Randeep Sarai

[Preclearance Act, 2016, February 22nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-23.

During these debates, we have heard much about the tremendous benefits of pre-clearance, both in terms of the operations that are currently in place, as well as future opportunities that will be available once the agreement on land, rail, marine, and air transport pre-clearance is ratified on both sides of the border.

It is clear that pre-clearance works. As we have heard, air pre-clearance is a huge success story. Since its early beginnings at Toronto Pearson International Airport over half a century ago, pre-clearance has made clearing customs easier for millions of air passengers heading from Canada to the U.S. It has opened new markets for business and tourism by making it possible for airlines to fly directly to smaller U.S. airports that do not have their own customs operations on site. This also decreases the costs for Canadian passengers who fly to those cheaper airports.

It has helped to increase in-transit traffic, helping to make Canadian airports and carriers more competitive. It has added an important layer of security to cross-border traffic as threats are dealt with at the point of origin rather than being allowed to transit. In fact, I personally use the pre-clearance areas when travelling to the U.S., and find it easier and more efficient than going through a customs facility in the United States.

As we have heard, the agreement in principle reached in March 2016 will allow for the expansion of pre-clearance operations into other modes of transportation. Furthermore, it will allow for expansion of airport pre-clearance to new locations in Toronto and Quebec City, and it will enable pre-clearance to be conducted at rail locations at Montreal's central station and of course Vancouver's own Rocky Mountaineer.

This expansion is a long time coming. Industry and government stakeholders on both sides of the border have pushed for these changes for many years because they know the enormous economic and security potential of pre-clearance. Understandably, those outside the air transportation sector want to be able to reap the same benefits in their marine, rail, and land transport sectors. In fact, we already have concrete numbers that illustrate the benefits of pre-clearance in other transportation modes, including through two truck cargo pilot projects as well as a number of informal pre-inspection sites currently operating along the west coast.

We look forward to opportunities under this new agreement to streamline our border crossings to ensure that we maintain strong economic growth and trade with our great friends and neighbours in the United States. This includes exploring the terms and conditions necessary for cargo pre-clearance, and identifying opportunities to pilot this approach.

As for pre-inspection on the west coast, it is currently conducted by U.S. pre-clearance officers at five sites in British Columbia: first and foremost, Port Metro Vancouver, Prince Rupert ferry terminal, Vancouver's central rail station, Sidney ferry terminal, and Victoria ferry terminal. Port Metro Vancouver is a great example of the economic importance of efficient and effective border management. The cruise ship industry produces a huge economic benefit to Canada with Port Metro Vancouver contributing some $420 million a year to the economy and employing some 4,500 people locally.

Port Metro Vancouver is the main hub for cruise ships heading to Alaska for a number of reasons, including being the only port to offer inside passage along the west coast of B.C. to Alaska. During high season, U.S. customs and border protection officers work out of the port, processing passengers as they board their cruise ships to Alaska. Both nations benefit from these operations. Canada remains a key port for these cruise ships which bring hundreds of thousands of passengers to Vancouver every year. The U.S. can secure its borders and allow smaller Alaskan communities with no post-clearance services to remain part of these cruise ship itineraries. This is a win-win arrangement and one that will benefit from regularized pre-clearance operations.

Rail transport is another important mode that will benefit from expanded pre-clearance. For example, Vancouver's central rail station is the hub for regular Canada-U.S. rail service provided by U.S. Amtrak. The Amtrak service runs two trains per day with passengers undergoing primary immigration inspection in Vancouver.

[Surrey Centre, February 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour two men with very differing paths but very similar hearts. Chandra Bodalia immigrated to Vancouver in 1976 and started his career as a photojournalist. In four decades, he documented the South Asian community's memories through more than three million pictures and shared them with all without asking for anything in exchange.

When things took a turn for the worse, the community stood up. Thousands gathered from all over B.C. and opened their chequebooks, as they saw Chandra as a brother in need.

In that crowd was none other than the giant Bruce Kehler, a lumber tycoon but better known as the Desi Santa, a title affectionately given to him because of his giving heart and his affection for the South Asian community.

He challenged the crowd that, if they matched it, he would give $100,000, as no one else had done so much to document the history of the community than Mr. Bodalia, and did the crowd respond? Over $300,000 was collected that night, and two giants showed us all what passion, dedication, and most of all, being human is all about.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, February 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the onus is going to be on evidence, and the evidence will speak volumes. This decision should not be political. No Nimbyism should exist here, which is why an evidence-based decision shall be made.

If there is a conflict, that is where the minister would have to use her judicial authority to make such a decision. However, it should be entirely based on evidence, and the evidence will be based on the Supreme Court decision of 2011.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, February 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with my colleague, the member for Winnipeg North. Had members of the opposite side been very sincere in their approach to have safe injection sites or substance sites, they would not have made it so onerous in the past.

Perhaps we would have been on the front line today in dealing with substance abuse. We would have had more of these centres opened up. We would have had first responders with better resources. Instead, we are, in 2017, working on something that should have been done in 2011. It should have been easier back then, so that we could have dealt with this last year in a much more effective manner.

Therefore, if the intent of those members is to actually work with the Supreme Court decision, work with first responders, and work with those who are affected by the devastating affects of this illicit drug, then they would not have done that, and they would expedite the smooth and safe passage of this bill through committee and on to second reading.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, February 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the whole part is essential, and that is the best way to deal with this bill.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, February 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I voted against this because the member is dissecting a bill and having only one part of it sent to committee. We are asking for the whole part to be sent to committee.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, February 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-37, an act that would better equip both health and law enforcement officials to reduce the harms associated with problematic substance use in Canada.

One of the many important amendments proposed in the bill is to streamline the application process for communities seeking to establish supervised consumption sites. Supervised consumption sites are controlled hygienic settings where people can bring previously obtained drugs to use under the supervision of health care professionals and gain access to or information regarding other health and social services, including treatment. In other words, supervised consumption sites are a harm reduction measure and have been proven to be effective for communities where they are needed.

Our government, since the beginning of its mandate, has been very clear in its support for harm reduction measures. These measures have been proven to reduce the negative health and social impacts associated with problematic substance abuse.

Addiction is a complex issue. I also want to be clear with my fellow members in the House that addiction is a health issue and not a criminal one. Not every individual will respond positively to the same treatment and not every individual is even willing or able to enter treatment on any given day. Evidence demonstrates that individuals who are outside of treatment are at increased risk of major health and social harms, including overdose and death. This is why we must be pragmatic in our response and must let evidence guide us to effective solutions. Now, more than ever, as our country grapples with an ever-increasing opioid crisis, it is essential that evidence-based harm reduction measures be part of the government's comprehensive drug policy.

On December 12, the Minister of Health announced the new Canadian drugs and substances strategy, which restores harm reduction as a key pillar alongside prevention, treatment, and enforcement. Officially including harm reduction in Canada's new drug strategy was the first step. Putting that commitment into action to save lives is the next step.

The evidence available on the effectiveness of properly establishing and maintaining supervised consumption sites is indisputable. These sites save lives without having a negative impact on the surrounding community. Let me be clear. This commitment will save lives, including in my community.

Surrey and, more broadly, British Columbia face a health crisis. I take solace in how neighbourhoods, communities, cities, the province, and now the federal government have stepped up to respond. I often hear stories in my riding of how this drug has devastated lives and families, but for every one story I hear, I hear three more about how folks have stepped up and responded, whether it is local soup kitchens or the newly created Surrey RCMP Outreach Team, which, in the last two weeks, responded to over 55 overdoses. It is heartening to see how Canadians have come together to respond to this crisis, and this new drug strategy is the next step.

I should have mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, that I will be sharing my time with the member of Parliament for Victoria.

This legislation is widely viewed by public health experts as a barrier to establishing new supervised consumption sites in communities where they are wanted and needed to help prevent the spread of disease and countless overdose deaths. It is time for these barriers to be removed and I am proud that Bill C-37 proposes to do just that.

Bill C-37 would support the establishment of supervised consumption sites by assuring communities that their voices would be heard and that each application would be subject to a comprehensive review, while, at the same time, starting from a position that would recognize and acknowledge the compelling evidence that supervised consumption sites work.

In 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada considered this same evidence and concluded that where a "site will decrease the risk of death and disease, and there is little or no evidence that it will have a negative impact on public safety, the Minister should generally grant an exemption."

To guide the making of future decisions, the Supreme Court set out five factors that must be considered. These include: evidence, if any, on the impact of such a facility on crime rates; the local conditions indicating a need for such a site; the regulatory structure in place the support the facility; the resources available to support its maintenance; and expression of community support or opposition.

Bill C-37 respects the decision rendered by the highest court in Canada by proposing to replace the 26-point criteria currently in legislation with these five factors.

Reducing the number of criteria applicants would have to address would relieve the administrative burden on communities seeking to establish a supervised consumption site, but it would do so without compromising the health and safety of those operating the site, its clients, or the surrounding community.

To help applicants through the supervised consumption site application process, our government would post an application form and simplified guidance document online. The application would indicate the type of information that would support the five Supreme Court criteria and would reduce unnecessary burden on applicants.

With respect to other stakeholders, such as the municipal government and local police, their views would continue to be considered through the requirement for broad community consultation, thus removing the need to obtain formal letters from these stakeholders.

The proposed amendments will also simply the information required to support an application. For example, applicants will no longer be required to submit evidence that supervised consumption sites are effective and have public health benefits. The evidence in this regard is clear. Instead, applicants will need to demonstrate the need for the site and the public health benefits of the proposed site for their local community.

Further, with respect to renewals, existing supervised consumption sites would no longer require an application. Instead, a renewal would simply be requested by informing Health Canada of any changes to the information that was submitted as part of a site's last application. This proposal will ensure that the existing sites can focus on serving the needs of their community rather than filling out onerous application forms.

Beyond the criteria, the Respect for Communities Act also includes specific principles that the minister must consider when evaluating an application.

Bill C-37 proposes to remove these principles so that decisions on applications can be based on evidence. It will also increase transparency around the decision made on applications for supervised consumption sites.

If passed, the bill will require decisions on applications to be made public including, if applicable, the reasons for refusing an application.

Our government is committed to making objective, transparent, and evidence-based decisions on any future application to establish supervised consumption sites, and we are committed to making those decisions within a reasonable time frame.

I can assure the House that the review process would continue to be comprehensive, but it would no longer present unnecessary barriers.

These proposed changes will introduce flexibility into the application process so it can be adapted and updated over time to reflect new science and allow communities to respond more quickly to emerging health issues.

I hope all members of the House will support this important legislation so we can better support communities in their effort to address this serious public health issue.

[U.S. Decision Regarding Travel Ban, January 31st, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I do not see a prime minister or head of state of any country that has stood up for refugees, immigrants, and the rights of many more than this Prime Minister and this government have. We were the first and foremost to stand up to him. We are the first and foremost protectors, and actions speak louder than words.

When we have accepted one out of every 10 refugees in the world, which is more than any industrialized country, I think that speaks volumes. When we have said to those who were stranded at airports here that they could stay, that speaks louder than words.

I think we have done an abundantly clear job of showing their rights. We will never send anyone back who comes to these shores who has a rightful refugee claim, and I think this government stands by that.

[U.S. Decision Regarding Travel Ban, January 31st, 2017]

Madam Speaker, as much as I want to thank the member for Parliament for Vancouver East who has raised this debate and her concerns about refugees, specifically those who are in the United States, and as much as I can say that I think the House will unilaterally not agree with the policies that have been implemented under the executive order in the U.S., the United States still remains a safer place than many other countries in the world. There is no imminent harm that would make us suspend those regulations.

As we can see, there has been an overabundant level of support in the United States for the refugees, including from the former attorney general, who was recently suspended, the thousands who have flocked to the airport terminals, and the thousands of companies that have committed their support for them. Therefore, if we are looking at a serious and imminent threat, that is not for them. However, I absolutely agree that the United States is perhaps not as open as its reputation ought to be.

[U.S. Decision Regarding Travel Ban, January 31st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I want to let the families of the six Canadians who died in the brutal massacre in Quebec City know that as their members of Parliament we are committed to ensuring that hate, bigotry, and division have no place in Canada, that terrorism and violence against any community will never be tolerated or permitted on our soil. As we pray for those innocent lives, we want to let our brothers and sisters in the Canadian Muslim community know that we are with them and that they should feel safe and free as such intolerance and hatred has no room in Canada.

The recent executive order issued by the U.S. administration has banned nationals from seven countries from entering the United States for at least 90 days. The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship has used his authority to issue a public policy to help people who may be stranded as a result of the executive order. If they had made travel arrangements to enter the United States and have documents they would normally have needed to enter the U.S., but cannot due to the executive order, we can give them status or extend their status in Canada as long as they meet Canada's admissibility criteria.

The minister has asked his officers in the department to expedite a special permit to give such individuals status in Canada if they require it or extend their temporary status if that is required. If they have fallen out of status in Canada, IRCC can expedite the restoration of that status if they are eligible. The minister has given officers in the department permission to waive fees for these measures.

As we know, this executive order has also paused parts of the U.S. resettlement program to review its policy. We look forward to working with the U.S. when it finishes that analysis. In the interim, we will continue to be in close contact with the U.S. and our other allies, such as the United Nations Refugee Agency, to meet our resettlement needs.

The pause of the U.S. resettlement program has caused some people to ask the government how this may affect Canada's refugee and in-Canada asylum policies. Our commitment to refugees remains unchanged. Canada's commitment to refugees will remain on helping those who are vulnerable, regardless of their ethnicity or religion. We continue to work in regions all over the world to provide protection to vulnerable groups, including refugees in Syria, Iraq, Iran, Columbia, Eritrea, and Congo.

As we know, Canada relies on its partners, such as the United Nations Refugee Agency, to identify refugees in need of resettlement, who will then come to Canada as government-supported refugees. When making referrals for resettlement, the United Nations Refugee Agency uses assessments of protection needs and vulnerabilities, for example, identifying refugees with legal, physical protection or medical needs, survivors of torture or violence, women and girls at risk, and children and adolescents at risk.

Determinations of vulnerability and protection needs are made regardless of religious or ethnic backgrounds, gender identity or sexual orientation, or other personal characteristics. Of course, in many cases, these characteristics may be important elements in the agency's identification of particular individuals as vulnerable and in need of protection.

As I mentioned, the executive order issued by the U.S. has also caused some people to ask the government how the order may affect Canada's in-Canada asylum policies. I wish to assure the House that Canada's in-Canada asylum process will not be affected by this decision. Each refugee claim at the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada will continue to be assessed on its own merits. As always, decision-makers at the Immigration and Refugee Board must be satisfied that a claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution or that he or she, if removed, would be subjected to a danger of torture or a risk to life, or of cruel and unusual punishment or treatment.

While Canada's policy on refugees and immigration remains open and generous, I wish to remind my hon. colleagues that it is also very thorough. Security is paramount and our refugee resettlement programs are designed with the safety and security of Canadians in mind.

Effective security measures are in place in all our refugee resettlement programs. In addition to a full medical examination, all refugees undergo a thorough criminal and security check to ensure they have not committed serious crimes in the past and they are not a security risk to Canada.

The government also collects biometrics, such as fingerprints and digital photos. This biometric information is then checked against immigration, law enforcement, and security databases. Of course, as part of our interview screening measures, we also collect biographical information, such as marriage and birth certificates. If there are any specific areas of concern, cases are then referred for more in-depth screening by our security partners.

We can all be proud of our country's long-standing tradition of providing protection and refuge to people from around the world fleeing tyranny, violent oppression, and persecution. Since the Second World War, more than one million refugees have come to call Canada home. Given the relatively small size of Canada's population, this is a very impressive number.

Today, we continue to have one of the most generous immigration and refugee systems in the world. In fact, Canada welcomes one in 10 refugees resettled worldwide, more than almost any other industrialized country in the world.

The government remains strongly committed to maintaining our proud humanitarian tradition. We also remain strongly committed to the idea that immigration is critical to Canada's economic future. Our country's future success will be largely driven by attracting talented people from around the world.

As the Prime Minister has stated, “Diversity is our strength”. Canada has succeeded culturally, politically, and economically because of our diversity, not in spite of it. Canada's diversity is also among our greatest assets in an increasingly interconnected global economy. Our diversity not only brings its own economic and social rewards, but with Canada's aging population, having a robust and efficient immigration system will also be critical to our long-term economic growth.

Canadians can be proud that Canada will continue to be a country that welcomes immigrants and refugees from all over the world.