Meili Faille

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

Mr. Speaker, when we met with the centre's administrators, we asked them twice about the cost of these requests. This centre cost several million dollars. In this day and age, I think it is a shame that people are not being treated humanely and with more compassion at this centre.

Yesterday, the administrators said they would send us the estimated cost. However, we now know how much this centre cost. I believe we should measure the cost on a scale of how much these people have suffered. Only history will judge us. It is sad, but yesterday we were wondering whether the government was just waiting for another case of what happened to Maher Arar. I would simply say to my colleague that I went to the centre and left there quite unsettled.

In 2007, and in the years to come, we expect people to be treated more humanely. I believe it is possible, but the vagueness around the management of the centre is totally unreasonable.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. The thing I found most difficult when I visited the Metro West Detention Centre was seeing a man and a woman, a family, visit each other on either side of a glass partition. It had been that way for them for two years. It was totally inhuman.

Also, people were being strip-searched, and I could see why. There were also issues with respect to allowing the practice of Muslim rites, that is, various religious holidays. Apparently, some new things were being tried in connection with that.

At the time, it seemed there was also some vagueness about federal and provincial responsibilities. It was difficult for people to get health care because each time a detainee had to see a dentist or other health professional, an appointment had to be made with someone from the RCMP and a lot of security measures had to be in place to move a person under supervision.

At the time, our demands were simple: we wanted them to have better contact with their families. We could see why things worked the way they did. It was because the centre was not designed to detain people for indefinite periods. We received assurances that when the place the detainees were being transferred to was being evaluated, family life would be taken into consideration.

We found that that was not at all the case in Kingston. A close look at the facilities revealed that the detainees have access to a computer, a microwave and a refrigerator. They have a little canteen, although the food provided there is not very healthful.

However, what had gotten worse was that families had to travel farther to visit. The Millhaven centre is located about a half hour from Kingston. The only way for the families to get to Kingston is by bus or by train, which is not at all reasonable. Moreover, we were told that detainees would be allowed “contact visits”, that is, private visits with their families, but that is not the case.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak here today. This is a sad day because some individuals have been detained for a very long time without ever standing trial or even being charged. At present, the administration cannot say how long they will be detained.

Some people are being detained in Kingston, in a facility attached to Millhaven penitentiary. As I said, no charges have been laid against these individuals.

They are being detained on a security certificate under immigration regulations.

We had the opportunity to meet these people yesterday, for the second time. During the first meeting, we were able to learn about the situation. All committee members travelled there to ask the centre's administration and the detainees some questions, and to see for themselves the prison conditions of the detainees.

The demands of the three detainees seem both simple and reasonable, considering that no charges have been laid. The security certificates allow the Canadian government and authorities to detain an individual based on suspicions of an attack on our national security.

Let us remind those listening that these detainees have not seen the evidence and have no opportunity to appeal the decision. They have no opportunity to challenge the evidence against them.

We support the motion tabled by my colleague for Burnaby—Douglas for improved conditions of detention for these individuals.

Earlier I listened to my colleague explain that convicted criminals presently incarcerated in Millhaven penitentiary are able to participate in a national program whereby they have a specific number of hours of conjugal visits. Thus, they have a certain private life. However, the three individuals detained at the Kingston immigration holding centre are not entitled to participate in this program.

The Minister of Public Safety stated that these individuals are in a prison referred to as a three-sided cell.

Their only option is to leave this centre and to be returned to their countries, where they fear they will be tortured. This is a serious matter. The government does not provide any other options.

In discussions that took place yesterday, it was suggested that they be accompanied by a monitor. In addition, there was discussion about the fact that procedures are being established as time goes by and that the treatment of these individuals is inconsistent.

This is a new centre. I understand that the administrators, because of a lack of experience, have difficulty dealing with the fact that this is simultaneously a maximum security institution, a prison managed by correctional services, and an immigration detention centre.

We have been asked for an independent observer and arbitrator. In recent years, I have had the opportunity to visit several detention centres and to meet with these detainees when they were held at the Toronto West Detention Centre.

The provincial prison was a cooperative environment, and the atmosphere was much less tense than what we witnessed on our two visits to the Kingston prison.

When I went to meet with the inmates at the Toronto prison, I was able to meet with the warden, social services representatives and the inmates' families—with the warden present—to discuss the inmates' living conditions. They were also allowed to meet with the media in private, without being watched by the guards. These people could meet with me in confidentiality, without being spied on by the guards.

In conclusion, three people are currently being held. A combination of factors has created this atmosphere of doubt, where the authorities are looking for information that could convict them. They seem to be in an environment where the guards and the people on site are trying to find information to incriminate them.

The requests are simple. It is asked that these inmates be allowed more privacy during visits with their families, nothing less. It is asked that they have greater assurances of safety while in custody. It is asked that a supervisor accompany them. It is asked that an arbitrator or independent ombudsman be named. It is asked that the inmates' complaints be listened to and that decisions be made that will give them back an acceptable standard of living.

These people understand that they can leave at any time, but they also know that if they do leave, they could suffer serious abuse in their own countries. I am afraid that because of inaction on this issue, innocent people are suffering needlessly. This will be determined later.

In my opinion, the committee's motion addresses this situation, because the committee members were able to visit these people and met with representatives of international organizations and human rights representatives here in Canada.

In situations where national security is at stake, what is needed most is greater judicial independence with regard to human rights. In my opinion, these three individuals are entitled to that independence, because they do not know what they are being accused of and they have not had the right to a fair trial.

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

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to wish you and all my hon. colleagues a happy new year and a productive session of Parliament. I would also like to extend best wishes to my fellow citizens in Vaudreuil-Soulanges

I have been working for three years on this bill and the need for the refugee appeal division. This is very close to my heart because I have seen the number of people who come to our offices.

Like my colleague for Laval, I have one or two people in my riding who work full time on immigrant and refugee matters.

I feel very upset every time we have to submit files to the minister and ask her to review a decision because it is unfair or contains first-instance factual errors that cannot be corrected anywhere in the system.

People currently have a right to go to the Federal Court and ask to be heard. Not many cases are actually heard here, though, and none of them can look into the facts. They can discuss errors in law or whether undue attention was paid to certain matters. However, the court cannot be asked to correct factual mistakes. This legislation is necessary, therefore, because the consequences are very serious. Human tragedies occur because of this weakness in the law.

What is even more ironic is that these legal sections were already passed here in the House and should have taken effect the year following the implementation of the act. There was an announcement back when the Liberals were in power that these legal sections would come into effect one year later, in other words in 2002-03. There would just be a little delay because of a major backlog. However, once the backlog was cleared and these sections came into effect, we would have the appeal division.

The chair of the IRB also did a lot of work. Peter Showler, who was the chair at the time, and the current chair told us that it was a purely political decision. “Purely political” means that someone somewhere is accountable to Canadians and the House for not having established the appeal division.

I would also like to remind the House that there have been several requests for amendments to the Immigration Act in recent years. Since 1978, it has undergone two major overhauls with a view to making it easier to understand. For most of my colleagues in the House, the Immigration Act is very complex. From meeting with citizens who have been through the system, we realize that this act is quite inflexible. Furthermore, we do not have the means to react efficiently.

There is one of a number of reasons why this act carried, and that is the spirit underlying it. It has to do with all the considerations related to security. So instead of talking about integration and the way we want to welcome immigrants and refugees, we have a bill focused on border control and security issues. From this stems a series of processes and forms of recourse that affect a part of the population that to my mind is disproportional. Refugees are people who arrive at our borders from countries in which there are conflicts. These are people seeking our help.

We may have the best of systems in place. I think that the IRB’s intention is to process these files quickly in order to administer justice. But we have to look at the substance of things. It is possible to appeal a parking ticket, for example. Quite unreasonably however in my opinion, it is not possible to appeal a decision affecting the life of a human being. That is what we are talking about today. We are talking about provisions. We are talking about sections of the act that are not implemented and are harming people whose only wish is to make a positive contribution to our society.

I think it is regrettable that the Conservatives are doing an about-face. There were lots of signs allowing us to think that we could be optimistic about the implementation of this appeal division. One need only reread the discussions that were held in 2001. The way in which the appeal division is being proposed now was indeed supported by a Conservative colleague. Last year there was also a political document drafted by the Conservatives that supported implementation of the appeal division.

When the Bloc Québécois introduced a proposal in committee to establish the appeal division, we had the unanimous support of the Conservatives. I hope that by the next time we debate this bill in the House in March, we will have seen a positive turnaround for refugees, for the people who are currently being denied this right.

In the past five years, not one of the ministers of Immigration has kept that promise. Mounting evidence lays the blame squarely at the feet of the government, which shamelessly accepts that fundamental errors can come up anytime and that there is no way to fix them.

Considering that human beings are at risk of being deported to countries that allow torture, and that these errors can cause them great harm, it makes sense for the Canadian Parliament to demand greater care in the application of principles of justice and equality.

As such, today we are asking all of our colleagues to support bringing into force all provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I believe that the federal government has a moral responsibility to do this. Furthermore, it has the means and resources to do it.

Such a court, made up of experts in protection, would make it possible to correct errors of fact and errors of law at the very beginning of the refugee claims process. This means hiring, at most, 20 people. I think this is important because we are talking about the lives of human beings, about refugees, and we know that our country, Canada and Quebec, was built by and continues to grow because of the contribution of several communities that were welcomed here as refugees. In my opinion, the appeal division must be established immediately.

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

moved that Bill C-280, An Act to Amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (coming into force of sections 110, 111 and 171), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Immigration, December 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, given that serious errors can occur, does the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration intend to follow up on the UN Committee Against Torture's request to implement an appeal mechanism to review and examine the basis for decisions to grant or refuse refugee status?

[Immigration, December 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, according to the Canadian section of Amnesty International, the UN Committee Against Torture handed down favourable decisions concerning allegations of torture made by individuals who were refused the right to seek asylum in Canada.

In the Falcon Rios case, the Committee Against Torture asked Canada to implement a refugee appeal division. It reiterated the request in its latest decision.

Will the government commit to helping these people out in light of the humanitarian considerations articulated by a respected body of the United Nations?

We have a lot to learn from the Maher Arar affair.

[The Dorion Tragedy, December 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, October 7, 1966, was a black day for the people in my riding of Vaudreuil-Soulanges. That day, a busload of adolescents was hit at a level crossing by a freight train travelling at high speed. The result: 19 dead and 26 injured. Forty years after the tragedy, the exact cause of this accident is not known.

How did the survivors cope? That is the topic of Francine Tougas' documentary, Survivre, presented on November 25 on Télé-Québec.

The memory of this terrible event forces us to remember the importance of rail safety, particularly at level crossings. The federal government must take action. The Municipality of Terrasse-Vaudreuil has been asking for too long for changes to a level crossing similar to the one where the Dorion tragedy took place.

Let us take advantage of National Safe Driving Week to remember this tragic accident and step up calls to modify this level crossing.

[Citizenship and Immigration, November 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Council for Refugees condemns the legal limbo into which individuals fall who have not obtained permanent resident status and who originate from countries for which Canada has imposed a moratorium on removal because of security concerns. In view of the flood of negative decisions handed down over the summer, there is little difference between the files that were rejected and those that were approved.

Given that two individuals having similar experiences are not given the same consideration, what changes is the minister prepared to make in order to make the decisions more just?

[Shelter Show, November 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, can we aspire to a more caring world? I hope so. I want to pay tribute to a songwriter whom I admire for his work and his human values, which I share. I am proud of this citizen of Vaudreuil-Soulanges, who works every year to produce a show to benefit a drop-in centre that helps street youth.

The famous Show du Refuge will return to Place des Arts in Montreal on December 6, 2006. I would like to thank all the volunteers who are giving of their time and talent to help this noble cause that often receives little attention.

I also want to thank Robert Charlebois, Nicolas Ciccone, Corneille, Alain Lefèvre, Richard Séguin, Marie-Chantal Toupin, Annie Villeneuve and Georges “Boule Noire” Thurston, who will be performing at the show, which is in its 16th year. The Refuge des Jeunes is a drop-in centre whose mission is to help young men between 17 and 24 who are homeless and in trouble.

The Bloc Québécois pays tribute to all those who are helping these young people who are so desperately in need.