Meili Faille

[Supply, May 18th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I would like the minister to clarify one small thing. Does the program he is announcing cover all categories, that is, workers without status because of the system, circumstances or treaties, essentially those under a moratorium, or does it cover more generally any worker without status, including those who are here illegally?

[Supply, May 18th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, a number of people have no legal status, as they come from countries under a moratorium. Under international conventions that Canada signed, these people cannot return to their home countries because of the terrible situations there.

However, Canada turns a deaf ear to those situations. It tolerates having these people here, but does not resolve their situation. Some have been here for over 10 years. Does the minister intend to resolve their situation, do more than make vague promises, and find a lasting solution for these humanitarian cases?

[Supply, May 18th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I will help the minister. I will ask him the same question, but limit it to the province of Quebec and its regions.

[Supply, May 18th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, will the minister support immigrants where they are and provide access to officials nearby, providing them with administrative services even in the regions?

[Supply, May 18th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I will put the question again. Is it the minister's intention to settle the matter of live-in caregivers, severely criticized by the department of his colleague responsible for the status of women?

[Supply, May 18th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to hear the minister say that Quebec will receive its fair share.

Does the minister intend transferring sums to the Government of Quebec to allow it to transfer and allocate funds to agencies responsible for Quebec's development?

I also have a question to help speed things up. I have a few suggestions, in fact.

Is it the minister's intention to settle the matter of live-in caregivers, severely criticized by the department of his colleague responsible for the status of women?

[Supply, May 18th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, it is a pleasure for me to speak, this evening, on the main estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. Obviously, I will limit my remarks to the federal government's responsibilities, since Quebec is responsible for the integration of immigrants in Quebec. So, I will talk about the process for newcomers to this country.

I am pleased that the minister has made it a priority to see that his department corrects its numerous past mistakes. I hope that he will recognize the difficulties in addressing Quebec's priorities.

He has issued a great many announcements on nearly every aspect of immigration. We expect that citizenship will be next.

The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration has been promised a new bill on numerous occasions. We are still waiting impatiently.

We object to the fact that, in the past few months, this has seemed like a series of election announcements, just before a potential election, and we are asking the minister to promise one thing in particular. Instead of stubbornly insisting on interfering in Quebec's jurisdiction, will the minister make the commitment that the money for the integration of new immigrants, funds set out in the Canada-Quebec accord, will be provided directly to the Quebec government, in accordance with budgets appropriated and the number of immigrants selected by Quebec?

[Petitions, May 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, at the request and on behalf of thousands of individuals, I am tabling a petition calling on the government to immediately implement a refugee appeal section, as passed by this House.

[Committees of the House, May 2nd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I am looking forward to June 15. It is an important date because the minister has to give us an answer by then. I am looking forward to it.

In reality, no one in the field opposes our position. It is one thing to say that our refugee acceptance rate is high, but we must also be compassionate. It is not enough to say that we want a humanitarian system, we must also act to make it so.

The appeal division is fundamental for the good reputation of Canada's legal system because we know that its immigration system is awash with abuse and flaws, as shown by reports published in all the Canadian media. If Canada's immigration system is seen in a favourable light by other countries, let us not be taken in: few countries, apart from Canada, do not offer an appeal system to refugees.

The procedural safety net that the refugee appeal division constitutes will reinforce the credibility of the IRB with the public, just as the appeal courts of Quebec and the other provinces strengthen their whole justice systems. Those who criticize the IRB, those who think it is too lenient as well as those who think it is too harsh, will have considerably fewer reasons to criticize it, and Canada's refugee determination system will be better able to defend its good reputation.

[Committees of the House, May 2nd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act calls for a new entity to be created within the Immigration and Refugee Board, the IRB, namely the refugee appeal division.

In his appearance before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration when the bill was being studied in 2001, former IRB head Peter Showler stated the following.

The vast majority of protection decisions will be made by a single member... It is true that claimants will no longer enjoy the benefit of the doubt currently accorded them with two-member panels... However, any perceived disadvantage is more than offset by the creation of the refugee appeal division, the RAD, where all refused claimants and the minister have a right of appeal on RPD decisions.

In April 2002, it was announced that creation of the appeal division was delayed by system overload. The minister of the day had apparently promised at the May 2002 annual general meeting of the Canadian Council for Refugees that he would be putting it in place in less than a year.

On May 9, 2002, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees wrote to the minister of the day, indicating that an appeal procedure was vitally important.

I am writing to convey UNHCR's deep disappointment, following your recent decision to postpone indefinitely the creation of the Refugee Appeal Division at the Immigration and Refugee Board.

The HCR representative in Canada also said:

It is particularly important for states to demonstrate not only their determination to combat abuse and to address security concerns, but also their commitment to the protection of refugees.

Minister Volpe keeps saying that the Canadian immigration system is one of the best in the world. Yet, his government's relentless refusal to implement this appeal division has been condemned by the Canadian Council for Refugees, the UNHCR and Amnesty International.

The Refugee appeal division is indispensable for the smooth functioning of the Canadian refugee determination system for many reasons. In the interests of efficiency, a specialized appeal division is a much better use of scarce resources than recourse to the Federal Court, which is not at all specialized in refugee matters. It would be much better placed to correct errors of law and fact. In the interests of consistency of law, an appeal division deciding on the merits of the case is the only body able to ensure consistency of jurisprudence. In the interests of justice, as in matters of criminal law, a right to appeal to a higher tribunal is essential for the proper administration of justice.

In December 2004, the chairperson of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Jean-Guy Fleury said:

It would require initial start up costs of an estimated $2 million in addition to $8 million in annual operating costs.

Let me say that should the government decide to act on the RAD, we would be ready, with sufficient new resources.

In other words, neither costs nor technical difficulties are an impediment to the establishment of an appeal division. The only thing lacking, despite all opinions to the contrary, is the minister's political will.

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration claims that the existing system contains a number of appeal mechanisms. That is not the case. There are mechanisms for reviewing decisions, but none to reassess the facts submitted in support of claims.

The organization KAIROS noted:

A United Nations committee says Canada failed Mexican torture survivor Falcon Rios ... The UN Committee Against Torture blamed the failure on Canada's lack of an effective appeal process for rejected refugees.

In Canada, you can appeal a traffic ticket, but you can't appeal a decision that could send you back to death in the country you fled when you put your trust in us.

These were recent statements by Mary Corkery, the executive director of KAIROS.

The Bloc Québécois supports this statement. We call on the minister to put the appeal division promised three years ago in place immediately. The mechanism is provided in the law. The House approved it. Only the minister fails to see the need and the urgency of implementing it.