHCR considers an appeal procedure to be a fundamental, necessary part of any refugee status determination process. It allows errors to be corrected, and can also help to ensure consistency in decision-making. Canada, Italy and Portugal are the only industrialized countries which do not allow rejected asylum seekers the possibility to have first instance decisions reviewed on points of fact as well as points of law. In the past, a measure of safeguard was provided by the fact that determinations could be made by a two-member panel, with the benefit of the doubt going to the applicant in case of a split decision. With the implementation of IRPA on June 28th, this important safeguard will be lost.

And it was lost.

Last November the Most Rev. Brendan M. O'Brien, Archbishop of St. John's, and a member of the Episcopal Commission for Social Affairs of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, appeared before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. At that time he stated:

—it is hard for us to understand how governments can fail to implement the appeal provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and not face some form of meaningful censure. It was on the promise of a fair and timely appeal system that the legislation carried. The executive branch's failure to fulfill this promise is a sign of obdurate defiance of democratic authority. In the absence of an effective right to appeal, many parishes and denominational congregations are placed in the position of having to make agonizing decisions of whether or not to grant sanctuary. As other witnesses I'm sure have testified...it is very rare that churches choose to grant sanctuary, notwithstanding the many requests they receive. They do so only after close examinations of the facts before them, through an extensive process of communal deliberation. Granting sanctuary, then, for these churches is an exercise of their informed conscience that must take into account the prospect of breaking the law, risking fines and imprisonment, or violating conscience and the imperative of hospitality. When all other recourse has failed, I think granting sanctuary is a way to call the government's attention to an exceptional injustice and a way to denounce a specific and unacceptable failure of the immigration system in faithfulness to the Lord's own call to hospitality as justice. We recommend, therefore, that the committee unanimously call upon the government to implement a rigorous, transparent, and timely appeal system, as required in the act.

The argument has been made by Liberal and Conservative governments that our refugee appeal process is too complicated and that the RAD will only further complicate the system. I do not accept that argument. The RAD is a necessary level of appeal against an incorrect decision by a single member of the IRB. Having a functioning appeal at this level will stop some cases from going to the Federal Court. Having a hearing at the RAD will be far cheaper and less time consuming to the system than having a full blown court appeal in Federal Court. Having a functioning RAD appeal will ensure that fewer failed claimants, denied and appeal and denied leave to appeal in Federal Court, will disappear underground. It will also ensure that fewer refugees will end up in sanctuary in churches in Canada, supported by communities that believe, communities that know, they did not have a fair hearing in our refugee determination system. Rather than complicating the system, I believe the RAD will simplify the system.

This debate should not be necessary. The government should act immediately to implement the provisions of the current Immigration and Refugee Protection Act with regard to the refugee appeal division. Justice and fairness demand it.