Richard Nadeau

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, November 19th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am going to deliver a well-prepared, well-thought-out speech on Bill C-291 to indicate that the Bloc Québécois is in favour, as you may have guessed, of a refugee appeal division.

We are in favour of this because we have to make sure that when someone is initially refused refugee status or if a ruling can put the refugee in danger, the refugee can have the right to further expand on the facts regarding why they need an appeal, a right that currently does not exist.

The bill is quite simple. The purpose of it is to implement a refugee appeal division. After Bill C-291 has been passed and has received royal assent, three sections of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, sections 110, 111 and 171, will come into force. They would come into force one year after royal assent.

A proper appeal process for refugee claimants ought to have been put in place as soon as the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act took effect in June 2002. This is one of the significant changes required to ensure that asylum seekers are treated fairly and equitably.

Implementing a refugee appeal division is a matter of justice. By stubbornly refusing to do so, two successive governments have perpetrated injustice on asylum seekers.

For several years now, many voices have been calling for a refugee appeal division. The Bloc Québécois has called for it many times, of course, and it is not alone. I would like to list the organizations that support a refugee appeal division. They have many good reasons for their support, including humanitarian ones, of course.

Even before the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act came into force in February 2000, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights was calling for an appeal division. It said:

Where the facts of an individual situation are in dispute, the effective procedural framework should provide for their review. Given that even the best decision makers may err in passing judgment and given the potential risk to life which may result from such an error, an appeal on the merits of a negative determination constitutes a necessary element of international protection.

The United Nations High Commission for Refugees has always felt it was necessary to have a mechanism for appeal on the merits of a ruling. In a letter dated May 9, 2002, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees expressed its concerns to the former minister, who is now the member for Bourassa. It said:

The United Nations High Commission for Refugees 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.

I would like to point out, and members will be pleased to hear this, that since 2002, Italy and Portugal have created procedures for appeals on merit. According to the letter from the UN High Commission for Refugees, Canada is the only remaining industrialized nation that has not yet accepted its responsibility in this regard.

The UNHCR representative appeared before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. Although he initially acknowledged “Canada's procedure for the determination of refugee status to be of a very high quality”, he reiterated the need for an appeal mechanism.

I will quote him once again for those interested in refugee law, namely all Quebeckers and Canadians:

...implementation of an appeal on the merits to review negative first instance decisions would strengthen even further the Canadian refugee status determination system. For UNHCR, an appeal on the merits would correct first instance errors and help to ensure consistency and fairness in decision-making.

He also said, “The Federal Court judicial review is not an appeal on the merits.”

Also:

The pre-removal risk assessment, PRRA, is an important safety net, especially when there's a long passage of time between a negative decision and removal. Like the humanitarian and compassionate application, the PRRA is a circumscribed process that does not correct a first instance negative decision.

In December 2004, in its Falcon Ríos v. Canada ruling, the UN Committee Against Torture criticized the Canadian system as follows:

It [the committee] expressed particular concern at the apparent lack of independence of the civil servants deciding on such appeals, and at the possibility that a person could be expelled while an application for review was under way. It concluded that those considerations could detract from effective protection of the rights covered by article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention [meaning a return to torture].

In its July 2005 report, the UN Committee Against Torture made several recommendations to Canada. Among the areas of concern, it mentioned the fact that unsuccessful applicants cannot benefit from a review on the merits of their application. In fact, the committee recommends that:

The State party should provide for judicial review of the merits, rather than merely of the reasonableness, of decisions to expel an individual where there are substantial grounds for believing that the person faces a risk of torture.

For all these reasons, we must ensure that a refugee appeal division exists.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, November 17th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Bloc colleague from Chambly—Borduas for his question.

We should not be surprised and I am certain there will be agreement on this: when in power, and although they are two different parties, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party have the same outlook. These parties do not think in terms of human rights. They think about making rich Canadian mining companies that establish themselves in developing or emerging countries even richer. Why will they go to these countries? Crudely put, to exploit the local people and have their friends pocket the profits. It is scandalous, unacceptable and even anti-democratic.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, November 17th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from the New Democratic Party for his question.

He is absolutely right. The answer is not necessarily in the question, but there are certainly some troubling indicators. The Conservative Party of Canada, the product of the merger between the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, is a party that has always said it wants to be squeaky clean. It is a party that has always approached politics as though preaching, that calls itself a down-to-earth, grassroots party, and that projects an aura of saintliness that calls to mind a full array of religious regalia. This party is trying to tell us, the elected representatives of Quebeckers and Canadians, that their approach to an agreement with Colombia is right when, in fact, they want to do business with a country that promotes the sale of illegal drugs and is known around the world as a narco-state. This is totally unacceptable.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, November 17th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-23, Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.

First of all, the Bloc Québécois will be voting against this bill, because it is an insult to human rights. The Conservative Party should be ashamed of itself for coming up with this bill, for trying to make us believe that it will create jobs in Colombia, when what it will actually do is help drug traffickers, many of whom are in power, to make money on the backs of workers. It is shameful. We are here in the House today to remind those people who claim to be “tough on crime” that they simply want to do business with a government that does nothing less than allow paramilitary groups to kill its own citizens, unionized workers and people who work in the mines in order to line the pockets of the criminals who run the government. It is scandalous.

The Canadian government's main motivation for entering into this free trade deal is not trade, but rather investments. Given that this agreement contains a chapter on investment protection, it will make life easier for Canadians investing in Colombia, especially in mining. What does that mean? In 1995, a Canadian corporation, Colombia Goldfields, signed a mining contract with a rich Colombian local family to extract gold from a mine that until then had been artisanally mined by the inhabitants of the Rio Viejo region. At the same time, paramilitary forces killed 400 people and displaced over 30,000 people from that region. That was to make money on the backs of workers. They did so by taking up arms to kill people and force 30,000 citizens out of that region. All that to allow a Canadian company to make money. That money is tainted by the blood of those people. Is that what we want to pass here in the House? It is scandalous. We must not sign such an agreement.

Judging by all the investment protection agreements Canada has signed over the years, the one that would bind Canada and Colombia is ill conceived. All these agreements contain clauses that enable foreign investors to sue a foreign government if it takes measures that reduce the return on their investment. Such clauses are especially dangerous in a country where labour and environmental protection laws are uncertain at best. By protecting a Canadian investor against any improvement in living conditions in Colombia, such an agreement could delay social and environmental progress in that country, where the need for progress is great.

Colombia's human rights record is one of the worst in the world. With the conclusion of this free trade agreement, Canada would deprive itself of the ability to exert pressure on the Colombian government to improve its human rights record.

The Conservative government keeps telling us that it is combining the free trade agreement with a side agreement on labour and another on the environment. Such agreements are notoriously ineffective. They are not part of the free trade agreement and so investors could destroy the rich Colombian environment with impunity, move communities to make it easier for themselves to establish their mines and continue to assassinate trade unionists.

As for the free trade agreement itself, the Bloc Québécois is not prepared to trade the ability of the government to exert pressure to promote respect for human rights for the ability of Canadian companies to invest abroad, companies that would make money at the cost of Colombian lives. That is absolutely disgusting.

The Bloc Québécois and the NDP have very good reasons to oppose this bill. In Canada, not only the opposition is against this bill, but the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Council for International Cooperation, Amnesty International, the FTQ, Development and Peace, KAIROS, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, Lawyers Without Borders, the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, and the National Union of Public and General Employees.

In Colombia, the coalition of social movements and organizations of Colombia includes the national indigenous organization of Colombia, the popular women's organization, the national agrarian coordinator, the Christian movement for peace with justice and dignity, the national movement for health and social security, the Afro-American African roots movement and the black community process. All these organizations are opposed to this totally unacceptable agreement.

Colombia has one of the worst human rights records in Latin America. Listen to this. The crime statistics point to a very sinister side of Colombia. In 2008, the crimes committed by paramilitary groups increased by 41%, in comparison with 14% the previous year. There was a 9% increase in the proportion of crimes committed by government security forces. Even though the number of crimes is rising, the perpetrators remain as immune as ever. Only 3% of crimes end in a conviction.

Canada is going to invest in this country on the pretext that it will help the economy. That is not true. If this agreement is signed, Canada will help the rich get richer by crushing the people. People in the middle ages were respected more than people today are by this political party, which is bent on disgracing Canada. No government on earth can accept this sort of situation, especially since our country is supposed to be democratic. A democracy has principles of law. I hope that these people will listen to reason. They will if they have a conscience. Mr. Speaker, I know that you have a conscience and that you will talk some sense into these people.

Since 1986, 2,690 trade unionists have been murdered in Colombia. Though the number of murdered trade unionists dropped somewhat after 2001, it has risen again since 2007, when 39 trade unionists were murdered. In 2008, the number jumped to 46, an 18% increase in one year. They are murdering trade unionists, people who defend workers. Who is doing the murdering? Colombian paramilitaries are, with support from the state.

And now the Colombian state has suddenly become angelic? We are not fooled. These people only have money in their hearts and on their minds. They have no respect for their fellow Colombians or for human rights. What is more, they have no respect for Quebeckers and Canadians who do not accept this way of thinking. At the risk of repeating myself, this is totally unacceptable.

According to Mariano José Guerra, regional president of the Colombian trade union federation, thousands of people have disappeared and unions continue to be persecuted.

For these and many other reasons, we have to vote against Bill C-23.

[Firearms Registry, November 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, what little good faith the government still had on this has just vanished. The government waited until the day after the vote to release an RCMP report underscoring the usefulness of the firearms registry.

Why is the government determined to deprive police forces of a tool that they consider useful?

[Firearms Registry, November 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, in introducing a private members' bill to repeal the firearms registry in order to allow a free vote on the matter, the Conservatives from Quebec are complicit with those who are calling for the entire gun registry to be scrapped. Quebec's public safety minister sees this approach as nothing but a ploy. Unlike the Conservatives, Quebec wants to keep the firearms registry.

If the government has no use for the registry, then why does it not transfer it to Quebec, as Jean Charest asked it to during the last election?

[November 5th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, with all due respect, I would point out to my colleague that the Boulevard des Allumettières and Highway 50 are not in the riding of Gatineau. He should review his geography and his Quebec geopolitics.

I would also add that the federal government is still not awarding contracts in Gatineau and Ottawa fairly. In 2008, the federal government awarded goods and services contracts worth $3 billion to suppliers in the national capital region: 1.4% in Gatineau and 98.6% in Ottawa, or $38 million in Gatineau and $2.962 billion in Ottawa. In 2005, Gatineau got just 0.9% of the contracts. In 2006, it got 1.8% of the contracts, and in 2007, just 2.1%.

People in Gatineau pay just as much federal income tax as people in Ottawa. The government needs to be fair and give Gatineau its due. This is an Ottawa versus Gatineau issue.

[November 5th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, in the June 5 issue of Le Droit, Jacques Lyrette, vice-president of Développement économique-CLD Gatineau and a former assistant deputy minister in the federal public service who is now a management consultant, said something that is very true: “While the federal government is pouring millions of dollars into the city of Ottawa, its neighbour, Gatineau, is getting nothing but crumbs.”

Mr. Lyrette gave specific examples of structural investments the federal government had made in Ottawa in June 2009. It gave $50 million to the Ottawa Congress Centre, $17 million to La Cité collégiale, $30 million to the University of Ottawa, $26 million to Carleton University and $150 million for a new green building in downtown Ottawa, but Gatineau got nothing.

The last federal structural investment in Gatineau dates back to 1989. It was the Museum of Civilization, Mr. Lyrette points out. The $50 billion deficit announced by the federal finance minister could become an $80 billion to $85 billion hole. Mr. Lyrette goes on to say, “And then there won't be any more money, because that ship will have sailed. That is what happened in the 1990s with the Conservative government. So what are the current members for Pontiac and Hull—Aylmer doing?”

The Bloc Québécois agrees with Mr. Lyrette's comments. When I asked the Conservative government a question, the minister responsible for the Outaouais refused to acknowledge this situation.

On June 5, I asked the government the following question:

The Conservatives promised Gatineau the earth. When will they have the courage to keep their promise and rebalance the amounts of money invested on both sides of the Ottawa River?

[F]or 23 years, we have been waiting for the Science and Technology Museum in Gatineau. For 13 years, we have been waiting for phase II of the [Archives] in Gatineau. There are no research centres in Gatineau, but there are 27 in Ottawa. In short, they always make big promises, but they do not keep them.

Conservatives and Liberals: same inaction.

When will the government take real action for Gatineau?

The minister responsible for the Outaouais has not provided any real answers. He claimed to be “somewhat surprised” by Mr. Lyrette's comments.

Mr. Lyrette said that “We need more tourism and leisure infrastructure to create an environment that attracts new businesses. That is the basic requirement, but it is not enough. What we need are museums and research laboratories. Museums attract tourists, keep our shops and restaurants in business, and encourage people to experience our region. Laboratories attract researchers and academics, particularly if they are associated with a university.”

Mr. Lyrette also said, as the Bloc Québécois pointed out, that the Gatineau Language Technologies Research Centre, the LTRC, is not part of the National Research Council's network. The LTRC does not receive ongoing funding from the NRC.

Mr. Lyrette did not put much stock in the Conservatives' commitment to move 6,200 federal employees to Gatineau in 2011 as part of the 25:75 agreement. That deadline has already been pushed back to 2012.

[Museums, November 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, for seven weeks now, the employees of the Museum of Civilization and the War Museum have been on strike. They are simply asking for employment conditions similar to those offered in other museums. For the past 46 days, not only has the minister been ignoring them, but he has been turning a blind eye to the attitude of the employer, who is using strong arm tactics with its workers.

Instead of allowing the employer to make matters worse, what is the minister waiting for to step in and tell it to go back to the bargaining table in good faith?

[Outaouais Regional Sustainable Development Council, October 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the Conseil régional de développement durable de l'Outaouais or CREDDO was created 20 years ago. This environmental organization has come up with a number of solutions to preserve the environment and encourage planned development so that future generations will enjoy a better quality of life. CREDDO takes part in various forums and consultations and is also active in the field. It meets with numerous associations and businesses to raise awareness and support their pro-environmental activities.

I want to congratulate the board of directors, including chair Gaëtan Provencher and director general Nicole DesRoches, as well as CREDDO's volunteers and partners, because thanks to all these people, we can wish this organization a happy 20th anniversary.

The Bloc Québécois joins me in congratulating CREDDO and wishing us a healthy planet.