Jim Maloway

[Committees of the House, December 3rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If you peruse Hansard, I think you will find that the member for Ajax—Pickering did in fact point out that this case did start under the Liberal government. I was here when he spoke and I distinctly heard him say that. We can check Hansard to determine if that is correct or not.

[Committees of the House, December 3rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am also wondering if another reason the government is afraid of apologizing is that it would help the legal team that no doubt is representing the three gentlemen. I know that in Mr. Arar's case, he did get a settlement from the government, but I am not sure at what stage the civil legal actions are with respect to these three gentlemen and whether or not they even have a legal team. I am assuming they do and that lawyers are working behind the scenes.

Could the member update us on any information he might have about the status of their cases at the moment?

[Committees of the House, December 3rd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, in his report the former Supreme Court Justice Frank Iacobucci agreed with the men we are talking about, finding that all three suffered treatment amounting to torture as the term is defined in the United Nations Convention against Torture, this, after the authorities are disputing their claims.

For years these men have said the questions they were asked under torture could only have come from Canada. The justice agreed, finding that in all three cases the information and questions in the hands of their interrogators did come from Canada. CSIS sent the questions to Mr. El Maati and Mr. Nureddin's interrogators. In Mr. Almalki's case, it was the RCMP that sent the questions.

These men also wanted to know how Canadian agencies used, back in Canada, their so-called confessions and the statements they were forced to make under torture. The justice gives the answer to that as well.

From Mr. El Maati's confession, information that agencies knew or should have known was likely the product of torture was then used to justify further telephone taps and search warrants back here in Canada. What is worse is that CSIS then used information obtained in the searches and sent more questions back to the Syrian interrogators. In the justice's words:

Syrian officials would likely have viewed these additional questions sent by Canadian officials as a “green light” to continue their interrogation and detention of Mr. Elmaati, rather than a “red light” to stop.

Would the member agree that what was revealed in this report is a vicious cycle of Canadian complicity in torture?

[Committees of the House, December 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, first, I take issue with the grouchy government member who put on a show for us a few minutes ago. He suggested somehow that we were trying to slow down the legislative process and that we did not really want to deal seriously with this issue. All he had to do was get seven more members out of bed this morning and in here to vote and he would have won the vote. Why cry over spilled milk? He lost the vote. Let us get on with the debate.

The member made an excellent presentation. He pointed out that the government was refusing an apology compensation. Under recommendation 3, the members want those things to happen. However, they also want to make certain the Government of Canada corrects any misinformation that may exist on the records administered by national security agencies in Canada or abroad, with respect to these three individuals.

With respect to Mr. Arar, we all know he is probably on a no-fly list and will stay on a no-fly list in the states and other parts of the world probably until the end of his days.

We want to know why the government continues to drag its feet and pretend that this issue does not need immediate attention, hoping the whole issue will go away with time?

[Committees of the House, December 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, recommendation 3 states, “That the Government of Canada do everything necessary to correct misinformation that may exist in records administered by national security agencies in Canada or abroad with respect to” these three gentlemen.

However, we are also aware that Mr. Arar still cannot his name cleared off the no-fly list in the United States and still is not able to get information that would be sitting in American databases. Could the member comment on that situation?

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, December 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise and speak to Bill C-291 today. I think that if the viewing public had been with us for the last hour, they must be shaking their heads by now, having listened to the speeches that have enumerated and outlined the history of this particular piece of legislation.

This is an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act with regard to the coming into force of sections 110, 111 and 171. Those three sections deal with the refugee appeal division. Clearly, Parliaments past have debated this legislation, have passed this legislation, have sent it off to the Senate, and it is only the multiple elections that we have had that have thrown us back to where we have to deal with it again.

Contrary to what the Conservative member just said, the fact of the matter is that there was good thought put into these provisions. They went through various committees. They were deemed to be proper, intelligent measures. So the issue then is why, since 2001, 2002, do we still not have this appeal division? Why is it not there?

The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act approved by Parliament in 2001 created the refugee appeal division. In 2002 the government implemented the act but not the sections that give the refugee claimants the right to appeal.

As a result, refugee claimants in Canada have been denied the appeal that Parliament granted them in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Instead, their fate is determined by a single decision maker. I will deal with that issue in a couple of minutes.

To correct this injustice, the last Parliament voted to force the implementation of the refugee appeal division; however, the bill did not become law because the House was not able to approve the Senate's amendments before the 2008 election was called. It has been through the entire process.

When we talk about the fate of refugees being decided by a single decision maker, that is a big part of the problem. One of the previous speakers talked about how 15 years ago there were actually three people involved, and then it was changed in 2001 to two people, and subsequently down to one.

If we look at the speeches of some of the other members who have spoken on this bill, we will see why and how having one person making the decision is not a good idea, particularly because the people appointed to the refugee board are political appointments.

The Conservatives are now sitting comfortably over on the government benches, but when the Liberals were in power and making political appointments to refugee boards, they were regaling themselves, exposing some of the activities of some of the Liberal appointees. The Liberals were appointing totally unqualified people, defeated candidates, friends of friends, and putting them on the refugee appeal board. It became a big joke, showing favouritism. The Conservatives, who were then in opposition, were raising a storm over this, and well they should have.

Now that the shoe is on the other foot and they are now the government, well, rather than change that system, what have they done? They have simply fallen into the same old trap, as did the same old Liberal government for the 13 years before that, and more or less the major part of 100 years before that. They appointment hacks and flaks to the board, and then they wonder why they get very bad results. We are saying that having one person making the decision is not a very good idea.

As a matter of fact, the mover of the motion, the member for Jeanne-Le Ber from the Bloc, points out a couple of very interesting examples where there was a board member appointed by the minister who had a very questionable past. This gentleman was chief of staff to the former prime minister of Haiti, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. We all remember him as the former president of Haiti and that regime committed many atrocities, and was complicit in major crimes. Here this man was in charge of deciding on refugee appeals for the government. In some cases he was judging people from Haiti.

Certainly, if there were a two-person board, or more than one at least, and then the right of an appeal, it would be added protection so that Conservatives would not get the stories that they were raising a fuss about when the Liberals were in power doing the same thing. It is not fair to Conservatives to put themselves in that situation, making political appointments who then make decisions that in many cases do not make any sense at all.

The sponsor of the bill talks about another case of two people on the refugee appeal board. In one case, Laurier Thibault, in terms of his cases, 98% of them were rejections. If we were to study the people on the refugee appeal board and one member has a 98% rejection rate and then another member has a rejection rate of 98% the other way, it would make us wonder whether that system is operating properly.

I want to refer to the comments made by the member for Trinity—Spadina. I would go over some of the comments made by government members, but they are all just negative. They have made up their minds on the bill and just say they are not interested in making any changes.

However, the member for Trinity--Spadina talked about the Canadian Council for Refugees having documented different examples of how decisions were made in a very inconsistent manner. In one case there were two Palestinian brothers who had the same basis for their refugee claim. One was accepted and the other was refused. The refused brother was deported and these were identical cases.

In another example a person was arrested and detained for two months in Iran. Canada's refugee board concluded that this person was not credible because of inconsistencies and gaps in her evidence. When she told the board she had scars on her body from torture, her testimony was rejected because she had not provided a medical report and it went on to come up with a different conclusion.

The point is that we should not rely on a single person making a judgment when that person is not qualified. I am not going to disqualify individuals because they were defeated Conservative candidates. I am sure there are enough of them out there that a good choice could have been made, but that is not what happens.

In the great Liberal days, the Liberals managed to somehow always find the worst one they could from all their defeated candidates. I am sure there were some Liberal candidates who would have made fine board members and why the Liberals could not pick one of the good ones is beyond me. But they always managed to pick the one that got them into the most trouble. That is certainly a sad history of this particular board. I would hope that we would eventually make the right decision in the House and make this correction that is long overdue.

[Fairness for the Self-Employed Act, December 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member hit the nail right on the head when he pointed out that we are looking at 2.6 million Canadians in the self-employed category: hairdressers, artists, real estate agents. For the Bloc to deny them the opportunity to participate in this program is a big mistake on their part, because as the member has pointed out over and over again, this is a voluntary program. Once it is in operation, it can be fine-tuned.

I have asked the government for information and studies and projections on how many people will participate in the program. The government has not been able to provide those. The government says that the program will be voluntary. There is evidence to show that a compulsory program may be the only way it will become self-sufficient. However, that will not stop us from supporting the bill. We want to see the bill passed and see the system put in place, and then we will improve it over time.

[Fairness for the Self-Employed Act, December 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the number of self-employed people has mushroomed over the years. In fact, people in many cases are being forced into self-employment. They are having to go back to work for their previous employers in a self-employed capacity. Computer companies replace their repair people. The real estate industry has gone largely to a self-employed system over the last 15 years. Companies contract their own cleaning services.

There is a huge number of people who need this type of program, and the number is increasing. While we can argue that the government has not given us the information that we have asked for in terms of the uptake and the studies on how many people will be taking part in this, it is important to get the program started.

Even though the government says it is going to be self-financing, we think that it probably will not be in the first couple of years because it will be selected against. It will be a couple of years before the system becomes mandatory and the premium rates that the Bloc member is talking about will be adjusted so that there will not be the imbalance that she sees.

I think the member is projecting too far ahead. I think she should give the program a chance and then work out the problems as we go along.

[Fairness for the Self-Employed Act, December 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I asked the government minister a question about projections or numbers of people who would be taking part in the uptake of the program and any studies that it had taken. He certainly did not answer that question at all. I assume the member heard what he had to say.

I think the member does have a point about the mandatory issue here and perhaps the Chief Actuary probably has a point on that, too. I think it is still important for us to proceed with the legislation and get the pilot project started.

However, for the government to say that it is going to be self-financing and not have any statistics available whatsoever to justify that, that people have to be members of the program for a year and then can opt out after a year if they never collected on the program, basically what that boils down to is we are going to have selection against a system. In the insurance business, it is called selection against the company. Basically, when people know they are going to make a claim, they will join in the system.

For it to work properly, it really is going to have to evolve over time into a mandatory system. On that basis, then, it can be a self-financing program.

Nevertheless, it is a good idea. It is something we should proceed with. However, I do think the member is onto what the real story is here.

[Fairness for the Self-Employed Act, December 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister that involves telling us what the projections are as to the number of self-employed people who would participate in the program and whether he has any charts, studies and projections that would give us some of those numbers.

The way the system is set up right now, people have to pay into the system for at least a year before they can collect. Then if they do collect any benefits under the program, they have to stay in the program for the full length of time the business is in existence. If we were to have a situation where a person planned on making one claim over a period of 20 years, it is unlikely the person would sign onto the program.

I get the impression that it is a self-financing program, but then there is an indication that if the demand is not high enough, it may not be self-financing. On that basis, there would be a cross-subsidization from the other parts of the program.

Could the minister fill us in a bit about the projections for the program, how many people he sees would get into it and would it be self-financing from the beginning?